5 ms·

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

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 3y 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 3y 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 3y ago
i deeply disagree with this line of thought. why is the onus on the manufacturer here, instead of going after the thieves?
- klodolph 3y ago
  > why is the onus on the manufacturer here, instead of going after the thieves? This is a false dilemma. You can go after both.
- yccs27 3y ago
  That is just a false dichotomy. Of course the thieves are at fault, but the manufacturer is also liable because they failed to ensure even the most basic degree of security.
  - endisneigh 3y ago
    ridiculous. there are already federal standards, that Kia and Hyundai met. Baltimore should sue the government if they want to complain. should bike manufacturers also be sued for not designing a bicycle in a way that cannot be ridden off by anyone who is not the owner when parked? idk how people defend these frivolous suits.
- bastawhiz 3y ago
  I, as a consumer, expect that the car has a key because the key keeps people who don't have the key from starting and operating my car. They sold a product for money that operates so poorly that it fails at one of its basic functions. Imagine if Google sold a Pixel whose fingerprint sensor could be bypassed if you just licked your finger before pressing the sensor. Suddenly this phone is now the target of thieves because it's easily unlocked and wiped. You're suggesting there's no onus on the manufacturer for that?
  - endisneigh 3y ago
    the onus is on them in the sense that people will stop buying them. I do not think it is the government's responsibility to micromanage, no. the scenario you proposed is already possible with face unlock and identical twins and look-alikes. should we sue Apple?
jaclaz 3y ago
This USB nonsense is misleading, it is nothing like the Kryptonite+Bic pen. You: 1) need to enter the vehicle (lockpick, smashed window, etc.) 2) break the ignition block to remove the key cylinder 3) turn a tab underneath the cylinder with whatever you see fit (pliers) Only coincidentally the tab fits inside a USB A connector. Now, that the ignition block may be (or may be not) easier to break than any other one could be debated, but - unlike the Kryptonite locks - you need to break it by force.

gjsman-1000 3y 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 3y 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 3y ago

i deeply disagree with this line of thought. why is the onus on the manufacturer here, instead of going after the thieves?

klodolph 3y ago
> why is the onus on the manufacturer here, instead of going after the thieves? This is a false dilemma. You can go after both.
yccs27 3y ago
That is just a false dichotomy. Of course the thieves are at fault, but the manufacturer is also liable because they failed to ensure even the most basic degree of security.
- endisneigh 3y ago
  ridiculous. there are already federal standards, that Kia and Hyundai met. Baltimore should sue the government if they want to complain. should bike manufacturers also be sued for not designing a bicycle in a way that cannot be ridden off by anyone who is not the owner when parked? idk how people defend these frivolous suits.
bastawhiz 3y ago
I, as a consumer, expect that the car has a key because the key keeps people who don't have the key from starting and operating my car. They sold a product for money that operates so poorly that it fails at one of its basic functions. Imagine if Google sold a Pixel whose fingerprint sensor could be bypassed if you just licked your finger before pressing the sensor. Suddenly this phone is now the target of thieves because it's easily unlocked and wiped. You're suggesting there's no onus on the manufacturer for that?
- endisneigh 3y ago
  the onus is on them in the sense that people will stop buying them. I do not think it is the government's responsibility to micromanage, no. the scenario you proposed is already possible with face unlock and identical twins and look-alikes. should we sue Apple?

jaclaz 3y ago

This USB nonsense is misleading, it is nothing like the Kryptonite+Bic pen. You: 1) need to enter the vehicle (lockpick, smashed window, etc.) 2) break the ignition block to remove the key cylinder 3) turn a tab underneath the cylinder with whatever you see fit (pliers) Only coincidentally the tab fits inside a USB A connector. Now, that the ignition block may be (or may be not) easier to break than any other one could be debated, but - unlike the Kryptonite locks - you need to break it by force.