4 ms·

This penalizes unaware pre-existing car owners. Not only they got a crappy car, they now have to pay more for it - all because the vendor was sloppy. Doesn’t se

This penalizes unaware pre-existing car owners. Not only they got a crappy car, they now have to pay more for it - all because the vendor was sloppy. Doesn’t seem fair to me. The responsible party should be the automaker that built or installed the security system, not the person who was sold a lie.

jonhohle 3y ago
Or, you know, the people _stealing_ cars. I feel like this is bizarro world where what was previously accepted as adequate deterrence is now penalized because actual criminals have fewer and fewer incentives to follow established normal behaviors. “Maybe your face shouldn’t have been so punchable” is not a reasonable position to take, imho. Flipper, lock picks, bolt cutters, etc. are all reasonable tools. So is the expectation that using them to commit a crime should result in penalty for the individual committing a crime using those tools, not the target of the crime they are committing.
- ceejayoz 3y ago
  Kia and Hyundai saved like $20/car by skimping on a part that all the other major manufacturers include by default, leading to cars that were insecure by design. That's negligent. Punishing people for taking advantage of that vulnerability is certainly warranted, but it's also closing the barn door after the horse has already bolted.
  - jonhohle 3y ago
    What harm did Kia cause its customer? How are those locks adequate in say, South Korea, where there are 1:20,000 car thefts per capita yearly vs 1:350 in the US. The locks are not the problem. Stealing cars is the problem.
    - ceejayoz 3y ago
      > What harm did Kia cause its customer? They sold a negligently defective product. > How are those locks adequate in say, South Korea... They aren't. If I write code with a SQL injection in it, it's bad code even if no one winds up attacking it.
    - HeyLaughingBoy 3y ago
      One of these problems is far easier to solve than the other.
    - EasyMark 3y ago
      I do agree that these crimes should hold stiff penalties like at least 5 years in prison, no possibility of parole, including 1st offense. Liberal city DAs have been shirking their responsibility for at least the past 15 years. It's usually a pretty small percentage of the population executing these types of crimes. No more revolving doors. If I owned a kia I'd add an after market shutoff. They're not that expensive, rather than crying over how awful my world is living in a first world nation with a brand new vehicle with a security fault.
  - sokoloff 3y ago
    In the context of this article (Canada focused), do the relevant Hyundais and Kias have the same security problem? https://www.ctvnews.ca/autos/kia-and-hyundai-vehicles-in-canada-not-affected-by-u-s-theft-issue-automakers-say-1.6252590 https://www.ctvnews.ca/autos/kia-and-hyundai-vehicles-in-can...
    - ceejayoz 3y ago
      I agree with the article; that regulating car manufacturers who make insecure cars is the correct approach. This specific case illustrates the effectiveness of the approach.
      - sokoloff 3y ago
        (I agree with the article as well.)
      - jonhohle 3y ago
        I read this view as: it’s fine to steal a car without an immobilizer. That’s an insane take (and why we can’t have nice things). Meanwhile other modern countries (albeit with much stricter law enforcement and a more unified value system) can operate with 0.1% of the equivalent crime and that’s not what we aspire to. Instead we want to blame the manufacturer who must have certainly enticed antisocial, destructive behavior. What an awful and poisonous worldview.
        sokoloff 3y ago
        It's worth noting that Hyundai and Kia actually ship different anti-theft technology in some of these other modern countries, because regulations in those other modern countries require it. The fact that the US doesn't require it (this article is about Canada, but other subthreads are talking about those manufacturers specifically). It seems entirely reasonable to take the article's point of view which is "don't ban FlipperZero just because it can be used to facilitate car theft [among 1000 other uses], but rather regulate cars so that they become harder to steal". Further, I realize you didn't put a ton of thought into the specific 0.1% figure, but I seriously doubt that other modern countries are 1000x better on equivalent crime measures than either the US or Canada. Even New Zealand, with quite strict gun laws, has a firearm death rate that is a little over 1/12th that of the US's: https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/gun-deaths-by-country https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/gun-death...
  - bombcar 3y ago
    It's very "both/and". Kia needs to fix their fuckup AND organized gangs need to be investigated and broken up.

