8 ms·

stupid on stupid. - it's incredibly stupid to ban the flipper zero because it's factually not even part of the problem - but it's equally stupid to "ban insec

by fargle 3y ago

stupid on stupid. - it's incredibly stupid to ban the flipper zero because it's factually not even part of the problem - but it's equally stupid to "ban insecure vehicles". if kia makes a cheap car with crappy locks either don't buy it (because maybe insurance) or add and aftermarket immobilizer or a steering wheel lock. if it was really negligent of kia to "save a couple bucks", then it's equally negligent on you for not spending a couple bucks. - i also cringe at the idea that we throw the word negligent around when talking about failing to prevent other peoples crimes. i'm not negligent for not doing enough to prevent the crimes of some other asshole. nor is kia. meanwhile, there's sibling threads here that point out that the us is far to hard on the criminals. so wait - kia and me and other law abiding entities are "negligent", but the asshole who stole the car deserves compasion, etc.? - it's stupid-on-stupid-on-stupid to sit here discussing the problem of car thefts, caused by lack of enforcement of the existing laws against it, and the proposed solutions is making more things illegal (and arguing about which things).

grubbs 3y ago
The last point is a hard one when the perpetrator is a 11 year old kid who watched a TikTok video online on how to steal a Kia/Hyundai.
- electriclove 3y ago
  Punish the kid’s parents.. (oh wait, there might be a problem here)
  - fargle 3y ago
    not hard at all. where is CPS? obviously someone isn't giving an 11 year-old appropriate supervision at all if they are driving, let alone stealing a car. there absolutely should be consequences for both the parents and the child in this situation. i'm not saying one mistake, send the kid to prison, take away parental rights. but it should be severe enough to matter, including several thousand dollars restitution.
    - Dylan16807 3y ago
      Thanks for your contribution to the total destruction of outside roaming and play for children. It is perfectly fine to let an 11 year old walk a couple blocks unsupervised. And if they steal a car at that point, it is not a supervision problem.
      - fargle 3y ago
        dude, i am 100% all for free-range-children. but, somehow, i manage to ensure that none of them are stealing cars at 11 "it is not a supervision problem" hmm. maybe i should have said "parenting issue"... look, i am blessed to have had good kids. but i have had friends with struggles. if i had a kid that somehow stole a car (at 11) and i had to pay for repairs and meet with CPS and deal with courts and fines and maybe even juve and a lost year of school, we'd get through it.
foxyv 3y ago
The problem occurs when a vendor makes claims that are false or fails to disclose known issues. I don't think either insecure cars or security tools should be banned. However, I think disclosures should absolutely be made.
rmauge 3y ago
Ignoring the strawman of an assailant deserving compassion or not, that’s a self serving and narrow definition of negligence. Any mechanism to protect from misuse has to weighed against the magnitude harm of the event occurring and the possibility of misuse. I would not expect my asset manager to have weak authentication systems to access my portfolio but don’t expect any at all from a free online game. I expect both of these to consider the threats and make reasonable choices. And they would be negligent if they did not do this exercise. Whether is an active threat or a passive act of god.
creaturemachine 3y ago
Tik-Tok-inspired Kia thefts weren't a problem in Canada because they've required immobilizers since 2007, something Kia skimped on for the US market.
- alexb_ 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - eptcyka 3y ago
    Nominally, you are correct, but if we can collectively make decisions that decrease the risk of theft, is it not immoral bot to take action?
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
  - franga2000 3y ago
    The manufacturer is not the victim here, the buyer is. If I pay a contractor to install a new door and lock on my apartment and it turns out they did a terrible job which made it trivial for a thief to break in, the contractor should be liable. Crime exists, this is the world we live in. Failing to implement even the most basic security measure, which is considered industry standard, in a high-value product that is known to be very attractive to thieves and then selling that product to consumers with no warning that "unlike most other cars on the market, which have many layers of security features, this car can be stolen using a cheap toy" makes the inevitable thefts absolutely Kia's fault. It's not like people are saying the thieves did nothing wrong, both sides are at fault: the thieves stole people's cars to enrich themselves and Kia secretly omitted a basic security feature which in turn enabled thousands of fully predictable and preventable thefts from their customers, again, to enrich themselves.
    - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
      > Failing to implement even the most basic security measure, which is considered industry standard, in a high-value product that is known to be very attractive to thieves and then selling that product to consumers with no warning that "unlike most other cars on the market, which have many layers of security features, this car can be stolen using a cheap toy" makes the inevitable thefts absolutely Kia's fault. I don't think this logic works. If you buy a classic vehicle, they don't have these kinds of things either. People make replicas that likewise don't. And there is no clear line here. Basically any car can be stolen by, if nothing else, replacing the car's computer with one that accepts the thief's key. Meanwhile a car is a large purchase where people can reasonably be expected to do some research. If you're about to buy a car you should read some reviews, and the reviewers should tell you if their security is bad. Then you know and can make your decision. People who learn of this may want to buy a different car, or take some other countermeasures if they buy this one. Kia doesn't have any kind of a monopoly in this market. There are many other carmakers. Maybe you don't care that their security is bad because you always park your car in a garage. Maybe you like the discount you got because other buyers wanted a car with better security. Why does it have to be illegal, instead of letting the market sort it out in the presence of actual competition?
whycome 3y ago
Let's say a hardware exploit for iPhones becomes obvious and is spread through social media. Something absurd like "attaching a shorted iphone cable". Are you going to be the first to buy an add-on lock or immobilizer? And everyone should also have to purchase an add-on?
- sonicanatidae 3y ago
  >And everyone should also have to purchase an add-on? Yes! -Apple
  - badgersnake 3y ago
    When the iPhone 4 came out and antennagate happened, they gave everyone a plastic case for free.
    - ddalex 3y ago
      I thought that they teached people to hold it right
      - sonicanatidae 3y ago
        It was a feature! https://osxdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/iphone-4-antenna-decal.jpg https://osxdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/iphone-4-ant...
    - sonicanatidae 3y ago
      They gave everyone a plastic case for free, after the world went nuts over just how stupid that issue was. Let's not paint Apple with an altruistic brush.
      - badgersnake 3y ago
        Of course they’re not altruistic, it was a damage limitation PR exercise. The point was that the didn’t, as you suggested they would, charge people on this occasion.
rale00 3y ago
> if kia makes a cheap car with crappy locks either don't buy it Immobilizers were a standard feature on cars for decades. If you went to buy a car, no one was putting immobilizer on the list of features, and they certainly wouldn't let you try breaking the ignition lock on a test drive. If they had advertised that their vehicles were insecure, then sure, it's on the buyer, but they didn't.
- philistine 3y ago
  The problem with Kia cars not having immobilizers is wholly american. It is illegal to sell a car in Canada without an immobilizer.
  - fargle 3y ago
    funny thing is the part where this article is about a canadian car theft epidemic...
- FerretFred 3y ago
  How about Jaguar Land Rover making expensive cars with allegedly crappy locks? https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/range-rover-owners-struggling-car-31472415 https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/range-rover-owners-str...
- fargle 3y ago
  it'd be bad to advertise that they have in immobilizer or anti-theft when providing either nothing or a badly broken implementation (like you often see in IOT). it's not negligence to simply not provide a feature they didn't promise to provide and weren't required to (in the US). it is simply not their responsibility in any way to ensure your car's safety from theft. if you assumed it was and that they provided a feature you wanted because everybody else usually does, then the negligent party would be you for not RTFM. except that's wrong here too. nobody is negligent here. you do not have a social responsibility to have an immobilizer on your car to prevent it from being stolen. and neither does the manufacturer. having it locked is plenty to legally make it "breaking-and-entering". and even if you leave the keys in the car and the engine running, it's still grand theft and your insurance will indeed pay out, which they would not do if they could claim negligence. the criminals are 100% at fault here. and bad things can happen without someone being negligent. arguing about anything beyond that is just a fight about how good that anti-theft system has to be. are you negligent if you don't have an armed guard on your car?
