[HN Gopher] Baltimore sues Hyundai, Kia over spike in car thefts
___________________________________________________________________
Baltimore sues Hyundai, Kia over spike in car thefts
Author : amadeuspagel
Score : 126 points
Date : 2023-05-12 12:52 UTC (10 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.thebaltimorebanner.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.thebaltimorebanner.com)
| fullstop wrote:
| I have an older (2011) Kia and took it in for a firmware update.
| It changed two things: 1. Alarm sounds for 60s,
| increased from 30s 2. The key must be in the ignition for
| the vehicle to start
|
| #2 seemed kinda odd, but then I realized that people who used any
| sort of remote start kit would have a bit of a dilemma, as it
| would no longer function after the update.
| whitej125 wrote:
| I figured these Hyundai/Kia thefts using a USB cable was some
| techy issue... like there was a auto technicians USB port that
| would disable car security if it has something plugged into it.
|
| No.
|
| After 5 minutes of searching you see that a USB-A connector just
| happens to fit perfectly over the nub in the ignition and allows
| you to turn it.
|
| The problem is there is no engine immobilizer. So you can start
| the engine just by physically turning the ignition. I thought EI
| was pretty much standard on all cars post late 90's.
| [deleted]
| tgsovlerkhgsel wrote:
| "Immobilisers have been mandatory in all new cars sold in
| Germany since 1 January 1998, in the United Kingdom since 1
| October 1998, in Finland since 1998, in Australia since 2001
| and in Canada since 2007." (Wikipedia)
| olyjohn wrote:
| So it's the government's fault for not making them mandatory
| in the US. Better sue the federal government too.
| HPsquared wrote:
| They do have a lot more money than Kia (though probably not
| in net worth terms)
| trafficante wrote:
| I can see why news organizations don't want to publicize "your
| old phone cable is a skeleton key for Kia/Hyundai ignitions" -
| but it's kind of a critical piece of information that does push
| this issue into the realm of manufacturer negligence imo.
| pvillano wrote:
| Don't worry, the kids are on it
| hinkley wrote:
| I've had my eye on their new electric platform for a while and
| stuff like this is not helping me pull the trigger.
|
| I'm also still a little disappointed that the MSRP came out about
| 10% higher than the estimates. We're getting into too much money
| for a car there.
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| Shouldn't they sue the car owners for owning a car that could so
| easily tempt someone to steal it?
|
| Maybe they should implement car burkas?
| gweinberg wrote:
| Wouldn't it make more sense for Kia and Hyundai to be suing
| Baltimore?
| danielrpa wrote:
| As an ex Hyundai owner, I prayed that someone would steal my car
| so I'd have an excuse to get rid of it!
|
| Maybe they know almost nobody wants to steal their cars, so no
| need for anti theft tech :)
| g42gregory wrote:
| Maybe this is naive, but wouldn't the solution be not to sell the
| cars in Baltimore? It's not that large of a market and there are
| local car manufacturers there as well. Maybe require in the user
| agreement not to drive to Baltimore either, similar to the rental
| car agreements that don't allow for the cars to be driven to
| Mexico?
| r00fus wrote:
| I mean, like, people relocate and stuff or go into other cities
| to buy cars. Banning sales isn't going to do much other than a
| middle finger to Baltimore.
|
| Kia/Hyundai need to fix their security flaw.
| diebeforei485 wrote:
| How about changing the law to require safety features.
|
| More importantly, this is a strange lawsuit. Bicycles get stolen
| all the time, are bicycle manufacturers going to get sued by
| cities?
| ravensfan69 wrote:
| I live in Baltimore, in a pretty "good" part of town where most
| of the young professionals and Hopkins hospital staff live. I
| know 4 different people who've had cars stolen in the past 24
| months. In 3 of these cases the perpetrators were teenagers, and
| in 2 of these cases they brandished guns. Only one of these
| thefts were Hyundai/Kia-related, and the thief punched my buddy
| in the face during the theft.
|
| Many others I know have had cars broken into, homes broken into,
| tons of packages stolen, property vandalized, etc. Basically any
| form of property crime you can imagine.
|
| The idea that Hyundai or Kia are somehow culpable for these this
| extreme social dysfunction is absolutely farcical. Vagrants and
| criminals are kept like livestock by the local government and a
| class of parasitic NGOs- left to terrorize normal law-abiding
| citizens who barely have a legal recourse to violence should one
| of these incidents go sideways.
|
| It would take Ra's al Ghul to resolve the problems of this city
| mrbonner wrote:
| Seattle reporting in! Mine was a victim of smash and grab.
| kevinthew wrote:
| There is data on the Kia/Hyundai problem that is unique to
| these makes because they cut corners on safety features that
| are standard across industry -- I don't know why your anecdote
| of people getting carjacked is relevant at all?
| ravensfan69 wrote:
| > "Theft and violence reigns supreme in a lawless urban
| wasteland" > "How are these anecdotes relevant?"
|
| This is a tremendous leap in logic, but I am suggesting that
| Baltimore's problems can and do exist wholly independently of
| the engineering standards of Korean automakers
| local_crmdgeon wrote:
| Yeah, at some point in Chicago and Baltimore people figured out
| that career criminals vote, and will vote in their own
| interests. Very few people vote in local elections anyway, so
| they've managed to elect a ton of prosecutors who promise not
| to prosecute.
|
| Feels like the 70s in Urban America repeating itself. I feel
| bad for the older Black population in Baltimore. They busted
| ass for the last 50 years and they got to enjoy a really lovely
| city from like 2009 to 2013. Imagine growing up like Henrietta
| Lacks, only to have all your shit stolen by teenagers who are
| legally untouchable.
| MavisBacon wrote:
| Most career criminals have a felony conviction under their
| belt and thus would not be able to vote, so this does not
| make a whole lot of sense
| btilly wrote:
| The interaction between felony convictions and being able
| to vote varies by state. You can find a map of the rules at
| https://www.aclu.org/issues/voting-rights/voter-
| restoration/....
|
| In Baltimore, Maryland, you cannot vote while in prison.
| But you can once you get out. Felony conviction or no.
|
| (I honestly don't think that the population with felony
| convictions are significant factors in elections, but they
| can and do vote.)
| MavisBacon wrote:
| Ah my apologies, that change came in 2016 after I moved.
| Appreciate the correction
| vkou wrote:
| Please provide a citation for the insane claim that career
| criminals are a major voting block sufficient to consistently
| swing elections.
| throwaway6734 wrote:
| Why? There are plenty of middle class black neighborhoods in
| Baltimore and the long term outlook continues to look better
| after the nadir of 2015.
| [deleted]
| hoofhearted wrote:
| Citations needed.
|
| Please don't come on my turf and start trashing out city
| without facts.
|
| I just looked down my street to Fort McHenry and our flag was
| still there :)
| tedajax wrote:
| Legitimately insane take, thank you
| ChuckNorris89 wrote:
| _> It would take Ra's al Ghul to resolve the problems of this
| city_
|
| I heard OCP has some ideas and products they'd like to pitch.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMtqRir7dco
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYsulVXpgYg
| throwaway6734 wrote:
| Haha it won't take Ra's or Bane, just more time and more people
| with money moving into the city and helping to build out the
| tax base.
|
| Imo now is a great time to buy property if you can deal with
| the rest.
|
| Sorry to hear about the bad string of luck those close to you
| have had. It's vile and disgusting how much psychopathic
| behavior is tolerated by some residents in the city.
| aksss wrote:
| Cities get what cities vote for. If they naively vote for "good
| intentions" over practical policy, there's a cost to the
| lessons learned. The cost may exceed the value, particularly if
| the lessons could be called self-evident. The cost can also be
| ruinous (e.g. Portland, S. Francisco.). In the long view, we
| can hope for correction and that the philosophical observer can
| say, "Well, that didn't work out like we thought it would", but
| this is cold comfort to the victims in the intervening years
| and the opportunity cost for the city at large.
|
| From the outside, the policies seem to defy all common sense.
| Doubling down on bad policy seems like foolishness, naivety,
| denial, complicity, or AOTA. When the plane's computer is
| saying 'terrain.', 'terrain.', at what point do you decide to
| pull up, and what does that even look like in Balitmore? The
| complexity of Baltimore's problems brings out the defeatist in
| anyone, but I think there are some obvious starting points.
|
| It reminds me of C.S. Lewis's statement about progress:
|
| "Progress means getting nearer to the place you want to be. And
| if you have taken a wrong turn, then to go forward does not get
| you any nearer.
|
| If you are on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-
| turn and walking back to the right road; and in that case the
| man who turns back soonest is the most progressive man."
|
| Nearer to what are Baltimore's leader's trying to get?
| MavisBacon wrote:
| Baltimore is one of the most dangerous cities in the world,
| constantly dealing with people fleeing the city for the
| county, and they have been in large numbers since the 70s.
| Not the same flavor of hysteria as SF or Portland
| aksss wrote:
| I would suggest that something rhymes in the how
| prosecutorial discretion and bail policies are implemented
| in each of these places, though my point isn't to compare
| one city to the other aside from them all being examples of
| "one reaps what one sows" at a practical policy level.
| MavisBacon wrote:
| Baltimore is one of the most entrenched cities in US on a
| number of levels. It's kind of ridiculous you are
| comparing the hyperwoke follies of SF and Portland with
| the outright despair and corruption in Baltimore. We have
| not reaped what we have sown, we hardly have a shot
| hitekker wrote:
| They're not the same, but speaking as someone who's been
| both cities, there are some interesting similarities .
| Such as that both suffer endemic corruption by a single
| party which uses social issues as a ploy to forestall
| reform. Baltimore is a city that has been forgotten,
| whereas SF is a city in the limelight. Baltimore's
| problems begin much earlier, SF's problems are relatively
| more recent; but the rot in both speaks to a deeper
| problem in American Society.
| thejarren wrote:
| As someone who owns a Hyundai and a Kia, this is an interesting
| thread to read. Going to look into some safety steps moving
| forward.
| Zircom wrote:
| I replaced my Hyundai badges with Toyota ones I 3D printed to
| fit and just completely took off the Elantra lettering
| dmbche wrote:
| A good option is to install one or two hidden switches that
| need activating corectly for the fuel pump to run - even with
| your key they won't be able to take your car.
|
| I think it's Autralia where like 80% of the car theft are
| done with the owner's key? (Too lazy to look for the
| citation)
| kevin_thibedeau wrote:
| They'll smash your windows anyway. Only safe option is to
| switch brands.
| Convolutional wrote:
| I should point out to those not from the US that this is how
| Americans view the US. There is a lot of crime, the government
| and NGOs are on the side of the criminals etc. It is up voted
| to the top as well, with agreement in the replies, this is how
| Americans view the US.
|
| The US incarcerates more people than China, despite China
| having more than four times as many people, but the view
| obviously is the incarceration rate needs to increase even
| more, as crimes are barely being prosecuted according to him.
| The US is off the charts in incarceration rates, but he thinks
| they are far too low and want them increased more, as he sees
| increasing incarceration even more as the solution to the
| problem which western Europe does not seem to have to this
| extent.
|
| So those outside the US can get insights into what the US is
| and how it thinks from threads like this.
| lozenge wrote:
| You could have chosen from about 220 countries with a lower
| incarceration rate than the US, but because you said China,
| people are ignoring the substance of your comment.
