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

91–100 of 670 posts

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

#91

Post by aardvarkr »

endisneigh wrote: post #60
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…

flawed or not, the onus is not on Kia. ultimately baltimore is suing them because of the spike in car thefts, not because of the flawed design. presumably if baltimore had no thieves, there would be no thefts irrespective of the design. so in effect baltimore is suing kia becuase their cars are getting stolen which is ridiculous. i don't know how anyone can defend this. this would be like baltimore suing banks for al…

Here’s a better analogy - imagine the atm manufacturer wanted to save money so they built a machine with a lock that could be pried off with a screwdriver instead of integrating security features inside the machine. This ATM would be about as trivially easy to break into as stealing a Kia/Hyundai is. Would the bank be right to pursue legal damages against the atm manufacturer for negligence?

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

#92

Post by harimau777 »

sithadmin wrote: post #32
hardware2win wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Consider reading the article The concerns are valid >Certain Kia or Hyundai models can be stolen using a screwdriver and a USB charging cord. >Cleveland, St. Louis and Seattle are among the other cities that started suing the the car companies earlier this year. 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…

Nothing in the article nor the parts that you extracted establishes exactly why a municipality would have standing to sue a product manufacturer for damages, or why a manufacturer is somehow obligated to include features that a municipality deems to be 'standard'. The fact that there are consumer products whose absence of features creates a negative externality for local law enforcement doesn't seem like sufficient g…

How far does that line of reasoning go? Suppose that every car they sold used the same key. "We just said that the car has locks. We didn't say that those locks have unique keys."

Clearly there has to be some degree to which a customer can assume that a product they buy meets the standard functionality associated with that product.

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

#93

Post by themaninthedark »

hardware2win wrote: post #15
wslh wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article sounds like if you leave the door open you should assume anybody will enter and steal you. This is reversing the victim to the victimary. In a sexist way would be similar that you are being raped because you wear some specific clothes. Or you are hacked because you don't apply a patch.

Lets do not jump into emotional arguments Car makers should make their cars as hard as reasonably possible to steal. If dumb ass tenager can do that, the it is a mess

But that is exactly where this line of reasoning will take you.

If you don't take "reasonable precautions" then you are liable.

I will also note that I often see comments here talking about living in SF and how they leave their car unlocked or windows down to limit the damage from thieves smashing the windows to get inside.

So with this "reasonable precautions" line, everyone who does this should be liable for promoting theft.

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

#94

Post by endisneigh »

aardvarkr wrote: post #91
endisneigh wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

flawed or not, the onus is not on Kia. ultimately baltimore is suing them because of the spike in car thefts, not because of the flawed design. presumably if baltimore had no thieves, there would be no thefts irrespective of the design. so in effect baltimore is suing kia becuase their cars are getting stolen which is ridiculous. i don't know how anyone can defend this. this would be like baltimore suing banks for al…

Here’s a better analogy - imagine the atm manufacturer wanted to save money so they built a machine with a lock that could be pried off with a screwdriver instead of integrating security features inside the machine. This ATM would be about as trivially easy to break into as stealing a Kia/Hyundai is. Would the bank be right to pursue legal damages against the atm manufacturer for negligence?

> Would the bank be right to pursue legal damages against the atm manufacturer for negligence?

no. rather what would happen is that the bank would rightfully ask them to fix it or they would go with another manufacturer that meets their needs.

likewise, the government should increase the standard if they're not happy with it. not give the rubber stamp and still complain.

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

#95

Post by klodolph »

endisneigh wrote: post #86
bastawhiz wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

The identical twin thing affects 1 in 250 people, and I think we could reasonably expect an identical twin to know the risks of face unlock without having to spell it out for them. So if you’re an identical twin, and you don’t want your twin accessing your phone, you set a passcode instead.

Kia owners don’t really have an alternative. The car is defective.

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

#96

Post by bastawhiz »

endisneigh wrote: post #86
bastawhiz wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

People already have the cars. And the 2023 models don't seem to be affected. So getting people to stop buying them is sort of pointless (because the people who already own them are now stuck holding the bag). If the government has no business getting companies who produced a flawed product that—as you suggest—people should stop buying to fix their products, why exactly do we have standards at all? What part of "you have an obligation to issue a recall that fixes the product" is micromanaging? That could be done with a court order.

> the scenario you proposed is already possible with face unlock

I didn't mention face unlock. Any fingerprint sensor that is trivial defeated is fundamentally broken.

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

#97

Post by HDThoreaun »

arein3 wrote: post #70
hgsgm wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do those great prices include the cost of recovering a stolen car?

How is hyundai responsible for that? South corea is full of hyundais and there's no such problem there. Maybe the root cause of stealing is different?

They designed a car that is ridiculously easy to steal.

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

#98

Post by bastawhiz »

endisneigh wrote: post #90
bastawhiz wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

A safe that can be repaired from the outside isn't a safe. You're not even trying to engage in a reasonable conversation.

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

#100

Post by krisoft »

gjsman-1000 wrote: post #88
alexb_ wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 upsc…

> Don’t sue for something completely legal because it makes life inconvenient for a city.

I don't understand this reasoning. The city believes there is already a law under which what the car manufacturer did is not legal. They and the car manufacturer will go in front of a judge where the city will need to prove this, while the lawyers of the car manufacturer will presumably argue otherwise.

Should I be feeling bad for Kia that they have to justify their choices?

Post reply on HN