5 ms·

People are commenting on this with a fundamental lack of understanding of a car's ignition system. This design truly is flawed. Traditionally, the immobilizer

People are commenting on this with a fundamental lack of understanding of a car's ignition system. This design truly is flawed. Traditionally, the immobilizer in an ignition system is physically tied to the steering column. Basically, you'd need to remove the steering column (the physical pipe that goes between your steering wheel and the front steering rack) in order to remove the part. If you want to defeat that immobilizer, you need to do a massive amount of damage to the mechanism, and that damage usually destroys the electronics that register the correct key being put into the ignition switch. This is more or less a self-reinforcing security feature, since the car wont start without this electronic signal. Kia/Hyundai decided to just tack a little immobilizer module on without integrating it into the steering column, and they didn't even do a decent job mechanically securing it to the column from the outside. That means you can jam a screwdriver in there and pop the "security" mechanism off. Once that's gone, you're left with a little (conveniently USB sized) nub that can be turned which will immediately start the car. No muss, no fuss, no recognition that it's missing its immobilizer module. Its a fundamentally flawed design, and it never should have made it past review.

endisneigh 3y ago
flawed or not, the onus is not on Kia. ultimately baltimore is suing them because of the spike in car thefts, not because of the flawed design. presumably if baltimore had no thieves, there would be no thefts irrespective of the design. so in effect baltimore is suing kia becuase their cars are getting stolen which is ridiculous. i don't know how anyone can defend this. this would be like baltimore suing banks for allowing customers to put in the pin "1234" after seeing a spike in money theft through ATMs. if Baltimore wants the cars to be harder to steal, then they should work with the governor to pass a law that requires cars sold in Maryland to have whatever security functionality they deem necessary.
- aardvarkr 3y ago
  Here’s a better analogy - imagine the atm manufacturer wanted to save money so they built a machine with a lock that could be pried off with a screwdriver instead of integrating security features inside the machine. This ATM would be about as trivially easy to break into as stealing a Kia/Hyundai is. Would the bank be right to pursue legal damages against the atm manufacturer for negligence?
  - endisneigh 3y ago
    > Would the bank be right to pursue legal damages against the atm manufacturer for negligence? no. rather what would happen is that the bank would rightfully ask them to fix it or they would go with another manufacturer that meets their needs. likewise, the government should increase the standard if they're not happy with it. not give the rubber stamp and still complain.
  - bombcar 3y ago
    The bank is the customer in that case, and you could argue that they could sue, based on "assumptions about contract" or whatever. Baltimore didn't buy these cars.
    - misterprime 3y ago
      I'm curious if a class action lawsuit for Kia and Hyundai customers would make more sense. I also wonder if auto insurance companies might refuse to insure Kia and Hyundai vehicles until this is fixed.
      - bombcar 3y ago
        I believe the second has already begun, now that they offer a software patch to fix it (in theory).
    - shp0ngle 3y ago
      It endangers the public safety of Baltimore.
- henryfjordan 3y ago
  You cannot make something that you know will cause a nuisance. You cannot, for instance, sell fireworks only between 1-3am in the middle of a neighborhood and act surprised when the neighbors are mad at you because kids are setting them off all night. It was absolutely predictable that these cars would be stolen and that the police would have to deal with the fallout. Just because there's no explicit law does not mean that Kia doesn't know better. Kia needs to pay for that.
  - ryandrake 3y ago
    Yea, I'm really surprised at all this defense of these corporations. They produced and sold a defective product, which is causing monetary damages to cities as they need to deal with the predictable exploit of that defect. I'm sure the city is prepared to show that these damages are a result of the companies' negligence. If I owned one of these defective cars, I'd also be keen on participating in a lawsuit against the company. If these cars had a defect that caused them to suddenly catch fire and burn down neighborhoods, you'd bet there would be lawsuits from everyone, including cities who pay for fire departments.