jjav 3y ago
Indeed, it is dumb to ban anything. A tool is a tool, it doesn't make the product weak, it already was. Also it is silly to ban insecure cars, that's quite the slippery slope. If the cars are too easy to steal insurance will increase accordingly and that will provide incentives to fix that without banning anything.
- WWLink 3y ago
  Hrmm I wonder what would happen if I made a bank that used an unencrypted website for online banking lol. The problem with your solution here where the insurance company raises rates... yea they already did that with regards to Kia/Hyundai cars and Kia Boyz thefts. The problem is, well, put it this way... The last time you bought a car, did you check that the car had immobilizer software/hardware present on it? They don't really advertise that stuff anymore. About the only way you'd know on some brands is a nondescript red dot that shows up for a moment when you start the ignition. Really, I'd bet a lot of people only found out their car didn't have an immobilizer feature until their insurance company dropped them or jacked their rates up... and that's a problem. See, you can buy a car NOW, and everyone thinks it's a good safe car.. until it turns out it wasn't.
- fargle 3y ago
  > If the cars are too easy to steal insurance will increase accordingly that's exactly right. i was somewhat surprised that insurance was outright dropping people instead of simply increasing rates. and by the way, you can get a discount if you add x/y/z security alarm/immobilizer. the public outcry already has forced the issue with kia anyhow.
joe_the_user 3y ago
Sure "don't ban anything", if your car crashes and kills you, "should have read Consumers' Reports". Those botulism eggs? Keep an eye things, damn it. /s This ill-informed attitude goes over well here unfortunately. And security may not be quite as pressing safety but poor security cost society besides costing the individual. When poor workers can't get to work 'cause stolen car, their bosses also suffer, when stolen cars are used in further you also get a social cost. etc.
- the_optimist 3y ago
  You provide no structural basis or reasoning for these cynical assertions, nor for the implied responses. Seems to be founded on a philosophical foundation of individuals requiring safety from “elsewhere,” and assuming that “elsewhere” actually provides it.
ClumsyPilot 3y ago
> i'm not negligent for not doing enough to prevent the crimes of some other asshole. If you entire job is selling locks and they don’t prevent crime, then it’s not negligent, it’s fraudulent. You want to be in the clear? Sell a car without a lock, see how many people buy that. > if kia makes a cheap car with crappy locks either don't buy it And if Boeing makes a cheap, unsafe plane, don’t fly on it I would be happy to run this experiment if lying to a customer about safety/properties of your product led to capital punishment. But currently companies will simply defraud you by lying about their product, and suffer no consequence
- gridspy 3y ago
  > If you entire job is selling locks and they don’t prevent crime Does MasterLock making famously easy to pick / rake locks count? I'm sure they reduce crime compared to no lock but they are not as secure as the customer expects. https://www.art-of-lockpicking.com/how-to-pick-a-master-lock/ https://www.art-of-lockpicking.com/how-to-pick-a-master-lock...
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- fargle 3y ago
  > And if Boeing makes a cheap, unsafe plane, don’t fly on it yes. exactly. if boeing ever makes a cheap plane, i would definitely avoid it. you are comparing a company that cheated on legally mandated safety requirements with a company that didn't put a non-legally required car immobilizer on a lot of their new cars. and then didn't lie about it. > But currently companies will simply defraud you but kia didn't do this
  - ClumsyPilot 3y ago
    > if boeing ever makes a cheap plane, i would definitely avoid it You wouldn’t even know that airline is putting you on such a plane
    - fargle 3y ago
paganel 3y ago
Nobody is mentioning about how this is a social problem with the US that needs fixing, for example I often times forget to lock my car's doors in the Eastern European capital where I'm living and yet I've never had anyone "steal" stuff from it. But I get it, it's easier to think about applying technological or even legal solutions instead of thinking about how to fix a societal problem.
- electriclove 3y ago
  Yup, and you get downvoted for even trying to discuss it. Need the Overton window to shift slightly so it can be discussed on HN. It is a societal problem and I hope for our future we can fix it.
