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

101–110 of 670 posts

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

#101

Post by alexb_ »

harimau777 wrote: post #92
sithadmin wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Then they still wouldn't be at fault. It's not their fault that the society Baltimore has crafted is so low trust that you can't leave your car outside for a second without it getting stolen.

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

#102

Post by singron »

harimau777 wrote: post #92
sithadmin wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The customer has clear cause. Fitness for purpose, warranty, etc. The municipality probably doesn't. If anything, they should try to coordinate a class action lawsuit among consumers.

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

#103

Post by sithadmin »

harimau777 wrote: post #92
sithadmin wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

While that would definitely be a problem, that's the end-user's/customer's problem. It would be appropriate for a Hyundai/Kia buyer to sue Hyundai/Kia for damages experienced because of such a thing. It doesn't make sense for a municipality to sue here - they're not a party with a stake in the ostensibly defective product.

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

#104

Post by krisoft »

alexb_ wrote: post #5

How is it Hyundai's fault that people steal cars? It's acting as if theives are some force of nature that we can't control or something. You prevent theft by putting theives in jail. It's not complicated.

> You prevent theft by putting theives in jail.

This is such an incredible naive view of the world.

Whether or not crimes are committed is a complicated interplay of cost/benefit.

You say that the city is acting as if thieves are some force of nature. And to a certain extent they are. If it is easy enough to commit a crime and the reward is high enough a crime will be committed. As an example if you leave gold bars littered on your front yard people will pick them up. No amount of "putting thieves in jail" will save you.

Obviously increasing the chance of getting caught acts as a deterrent. But it is not cost free. Investigating and prosecuting car thieves cost hard money. If there are too many thieves of opportunity created by sub-par security arrangements the police/justice system becomes overwhelmed. The city can and should increase their police force of course, but at a certain point it is like trying to stop a tide with a rake. If you can prevent crime before it happens, for example by following sane and cost-efficient security practices that saves money and aggravation for everyone involved.

What prevents crime is multiple overlapping layers of our society engineered such that crime is maintained at a certain level. "putting thieves in jail" is just one of those layers. And if you think you can simply policeman yourself out of any situation then you haven't thought about the problem to a sufficient depth yet

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

#105

Post by endisneigh »

bastawhiz wrote: post #96
endisneigh wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 h…

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

I know you didn't. The point is that your phone can be accessed by those who are not you.

and the standards should be around safety

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

#106

Post by krisoft »

explorer83 wrote: post #65
sithadmin wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The city should run a public campaign to publicly advertise the consequences of stealing a vehicle (e.g./ jail, heavy fines, reduced job prospects, etc.). Make it clear criminals will be punished hard for stealing cars. Maybe they can ask the manufacturers and dealers to sponsor or donate to it.

Or the city can run a public campaign advertising these car models as prone to being stolen. That hurts the companies image, which puts pressure on them to get better. Of course it is cheaper if they don't have to buy ad-space for such an advertisement. Maybe they could use publicity around a lawsuit? Maybe that is what we are reading right now?

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

#107

Post by endisneigh »

bastawhiz wrote: post #98
endisneigh wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

there is nothing about a safe that says it cannot be repaired from the outside (though it would certainly be a bad safe). regardless, my example isn't limited to safes to begin with.

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

#108

Post by JustSomeNobody »

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…

If I leave my door open and someone steals my TV, it's not my fault I don't have a TV anymore.

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

#109

Post by taylodl »

JustSomeNobody wrote: post #108
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…

If I leave my door open and someone steals my TV, it's not my fault I don't have a TV anymore.

Legally it is. If there was no signs of forced entry then you're not going to be compensated for your loss and the police aren't going to pursue any suspects.

But that's not what this case is about. To use your analogy, imagine KIA were a lock maker such as Kwikset. You bought their lock to install on your front door. You locked your door and left the house. You came back and your TV was gone, with no signs of forced entry. That's when you discover a major flaw in the design of the lock - if you turn the knob the opposite way then the lock will unlock from the outside. It's a flaw in the design. The lock maker is definitely legally liable for that defect, and, this is the important point, the city of Baltimore could sue them claiming damages incurred by having excessive police calls caused by their defective product. Of course every case is different, but Baltimore would be likely to win.

I'd say they're likely to win in this case as well. Since KIA has been aware of this problem for some time and taken no steps to resolve it, I imagine Baltimore is applying some financial incentive. As other cities take note they too may file their own suits and then KIA may realize it's cheaper and better PR to issue a massive and costly recall.

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

#110

Post by taylodl »

gjsman-1000 wrote: post #62
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…

> Its a fundamentally flawed design, and it never should have made it past review. It is a flawed design, but there’s just one problem for a lawsuit: Immobilizers are not legally required in the US. A flawed immobilizer is fine, considering there doesn’t even need to be an immobilizer. Baltimore is suing because, yes, they are easy to steal and that makes things inconvenient for Baltimore. But no law was broken - the…

The product sold doesn't comply with the stated fit of purpose. A consumer has the reasonable expectation that an ignition switch will hamper the efforts of someone to steal their car. There are lots of consumer protection laws that can be applied here - up to fraud. I suspect Baltimore isn't as interested in the the money to be gained as they are in generating negative PR for KIA and thus forcing them to address the issue.
Post reply on HN