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

501–510 of 916 posts

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

#501

Post by mrguyorama »

philwelch wrote: post #293
Draiken wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Works for who? The corporations profiting from slave prison labor? If we at least arrested the corrupt white collar criminals that never get punished, then we could look at this as something more than an uninformed extreme measure. Imagine if wage theft wasn't merely a fine? Imagine if corruption was actually prosecuted? Then we can talk! /s

It works for the people of El Salvador who are no longer being murdered by the gangsters who are all now in prison.

Which is completely irrelevant to the US which is largely not a land under gang control.

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

#502

Post by kube-system »

Chris2048 wrote: post #481
kube-system wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The result of that may be that losing a key is financially devastating enough that it totals many vehicles. And/or if the odometer and other local storage is affected, that may cause permanent title issues for the car. The number of people who lose their keys vastly dwarfs the number of people who are having their car stolen with a flipper zero.

Perhaps, or perhaps not. It has to be hard enough it can't be done in the street (without getting attention), but maybe it could be easy enough to do in a garage. But even if it is expensive, the result would be that either people with take more care, or they'll lose their car. Maybe it's not a bad thing that people who can't manage a key are less likely to be on the roads - or that its more likely they lose access t…

Yes, but this wouldn't prevent dangerous street criminals from stealing cars. Many of them steal the keys with the car. They go down to the gas station, and wait for an old lady with a nice car to pull up to the pump, and when she hops out they hop in.

The criminals doing more skilled attacks typically aren't joyriding or using it to commit other crimes, they typically doing it for financial gain: they want the car, its contents, or its parts.

Ultimately the overlap between the violent street criminals and those skilled at attacking digital security systems is not much.

> But even if it is expensive, the result would be that either people with take more care, or they'll lose their car.

The entire reason keys were explicitly designed with the functionality to program new ones is because that's not considered by most to be an acceptable solution.

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

#503

Post by autoexec »

whimsicalism wrote: post #301
alwaysrunning wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The premise that catalytic converter thefts have plummeted in the last few years is incorrect. In fact, recent data indicates that vehicle-related thefts, including catalytic converter thefts, have surged. According to a report by the National Insurance Crime Bureau (NICB), the nation experienced more than 64,000 catalytic converter thefts in 2022, with California and Texas leading the country in these incidents[3].…

My comment was confusing so let me address what you are saying: 1. This is a very recent thing I am discussing, the fencers were only arrested in the beginning of 2023 and the thefts have fallen in 2023, specifically second half. This should be available in more fine-grained crime stats or simply by looking at like google trends of catalytic converter replacement searches. 2. Crime is much lower than in the 20th cent…

> this trend is after they busted a billion dollar auto parts company for being heavily involved in fencing these parts

Do you mean DG Auto Parts (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020–2022_catalytic_converter_...) or is there another auto parts chain I should avoid.

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

#504

Post by saint_fiasco »

caskstrength wrote: post #214
newsclues wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is done by organized crime with engineers on staff. Sure it’s drug addicts stealing cars but the people shipping them are smart and have access to capital.

I agree, but that brings us back to my original question: why can't same smart organized crime people unlock my smartphone then? Because Apple/Google give a damn about security and car manufacturers do not.

Apple and Google don't sell insecure cheap phones, but lots of other manufacturers do.

I suppose organized crime doesn't systematically take advantage of that because cheap phones are cheap, and the people who own them are poor. You don't get that much benefit from pwning them.

Alternatively, maybe organized crime does take advantage of them but we haven't heard about it. They could have a giant botnet of them for all we know.

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

#505

Post by engineer_22 »

gchamonlive wrote: post #435
engineer_22 wrote: post #382

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I understand now, your argument is that flipper zero is not a social danger, while firearms are, am I correct?

