3 ms·
> 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 produc
by 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 agoYeah, 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 agoBut 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.