3 ms·

Imagine if a city sued homeowners because it’s their fault for calling the police after a break-in, because they used a deadbolt that failed the LockPickingLawy

Imagine if a city sued homeowners because it’s their fault for calling the police after a break-in, because they used a deadbolt that failed the LockPickingLawyer. This is about equally as sane. Yes, yes, I know that Hyundai and Kia vehicles are easy pickings, but they talk as though “those vehicles are easy to steal, so those teenagers, they just felt so compelled to…” Nobody forces somebody to steal a car. If anti-theft prevents a car theft, consider that is still someone who had intent to steal a vehicle if it were possible.

qup 4y ago
It turns out, people will download a car.
digdugdirk 4y ago
This situation is more like a deadbolt with a cover that could be pried off with your fingers, and then could be opened by any key shaped object once the cover is off. Maybe to put in software terms - a login page that allowed anyone to sign in to any account by viewing source and finding an admin login button sitting there for anyone to see. It truly is a flawed design. Yes, a design that might not be flawed for many societies around the world, but it's certainly flawed for a product that is sold in the USA.
- ericmcer 4y ago
  Of those two the second struck me as an example of someone who should expect to be victimized. It is funny how conditioned we are to assume people online will be as malicious as we allow them to be.
  - digdugdirk 4y ago
    Mechanical engineers operate under the same assumption, though it's generally a stupidity standard vs a maliciousness standard. In this case, they absolutely should have recognized there was no backup to their (much more affordable) immobilizer design, and caught it in the early design review phases.
klodolph 4y ago
LockPickingLawyer is highly skilled, and can defeat locks that most others can’t. This is like selling one of those old Kryptonite locks that could be defeated with a Bic pen. At that point, the lock is truly defective, and should be pulled from the market. Your lock should require something more than a readily-available, vaguely key-shaped object to operate—so if you can operate the lock with a Bic pen (like the old Kryptonite locks) or a USB charging cable (like the new Kias), the lock is defective.
- gjsman-1000 4y ago
  True, I agree, but here is the thing: There is no federal standard requiring fancy anti-theft equipment. Baltimore is quite literally suing because two manufacturers aren’t doing what other manufacturers do, because it would be more convenient for them, despite there being no rule requiring such technology. That’s a slippery slope. For heaven’s sake let’s make a rule, but trying to sue a manufacturer for not doing what other manufacturers do in absence of a law seems dangerous. Let’s say Tesla and Ford start requiring all auto parts to be digitally paired, to “prevent theft,” so parts are not interchangeable. If this case succeeds, any automaker who doesn’t do that could be found liable.
  - klodolph 4y ago
    I don’t think we should need to codify every possible problem as a rule. It is enough that Kia knows, or should know, the consequences of their actions, but chose to let somebody else (the owners, the police) deal with the consequences. Basically, I think mens rea is a much more sound basis for law than rules prescribing specific behavior, in general. Like, if you are an engineer and you design a bridge, and it turns out that the bridge fails and you should have known that it would fail, you bear the liability. This basic doctrine can be augmented with specific rules (like, cars must have back-up cameras and airbags, houses must have three-prong outlets with proper grounds and GFCI in bathrooms & kitchens), but the law should not have to make rules for everything before it happens—as long as you have mens rea (you knew the risks or should have known the risks), you bear some responsibility for your actions.
- endisneigh 4y ago
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
op00to 4y ago
No, that is not an apt analogy. Homeowners did not design the lock. Homeowners did not introduce a flaw into the lock to save money. Think about it this way: no one forces a kid to jump into a pool and drown, but if you have a pool without a fence completely surrounding it and the kid does just that, you are liable for the damages by creating an attractive nuisance. Hyundai created the situation of easily stolen cars by not "building the fence around their pool".
vanilla_nut 4y ago
The answer is enforcement: cars were much easier to steal in the past, and somehow we managed to deter theft anyway. But in many US cities if your car gets stolen the cops won't even pick up the phone. They openly admit there's next to no chance of recovery, and rarely help you even if you have some kind of tracking solution. If you do manage to track down your car, you won't get a timely enough response from the police to hold folks who stole it accountable. Most of the time they'll simply claim that they procured the car from someone else, and the police don't push the issue. Same with bicycle theft.
Ekaros 4y ago
Not the homeowners but the Master Lock. Which when hearing about quality of their products seems exactly same scenario. They do deserve to be sued in similar fashion for producing poor products. Like any pin and tumbler lock makers.
- tzs 3y ago
  The key difference is that Master Lock is terrible in the same was as nearly every other lock in widespread use by homeowners. If break-ins by lock picking double in my city this year it won't be because an unusual number of people happened to pick Master Lock over Schlage when they were installing locks. With Kia and Hyundai the cars involved are actually much worse than the comparable alternatives. Several cities are seeing a big increase in car thefts almost entirely due to more Kia and Hyundai thefts using methods that would not have worked on the 96% of cars in the US that have immobilizers.