    - michaelt 3y ago
      > Yea, I'm really surprised at all this defense of these corporations. Well, the government does already set a bunch of standards for cars. And before the car leaves the factory, it's fine for the government to be issuing mandatory standards for lights, spare parts, seatbelts, crash safety, pedestrian protection, fuel economy and so on. But the government having a second, secret set of requirements? That can change without anyone being notified? To me that seems rather irregular.
      - op00to 3y ago
        There's no federal standard that says cars must not explode in a fireball during refueling. If one make of car started exploding, you'd see the federal government get involved very quickly. To me, that seems like a responsible way to react to an irregular situation.
- joseph_grobbles 3y ago
  [dead]
- emodendroket 3y ago
  Why does anyone lock their door if the city is supposed to be responsible for any form of theft?
gjsman-1000 3y ago
> Its a fundamentally flawed design, and it never should have made it past review. It is a flawed design, but there’s just one problem for a lawsuit: Immobilizers are not legally required in the US. A flawed immobilizer is fine, considering there doesn’t even need to be an immobilizer. Baltimore is suing because, yes, they are easy to steal and that makes things inconvenient for Baltimore. But no law was broken - there is no law requiring cars to be hard to steal. Thus they are trying to claim “public nuisance” instead of “negligence.” This, in my mind, is a super slippery slope. You know parts pairing on iPhones, where you can’t swap the camera without Apple’s approval? One day there could be a carmaker or two that pairs everything from mirrors to catalytic converter to “prevent theft and fraud.” If Baltimore wins, anyone who doesn’t do that could be found liable. Just an extreme example of how this could go sideways fast. Or let’s say two or three bike manufacturers start putting GPS systems into their bikes, to prevent theft. Can any bike manufacturer that doesn’t do that be sued in the future? I would argue, they should absolutely not be in absence of a law.
- taylodl 3y ago
  The product sold doesn't comply with the stated fit of purpose. A consumer has the reasonable expectation that an ignition switch will hamper the efforts of someone to steal their car. There are lots of consumer protection laws that can be applied here - up to fraud. I suspect Baltimore isn't as interested in the the money to be gained as they are in generating negative PR for KIA and thus forcing them to address the issue.
  - bombcar 3y ago
    Wouldn't' that be the customers suing, or something? Baltimore didn't buy these cars, it might get dismissed from standing.
  - linksnapzz 3y ago
    That's not criminal, that's a tort. Baltimore, not being the customer, probably lacks standing.
    - 3y ago
oatmeal1 3y ago
The design of the ignition system is completely irrelevant. Even if a manufacturer designed a car that simply had an "on" button without the need for keys, it would not be their fault if that car was stolen.
alexb_ 3y ago
Kia could sell their cars with a giant button that says "BYPASS LOCK AND START IGNITION WITHOUT KEY" and it still wouldn't be their fault, at all.
- gjsman-1000 3y ago
  Also, this would be completely legal to sell. There’s no law requiring keys, or an immobilizer, or really any anti-theft technology. If you don’t like that, and I don’t, change the law. Don’t sue for something completely legal because it makes life inconvenient for a city. There is a long list of things cities find inconvenient, like bicycles without a built-in GPS, or even things as dumb as American flags in an upscale neighborhood.
  - krisoft 3y ago
    > Don’t sue for something completely legal because it makes life inconvenient for a city. I don't understand this reasoning. The city believes there is already a law under which what the car manufacturer did is not legal. They and the car manufacturer will go in front of a judge where the city will need to prove this, while the lawyers of the car manufacturer will presumably argue otherwise. Should I be feeling bad for Kia that they have to justify their choices?
    - jjk166 3y ago
