3 ms·

That's not an accurate comparison. The chief complaint cities have is that stolen cars result in other crimes, which drains law enforcement resources. > Yet in

That's not an accurate comparison. The chief complaint cities have is that stolen cars result in other crimes, which drains law enforcement resources. > Yet in 2015, 96% of new cars sold by other manufacturers did come with immobilisers, which cost at most a few hundred dollars. For Kia and Hyundai vehicles, the figure was just 26%. Todd Henderson, a legal scholar at the University of Chicago, says that on the face of it, the cities suing might have a case. It would rest, he says, on the argument that when a simple and cheap technology is available that can radically reduce the chance of a product causing enormous damage, “the non-inclusion makes the product defective.” This seems like a reasonable argument to me, and Kia/Hyundai deserve to be pushed to answer why they're pinching pennies over a widely used, cheap and effective anti-theft technology.

dylan604 3y ago
Do cities have the right to block the sales of certain items based on this kind of logic? Do cities have the right to restrict what its citizens can purchase? What other methods would cities/states have? Pass local taxes on specific brands to "cover the costs" and encourage its citizens to purchase something else?
tlogan 3y ago
Conversely, automakers can demonstrate that the incidence of theft for identical car models is relatively low in other regions. They can also show that car theft rate is highly collerated with retail theft.
SenAnder 3y ago
> when a simple and cheap technology is available that can radically reduce the chance of a product causing enormous damage, “the non-inclusion makes the product defective.” This is a reasonable argument (except for blaming poor anti-theft technology for "causing enormous damage"), but I don't like where it leads. Thefts would be further deterred if the car took a photo of the driver every time the engine starts (and used facial recognition to refuse to start if they're wearing a mask), then sent that photo, with date+time+GPS coordinates to a central server somewhere. There are countless other cheap and corrosive to liberty "solutions" you can use to deter crime. Like force cars to act as networked security cameras. No laws have been passed, just a creative legal theory, and suddenly it's illegal to sell a car that's not an arm of the police state. I'd rather see the manufacturer just forced to reveal the known serious vulnerabilities before purchase.
- LapsangGuzzler 3y ago
  Yeah, but you're taking it much further than they are. They're arguing that Kia should use an immobiliser that is standard in most other cars. They're not asking Kia to install cameras, etc. It's a sane default that deters crime because those other types of cars are stolen at a lower rate.
  - SenAnder 3y ago
    But am I taking it much further than they're going to? We've seen how anti-consumer, anti-privacy, anti-freedom technology becomes when left to its own devices. I'd rather not make it illegal to sell an ethical product when the "standard" set by other firms is abuse.

dylan604 3y ago

Do cities have the right to block the sales of certain items based on this kind of logic? Do cities have the right to restrict what its citizens can purchase? What other methods would cities/states have? Pass local taxes on specific brands to "cover the costs" and encourage its citizens to purchase something else?

tlogan 3y ago

Conversely, automakers can demonstrate that the incidence of theft for identical car models is relatively low in other regions. They can also show that car theft rate is highly collerated with retail theft.

SenAnder 3y ago

> when a simple and cheap technology is available that can radically reduce the chance of a product causing enormous damage, “the non-inclusion makes the product defective.” This is a reasonable argument (except for blaming poor anti-theft technology for "causing enormous damage"), but I don't like where it leads. Thefts would be further deterred if the car took a photo of the driver every time the engine starts (and used facial recognition to refuse to start if they're wearing a mask), then sent that photo, with date+time+GPS coordinates to a central server somewhere. There are countless other cheap and corrosive to liberty "solutions" you can use to deter crime. Like force cars to act as networked security cameras. No laws have been passed, just a creative legal theory, and suddenly it's illegal to sell a car that's not an arm of the police state. I'd rather see the manufacturer just forced to reveal the known serious vulnerabilities before purchase.

LapsangGuzzler 3y ago
Yeah, but you're taking it much further than they are. They're arguing that Kia should use an immobiliser that is standard in most other cars. They're not asking Kia to install cameras, etc. It's a sane default that deters crime because those other types of cars are stolen at a lower rate.
- SenAnder 3y ago
  But am I taking it much further than they're going to? We've seen how anti-consumer, anti-privacy, anti-freedom technology becomes when left to its own devices. I'd rather not make it illegal to sell an ethical product when the "standard" set by other firms is abuse.