5 ms·
Electronic devices used for car thefts set to be banned
- bell-cot 2y agoIt'd be lovely if there were also penalties for the firms which sell those vulnerable cars, so easily stolen if you have one of the now-banned little gadgets. Oh well. I'm sure the problem will clear up, once all the crooks have dutifully handed their little gadgets over to the coppers.
- chrisjj 2y agoInterestingly this law does not require such a handover. "the onus will be on someone in possession of a device to show they had it for a legitimate purpose." "Making or selling a signal jammer could lead to up to five years in prison or an unlimited fine."
- sandworm101 2y agoI saw an ad recently for a car (Kia?) with a phone app that could sent an unlock/start code to someone else's phone. It was so you could lend your car to a friend without all the hassle of physical keys. What could possibly go wrong?
- snailmailstare 2y agoAssuming your friend has Internet access nothing could really go wrong. If you forget to send them the code they can just watch a short video.
- seanmcdirmid 2y agoThis is using NFC, which is impossible to intercept. So only the person you send the key to can unlock and start your car with their phone, and you need to hack their phone to steal the key, which I believe is impossible given the way that Apple implements it (you need to steal their phone and know their passcode to use the key unless they set it in express, and even then the phone has to be unlocked within a certain time period to actually start the car).
- superkuh 2y agoSo this is a change from the status quo where actually transmitting an interfering signal is illegal to one where having a device that might theoretically transmit an interfering signal is illegal? It sounds like ordering all pencils be made illegal because they can be used to write threats. I can see why they might want to make this change but I can't see how it can feasibly be defined and enforced without making every LC oscillator illegal. But like most legislation I suppose the reality, and reality of enforcement, don't matter so much as having the law to point to. They'll ignore it most of the time but chose to enforce it arbitrarily if someone rocks the boat. And it's quite a bit of a performative, "We're doing something." move. >"These devices have no legitimate purpose, apart from assisting in criminal activity... Expecting street cops to know RF electronics deeply enough to make these judgements of a "legitimate purpose" is beyond foolhardy and the claims of generalized signal generators as having no legitimate purpose is false. They would certainly consider my amateur radio lab equipment to be illegal.
- HeatrayEnjoyer 2y agoRadio equipment restrictions are as old as radio itself. Go into cellular telecommunication or, god forbid, radar, and you will find a great number of things you are not allowed to possess or sell, with very severe punishments for violation.
- zmgsabst 2y agoLike what?
- mingus88 2y agohttps://www.fcc.gov/general/jammer-enforcement https://www.fcc.gov/general/jammer-enforcement
- superkuh 2y agoUm, your link does not support your implied claim. It is only illegal to actively transmit and interfere. None of the equipment is illegal to own. The entire idea that radio equipment would be intrinsically illegal to own is some sort of misunderstanding or confabulation. I guess you're thinking about the, "It is also unlawful to advertise, sell, distribute, import, or otherwise market jamming devices to consumers in the United States." But this means what it says. It doesn't mean you can't own devices that can generate and transmit arbitrary signals on arbitrary frequencies. I means you can't advertise, sell, distribute, import or market devices to consumers explicitly saying they're for jamming. That's pretty clear and does not make ownership of devices illegal. This UK law really is unprecedented and very stupid. It is not a continuation of a status quo anywhere.
- nubinetwork 2y agoDid they seriously try to call an RF transceiver a jammer? Also you can literally "jam" anything with anything, I used to have a pair of walkie-talkies from the 70s that were designed to use (what's now used as) the CB band... is that considered a jammer now?
- Symbiote 2y agoThey call them "Keyless repeaters and signal amplifiers", but say people also refer to them as "jammers".
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- rahimnathwani 2y agoThis is a confusing article. I'm not sure what 'scrambling' means here: Keyless repeaters and signal amplifiers scramble the signal from remote key fobs inside people's homes, enabling criminals to unlock cars. And it talks about banning 'signal jammers'. How is a signal jammer useful for stealing a car? Wouldn't a signal jammer prevent someone from unlocking a car?
- superkuh 2y agoThe jammer prevents the car from hearing the transmitted un/locking signals while the jammer themselves collects and repeats it later.
- De_Delph 2y agoThat, or to prevent the tracker in more expensive cars from doing their job. In mainland Europe, some high end cars need to be fitted with a GPS tracker for insurance. Thieves will try to jam GPS to those trackers until they're: A) figured out how to disable/remove it, B) fled the country.
