Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Baltimore sues Hyundai, Kia over spike in car thefts

thebaltimorebanner.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 670 posts

Re: Baltimore sues Hyundai, Kia over spike in car thefts

#81

Post by endisneigh »

yccs27 wrote: post #79
endisneigh wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i deeply disagree with this line of thought. why is the onus on the manufacturer here, instead of going after the thieves?

That is just a false dichotomy. Of course the thieves are at fault, but the manufacturer is also liable because they failed to ensure even the most basic degree of security.

ridiculous. there are already federal standards, that Kia and Hyundai met. Baltimore should sue the government if they want to complain.

should bike manufacturers also be sued for not designing a bicycle in a way that cannot be ridden off by anyone who is not the owner when parked?

idk how people defend these frivolous suits.

Re: Baltimore sues Hyundai, Kia over spike in car thefts

#82

Post by bastawhiz »

endisneigh wrote: post #49
klodolph wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

LockPickingLawyer is highly skilled, and can defeat locks that most others can’t. This is like selling one of those old Kryptonite locks that could be defeated with a Bic pen. At that point, the lock is truly defective, and should be pulled from the market. Your lock should require something more than a readily-available, vaguely key-shaped object to operate—so if you can operate the lock with a Bic pen (like the old…

i deeply disagree with this line of thought. why is the onus on the manufacturer here, instead of going after the thieves?

I, as a consumer, expect that the car has a key because the key keeps people who don't have the key from starting and operating my car. They sold a product for money that operates so poorly that it fails at one of its basic functions.

Imagine if Google sold a Pixel whose fingerprint sensor could be bypassed if you just licked your finger before pressing the sensor. Suddenly this phone is now the target of thieves because it's easily unlocked and wiped. You're suggesting there's no onus on the manufacturer for that?

Re: Baltimore sues Hyundai, Kia over spike in car thefts

#83

Post by oatmeal1 »

digdugdirk wrote: post #57

People are commenting on this with a fundamental lack of understanding of a car's ignition system. This design truly is flawed. Traditionally, the immobilizer in an ignition system is physically tied to the steering column. Basically, you'd need to remove the steering column (the physical pipe that goes between your steering wheel and the front steering rack) in order to remove the part. If you want to defeat that im…

The design of the ignition system is completely irrelevant. Even if a manufacturer designed a car that simply had an "on" button without the need for keys, it would not be their fault if that car was stolen.

Re: Baltimore sues Hyundai, Kia over spike in car thefts

#84

Post by harimau777 »

hgsgm wrote: post #36
aardvarkr wrote: post #8

Lots of comments that didn’t read the article so here’s a good excerpt on why there’s a lawsuit. Baltimore’s lawsuit says the companies “failed to keep up with industry standards,” and claim it was a result of business decisions made to reduce costs and boost profits “notwithstanding decades of academic literature and research supporting the deterrent effects” of anti-theft technology. “The dramatically increased rat…

Are these standards written somewhere? If it's required, it should be documented.

I'm not a lawyer, but as I understand it, this sort of thing is generally based on a reasonable person standard. I.e. would a reasonable person assume that if their car requires a key to start, then it cannot be started with something as trivial as a USB key?

Re: Baltimore sues Hyundai, Kia over spike in car thefts

#85

Post by alexb_ »

digdugdirk wrote: post #57

People are commenting on this with a fundamental lack of understanding of a car's ignition system. This design truly is flawed. Traditionally, the immobilizer in an ignition system is physically tied to the steering column. Basically, you'd need to remove the steering column (the physical pipe that goes between your steering wheel and the front steering rack) in order to remove the part. If you want to defeat that im…

Kia could sell their cars with a giant button that says "BYPASS LOCK AND START IGNITION WITHOUT KEY" and it still wouldn't be their fault, at all.

Re: Baltimore sues Hyundai, Kia over spike in car thefts

#86

Post by endisneigh »

bastawhiz wrote: post #82
endisneigh wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i deeply disagree with this line of thought. why is the onus on the manufacturer here, instead of going after the thieves?

I, as a consumer, expect that the car has a key because the key keeps people who don't have the key from starting and operating my car. They sold a product for money that operates so poorly that it fails at one of its basic functions. Imagine if Google sold a Pixel whose fingerprint sensor could be bypassed if you just licked your finger before pressing the sensor. Suddenly this phone is now the target of thieves bec…

the onus is on them in the sense that people will stop buying them. I do not think it is the government's responsibility to micromanage, no.

the scenario you proposed is already possible with face unlock and identical twins and look-alikes. should we sue Apple?

