Farmer Lobbying Group Accused Of Selling Out Farmers On Right To Repair Laws

from the do-not-pass-go,-do-not-collect-$200 dept

For the last few years, numerous states have been pushing so-called "right to repair" bills, which would make it easier for consumers to repair their own products and find replacement parts and tools. Not surprisingly, many tech companies have been working overtime to kill these efforts including Apple, which has tried to argue that Nebraska's right to repair bill would turn the state into a nefarious playground for hackers. Opposition also includes Sony and Microsoft, both of which enjoy a repair monopoly on their respective video game consoles.

Whether coming from Apple, Sony, or Microsoft, opposition to these bills usually focuses on the three (false) ideas: the bills will make users less safe, somehow "compromise" intellectual property, and open the door to cybersecurity theft.

Much of the current right to repair fracas began with the lowly tractor. More specifically, it started when John Deere decided to ban anything but "unauthorized repairs," inadvertently turning countless ordinary citizens into technology policy activists. A lengthy EULA the company required customers to sign back in 2016 forbids the lion-share of repair or modification of tractors customers thought they owned, simultaneously banning these consumers from suing over "crop loss, lost profits, loss of goodwill, loss of use of equipment … arising from the performance or non-performance of any aspect of the software."

As ordinary farmers hack their way around these restrictions just to make a living (often utilizing Ukranian firmware), California recently joined the attempt to codify the right to repair into law. But that effort was derailed this week with the news that California's biggest farmer lobbying organization decided to sell out its constituents and support a watered down version of California's proposal.

Back in February, the Equipment Dealers Association promised a few concessions in a bid to stall legislation; including making repair manuals, diagnostic tech and other service tools widely available to farmers by 2021. They did not, however, address efforts to hamstring third-party part sales, the use of DRM to lock down devices, and continued to battle right to repair legislation in numerous states. The California Farm Bureau (which again is supposed to represent the farmers on this issue) this week struck a "concession" deal with the Equipment Dealers Association that isn't much of a concession.

In fact, said "new" concession closely mirrors things the industry had already voluntarily agreed to:

"It is beyond comprehension...why the California Farm Bureau—which should nominally have the interests of farmers in mind—reached an agreement with the Equipment Dealers Association last week that enshrines the concessions the Equipment Dealers Association already agreed to, without seemingly getting anything else out of it, and without even getting it to move up its 2021 timeline."

“This agreement is especially important because whenever we can resolve issues that concern us without passing laws, everybody wins,” Joani Woelfel, the CEO of the Far West Equipment Dealers Association, said in a statement.

Well, not everybody. The core problems here owners have grown angry about (DRM, intentionally making it harder for third-party repair shops to get parts) weren't really addressed, and the "compromise" not only isn't much of one, but it kills the California effort for effective right to repair laws. Needless to say, activists looking for more meaningful action see this as a massive sellout:

"When it is up to the manufacturer to decide what information to share and what to withhold, you haven't addressed the problem," Gay Gordon-Byrne, Executive Director of the Repair Association, which is leading the right to repair movement, told Motherboard in an email. "We're also concerned that the agreement fails to mention anything about fair and reasonable pricing for parts, nor any mention of how farmers will get firmware, updates or patches."

"This agreement does not end monopolization of farm equipment repair,” Nathan Proctor, who is heading consumer rights group US PIRG’s right to repair efforts, told me in an email. “While it highlights how industry is feeling the pressure from Right to Repair, it also underscores that we need to do more if truly want the freedom to fix our property."

Unfortunately for hardware vendors and companies like John Deere, this isn't a fight that's going to be going away any time soon. The tighter companies like John Deere lock down their products with draconian DRM and annoying restrictions on what consumers can do, the more activists they create who previously may have never even gotten involved in such fights. As it stands, there are pushes for right to repair laws in nearly 20 states, and the tighter these companies squeeze, the more support for these initiatives they generate.

Filed Under: california, california farm bureau, circumvention, copyright, digital locks, dmca, drm, farmers, right to repair
Companies: equipment dealers association, john deere

Apple Takes Heat For Software Lock That Prevents iPhone 7 Home Button Replacement By Third-Party Vendors

from the right-to-repair dept

We've been discussing for some time how John Deere, Apple, Sony and Microsoft are among a laundry list of companies fighting against so-called "right to repair" bills. The bills, currently being pushed in a handful of different states, make it easier for consumers to repair their own products and find replacement parts and tools. The bills are an organic consumer response to the attempts of many of these companies to monopolize repair, driven in large part by John Deere's draconian lockdown on "unauthorized repairs" -- forcing tractor owners to pirate tractor firmware and maintenance tools just to repair products they thought they owned.