qup 4y ago

It turns out, people will download a car.

digdugdirk 4y ago

This situation is more like a deadbolt with a cover that could be pried off with your fingers, and then could be opened by any key shaped object once the cover is off. Maybe to put in software terms - a login page that allowed anyone to sign in to any account by viewing source and finding an admin login button sitting there for anyone to see. It truly is a flawed design. Yes, a design that might not be flawed for many societies around the world, but it's certainly flawed for a product that is sold in the USA.

ericmcer 4y ago
Of those two the second struck me as an example of someone who should expect to be victimized. It is funny how conditioned we are to assume people online will be as malicious as we allow them to be.
- digdugdirk 4y ago
  Mechanical engineers operate under the same assumption, though it's generally a stupidity standard vs a maliciousness standard. In this case, they absolutely should have recognized there was no backup to their (much more affordable) immobilizer design, and caught it in the early design review phases.

klodolph 4y ago

LockPickingLawyer is highly skilled, and can defeat locks that most others can’t. This is like selling one of those old Kryptonite locks that could be defeated with a Bic pen. At that point, the lock is truly defective, and should be pulled from the market. Your lock should require something more than a readily-available, vaguely key-shaped object to operate—so if you can operate the lock with a Bic pen (like the old Kryptonite locks) or a USB charging cable (like the new Kias), the lock is defective.

gjsman-1000 4y ago
True, I agree, but here is the thing: There is no federal standard requiring fancy anti-theft equipment. Baltimore is quite literally suing because two manufacturers aren’t doing what other manufacturers do, because it would be more convenient for them, despite there being no rule requiring such technology. That’s a slippery slope. For heaven’s sake let’s make a rule, but trying to sue a manufacturer for not doing what other manufacturers do in absence of a law seems dangerous. Let’s say Tesla and Ford start requiring all auto parts to be digitally paired, to “prevent theft,” so parts are not interchangeable. If this case succeeds, any automaker who doesn’t do that could be found liable.
- klodolph 4y ago
  I don’t think we should need to codify every possible problem as a rule. It is enough that Kia knows, or should know, the consequences of their actions, but chose to let somebody else (the owners, the police) deal with the consequences. Basically, I think mens rea is a much more sound basis for law than rules prescribing specific behavior, in general. Like, if you are an engineer and you design a bridge, and it turns out that the bridge fails and you should have known that it would fail, you bear the liability. This basic doctrine can be augmented with specific rules (like, cars must have back-up cameras and airbags, houses must have three-prong outlets with proper grounds and GFCI in bathrooms & kitchens), but the law should not have to make rules for everything before it happens—as long as you have mens rea (you knew the risks or should have known the risks), you bear some responsibility for your actions.
endisneigh 4y ago

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

op00to 4y ago

No, that is not an apt analogy. Homeowners did not design the lock. Homeowners did not introduce a flaw into the lock to save money. Think about it this way: no one forces a kid to jump into a pool and drown, but if you have a pool without a fence completely surrounding it and the kid does just that, you are liable for the damages by creating an attractive nuisance. Hyundai created the situation of easily stolen cars by not "building the fence around their pool".

vanilla_nut 4y ago

The answer is enforcement: cars were much easier to steal in the past, and somehow we managed to deter theft anyway. But in many US cities if your car gets stolen the cops won't even pick up the phone. They openly admit there's next to no chance of recovery, and rarely help you even if you have some kind of tracking solution. If you do manage to track down your car, you won't get a timely enough response from the police to hold folks who stole it accountable. Most of the time they'll simply claim that they procured the car from someone else, and the police don't push the issue. Same with bicycle theft.

Ekaros 4y ago

Not the homeowners but the Master Lock. Which when hearing about quality of their products seems exactly same scenario. They do deserve to be sued in similar fashion for producing poor products. Like any pin and tumbler lock makers.

tzs 3y ago
The key difference is that Master Lock is terrible in the same was as nearly every other lock in widespread use by homeowners. If break-ins by lock picking double in my city this year it won't be because an unusual number of people happened to pick Master Lock over Schlage when they were installing locks. With Kia and Hyundai the cars involved are actually much worse than the comparable alternatives. Several cities are seeing a big increase in car thefts almost entirely due to more Kia and Hyundai thefts using methods that would not have worked on the 96% of cars in the US that have immobilizers.