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

781–790 of 916 posts

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

#781

Post by fargle »

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #664
fargle wrote: post #583

stupid on stupid. - it's incredibly stupid to ban the flipper zero because it's factually not even part of the problem - but it's equally stupid to "ban insecure vehicles". if kia makes a cheap car with crappy locks either don't buy it (because maybe insurance) or add and aftermarket immobilizer or a steering wheel lock. if it was really negligent of kia to "save a couple bucks", then it's equally negligent on you fo…

> i'm not negligent for not doing enough to prevent the crimes of some other asshole. If you entire job is selling locks and they don’t prevent crime, then it’s not negligent, it’s fraudulent. You want to be in the clear? Sell a car without a lock, see how many people buy that. > if kia makes a cheap car with crappy locks either don't buy it And if Boeing makes a cheap, unsafe plane, don’t fly on it I would be happy…

> And if Boeing makes a cheap, unsafe plane, don’t fly on it

yes. exactly. if boeing ever makes a cheap plane, i would definitely avoid it.

you are comparing a company that cheated on legally mandated safety requirements with a company that didn't put a non-legally required car immobilizer on a lot of their new cars. and then didn't lie about it.

> But currently companies will simply defraud you

but kia didn't do this

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

#782

Post by bmicraft »

Geisterde wrote: post #774
caconym_ wrote: post #765

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We should regulate cars to be safer because I don't get to decide which car (or, more likely, truck) the moron who puts me/my family in the hospital (or the grave) was driving. Given the trends in traffic and pedestrian deaths in the US, our regulators are grossly negligent in this regard.

Sure, in the context of broad safety you have a point. Of course, you are more likely to die in places where police are responsible for your protection. The safest places people inhabit are their home, their work, places with private security measures. The negligence you speak of, how widespread would you say it is? Would you say the EPA dropped the ball preventing the east Palestine Ohio train derailment? Would you…

> The safest places people inhabit are their home, their work, places with private security measures.

Weird takeaway. Those aren't primarily places with security measures, they're places where trusted people outweigh untrusted ones.

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

#783

Post by bmicraft »

fargle wrote: post #778
dog_boxer72 wrote: post #722

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes anyone who doesn’t have the knowledge/time/motivation/cynicism to prevent themselves getting taken advantage of is basically asking for it, nay “deserves” it. /sarcasm

anyone who thinks there is anybody in the universe other than themselves that is going to take responsibility for their safety, security, happiness, etc. absolutely "deserves" what they get.

Nobody can or should be expected to know about every the safety and security aspects of every single minute detail in their lives.

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

#784

Post by fargle »

bmicraft wrote: post #783
fargle wrote: post #778

Earlier quoted context omitted.

anyone who thinks there is anybody in the universe other than themselves that is going to take responsibility for their safety, security, happiness, etc. absolutely "deserves" what they get.

Nobody can or should be expected to know about every the safety and security aspects of every single minute detail in their lives.

i didn't say they did! i said they need to take responsibility for their own safety/security or suffer the consequences. whether they should be expected to... is totally irrelevant. i'm not stating a preference, i'm stating a fundamental law of nature.

and not knowing even that simple fact is what makes it "deservedly" so.

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

#785

Post by RHSeeger »

madmountaingoat wrote: post #662
RHSeeger wrote: post #641

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If I left a million dollars out on my front porch, and someone stole it, that would not be my fault in any sort of way It's possible for multiple people to share the blame for something. You _are_ the victim. The person who stole it _is_ the bad guy / criminal. But you _both_ share the blame, because you did something to put yourself at risk when you had better options. If I'm out late at night, wearing expensive j…

[flagged]

I'm saying that it's possible to both be the victim and to have made a stupid choice that made you winding up as the victim more likely.

And, clearly, that it's possible for you to be unable to understand such subtleties.

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

#786

Post by tourmalinetaco »

mulmen wrote: post #731
technofiend wrote: post #728

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I locked myself out of my car so often I ended up wedging a coat hanger under the rear bumper. You're right: car doors used to be trivial to yank open when you knew the trick. These days I'd love to create a little side project that sets the alarm off on my car any time a relay attack is detected. I'm sure Mark Rober or someone will end up doing it.

Wouldn't it have been easier to put a second key under there?

Of course, but that takes time and money to get a new key made. And once you know the trick it’s trivial using a coat hanger.