vsuperpower2020 3y ago
Nobody knows a vehicle is insecure when they buy it. It's simpler, more cost efficient, and more valuable to society just to require cars to have basic security features. Your idea of market correction doesn't work in this case, because it's never advertised as having shitty security, and the average (or even informed) consumer will have no idea this is a problem until after they've bought the car.
- the_optimist 3y ago
  Should other physical objects also be subject to this same regulation? What about bitcoins? Your proposed response is unsuccessful as policy reasoning.
  - vsuperpower2020 3y ago
    My proposed response has been making cars safer and more reliable for years. I don't care if it applies to bitcoin or not, we're talking about cars. Next!
  - Retric 3y ago
    The ability to leave your car in a public space while shopping is a major part of their utility. Cars are therefore common, left in the open, and valuable, but not particularly portable without being turned on. Jewelry, TV’s, bitcoin wallets etc aren’t just left in the open. Your house, front lawn etc is valuable and accessible but not generally mobile.
  - dlgeek 3y ago
    Yes, and they generally are. In almost all states, sellers have to ensure that the things they sell are "fit for purpose". It's reasonable for us to ensure that they meet the basic requirements of being whatever they are - and for cars, part of their basic purpose is to sit in insecure areas and ensure only authorized users can operate them.
- phpisthebest 3y ago
  In the age of information ignorance is no longer an option, Before I buy a car, most often the second largest purchase a person will make in their life next to housing. I do i TON of research, I look at insurance rates, I look at Theft Rates for that model, I look on Car Complaints and other Database for common failure items for that model, I have it inspected by a independent mechanic having them pay extra attention to the common failure items. etc If you just roll in and let the salesman take you for a ride then you deserve the outcome.
bhickey 3y ago
> if it was really negligent of kia to "save a couple bucks", then it's equally negligent on you for not spending a couple bucks. if kids didn't want lead in their apple sauce they'd start their own testing labs.
- from-nibly 3y ago
  Good thing the government has those testing labs and prevented that from ever happening.
devmor 3y ago
Do you believe that consumer protections should not exist?
- fargle 3y ago
  yes, almost. for example, if a company made a car alarm called "SUPER EXTRA SECURE ELITE++ V5" and told me it had a "guaranteed thief proof" immobilizer. but then we find that a viral Tik Tok video shows how to with a hairpin and spit we can completely disable it and in 5 seconds and take the car for a drive and access the owners credit card info. and then also the car often bursts into flames while parked and turned off. and we of course find out that this was no "oops" and the corporations involved full-well knew about these issues and hid them to get a bonus. well, that'd certainly be a job for consumer protection laws. but this is a case of "you got what you paid for". there's a place in the market for crank-up windows and basic plain cars without keyfobs and fancy alarms. that isn't wrong, and it definitely isn't "negligence" just because other carmakers pick different places in the market. and the fact that criminals do bad things doesn't change that. and, thank you very much, i don't need consumer protection against that kind of thing. let's start with the lying and cheating corps and work our way up to collusion and price fixing. then let's get onto repair...
  - Dylan16807 3y ago
    Fobs are very cheap. There is no reason to want cars without them.
    - fargle 3y ago
      none of your business what i want, honestly whether or not it makes sense to you
      - Dylan16807 3y ago
        Did I imply what you want is my business? Though your other comments make it sound like you don't want a car without an immobilizer, in which case it feels like you're manufacturing something to disagree with rather than making a real argument against what I said.
sevagh 3y ago
>- i also cringe at the idea that we throw the word negligent around when talking about failing to prevent other peoples crimes. i'm not negligent for not doing enough to prevent the crimes of some other asshole. nor is kia. meanwhile, there's sibling threads here that point out that the us is far to hard on the criminals. so wait - kia and me and other law abiding entities are "negligent", but the asshole who stole the car deserves compasion, etc.? It's pretty simple: if some car manufacturers have much higher rates of theft and are easier to steal than others, they are negligent. If by catching up to industry-standard anti-theft practices, their cars become harder to steal, not doing so is negligent.

