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

It also seems like a straightforward resource coordination problem.

If a city has 10 car thieves and all cars are relatively hard to steal, the city can manage the police resources to investigate the crimes. If a city has 10 car thieves and half of all cars are very simple to steal, the city needs to devote a lot more police resources to investigate the crimes.

Of course the worst fear is the number of car thieves has gone up. This is probably true in some specific cities. But even if it hasn't, other people owning an easy to steal car hurts everyone since it drains resources.

Let's suppose that hypothetically the Flipper Zero could be banned...

OK, so then what about the (Texas Instruments) TI CC1101 rf (Radio Frequency) Transceiver chip/IC that powers it?

Is whoever is going to ban the Flipper Zero also going to ban the TI CC1101 rf transceiver chip?

Because if they don't -- then many other clones of the Flipper Zero can and probably will exist in the future...

OK, but let's take things a step further...

Let's suppose that whoever is trying to ban the Flipper Zero -- is able to ban the Flipper Zero AND the TI CC1101 rf transceiver chip that powers it!

OK. So what about all of the other rf transceiver chips that exist?

Is whoever is going to ban the Flipper Zero -- going to also ban ALL other transciever rf chips?

But let's take things a step further...

Let's suppose that whoever wants to ban the Flipper Zero -- also is able to successfully ban ALL transciever rf chips! (Highly unlikely, since many are used in highly popular consumer products including but not limited to Routers, Smart TVs and Cell Phones!)

But let's suppose they could pull that one off...

OK, so now the next question is (to the party or parties that wish to ban the Flipper Zero!), if you can successfully ban all of the rf transciever chips, then can you ban all non-IC based radio circuits?

You know, like analog electronic radio circuits, capacitors, coils, antennas, stuff like that?

Can you ban all of it at the same time?

?

But let's even go a step further... let's suppose whoever wants to ban the Flipper Zero -- bans it, and also successfully bans all rf transciever IC's, and all analog radio circuits, and all previously analog electronic parts for making a radio circuit...

OK, so final question (to whomever would wish to ban the Flipper Zero!):

Can you ban all of the electrons, which flow through wires, which could be used in creating radio circuits?

To accomplish this, you'd need to ban all batteries, all power lines, and all generators! (Highly unlikely, because power in is various forms creates transactions which in turn create taxes which in turn fuel local, regional, state and country governments!)

So -- good luck with all of that!

I myself would never use a Flipper Zero for unlawful purposes (if I possesed one), and I would never drive a car which could be rf hacked by a Flipper Zero or other rf device on the other side of things.

In other words, both sides of the argument are stupid.

A person could probably kill someone else with a pillow, a roll of paper towels, or some other incredibly soft object, "never before did we think that it could be used as a murder weapon" item (George Carlin: "You could probably kill a guy with the Sunday New York times by beating him to death with it if you were so inclined")-- but we don't pass laws banning those items because of an isolated case of misuse!

Heck, now that I think about it, someone could probably kill someone else with a single roll of the softest toilet paper -- if they really put their mind to it!

But we don't pass laws banning ultra-soft Charmin(tm), now do we? ("A gang of 12 or 13 year old youths used it to murder their parents -- so it must be banned!" :-) )

?

Point is, there are some really stupid arguments being advanced here...

Yes, which is why I suggested a combination of measures to change that. An active per-device transaction would make it clear when a dealer’s access is being misused, and if it affects their business viability it would turn out that they could do a better job of controlling access. Hundreds of thousands of people work at banks, too, and many of them do not care about their employers but thefts from customer accounts are rare because the companies are incentivized to set appropriate safeguards. There’s no reason why car repairs couldn’t be the same other than that it costs more than what they’ve been doing, and there aren’t strong enough incentives for them to take on those costs.

Egregious is subjective. You think it's egregious for cars to have locks which can be circumvented by thieves. Maybe I think it's egregious that construction firms don't install iron bars on all ground floor windows.

All cars are insecure but what the government should be doing is forcing auto makers to allow customers to install their own security add-ons.

Car manufacturers are now locking down the OBDC ports because people were using them to add functionality to the car that they want you to pay for, like 3rd party adaptive cruise control. But this also prevents you from adding your own security.

They also fail to encrypt security systems but block you from replacing them with encrypted versions.

They claim they do it “for safety”, and while there is some merit to that, they are drawing the line way to far in the “we make money at the expense of your security and customizability” direction.