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_incarce.
| ..
| plagiarist wrote:
| Yeah, that's a weird comparison. But I doubt the people who
| are deliberately focusing on China instead of Europe would
| engage in an honest discussion about things even without
| it.
| renlo wrote:
| If China executes prisoners who would be imprisoned in the
| US, is it a fair to compare the number of incarcerated in the
| US and China [1]? In the US they get a lengthy prison
| sentence, increasing the moving sum of incarcerated for the
| US, in China they are shot, decreasing the moving sum of the
| incarcerated for China.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_offences_in_China
| maxerickson wrote:
| ~10,000 executions a year1. It would take roughly 5 million
| people for China to match the US incarceration rate.
|
| So it's probably fair enough to compare incarceration rates
| and numbers.
|
| 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_Chin
| a#Ra...
| cscurmudgeon wrote:
| From your link:
|
| > The exact numbers of people executed in China is
| classified as a state secret;
|
| In addition to executions, China has been clamping down
| on entire populations, therefore, preventing future
| incarceration.
|
| > Uyghur birthrate fell by almost half between 2017-2019,
| research finds, adding to evidence of coercive fertility
| policies
|
| https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/may/12/chinese-
| uyghur...
| swearwolf wrote:
| 1.) Though this is becoming an increasingly popular viewpoint
| in many of the American cities that are experiencing these
| problems right now, it's far from universally held.
|
| 2.) The U.S. is not a monolith, so looking at the prison
| population of the United States as a whole doesn't tell you
| about what's going on in an individual state or city.
|
| 3.) The number of people incarcerated has a long tail. In the
| U.S. in particular, many people received long sentences
| during the years following the '94 crime bill. Little if any
| effort is being made to commute these despite policies
| centered on new incarceration changing.
|
| 4.) In the places where reduced incarceration is being tried
| in the U.S. it's important to recognize that it's being tried
| effectively in a vacuum. In many other places which are able
| to sustain low incarceration rates, there are a lot of social
| programs that help make that possible, and also programs to
| help people rehabilitate after a conviction. The U.S. has
| little if any of that. Where reduced incarceration is being
| tried, it's usually not replaced with something that's more
| effective.
| wing-_-nuts wrote:
| I consider myself a liberal, but while I think pretty much
| all drug possession charges should be dropped and
| decriminalized, violent crime? Robbery? Those folks should
| _absolutely_ be in jail. I don 't care if we have to build
| tent cities to incarcerate them. You hurt someone
| intentionally, you should not be breathing free air for a
| while.
| mindslight wrote:
| The fundamental problem is that the misguided attempt to
| criminalize drugs destroyed respect for the law for
| generations. Once you're at risk of being locked in a
| cage for decades for engaging in behavior that would
| otherwise just be called _running a small business_ ,
| then robbery isn't a huge leap. Especially after your
| industry ends up creating its own parallel justice system
| because the usual courts have been made unavailable.
|
| So yes, while drugs should be deillegalized and those
| crimes expunged, this is only but a first step on a long
| road to repairing the severe damage that was done to law
| and order by the very people fallaciously rallying behind
| "law and order" in the 80's and 90's.
| Tyrek wrote:
| Yeah, locking up Elizabeth Holmes and SBF for _running a
| small business_ will destroy respect for the law for
| generations. How dare we?!
| kevviiinn wrote:
| Basically, being in a police state has normalized crime.
| Yes, the US _is_ a police state. Hell, the police have
| crazy influence over politics as well
| pb7 wrote:
| I looked up "police state" and got this:
|
| >a totalitarian state controlled by a political police
| force that secretly supervises the citizens' activities
|
| Can you explain how the US is all of those things?
| bluescrn wrote:
| The problem is property crime without violence.
|
| It can ruin the victims life just as much as non-lethal
| violence (taking away a person's source of income, or
| transport required to keep a job, or wrecking a business
| they've spent many years building), but many take the
| 'it's only property, it's insured!' attitude.
| lesuorac wrote:
| Prison is where criminals go. Jail is where people not
| convicted of a crime go.
|
| Drug Offenses are nearly half the prison population [1].
| So the prison population can decrease by significant
| amounts without releasing any violent criminals.
|
| [1]: https://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/statistics_inma
| te_offen...
| kooshball wrote:
| > Drug Offenses are nearly half the prison population
|
| this is not true. your data is federal only. most
| prisoners are at state prisons. drug offense is about 1/5
| of total.
|
| source https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2023.html
| mattmanser wrote:
| There are root causes to those crimes, they don't happen
| in isolation.
|
| Worse still you call yourself a liberal when in Europe
| you'd probably be a centrist moderate.
|
| You aren't liberal, America's just massively skewed
| facist right now so you think you are.
|
| Don't get me wrong, nothing wrong with a moderate, but a
| liberal wouldn't be calling for more imprisonment, they'd
| be calling for better recidivism.
| BurningFrog wrote:
| Locking up violent people and thieves is very popular among
| those outside the US!
|
| You're right about the comparatively huge US prison
| population, but the difference is NOT because other countries
| let violent people and thieves roam free!
| plagiarist wrote:
| That is a false dichotomy version of what they're
| suggesting. And what do you think is the difference?
| tohnjitor wrote:
| The difference is the US has more people who commit
| violent crimes.
| plagiarist wrote:
| Why is that?
| HDThoreaun wrote:
| America's dominant culture is toxic individualism.
| Respecting others is largely thought of a waste of time.
| There is no culture of shame like there is in eastern
| asian countries. Seriously, disrespecting people is
| something to be proud of for a huge number of americans.
| Everyone looks out for themselves and taking care of
| number 1 is generally seen as the correct decision. There
| is incredible income inequality which leaves many of the
| poor feeling abandoned. The cowboy may be the most famous
| American caricature. It celebrates toxic individualism
| and law breaking. This leads to tons of cultural
| artifacts that glorify crime. Those things all add up to
| a feeling that the social contract has been broken and
| crime is an acceptable thing to do.
| electriclove wrote:
| No consequences
| PathOfEclipse wrote:
| [flagged]
| loeg wrote:
| > I should point out to those not from the US that this is
| how Americans view the US. There is a lot of crime, the
| government and NGOs are on the side of the criminals etc. It
| is up voted to the top as well, with agreement in the
| replies, this is how Americans view the US.
|
| What? No. This is not remotely a universal American viewpoint
| -- especially the government being "on the side of the
| criminals etc." What would that even mean?
| ravensfan69 wrote:
| > What would that even mean?
|
| It would look, and maybe this is sheer coincidence, very
| much like our present situation
| Natsu wrote:
| > especially the government being "on the side of the
| criminals etc." What would that even mean?
|
| I imagine that people would gesture at stories like this:
|
| https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-
| courts/suspect...
|
| > Police arrested one of two gun-wielding people caught on
| camera during a double shooting at a crowded holiday
| celebration this past weekend in south St. Louis, but the
| 33-year-old woman was released Wednesday afternoon after
| the prosecutor's office refused charges against her.
|
| > The suspect's release drew public ire, but Circuit
| Attorney Kimberly M. Gardner's office declined to further
| explain.
| dfxm12 wrote:
| _It would take Ra 's al Ghul to resolve the problems of this
| city_
|
| FWIW, the parent poster doesn't want increased incarceration,
| they want these people executed (probably without due
| process).
| stickfigure wrote:
| Dunno about the parent poster, but I would settle for
| caning.
| ravensfan69 wrote:
| This was obvious hyperbole meant to express a deep
| frustration at having suffered at the hands of criminals in
| a city I care deeply about. People I love have been
| terrorized
| serf wrote:
| >FWIW, the parent poster doesn't want increased
| incarceration, they want these people executed (probably
| without due process).
|
| that isn't just wrong -- it's not even what parent said.
|
| Their hyperbole was pointing out that the perceived
| situation is so bad that it would take something drastic to
| turn it around, not that they in anyway wanted or desired
| it.
|
| There is a lot of purposeful misinterpretation/mis-reading
| going on in this thread, it seems.
| cscurmudgeon wrote:
| 1. Two things can be true. The US imprisons a lot and the US
| doesn't imprison the right folks.
|
| 2. Comparison with China is not accurate. a) Can't trust
| numbers from China and b) China has a much more rigid social
| structure and rules and the population has been beaten in
| submission (e.g. make pie Tiananmen square). Imagine a visa
| system that prevents folks from California from migrating to
| Texas (we are even for allowing mass migration from outside).
|
| Even Politifact rates such comparisons false
| https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2014/dec/16/matthew-
| co...
|
| It is better looking at a local level. And here China exceeds
| the US. https://apnews.com/article/china-prisons-uyghurs-
| religion-0d...
|
| 3) If this is really not a problem with Baltimore (as you
| imply), other locations with Kias and Hyundias should also be
| suing them. As far as I know, they are also sold in China but
| don't have these issues.
| mturmon wrote:
| Sorry, these views are not "how Americans view the U.S."
|
| The GP comment is pushing a certain narrative that (in my
| view) has been ginned up by reactionary groups for their own
| ends.
|
| In addition, it's wrong on the facts (insofar as it makes any
| fact-based claims versus just pushing buttons).
|
| I'll go farther. I scoff most profoundly at the viewpoint of
| the GP post. I view people pushing it as low-information and
| politically naive (if they actually believe it) or evil and
| opportunistic (if they are just "intensifying the
| contradictions" for their own reactionary ends).
| livinglist wrote:
| Don't trust any day from Chinese government..
| mnky9800n wrote:
| He says he wants to take the solution of the Batman villain
| in Batman begins. He doesn't want to incarcerate more people.
| He wants to destroy the city of Baltimore with all the people
| in it.
| serf wrote:
| >I should point out to those not from the US that this is how
| Americans view the US.
|
| No, it isn't. It's the opinion of a single person, and you're
| taking it for granted that their comment was made in earnest
| and that they truly represent 'the American view' -- whatever
| that is.
|
| >So those outside the US can get insights into what the US is
| and how it thinks from threads like this.
|
| No, they can't. They can learn about the opinion of a single
| person.
|
| Can you point me to a country with such a unified opinion
| that any single person can cover the opinions of the entire
| populous?
|
| If not, why would you assume that such a case may exist for
| the United States?
|
| And more to the point, the premise was that it is ridiculous
| to hold the manufacturer of stolen goods to be wholly
| responsible for the theft in a jurisdiction that has law
| enforcement -- do you disagree with that, or do you just care
| to make an example out of someone?
| atkailash wrote:
| [dead]
| Izikiel43 wrote:
| > the government and NGOs are on the side of the criminals
|
| I lived in Vancouver in Canada, that is true there too,
| Seattle is the same (the CHAZ bs a couple years ago? 3rd
| avenue in Downtown?). Hell, in Argentina is also the same and
| that's south america. I think this is more a problem of
| places with left leaning politics which consider criminals
| victims of society which means that they can't be held
| responsible by their actions. Meanwhile, everyone else
| suffers.
| alphanullmeric wrote:
| Think of the poor thieves. Stealing is a basic human right!
| Hopefully we can spread the word to looters across the
| country that the EU will welcome them with open arms.
| ravensfan69 wrote:
| It feels bizarre to make appeals to a foreign society with a
| history, culture, government, and demographics which are
| utterly alien to the situation in the west. We don't live in
| China. Are you so sure that our situation SHOULD be that of
| China that you'd be willing to risk you or a loved one being
| victimized by a violent thug? It always confused me that
| people would side with criminals over the innocent.
| plagiarist wrote:
| "...even more than China. We should instead try approaches
| that, in Europe, have empirically lead to less violent
| crime."
|
| "Why do you love criminals and want innocent families to be
| terrorized and executed by criminals?"
| Convolutional wrote:
| The massive incarceration rates in the US don't seem to be
| solving anything, although you don't think they're enough.
| The US has the highest incarceration rate in the
| industrialized world yet in your view it is barely
| incarcerating at all.
|
| If China is too different, look at western Europe.
| England's incarceration rate is less than one third of the
| US's. Canada is on sixth of the US's. These countries have
| lower incarceration rates but less crime.
| mixmastamyk wrote:
| There are short-term solutions and there are long-term
| solutions. What is your long-term solution?
| JPKab wrote:
| > So those outside the US can get insights into what the US
| is and how it thinks from threads like this.
|
| No, everyone outside of your head can get insights into your
| willingness to cherrypick a single comment and extrapolate to
| fit your pessimistic, hyper-critical mental model.
|
| It's also interesting how you talk about incarceration rates
| independently of crime rates, and act as if the US is
| prosecuting and incarcerating broad swathes of innocent
| people. For those of us who have had loved ones murdered or
| assaulted, or been mugged/beaten, we don't have the luxury of
| thinking of this in an abstract way fitting a bong rip
| session in a dorm room. Take off the Che Guevara t-shirt,
| take a walk outside, and realize that the world isn't a neat
| little theory straight from a professor being interviewed on
| Democracy Now!.
| leothecool wrote:
| > the US is prosecuting and incarcerating broad swathes of
| innocent people.
|
| There's about half a million people in jail right now who
| haven't been convicted of a crime. Some of them are
| innocent, for sure.
| alphanullmeric wrote:
| The key argument being made is that people like you would
| defend thieves while knowing they are guilty.
| kevviiinn wrote:
| Considering how often police lie and plant evidence, I
| would say a hefty number are innocent
| xhkkffbf wrote:
| Note: the incarceration rates were much higher in the past
| and that's the basis of many of these claims. What you're
| seeing now is the political backlash from those rates. Many
| crimes aren't prosecuted and the cops often don't do
| anything. So it's not exactly fair to say that Baltimore has
| a high incarceration rate these days.
| mlazos wrote:
| I agree the US incarcerates too many people, does the
| comparison to China make sense? How can we trust their
| numbers especially when they disappear people.
| Convolutional wrote:
| Well don't trust China's numbers, and compare the US
| incarceration rate to those of any industrialized country's
| numbers that you do trust.
