5 ms·

No, because making your car a target for theft happens because of a defective and impotent anti-theft system, and this process happens before the cars arrive wh

No, because making your car a target for theft happens because of a defective and impotent anti-theft system, and this process happens before the cars arrive where they can be stolen. It’s upstream responsibility being pushed to downstream forces because upstream responsibility failed to take responsibility or do their job. Chronology matters. Consider it more like selling locks that don’t lock properly to customers who expect their locks to work like any other lock, then blaming criminals for taking advantage of the situation. Because that’s exactly what they’re trying to do. And of course it’s also specific to the manufacturer and almost all other manufacturers don’t have this problem. So while it can technically be “blamed on the criminals” it’s objectively incorrect. It’s also objectively incorrect to blame the police for not doing their job. Or for customers for not keeping their cars safe. This is a product defect from the manufacturer that has killed a lot of people at this point and which they need to take care of, and this whole line of reasoning is their attempt to deflect legal responsibility as the situation is getting completely out of hand.

Ekaros 3y ago
I think if locks were expected to be efficient most lock companies in USA would be out of business.. They produce on average utter crap. So considering prevailing standards of locks in USA, the offerings of KIA and Hyundai are in line.
- happytiger 3y ago
  They are expected to make it more challenging than other less challenging arguments. Almost all security that isn’t lethal is deterrance not solution. I have already preempveoy addressed this argument (which — respectfully — is a favorite HN counterpoint every time locks and security come up) in another comment, but here is the heart of it here: But what about locks? You said locks before but locks aren’t that secure. The term “fitness for purpose” refers to a product or service that is not working as intended or expected. If you don’t sell a car with locks and claim you have a security system, no fault. But if you do and it doesn’t work, fault. Same for locks. Physical locks are not meant to make things impossible to get to. They just make it hard to get to. No amount of physical locks will ever make something 100% secure because even if they are unpickable, and there are some unpickable locks, physical things can be broken. The point of physical locks are that it takes the robber time and energy to get around them. If it takes more time and energy to do it most robbers will just go to the next location and hope there is less security. because of this most people just need convenient locks. Ones that do not take up a lot of space or time to open. It is only when we see extremely valuable things that the higher tech locks that take a lot of space/time/energy to work with. Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6c7bj5/e https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6c7bj5/e...
busterarm 3y ago
Theft doesn't happen because you have inadequate deterrence. It just makes you the target. Theft happens because somebody chooses to be a fucking thief. This isn't a problem that Kia/Hyundai has to deal with so much in their home market. It's a problem exclusive to large American cities. It's not Kia/Hyundai's fault that people in large American cities are fucking thieves in record numbers. The locks on your house are just as insecure as on these vehicles. Are we at fault when our homes are broken into? The US could also very easily do as Canada does and require electronic immobilizers on new vehicles. It does not. The problem here sounds entirely like it's down to Americans and their government. And I really don't understand what you're on about. Yes, criminals should be blamed for committing crimes. Your argument is akin to saying that if a robber snatches a woman's purse it's her fault for being a weak woman.
- plagiarist 3y ago
  > The locks on your house are just as insecure as on these vehicles. Are we at fault when our homes are broken into? My house cannot be opened in seconds with a USB cable https://www.axios.com/2022/08/27/kia-hyundai-thefts-stolen-usb-immobilizer-tiktok https://www.axios.com/2022/08/27/kia-hyundai-thefts-stolen-u... Nobody is blaming the woman here, they are blaming the purse manufacturer.
  - busterarm 3y ago
    Your house can be opened in one second with a rock. It's called breaking a window. Most security is illusory. Or if they want to look legitimate, a small hammer and a bump key. As for the purse manufacturer comment, not only is that ludicrous but you missed the point.
    - plagiarist 3y ago
      The rock alerts the neighbors. Opportunistic thieves don't want that. People are more likely to steal a car if they can get in and go in seconds. I'm sorry your own analogy worked against you, try thinking a bit harder next time.
za3faran 3y ago
The question to ask is why are there so many thieves to begin with, always try to get to the root cause.
- happytiger 3y ago
  This is a deeply compelling argument. I imagine the fact that we’ve printed 3T dollars in debt in the last 90 days is a contributing factor.
trdtaylor1 3y ago
This is tough as at the heart is manufacturer / seller liability for use / misuse / abuse of the product they sold. For the locks analogue, most of the advertising for the common homebuilder and homeowner lock varieties are fabrications and lies; it's incredibly easy to get through common locks. In applying the analogue to cars, it works because Ford and Toyotas are harder to steal. But what is the liability in that? Does Kia actively market the safety, security and anti-theft portion of their car like the common lock manufactures do? No-- they do not. That's where your analogue falls apart, specific anti-theft claims (moreso than general "has anti-theft") are not there for Kias, they are there for 'locks'. There's numerous analogues for this that 'sorta' fit but with widely different outcomes. Is this like victims suing a dress manufacturer for dresses that make them more likely to suffer sexual harassment? Is this like a phone manufacture being sued by those who suffered malware/cyber attacks because they're brand of phones are targeted for vulnerabilities far more then other manufacturers are? The court of public opinion and the case itself is going to be filled with widely different assessments of what the base 'analogue' should be. This is going to settlement without established caselaw I think, as caselaw established on this would be just such a mess.
- happytiger 3y ago