jonhohle 3y ago

Or, you know, the people _stealing_ cars. I feel like this is bizarro world where what was previously accepted as adequate deterrence is now penalized because actual criminals have fewer and fewer incentives to follow established normal behaviors. “Maybe your face shouldn’t have been so punchable” is not a reasonable position to take, imho. Flipper, lock picks, bolt cutters, etc. are all reasonable tools. So is the expectation that using them to commit a crime should result in penalty for the individual committing a crime using those tools, not the target of the crime they are committing.

ceejayoz 3y ago
Kia and Hyundai saved like $20/car by skimping on a part that all the other major manufacturers include by default, leading to cars that were insecure by design. That's negligent. Punishing people for taking advantage of that vulnerability is certainly warranted, but it's also closing the barn door after the horse has already bolted.
- jonhohle 3y ago
  What harm did Kia cause its customer? How are those locks adequate in say, South Korea, where there are 1:20,000 car thefts per capita yearly vs 1:350 in the US. The locks are not the problem. Stealing cars is the problem.
  - ceejayoz 3y ago
    > What harm did Kia cause its customer? They sold a negligently defective product. > How are those locks adequate in say, South Korea... They aren't. If I write code with a SQL injection in it, it's bad code even if no one winds up attacking it.
  - HeyLaughingBoy 3y ago
    One of these problems is far easier to solve than the other.
  - EasyMark 3y ago
    I do agree that these crimes should hold stiff penalties like at least 5 years in prison, no possibility of parole, including 1st offense. Liberal city DAs have been shirking their responsibility for at least the past 15 years. It's usually a pretty small percentage of the population executing these types of crimes. No more revolving doors. If I owned a kia I'd add an after market shutoff. They're not that expensive, rather than crying over how awful my world is living in a first world nation with a brand new vehicle with a security fault.
- sokoloff 3y ago
  In the context of this article (Canada focused), do the relevant Hyundais and Kias have the same security problem? https://www.ctvnews.ca/autos/kia-and-hyundai-vehicles-in-canada-not-affected-by-u-s-theft-issue-automakers-say-1.6252590 https://www.ctvnews.ca/autos/kia-and-hyundai-vehicles-in-can...
  - ceejayoz 3y ago
    I agree with the article; that regulating car manufacturers who make insecure cars is the correct approach. This specific case illustrates the effectiveness of the approach.
    - sokoloff 3y ago
      (I agree with the article as well.)
    - jonhohle 3y ago
      I read this view as: it’s fine to steal a car without an immobilizer. That’s an insane take (and why we can’t have nice things). Meanwhile other modern countries (albeit with much stricter law enforcement and a more unified value system) can operate with 0.1% of the equivalent crime and that’s not what we aspire to. Instead we want to blame the manufacturer who must have certainly enticed antisocial, destructive behavior. What an awful and poisonous worldview.
      - sokoloff 3y ago
        It's worth noting that Hyundai and Kia actually ship different anti-theft technology in some of these other modern countries, because regulations in those other modern countries require it. The fact that the US doesn't require it (this article is about Canada, but other subthreads are talking about those manufacturers specifically). It seems entirely reasonable to take the article's point of view which is "don't ban FlipperZero just because it can be used to facilitate car theft [among 1000 other uses], but rather regulate cars so that they become harder to steal". Further, I realize you didn't put a ton of thought into the specific 0.1% figure, but I seriously doubt that other modern countries are 1000x better on equivalent crime measures than either the US or Canada. Even New Zealand, with quite strict gun laws, has a firearm death rate that is a little over 1/12th that of the US's: https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/gun-deaths-by-country https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/gun-death...
- bombcar 3y ago
  It's very "both/and". Kia needs to fix their fuckup AND organized gangs need to be investigated and broken up.