6 ms·

Yes it's a clear design flaw but it's still theft. It's not like you're legally allowed to rob a store if the front door lock isn't installed properly and doesn

Yes it's a clear design flaw but it's still theft. It's not like you're legally allowed to rob a store if the front door lock isn't installed properly and doesn't work.

theultdev 3y ago
No we punish the companies now, not the thieves, see Kia and Hyundai.
- tnel77 3y ago
  Why not both? People shouldn’t steal cars and companies should probably be held accountable for gross negligence.
- mrweasel 3y ago
  I think the point of the Kia and Hyundai cases is that customers had some expectation that the locks would actually provide a higher level of security than they actually did. Otherwise why even bother having locks? Saying that "stealing is illegal and we should pushing the thieves not the companies for failing to provide security" completely negates the point of having any security industry. If you provide a product that is intended to offer a certain level of security you should get punished when your product fails in a spectacular manor.
  - declan_roberts 3y ago
    Weird how the level of protection the Kia and Hyundai locks provide change depending on whether your local law enforcement agencies are effectively able to deter theft?
    - thatguy0900 3y ago
      To some extent, but the TikTok craze was just crashing it, which happened to my parents. The car made it all of 30 ft and they hit a tree. Honestly not sure what local police can do to stop that.
  - vuln 3y ago
    Glass breaks very easily. Locks don’t matter.
    - callalex 3y ago
      You can start a car by breaking glass? That’s even more impressive than the hack in the article!
      - vuln 3y ago
        Is an ignition a lock? How about the wiring to the ignition…? It would be one thing if Kia and Hyundai advertised “anti theft” via an immobilizer then didn’t actually put one in. They just left it out because the company is being cheap. The cars being sold with this vuln are cheap. You get what you pay for.
        Dylan16807 3y ago
        It's not expensive enough to be worth leaving out in basically any car. Basic security shouldn't be a premium feature.
        vuln 3y ago
        > It's not expensive enough to be worth leaving out in basically any car. > Basic security shouldn't be a premium feature. That’s your opinion presented as a fact.
        Dylan16807 3y ago
        It is, which is pretty normal for opinion posts. But your argument that this is okay is also an opinion.
        vuln 3y ago
        I’m stating the manufacturer did not advertise this security feature, nor did any of the purchasers really care until their cars started getting stolen and used to cause mayhem. You stated a basic security feature such as an immobilizer should be installed by default because it’s cheap. Am I missing something?
- turquoisevar 3y ago
  This is not a zero sum game. You can punish both. Especially considering immobilizers have been mandatory in the EU since the ‘90s and cost a manufacturer less than $1. This is not some state of the art high tech high cost mitigation.
  - sib 3y ago
    Well, then I suppose you could rightfully punish the manufacturers for cars sold in Europe that don't have them. But, you should probably not punish manufacturers for cars sold in the US that don't have them until you make it illegal to sell cars without them in the US...
    - turquoisevar 3y ago
      There’s the concept of negligence. If you distill it down, it essentially comes down to not doing things that no law explicitly requires (lest you end up with walls and walls of law books simply describing very specific matters), but can be reasonably expected of you to have done. What’s reasonable depends from time period to time period and the norms that exist, nevertheless the concept exists. A good example would be you owning a house with a balcony in an unincorporated area where no law exists that sets requirements on structural integrity of such things. You’re aware that the balcony might be a bit iffy and it has been decades since last it was checked out by a professional. You have guests over, you don’t bother telling anyone to stay away from the balcony. Some of your guests walk underneath the balcony, or worse, they go out onto the balcony to have a smoke. The balcony collapses and your guests get injured or die. You’re on the hook for negligence. Specifically negligence that resulted in tort in this case. Hell, in some places, depending on the prosecutors in the area and the laws on the books, you might even be criminally liable for negligent homicide. My comment on the EU and the regulations there isn’t to imply that the laws there apply to here in the US, rather it’s used (and could be used in real life) as a way to argue that the solution is inexpensive and not implementing it could be considered negligent because there is an easy solution available due to that regulation.
      - sib 3y ago
- more_corn 3y ago
  Are you really taking the side of the idiots who made a modern car you can Hotwire in 45s with no special tools? And then refused to issue a recall and fix the problem?

