The Combine Forum banner
21 - 24 of 24 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3 Posts
Richardson International thank you for providing this clarification. In addition, I would like to make the suggestion that a contract that requires you to "opt out" of data sharing to third parties by initialling a box is not necessarily how contracts are to be written. Businesses typically are legally required to provide an "Opt in" clause.

In order to appear as though RP is not trying to deceive or hide it's intention of data sharing, it would behoove a re-write of the contract requiring participants to "Approve" or "Opt-In" to data sharing rather than having automatic approval.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.
We sincerely appreciate this perspective, as clarity and transparency are important to us. The situation has been brought to the appropriate groups here at Richardson and we will absolutely take this suggestion into consideration.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
143 Posts
Withholding Consent: Legal - Richardson International

Subject to legal and contractual requirements, you can refuse to consent to our collection, use or disclosure of your personal information, or you may withdraw your consent to our further collection, use or disclosure of information at any time in the future by giving us reasonable notice. If you refuse or withdraw your consent, we may not be able to provide you or continue to provide you with some products, services or information which may be of value to you. During the term of any agreement you have with us, you may not withdraw your consent to our ongoing collection, use or disclosure of your personal information in connection with such agreement.


@Richardson International I think its great that you are participating in this dialog. That is not common. Cheers.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
646 Posts
JD bought harvest profit. The software I like to use to farm plan. Started by a ND guy. It’s not good for us customers no matter how much he says nothing will change or be nefarious. I don’t trust deere further than I can toss a s790.
My thoughts...

Commercial farms are not charities, they are commercial entities working in a competitive marketplace. There are two main points to make here:

One: Forced data collection and forwarding to an outside party, that acts as a gatekeeper and charges money to access your data is not desirable if given a choice. On the equipment JD sells, the modems that transmit the data back to JD are equipped with wi-fi and Bluetooth, but they are disabled by JD. This forces the data from the farm to be transmitted to JD servers located in India, and for the farmer to have a subscription to buy back their data for use in a proprietary JD management application [also purchased/subscribed]. There is no option for the farm to opt out of this service and pull the data locally over wi-fi/Bluetooth for use on an application of their choice. The only choice is to have access/use of their data, or not. When JD states terms of access to affiliates, they don’t mean the farmer.

Two: The data that is collected is comprehensive enough to reverse engineer the farms accounting balance sheet. Inputs, acres, yields, condition, and very accurate location data, all contribute to delivering the ingredients to create a “digital twin” of a farms operations. Do you know of any privately owed company that would intentionally expose this level of commercial detail of their operation to the market/suppliers/competitors/buyers? It opens the doors WIDE open for anti-competitive behavior in the Agricultural sector. From input costs, to market value and everything in between.

I would like to know what farmers think of this... I am not one, just work in the sector...
 
21 - 24 of 24 Posts
Top