John Deere 'Kill Switch' renders stolen tractors useless (2022)(orchardandvine.net)
orchardandvine.net
John Deere 'Kill Switch' renders stolen tractors useless (2022)
https://www.orchardandvine.net/news/john-deere-%E2%80%98kill-switch%E2%80%99-renders-stolen-tractors-useless/
66 comments
> If the owner was in control of the kill-switch, it would still have all benefits of theft protection, without the problems that arise with a manufacturer controlling devices indefinitely.
Apple has a similar feature for its devices that is in control of the user, but ultimately it's still depends on the device connecting to the internet and getting a ping that it's "lost" from Apple's servers. There's not really anything stopping Apple from locking people's devices, either.
I just feel like "self hosting" isn't a real company solution to a kill switch, so I'm not sure how you have a kill switch without interacting with the company in any way, even if you're not John Deere.
Apple has a similar feature for its devices that is in control of the user, but ultimately it's still depends on the device connecting to the internet and getting a ping that it's "lost" from Apple's servers. There's not really anything stopping Apple from locking people's devices, either.
I just feel like "self hosting" isn't a real company solution to a kill switch, so I'm not sure how you have a kill switch without interacting with the company in any way, even if you're not John Deere.
At that scale it should be trivial to self host a server with a static IP that confirms the ownership. Make the server IP on the tractor password protected or smth. Modern tractors are internet connected anyway.
> trivial to self host a server
Trivial for who? Someone on HN or everyone else?
Trivial for who? Someone on HN or everyone else?
> I just feel like "self hosting" isn't a real company solution to a kill switch, so I'm not sure how you have a kill switch without interacting with the company in any way, even if you're not John Deere.
You can’t have any (online) interaction with the company. Even OTA updates can’t be trusted if the company wants to act against your interests or the interests of your country.
Individual farmers need 100% control and I would argue that the only way to accomplish that is to require physical access for all updates and no kill switch at all.
Tractors aren’t close to cell phones. No one is naively and unknowingly buying a stolen tractor off of Craigslist. Engraving serial numbers on parts is a viable theft deterrent if everyone in the industry refuses to buy stolen parts.
You can’t have any (online) interaction with the company. Even OTA updates can’t be trusted if the company wants to act against your interests or the interests of your country.
Individual farmers need 100% control and I would argue that the only way to accomplish that is to require physical access for all updates and no kill switch at all.
Tractors aren’t close to cell phones. No one is naively and unknowingly buying a stolen tractor off of Craigslist. Engraving serial numbers on parts is a viable theft deterrent if everyone in the industry refuses to buy stolen parts.
I had it in my head that a new John Deere tractor costs about $400 thousand but I just did a very quick search and I'm seeing closer to $1 million for a combine. At this price point I don't see IT logistics being a huge barrier to a customer controlled kill switch.
Edit: wording
Edit: wording
In apple's case don't bad people unlock locked devices by spoofing the servers anyways?
I expect some farmers would buy another brand of $1M harvester to avoid dealing with IT headaches.
My Apple device was locked without ever being reported stolen. Just happened one day. It is an older iPad which belonged to family member who has passed on and has a bunch of photos and notes on it. I was a fool to provide that device for them to use no matter how convenient it was at the time.
- User setup geo fence.
- Requires connection to phone, nfc, other radio signal...
- and/or other deadman switch ideas...
- Requires connection to phone, nfc, other radio signal...
- and/or other deadman switch ideas...
If you're leasing it from them, you're not the owner, they are.
If the owner were in control of the kill-switch, and the owner were killed, perhaps by Russian forces, then the tractor is stolen?
That's a nice tractor you've got there. It'd be a shame if something happened to it.
Can I interest you in some protection... Err, 3 year service plan?
Can I interest you in some protection... Err, 3 year service plan?
Activation lock for phones was demonstrably effective at reducing theft of the products it was applied to, so _if_ theft of tractors is an issue this seems like a good thing, _if_ JD is also willing to commit to/legally required to maintain the activation service.
My phone (a samsung s21 ultra) was snatched from my hand while I was using it to check google maps in Barcelona. I tried to remote wipe it 5 minutes later at my hotel but it had already been disconnected. So the thief was very quick at removing the sim card.
I checked online since and it seems that even with the advent activation lock, there's still a lot of phone thefts in some countries. They just sell the spare parts and can make 100 to 200 euros between the screen and battery.