| mlazos wrote:
| Yeah I mean we also have more crime too, so I feel like
| we'd need to normalize this somehow with like
| incarcerated/crime rate or something. Given I think
| nonviolent offenses should be less severely punished than
| they are today.
| Natsu wrote:
| "Too many" doesn't mean much when you look at actual
| crime rates of serious things like murder and rape where
| most people don't want those people to be free to commit
| more crimes that are less susceptible to reporting bias.
| spaceman_2020 wrote:
| Although I lived in the US for just a year, my impression was
| that a) US promoted an all-or-nothing culture, and b) crime,
| especially gun-related crime, was wildly glorified.
|
| My layman belief is that this isn't just a law and order
| issue. Its a cultural dysfunction.
| tonfreed wrote:
| It's the tyranny of low standards. I sat in an airport in
| Florida in 2016 watching CNN rerunning the same police
| shooting footage over and over trying to convince anyone
| still listening that the pistol that had fallen out of the
| kid's hand was, in fact, a book. At the time I could have
| told you the exact type of gun it was, too.
|
| The criminal is excused because he doesn't know any better,
| those that defend themselves are punished to the fullest
| extent because it's politically expedient to do so.
| arp242 wrote:
| The previous poster didn't really say anything about
| incarceration. They didn't say anything about _any_ solution
| - they just said there 's a serious problem. You're reading
| far too much in to their comment.
| draw_down wrote:
| [dead]
| lordloki wrote:
| China has literal concentration camps and prisoner organ
| harvesting. I don't think your comparison means much.
| pySSK wrote:
| The organ harvesting thing was propaganda spread by an
| openly anti-communist organization and has been discredited
| by international bodies. The concentration camps are
| obviously not the norm - the way China talks about them,
| they seem similar to extrajudicial imprisonment we have to
| incarcerate similar types of terrorists and enemies of the
| state.
| tomp wrote:
| > openly anti-communist organization
|
| You say that like it's a bad thing.
|
| Most organisations worldwide, are openly anti-communist,
| except those that explicitly support dictatorship and
| human rights abuse.
|
| I guess that's a good thing.
| carabiner wrote:
| The US has very similar camps in the form of forced labor
| (i.e. slavery) by prisoners. These slaves have built
| products in the US that many of us have used, including
| clothes and office furniture. They make 63 cents per hour
| - make no mistake, they are _slaves_.
| infamouscow wrote:
| I think you are being downvoted for being stupid.*
|
| The US is a massive area of land with a variety of
| different regional geographic and cultural differences.
| You wouldn't go about describing Europe or an entire
| continent with equally broad strokes. It helps to be as
| specific as possible to advance the discussion.
|
| *: Yes, stupid. https://youtu.be/ww47bR86wSc
| pb7 wrote:
| This is voluntary work for people who have been
| convicted. I agree they should be paid more though.
| jimbob45 wrote:
| The source I remember was that China's waiting lists for
| organ transplants were _extremely_ low. If you have a
| refutation of that specific point, I would be very
| interested to read what you have to write.
| simfree wrote:
| Sending most of the citizens below retirement age of a
| province to concentration camps certainly seems like a
| normalized practice in China today.
|
| It was wrong when we did the same here in the USA with
| Japanese Americans (George Takei wrote about his time
| there) and we should not normalize this mass imprisonment
| without individual right to fair trial.
| Fezzik wrote:
| The way the Chinese government talks about things tends
| to not be that accurate. The Uyghurs are not terrorists.
| They are an ethnic minority that is being terrorized and
| subjected to genocide by the Chinese government.
|
| Edit: spelling
| h11h wrote:
| What exactly are you talking about regarding the "organ
| harvesting thing"? It's undeniable that it happened. In
| 2014 China promised to stop doing it. Here's an article
| from Chinese state media:
|
| > China's long-term dependence on executed prisoners as
| organ donors will end at the start of next year,
| according to a high-ranking official.
|
| http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2014-12/05/content_190
| 287...
|
| My understanding is the debates are over whether or not
| it still happens and to what extent political prisoners
| (particularly Falun Gong members) were victims.
| lowkey_ wrote:
| High incarceration rate makes sense when the US has a high
| crime rate. I don't understand why anyone thinks
| incarceration rate should not be correlated or would not be
| correlate to crime rate.
|
| Incarcerating criminals isn't the issue, having so many
| criminals is the issue.
| prmoustache wrote:
| Apparently incarceration and death penalty do not really
| work as a deterrent in this country.
|
| Is it because most of the violent crimes are related to
| drug addiction?
| jolux wrote:
| The US prison system is violent and brutal, which begets
| a high recidivism rate. In my opinion this is because
| American culture tends to confuse retribution for justice
| but opinions vary I'm sure.
| mc32 wrote:
| In most countries the prison system is unpleasant,
| including the UK, Italy, Spain, Japan, Ukraine, Mexico,
| etc. In addition the justice/legal systems slightly favor
| the prosecution.
|
| Salvador was overrun with gang violence, a new government
| came in, rounded up the gangsters and crime has gone
| down. On balance the population of Salvador is better
| off.
| jolux wrote:
| The problem with US prisons goes far beyond basic
| unpleasantness. Take it from the Department of Justice:
| https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-files-
| laws...
|
| "'The Department of Justice conducted a thorough
| investigation of Alabama's prisons for men and determined
| that Alabama violated and is continuing to violate the
| Constitution because its prisons are riddled with
| prisoner-on-prisoner and guard-on-prisoner violence. The
| violations have led to homicides, rapes, and serious
| injuries.'"
|
| This is not a system that is going to successfully
| reintegrate people. We owe a basic level of humane
| treatment even to prisoners, if not for the sake of
| liberal values than for the pragmatic reason that violent
| people who are put in an environment which encourages
| further violence will remain violent people when they are
| released back into our society.
| mc32 wrote:
| The same department of justice that continues to
| prosecute a case against Assange? I'm nonplussed. Boris
| Becker (UK), Amanda Knox (IT), speak to prison brutality
| (and those are well known international personages.)
|
| Ukraine:
| https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2020/08/ukraine-
| four-...
|
| Mexico: https://www.aa.com.tr/en/americas/mexicos-
| federal-prisons-a-...
|
| Spain: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-31
| 9-77231-8_...
|
| Brazil: https://www.americasquarterly.org/article/qa-why-
| is-prison-v...
|
| And in Paradise (I mean Cuba): https://democraticspaces.c
| om/trending/2022/3/29/prisoners-de...
|
| Etc...
| jolux wrote:
| I linked the DOJ and not the Equal Justice Initiative
| because I thought they would be less likely to be seen as
| partisan or politically motivated. But here's EJI on the
| same issue: https://eji.org/issues/prison-conditions/ and
| Harvard Political Review making a similar argument to my
| top post (that US prisons don't adequately rehabilitate):
| https://harvardpolitics.com/recidivism-american-progress/
|
| And since you linked Amnesty, here's their report on
| solitary confinement at ADX Florence:
| https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2014/07/usa-
| prisoners...
|
| Ukraine, Mexico, and Brazil are nowhere near as highly
| developed as the US.
|
| Spain is definitely closer, but Spain doesn't execute
| people like the US does. Of course problems with prisons
| exist elsewhere.
|
| What's specifically appalling about the US is the
| juxtaposition of extreme wealth and relative freedom with
| widespread, institutionalized abuse and neglect of
| prisoners, not just to their detriment, but to the
| detriment of the US as a whole.
| mc32 wrote:
| I agree that our justice and prison systems need a
| recalibration to one, focus on violent crime, aggravated
| sexual crime, property crime, and de-emphasis on personal
| vice correction while also trying to guide prisoners to a
| better path.
|
| At the same time, I wish to point out most other prison
| systems in the world are similar or worse and suspects
| before they become prisoners have fewer legal rights
| afforded them.
|
| That said, the catch and release system we're seeing in
| some places are aggravating crime and they are not doing
| anyone any favors, the criminals or the victims.
| HDThoreaun wrote:
| Prison isn't supposed to be a deterrent in this country.
| It's to separate the criminals from everyone else.
| HPsquared wrote:
| Not mutually exclusive.
| local_crmdgeon wrote:
| The City of Baltimore has repeatedly demonstrated that they will
| do anything besides try to change the behavior of the population.
| It's a failed city, and luckily the model is being exported to
| places like SF, LA, and DC.
|
| Why should we punish people who repeatedly commit crime anyway?
| Fuck it, why do anything? Let's sue Kia instead, maybe we can get
| a payday
| hoofhearted wrote:
| It's a little early to be drinking isn't it?
|
| The city is suing to recover the money they spent on all the
| police efforts expended because Kia cut corners to reduce
| costs.
| macinjosh wrote:
| Schwinn does nothing to stop bicycle thefts. Let's sue them
| too!
| plagiarist wrote:
| If a Schwinn-branded bicycle lock is so easily broken that
| the majority of thefts are from opening those locks, why
| not?
| olyjohn wrote:
| Schwinn is so negligent they don't even come with locks.
| Let sue them!
| Natsu wrote:
| There will always be a most popular car to steal as long
| as there are car thefts.
|
| Maybe the problem is the thieves?
| plagiarist wrote:
| If it were possible for two problems to exist at the same
| time, I'd say one problem is a product defect reducing
| the barrier of entry so low that car theft is accessible
| to bored teenagers.
|
| But of course you are right, only one problem can ever
| exist and the problem is car thieves.
| fib739mnsi wrote:
| [dead]
| Natsu wrote:
| This just kind of ignores how one of those things
| wouldn't even be a problem without the other.
| plagiarist wrote:
| True, if the locks were perfect then nobody would be
| stealing cars.
| HPsquared wrote:
| They would first steal the keys, then the cars. That's
| actually more dangerous as it involves robbery or
| burglary. In a way it's better that the cars are easy to
| steal. Similarly, in bad areas some people leave their
| cars unlocked so that instead of breaking a window to
| rummage around inside, thieves can simply open the door.
| electriclove wrote:
| What in the sibling comment caused it to be flagged
| 'dead'? Hyundai and Kia are Korean auto manufacturers. Is
| this product defect occurring there as well? If so, are
| car thefts increasing there as well?
| hoofhearted wrote:
| Apples to oranges lol
| local_crmdgeon wrote:
| How? Bikes are easier to steal and sell, and we don't see
| them being sued. The logic is the same.
| op00to wrote:
| If there were a bicycle manufacturer that knowingly made
| its bikes easier to steal and sell, AND those bicycles
| when stolen were linked to numerous horrific collisions
| resulting in death and major injury of innocent parties,
| then there might be a comparison.
| [deleted]
| alphanullmeric wrote:
| In other words, it's the redistribution of consequences, the
| left wing speciality.
| peoplearepeople wrote:
| No it's completely ridiculous that police think this is a car
| manufacturer issue. This is a failure of the police
| hoofhearted wrote:
| It's the only car manufacturer in the city with this
| problem, how is it the police's fault?
|
| And P.S. the police in the city have been handing out
| steering wheel locks and educating affected owners, so I
| believe you are misinformed.
| stickfigure wrote:
| "You left your house unlocked? It's your fault"
|
| "You dressed like that? It's your fault"
| plagiarist wrote:
| Sorry, just to get this clear, you are likening an
| argument over a manufacturer creating defective products
| with arguments that might come from a rapist's defense
| attorney?
| Chris2048 wrote:
| The argument isn't comparing the manufacturers liability,
| but that of the people choosing to steal the cars in the
| first place - why is it relevant how easy the cars are to
| steal?
| plagiarist wrote:
| Because human nature is a bit more complex than "car
| thief or not."
| jyrkesh wrote:
| If I buy a front door lock that has a systemic
| manufacturing problem and someone breaks into my house, I
| might want to sue the manufacturer.
|
| But if someone breaks into my house--regardless of
| whether it was unlocked, the lock was defective, or they
| broke a window--and the police are negligent or
| incompetent in investigating or prosecuting the
| perpetrators, in what world is that a) not the police's
| fault? and b) an opportunity for the _police_ to sue the
| _manufacturer_?
|
| If I start a cultural movement to get rid of front door
| locks and it gains traction, and then B&Es spike, can the
| police sue _me_ too?
| plagiarist wrote:
| If you make a lock that is recognizable and easily broken
| to the extent that B&Es double nationwide, I don't see a
| problem with cities suing you over it.
|
| I don't know why you want to try and link the idea of a
| cultural movement? There's very clearly a difference
| between a defective product and a deliberate decision.
| fib739mnsi wrote:
| [dead]
| HDThoreaun wrote:
| If your house does not have a lock and everyone knows it
| then yea, that's your fault.