Apple's been notably vocal on this subject, recently trying to shut down a Nebraska right to repair bill by proclaiming that it would turn the state into a dangerous hacker playground. Of course, propped up by the DMCA's anti-circumvention rules, Apple has utilized a rotating crop of tools to try and protect this repair monopoly. Last year, for example, Apple caused a bit of a shitstorm due to "Error 53", part of an iOS update that bricked phones that had their screens replaced by third party repair vendors.

Having apparently learned no lessons from the backlash from that use of repair locks, Apple is once again taking heat for new software locks cooked into the iPhone 7, which prevent the device's home button from working after it has been replaced. Unless, that is, the replacement is performed by a certified Apple technician with the proper "re-calibration" software. The home button is used to unlock the phone, and to return the user to the home screen when pressed.

In previous iPhone versions (iPhone 5S, 6, and 6S) if you replaced the home button you lost the security function, but users could still login via pin -- and the button still worked to bring users "home." But with the iPhone 7, replacing the home button via third-party vendor results in the button not working at all -- unless you take the device to Apple's Genius bar. This is, independent repair shops claim, just part of Apple's overall strategy of monopolizing repair, hampering third-party repair vendors, and restricting consumer choice:

"In a video demonstrating the block, Michael Oberdick, owner of the independent iPhone repair shop iOutlet, swapped the front displays (and home buttons) of two iPhone 7 devices. When swapped, the phone displays an error message that says "The Home Button May Need Service." Its functionality is disabled and "Assistive Touch" automatically pops up on the device, creating an onscreen, software-based home button."

This is, Oberdick argues, little more than a vindictive, anti-consumer move on the part of Apple:

"Not supporting that menu function makes no sense," Justin Carroll, owner of FruitFixed, an independent iPhone repair shop, told me. "Just a sad and petulant move on their part that will directly affect consumers especially after their one year manufacturer warranty is up."...This may sound like an esoteric issue, and to some extent it is—screen replacements can still be done so long as the original home button is carefully removed and moved to the new screen. But software locks specifically designed to prevent repair are a monopolistic, anti-consumer move that attempts to "tie" an electronic to the manufacturer even after it's already been sold.

Whether coming from Apple, Sony, or Microsoft, opposition to "right to repair" bills usually focuses on the three (false) ideas: the bills will make users less safe, somehow "compromise" intellectual property, and open the door to cybersecurity theft. Apple will be sure to breathlessly insist that they're only making the iPhone 7's home button impossible to repair to protect consumer security, hoping you'll ignore the entire practice of such software locks simply allows the company to monopolize repair, drive up the cost of overall ownership for all of its customers, and make life harder for third-party repair vendors.

Filed Under: digital locks, home button, iphone, right to repair, software lock
Companies: apple

Onity Wins: Hotels That Bought Their Easily-Hacked Door Lock Can't Sue According To Court

from the locked-in dept

A couple years back, I wrote about the curious case of Onity, a company that makes door locks for hotel rooms. Thing is, their locks fail to do the one thing they're supposed to do, as shown when one man at a Black Hat security conference used a cheap device to access the lock's dataport and cause it to unlock. The idea was that a lock that is defeated by equipment that costs pocket change isn't so much a lock as it is a decoration. Onity, in the company's infinite wisdom, claimed the long term fix, a new system board, was available to its customers...for a price.

A class action's worth of hotels weren't satisfied with paying twice for the same product just to make it work, so they filed a lawsuit. That filing was recently rejected by a judge using some awfully strange logic.

The court’s decision turns on three key facts. First, the plaintiffs didn’t allege any actual security breaches; the courts says they are suing “only for the costs of preventing future unauthorized access.” Second, each lock still works in the sense that it “still performs the functions of locking the door upon closing it and unlocking it upon insertion of a properly-coded key card….the locks do not begin to fail on their own upon installation, nor are they all ‘doomed to fail’ eventually.” Third, the court says any future security breaches “could occur only if third parties engaged in criminal conduct to enter Plaintiffs’ hotel rooms.”

