14 ms·

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

by 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?
- filoleg 3y ago
  > If you buy a classic vehicle, they don't have these kinds of things either Not a good analogy, because buying a classic vehicle automatically waives a bunch of safety and other features that are not only expected in modern day, they are straight up legally required. A car manufacturer cannot remake a classic vehicle from the 80s and release it in the US in 2024. Or, probably, EU too, I cannot speak for that due to my unfamiliarity with vehicle laws there, but afaik they are more strict than the US. It would be just illegal to sell that car. Thin pillars that won’t pass any modern safety tests, no backup camera (which makes it illegal to sell as a new car in the US), not enoug crumple zones, etc.
  - eep_social 3y ago
    The standard dodge in the US is to sell “kit cars” which require the buyer to do a bunch of paperwork to get a VIN. I don’t think they can be sold ready-to-drive but I think there are dodges there too (owner tightens last bolt style). The details vary by state. Looking for details, I found that there have also been recent changes to ease requirements for small-batch (< 325/year) turn-key replica manufacturers.
  - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
    Those are explicit regulatory requirements and not just "well a lot of cars have this and I didn't bother to check" as in this case. And if you were going to do that in this case, the thing to require is the ability for third parties to fix the manufacturer's software mistakes. Otherwise the carmaker goes out of business, as happens from time to time when they don't make a decent product, and then you can't go to them to fix something like this when it subsequently comes out even though their cars will be on the road for many more years. Whereas if anybody could patch the code in their own car, you wouldn't have this situation where Kia ignores the issue, because third parties would have done it already, the same whether they're incompetent as bankrupt.
- franga2000 3y ago
  This all assumes the "perfect information, even playing field" theory that capitalists love to use but is completely unrealistic. Reviews rarely talk about things like this, this information is not explicitly given to reviewers or customers and neither can be expected to find out on their own (i.e. by trying to hack the car themselves), the car manufacturer spends insane amounts of money advertising to the buyer using every psychological trick in the book, the buyer is often under time pressure, the savings from cost-cutting are rarely passed down to the consumer... Buying things in the current market landscape is a battle, not an optimization problem.
electriclove 3y ago
But people ARE saying the thieves are not at fault.. “it’s just kids”, “we don’t want to put them in jail because that would ruin their future”, “they can’t pay a fine anyway so there is no point in going after them”
- EasyMark 3y ago
  No one is saying that, there are multiple contributors to the problem here, sure the thieves own the bulk of it, but manufacturers could fix the issue or offer a solution like a cheap install of an immobilizer.
  - electriclove 3y ago
    In my left leaning workplace in my left leaning state, most colleagues do not want to assign the thieves any blame or have them face any consequences. These colleagues only want to blame and penalize the manufacturers. I think the manufacturer should fix things so they are more in line with other manufacturers. But I also want to see some repercussions for the thieves.
    - electriclove 3y ago
      Can the downvoters explain why they disagree with: "I think the manufacturer should fix things so they are more in line with other manufacturers. But I also want to see some repercussions for the thieves."
      - Dylan16807 3y ago
        That's obviously not the sentence people are disagreeing with. There is no way your colleagues want the thieves to not face any consequences. It's a completely different thing to not trust the justice system to give an appropriate consequence.
        electriclove 3y ago
        My colleagues never call out the thieves or call for consequences. They skirt that issue and focus their rhetoric on the big, bad companies or blame the victim (eg should have locked his bike, should have taken valuables out of the car, etc)

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?

filoleg 3y ago
> If you buy a classic vehicle, they don't have these kinds of things either Not a good analogy, because buying a classic vehicle automatically waives a bunch of safety and other features that are not only expected in modern day, they are straight up legally required. A car manufacturer cannot remake a classic vehicle from the 80s and release it in the US in 2024. Or, probably, EU too, I cannot speak for that due to my unfamiliarity with vehicle laws there, but afaik they are more strict than the US. It would be just illegal to sell that car. Thin pillars that won’t pass any modern safety tests, no backup camera (which makes it illegal to sell as a new car in the US), not enoug crumple zones, etc.
- eep_social 3y ago
  The standard dodge in the US is to sell “kit cars” which require the buyer to do a bunch of paperwork to get a VIN. I don’t think they can be sold ready-to-drive but I think there are dodges there too (owner tightens last bolt style). The details vary by state. Looking for details, I found that there have also been recent changes to ease requirements for small-batch (< 325/year) turn-key replica manufacturers.
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago
  Those are explicit regulatory requirements and not just "well a lot of cars have this and I didn't bother to check" as in this case. And if you were going to do that in this case, the thing to require is the ability for third parties to fix the manufacturer's software mistakes. Otherwise the carmaker goes out of business, as happens from time to time when they don't make a decent product, and then you can't go to them to fix something like this when it subsequently comes out even though their cars will be on the road for many more years. Whereas if anybody could patch the code in their own car, you wouldn't have this situation where Kia ignores the issue, because third parties would have done it already, the same whether they're incompetent as bankrupt.
franga2000 3y ago
This all assumes the "perfect information, even playing field" theory that capitalists love to use but is completely unrealistic. Reviews rarely talk about things like this, this information is not explicitly given to reviewers or customers and neither can be expected to find out on their own (i.e. by trying to hack the car themselves), the car manufacturer spends insane amounts of money advertising to the buyer using every psychological trick in the book, the buyer is often under time pressure, the savings from cost-cutting are rarely passed down to the consumer... Buying things in the current market landscape is a battle, not an optimization problem.

electriclove 3y ago

But people ARE saying the thieves are not at fault.. “it’s just kids”, “we don’t want to put them in jail because that would ruin their future”, “they can’t pay a fine anyway so there is no point in going after them”

EasyMark 3y ago
No one is saying that, there are multiple contributors to the problem here, sure the thieves own the bulk of it, but manufacturers could fix the issue or offer a solution like a cheap install of an immobilizer.
- electriclove 3y ago
  In my left leaning workplace in my left leaning state, most colleagues do not want to assign the thieves any blame or have them face any consequences. These colleagues only want to blame and penalize the manufacturers. I think the manufacturer should fix things so they are more in line with other manufacturers. But I also want to see some repercussions for the thieves.
  - electriclove 3y ago
    Can the downvoters explain why they disagree with: "I think the manufacturer should fix things so they are more in line with other manufacturers. But I also want to see some repercussions for the thieves."
    - Dylan16807 3y ago
      That's obviously not the sentence people are disagreeing with. There is no way your colleagues want the thieves to not face any consequences. It's a completely different thing to not trust the justice system to give an appropriate consequence.
      - electriclove 3y ago
        My colleagues never call out the thieves or call for consequences. They skirt that issue and focus their rhetoric on the big, bad companies or blame the victim (eg should have locked his bike, should have taken valuables out of the car, etc)