| xdennis wrote:
| It's the government's fault for allowing criminals to run
| loose. It's their job to deal with criminals regardless
| of how capable the victims are to protect themselves.
|
| When you see an Asian granny being beaten up you don't
| sue her for being so easy to beat up.
| Whinner wrote:
| I don't think you realize how easy it is to steal these
| cars. Look up a few videos. You rip off the plastic on the
| steering column, pry out the ignition cylinder and then use
| the A end of a usb cable to turn the exposed nub to start
| the car. Under 30 seconds. While there are other issues
| going on, this is gross negligence on Kia/Hyundai to not
| use an immobilizer.
| olyjohn wrote:
| Cars have been this easy to steal forever. Thieves
| generally take your car in under 30 seconds regardless.
| This particular vulnerability was just one of the first
| to get fully documented and distributed to everybody and
| popularized by an algorithm.
| bluescrn wrote:
| It shouldn't really matter that theft is easy. If you're
| prepared to smash a window, you could steal from homes
| and businesses, not just cars. There should be a strong
| enough deterrent to make it uncommon.
|
| You may not be able to stop desparate people from
| stealing, but if kids are repeatedly stealing cars for
| entertainment, then problem isn't the security of the
| cars.
| typeofhuman wrote:
| Not the police. It's a failure of the courts. Prosecutors
| are simply not charging or reducing charges for these
| offenders. The police routinely arrest the same people over
| and over again - including for gun charges! But the courts
| let them out.
|
| Case in point. A couple of teens stole a car, smashed it
| into another car, killed a 6mo old and put his mother in
| the hospital. The charges? Trespassing.
| hgsgm wrote:
| Government should mandate product standards before suing over
| them.
|
| Government should thank Kia for making criminals easier to spot.
|
| Government should raise fees for people who buy substandard cars
| and then waste city resources dealing with their trash.
|
| Car owners could sue Kia for selling defective cars.
|
| Insurance companies should charge far more for Kias.
|
| Government should mandate insurance cost disclosures as part of
| car sales.
|
| Problem solved.
| bastawhiz wrote:
| > Car owners could sue Kia for selling defective cars.
|
| > Insurance companies should charge far more for Kias.
|
| Great, someone made the unknowing mistake of buying one of
| these defective cars before it was known they are easily
| stolen. Now their insurance goes up and they have to sue the
| manufacturer. How many people actually have the money to deal
| with that? Suing the car company is expensive. And if I don't
| have the cash to buy another car (and the trade in value of the
| one I have has crashed) I'm just stuck paying increased
| insurance costs. And fees from the city, apparently.
|
| This isn't the economic motivation you think it is, it's just
| pushing the burden onto the owners who had no idea what they
| were getting themselves into.
|
| What you've done is proposed a bunch of complicated rules that
| burden consumers and dealers to do everything possible to
| prevent people from buying these cars, all so you can avoid
| just having the manufacturer do a recall. The government can
| simply say that the cars lack safety features, force a recall,
| and move on. Cut out all the consumer-unfriendly bureaucracy.
| [deleted]
| nicenewtemp84 wrote:
| This isn't as simple as "no immobilizer". My 2004 Ford F250
| doesn't have one either.
|
| Thieves got into it and tried extremely hard to force the
| ignition and steal it. They tried hammering a flat head into it
| and rotating. Didn't work. They tried grabbing the outside of the
| mechanism with some kind of pliers and rotate, and that didn't
| work. I can see they easily spent several minutes on the whole
| ordeal, and didn't get anywhere. The entire lock mechanism was
| destroyed, almost shaved smaller from how many times they tried
| and their pliers slipped.
|
| When I got to it a few days later, I had to get home using that
| truck. I put the key in the ignition and turned it, and drove
| off.
| nathanaldensr wrote:
| [flagged]
| myvoiceismypass wrote:
| If they are not following industry standards on securing the
| car, then yes the car manufacturers should be liable.
| netsharc wrote:
| Buyer beware? To argue on behalf of the Koreans, the cars
| didn't come with immobilizers, which is perfectly legal in
| the US, whereas in the EU it's a requirement. Maybe Baltimore
| should be suing whichever agency it is that permits that.
|
| I wonder if an analogy can be made with airbags, of course
| airbags are well-advertised and sane buyers would avoid cars
| without them, how about seat-belt pretensioners instead?
| dang wrote:
| Could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments and
| flamebait, especially of the ideological battle variety? You've
| unfortunately been doing it repeatedly. It's not what this site
| is for, and destroys what it is for. This has been a problem
| for a while, and we eventually have to ban accounts that keep
| doing this kind of thing.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33014228 (Sept 2022)
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30086559 (Jan 2022)
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19830614 (May 2019)
|
| If you wouldn't mind reviewing
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the
| intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
| throwanem wrote:
| Yeah, I've seen "The Wire" too, I get that people totally
| ignorant of what life in my town is like will overindex on
| that. But honestly, this is just an embarrassingly ill-informed
| take. You'd do exactly as well to defend an email provider
| whose exceptional account takeover rate derives from the fact
| that they don't support passwords.
| HDThoreaun wrote:
| There are an infinite number of people in the US willing to
| steal cars that are this easy to steal. Our culture is to risk
| positive for arresting people to stop this.
| feteru wrote:
| When it doesn't happen with any other makes, yes! Cost cutting
| out industry standard anti-theft tech should be the car
| companies responsibility. Also....17 other local prosecutors,
| not just Baltimore.
| guardiangod wrote:
| "industry standard". What standard? You mean the federal
| vehicle standard, which didn't require cars to have
| immobilizers?
|
| Or do you mean that because Hyundai/Kia didn't do what other
| companies do, that the government has the right to fine them?
| If yes, then what is the federal standard for?
| themaninthedark wrote:
| Industry standard means used widely across the industry, I
| would like to note that Hyundai and Kia are the largest
| Korean automotive makers. In the NA market, Hyundai is
| positioned #5 with 10% market share. In Korea, Kia and
| Hyundai combined have ~79% of the market. So to frame it as
| "they are not using industry standard" is wrong as at least
| 10% of the NA market and ~80% of the Korean market does not
| use this technology.
|
| So in the past, the most stolen make of car was the Honda
| Accord.
|
| Apparently Honda should have taken note and aggressively
| pushed new anti-theft technology.
|
| You are looking for a technological solution to a societal
| problem.
| klodolph wrote:
| We got a car in the mid 1990s with better anti-theft features.
| The only reason that these manufacturers are manufacturing cars
| this way is because other people are bearing the cost of theft.
| pleb_nz wrote:
| Talk about cart before the horse
| softwaredoug wrote:
| Are there resources to know what car brands are most vulnerable
| to the exploits car thieves are using?
| bombcar wrote:
| You may be able to find insurance reports on "most stolen
| vehicles" or similar.
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| Imagine if a city sued homeowners because it's their fault for
| calling the police after a break-in, because they used a deadbolt
| that failed the LockPickingLawyer. This is about equally as sane.
|
| Yes, yes, I know that Hyundai and Kia vehicles are easy pickings,
| but they talk as though "those vehicles are easy to steal, so
| those teenagers, they just felt so compelled to..." Nobody forces
| somebody to steal a car. If anti-theft prevents a car theft,
| consider that is still someone who _had intent_ to steal a
| vehicle if it were possible.
| qup wrote:
| It turns out, people _will_ download a car.
| digdugdirk wrote:
| This situation is more like a deadbolt with a cover that could
| be pried off with your fingers, and then could be opened by any
| key shaped object once the cover is off.
|
| Maybe to put in software terms - a login page that allowed
| anyone to sign in to any account by viewing source and finding
| an admin login button sitting there for anyone to see.
|
| It truly is a flawed design. Yes, a design that might not be
| flawed for many societies around the world, but it's certainly
| flawed for a product that is sold in the USA.
| ericmcer wrote:
| Of those two the second struck me as an example of someone
| who should expect to be victimized.
|
| It is funny how conditioned we are to assume people online
| will be as malicious as we allow them to be.
| digdugdirk wrote:
| Mechanical engineers operate under the same assumption,
| though it's generally a stupidity standard vs a
| maliciousness standard. In this case, they absolutely
| should have recognized there was no backup to their (much
| more affordable) immobilizer design, and caught it in the
| early design review phases.
| klodolph wrote:
| LockPickingLawyer is highly skilled, and can defeat locks that
| most others can't.
|
| This is like selling one of those old Kryptonite locks that
| could be defeated with a Bic pen. At that point, the lock is
| truly defective, and should be pulled from the market. Your
| lock should require something more than a readily-available,
| vaguely key-shaped object to operate--so if you can operate the
| lock with a Bic pen (like the old Kryptonite locks) or a USB
| charging cable (like the new Kias), the lock is defective.
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| True, I agree, but here is the thing: There is no federal
| standard requiring fancy anti-theft equipment.
|
| Baltimore is quite literally suing because two manufacturers
| aren't doing what other manufacturers do, because it would be
| more convenient for them, despite there being no rule
| requiring such technology.
|
| That's a slippery slope. For heaven's sake let's make a rule,
| but trying to sue a manufacturer for not doing what other
| manufacturers do in absence of a law seems dangerous.
|
| Let's say Tesla and Ford start requiring all auto parts to be
| digitally paired, to "prevent theft," so parts are not
| interchangeable. If this case succeeds, any automaker who
| doesn't do that could be found liable.
| klodolph wrote:
| I don't think we should _need_ to codify every possible
| problem as a rule. It is enough that Kia knows, or should
| know, the consequences of their actions, but chose to let
| somebody else (the owners, the police) deal with the
| consequences.
|
| Basically, I think mens rea is a much more sound basis for
| law than rules prescribing specific behavior, in general.
| Like, if you are an engineer and you design a bridge, and
| it turns out that the bridge fails and _you should have
| known that it would fail,_ you bear the liability. This
| basic doctrine can be augmented with specific rules (like,
| cars must have back-up cameras and airbags, houses must
| have three-prong outlets with proper grounds and GFCI in
| bathrooms & kitchens), but the law should not have to make
| rules for everything before it happens--as long as you have
| mens rea (you knew the risks or _should have_ known the
| risks), you bear some responsibility for your actions.
| endisneigh wrote:
| i deeply disagree with this line of thought. why is the onus
| on the manufacturer here, instead of going after the thieves?
| HDThoreaun wrote:
| There is an effectively unlimited supply of kids who
| believe they have no future and are therefore willing to
| risk it all. Enforcement can't stop them from stealing a
| car when it takes a cord everyone has and less than 30
| seconds.
| klodolph wrote:
| > why is the onus on the manufacturer here, instead of
| going after the thieves?
|
| This is a false dilemma. You can go after both.
| yccs27 wrote:
| That is just a false dichotomy. Of course the thieves are
| at fault, but the manufacturer is also liable because they
| failed to ensure even the most basic degree of security.
| endisneigh wrote:
| ridiculous. there are already federal standards, that Kia
| and Hyundai met. Baltimore should sue the government if
| they want to complain.
|
| should bike manufacturers also be sued for not designing
| a bicycle in a way that cannot be ridden off by anyone
| who is not the owner when parked?
|
| idk how people defend these frivolous suits.
| op00to wrote:
| In every jurisdiction, where they can, police are going
| after Kia thieves. You can keep throwing people in jail,
| but more and more jail is obviously not an effective
| deterrent. This is scientific fact, accepted by the DOJ.
| [1] It is a simple solution to make the manufacturer fix
| the car so it is not as easily driven away.
|
| [1] https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/247350.pdf
| bastawhiz wrote:
| I, as a consumer, expect that the car has a key because the
| key keeps people who don't have the key from starting and
| operating my car. They sold a product for money that
| operates so poorly that it fails at one of its basic
| functions.
|
| Imagine if Google sold a Pixel whose fingerprint sensor
| could be bypassed if you just licked your finger before
| pressing the sensor. Suddenly this phone is now the target
| of thieves because it's easily unlocked and wiped. You're
| suggesting there's no onus on the manufacturer for that?
| endisneigh wrote:
| the onus is on them in the sense that people will stop
| buying them. I do not think it is the government's
| responsibility to micromanage, no.
|
| the scenario you proposed is already possible with face
| unlock and identical twins and look-alikes. should we sue
| Apple?
| klodolph wrote:
| The identical twin thing affects 1 in 250 people, and I
| think we could reasonably expect an identical twin to
| know the risks of face unlock without having to spell it
| out for them. So if you're an identical twin, and you
| don't want your twin accessing your phone, you set a
| passcode instead.
|
| Kia owners don't really have an alternative. The car is
| defective.