Let's deal with these in order. Onity's lock has a gaping security hole that's laughably easy to exploit. For anyone with fifty dollars in their pockets, the lock might as well not be there at all. The very nature of the condition of the product is a breach and, in any case, at least is easily understandable as a product that doesn't perform its basic functions, which is what makes the second claim by the judge so galling. Deciding the lock "works" by the most childish evaluation possible is insane. The lock either performs to industry standards or it doesn't, and this one doesn't. As for the argument that a cheap lockpick can also defeat a hardware lock, there is an important difference here, I think. A hardware lock is limited in terms of a fix by its very nature, whereas Onity is proclaiming that an electronic fix does exist for its electronic lock, it only wants hotels to pay for the pleasure of having their product work properly.

As for that last claim: in what sort of insane world do we live in when a manufacturer that makes a product designed to prohibit illegal behavior can get out of paying to repair its product that doesn't stop illegal behavior because the behavior its product isn't stopping is illegal? An alarm system that fails to alarm when criminals break into a building isn't protected by the fact that the break-in is illegal.

The whole ruling appears to be a case of an ill-informed judge, one that may have unfortunate consequences in other areas of the law.

The court instead analogized Onity’s situation to data breach cases like Reilly v. Ceredian, where consumers’ personal data is stolen but consumers can’t show directly attributable adverse consequence from this theft. I understood the analogy: just like consumers might fear future harm from identity theft, hotels might fear harm from future breaches of their locks. However, this analogy doesn’t work very well. While there aren’t many actions consumers can take to proactively protect their data after a data security breach (even credit monitoring isn’t particularly useful), everyone benefits if the hotels proactively remediate this problem.

This ruling could help defendants in future privacy violation cases. First, if lock buyers lack standing when a physical object fails to perform its basic function, plaintiffs with more abstract data-related risks shouldn’t either. Second, if the risk of future third party criminal behavior doesn’t count as an injury, data breach victims’ purported concerns about future data misuse (like identity theft) are also irrelevant.

Thankfully the ruling is being appealed, so hopefully a future court will get this corrected, but keep in mind that all this is the result of a lock company that makes locks that do not lock if someone comes along with fifty dollars worth of low-end technology. Happy traveling, readers....

Filed Under: digital locks, hotels, locks, security
Companies: onity

Bill Introduced To Fix Anti-Circumvention Provision Of DMCA

from the well-needed dept

While there was a lot of talk after the White House agreed with an awful lot of people that mobile phone unlocking should be legal, there's been little real action. Part of the problem might be that the White House suggested that this could be fixed via telecom law, when the whole issue had nothing to do with telecom law, but the broken anticircumvention provisions of the DMCA, also known as 17 USC 1201. While Congress did put forth a bunch of bills, they were all lacking, and none seemed to really tackle the underlying problem: 17 USC 1201 is completely broken. It makes circumventing a technical protection measure a form of infringement, even if the circumvention has nothing to do with actual copyright infringement. Furthermore, it makes it illegal to "manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof," that is primarily designed for circumventing digital locks even if the end use is not infringing.

Thankfully, Rep. Zoe Lofgren has finally introduced a real reform bill that tries to tackle this issue, along with Rep. Thomas Massie, Rep. Anna Eshoo and Rep. Jared Polis. The bill, called the Unlocking Technology Act of 2013, changes the law to make it clear: if you circumvent some sort of digital lock for a reason that has nothing to do with infringement, it would no longer be illegal. Basically, it would add the following:

It shall not be a violation of this section to circumvent a technological measure in connection with a work protected under this title if the purpose of such circumvention is to engage in a use that is not an infringement of copyright under this title.

Similarly, circumvention tools that have primarily non-infringing uses would also be legalized. It would still be illegal to do that big list of things above if the intent is to infringe, but merely creating the tools for non-infringing purposes would be legalized. Thus, tools for unlocking mobile phone, and the act of unlocking mobile phones, would be legal.

The bill also has two other key pieces. First, it makes it clear that it is not copyright infringement to switch networks and then access or load a copy of software that is stored in RAM. This seems very specific, but some operators have argued that by putting in a clause in a user agreement that forbids switching networks, those who do so could infringe by then accessing software stored in memory.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the bill addresses the claims that fixing the DMCA would violate trade agreements (we've heard seven different trade agreements would be violated with this simple fix of the DMCA) by telling the President that Congress says he needs to fix those agreements. Nice and simple:

The President shall take the necessary steps to secure modifications to applicable bilateral and multilateral trade agreements to which the United States is a party in order to ensure that such agreements are consistent with the amendments made by this Act.

