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

871–880 of 916 posts

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

#871

Post by electriclove »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #795
electriclove wrote: post #772

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can the downvoters explain why they disagree with: "I think the manufacturer should fix things so they are more in line with other manufacturers. But I also want to see some repercussions for the thieves."

That's obviously not the sentence people are disagreeing with. There is no way your colleagues want the thieves to not face any consequences. It's a completely different thing to not trust the justice system to give an appropriate consequence.

My colleagues never call out the thieves or call for consequences. They skirt that issue and focus their rhetoric on the big, bad companies or blame the victim (eg should have locked his bike, should have taken valuables out of the car, etc)

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

#872

Post by ClumsyPilot »

fargle wrote: post #781
ClumsyPilot wrote: post #664

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 thi…

> if boeing ever makes a cheap plane, i would definitely avoid it

You wouldn’t even know that airline is putting you on such a plane

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

#873

Post by pdonis »

tomrod wrote: post #850
pdonis wrote: post #550

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> UN has had tremendous impact in the world Perhaps, but if so, I think its impact is, at the very least, net negative, not net positive.

Heartily disagree. Having an avenue where nations can be shamed for their crimes against humanity as well as a central org that both announces common human rights and monitors for them is immensely useful on any normative ethics yardstick, whether utilitarian, essentialist, effective altruism, and so forth.

> Having an avenue where nations can be shamed for their crimes against humanity

Many nations have continued to commit crimes against humanity since the UN was founded, without any shaming at all. Some of them have had their leaders praised and given awards and invited to be keynote speakers at conferences at the same time that their crimes against humanity were in full swing (for example, Robert Mugabe). And two of the most egregious such nations, Russia and China, have permanent seats on the UN Security Council.

It is true that the UN has shamed some nations for crimes against humanity (the Milosevic regime in Serbia, for example). But that just makes the lack of shaming in so many other cases worse, especially when the cases that are ignored are at least as egregious as the cases that are shamed.

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

#874

Post by pdonis »

withinboredom wrote: post #829
robertlagrant wrote: post #822

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree, but I don't see how that's relevant to the idea that the UN has changed the culture of the world to end war.

I don't think anyone here said that?

The UN Charter does.

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

#875

Post by burnished »

bmicraft wrote: post #782
Geisterde wrote: post #774

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Those are places where you only call the cops ('public security') because the situation has seriously degenerated. Their security measures are the ones you are already familiar with; locks and keys, the understanding that you need specific permission to be present, some sort of fridge policy etc.

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

#876

Post by AnthonyMouse »

alpaca128 wrote: post #706
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #652

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Failing to implement even the most basic security measure, which is considered industry standard, in a high-value product that is known to be very attractive to thieves and then selling that product to consumers with no warning that "unlike most other cars on the market, which have many layers of security features, this car can be stolen using a cheap toy" makes the inevitable thefts absolutely Kia's fault. I don't…

> Kia doesn't have any kind of a monopoly in this market No need for a monopoly, just bad incentives. All manufacturers could just decide that it's better to save more money and omit basic security features across the entire industry, making it impossible to buy a new car with certain standards. What are people going to do, not drive any cars? That's why it's near impossible to find a printer that's not garbage.

> What are people going to do, not drive any cars?

They're going to buy a car and then pay someone to install an aftermarket immobilizer.

> That's why it's near impossible to find a printer that's not garbage.

Brother laser printers are widely regarded as decent. You're also legally permitted to buy cheap garbage for low prices. It will be cheap garbage, so maybe don't buy it.

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

#877

Post by petsfed »

iraqmtpizza wrote: post #826
petsfed wrote: post #798

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just to understand here: you're claiming that since atheists have fewer children, they'll eventually be out-bred by the religious? Atheism is, in general, a consequence of, not a cause of, all the things that also result in lower birth rates. Birth rates in the US started to fall a lot earlier than religiosity did.

LOL none of that remotely explains the massive fertility gap between atheists and theists. You can talk about the general population until you're blue in the face. That doesn't change statistical facts.

I'm saying that atheism and lower birth rates are caused by increases in overall quality of life.

I'm not addressing whether or not atheists in fact have fewer children. That seems self-evident. I'm saying that you're misidentifying cause and effect here.

I will say that its a little weird to suggest that atheism will die out simply because atheists will have fewer children. Atheism is not, in general, spread via proselytizing or family or community education (religious apathy, certainly, is spread that way but not motivated self-identification as an atheist), so much as what you might call "anti-religious experiences": experiences that set a person to seriously questioning then rejecting the concept of god(s). For good or ill, modern scientific knowledge has made religious experiences (that is, powerful emotional experiences that so defy explanation that a person feels compelled to accept them as the work of god(s)) much rarer.

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

#878

Post by [deleted] »

Geisterde wrote: post #849
jrflowers wrote: post #790

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Yes, im not saying you shouldnt be able to sue. Im saying the government shouldnt set a magic bar that if companies hurdle they are without fault.

[deleted]

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

#879

Post by jrflowers »

Geisterde wrote: post #849
jrflowers wrote: post #790

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Yes, im not saying you shouldnt be able to sue. Im saying the government shouldnt set a magic bar that if companies hurdle they are without fault.

Exactly. If an insurance company writes rules for a company to follow, it is a good thing. If the government writes those same rules it is a bad thing as the goal is not to reduce the number of thefts but rather make whole the people that get their car stolen and have the money to sue

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

#880

Post by AnthonyMouse »

filoleg wrote: post #669
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #652

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Failing to implement even the most basic security measure, which is considered industry standard, in a high-value product that is known to be very attractive to thieves and then selling that product to consumers with no warning that "unlike most other cars on the market, which have many layers of security features, this car can be stolen using a cheap toy" makes the inevitable thefts absolutely Kia's fault. I don't…

> If you buy a classic vehicle, they don't have these kinds of things either Not a good analogy, because buying a classic vehicle automatically waives a bunch of safety and other features that are not only expected in modern day, they are straight up legally required. A car manufacturer cannot remake a classic vehicle from the 80s and release it in the US in 2024. Or, probably, EU too, I cannot speak for that due to…

Those are explicit regulatory requirements and not just "well a lot of cars have this and I didn't bother to check" as in this case.

And if you were going to do that in this case, the thing to require is the ability for third parties to fix the manufacturer's software mistakes. Otherwise the carmaker goes out of business, as happens from time to time when they don't make a decent product, and then you can't go to them to fix something like this when it subsequently comes out even though their cars will be on the road for many more years.

Whereas if anybody could patch the code in their own car, you wouldn't have this situation where Kia ignores the issue, because third parties would have done it already, the same whether they're incompetent as bankrupt.

Post reply on HN