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

Insecure vehicles should be banned, not security tools like the Flipper Zero

saveflipper.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 916 posts

Re: Insecure vehicles should be banned, not security tools like the Flipper Zero

#201

Post by lithos »

sokoloff wrote: post #128
tylerchilds wrote: post #85

At this point, banning security tools a violation of the second amendment. Microsoft suffers breach after breach after acquisition after acquisition. I verbally note them to my wife to remember, "This is not normal." and even she said, "Why do the numbers keep getting worse and worse." and I told her, "The database keeps getting larger and larger ever since they were only slapped on the wrist for not letting me boot…

I'm struggling to connect how the banning of security tools would be a violation of the (US) second amendment. A violation of the first, fourth, and ninth? I can see that. A propensity to violate the fifth? I can see that. But I can't see a strong connection to the second.

There was a point in the US where encryption was barred from export based on arms export laws. Lots a pretty famous open source stories from such. So it's not far fetched at all for the most part.

Though this is in US law, not Canada as related to the news story.

Re: Insecure vehicles should be banned, not security tools like the Flipper Zero

#202

Post by RandomLensman »

keiferski wrote: post #98

Philosophy warning: I don't know if there is a term for it, or if a philosopher/etc. has written about this phenomenon, but: a noticeable trend to me is what I'll call "the replacement of ethical expectations with specific, written down laws." Rather than expecting a human being to behave in certain ways intrinsically (i.e., normative ethics ) we tend to assume they will behave in the worst way possible, and then pas…

Why put all Western countries into the same bucket? Car theft is much more prevalent in the US than Germany, for example.

Re: Insecure vehicles should be banned, not security tools like the Flipper Zero

#203

Post by alfnor »

karaterobot wrote: post #116

I agree that Flipper shouldn't be banned in Canada, but I think the headline won't help them make their case. For many reasons, it's easier for people to support banning a device they don't personally care about than it is to call for millions of cars on the road to be made illegal, or for instituting new regulations on an industry with entrenched lobbyists. If the option you are presenting is to ban the Flipper (eas…

You mean like how fentanyl is a banned substance so nobody sell- oh wait...

Re: Insecure vehicles should be banned, not security tools like the Flipper Zero

#204

Post by 2024throwaway »

keiferski wrote: post #190
2024throwaway wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> religions have been the foundation of pretty much all ethical behavior since the beginning of civilization I reject this statement wholeheartedly, and find it a pretty disgusting stance. The idea that the only reason not to kill someone (or otherwise act ethically) is due to religion is horrendous, especially given most religions historical track record on murdering others and other ethical violations.

I think you'd have a pretty difficult time constructing a history of morality that doesn't involve what we refer to as "religion." Certainly that doesn't mean that all religious beliefs are good or justifiable, but that isn't what I claimed, either. I just claimed they were the foundation.

I would argue it's the opposite.

"Maybe killing people is bad. How do we get people to not do that? Tell them god said not to!"

It starts from the ethical perspective, and uses religion as the blunt hammer to drive it into the masses.

Re: Insecure vehicles should be banned, not security tools like the Flipper Zero

#205

Post by whimsicalism »

keiferski wrote: post #98

Philosophy warning: I don't know if there is a term for it, or if a philosopher/etc. has written about this phenomenon, but: a noticeable trend to me is what I'll call "the replacement of ethical expectations with specific, written down laws." Rather than expecting a human being to behave in certain ways intrinsically (i.e., normative ethics ) we tend to assume they will behave in the worst way possible, and then pas…

The reality is that if you can’t deploy force in support of your ‘ethical norms’ and you live in a pluralistic society, both of which are true of the US and Canada - then you have to resort to the law.

> Instead of discussing how car theft is fundamentally an unethical behavior, the discussion is about preventing some thing from being sold or existing, whether that be insecure vehicles or Flipper Zeroes. It's designing the playground so that kids can't get hurt, not teaching them how to play responsibly.

…okay? I am still left with the question of “what do we do” and how do we do it without leveraging a legal apparatus.

Surprised this is the top comment, it seems sort of inane and faux-deep.

Re: Insecure vehicles should be banned, not security tools like the Flipper Zero

#207

Post by rlt »

hoofhearted wrote: post #21

Sooo they have been stealing Infiniti's from my area recently with relative ease allegedly by using a Bluetooth obd2 reader connected to an android tablet running a pirated copy of some Nissan service tech software. Nobody from any of the Infiniti groups is 100% certain how they are doing it, but the best theory out there is above. Just the other night, a crew of dudes stole 3 Q50’s from my neighborhood with relative…

Locksmiths can make new key fobs for nearly any car with access to the OBD2 port and the right software (though I don’t know if it requires a connection to the manufacturer)

Re: Insecure vehicles should be banned, not security tools like the Flipper Zero

#208

Post by MeImCounting »

saint_fiasco wrote: post #121
acdha wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is true in absolute terms but over simplified because it glosses over the differences in scale. We require cars to have seatbelts because even though people still die in crashes, it’s a statistically certainty that many fewer die when seatbelts are used. Setting minimum standards is a critical function of governments in maintaining healthy markets because it prevents cheating from being cost effective. If you ma…

> We require cars to have seatbelts Seatbelts are not adversarial. A better seatbelt does not encourage other drivers to crash their cars into you even harder or anything like that, it's people versus nature. Security systems are in a permanent arms race, people versus people. You could have a more expensive lock that requires a more expensive device to defeat, but this makes your car more expensive to make, so it ha…

The problem is that I think these hands free remote start locks are more expensive than actual real physical locks which are immune to the types of attacks so that argument just actually doesnt work at all.

Re: Insecure vehicles should be banned, not security tools like the Flipper Zero

#209

Post by alfnor »

moose44 wrote: post #168

Is this not the same argument with gun control?

And same counter-argument: those who are more likely to abuse tools are less likely to care about the legal status of said tool (they will illegally import or DIY the tools).

Re: Insecure vehicles should be banned, not security tools like the Flipper Zero

#210

Post by BrandoElFollito »

newsclues wrote: post #43
hoofhearted wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fix the cars. A brand new $60,000 car shouldn’t be so simple to swipe. They probably spent less time stealing my neighbors car than he did waiting on the credit check to buy the car lol… it’s crazy these days with cars.

Cars are computers now. What do we know about computer security and physical access? If I can touch the machine, I can hack and own it. No level of technology will stop this. But cutting off the profit motive by making it very hard to export cars will have a massive impact on these crimes, and for old and new cars.

> What do we know about computer security and physical access? If I can touch the machine, I can hack and own it.

You are damn good then :)

One can protect against such that's by using well placed cryptography.

Post reply on HN