      The city is going to spend substantial time and taxpayer dollars to argue a legal theory that is extremely dubious at best. If private citizens want to sue for dumb reasons, that's their prerogative, but a public entity with lots of other problems to deal with is fair game for criticism when they engage in boondoggles.
  - joseph_grobbles 3y ago
    [dead]
JustSomeNobody 3y ago
If I leave my door open and someone steals my TV, it's not my fault I don't have a TV anymore.
- taylodl 3y ago
  Legally it is. If there was no signs of forced entry then you're not going to be compensated for your loss and the police aren't going to pursue any suspects. But that's not what this case is about. To use your analogy, imagine KIA were a lock maker such as Kwikset. You bought their lock to install on your front door. You locked your door and left the house. You came back and your TV was gone, with no signs of forced entry. That's when you discover a major flaw in the design of the lock - if you turn the knob the opposite way then the lock will unlock from the outside. It's a flaw in the design. The lock maker is definitely legally liable for that defect, and, this is the important point, the city of Baltimore could sue them claiming damages incurred by having excessive police calls caused by their defective product. Of course every case is different, but Baltimore would be likely to win. I'd say they're likely to win in this case as well. Since KIA has been aware of this problem for some time and taken no steps to resolve it, I imagine Baltimore is applying some financial incentive. As other cities take note they too may file their own suits and then KIA may realize it's cheaper and better PR to issue a massive and costly recall.
  - kayodelycaon 3y ago
    That's not what legally means... it's still illegal to steal other people's things, no matter how easy you make it to steal. Now practically, whether it's legal or not, no one is going to help you.
    - op00to 3y ago
      If our hypothetical forgetful person has insurance, their insurance agent will surely pay out a claim in the situation where a door was left open.
  - bavila 3y ago
    > Legally it is. If there was no signs of forced entry then you're not going to be compensated for your loss and the police aren't going to pursue any suspects. To the extent that common law is generally adopted in the United States, theft is the intentional taking of the property of another with the intent to permanently deprive the owner of said property. It doesn't matter whether there's forced entry or not (you may be thinking of burglary -- either way, principles of "constructive breaking" could still apply depending on the law as codified by a given jurisdiction). Even from a less pedantic standpoint, if I had a home surveillance system that captured the entire incident on camera (along with the perpetrator's face and the license plate of the vehicle that he used to drive off with my TV), there is still sufficient evidence to arrest and prosecute. There is no legal requirement of "signs of forced entry" to sustain a theft charge under these circumstances.
rootusrootus 3y ago
A typical modern (say, mid 90s or later) car immobilizer is not mechanical, it is electronic. If you don't have a properly programmed key (or fob) in close proximity to the sensor, the ECU won't let the engine start. No amount of physical force or access to the steering column will defeat it. You may get far enough to make the starter turn the engine, but the ECU won't fire the injectors. The problem with Hyundai & Kia is that they elected not to include this 25 year old technology at all.
- ironcurtain 3y ago
  The problem is that some people decide to steal cars and face no consequences. What’s the car theft levels in Seoul compared to Baltimore? Should we expect them to be different? Why?
colechristensen 3y ago
The electronic immobilizer on my 2009 jetta is a communication between the cars computer and the key doing some sort of key exchange or rolling code. There’s no amount of tampering with anything in the steering column which can result in a running car. You start the engine and without the correct authentication the computer shuts the engine off after one second. I experienced it myself in a situation where i had a physical key which was not electronically paired with the engine so i could unlock and start the car one second at a time. There’s no option outside of hacking the car computer or having access to dealer only computer interface tools.

