3 ms·

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

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

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