by fargle 3y ago

grubbs 3y ago

The last point is a hard one when the perpetrator is a 11 year old kid who watched a TikTok video online on how to steal a Kia/Hyundai.

electriclove 3y ago
Punish the kid’s parents.. (oh wait, there might be a problem here)
- fargle 3y ago
  not hard at all. where is CPS? obviously someone isn't giving an 11 year-old appropriate supervision at all if they are driving, let alone stealing a car. there absolutely should be consequences for both the parents and the child in this situation. i'm not saying one mistake, send the kid to prison, take away parental rights. but it should be severe enough to matter, including several thousand dollars restitution.
  - Dylan16807 3y ago
    Thanks for your contribution to the total destruction of outside roaming and play for children. It is perfectly fine to let an 11 year old walk a couple blocks unsupervised. And if they steal a car at that point, it is not a supervision problem.
    - fargle 3y ago
      dude, i am 100% all for free-range-children. but, somehow, i manage to ensure that none of them are stealing cars at 11 "it is not a supervision problem" hmm. maybe i should have said "parenting issue"... look, i am blessed to have had good kids. but i have had friends with struggles. if i had a kid that somehow stole a car (at 11) and i had to pay for repairs and meet with CPS and deal with courts and fines and maybe even juve and a lost year of school, we'd get through it.

foxyv 3y ago

The problem occurs when a vendor makes claims that are false or fails to disclose known issues. I don't think either insecure cars or security tools should be banned. However, I think disclosures should absolutely be made.

rmauge 3y ago

Ignoring the strawman of an assailant deserving compassion or not, that’s a self serving and narrow definition of negligence. Any mechanism to protect from misuse has to weighed against the magnitude harm of the event occurring and the possibility of misuse. I would not expect my asset manager to have weak authentication systems to access my portfolio but don’t expect any at all from a free online game. I expect both of these to consider the threats and make reasonable choices. And they would be negligent if they did not do this exercise. Whether is an active threat or a passive act of god.

creaturemachine 3y ago

Tik-Tok-inspired Kia thefts weren't a problem in Canada because they've required immobilizers since 2007, something Kia skimped on for the US market.

alexb_ 3y ago
[flagged]
- eptcyka 3y ago
  Nominally, you are correct, but if we can collectively make decisions that decrease the risk of theft, is it not immoral bot to take action?
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- franga2000 3y ago
  The manufacturer is not the victim here, the buyer is. If I pay a contractor to install a new door and lock on my apartment and it turns out they did a terrible job which made it trivial for a thief to break in, the contractor should be liable. Crime exists, this is the world we live in. Failing to implement even the most basic security measure, which is considered industry standard, in a high-value product that is known to be very attractive to thieves and then selling that product to consumers with no warning that "unlike most other cars on the market, which have many layers of security features, this car can be stolen using a cheap toy" makes the inevitable thefts absolutely Kia's fault. It's not like people are saying the thieves did nothing wrong, both sides are at fault: the thieves stole people's cars to enrich themselves and Kia secretly omitted a basic security feature which in turn enabled thousands of fully predictable and preventable thefts from their customers, again, to enrich themselves.
  - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
    > Failing to implement even the most basic security measure, which is considered industry standard, in a high-value product that is known to be very attractive to thieves and then selling that product to consumers with no warning that "unlike most other cars on the market, which have many layers of security features, this car can be stolen using a cheap toy" makes the inevitable thefts absolutely Kia's fault. I don't think this logic works. If you buy a classic vehicle, they don't have these kinds of things either. People make replicas that likewise don't. And there is no clear line here. Basically any car can be stolen by, if nothing else, replacing the car's computer with one that accepts the thief's key. Meanwhile a car is a large purchase where people can reasonably be expected to do some research. If you're about to buy a car you should read some reviews, and the reviewers should tell you if their security is bad. Then you know and can make your decision. People who learn of this may want to buy a different car, or take some other countermeasures if they buy this one. Kia doesn't have any kind of a monopoly in this market. There are many other carmakers. Maybe you don't care that their security is bad because you always park your car in a garage. Maybe you like the discount you got because other buyers wanted a car with better security. Why does it have to be illegal, instead of letting the market sort it out in the presence of actual competition?