endisneigh 3y ago

flawed or not, the onus is not on Kia. ultimately baltimore is suing them because of the spike in car thefts, not because of the flawed design. presumably if baltimore had no thieves, there would be no thefts irrespective of the design. so in effect baltimore is suing kia becuase their cars are getting stolen which is ridiculous. i don't know how anyone can defend this. this would be like baltimore suing banks for allowing customers to put in the pin "1234" after seeing a spike in money theft through ATMs. if Baltimore wants the cars to be harder to steal, then they should work with the governor to pass a law that requires cars sold in Maryland to have whatever security functionality they deem necessary.

aardvarkr 3y ago
Here’s a better analogy - imagine the atm manufacturer wanted to save money so they built a machine with a lock that could be pried off with a screwdriver instead of integrating security features inside the machine. This ATM would be about as trivially easy to break into as stealing a Kia/Hyundai is. Would the bank be right to pursue legal damages against the atm manufacturer for negligence?
- endisneigh 3y ago
  > Would the bank be right to pursue legal damages against the atm manufacturer for negligence? no. rather what would happen is that the bank would rightfully ask them to fix it or they would go with another manufacturer that meets their needs. likewise, the government should increase the standard if they're not happy with it. not give the rubber stamp and still complain.
- bombcar 3y ago
  The bank is the customer in that case, and you could argue that they could sue, based on "assumptions about contract" or whatever. Baltimore didn't buy these cars.
  - misterprime 3y ago
    I'm curious if a class action lawsuit for Kia and Hyundai customers would make more sense. I also wonder if auto insurance companies might refuse to insure Kia and Hyundai vehicles until this is fixed.
    - bombcar 3y ago
      I believe the second has already begun, now that they offer a software patch to fix it (in theory).
  - shp0ngle 3y ago
    It endangers the public safety of Baltimore.
henryfjordan 3y ago
You cannot make something that you know will cause a nuisance. You cannot, for instance, sell fireworks only between 1-3am in the middle of a neighborhood and act surprised when the neighbors are mad at you because kids are setting them off all night. It was absolutely predictable that these cars would be stolen and that the police would have to deal with the fallout. Just because there's no explicit law does not mean that Kia doesn't know better. Kia needs to pay for that.
- ryandrake 3y ago
  Yea, I'm really surprised at all this defense of these corporations. They produced and sold a defective product, which is causing monetary damages to cities as they need to deal with the predictable exploit of that defect. I'm sure the city is prepared to show that these damages are a result of the companies' negligence. If I owned one of these defective cars, I'd also be keen on participating in a lawsuit against the company. If these cars had a defect that caused them to suddenly catch fire and burn down neighborhoods, you'd bet there would be lawsuits from everyone, including cities who pay for fire departments.
  - michaelt 3y ago
    > Yea, I'm really surprised at all this defense of these corporations. Well, the government does already set a bunch of standards for cars. And before the car leaves the factory, it's fine for the government to be issuing mandatory standards for lights, spare parts, seatbelts, crash safety, pedestrian protection, fuel economy and so on. But the government having a second, secret set of requirements? That can change without anyone being notified? To me that seems rather irregular.
    - op00to 3y ago
      There's no federal standard that says cars must not explode in a fireball during refueling. If one make of car started exploding, you'd see the federal government get involved very quickly. To me, that seems like a responsible way to react to an irregular situation.
joseph_grobbles 3y ago
[dead]
emodendroket 3y ago
Why does anyone lock their door if the city is supposed to be responsible for any form of theft?

gjsman-1000 3y ago

> Its a fundamentally flawed design, and it never should have made it past review. It is a flawed design, but there’s just one problem for a lawsuit: Immobilizers are not legally required in the US. A flawed immobilizer is fine, considering there doesn’t even need to be an immobilizer. Baltimore is suing because, yes, they are easy to steal and that makes things inconvenient for Baltimore. But no law was broken - there is no law requiring cars to be hard to steal. Thus they are trying to claim “public nuisance” instead of “negligence.” This, in my mind, is a super slippery slope. You know parts pairing on iPhones, where you can’t swap the camera without Apple’s approval? One day there could be a carmaker or two that pairs everything from mirrors to catalytic converter to “prevent theft and fraud.” If Baltimore wins, anyone who doesn’t do that could be found liable. Just an extreme example of how this could go sideways fast. Or let’s say two or three bike manufacturers start putting GPS systems into their bikes, to prevent theft. Can any bike manufacturer that doesn’t do that be sued in the future? I would argue, they should absolutely not be in absence of a law.

taylodl 3y ago
The product sold doesn't comply with the stated fit of purpose. A consumer has the reasonable expectation that an ignition switch will hamper the efforts of someone to steal their car. There are lots of consumer protection laws that can be applied here - up to fraud. I suspect Baltimore isn't as interested in the the money to be gained as they are in generating negative PR for KIA and thus forcing them to address the issue.
- bombcar 3y ago
  Wouldn't' that be the customers suing, or something? Baltimore didn't buy these cars, it might get dismissed from standing.
- linksnapzz 3y ago
  That's not criminal, that's a tort. Baltimore, not being the customer, probably lacks standing.
  - 3y ago

oatmeal1 3y ago

The design of the ignition system is completely irrelevant. Even if a manufacturer designed a car that simply had an "on" button without the need for keys, it would not be their fault if that car was stolen.

alexb_ 3y ago

Kia could sell their cars with a giant button that says "BYPASS LOCK AND START IGNITION WITHOUT KEY" and it still wouldn't be their fault, at all.