- IndrekR 2y agoNot just high end and insurance. In EU 100% of new cars have GPS installed. This is used for intelligent speed assist and eCall that are now mandatory.
- rahimnathwani 2y agoIt seems challenging to jam a transmission from being received, whilst capturing that same transmission.
- function_seven 2y agoIf you place a device with a high-gain directional receiver pointed toward the fob, and a high-power transmitter pointed toward the car, wouldn’t that work?
- deleted 2y ago
- patmcc 2y agoOh, thank goodness, they're finally banning these evil devices. Hopefully they'll move on to bobby pins, coat hangers, screwdrivers, and hammers next.
- mihaaly 2y agoI feel it a bit ironic arguing about "devastating effect on victims, who need their vehicles to go about their everyday lives" while the lock of homes including brand new ones are from the last century, somehow not the same worry about the place where people live. And in a car based society - more like forced outside of London which has usable public transportation - made itself so vulnarable to the use of cars for basic necessities like going to work and shopping, yet the practices and public infrastructure (parking in traffic lane, blocking traffic for safety, damaging neglected potholes) are making it worse like car theft. Seems like very selective worries from a theatrical public figure.
- hn_throw2025 2y agoFrustrating this law comes from my country, which seems determined (for now) to be at the vanguard of draconian over-reach. It isn't hard to see this being extended to SDRs. I fear for the day that the state insists on limiting our computing choices to sanitised controllable devices, and that having a root-access programmable computer is viewed by them with the same suspicion as keeping Great Grandpa's old service revolver in the attic.
- BiteCode_dev 2y agoAh, those law abiding thieves will surely stop procuring themselves those devices now that they are illegal.
- FabHK 2y agoIt will reduce supply, but it will also make it easier to prosecute those that have these devices. I frankly don't understand the sentiment. Should we not outlaw murder because "ha, surely criminals won't murder anymore now"?
- mirzap 2y agoStealing is already outlawed, so banning the devices is not comparable to murder. What would be comparable if the government decided to ban knives and hammers? Those "devices" are used to commit murders, and anyone possessing them could be prosecuted for the crime of murder.
- Mashimo 2y agoBtw, plenty of countries have banned certain knifes. And also zones where all kinds of knifes are forbidden.
- parineum 2y agoMurder and stealing are the the things that are outlawed already. The equivalent argument would be banning knives so people don't commit murder.
- seanmcdirmid 2y agoThe equivalent argument would be banning something that makes murder really really easy without much training or willpower. Killing with a knife is hard, and just not very accessible (if you doubt me, try going hunting for deer with a knife instead of a rifle). The equivalent would be some device that made killing really easy, eg something that supported point and shoot. Like, if someone invented a ray gun that you could just point at people and they would die, that would banned really quickly even by the most libertarian governments (because society doesn’t survive very long with them around, or society doesn’t ban them and is just replaced by another society that does). Lock picks at least take some skill, they aren’t super accessible. But an RF repeater seems to be fairly accessible according to how quickly it spread (although most modern fobs stop transmitting when stationary, so these are only effective for people who carry fobs in their pockets all the time).
- _trampeltier 2y ago"Making or selling a signal jammer could lead to up to five years in prison or an unlimited fine." I can understand you like to make some devices illegal. But really, five years prison, unlimited fine. Is everybody insane now.
- boredatoms 2y agoYou get less for 34 felonies
- MrBuddyCasino 2y agoWe‘re talking about the UK here. They’ve jumped the shark long ago and are now at the „legislate blunted butter knives“ stage.
- r0ckarong 2y agoYou're talking about the UK here, have been insane for centuries. And then George Orwell wrote a manual.
- throw9494949 2y agoIn UK it is a crime to silently pray at your own home. It is a different culture, court decides who is a criminal. There are no civil liberties or constitution like in US!
- rich_sasha 2y agoThis is ridiculously untrue. Please do not spread Musk disinformation. First statue of Liberty, Magna Carta, predates the US itself by more than half a millennium.
- creativenolo 2y agoI know. Also, twisted in this comment I think. The Musk headline was loosely tidied to someone arrested (whilst) praying *outside* and ignores the context of what was happening at the time, and for the many hours before the arrest. Minor details like that. Happy to live in a legal systems where these devices are banned, and we can cross the road freely.