whycome 3y ago

Let's say a hardware exploit for iPhones becomes obvious and is spread through social media. Something absurd like "attaching a shorted iphone cable". Are you going to be the first to buy an add-on lock or immobilizer? And everyone should also have to purchase an add-on?

sonicanatidae 3y ago
>And everyone should also have to purchase an add-on? Yes! -Apple
- badgersnake 3y ago
  When the iPhone 4 came out and antennagate happened, they gave everyone a plastic case for free.
  - ddalex 3y ago
    I thought that they teached people to hold it right
    - sonicanatidae 3y ago
      It was a feature! https://osxdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/iphone-4-antenna-decal.jpg https://osxdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/iphone-4-ant...
  - sonicanatidae 3y ago
    They gave everyone a plastic case for free, after the world went nuts over just how stupid that issue was. Let's not paint Apple with an altruistic brush.
    - badgersnake 3y ago
      Of course they’re not altruistic, it was a damage limitation PR exercise. The point was that the didn’t, as you suggested they would, charge people on this occasion.

rale00 3y ago

> if kia makes a cheap car with crappy locks either don't buy it Immobilizers were a standard feature on cars for decades. If you went to buy a car, no one was putting immobilizer on the list of features, and they certainly wouldn't let you try breaking the ignition lock on a test drive. If they had advertised that their vehicles were insecure, then sure, it's on the buyer, but they didn't.

philistine 3y ago
The problem with Kia cars not having immobilizers is wholly american. It is illegal to sell a car in Canada without an immobilizer.
- fargle 3y ago
  funny thing is the part where this article is about a canadian car theft epidemic...
FerretFred 3y ago
How about Jaguar Land Rover making expensive cars with allegedly crappy locks? https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/range-rover-owners-struggling-car-31472415 https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/range-rover-owners-str...
fargle 3y ago
it'd be bad to advertise that they have in immobilizer or anti-theft when providing either nothing or a badly broken implementation (like you often see in IOT). it's not negligence to simply not provide a feature they didn't promise to provide and weren't required to (in the US). it is simply not their responsibility in any way to ensure your car's safety from theft. if you assumed it was and that they provided a feature you wanted because everybody else usually does, then the negligent party would be you for not RTFM. except that's wrong here too. nobody is negligent here. you do not have a social responsibility to have an immobilizer on your car to prevent it from being stolen. and neither does the manufacturer. having it locked is plenty to legally make it "breaking-and-entering". and even if you leave the keys in the car and the engine running, it's still grand theft and your insurance will indeed pay out, which they would not do if they could claim negligence. the criminals are 100% at fault here. and bad things can happen without someone being negligent. arguing about anything beyond that is just a fight about how good that anti-theft system has to be. are you negligent if you don't have an armed guard on your car?

jjav 3y ago

Indeed, it is dumb to ban anything. A tool is a tool, it doesn't make the product weak, it already was. Also it is silly to ban insecure cars, that's quite the slippery slope. If the cars are too easy to steal insurance will increase accordingly and that will provide incentives to fix that without banning anything.

