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

451–460 of 916 posts

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

#451

Post by pixl97 »

keiferski wrote: post #173
sokoloff wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get that, but given the observed existence of a subset of the population where this is currently acceptable, what does "enforcing [] religious or ethical norms" to fix the problem look like? I agree with you there's a societal or communal failure here. I don't see what the solution is (other than jail time/etc).

My immediate answer is to say something like "we need more ethical education" but that's obviously kind of a weak response. The long, slow answer might be that society may re-organize itself into sub-units that do enforce ethical behaviors, and those sub-units eventually prevail over those that don't.

>and those sub-units eventually prevail over those that don't.

Why do you believe this?

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

#452

Post by mywittyname »

raizer88 wrote: post #47
markhahn wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obviously, we want owners to have full access to their car's CANBUS. So the question is: how should the OBD-2 plug (or wiring) be protected?

All CANBUS packages that are useful to drive a car should be encrypted using a public/private key that is in the owner key. Decryption chips are cheap and fast.

Some of the tools used to steal cars are the legitimate tools used to repair cars. Key programmers aren't cheap, but at under $5k for decent ones, they aren't crazy expensive either. It pays for itself in one job.

You could make these tools more difficult to obtain, but that won't stop the crime.

Immobilizers and requiring a PIN to start the car are cheap, effective ways of preventing car theft without negatively impacting our ability to repair vehicles. It would behoove government agencies to include a list of anti-theft techniques on the window sticker and it would behoove insurance companies to be very upfront with the anti-theft features they think vehicles need.

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

#453

Post by giantg2 »

AndrewKemendo wrote: post #298
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…

You just described the “rule of law” and this is the basis for how modern governments are formed and function A constitution is written and codifies the process for making ratifying and enforcing laws. That then is the common standard for some subset of behaviors as defined by the constitution which defines who it does and does not apply to. Different constitutions outline different processes but the structure of the…

"What you seem to want is for civil law to be subordinated in favor of common law,"

I must have missed that. I do not see them making that point.

"To Wit this is a perfect example of effectively questioning the foundational function of governance in the post World War II world while also not being aware of it apparently."

I don't know that I would call this a perfect example. This is extremely narrow and doesn't dive into many aspects of the relationship. I'd say it's more focused on individuals giving up freedoms on the notion that those freedoms don't benefit them personally, but could pose some harm to them if others are allowed to exercise them, without realizing that the same thoughts can be used against them in the future. More a tyranny of the majority than role of government discussion, even if somewhat related.

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

#454

Post by cactus_joe »

lainga wrote: post #347
AndrewKemendo wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You just described the “rule of law” and this is the basis for how modern governments are formed and function A constitution is written and codifies the process for making ratifying and enforcing laws. That then is the common standard for some subset of behaviors as defined by the constitution which defines who it does and does not apply to. Different constitutions outline different processes but the structure of the…

And now we come to the unfortunate fact that there is no equivalent in English for the distinction between Recht and Gesetz , or droit and loi , both being subsumed under the term law . The former is an immanent thing, a "shared search after justice". The latter is temporal, it is written down and itemised in Strafgesetzbuche and Codes Civiles , and is very appealing to HNers because we can read "common standard for…

Perhaps what you are trying to express as "shared search after justice" could be thought of as a "Social Contract"; a non-codified agreement of how society (should) co-exists, in context of said Society.

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

#456

Post by [deleted] »

AndrewKemendo wrote: post #298
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…

You just described the “rule of law” and this is the basis for how modern governments are formed and function A constitution is written and codifies the process for making ratifying and enforcing laws. That then is the common standard for some subset of behaviors as defined by the constitution which defines who it does and does not apply to. Different constitutions outline different processes but the structure of the…

[deleted]

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

#457

Post by immibis »

LunaSea wrote: post #131
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…

> 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 pass laws to supposedly prevent that behavior from manifesting. I would disagree and have the inverse position. If you look at the laws regarding removing Supreme Court Justices, senators and other representatives trading, removing misbehaving co…

So, laws for the rich assume good faith. Laws for the poor and middle-class - e.g. "go to jail if you have a flipper zero" - do not.

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

#458

Post by krisoft »

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…

> Instead of discussing how car theft is fundamentally an unethical behavior,

Discuss it if you want to. Do you think you will find many who disagrees with you? What new outcome or insight do you hope from that discussion?

> we tend to assume they will behave in the worst way possible

We don't assume anything. We observe what is happening. People do steal cares. If you want to change that you have to change something.

> the "new method" results in a different kind of world

Is it a new method? We use locks and gates and etc since before history began. How is this suddenly a "new method"?

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

#459

Post by InitialLastName »

MeImCounting wrote: post #194
evandale wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Car ownership is way too cheap and accessible in North America for the amount of damage they cause.

This. Owning cars should be something that corporations and the rich and hobbyists do. If you dont want your car broken into maybe dont leave it lying around unattended in public?

I wouldn't go that far, but we should certainly stop subsidizing them so heavily that we forget there are any other options, or that humans were capable of happy, prosperous lives for millennia before they existed.

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

#460

Post by bsder »

bonestamp2 wrote: post #325
nulbyte wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. There are already laws against theft. They apply to vehicles, secure and insecure alike. A law mandating a minimum level of security, as GP suggests, seems to me to fit the suggestion, that auto manufacturers have…

I like the idea in theory, but I'm not sure if it's practical. There's no such thing as a secure system, there are only systems with no known security issues -- a vehicle that has no known security issues one day, is one discovery away from being completely open the next day. So, it would be hard to legislate the security of a system. The solution might be to incentivize a quick resolution. For example, if a security…

> There's no such thing as a secure system

This is tautologically true. However, the car manufacturers haven't even tried.

They had the same default password for every car. Then they had wireless systems that were vulnerable to replay. Then they had wireless systems that were vulnerable to relay. etc.

The wireless systems on cars need two things: encryption and time of flight detection. The problem is that adds a couple dollars of cost per car and will lock out users some amount of time inversely proportional to the development cost (which the car manufacturers will shirk on so the system will suck). So, no manufacturer will do it short of being forced by legislation.

From an engineering point of view, the main limitation is the battery in the keyfob. If you interrogate the keyfob too often, it will drain the battery and consumers will complain.

Post reply on HN