2 ms·
It seems that by your logic, any bypass of a car's authentication system functions as a surrogate key. Punching out an ignition column with a screwdriver and j
by jstarfish 8y ago
It seems that by your logic, any bypass of a car's authentication system functions as a surrogate key.
Punching out an ignition column with a screwdriver and jumping wires is no more having a key than calling customer service and fooling them into transferring remote control to you. In all cases, you don't have what is commonly understood to be "a key," yet you leave with what you came for.
The common vernacular has an accepted definition of what it means to require a key to do something. Given that this is a criminal matter, you'd have a hard time convincing a jury of yokels to share your understanding.
- jiveturkey 8y agoHe didn't (locally) bypass the car's authentication system. As far as the car is concerned, he used a proper key. I'm not sure what your comment about a jury of yokel's refers to. I clearly do not mean that he didn't actually steal the car. It doesn't matter if that was with a key or not. "without a key" is clearly meant to imply that he walked right up. But what he actually did is the equivalent of copying an existing key. IOW, he had a "key" made.
- jstarfish 8y agoTo be clear, I do think your point/distinction is valid in a technical sense, but not relevant to explanation of the crime. He walked right up, made a phone call and Tesla support literally handed him the car. What encrypted bits got shuffled around to make this happen are secondary to the fact that he did steal the car (and yes, had Tesla fabricate an ethereal key) using nothing but his phone.