| bastawhiz wrote:
| People already have the cars. And the 2023 models don't
| seem to be affected. So getting people to stop buying
| them is sort of pointless (because the people who already
| own them are now stuck holding the bag). If the
| government has no business getting companies who produced
| a flawed product that--as you suggest--people should stop
| buying to fix their products, why exactly do we have
| standards at all? What part of "you have an obligation to
| issue a recall that fixes the product" is micromanaging?
| That could be done with a court order.
|
| > the scenario you proposed is already possible with face
| unlock
|
| I didn't mention face unlock. Any _fingerprint sensor_
| that is trivial defeated is fundamentally broken.
| endisneigh wrote:
| > I didn't mention face unlock. Any fingerprint sensor
| that is trivial defeated is fundamentally broken.
|
| I know you didn't. The point is that your phone can be
| accessed by those who are not you.
|
| and the standards should be around safety
| vanilla_nut wrote:
| The answer is enforcement: cars were much easier to steal in
| the past, and somehow we managed to deter theft anyway. But in
| many US cities if your car gets stolen the cops won't even
| _pick up the phone_. They openly admit there 's next to no
| chance of recovery, and rarely help you even if you have some
| kind of tracking solution.
|
| If you do manage to track down your car, you won't get a timely
| enough response from the police to hold folks who stole it
| accountable. Most of the time they'll simply claim that they
| procured the car from someone else, and the police don't push
| the issue. Same with bicycle theft.
| op00to wrote:
| No, that is not an apt analogy. Homeowners did not design the
| lock. Homeowners did not introduce a flaw into the lock to save
| money.
|
| Think about it this way: no one forces a kid to jump into a
| pool and drown, but if you have a pool without a fence
| completely surrounding it and the kid does just that, you are
| liable for the damages by creating an attractive nuisance.
| Hyundai created the situation of easily stolen cars by not
| "building the fence around their pool".
| [deleted]
| alexb_ wrote:
| How is it Hyundai's fault that people steal cars? It's acting as
| if theives are some force of nature that we can't control or
| something. You prevent theft by putting theives in jail. It's not
| complicated.
| taffronaut wrote:
| It's Hyundai's fault that it's trivially easy to steal their
| cars. Also, you may prevent subsequent thefts by putting a
| particular thief in jail, but not the first one they commit.
| Hyundai make the jail route less valuable because the learning
| curve to steal Hyundai cars is so shallow that there can be a
| constant stream of new thieves committing their first theft.
| capableweb wrote:
| > You prevent theft by putting theives in jail. It's not
| complicated.
|
| Damn you right, it's so simple, why didn't they thought of just
| putting the thieves in jail?!
|
| Also, seems like this whole "people stealing cars" thing
| doesn't just happen in Baltimore. What if putting the thieves
| in jail could work in other cities too? Maybe even
| internationally?
|
| You could be on to something really big here, I hope people
| from Baltimore government comes across your comment.
| cwoolfe wrote:
| Yes they are put in jail. But who bears the cost of extra
| policing, court time, jail space? The city does. So the city is
| seeking reparation from the cost incurred.
| bluescrn wrote:
| > But who bears the cost of extra policing, court time, jail
| space?
|
| Does that really exceed the cost damage done if they're left
| to keep on stealing/crashing cars? At some point they'll kill
| someone, and the 'cash value of a human life' question will
| come up.
| hgsgm wrote:
| The perpetrator is responsible for that cost.
|
| If Kia is liable for inducing crime, government should be
| similarly liable for allowing crime; as preventing it is
| their main job.
| PedroBatista wrote:
| Please read the article before commenting.
|
| Yes, "You prevent theft by putting thieves in jail." But it's
| actually complicated if you adopt a realistic stance other than
| "I want to speak with the manager".
|
| The part that's Hyundai's fault is both the ridiculously easy
| to steal a car BUT also they dragged their feet when asked to
| address the issue and didn't do anything other than telling
| police and local governments "Wait for the next model in a
| couple of years"
| hardware2win wrote:
| Consider reading the article
|
| The concerns are valid
|
| >Certain Kia or Hyundai models can be stolen using a
| screwdriver and a USB charging cord.
|
| >Cleveland, St. Louis and Seattle are among the other cities
| that started suing the the car companies earlier this year.
| Baltimore's lawsuit says the companies "failed to keep up with
| industry standards," and claim it was a result of business
| decisions made to reduce costs and boost profits
| "notwithstanding decades of academic literature and research
| supporting the deterrent effects" of anti-theft technology.
|
| >Car thefts in the city have nearly doubled this year compared
| to the same time last year, part of a nationwide trend after
| videos showing how to easily steal the vehicles racked up
| millions of views on TikTok.
| itsoktocry wrote:
| > _"Hyundai and Kia's decision to put cost savings and
| profits over public safety has had significant consequences
| for Baltimore and its residents... "_
|
| Hyundai has some of the _safest_ , most efficient small cars
| on the road, for great prices. I'd say these things are a net
| positive to "public safety" over all.
| [deleted]
| hgsgm wrote:
| Do those great prices include the cost of recovering a
| stolen car?
| antisthenes wrote:
| Feel free to demand an additional discount when buying a
| Kia/Hyundai in Baltimore.
| arein3 wrote:
| How is hyundai responsible for that? South corea is full
| of hyundais and there's no such problem there. Maybe the
| root cause of stealing is different?
| HDThoreaun wrote:
| They designed a car that is ridiculously easy to steal.
| arein3 wrote:
| If you are a thief
| HDThoreaun wrote:
| It's ridiculously easy for anyone to steal. If I buy a
| door I expect the lock to work, that's the value doors
| provide. If it turns out that the lock actually does
| nothing I would consider myself defrauded by the door
| manufacturer unless they specifically told me that the
| lock doesn't work.
| bombcar wrote:
| Go watch the LockPickingLawyer - some of it is skill, but
| there's a lot of product out there that's painfully easy
| to bypass.
| HDThoreaun wrote:
| People have baseline expectations when they buy a
| product. If you buy a lock the expectation is that you
| need some level of skill to steal it. If it turns out
| that anyone can just pull the lock open you've been
| defrauded by the lock seller. But if the lockpicklawyer
| opens it you haven't, because no one expects locks to be
| unpickable.
| mparkms wrote:
| They cheaped out and didn't include a basic security
| feature that 96% of all other cars have.[0] This isn't a
| problem in countries outside the US because they have
| regulations requiring immobilizers in new cars.
|
| [0] https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/tech/2022/09/129_336
| 571.htm...
| [deleted]
| ericmcer wrote:
| Are the spikes of car thefts similar across all cities? Every
| large city has Kia and Hyundais, you would think this would
| be a nationwide phenomenon.
| chucksta wrote:
| Uh it is.. https://www.yahoo.com/news/nationwide-rise-kia-
| hyundai-car-2...
| hgsgm wrote:
| There's a good article about that; it was recent posted on
| HN:
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35915492
| harimau777 wrote:
| I know that they are also common in Milwaukee.
| themaninthedark wrote:
| I think it is a mistake to look at all cities, it should be
| looked at nationwide though.
|
| By only looking at cities you are pulling in a large number
| of other policies and effects that only cities may have
| implemented.
| fullstop wrote:
| > Every large city has Kia and Hyundais, you would think
| this would be a nationwide phenomenon.
|
| It absolutely is, though.
| sithadmin wrote:
| Nothing in the article nor the parts that you extracted
| establishes exactly why a municipality would have standing to
| sue a product manufacturer for damages, or why a manufacturer
| is somehow obligated to include features that a municipality
| deems to be 'standard'.
|
| The fact that there are consumer products whose absence of
| features creates a negative externality for local law
| enforcement doesn't seem like sufficient grounds for
| standing, and this sort of thing is hardly limited to auto
| antitheft features. Awarding a municipality damages or other
| relief here would set precedent opening the door to all sorts
| of whacky things. Should spraypaint manufacturers be held
| liable for graffiti? Should speaker manufacturers that sell
| devices without decibel-output-limiters be held liable for
| noise complaints? The sane answer here to all of this seems
| like 'no'.
|
| The appropriate venue for dealing with this is federal auto
| safety regulations, not municipalities trolling manufacturers
| in civil court.
| explorer83 wrote:
| The city should run a public campaign to publicly advertise
| the consequences of stealing a vehicle (e.g./ jail, heavy
| fines, reduced job prospects, etc.). Make it clear
| criminals will be punished hard for stealing cars. Maybe
| they can ask the manufacturers and dealers to sponsor or
| donate to it.
| krisoft wrote:
| Or the city can run a public campaign advertising these
| car models as prone to being stolen. That hurts the
| companies image, which puts pressure on them to get
| better. Of course it is cheaper if they don't have to buy
| ad-space for such an advertisement. Maybe they could use
| publicity around a lawsuit? Maybe that is what we are
| reading right now?
| harimau777 wrote:
| How far does that line of reasoning go? Suppose that every
| car they sold used the same key. "We just said that the car
| has locks. We didn't say that those locks have unique
| keys."
|
| Clearly there has to be some degree to which a customer can
| assume that a product they buy meets the standard
| functionality associated with that product.
| alexb_ wrote:
| Then they still wouldn't be at fault. It's not their
| fault that the society Baltimore has crafted is so low
| trust that you can't leave your car outside for a second
| without it getting stolen.
| HDThoreaun wrote:
| It's their fault they made a defective product though.
| When people buy a car the expectation is that you can't
| steal it in under 10 seconds with no tools.
| prottog wrote:
| Like others said, in that case the customer who bought
| the product has standing to sue, not the city of
| Baltimore.
| singron wrote:
| The customer has clear cause. Fitness for purpose,
| warranty, etc. The municipality probably doesn't. If
| anything, they should try to coordinate a class action
| lawsuit among consumers.
| sithadmin wrote:
| While that would definitely be a problem, that's the end-
| user's/customer's problem. It would be appropriate for a
| Hyundai/Kia buyer to sue Hyundai/Kia for damages
| experienced because of such a thing. It doesn't make
| sense for a municipality to sue here - they're not a
| party with a stake in the ostensibly defective product.
| alistairSH wrote:
| But the city is expending resources (police, mostly) so
| there is damage.
| erichocean wrote:
| Yes, and the city _taxes its residents to pay for the
| police_ --the same residents who bought the cars
| requiring more police involvement.
|
| It's a self-correcting problem, no lawsuit required.
|
| The city could even have a special tax on "cars without
| immobilizers" that Kia owners paid, to cover their costs.
| Again: no lawsuit required.
| [deleted]
| idontpost wrote:
| [dead]
| oatmeal1 wrote:
| Public nuisance for having crimes committed against you is a
| ridiculous legal theory. It's victim blaming to the highest
| degree.
|
| "Failing to keep up with industry standards" is also
| ridiculous because it's just a bandwagon fallacy.
| wslh wrote:
| The article sounds like if you leave the door open you should
| assume anybody will enter and steal you. This is reversing
| the victim to the victimary.
|
| In a sexist way would be similar that you are being raped
| because you wear some specific clothes.
|
| Or you are hacked because you don't apply a patch.
| ufish235 wrote:
| It's not an appropriate analogy because Kia is not the
| victim. They are responsible for securing their vehicles
| appropriately.
| tatrajim wrote:
| If a woman doesn't wear a titanium chastity belt, she can
| be deemed negligent.
| arein3 wrote:
| And if LPL can pick up the belt lock then it's fair game.
|
| Sounds stupid, like the way to blame hyundai or kia for
| existence of scum people like thieves.
| klodolph wrote:
| Are you reading the same article? The city is going after
| Kia, not the car owners. Kia is making defective cars;
| people are buying them; the city is going after Kia.
| jjk166 wrote:
| Yeah, suing clothing manufacturers because people wearing
| them were raped is not any better. The city has an
| obligation to prevent crime, car manufacturers do not.
| prottog wrote:
| If anything, the city of Baltimore should sue itself for
| failing to prevent crime. It would make about as much
| sense.
| arein3 wrote:
| People downvoting are so used to scummy people that they
| think it's the norm.
|
| In other societies crime is not normal, and "teenagers"
| have two braincells to understand that a thief is a
| repugnant person and that the consequences are not worth
| it.
| wslh wrote:
| Nice experiment here in HN, it gives us information about
| a specific bias.
| op00to wrote:
| I have seen teenagers break car windows in London,
| Brussels, Montreal, Newark NJ... I haven't been to Asia,
| but I guarantee teenagers do stupid shit there too. I'm
| not sure why you think teenagers have fully formed brains
| in other localities but somehow not in Baltimore.
| [deleted]
| hardware2win wrote:
| Lets do not jump into emotional arguments
|
| Car makers should make their cars as hard as reasonably
| possible to steal.