This is actually really important. Because (just watch) copyright maximalists love to scream about how changes like this would "violate our international obligations" (while leaving out the fact that they were the ones who wrote half of those agreements in the first place). But the fact is that Congress has authority over international trade, not the executive branch. So if Congress wants, as would be the case with this bill, it can order the executive branch to change or fix any international agreements that get in the way of good law.

Filed Under: 1201, anna eshoo, anti-circumvention, circumvention, digital locks, dmca, jared polis, mobile phone unlocking, thomas massie, trade agreements, zoe lofgren

Canada's Own Justice Department Worried That Digital Locks Provision Is Not Constitutional

from the open-to-challenge dept

In our post game analysis of Canada's new copyright law, we noted the surprising number of good things in there. But, still, much of the focus (quite reasonably) is on the really awful "digital locks" provision, which has many similarities to the US's anti-circumvention clause in the DMCA, and similar copycat DMCA-like provisions around the globe. There is one piece of the DMCA and the digital locks portion of the C-11 bill which has simply never made any sense to me at all: it's that circumvention of "technical protection measures" (generally, DRM) breaks the law even if the circumvention was to make a legal copy of something. It has never been explained why such a provision cannot be limited to cases where the tools are used to infringe. When you make such a broad restriction against circumvention, you lock up plenty of perfectly legal uses of content and (potentially even worse) open up an opportunity to deny people access to things in the public domain -- creating the potential for a perpetual copyright via DRM.

And now, according to some government documents that Michael Geist obtained using an access to information request, we discover that Canada's own Justice Department appears to have worried that the digital locks provision -- when not tied to actual infringement of content -- was itself unconstitutional. While the analysis actually covers an earlier version of Canada's copyright reform effort, the digital locks provisions are still quite similar, and clearly do not address the constitutional concerns the Justice Department raised.

At the very least, this certainly opens the door for a constitutional challenge to the provision. Either way, I'm curious, for the various copyright system defenders we have in the community here, if anyone can take a stab at why it makes sense to have anti-circumvention rules apply even in cases where no content is actually infringed? Some of us would really like to know...

Filed Under: anti-circumvention, c-11, canada, digital locks, dmca, drm

A Postgame On Canada's Copyright Reform

from the mixed-bag dept

On Monday, after multiple attempts over several years, Canada's House of Commons passed Bill C-11 (previously known by other names), a sweeping copyright reform bill. Senate approval is all but assured, and the bill is essentially certain to become law in the near future. Luckily, unlike SOPA/PIPA in the States, C-11 is not a ridiculous, draconian internet lockdown bill. In fact, there's a lot to celebrate in the bill, though that celebration is marred by one significant problem: the digital locks portion, which is similar to the DMCA's anti-circumvention rules.

But first, the good stuff. Michael Geist has an excellent summary of C-11 with a comparison to previous phases of copyright law in Canada. The victories for smarter copyright law in C-11 sound almost like fantasy when compared to the American copyright debate. They include:

• New fair dealing provisions (our version of fair use) to cover educational uses, plus parody and satire
• New backup, format-shifting and time-shifting allowances that remove previous restrictions on networked DVRs and internet TV services (similar to those that have suffered in American courts)
• Explicit copyright exceptions for "user-generated content", aimed at protecting non-commercial fan-art and remixes
• A bunch of explicit exceptions for schools, such as the right to stage public performances
• A notice-and-notice system, not a notice-and-takedown system
• A $5,000 cap on statutory damages for all non-commercial infringement

Many of these are, as Geist calls them, "user-focused reforms"—something conspicuously absent from most proposed copyright legislation these days. But the digital locks issue remains a black mark on C-11, as the concerns of groups representing consumers, the blind and visually impaired (who will have a tougher time accessing digital content now), and Canadians in general were all brushed aside in favor of a DMCA-style approach that makes it illegal to circumvent copy protection systems even if it's for the purposes of making a legal copy. This, unfortunately, weakens the impact of all the positive reforms in the bill, because it creates a glaring loophole whereby rightsholders can attempt to block copying even if it's for one of the newly defined legal reasons. It's a real shame, and it also represents a foot-in-the-door for those who want more DMCA-style laws in Canada.

Still, it hardly erases the fact that there's a lot to like in C-11. User rights got more attention and more serious consideration in this bill than they ever did in SOPA/PIPA. Given that American diplomats were (and still are) actively pushing for Canadian versions of the DMCA and SOPA (or even more draconian laws that they can then import back to the U.S.), we came out of this one pretty well.

Filed Under: bill c-11, canada, copyright reform, digital locks, fair dealing