gjsman-1000 3y ago
Also, this would be completely legal to sell. There’s no law requiring keys, or an immobilizer, or really any anti-theft technology. If you don’t like that, and I don’t, change the law. Don’t sue for something completely legal because it makes life inconvenient for a city. There is a long list of things cities find inconvenient, like bicycles without a built-in GPS, or even things as dumb as American flags in an upscale neighborhood.
- krisoft 3y ago
  > Don’t sue for something completely legal because it makes life inconvenient for a city. I don't understand this reasoning. The city believes there is already a law under which what the car manufacturer did is not legal. They and the car manufacturer will go in front of a judge where the city will need to prove this, while the lawyers of the car manufacturer will presumably argue otherwise. Should I be feeling bad for Kia that they have to justify their choices?
  - jjk166 3y ago
    The city is going to spend substantial time and taxpayer dollars to argue a legal theory that is extremely dubious at best. If private citizens want to sue for dumb reasons, that's their prerogative, but a public entity with lots of other problems to deal with is fair game for criticism when they engage in boondoggles.
- joseph_grobbles 3y ago
  [dead]

JustSomeNobody 3y ago

If I leave my door open and someone steals my TV, it's not my fault I don't have a TV anymore.

taylodl 3y ago
Legally it is. If there was no signs of forced entry then you're not going to be compensated for your loss and the police aren't going to pursue any suspects. But that's not what this case is about. To use your analogy, imagine KIA were a lock maker such as Kwikset. You bought their lock to install on your front door. You locked your door and left the house. You came back and your TV was gone, with no signs of forced entry. That's when you discover a major flaw in the design of the lock - if you turn the knob the opposite way then the lock will unlock from the outside. It's a flaw in the design. The lock maker is definitely legally liable for that defect, and, this is the important point, the city of Baltimore could sue them claiming damages incurred by having excessive police calls caused by their defective product. Of course every case is different, but Baltimore would be likely to win. I'd say they're likely to win in this case as well. Since KIA has been aware of this problem for some time and taken no steps to resolve it, I imagine Baltimore is applying some financial incentive. As other cities take note they too may file their own suits and then KIA may realize it's cheaper and better PR to issue a massive and costly recall.
- kayodelycaon 3y ago
  That's not what legally means... it's still illegal to steal other people's things, no matter how easy you make it to steal. Now practically, whether it's legal or not, no one is going to help you.
  - op00to 3y ago
    If our hypothetical forgetful person has insurance, their insurance agent will surely pay out a claim in the situation where a door was left open.
- bavila 3y ago
  > Legally it is. If there was no signs of forced entry then you're not going to be compensated for your loss and the police aren't going to pursue any suspects. To the extent that common law is generally adopted in the United States, theft is the intentional taking of the property of another with the intent to permanently deprive the owner of said property. It doesn't matter whether there's forced entry or not (you may be thinking of burglary -- either way, principles of "constructive breaking" could still apply depending on the law as codified by a given jurisdiction). Even from a less pedantic standpoint, if I had a home surveillance system that captured the entire incident on camera (along with the perpetrator's face and the license plate of the vehicle that he used to drive off with my TV), there is still sufficient evidence to arrest and prosecute. There is no legal requirement of "signs of forced entry" to sustain a theft charge under these circumstances.

rootusrootus 3y ago

A typical modern (say, mid 90s or later) car immobilizer is not mechanical, it is electronic. If you don't have a properly programmed key (or fob) in close proximity to the sensor, the ECU won't let the engine start. No amount of physical force or access to the steering column will defeat it. You may get far enough to make the starter turn the engine, but the ECU won't fire the injectors. The problem with Hyundai & Kia is that they elected not to include this 25 year old technology at all.

ironcurtain 3y ago
The problem is that some people decide to steal cars and face no consequences. What’s the car theft levels in Seoul compared to Baltimore? Should we expect them to be different? Why?

colechristensen 3y ago

The electronic immobilizer on my 2009 jetta is a communication between the cars computer and the key doing some sort of key exchange or rolling code. There’s no amount of tampering with anything in the steering column which can result in a running car. You start the engine and without the correct authentication the computer shuts the engine off after one second. I experienced it myself in a situation where i had a physical key which was not electronically paired with the engine so i could unlock and start the car one second at a time. There’s no option outside of hacking the car computer or having access to dealer only computer interface tools.