  It doesn’t fall apart. I have a phone. It has a Lock Screen and advertising it can be locked. It is easily bypassed. Millions of phones are vulnerable. Manufacturer provides a patch that doesn’t work. Manufacturer fixed the problem on more recent phones with a physical hardware change but chooses not to fix the previously released phones, leaving customers stranded with no solution even though it’s readily available. Over time everyone is getting their phones targeting because thieves arr going after the phone knowing they can get at all the valuable data in addition to a working phone, and easily sell the parts in the phone that have now become scarce due to all the theft — a virtuous feedback loop created by the phone manufacturer. Manufacturer finally gets sued by a class action for failure it fix and settles the suite for two hundred million and offers 3-5000 per phone to every person affected, but without admitting ‘guilt.’ Users defend phone manufacturer: Defense: the Lock Screen isn’t needed in the safe country the phones are made in Reality: that’s ok, they weren’t sold there they were sold in the market that does have less safety and that was true when they were sold. Also, these products were so poorly designed they are 2/3 of all phone thefts and other manufacturers had no problem providing solutions to this problem and the manufacturer had ample time to do a fix and failed to perform a fix for customers. FAQ But what about locks? You said locks before but locks aren’t that secure. The term “fitness for purpose” refers to a product or service that is not working as intended or expected. If you don’t sell a car with locks and claim you have a security system, no fault. But if you do and it doesn’t work, fault. Same for locks. Physical locks are not meant to make things impossible to get to. They just make it hard to get to. No amount of physical locks will ever make something 100% secure because even if they are unpickable, and there are some unpickable locks, physical things can be broken. The point of physical locks are that it takes the robber time and energy to get around them. If it takes more time and energy to do it most robbers will just go to the next location and hope there is less security. because of this most people just need convenient locks. Ones that do not take up a lot of space or time to open. It is only when we see extremely valuable things that the higher tech locks that take a lot of space/time/energy to work with. Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6c7bj5/eli5_if_traditional_locks_are_easily_picked_why/ https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6c7bj5/e... That metaphor doesn’t work! Probably, because Lock Screen failure didn’t lead directly to 8 verifiable deaths (more now) and you can’t die from getting run over by a phone as they are not considered ‘deadly weapons’ like cars, but without the metaphor it’s actually much worse. Imagine a gun safe manufacturer whose locks could be easily bypassed, who knew it, and did nothing even while criminals stole guns and used them on shooting sprees. Probably better metaphor but it’s insensitive to people who are actually experiencing gun violence so I didn’t use it. Should they have provided a Lock Screen that worked? Yes. Is the root of the issue the fact that it had a feature that should have worked and didn’t? Yes, and that they provided a fix that didn’t work but claimed it would, and sold a defective product in the first place. Did they have ample occasion to recall and fix the issue permanently? Yes. Maybe that metaphor will work better, because there are two issues. One is that something was sold fit for purpose and wasn’t. Another is that the MFG failed to fix on multiple occasions and didn’t. Only after being sued did they eventually perform to a baseline standard. Yes, but the NHTSA could have issued a recall! “At this time, NHTSA has not determined that this issue constitutes either a safety defect or noncompliance requiring a recall,” wrote Cem Hatipoglu, NHTSA's acting associate director for enforcement, referring to the Hyundai and Kia vehicles susceptible to theft because they lack engine immobilizers.* In particular, Hatipoglu said, the federal standard for automotive safety does not require cars to come with immobilizers, the hardware at the center of the controversy that has put affected vehicle owners on edge.* Hatipoglu said the standard by which NHTSA would normally issue recalls “does not contemplate actions taken by criminal actors to break open or remove part of the steering column and take out the ignition lock to start a vehicle." In casual parlance, that's what's called hot-wiring a car.* The 18 attorneys general, led by Bonta, wrote to the agency in April asking that all vulnerable Hyundai and Kia vehicles manufactured from 2011 to 2022 be recalled and retrofitted with immobilizers to keep them from being stolen.* "Thefts of these Hyundai and Kia vehicles have led to at least eight deaths, numerous injuries and property damage, and they have diverted significant police and emergency services resources from other priorities," the attorneys general wrote. The only reason they didn’t issue a recall is that this particular technology is not required by code and the code does not the specific technology that almost all manufacturers are using address theft because up until KIA had this problems there was no need for them to because manufacturers didn’t have this problem. I’m sure code will get looked at in future iterations as the automotive standards slowly evolve. The root argument that holds water has been made by a couple of people on HN and that is that the US standards aren’t sufficient to address this problem and that is a totally valid argument. Fortunately we have a way to compel manufacturers to fix broken products that kill people: the court system, product defect and class action lawsuit. And they have already settled their first major lawsuit (just California, so only 1/9 of America is covered so far) in which they admit no guilt but will pay you thousands of dollars if it happens to you and you have a police report. I consider that an omission of guilt, but just lacking the legal admission, don’t you? It’s reasonable to argue against it, but when you choose to pay up instead of fight the accusations there is some degree of statement in that. The only real debate is whether this is a case if negligence or incompetence. Sources https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/hyundai-kia-campaign-prevent-vehicle-theft https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/hyundai-kia-campaign-pr... https://www.hbsslaw.com/hyundai-kia-usb-car-theft-defect/faq https://www.hbsslaw.com/hyundai-kia-usb-car-theft-defect/faq
philwelch 3y ago
The rate of car theft in South Korea is around 5 cases per 100,000 population (https://knoema.com/atlas/Republic-of-Korea/Private-car-theft-rate?mode=amp https://knoema.com/atlas/Republic-of-Korea/Private-car-theft...) The rate of car theft in the United States is over 200 (https://www.statista.com/statistics/191216/reported-motor-vehicle-theft-rate-in-the-us-since-1990/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/191216/reported-motor-ve...) Kia and Hyundai together have a large majority of the market share in South Korea: https://www.statista.com/statistics/805132/south-korea-leading-car-manufacturer-market-share/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/805132/south-korea-leadi...

