But that doesn't mean the farmers shoudln't be able to work on the system itself if it is broken, using readouts from the system as a guide to fixing it. This might mean, however, that instead of being able to fix the software itself, they have to buy a new drive, exchanging in the old one in the process. This small bit is a reasonable request because folks can be highly motivated to cheat otherwise.

It's certainly true that the manufacturers have no reason to push back, and every reason to interpret the rule broadly.

It's easier to just lock down everything than to get the lawyers involved in the software architecture.

The EPA can say "tamper resistant," but I call it "repair resistant".

I object to the word "tamper" because implies that even though I am the owner of the car I somehow require authorization to work on it.

Eh, if it's strictly limited to regulatory compliance requirements that might make sense. Make sure it takes significant effort to turn off the public-safety features that cost you a bit of efficiency but also stop you giving all your neighbors cancer and all that.

I've never heard of an individual being fined for removing/disabling emissions equipment, only businesses. Have you?

lots of car owners are fined or have their vehicle licenses removes or suspended for failing to maintain smog emissions standards.

Being fined by your state for not meeting emissions is one thing, being fined by the EPA for disabling emissions equipment is another, much larger thing.

There is no EPA highway patrol, so they can only go after large violators. The companies making the 'chip kits' do get taken to the wall occasionally.