|
| If dumb ass tenager can do that, the it is a mess
| themaninthedark wrote:
| But that is exactly where this line of reasoning will
| take you.
|
| If you don't take "reasonable precautions" then you are
| liable.
|
| I will also note that I often see comments here talking
| about living in SF and how they leave their car unlocked
| or windows down to limit the damage from thieves smashing
| the windows to get inside.
|
| So with this "reasonable precautions" line, everyone who
| does this should be liable for promoting theft.
| wslh wrote:
| In my country, thieves removes your wheels, break your
| window, etc. Any electronic or hacker approach is very
| advanced.
| harimau777 wrote:
| Their cars omit the industry standard features to prevent
| someone from starting the car without a key. That makes the
| cars trivially easy to steal.
|
| When they purchase a car, a reasonable person would assume that
| the key works to the degree that is standard in the industry.
| jjk166 wrote:
| There isn't a standard they are obligated to follow for
| preventing someone from starting a car without a key. Just
| because many companies do something one way does not
| automatically make it reasonable to assume all will. The
| entire point of being able to shop around between different
| car manufacturers is that you may want a vehicle that does
| something differently. For example, if you are in a place
| without a lot of car thieves, maybe you'd prefer the cost
| savings from a cheaper, inferior anti-theft system.
|
| Baltimore can make a standard requiring cars to have a better
| anti-theft system, but they haven't.
| krisoft wrote:
| > You prevent theft by putting theives in jail.
|
| This is such an incredible naive view of the world.
|
| Whether or not crimes are committed is a complicated interplay
| of cost/benefit.
|
| You say that the city is acting as if thieves are some force of
| nature. And to a certain extent they are. If it is easy enough
| to commit a crime and the reward is high enough a crime will be
| committed. As an example if you leave gold bars littered on
| your front yard people will pick them up. No amount of "putting
| thieves in jail" will save you.
|
| Obviously increasing the chance of getting caught acts as a
| deterrent. But it is not cost free. Investigating and
| prosecuting car thieves cost hard money. If there are too many
| thieves of opportunity created by sub-par security arrangements
| the police/justice system becomes overwhelmed. The city can and
| should increase their police force of course, but at a certain
| point it is like trying to stop a tide with a rake. If you can
| prevent crime before it happens, for example by following sane
| and cost-efficient security practices that saves money and
| aggravation for everyone involved.
|
| What prevents crime is multiple overlapping layers of our
| society engineered such that crime is maintained at a certain
| level. "putting thieves in jail" is just one of those layers.
| And if you think you can simply policeman yourself out of any
| situation then you haven't thought about the problem to a
| sufficient depth yet
| linksnapzz wrote:
| I notice that jewelers and goldsmiths in Riyadh have nowhere
| near the level of secure access controls, nor the type and
| amount of reinforced display cases that you see in Chicago or
| NYC. Likewise, I can leave a $4000 macbook on a table in a
| bar in the cheapest neighborhood in Saitama, and not have it
| walk off if I step outside for a smoke.
|
| Why do you suppose this is?
|
| What is happening there, that isn't happening in Baltimore?
| typeofhuman wrote:
| [flagged]
| op00to wrote:
| [flagged]
| prottog wrote:
| > As an example if you leave gold bars littered on your front
| yard people will pick them up. No amount of "putting thieves
| in jail" will save you.
|
| Of course there is an amount of "putting thieves in jail"
| which will save you; once all the thieves are in jail, the
| remainder of the populace would mind their own business and
| walk past the gold bars.
|
| If your thesis is that literally everyone would steal those
| gold bars, then I have to point out that this is a very
| pessimistic view, and that there are multiple different
| places around the world where it wouldn't happen.
| krisoft wrote:
| > once all the thieves are in jail, the remainder of the
| populace would mind their own business and walk past the
| gold bars
|
| Perhaps. I posit that you are going to run out of one of
| these things sooner than you are going to run out of
| thieves though: gold bars, patience of police to hunt down
| your stolen gold bars, places in prison.
|
| You are going to run out of gold bars because if there is a
| stash of them unsecured there will be some thieves who
| either by sheer luck, or by being better at their job than
| the police at theirs will succesfully get away with
| stealing them.
|
| You are going to run out of police patience by one of two
| ways: either immediately, once they hear that your
| unsecured gold bars were just laying in your front garden.
| In which case they take your report and chuck it in a
| drawer to forget about it. Or if you are politically well
| connected they will try to persuade you to secure them
| better. If you are literally their king and they can't
| convince you to store the gold better they might try to
| protect it by posting a policeman next to it
|
| And then finnaly if you have so much money that
| replenishing the stolen gold is not a problem, and you have
| so much political power that the police is not able to
| change your storage practices then that is when you are
| going to run out of space in your prisons.
|
| > If your thesis is that literally everyone would steal
| those gold bars
|
| Not at all. But it doesn't need to be. My thesis is that
| there would be enough people who would try that it
| overwhelms your police force destined to throw thieves in
| prison.
| shrx wrote:
| Is there a list published somewhere documenting which Hyundai and
| Kia car models are affected?
| russellbeattie wrote:
| If you own a Kia, enter your VIM on their site below and it'll
| tell you if it's vulnerable. I just checked my 2012 Sportage -
| it has an electronic keyfob start so it's OK.
|
| https://ksupport.kiausa.com/ConsumerAffairs/SWLD
| shrx wrote:
| Found a list of models that are blacklisted from being added to
| insurance policies [1]: 2015-2021 Hyundai
| Accent (all body styles) 2015-2021 Hyundai Elantra
| (two-door and four-door) 2015-2021 Hyundai Kona
| 2015-2021 Hyundai Santa Fe 2015-2021 Hyundai Tucson
| 2015-2018 Hyundai Veloster 2015-2021 Kia Forte
| 2015-2021 Kia Optima 2015-2016 Kia Optima Hybrid
| 2015-2021 Kia Rio (all body styles) 2015-2021 Kia
| Sedona 2015-2016 Kia Sorento 2015-2021 Kia Soul
| 2015-2021 Kia Sportage
|
| edit: forbes [2] offers a slightly different list of models:
|
| > Hyundai is offering a free software update to prevent thefts
| on certain targeted vehicles, starting Tuesday on nearly 4
| million Hyundais on the road. The first million eligible cars
| are 2017 to 2020 Elantra, 2015 to 2019 Sonata and 2020 to 2021
| Venue vehicles. Affected owners can bring in the car to Hyundai
| dealerships for the free anti-theft upgrade. It takes about an
| hour to install. Once updated a window decal will (hopefully)
| alert and deter thieves from targeting the vehicle.
|
| > The next batch of eligible vehicles will go in for the
| software update in June and includes a long list of Kia models,
| including: 2018-2022 Accent 2011-2016
| Elantra 2021-2022 Elantra 2018-2020 Elantra GT
| 2011-2014 Genesis Coupe 2018-2022 Kona
| 2020-2021 Palisade 2013-2018 Santa Fe Sport
| 2013-2022 Santa Fe 2019 Santa Fe XL 2011-2014
| Sonata 2011-2022 Tucson 2012-2017, 2019-2021
| Veloster
|
| [1] https://www.thedrive.com/news/these-hyundai-and-kia-
| models-a...
|
| [2] https://www.forbes.com/wheels/news/kia-hyundai-car-thefts-
| se...
| oatmeal1 wrote:
| Of all the entities that could be blamed, it's not the jails that
| create recidivists, it's not the law enforcement that fails to
| intervene before serious crimes are committed, and it's not the
| schools that are raising delinquents.
| jMyles wrote:
| > this is how Americans view the US. There is a lot of crime, the
| government and NGOs are on the side of the criminals etc
|
| Probably fair, according to the anecdata collected in my travels
| in life so far. This view of the US seems common, almost
| consensus.
|
| > he thinks they are far too low and want them increased more
|
| This part, I don't think is typical (or even widespread) among
| Americans, and I don't see it expressly endorsed by ravensfan69 -
| seems like you are presuming it.
|
| It seems to me that, by very far, the common American sentiment
| is, "our justice system has failed, and the focus on
| incarceration has made crime worse instead of better."
|
| On the other hand, many types of crime - especially violent crime
| - have fallen in my lifetime in the US, in concert with much of
| the rest of the world.
|
| But yeah, we Americans don't like prisons and we know damn well
| that our state is just building them as an end-around to achieve
| a plantation economy. We're not stupid.
| TurkishPoptart wrote:
| Cars designed for a high-trust society don't make the cut in low-
| trust societies.
| nemo44x wrote:
| [flagged]
| dang wrote:
| Can you please stop posting flamebait? I don't want to ban you
| but I had to ask you this just recently
| (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35486328) and many times
| previously (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35090086).
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
| aardvarkr wrote:
| Lots of comments that didn't read the article so here's a good
| excerpt on why there's a lawsuit.
|
| Baltimore's lawsuit says the companies "failed to keep up with
| industry standards," and claim it was a result of business
| decisions made to reduce costs and boost profits "notwithstanding
| decades of academic literature and research supporting the
| deterrent effects" of anti-theft technology.
|
| "The dramatically increased rate of Hyundai and Kia theft in
| Baltimore has required city and police resources that would not
| have been needed but for Hyundai and Kia's deliberate failures,"
| the lawsuit says. "Car thieves -- many of them teenagers-- take
| advantage of these failures and engage in reckless driving,
| creating substantial safety risks to themselves and Baltimore
| residents and their property."
| aardvarkr wrote:
| It's also worth noting that this was all started with a viral
| TikTok video showing Hire ridiculously easy it is to steal a
| Kia/Hyundai is. Here's a collection of graphs showing the
| before and after of theft data in major cities.
| https://usafacts.org/data-projects/car-thefts
| aimor wrote:
| Those charts are great, really drives home how quickly trends
| like this explode and increase total car theft. Also
| interesting how regional it is, the exploit at its peak
| quadrupled car thefts in Milwaukee in less than a year so
| Baltimore has plenty of room for things to get worse.
| User23 wrote:
| Clearly the answer is to sue TikTok too. You're brilliant be
| sure to demand a consulting fee.
| mh- wrote:
| Am I missing something, or did they not do anything to adjust
| for how many Kias/Hyundais are _in those cities_?
|
| That could explain why some cities saw much bigger spikes
| than others - or it might not! Feels sloppy.
|
| edit: this obviously doesn't negate your point, there's
| clearly an enormous spike. It's just weird since the article
| took the time to break it down by city, and to call attention
| to some cities seeing larger spikes than others.
| klodolph wrote:
| This echoes what happened in 2004 with Kryptonite locks and
| Bic pens.
|
| Someone figured out that you could open a Kryptonite lock
| using a Bic pen, which has roughly the same shape as a
| tubular lock key. You did not need to use the actual key or
| pick the lock. There was a rash of bike thefts afterwards.
|
| TikTok is a convenient scapegoat, but I think the problem
| would exist without TikTok, because it so closely echoes a
| similar situation from 2004. To be honest, I think that the
| manufacturer should bear the blame in both scenarios--it's
| their responsibility to make sure that the products can
| withstand, for at least a few minutes, an unskilled thief
| with inconspicuous, unpowered, commonly available tools
| (like, a thief with no lock picks or angle grinders).
