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

801–810 of 916 posts

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

#801

Post by Dylan16807 »

fargle wrote: post #796
Dylan16807 wrote: post #792

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regulation can remove those consequences for any chosen safety/security feature by making every choice have it. Fundamental law of nature? You're deluding yourself. (And if you say you mean outside of regulation, that people need to be responsible in general for other aspects of life, then your argument is no longer connected to the original comment you replied to.)

regulation is part of the universe. to expect that it protects you exactly when you'd want it to, but does not inhibit you want you'd not want it to is stupid. trying to offload your responsibility onto some "them" is not a fix. i'm definitely not deluding myself. that is life. you need to have both the freedom and the inclination to take care of yourself, if you don't have both you'll suffer.

I do not need the freedom to buy a defective lock.

Mandating basic safety and security features is not always going to protect me, but it will mostly protect me. It's not stupid to want that tradeoff. I don't care if you define "fix" as 100% so therefore it's not a fix. I want the 95%. I want defense in depth, regulation on top of personal investigation.

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

#802

Post by fargle »

autoexec wrote: post #649
fargle wrote: post #578

Earlier quoted context omitted.

this is an absolutely insane position to take in 2024. all around we have junkies in the streets, squatters, shoplifters, car thieves, burglars operating with impunity. you are replying to a post about 12-13 year-olds stealing cars and carrying guns, ffs. this should involve at least several years in jail. maybe a 2nd chance at 18. the pendulum has definitely swung too far, but the direction it's swinging is not what…

> all around we have junkies in the streets, squatters, shoplifters, car thieves, burglars operating with impunity. This is the insane take. Maybe that's your personal bubble talking, but there are millions of people who go about their daily lives without seeing a single junkie in the street. America has always had "bad" neighborhoods filled with junkies/squatters/shoplifters/car thieves/burglars but they have not an…

this is quite the post.

- if you can drive to work, school, shopping, etc. and not see some junkie panhandling, or a squatter in an RV dumping sewage on the street or needles or trash or human shit, then great for you. you live in a entitled bubble. if you can park your car on a public street without a good chance that it's windows be broken or it's cat be thieved, then good for you. the reality speaks otherwise to most of the rest of us.

> Record numbers of Americans can't afford rent.

true

> Is it any wonder that drug use, homelessness, squatting, and crimes like shoplifting/theft are rising?

nope

> Punish addicts instead of helping them?

you can't help them unless you can force treatment. you can't force them into treatment if they are "free". i'm not saying that this is how it is now except in a few places, but the obvious solution is to enforce, strongly the laws and then allow them to choose treatment as a diversion, with the proviso that failing means back to square one. in my book doing anything more lenient is not "helping", it's actually a death sentence.

> A 12 year does not benefit from a prison sentence. Do you honestly think that's going to keep them from committing crimes later on in life?

no and no. a stint in juvee is what the damn kid needs. sadly if you're stealing cars and carrying guns at 12-13, you're a piece of shit and probably beyond help.

> Hard disagree. There is plenty of research...

bullshit. you didn't respond to what i actually wrote: "it's a symptom, a result". this whole thread is about a string of car thefts so obvious that it makes global news. you can't plausibly argue that there's not enough incarceration or that crime is at a multi-generational low.

at the end of the day here the deal: if i (wisely) forfeit the responsibility of my own protection to the state, i really expect that it simply holds it's end of the bargain. which means: if i catch someone stealing from me that the state somehow does something to make sure that doesn't happen again. i really don't care if it's cheaper or not to re-rehabilitate vs. incarcerate. i certainly don't give 2 shits about his broken family, etc. if the best thing for society as a whole is for diversion and therapy, etc., i don't oppose it. but he better the f*ck not do it again to me or someone else. if that fails, then screw it, it's not better than anarchy.

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

#803

Post by fargle »

ceejayoz wrote: post #236
fargle wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yeah it kinda is

No. Windows balance a variety of competing needs - security, ventilation, egress during emergencies, mental health, lighting, etc. It would be, perhaps, egregiously negligent for a maximum security prison architect to install large plate glass windows in their cells, but having windows isn't automatically egregious. A car without windows (or with unbreakable ones) is a deathtrap in an accident; omitting them would be…

dude, he was being facetious on purpose and used the term as a synonym to "shocking" to make the point that having windows are not really an egregious vulnerability. that's silly. the problem is criminals, not windows.

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

#804

Post by [deleted] »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #792
fargle wrote: post #784

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Regulation can remove those consequences for any chosen safety/security feature by making every choice have it. Fundamental law of nature? You're deluding yourself. (And if you say you mean outside of regulation, that people need to be responsible in general for other aspects of life, then your argument is no longer connected to the original comment you replied to.)