Ekaros 3y ago

I think if locks were expected to be efficient most lock companies in USA would be out of business.. They produce on average utter crap. So considering prevailing standards of locks in USA, the offerings of KIA and Hyundai are in line.

happytiger 3y ago
They are expected to make it more challenging than other less challenging arguments. Almost all security that isn’t lethal is deterrance not solution. I have already preempveoy addressed this argument (which — respectfully — is a favorite HN counterpoint every time locks and security come up) in another comment, but here is the heart of it here: But what about locks? You said locks before but locks aren’t that secure. The term “fitness for purpose” refers to a product or service that is not working as intended or expected. If you don’t sell a car with locks and claim you have a security system, no fault. But if you do and it doesn’t work, fault. Same for locks. Physical locks are not meant to make things impossible to get to. They just make it hard to get to. No amount of physical locks will ever make something 100% secure because even if they are unpickable, and there are some unpickable locks, physical things can be broken. The point of physical locks are that it takes the robber time and energy to get around them. If it takes more time and energy to do it most robbers will just go to the next location and hope there is less security. because of this most people just need convenient locks. Ones that do not take up a lot of space or time to open. It is only when we see extremely valuable things that the higher tech locks that take a lot of space/time/energy to work with. Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6c7bj5/e https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6c7bj5/e...