WWLink 3y ago
Hrmm I wonder what would happen if I made a bank that used an unencrypted website for online banking lol. The problem with your solution here where the insurance company raises rates... yea they already did that with regards to Kia/Hyundai cars and Kia Boyz thefts. The problem is, well, put it this way... The last time you bought a car, did you check that the car had immobilizer software/hardware present on it? They don't really advertise that stuff anymore. About the only way you'd know on some brands is a nondescript red dot that shows up for a moment when you start the ignition. Really, I'd bet a lot of people only found out their car didn't have an immobilizer feature until their insurance company dropped them or jacked their rates up... and that's a problem. See, you can buy a car NOW, and everyone thinks it's a good safe car.. until it turns out it wasn't.
fargle 3y ago
> If the cars are too easy to steal insurance will increase accordingly that's exactly right. i was somewhat surprised that insurance was outright dropping people instead of simply increasing rates. and by the way, you can get a discount if you add x/y/z security alarm/immobilizer. the public outcry already has forced the issue with kia anyhow.

joe_the_user 3y ago

Sure "don't ban anything", if your car crashes and kills you, "should have read Consumers' Reports". Those botulism eggs? Keep an eye things, damn it. /s This ill-informed attitude goes over well here unfortunately. And security may not be quite as pressing safety but poor security cost society besides costing the individual. When poor workers can't get to work 'cause stolen car, their bosses also suffer, when stolen cars are used in further you also get a social cost. etc.

the_optimist 3y ago
You provide no structural basis or reasoning for these cynical assertions, nor for the implied responses. Seems to be founded on a philosophical foundation of individuals requiring safety from “elsewhere,” and assuming that “elsewhere” actually provides it.

ClumsyPilot 3y ago

> i'm not negligent for not doing enough to prevent the crimes of some other asshole. If you entire job is selling locks and they don’t prevent crime, then it’s not negligent, it’s fraudulent. You want to be in the clear? Sell a car without a lock, see how many people buy that. > if kia makes a cheap car with crappy locks either don't buy it And if Boeing makes a cheap, unsafe plane, don’t fly on it I would be happy to run this experiment if lying to a customer about safety/properties of your product led to capital punishment. But currently companies will simply defraud you by lying about their product, and suffer no consequence

gridspy 3y ago
> If you entire job is selling locks and they don’t prevent crime Does MasterLock making famously easy to pick / rake locks count? I'm sure they reduce crime compared to no lock but they are not as secure as the customer expects. https://www.art-of-lockpicking.com/how-to-pick-a-master-lock/ https://www.art-of-lockpicking.com/how-to-pick-a-master-lock...
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
fargle 3y ago
> And if Boeing makes a cheap, unsafe plane, don’t fly on it yes. exactly. if boeing ever makes a cheap plane, i would definitely avoid it. you are comparing a company that cheated on legally mandated safety requirements with a company that didn't put a non-legally required car immobilizer on a lot of their new cars. and then didn't lie about it. > But currently companies will simply defraud you but kia didn't do this
- ClumsyPilot 3y ago
  > if boeing ever makes a cheap plane, i would definitely avoid it You wouldn’t even know that airline is putting you on such a plane
  - fargle 3y ago

paganel 3y ago

Nobody is mentioning about how this is a social problem with the US that needs fixing, for example I often times forget to lock my car's doors in the Eastern European capital where I'm living and yet I've never had anyone "steal" stuff from it. But I get it, it's easier to think about applying technological or even legal solutions instead of thinking about how to fix a societal problem.

electriclove 3y ago
Yup, and you get downvoted for even trying to discuss it. Need the Overton window to shift slightly so it can be discussed on HN. It is a societal problem and I hope for our future we can fix it.