Yes it's a clear design flaw but it's still theft. It's not like you're legally allowed to rob a store if the front door lock isn't installed properly and doesn't work.

theultdev 3y ago

No we punish the companies now, not the thieves, see Kia and Hyundai.

tnel77 3y ago
Why not both? People shouldn’t steal cars and companies should probably be held accountable for gross negligence.
mrweasel 3y ago
I think the point of the Kia and Hyundai cases is that customers had some expectation that the locks would actually provide a higher level of security than they actually did. Otherwise why even bother having locks? Saying that "stealing is illegal and we should pushing the thieves not the companies for failing to provide security" completely negates the point of having any security industry. If you provide a product that is intended to offer a certain level of security you should get punished when your product fails in a spectacular manor.
- declan_roberts 3y ago
  Weird how the level of protection the Kia and Hyundai locks provide change depending on whether your local law enforcement agencies are effectively able to deter theft?
  - thatguy0900 3y ago
    To some extent, but the TikTok craze was just crashing it, which happened to my parents. The car made it all of 30 ft and they hit a tree. Honestly not sure what local police can do to stop that.
- vuln 3y ago
  Glass breaks very easily. Locks don’t matter.
  - callalex 3y ago
    You can start a car by breaking glass? That’s even more impressive than the hack in the article!
    - vuln 3y ago
      Is an ignition a lock? How about the wiring to the ignition…? It would be one thing if Kia and Hyundai advertised “anti theft” via an immobilizer then didn’t actually put one in. They just left it out because the company is being cheap. The cars being sold with this vuln are cheap. You get what you pay for.
      - Dylan16807 3y ago
        It's not expensive enough to be worth leaving out in basically any car. Basic security shouldn't be a premium feature.
        vuln 3y ago
        > It's not expensive enough to be worth leaving out in basically any car. > Basic security shouldn't be a premium feature. That’s your opinion presented as a fact.
        Dylan16807 3y ago
        It is, which is pretty normal for opinion posts. But your argument that this is okay is also an opinion.
        vuln 3y ago
        I’m stating the manufacturer did not advertise this security feature, nor did any of the purchasers really care until their cars started getting stolen and used to cause mayhem. You stated a basic security feature such as an immobilizer should be installed by default because it’s cheap. Am I missing something?
turquoisevar 3y ago
This is not a zero sum game. You can punish both. Especially considering immobilizers have been mandatory in the EU since the ‘90s and cost a manufacturer less than $1. This is not some state of the art high tech high cost mitigation.
- sib 3y ago
  Well, then I suppose you could rightfully punish the manufacturers for cars sold in Europe that don't have them. But, you should probably not punish manufacturers for cars sold in the US that don't have them until you make it illegal to sell cars without them in the US...
  - turquoisevar 3y ago
    There’s the concept of negligence. If you distill it down, it essentially comes down to not doing things that no law explicitly requires (lest you end up with walls and walls of law books simply describing very specific matters), but can be reasonably expected of you to have done. What’s reasonable depends from time period to time period and the norms that exist, nevertheless the concept exists. A good example would be you owning a house with a balcony in an unincorporated area where no law exists that sets requirements on structural integrity of such things. You’re aware that the balcony might be a bit iffy and it has been decades since last it was checked out by a professional. You have guests over, you don’t bother telling anyone to stay away from the balcony. Some of your guests walk underneath the balcony, or worse, they go out onto the balcony to have a smoke. The balcony collapses and your guests get injured or die. You’re on the hook for negligence. Specifically negligence that resulted in tort in this case. Hell, in some places, depending on the prosecutors in the area and the laws on the books, you might even be criminally liable for negligent homicide. My comment on the EU and the regulations there isn’t to imply that the laws there apply to here in the US, rather it’s used (and could be used in real life) as a way to argue that the solution is inexpensive and not implementing it could be considered negligent because there is an easy solution available due to that regulation.
    - sib 3y ago
more_corn 3y ago
Are you really taking the side of the idiots who made a modern car you can Hotwire in 45s with no special tools? And then refused to issue a recall and fix the problem?