I'd imagine with John Deere tractors, there's quite a few parts that could be resold so an activation lock wouldn't necessarily reduce the value by that much.
I checked online since and it seems that even with the advent activation lock, there's still a lot of phone thefts in some countries. They just sell the spare parts and can make 100 to 200 euros between the screen and battery.
I'd imagine with John Deere tractors, there's quite a few parts that could be resold so an activation lock wouldn't necessarily reduce the value by that much.
I'm not sure is the best analogy. Perhaps it wouldn't reduce the value, but I don't see how you move a tractor that wont start (unless you want the owner standing beside you while you hack).
Damn, stolen while using it, that is quite brazen :(
Unfortunately commonplace in Barcelona. A thief that is caught will only get a small fine for thefts under 400€ even if it's the 1000th time. So the chance of a fine is just taken as the cost of doing 'business' by these professional pickpocketing gangs.
If there's violence involved it's another story but if a victim initiates it, they themselves can get into trouble. So these thieves are trained to be ultra passive.
I've seen it myself. Other source: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jul/14/woman-defends-...
If there's violence involved it's another story but if a victim initiates it, they themselves can get into trouble. So these thieves are trained to be ultra passive.
I've seen it myself. Other source: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jul/14/woman-defends-...
That's probably the best time to steal it: the device is unlocked, giving access to the data and settings etc. Also the owner is distracted looking at the screen, and it's held in a position conducive to snatching. In short I'd expect this to be the main mode of phone theft directly from the owner.
It's a fairly common tactic in the UK. I've seen plenty of CCTV clips where kids cycle past people on their phones and snatch them. The thief is 10m away before the person's even reacted.
Very common. Much easier and less dangerous to snatch it when someone has it out quickly than to hold someone up.
iPhones are a bit more theft resistant as the parts are tied to the main board.
I thought phone theft was still fairly common, although I have a hard time understanding how it's profitable.
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2023/04/bathroom-tunneling-b...
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2023/04/bathroom-tunneling-b...
If you look at the cost of a new screen or battery you can see that parts do have some value. For a thief even $50 is a score.
Apples lockdown even includes hardware such as screens. You can’t just transplant an iPhone screen from one phone to another.
> You can’t just transplant an iPhone screen from one phone to another.
Why so? May be I can't but how difficult it for a repair shop?
Why so? May be I can't but how difficult it for a repair shop?
Because all the parts are paired. Hugh Jeffreys has an interesting series where he buys two new phones and swaps the parts. Basically nothing can be swapped without breaking core functionality. Swapping a screen, for example, loses true-tone and auto brightness.
This can be fixed by replanting a tiny chip from the old screen to the new screen, requiring extremely precise micro-soldering skills that the average repair shop doesn’t possess.
This can be fixed by replanting a tiny chip from the old screen to the new screen, requiring extremely precise micro-soldering skills that the average repair shop doesn’t possess.
Yep, absolutely true -- I worked on the project ("FDR / New Deal").
It was originally supposed to prevent a repeat of the Hon Hai Zhengzhou incident where a team of line workers mixed/matched parts from units that failed QC and sold the Frankensteined units on the grey market. (Massively oversimplified, but that's the general gist)
The resulting near-total inability to swap screens/buttons without knowing someone with FDR update access was seen as acceptable collateral damage.
It was originally supposed to prevent a repeat of the Hon Hai Zhengzhou incident where a team of line workers mixed/matched parts from units that failed QC and sold the Frankensteined units on the grey market. (Massively oversimplified, but that's the general gist)
The resulting near-total inability to swap screens/buttons without knowing someone with FDR update access was seen as acceptable collateral damage.
By who? And did you see it that way?
If that project came my way, it would have been a hard no, go find someone else. You literally implemented the most public unfriendly feature I've seen in a long time. That's one of those cases where sometimes the cure is worse than the disease.
While I understand we are all entitled to differently prioritizing ethical red lines, it saddens me whenever I see the public suffering for the sake of increased corporate profits.
...and it is only the company that gained anything. The extra parts on the market would likely have driven prices down, making the handsets less high dollar desirable theft targets. Instead; user servicibility plummeted, planned obsolescence ensured the path of least resistance was "buy another", and the accountants likely beamed at the improvement to the bottom line while the execs patted themselves on the back for a job well done securing money that otherwise "would have been left on the table".
Oh well. So it goes.
If that project came my way, it would have been a hard no, go find someone else. You literally implemented the most public unfriendly feature I've seen in a long time. That's one of those cases where sometimes the cure is worse than the disease.
