4 ms·

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?
  - klodolph 3y ago
    The identical twin thing affects 1 in 250 people, and I think we could reasonably expect an identical twin to know the risks of face unlock without having to spell it out for them. So if you’re an identical twin, and you don’t want your twin accessing your phone, you set a passcode instead. Kia owners don’t really have an alternative. The car is defective.
  - bastawhiz 3y ago
    People already have the cars. And the 2023 models don't seem to be affected. So getting people to stop buying them is sort of pointless (because the people who already own them are now stuck holding the bag). If the government has no business getting companies who produced a flawed product that—as you suggest—people should stop buying to fix their products, why exactly do we have standards at all? What part of "you have an obligation to issue a recall that fixes the product" is micromanaging? That could be done with a court order. > the scenario you proposed is already possible with face unlock I didn't mention face unlock. Any fingerprint sensor that is trivial defeated is fundamentally broken.
    - endisneigh 3y ago
      > I didn't mention face unlock. Any fingerprint sensor that is trivial defeated is fundamentally broken. I know you didn't. The point is that your phone can be accessed by those who are not you. and the standards should be around safety
op00to 3y ago
In every jurisdiction, where they can, police are going after Kia thieves. You can keep throwing people in jail, but more and more jail is obviously not an effective deterrent. This is scientific fact, accepted by the DOJ. [1] It is a simple solution to make the manufacturer fix the car so it is not as easily driven away. [1] https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/247350.pdf https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/247350.pdf
- ironcurtain 3y ago
  What are the level of auto theft in Korea? Or Japan? You are insisting on putting law abiding population into a cage because we cannot deal with criminal few.
HDThoreaun 3y ago
There is an effectively unlimited supply of kids who believe they have no future and are therefore willing to risk it all. Enforcement can't stop them from stealing a car when it takes a cord everyone has and less than 30 seconds.

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?
- klodolph 3y ago
  The identical twin thing affects 1 in 250 people, and I think we could reasonably expect an identical twin to know the risks of face unlock without having to spell it out for them. So if you’re an identical twin, and you don’t want your twin accessing your phone, you set a passcode instead. Kia owners don’t really have an alternative. The car is defective.
- bastawhiz 3y ago
  People already have the cars. And the 2023 models don't seem to be affected. So getting people to stop buying them is sort of pointless (because the people who already own them are now stuck holding the bag). If the government has no business getting companies who produced a flawed product that—as you suggest—people should stop buying to fix their products, why exactly do we have standards at all? What part of "you have an obligation to issue a recall that fixes the product" is micromanaging? That could be done with a court order. > the scenario you proposed is already possible with face unlock I didn't mention face unlock. Any fingerprint sensor that is trivial defeated is fundamentally broken.
  - endisneigh 3y ago
    > I didn't mention face unlock. Any fingerprint sensor that is trivial defeated is fundamentally broken. I know you didn't. The point is that your phone can be accessed by those who are not you. and the standards should be around safety

op00to 3y ago

In every jurisdiction, where they can, police are going after Kia thieves. You can keep throwing people in jail, but more and more jail is obviously not an effective deterrent. This is scientific fact, accepted by the DOJ. [1] It is a simple solution to make the manufacturer fix the car so it is not as easily driven away. [1] https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/247350.pdf https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/247350.pdf

ironcurtain 3y ago
What are the level of auto theft in Korea? Or Japan? You are insisting on putting law abiding population into a cage because we cannot deal with criminal few.

HDThoreaun 3y ago

There is an effectively unlimited supply of kids who believe they have no future and are therefore willing to risk it all. Enforcement can't stop them from stealing a car when it takes a cord everyone has and less than 30 seconds.