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5efaWSWwlk
| dwater wrote:
| When that happened Kryptonite voluntarily created a free
| lock replacement program, where if you owned a tubular
| cylinder Kryptonite lock they replaced it for free, postage
| paid.
| prottog wrote:
| Kia should countersue because Baltimore fails to keep up with
| being a city in a developed country.
| hgsgm wrote:
| Are these standards written somewhere?
|
| If it's required, it should be documented.
| lcw wrote:
| The point of the lawsuit seems to be to create case law that
| would influence standards and/or a requirements for
| automotive security features.
| harimau777 wrote:
| I'm not a lawyer, but as I understand it, this sort of thing
| is generally based on a reasonable person standard. I.e.
| would a reasonable person assume that if their car requires a
| key to start, then it cannot be started with something as
| trivial as a USB key?
| Fatnino wrote:
| I keep hearing this vague claim that the cars can be
| started with a usb key. How does this work? Is there a usb
| port that reads some secret file off the USB key? Is it
| just the USB plug shape that fits somewhere in the car that
| forces it to turn on?
| [deleted]
| toast0 wrote:
| As I understand it, USB-A plugs fit the ignition lock
| cylinder and will turn it. Unknown if you have to flip it
| and reverse it a minimum of two times before achieving
| usb-a super position and being able to plug in.
| mattkrause wrote:
| I _think_ (not a car thief!) that starting the car just
| requires turning something approximately USB-shaped; the
| electronics in the key don 't matter.
| moffkalast wrote:
| Here's a demonstration:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTeVgfPM0Xw
|
| Apparently it's more of a joke, you can do it completely
| bare handed if you don't mind tearing some plastic and
| manage to grab a finicky bit. The cars have no
| immobilizers at all apparently.
| meragrin_ wrote:
| > Lots of comments that didn't read the article so here's a
| good excerpt on why there's a lawsuit.
|
| Yea, I don't think that is it.
|
| > "Car thieves ... engage in reckless driving, creating
| substantial safety risks to themselves and Baltimore residents
| and their property."
|
| I don't see anything about Hyundai or Kia taking the cars for
| joy rides. They are not going out and encouraging people to
| steal their cars. They are not responsible for enforcing
| community standards. There is no law which states they must use
| any certain anti-theft technology. The cars are in no way
| malfunctioning. So why is there a lawsuit?
|
| Why not go after the owners? They bought the cars and didn't
| care whether they had anti-theft technology.
| HillRat wrote:
| These lawsuits are part of a longstanding effort by cities and
| states to try and develop a theory of manufacturer legal
| accountability through public nuisance law, an effort that is
| perhaps morally laudable but legally fraught; to date, other
| than a few outlier environmental cases from the '70s, courts
| have almost uniformly declined to create a kind of parallel
| product-liability law through nuisance. While _individual car
| owners_ have legal recourse through traditional product
| liability and negligence routes, hard to see these cases
| succeeding in court; on the other hand, they _do_ create some
| additional political pressure on Hyundai /Kia to take more
| responsibility, which is ultimately where the tobacco lawsuits
| in the '90s ended up -- not winning at the bench, but at the
| conference table.
| theGnuMe wrote:
| The auto manufacturers absolutely have liability.
| amanaplanacanal wrote:
| Can you point to some case law supporting that position? Or
| some sort of legal analysis?
| theGnuMe wrote:
| The words you want to google are "Public" "Liability"
| "Nuisance" "Tort"
| lordloki wrote:
| So you have no evidence to back up your assertion. Got
| it.
| inconceivable wrote:
| this is also seemingly the strategy for anti-gun manufacturer
| efforts. so far they don't seem to be successful.
| lesuorac wrote:
| Can you clarify?
|
| Afaik, lawsuits again gun manufacturers are actually
| successful [1].
|
| [1]: https://apnews.com/article/sandy-hook-school-shooting-
| reming...
| giantg2 wrote:
| "The dramatically increased rate of Hyundai and Kia theft in
| Baltimore has required city and police resources that would not
| have been needed but for Hyundai and Kia's deliberate
| failures,"
|
| I'd like to see the data here. Is there any indication that the
| crime wouldn't be present in other areas of life? Would the
| people committing these crimes be law-abiding citizens if not
| for the temptation of these cars being easier to steal? Or
| would the police resources be spent on alternate crimes? It
| seems the common denominator here is people willing to commit
| crimes, not the city's claim that it "would not have been" if
| the company increased security.
| [deleted]
| aardvarkr wrote:
| Here's the link that I posted above with data showing the
| before and after. It's quite stark just how big of a spike
| there has been in theft. https://usafacts.org/data-
| projects/car-thefts
| giantg2 wrote:
| Not exactly the data I was looking for. This is very niche
| and not from a more comprehensive level. However, the city
| level data seems to show that some cities are not seeing a
| higher spike, but others are. Without any real analysis,
| this seems to indicate that there are other factors at play
| than simply Kias being easier to steal.
| [deleted]
| local_crmdgeon wrote:
| This. The problem is that Baltimore treats crime as being
| separate from criminals.
|
| Almost all crime is committed by a tiny, tiny group of people
| - in NYC, 327 people commit 1/3rd of all shoplifting.
| https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/15/nyregion/shoplifting-
| arre...
|
| We used to just warehouse people like this, and we stopped
| because that was mean and did not get us likes on Instagram.
| pfannkuchen wrote:
| There is a theoretical limit to the rate at which a society
| can digest unsocialized people, and this is affected by the
| exposed surface area of the clumps of unsocialized people.
| Where by "unsocialized" I mean with respect to that
| particular society - people in any society are
| "unsocialized" with respect to any other sufficiently
| separate society. We seem to have run into a case of
| serious indigestion. Traditionally we warehoused people who
| weren't being digested successfully. Why we stopped is a
| really interesting question.
| local_crmdgeon wrote:
| I absolutely agree. I hate that "lock up criminals" has
| become a race-loaded statement, because in Baltimore (and
| in my neighborhood) the _victims are Black /POC_. This
| doesn't impact Becky on IG, it impacts the older people
| who spent their lives turning America's urban areas
| around.
|
| It's really, really unjust.
| jameshart wrote:
| They might be committing other crimes, but at least they
| would not be speeding around in stolen Kias and Hyundais.
| That seems like a win.
|
| Easily stolen cars lead to nuisance behavior that affects far
| more than the immediate victim of the theft.
| narag wrote:
| _Lots of comments that didn't read the article..._
|
| I didn't read it either... because I'd read a bunch of other
| articles and watched videos about the problem a couple of
| months ago.
|
| IMHO the root cause is that it's impossible with current
| legislation/courts practice to deter this kind of behaviour.
| Specifically:
|
| * Many of the perpetrators are minors
|
| * Stealing a car, depending on cirsumstances, is a misdemeanor
|
| * There is no mounting of repeated offenses
|
| * Police can't keep the suspects on custody for long and
| prosecution is overkill for the results
|
| So more or less, stealing a car is free. And instead of fixing
| the above points (maybe Baltimore as a city can't do that on
| its own) the "solution" is suing car makers.
| prepend wrote:
| Auto theft in Maryland is a felony. What are thieves being
| charged with that's not a felony?
| alphanullmeric wrote:
| And you should be sued for leaving your door unlocked if you
| get robbed, and the guy that robbed you should be pampered by
| the government as a victim of the system.
| annexrichmond wrote:
| Is this Hyundai/Kia theft disproportionately rampant in other
| cities as well?
|
| If so then Baltimore may have a reasonable case. If not then it's
| a Baltimore problem.
| jrochkind1 wrote:
| The first line of the OP:
|
| > The city of Baltimore has filed a federal lawsuit against car
| manufacturers Kia and Hyundai, joining a number of cities who
| say the companies created a public nuisance by making cars that
| can be easily stolen.
|
| later on:
|
| > Cleveland, St. Louis and Seattle are among the other cities
| that started suing the the car companies earlier this year.
|
| I feel like this whole thread has a lot of odd takes stirred up
| by people's suppositions of what happens particularly in
| "Baltimore".
| op00to wrote:
| Yes. This was literally a 3 second google, and the first damn
| hit:
|
| https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2023/05/09/stolen-...
| digdugdirk wrote:
| People are commenting on this with a fundamental lack of
| understanding of a car's ignition system.
|
| This design truly is flawed. Traditionally, the immobilizer in an
| ignition system is physically tied to the steering column.
| Basically, you'd need to remove the steering column (the physical
| pipe that goes between your steering wheel and the front steering
| rack) in order to remove the part. If you want to defeat that
| immobilizer, you need to do a massive amount of damage to the
| mechanism, and that damage usually destroys the electronics that
| register the correct key being put into the ignition switch. This
| is more or less a self-reinforcing security feature, since the
| car wont start without this electronic signal.
|
| Kia/Hyundai decided to just tack a little immobilizer module on
| without integrating it into the steering column, and they didn't
| even do a decent job mechanically securing it to the column from
| the outside. That means you can jam a screwdriver in there and
| pop the "security" mechanism off. Once that's gone, you're left
| with a little (conveniently USB sized) nub that can be turned
| which will immediately start the car. No muss, no fuss, no
| recognition that it's missing its immobilizer module.
|
| Its a fundamentally flawed design, and it never should have made
| it past review.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| A typical modern (say, mid 90s or later) car immobilizer is not
| mechanical, it is electronic. If you don't have a properly
| programmed key (or fob) in close proximity to the sensor, the
| ECU won't let the engine start. No amount of physical force or
| access to the steering column will defeat it. You may get far
| enough to make the starter turn the engine, but the ECU won't
| fire the injectors.
|
| The problem with Hyundai & Kia is that they elected not to
| include this 25 year old technology at all.
| colechristensen wrote:
| The electronic immobilizer on my 2009 jetta is a communication
| between the cars computer and the key doing some sort of key
| exchange or rolling code. There's no amount of tampering with
| anything in the steering column which can result in a running
| car. You start the engine and without the correct
| authentication the computer shuts the engine off after one
| second. I experienced it myself in a situation where i had a
| physical key which was not electronically paired with the
| engine so i could unlock and start the car one second at a
| time. There's no option outside of hacking the car computer or
| having access to dealer only computer interface tools.
| oatmeal1 wrote:
| The design of the ignition system is completely irrelevant.
| Even if a manufacturer designed a car that simply had an "on"
| button without the need for keys, it would not be their fault
| if that car was stolen.
| alexb_ wrote:
| Kia could sell their cars with a giant button that says "BYPASS
| LOCK AND START IGNITION WITHOUT KEY" and it _still_ wouldn 't
| be their fault, at all.
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| Also, this would be completely legal to sell. There's no law
| requiring keys, or an immobilizer, or really any anti-theft
| technology.
|
| If you don't like that, and I don't, change the law. Don't
| sue for something completely legal because it makes life
| inconvenient for a city. There is a long list of things
| cities find inconvenient, like bicycles without a built-in
| GPS, or even things as dumb as American flags in an upscale
| neighborhood.
| joseph_grobbles wrote:
| [dead]
| krisoft wrote:
| > Don't sue for something completely legal because it makes
| life inconvenient for a city.
|
| I don't understand this reasoning. The city believes there
| is already a law under which what the car manufacturer did
| is not legal. They and the car manufacturer will go in
| front of a judge where the city will need to prove this,
| while the lawyers of the car manufacturer will presumably
| argue otherwise.
|
| Should I be feeling bad for Kia that they have to justify
| their choices?
| jjk166 wrote:
| The city is going to spend substantial time and taxpayer
| dollars to argue a legal theory that is extremely dubious
| at best. If private citizens want to sue for dumb
| reasons, that's their prerogative, but a public entity
| with lots of other problems to deal with is fair game for
| criticism when they engage in boondoggles.
| JustSomeNobody wrote:
| If I leave my door open and someone steals my TV, it's not my
| fault I don't have a TV anymore.
| taylodl wrote:
| Legally it is. If there was no signs of forced entry then
| you're not going to be compensated for your loss and the
| police aren't going to pursue any suspects.
|
| But that's not what this case is about. To use your analogy,
| imagine KIA were a lock maker such as Kwikset. You bought
| their lock to install on your front door. You locked your
| door and left the house. You came back and your TV was gone,
| with no signs of forced entry. That's when you discover a
| major flaw in the design of the lock - if you turn the knob
| the opposite way then the lock will unlock from the outside.
| It's a flaw in the design. The lock maker is definitely
| legally liable for that defect, _and_ , this is the important
| point, the city of Baltimore could sue them claiming damages
| incurred by having excessive police calls caused by their
| defective product. Of course every case is different, but
| Baltimore would be likely to win.
|
| I'd say they're likely to win in this case as well. Since KIA
| has been aware of this problem for some time and taken no
| steps to resolve it, I imagine Baltimore is applying some
| financial incentive. As other cities take note they too may
| file their own suits and then KIA may realize it's cheaper
| and better PR to issue a massive and costly recall.
| op00to wrote:
| > Legally it is. If there was no signs of forced entry then
| you're not going to be compensated for your loss and the
| police aren't going to pursue any suspects.
|
| This is not correct. The police will take a report, and
| your insurance (if you have it) will cover your TV even if
| you left the door wide open. Even if you were drunk. Even
| if you weren't drunk. There is no clause in standard
| insurance policies or our laws and statutes that failure to
| lock shit up somehow makes it free for anyone else to take.
| bavila wrote:
| > Legally it is. If there was no signs of forced entry then
| you're not going to be compensated for your loss and the
| police aren't going to pursue any suspects.
|
| To the extent that common law is generally adopted in the
| United States, theft is the intentional taking of the
| property of another with the intent to permanently deprive
| the owner of said property. It doesn't matter whether
| there's forced entry or not (you may be thinking of
| burglary -- either way, principles of "constructive
| breaking" could still apply depending on the law as
| codified by a given jurisdiction).
|
| Even from a less pedantic standpoint, if I had a home
| surveillance system that captured the entire incident on
| camera (along with the perpetrator's face and the license
| plate of the vehicle that he used to drive off with my TV),
| there is still sufficient evidence to arrest and prosecute.