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

#787

Post by ranger_danger »

EasyMark wrote: post #750
arjvik wrote: post #690

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Genuine question - why do headlights need to be on the main CAN bus? Could they not be operated from somewhere closer to the ECU by wires that just carry power and maybe some very simple data lines?

It cuts way down on the amount and expense of wiring, copper is expensive. It makes it easier to pocket some more profit.

just wait until wireless CAN comes around

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

#788

Post by caconym_ »

Geisterde wrote: post #774
caconym_ wrote: post #765

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We should regulate cars to be safer because I don't get to decide which car (or, more likely, truck) the moron who puts me/my family in the hospital (or the grave) was driving. Given the trends in traffic and pedestrian deaths in the US, our regulators are grossly negligent in this regard.

Sure, in the context of broad safety you have a point. Of course, you are more likely to die in places where police are responsible for your protection. The safest places people inhabit are their home, their work, places with private security measures. The negligence you speak of, how widespread would you say it is? Would you say the EPA dropped the ball preventing the east Palestine Ohio train derailment? Would you…

I don't have much faith that our regulators are going to get their shit together either, but that doesn't mean I can't hold them responsible for the consequences of their negligence. As for the theory that the invisible hand of the market will drive better outcomes in traffic safety, that is obviously not happening in aggregate. It may even be having the opposite effect, given the unchecked proliferation of pickup trucks and large SUVs that are known to be more dangerous to pedestrians and the drivers of other vehicles.

I'm not super familiar with the East Palestine derailment, but based on what I do know about it I think your 59/60 train cars example is sort of disingenuous. American freight rail operators are well known for skimping on safety in multiple dimensions; issues like obsolete brake technology, stretched-thin crews, insufficient maintenance, and excessively long/heavy trains have all been discussed to death before and after that accident. The problem isn't some off-by-one miscalibration, but rather that our regulators (and I'm including lawmakers under that umbrella, especially since they're usually the ones taking the bribes AFAIK) are simply not willing to demand that these industries put public safety over profits in areas where there are well-understood systemic safety problems. AIUI, efforts to improve rail safety during the 2010s and earlier have been largely stillborn, sabotaged by rail company lobbying.

Just to illustrate what I'm talking about via another example: if the MCAS system that killed 346 passengers on two 737 Max aircraft within the span of a few months had been an honest design flaw rather than a hack devised to juice sales by dodging retraining requirements, cheaply and shoddily implemented ignoring the misgivings of Boeing personnel and rubber-stamped by the FAA, then it would have been a simple tragedy. As it actually happened, it's an atrocity—a failure on multiple levels by many people who ought to have known better, holes in the Swiss cheese all lining up, 346 lives sacrificed on the altar of avarice. That's where the invisible hand gets you when you let it take the wheel, but I suppose next you'll tell me that those people ought to have done their own safety audits of the aircraft that got them killed.

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

#789

Post by vsuperpower2020 »

Geisterde wrote: post #759
vsuperpower2020 wrote: post #691

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody knows a vehicle is insecure when they buy it. It's simpler, more cost efficient, and more valuable to society just to require cars to have basic security features. Your idea of market correction doesn't work in this case, because it's never advertised as having shitty security, and the average (or even informed) consumer will have no idea this is a problem until after they've bought the car.

I never understand this arguement. I hear it in the form "we should just regulate cars to be safer", why dont you just buy a safer car? "What do you take me for? I got a mustang GT, the last thing that car is worried about is safety". Interesting, you bought a car because its fast, not paying any consideration to whether it could safely get you from point A to B, and this is what you rely on to get you to work? Its n…

You shouldn't have to consider if the car's locks work, because working locks should be a baseline in cars produced in a first world country. It's that simple and easy. You aren't nearly as smart as you think you are and having basic standards of how corporations should operate isn't coddling.

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

#790

Post by jrflowers »

Geisterde wrote: post #774
caconym_ wrote: post #765

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We should regulate cars to be safer because I don't get to decide which car (or, more likely, truck) the moron who puts me/my family in the hospital (or the grave) was driving. Given the trends in traffic and pedestrian deaths in the US, our regulators are grossly negligent in this regard.

Sure, in the context of broad safety you have a point. Of course, you are more likely to die in places where police are responsible for your protection. The safest places people inhabit are their home, their work, places with private security measures. The negligence you speak of, how widespread would you say it is? Would you say the EPA dropped the ball preventing the east Palestine Ohio train derailment? Would you…

You make a good point. The government should not impose rules about what companies do and also the government should hold companies liable for what they do, which is a different thing from having rules
Post reply on HN