Re: Baltimore sues Hyundai, Kia over spike in car thefts

#87

Post by bastawhiz »

endisneigh wrote: post #12

even after reading the article this lawsuit makes no sense. inherently a car that can easily be repaired can easily be stolen. the implication is that Baltimore does not want cars that can easily be modified so they cannot easily be stolen. troubling to say the least. then again, baltimore isn't exactly the pinnacle of governance. take the iphone for example, which are notoriously difficult to use if stolen. the resu…

An easily repairable safe is not an insecure safe. The security of the safe shouldn't be able to be easily compromised from the outside of the safe. Just because I can repair and replace parts doesn't make it insecure.

Re: Baltimore sues Hyundai, Kia over spike in car thefts

#88

Post by gjsman-1000 »

alexb_ wrote: post #85
digdugdirk wrote: post #57

People are commenting on this with a fundamental lack of understanding of a car's ignition system. This design truly is flawed. Traditionally, the immobilizer in an ignition system is physically tied to the steering column. Basically, you'd need to remove the steering column (the physical pipe that goes between your steering wheel and the front steering rack) in order to remove the part. If you want to defeat that im…

Kia could sell their cars with a giant button that says "BYPASS LOCK AND START IGNITION WITHOUT KEY" and it still wouldn't be their fault, at all.

Also, this would be completely legal to sell. There’s no law requiring keys, or an immobilizer, or really any anti-theft technology.

If you don’t like that, and I don’t, change the law. Don’t sue for something completely legal because it makes life inconvenient for a city. There is a long list of things cities find inconvenient, like bicycles without a built-in GPS, or even things as dumb as American flags in an upscale neighborhood.

Re: Baltimore sues Hyundai, Kia over spike in car thefts

#89

Post by klodolph »

gjsman-1000 wrote: post #43
klodolph wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

LockPickingLawyer is highly skilled, and can defeat locks that most others can’t. This is like selling one of those old Kryptonite locks that could be defeated with a Bic pen. At that point, the lock is truly defective, and should be pulled from the market. Your lock should require something more than a readily-available, vaguely key-shaped object to operate—so if you can operate the lock with a Bic pen (like the old…

True, I agree, but here is the thing: There is no federal standard requiring fancy anti-theft equipment. Baltimore is quite literally suing because two manufacturers aren’t doing what other manufacturers do, because it would be more convenient for them, despite there being no rule requiring such technology. That’s a slippery slope. For heaven’s sake let’s make a rule, but trying to sue a manufacturer for not doing wh…

I don’t think we should need to codify every possible problem as a rule. It is enough that Kia knows, or should know, the consequences of their actions, but chose to let somebody else (the owners, the police) deal with the consequences.

Basically, I think mens rea is a much more sound basis for law than rules prescribing specific behavior, in general. Like, if you are an engineer and you design a bridge, and it turns out that the bridge fails and you should have known that it would fail, you bear the liability. This basic doctrine can be augmented with specific rules (like, cars must have back-up cameras and airbags, houses must have three-prong outlets with proper grounds and GFCI in bathrooms & kitchens), but the law should not have to make rules for everything before it happens—as long as you have mens rea (you knew the risks or should have known the risks), you bear some responsibility for your actions.

Re: Baltimore sues Hyundai, Kia over spike in car thefts

#90

Post by endisneigh »

bastawhiz wrote: post #87
endisneigh wrote: post #12

even after reading the article this lawsuit makes no sense. inherently a car that can easily be repaired can easily be stolen. the implication is that Baltimore does not want cars that can easily be modified so they cannot easily be stolen. troubling to say the least. then again, baltimore isn't exactly the pinnacle of governance. take the iphone for example, which are notoriously difficult to use if stolen. the resu…

An easily repairable safe is not an insecure safe. The security of the safe shouldn't be able to be easily compromised from the outside of the safe. Just because I can repair and replace parts doesn't make it insecure.

a safe that could be repaired from in and out of the safe would be even more reparable than one that could only be repaired from inside. thus, the most reparable safe would be also one that could be compromised. there inherently is a tradeoff between security and modifiability by end users.
Post reply on HN