vsuperpower2020 3y ago

Nobody knows a vehicle is insecure when they buy it. It's simpler, more cost efficient, and more valuable to society just to require cars to have basic security features. Your idea of market correction doesn't work in this case, because it's never advertised as having shitty security, and the average (or even informed) consumer will have no idea this is a problem until after they've bought the car.

the_optimist 3y ago
Should other physical objects also be subject to this same regulation? What about bitcoins? Your proposed response is unsuccessful as policy reasoning.
- vsuperpower2020 3y ago
  My proposed response has been making cars safer and more reliable for years. I don't care if it applies to bitcoin or not, we're talking about cars. Next!
- Retric 3y ago
  The ability to leave your car in a public space while shopping is a major part of their utility. Cars are therefore common, left in the open, and valuable, but not particularly portable without being turned on. Jewelry, TV’s, bitcoin wallets etc aren’t just left in the open. Your house, front lawn etc is valuable and accessible but not generally mobile.
- dlgeek 3y ago
  Yes, and they generally are. In almost all states, sellers have to ensure that the things they sell are "fit for purpose". It's reasonable for us to ensure that they meet the basic requirements of being whatever they are - and for cars, part of their basic purpose is to sit in insecure areas and ensure only authorized users can operate them.
phpisthebest 3y ago
In the age of information ignorance is no longer an option, Before I buy a car, most often the second largest purchase a person will make in their life next to housing. I do i TON of research, I look at insurance rates, I look at Theft Rates for that model, I look on Car Complaints and other Database for common failure items for that model, I have it inspected by a independent mechanic having them pay extra attention to the common failure items. etc If you just roll in and let the salesman take you for a ride then you deserve the outcome.

bhickey 3y ago

> if it was really negligent of kia to "save a couple bucks", then it's equally negligent on you for not spending a couple bucks. if kids didn't want lead in their apple sauce they'd start their own testing labs.

from-nibly 3y ago
Good thing the government has those testing labs and prevented that from ever happening.

devmor 3y ago

Do you believe that consumer protections should not exist?

fargle 3y ago
yes, almost. for example, if a company made a car alarm called "SUPER EXTRA SECURE ELITE++ V5" and told me it had a "guaranteed thief proof" immobilizer. but then we find that a viral Tik Tok video shows how to with a hairpin and spit we can completely disable it and in 5 seconds and take the car for a drive and access the owners credit card info. and then also the car often bursts into flames while parked and turned off. and we of course find out that this was no "oops" and the corporations involved full-well knew about these issues and hid them to get a bonus. well, that'd certainly be a job for consumer protection laws. but this is a case of "you got what you paid for". there's a place in the market for crank-up windows and basic plain cars without keyfobs and fancy alarms. that isn't wrong, and it definitely isn't "negligence" just because other carmakers pick different places in the market. and the fact that criminals do bad things doesn't change that. and, thank you very much, i don't need consumer protection against that kind of thing. let's start with the lying and cheating corps and work our way up to collusion and price fixing. then let's get onto repair...
- Dylan16807 3y ago
  Fobs are very cheap. There is no reason to want cars without them.
  - fargle 3y ago
    none of your business what i want, honestly whether or not it makes sense to you
    - Dylan16807 3y ago
      Did I imply what you want is my business? Though your other comments make it sound like you don't want a car without an immobilizer, in which case it feels like you're manufacturing something to disagree with rather than making a real argument against what I said.

sevagh 3y ago

>- i also cringe at the idea that we throw the word negligent around when talking about failing to prevent other peoples crimes. i'm not negligent for not doing enough to prevent the crimes of some other asshole. nor is kia. meanwhile, there's sibling threads here that point out that the us is far to hard on the criminals. so wait - kia and me and other law abiding entities are "negligent", but the asshole who stole the car deserves compasion, etc.? It's pretty simple: if some car manufacturers have much higher rates of theft and are easier to steal than others, they are negligent. If by catching up to industry-standard anti-theft practices, their cars become harder to steal, not doing so is negligent.