[deleted]

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

#805

Post by fargle »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #800
fargle wrote: post #793

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yes, almost. for example, if a company made a car alarm called "SUPER EXTRA SECURE ELITE++ V5" and told me it had a "guaranteed thief proof" immobilizer. but then we find that a viral Tik Tok video shows how to with a hairpin and spit we can completely disable it and in 5 seconds and take the car for a drive and access the owners credit card info. and then also the car often bursts into flames while parked and turned…

Fobs are very cheap. There is no reason to want cars without them.

none of your business what i want, honestly

whether or not it makes sense to you

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

#806

Post by Chris2048 »

kube-system wrote: post #667
Chris2048 wrote: post #629

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That kind of expands the scope of this conversations to mugging/carjacking, which also comes with a higher penalty, and probably higher priority to the police. And, it involves interacting with someone, who presumably can call the police afterwards, and activate any lojack / immobilisation device before it can be removed. Presumably the appeal of stealing a parked car it may be a while before it has been discovered a…

The only reasonable way to evaluate risk is as a whole. Real world attackers pick whichever realm is easiest to exploit, they aren't going to waste their time doing something difficult when there are easier ways to accomplish their goal. > who presumably can call the police afterwards, and activate any lojack / immobilisation device before it can be removed. Yes, people who carjack usually aren't looking for a nice d…

> people who carjack usually..

No idea, but my point stand on how they achieve this in the first place..

> towing cars is neither difficult nor suspicious in many places

because it's not a recognised method of theft. Also, buying a registered tow truck to commit a car theft doesn't sound easy to me.

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

#807

Post by fargle »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #799
fargle wrote: post #776

Earlier quoted context omitted.

not hard at all. where is CPS? obviously someone isn't giving an 11 year-old appropriate supervision at all if they are driving, let alone stealing a car. there absolutely should be consequences for both the parents and the child in this situation. i'm not saying one mistake, send the kid to prison, take away parental rights. but it should be severe enough to matter, including several thousand dollars restitution.

Thanks for your contribution to the total destruction of outside roaming and play for children. It is perfectly fine to let an 11 year old walk a couple blocks unsupervised. And if they steal a car at that point, it is not a supervision problem.

dude, i am 100% all for free-range-children.

but, somehow, i manage to ensure that none of them are stealing cars at 11

"it is not a supervision problem"

hmm. maybe i should have said "parenting issue"...

look, i am blessed to have had good kids. but i have had friends with struggles. if i had a kid that somehow stole a car (at 11) and i had to pay for repairs and meet with CPS and deal with courts and fines and maybe even juve and a lost year of school, we'd get through it.

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

#808

Post by fargle »

philistine wrote: post #779
rale00 wrote: post #623

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if kia makes a cheap car with crappy locks either don't buy it Immobilizers were a standard feature on cars for decades. If you went to buy a car, no one was putting immobilizer on the list of features, and they certainly wouldn't let you try breaking the ignition lock on a test drive. If they had advertised that their vehicles were insecure, then sure, it's on the buyer, but they didn't.

The problem with Kia cars not having immobilizers is wholly american. It is illegal to sell a car in Canada without an immobilizer.

funny thing is the part where this article is about a canadian car theft epidemic...

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

#809

Post by Daz1 »

tamimio wrote: post #771
Daz1 wrote: post #756

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You might have a point if hammers or screwdrivers had no other purpose other than stealing cars, but they do, so you don't

> You might have a point if hammers or screwdrivers had no other purpose other than stealing cars And so is flipper zero.. have another analogy, flipper zero is like Swiss army pocket knife, you can use it open your package box and also kill someone, zipper can be used as a toy -literally- or an IR remote, and can also steal a car, except I don’t think it can steal a car in the first place, it’s too weak, you need an…

Swiss Army Knife does not provide any functionality that can't be provided by any other basic household object - neither can a hammer. The function of a hammer does not extend past 'hit thing' or 'pull nail', Obviously this kind of function can't be controlled in its application as people can swing their arms however they feel which makes any sort of restriction on hammers redundant given their utility.

Flipper Zero on the other hand is a toy with no/little actual utility that enables users to perform illegal/dangerous tasks like steal cars, that would not otherwise be possible except via less accessible/illegal means.

Do you understand now?

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

#810

Post by Daz1 »

electriclove wrote: post #767
Daz1 wrote: post #756

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You might have a point if hammers or screwdrivers had no other purpose other than stealing cars, but they do, so you don't

So does the Flipper.. so what are you trying to say?

The function of a hammer does not extend past 'hit thing' or 'pull nail', Obviously this kind of function can't be controlled in its application as people can swing their arms however they feel which makes any sort of restriction on hammers redundant given their utility.

Flipper Zero on the other hand is a toy with no/little actual utility that enables users to perform illegal/dangerous tasks like steal cars, that would not otherwise be possible except via less accessible/illegal means.

Do you understand now?

Post reply on HN