busterarm 3y ago

Theft doesn't happen because you have inadequate deterrence. It just makes you the target. Theft happens because somebody chooses to be a fucking thief. This isn't a problem that Kia/Hyundai has to deal with so much in their home market. It's a problem exclusive to large American cities. It's not Kia/Hyundai's fault that people in large American cities are fucking thieves in record numbers. The locks on your house are just as insecure as on these vehicles. Are we at fault when our homes are broken into? The US could also very easily do as Canada does and require electronic immobilizers on new vehicles. It does not. The problem here sounds entirely like it's down to Americans and their government. And I really don't understand what you're on about. Yes, criminals should be blamed for committing crimes. Your argument is akin to saying that if a robber snatches a woman's purse it's her fault for being a weak woman.

plagiarist 3y ago
> The locks on your house are just as insecure as on these vehicles. Are we at fault when our homes are broken into? My house cannot be opened in seconds with a USB cable https://www.axios.com/2022/08/27/kia-hyundai-thefts-stolen-usb-immobilizer-tiktok https://www.axios.com/2022/08/27/kia-hyundai-thefts-stolen-u... Nobody is blaming the woman here, they are blaming the purse manufacturer.
- busterarm 3y ago
  Your house can be opened in one second with a rock. It's called breaking a window. Most security is illusory. Or if they want to look legitimate, a small hammer and a bump key. As for the purse manufacturer comment, not only is that ludicrous but you missed the point.
  - plagiarist 3y ago
    The rock alerts the neighbors. Opportunistic thieves don't want that. People are more likely to steal a car if they can get in and go in seconds. I'm sorry your own analogy worked against you, try thinking a bit harder next time.

za3faran 3y ago

The question to ask is why are there so many thieves to begin with, always try to get to the root cause.

happytiger 3y ago
This is a deeply compelling argument. I imagine the fact that we’ve printed 3T dollars in debt in the last 90 days is a contributing factor.

trdtaylor1 3y ago

This is tough as at the heart is manufacturer / seller liability for use / misuse / abuse of the product they sold. For the locks analogue, most of the advertising for the common homebuilder and homeowner lock varieties are fabrications and lies; it's incredibly easy to get through common locks. In applying the analogue to cars, it works because Ford and Toyotas are harder to steal. But what is the liability in that? Does Kia actively market the safety, security and anti-theft portion of their car like the common lock manufactures do? No-- they do not. That's where your analogue falls apart, specific anti-theft claims (moreso than general "has anti-theft") are not there for Kias, they are there for 'locks'. There's numerous analogues for this that 'sorta' fit but with widely different outcomes. Is this like victims suing a dress manufacturer for dresses that make them more likely to suffer sexual harassment? Is this like a phone manufacture being sued by those who suffered malware/cyber attacks because they're brand of phones are targeted for vulnerabilities far more then other manufacturers are? The court of public opinion and the case itself is going to be filled with widely different assessments of what the base 'analogue' should be. This is going to settlement without established caselaw I think, as caselaw established on this would be just such a mess.