If by social danger you mean I would be really impressed if you managed to throw a flipper zero into someone and kill him, then yes that is the gist. It's a matter of degree.

ok - well I agree with you. You had a good comment, and I appreciate it :)

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

#506

Post by hot_gril »

sidewndr46 wrote: post #10

This has to be one of the dumbest things I've read in a while. All vehicles are insecure. I can hook a tow truck to almost any vehicle, including an 80,000 lbs tractor trailer and drive off with it. That'd actually attract less attention that outright hotwiring a vehicle. The solution is to identify, arrest, and prosecute criminals. Which the government is not obligated to do in the US.

Was gonna say something like this. In software security land, security measures are cleaner and hacking tools are impossible to regulate, so it's really on the creators to make things secure up to a point. The real world is different. Even the software security philosophy kinda stops at DDoS.

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

#507

Post by petsfed »

AussieWog93 wrote: post #348
darkwater wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As a Catholic, I think I can tell you that it might be more nuanced. I believe that ethical norms are not some arbitrary rules, but are a bit like the part of a manual for some device that says under what conditions the device works properly and under what conditions it may break, only for humans. As in "if you commit adultery, you will end up unhappy; you have been warned". Forewords: I was raised in a Catholic fa…

You could make a similar argument about capitalism. We _should_ have grown past it by now, but we haven't, and every time we try to invent a replacement system we end up making things worse. You can see the ethical decay unfolding in real-time as societies turn replaced the old, rigorously tested system of religion with shiny new secular ethics.

I think a case could be made (although I'm struggling to do so myself) that the growth of mercantilism, and then capitalism, could be understood as direct challenges to Abrahamic-religion-based ethics, especially as capitalism directly discourages altruism.

I think this is a thesis I need to do some work on to either reject it or let it mature, but I think this is an interesting starting place. It is worth noting that the early Christians frequently practiced collectivism and rejected the concept of individual property rights, although that was ~2000 years ago, the faith has evolved sine then.

All of this to say, I do not believe its that secular ethics per se are the cause of the decay, but rather that the religions of the world have not made a compelling enough case to sway people away from rejecting altruism in the name of personal enrichment. The situation is made considerably worse by the fact that a fair number of the global religions see the spoils of personal enrichment as evidence of righteousness, and altruism as at least adjacent to sin.

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

#508

Post by keiferski »

efdee wrote: post #461
keiferski wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Sure, but that is hard because religion is such a big part of our history. There aren't many large scale things from the past you can describe without talking about the influence of religion, because well, religion was there and it was pretty prominent. However, that doesn't say much about whether religion was necessary for morality to substantiate. In fact, so many immoral things have been carried out in the name of…

> if we would have been much more morally advanced by now if it hadn't been for religion.

Kind of an unanswerable question, but I think my tentative answer is "not really." Mostly because the moral viewpoints that underly atheistic criticisms of (usually Christian) religion tend to themselves be derived from earlier Christian ideas. I don't think it's likely that we'd have a universalist sense of democracy/human life without the underlying Christian soul concept. The Romans, for example, had no qualms about human life being divided into "valuable" and "not valuable" groups.

You could use the criticisms of someone like Nietzsche against Christianity and say we'd be more advanced without it, but I don't think this is probably the type of "advanced" that most people today would have it mind.

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

#509

Post by bluGill »

snarfy wrote: post #281
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…

I remember thinking about something similar many years ago. I saw ever increasing safety mechanisms in automobiles. Instead of training to be better drives that don't crash, we add seat belts, crumple zones, multiple air bags, anti lock brake, etc. It's an arms race to mediocrity. It seemed like the end game would be cars made out of nerf. At the time, I thought the solution was to go in the opposite direction. Add m…

Drivers have not gotten more dangerous because of all those things though - they have stayed the same. (Larger cars are more dangerous - but this is about drivers)

We should be training drivers more, but I don't know how to get nearly every adult to agree to spend several weeks a year in a classroom.

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

#510

Post by foobarian »

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…

The problem with rule of law is that it's like a very sloppy program that relies heavily on global variables. Whether it's the constitution or any of the million codes they all have implicit assumptions or vague language that requires a certain cultural or ethical baseline to interpret properly. Just the 2nd amendment is already a plenty popular example.
Post reply on HN