While I understand we are all entitled to differently prioritizing ethical red lines, it saddens me whenever I see the public suffering for the sake of increased corporate profits.
...and it is only the company that gained anything. The extra parts on the market would likely have driven prices down, making the handsets less high dollar desirable theft targets. Instead; user servicibility plummeted, planned obsolescence ensured the path of least resistance was "buy another", and the accountants likely beamed at the improvement to the bottom line while the execs patted themselves on the back for a job well done securing money that otherwise "would have been left on the table".
Oh well. So it goes.
It took the theft of phones from honest folks to make those 'extra parts' available in the past. I personally don't want these 'extra parts' on the market even if it ends up increases repair prices for everyone.
I don't see exactly how it happens. The first guy cuts the security cables, the second guy collects the devices?
Those are new in-box unactivated phones, completely unrelated to personal theft and activation lock.
It’s not related to personal theft, but to activation lock. Apple can (and will) lock these phones as well.
Is that something that is happening? I would have thought it would have been in the news before if apple had been doing that.
Oh yeah, good point. I can’t imagine how that’s worth it then…
They will sell the hardware to unwitting victims as new via eBay, Craigslist, … and disappear before the victim figures it out. It is a new iPhone in the original shrinkwrap - who’d become suspicious?
I'm not sure we have proof it's that effective. Recently 400+ phones were stolen from a store in a well prepared way, so I assume there's plenty of ways to work around or get value from the stolen phones despite whatever Apple is doing:
https://www.macrumors.com/2023/04/06/washington-apple-store-...
https://www.macrumors.com/2023/04/06/washington-apple-store-...
I wouldn’t be surprised if activation lock causes _more_ theft. If stolen devices are worth less due to activation lock, thieves need to steal more phones to make up the lost profits.
Also, the data on a phone is almost always far more valuable than the phone itself. If a thief steals my phone, it’s much better for me if they erase it. But they can’t do that, so my stolen phone with all my data just sits there one exploit away from being exposed.
Activation lock only serves to benefit the manufacturer as they get to sell more phones. It doesn’t benefit the consumer at all.
Also, the data on a phone is almost always far more valuable than the phone itself. If a thief steals my phone, it’s much better for me if they erase it. But they can’t do that, so my stolen phone with all my data just sits there one exploit away from being exposed.
Activation lock only serves to benefit the manufacturer as they get to sell more phones. It doesn’t benefit the consumer at all.
> thieves need to steal more phones to make up the lost profits.
Unless these thieves were rolling in money previously, I would imagine they maximize theft as much as they possibly can — why would they leave money on the table? I don’t think they’re stealing to meet some monthly quota like hired hands on a farm; they should just be acting on a risk/reward function.
And as such, I think the more likely scenario as phones decrease in value per theft, other objects are made relatively more valuable (per risk/reward), and theft would transition elsewhere.
Unless these thieves were rolling in money previously, I would imagine they maximize theft as much as they possibly can — why would they leave money on the table? I don’t think they’re stealing to meet some monthly quota like hired hands on a farm; they should just be acting on a risk/reward function.
And as such, I think the more likely scenario as phones decrease in value per theft, other objects are made relatively more valuable (per risk/reward), and theft would transition elsewhere.
Why would activation lock prevent stealing a new phone? Definitionally a phone that has not been sold doesn't have an account tied to it.
Under normal, non-war circumstances, tractor theft isn't a thing.
Random disputes over the details of lease and service contract terms however...
>I can protect you
<huh, from what?
>myself (:
<huh, from what?
>myself (:
This relates to John Deere tractors which were expropriated by Russians in the occupation of Ukraine.
What remains a problem is the thorny question of field-modifications by farmers who find out leasing rights to software isn't the same as owning an old Fordson or Massey-Furguson and hacking on the PTO.
John Deere has a 'right to repair' conversation going on in the USA but they trade internationally.
What remains a problem is the thorny question of field-modifications by farmers who find out leasing rights to software isn't the same as owning an old Fordson or Massey-Furguson and hacking on the PTO.
John Deere has a 'right to repair' conversation going on in the USA but they trade internationally.
Tbh this seems not that problematic. I get that there is a lot of distasteful stuff going on around John Deere, but I think it's useful to see this on it's own which is a useful feature.
Account locks have done a huge amount to reduce phone theft, a tractor is 100x more expensive.
Account locks have done a huge amount to reduce phone theft, a tractor is 100x more expensive.