happytiger 3y ago
It doesn’t fall apart. I have a phone. It has a Lock Screen and advertising it can be locked. It is easily bypassed. Millions of phones are vulnerable. Manufacturer provides a patch that doesn’t work. Manufacturer fixed the problem on more recent phones with a physical hardware change but chooses not to fix the previously released phones, leaving customers stranded with no solution even though it’s readily available. Over time everyone is getting their phones targeting because thieves arr going after the phone knowing they can get at all the valuable data in addition to a working phone, and easily sell the parts in the phone that have now become scarce due to all the theft — a virtuous feedback loop created by the phone manufacturer. Manufacturer finally gets sued by a class action for failure it fix and settles the suite for two hundred million and offers 3-5000 per phone to every person affected, but without admitting ‘guilt.’ Users defend phone manufacturer: Defense: the Lock Screen isn’t needed in the safe country the phones are made in Reality: that’s ok, they weren’t sold there they were sold in the market that does have less safety and that was true when they were sold. Also, these products were so poorly designed they are 2/3 of all phone thefts and other manufacturers had no problem providing solutions to this problem and the manufacturer had ample time to do a fix and failed to perform a fix for customers. FAQ But what about locks? You said locks before but locks aren’t that secure. The term “fitness for purpose” refers to a product or service that is not working as intended or expected. If you don’t sell a car with locks and claim you have a security system, no fault. But if you do and it doesn’t work, fault. Same for locks. Physical locks are not meant to make things impossible to get to. They just make it hard to get to. No amount of physical locks will ever make something 100% secure because even if they are unpickable, and there are some unpickable locks, physical things can be broken. The point of physical locks are that it takes the robber time and energy to get around them. If it takes more time and energy to do it most robbers will just go to the next location and hope there is less security. because of this most people just need convenient locks. Ones that do not take up a lot of space or time to open. It is only when we see extremely valuable things that the higher tech locks that take a lot of space/time/energy to work with. Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6c7bj5/eli5_if_traditional_locks_are_easily_picked_why/ https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6c7bj5/e... That metaphor doesn’t work! Probably, because Lock Screen failure didn’t lead directly to 8 verifiable deaths (more now) and you can’t die from getting run over by a phone as they are not considered ‘deadly weapons’ like cars, but without the metaphor it’s actually much worse. Imagine a gun safe manufacturer whose locks could be easily bypassed, who knew it, and did nothing even while criminals stole guns and used them on shooting sprees. Probably better metaphor but it’s insensitive to people who are actually experiencing gun violence so I didn’t use it. Should they have provided a Lock Screen that worked? Yes. Is the root of the issue the fact that it had a feature that should have worked and didn’t? Yes, and that they provided a fix that didn’t work but claimed it would, and sold a defective product in the first place. Did they have ample occasion to recall and fix the issue permanently? Yes. Maybe that metaphor will work better, because there are two issues. One is that something was sold fit for purpose and wasn’t. Another is that the MFG failed to fix on multiple occasions and didn’t. Only after being sued did they eventually perform to a baseline standard. Yes, but the NHTSA could have issued a recall! “At this time, NHTSA has not determined that this issue constitutes either a safety defect or noncompliance requiring a recall,” wrote Cem Hatipoglu, NHTSA's acting associate director for enforcement, referring to the Hyundai and Kia vehicles susceptible to theft because they lack engine immobilizers.* In particular, Hatipoglu said, the federal standard for automotive safety does not require cars to come with immobilizers, the hardware at the center of the controversy that has put affected vehicle owners on edge.* Hatipoglu said the standard by which NHTSA would normally issue recalls “does not contemplate actions taken by criminal actors to break open or remove part of the steering column and take out the ignition lock to start a vehicle." In casual parlance, that's what's called hot-wiring a car.* The 18 attorneys general, led by Bonta, wrote to the agency in April asking that all vulnerable Hyundai and Kia vehicles manufactured from 2011 to 2022 be recalled and retrofitted with immobilizers to keep them from being stolen.* "Thefts of these Hyundai and Kia vehicles have led to at least eight deaths, numerous injuries and property damage, and they have diverted significant police and emergency services resources from other priorities," the attorneys general wrote. The only reason they didn’t issue a recall is that this particular technology is not required by code and the code does not the specific technology that almost all manufacturers are using address theft because up until KIA had this problems there was no need for them to because manufacturers didn’t have this problem. I’m sure code will get looked at in future iterations as the automotive standards slowly evolve. The root argument that holds water has been made by a couple of people on HN and that is that the US standards aren’t sufficient to address this problem and that is a totally valid argument. Fortunately we have a way to compel manufacturers to fix broken products that kill people: the court system, product defect and class action lawsuit. And they have already settled their first major lawsuit (just California, so only 1/9 of America is covered so far) in which they admit no guilt but will pay you thousands of dollars if it happens to you and you have a police report. I consider that an omission of guilt, but just lacking the legal admission, don’t you? It’s reasonable to argue against it, but when you choose to pay up instead of fight the accusations there is some degree of statement in that. The only real debate is whether this is a case if negligence or incompetence. Sources https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/hyundai-kia-campaign-prevent-vehicle-theft https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/hyundai-kia-campaign-pr... https://www.hbsslaw.com/hyundai-kia-usb-car-theft-defect/faq https://www.hbsslaw.com/hyundai-kia-usb-car-theft-defect/faq

philwelch 3y ago

The rate of car theft in South Korea is around 5 cases per 100,000 population (https://knoema.com/atlas/Republic-of-Korea/Private-car-theft-rate?mode=amp https://knoema.com/atlas/Republic-of-Korea/Private-car-theft...) The rate of car theft in the United States is over 200 (https://www.statista.com/statistics/191216/reported-motor-vehicle-theft-rate-in-the-us-since-1990/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/191216/reported-motor-ve...) Kia and Hyundai together have a large majority of the market share in South Korea: https://www.statista.com/statistics/805132/south-korea-leading-car-manufacturer-market-share/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/805132/south-korea-leadi...