- slt2021 2y agoregular key must be replaced with mobile phone based key, because it is more secure
- this-is-sad 2y ago[flagged]
- Neil44 2y agoI guess the point is that just having one of these will now be a complete crime and you don't need to catch someone in the a act to prosecute.
- kleiba 2y agoI'm always amused when law makers try to fight crime by making new laws. Because that affects exactly everybody except criminals who - by definition - don't care about laws. Like, I can really imagine the reaction of professional car thieves when they heard of this new ban: "Damn, Bobby, let's pack it in! I guess we're not allowed to use those jammers any more. Too bad, they served us well."
- woodruffw 2y agoThis is shoddy reasoning: you don’t have to care or not care about laws to not want to receive the deterring effect of incarceration. Laws, in their most basic form, exist to dangle that threat and others like it.
- yorwba 2y agoThat threat already exists without the new law, since car theft, like all theft, is illegal. Car thieves already don't believe they'll get caught. Make a specific kind of car theft extra special illegal and they still won't believe they'll get caught. Will the new law lead to more car thieves getting caught? If not, it's just a symbolic gesture to the electorate: "We know you want us to do something about car theft; this is something."
- woodruffw 2y agoI’m not saying this particular law is good or makes sense; I’m responding to the faulty conclusion that laws don’t make sense at all.
- Mashimo 2y agoIt's so they can arrest people they catch with just the jammer, but not a stolen vehicle.
- mingus88 2y agoThis is a dumb take. Being able to add additional charges on top of the already illegal car theft charge is useful for a number of reasons. First, a “throw the book at them” approach leads to easier convictions via plea deals and the ability to be guilty of one charge even if another doesn’t stick. Second, if lawmakers did not adapt the criminal code in the face of new technology then we’d all be posting here about how out of touch and behind the times they are. Or we’d be bemoaning how law enforcement can’t go after this type of crime because it turns out not to be explicitly illegal to maliciously block RF signals used to lock doors. And also, writing new policy is their job? Are you just suggesting that we pay lawmakers to never try to address things affecting their constituents, because we care about what the criminals think?
- ok_dad 2y ago> "These devices have no legitimate purpose, apart from assisting in criminal activity, and reducing their availability will support policing and industry in preventing vehicle theft which is damaging to both individuals and businesses." Now I wonder what devices are going to be banned by this law that have a legitimate purpose which they actually want to ban. Will they use this law to ban SDRs or something?
- Bairfhionn 2y agoThey should fine the car manufacturers for ignoring the security flaws.
- mingus88 2y agoDoors everywhere have been trivially easy to bypass for all of history. The crime has always been in taking advantage of that. For millennia we have been doing ok by focusing on punishing the bad actor and not punishing people for making something that isn’t exactly perfect.
- karlkloss 2y agoHow about banning the sale of cars that don't use time of flight measurement in their keyless go system? The problem isn't thieves using easy to get standard equipment for car theft, the problem is car manufacturers making it pretty easy for them. Remember when you could open cars using an old coat hanger? Did they ban steel wire to prevent this?
- Ballas 2y agoThis. There is seemingly no incentive for manufacturers to make it harder to steal their cars - every stolen car is likely a new sale.
- Daviey 2y agoUnlike the US, it was also illegal to listen in on police radio frequencies. I always felt this was madness to make it illegal rather than adopt encryption. Thankfully they are now encrypted.
- nubinetwork 2y agoI thought I heard something about UK police using a channel hopping routine similar to how Bluetooth works... if you know the channels used at the time, you can still listen in and piece the conversation together... do they still use it, or did they change to a new method?
- mathw 2y agoThat wouldn't help people who have cars that already don't do that very sensible thing which yes should be mandatory on all new cars with keyless entry worldwide.
- Ekaros 2y agoReal failure is the unwillingness to spend resources to track the stolen vehicles and apprehend the responsible. UK is an island, proper tracking in ports of exit and quick response should be possible. Or just add enough surveillance so you can track the stolen cars to logical points where they dissapear.
- mathw 2y agoSure, search every outbound shipping container in case it's got a stolen car in it. Super practical. And what about the cars which are stolen and then broken up and sold as parts? That's fairly common. And the ones which are given false plates and resold - perfectly doable if nobody checks the VIN - and never leave the country. Just because we're an island doesn't make it easy. But we do need to spend more resources on crime prevention and the apprehension of criminals, we've known that for years but we've also kept electing governments who refuse to do it while also claiming to be "tough on crime" so it's the usual mess.