I'm not sure what's not distasteful about the manufacturer having the power to turn your investment into a brick at any time, potentially blocking any customer request with "you violated the terms of service".
Yes, but phones have a reason to be online most of the time.
A vehicle should be able to be used without ever being online.
Otherwise you are at the mercy of udpates, the provider good will (and John Deere as little), network availability and so on.
A vehicle should be able to be used without ever being online.
Otherwise you are at the mercy of udpates, the provider good will (and John Deere as little), network availability and so on.
So are CNC machines. Are you aware that if you move a modern one, it's gonna be bricked?
I did not know this. Is it for theft prevention, or more like a deterrent to e.g. would-be clandestine arms manufacturers. I'm aware CNC machines can be quite pricey, but they otherwise seem like an impractical target for theives. At least a tractor has wheels.
Yes and we don't like it.
And it's a very bad no good awful thing.
Stallman is extreme, but he got that part right. DRM and other bricking mechanism are not our friends.
Stallman is extreme, but he got that part right. DRM and other bricking mechanism are not our friends.
What is your definition of useful?
In more lawful areas a theft can not use a stolen tractor because of police. Since Eastern Europe is not so lawful, the owner will not receive new tractor or something.
So where is a good use coming from in your understanding?
Just from the fact that the theft will receive $30k in cash instead of $100k as the tractor cost? And that is the reason to buy a tractor with a killswitch which in some another situation (used not original parts, insulted the JD team, did something against ToS) might be activated AGAINST the owner?
In more lawful areas a theft can not use a stolen tractor because of police. Since Eastern Europe is not so lawful, the owner will not receive new tractor or something.
So where is a good use coming from in your understanding?
Just from the fact that the theft will receive $30k in cash instead of $100k as the tractor cost? And that is the reason to buy a tractor with a killswitch which in some another situation (used not original parts, insulted the JD team, did something against ToS) might be activated AGAINST the owner?
> Account locks have done a huge amount to reduce phone theft, a tractor is 100x more expensive.
Based on an iPhone 14 @ $1500 and what I saw on a price list I googled, John Deere tractors seem to range from around $40k to around $575k. That's a really wide range, from 20x to nearly 400x as expensive.
https://commercialvehicleinfo.com/john-deere-tractors-price-...
Based on an iPhone 14 @ $1500 and what I saw on a price list I googled, John Deere tractors seem to range from around $40k to around $575k. That's a really wide range, from 20x to nearly 400x as expensive.
https://commercialvehicleinfo.com/john-deere-tractors-price-...
It's a nice PR action for John Deere. Now US farmers know that if Russia invade the US, JD will have their back. But barring a russian invasion, how many tractors are being stolen in the US every year? I don't think this is a real problem.
And we are talking about a state actor here. I am sure that Russia can find a way to bypass the lock and if not, as mentioned in the article, they will sell the parts.
However, if I was a farmer, I wouldn't want JD to have that level of control on my property. I would want JD to handle that control to me, ideally under the form of public and documented API and free software.
And we are talking about a state actor here. I am sure that Russia can find a way to bypass the lock and if not, as mentioned in the article, they will sell the parts.
However, if I was a farmer, I wouldn't want JD to have that level of control on my property. I would want JD to handle that control to me, ideally under the form of public and documented API and free software.
Activation lock is an excellent and super effective mechanism for theft prevention so this seems like a good thing, but it also makes me curious about how common theft of high end tractors is?
A quick google search shows claims of 1000 / month for heavy ag equipment, with under 20% recovery rate.
A remote kill switch seems like a useful bit of kit if it's not easily disabled and doesn't interfere with normal operations.
A remote kill switch seems like a useful bit of kit if it's not easily disabled and doesn't interfere with normal operations.
Basically never, because when somebody steals a tractor, they really do it because they need it, nobody would intentionally steal a tractor and there is no such thing as negligent or accidental theft.
Activation lock may the that excellent if the buyer would have a choice to buy it or not going to risk having an unactivated tractor.
Have there been any reports on how easy it is to jailbreak these? I would expect technique in that area to be well-developed.
This astroturf makes me feel so warm and fuzzy
Not you, but JD controls the kill-switch.
They can disable a device to render it useless whenever something happens that they don't like.
Whether it's theft or violation of your leasing terms.
If the owner was in control of the kill-switch, it would still have all benefits of theft protection, without the problems that arise with a manufacturer controlling devices indefinitely.