| There is no legal requirement of "signs of forced entry" to
| sustain a theft charge under these circumstances.
| sidewndr46 wrote:
| The police aren't going to pursue any suspects over a
| stolen TV period. The obligation of the police is not to
| solve crime. They are more or less required to create a
| police report for you, but that is about it.
| r00fus wrote:
| Not to defend the police but the cops (in CA) did follow
| up on a burglary of my wife's handbag (with
| wallet/ids/phone) from her car at a gas station.
|
| If the theft was part of a bigger issue with (to use the
| Kwikset hypothetical) the vendor's product defect
| allowing mass thefts then it would be important to the
| police.
| electriclove wrote:
| The cops in San Jose CA did nothing when the glass was
| shattered and my bag was stolen from my car.
| bluGill wrote:
| The first time I tried picking a lock I just put the picks
| in and the lock opened. No need to worry about pins, just
| put something, and it opened. I can pick a Kwikset lock,
| but it is not that easy. (I'm not very good, Kwikset
| doesn't have a good rep among lock pickers, but it isn't
| the worst)
| kayodelycaon wrote:
| That's not what legally means... it's still illegal to
| steal other people's things, no matter how easy you make it
| to steal.
|
| Now practically, whether it's legal or not, no one is going
| to help you.
| op00to wrote:
| If our hypothetical forgetful person has insurance, their
| insurance agent will surely pay out a claim in the
| situation where a door was left open.
| endisneigh wrote:
| flawed or not, the onus is not on Kia. ultimately baltimore is
| suing them because of the spike in car thefts, not because of
| the flawed design. presumably if baltimore had no thieves,
| there would be no thefts irrespective of the design.
|
| so in effect baltimore is suing kia becuase their cars are
| getting stolen which is ridiculous.
|
| i don't know how anyone can defend this.
|
| this would be like baltimore suing banks for allowing customers
| to put in the pin "1234" after seeing a spike in money theft
| through ATMs.
|
| if Baltimore wants the cars to be harder to steal, then they
| should work with the governor to pass a law that requires cars
| sold in Maryland to have whatever security functionality they
| deem necessary.
| aardvarkr wrote:
| Here's a better analogy - imagine the atm manufacturer wanted
| to save money so they built a machine with a lock that could
| be pried off with a screwdriver instead of integrating
| security features inside the machine. This ATM would be about
| as trivially easy to break into as stealing a Kia/Hyundai is.
| Would the bank be right to pursue legal damages against the
| atm manufacturer for negligence?
| endisneigh wrote:
| > Would the bank be right to pursue legal damages against
| the atm manufacturer for negligence?
|
| no. rather what would happen is that the bank would
| rightfully ask them to fix it or they would go with another
| manufacturer that meets their needs.
|
| likewise, the government should increase the standard if
| they're not happy with it. not give the rubber stamp and
| _still_ complain.
| bombcar wrote:
| The _bank_ is the customer in that case, and you could
| argue that they could sue, based on "assumptions about
| contract" or whatever.
|
| Baltimore didn't buy these cars.
| misterprime wrote:
| I'm curious if a class action lawsuit for Kia and Hyundai
| customers would make more sense.
|
| I also wonder if auto insurance companies might refuse to
| insure Kia and Hyundai vehicles until this is fixed.
| bombcar wrote:
| I believe the second has already begun, now that they
| offer a software patch to fix it (in theory).
| shp0ngle wrote:
| It endangers the public safety of Baltimore.
| henryfjordan wrote:
| You cannot make something that you know will cause a
| nuisance. You cannot, for instance, sell fireworks only
| between 1-3am in the middle of a neighborhood and act
| surprised when the neighbors are mad at you because kids are
| setting them off all night.
|
| It was absolutely predictable that these cars would be stolen
| and that the police would have to deal with the fallout. Just
| because there's no explicit law does not mean that Kia
| doesn't know better. Kia needs to pay for that.
| ryandrake wrote:
| Yea, I'm really surprised at all this defense of these
| corporations. They produced and sold a defective product,
| which is causing monetary damages to cities as they need to
| deal with the predictable exploit of that defect. I'm sure
| the city is prepared to show that these damages are a
| result of the companies' negligence.
|
| If I owned one of these defective cars, I'd also be keen on
| participating in a lawsuit against the company.
|
| If these cars had a defect that caused them to suddenly
| catch fire and burn down neighborhoods, you'd bet there
| would be lawsuits from everyone, including cities who pay
| for fire departments.
| michaelt wrote:
| _> Yea, I 'm really surprised at all this defense of
| these corporations._
|
| Well, the government _does_ already set a bunch of
| standards for cars.
|
| And before the car leaves the factory, it's fine for the
| government to be issuing mandatory standards for lights,
| spare parts, seatbelts, crash safety, pedestrian
| protection, fuel economy and so on.
|
| But the government having a second, secret set of
| requirements? That can change without anyone being
| notified? To me that seems rather irregular.
| op00to wrote:
| There's no federal standard that says cars must not
| explode in a fireball during refueling. If one make of
| car started exploding, you'd see the federal government
| get involved very quickly.
|
| To me, that seems like a responsible way to react to an
| irregular situation.
| endisneigh wrote:
| The cars are not exploding. The government has no reason
| to car about your private property. Should bike
| manufacturers be sued as well for the rampant bike theft
| that happens in virtually every city in America? Gimme a
| break
|
| Affected owners should put together a class action and
| force a recall on the affected cars. As for those who
| actually got their cars stolen - they should take that up
| with the police and their insurance.
| op00to wrote:
| [flagged]
| atonse wrote:
| is there evidence that car thefts are higher due to Kia, or
| due to lax enforcement? I suspect it's a bit of both and
| Baltimore is trying to pin it all on anyone else but them.
|
| Not making excuses for Kia. They should absolutely get
| penalties for taking shortcuts. But I feel that higher
| insurance premiums and a bad reputation would take care of
| it. And people won't buy their cars.
| joseph_grobbles wrote:
| [dead]
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| > Its a fundamentally flawed design, and it never should have
| made it past review.
|
| It is a flawed design, but there's just one problem for a
| lawsuit: Immobilizers are not legally required in the US. A
| flawed immobilizer is fine, considering there doesn't even need
| to be an immobilizer.
|
| Baltimore is suing because, yes, they are easy to steal and
| that makes things inconvenient for Baltimore. But no law was
| broken - there is no law requiring cars to be hard to steal.
| Thus they are trying to claim "public nuisance" instead of
| "negligence."
|
| This, in my mind, is a super slippery slope. You know parts
| pairing on iPhones, where you can't swap the camera without
| Apple's approval? One day there could be a carmaker or two that
| pairs everything from mirrors to catalytic converter to
| "prevent theft and fraud." If Baltimore wins, anyone who
| doesn't do that could be found liable. Just an extreme example
| of how this could go sideways fast.
|
| Or let's say two or three bike manufacturers start putting GPS
| systems into their bikes, to prevent theft. Can any bike
| manufacturer that doesn't do that be sued in the future? I
| would argue, they should absolutely not be in absence of a law.
| taylodl wrote:
| The product sold doesn't comply with the stated fit of
| purpose. A consumer has the reasonable expectation that an
| ignition switch will hamper the efforts of someone to steal
| their car. There are lots of consumer protection laws that
| can be applied here - up to fraud. I suspect Baltimore isn't
| as interested in the the money to be gained as they are in
| generating negative PR for KIA and thus forcing them to
| address the issue.
| bombcar wrote:
| Wouldn't' that be the customers suing, or something?
| Baltimore didn't buy these cars, it might get dismissed
| from standing.
| linksnapzz wrote:
| That's not criminal, that's a tort.
|
| Baltimore, not being the customer, probably lacks standing.
| plagiarist wrote:
| And Baltimore is asserting they have standing regarding
| financial damages incurred from policing the thefts. If
| only there was some way to resolve whether the defendant
| or plaintiff is the correct party!
| xkcd-sucks wrote:
| But it's established through case law that police aren't
| _obligated_ to do anything about theft. So the costs of
| policing thefts would seem to be voluntary, not damages.
| Interesting to see how it turns out.
| linksnapzz wrote:
| Hyundai should countersue the city, for having such a
| reprobrate populace that necessitates that manufacturers
| of durable goods implement increasingly elaborate and
| expensive antitheft schemes. "Maintaining a Nuisance", I
| think the term is.
|
| Or perhaps they should have owners sign a release,
| promising not to operate or store the vehicle in any zip
| code that insurance companies deem high risk.
| plagiarist wrote:
| I kinda agree! Forcing the customer to sign a car theft
| waiver that other car companies do not would solve the
| problem somewhat. It informs them so that they can use
| their money on a different vehicle.
| golemiprague wrote:
| [dead]
| endisneigh wrote:
| even after reading the article this lawsuit makes no sense.
|
| inherently a car that can easily be repaired can easily be
| stolen. the implication is that Baltimore does not want cars that
| can easily be modified so they cannot easily be stolen.
|
| troubling to say the least. then again, baltimore isn't exactly
| the pinnacle of governance.
|
| take the iphone for example, which are notoriously difficult to
| use if stolen. the result has been people tend not to steal
| iphones as much
| (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-06-19/how-an-
| ip...).
|
| however the result is you have less control of your device. is
| this a worthy tradeoff?
| harimau777 wrote:
| I don't think that's necessarily the case. My understanding is
| that the part that they omitted was some sort of chip.
| Soldering in a new chip is something that could be easily done
| by someone making repairs but which would be difficult for
| someone to do during a theft.
| ramraj07 wrote:
| Are you saying Hyundai and Kia did this so the car is more
| easily modifiable? Are they known for making more repairable
| cars? Are they framework laptop of the car world? Or merely
| cheap carmakers who found the wrong corner to cut and save
| costs?
| endisneigh wrote:
| what I'm saying is that if you imagine the most reparable car
| in the world, it would inherently be easy to steal and thus
| subject to the same lawsuit being presented to Kia and
| Hyundai.
| yccs27 wrote:
| There is no relationship. I can take apart my front door
| including the lock without a problem, and it is still
| secure. Security is a property of the locked state,
| repairability a property of the unlocked state.
| endisneigh wrote:
| no it is not. the fact that you can take apart your front
| door makes it inherently easier to get into your house
| vs. a door that could not be disassembled.
| l33t233372 wrote:
| I'm wondering if you can explicitly say what about
| including an immobilizer in the north American market
| inherently makes those vehicles less repairable than
| their immobilizer-equipped counterparts in other markets.
| taffronaut wrote:
| I don't follow the reasoning that inherently easily repairable
| cars are easily stolen. Cars have shipped for decades with
| steering and in some cases transmission locks. These required
| physical key and programmed fob to be present in order to start
| and drive. Security was down to the quality of the engineering
| of those components. I don't see how it hampered modification
| to or ability to repair the rest of the car.
| endisneigh wrote:
| you disagree that a car that's more reparable is more easily
| stolen? imagine a car with screws on the door to be swapped,
| and another car without them. you don't think the car with
| the screws would be easier to steal?
| krisoft wrote:
| > you disagree that a car that's more reparable is more
| easily stolen?
|
| Yes,I do.
|
| > imagine a car with screws on the door to be swapped, and
| another car without them. you don't think the car with the
| screws would be easier to steal?
|
| I imagined that. Every car door I have ever interacted with
| had the screws on the hinges such that you could only
| access them with the door open. You could swap all of them.
| This is not a particularly good example you choose I am
| afraid.
|
| You can design cars which are hard to repair and easy to
| steal, or one which is easy to repair and hard to steal.
|
| Thing is nobody is asking Kia to do something
| unprecedented. All people are asking to be about as safe
| from stealing as cars from other manufacturers are.
| endisneigh wrote:
| I don't know what to tell ya then. clearly and obviously,
| a door that can be taken off, and thus is more easily
| repaired, could be stolen easier than one that is not
| (e.g. door is welded after being attached to the car). if
| you disagree with that then we have to agree to disagree.
|
| > Thing is nobody is asking Kia to do something
| unprecedented. All people are asking to be about as safe
| from stealing as cars from other manufacturers are.
|
| how about you just not buy kia. they'll figure it out.
| why people want to involve the government in everything
| is just beyond me.
| [deleted]
| krisoft wrote:
| > I don't know what to tell ya then.
|
| Well maybe tell me a single car model where the door
| cannot be taken off and a single source outside of
| yourself who claims this as an anti-theft feature.
|
| > if you disagree with that then we have to agree to
| disagree.
|
| I agree with you that welding the hinge of a door to the
| chassis would lower its repairability. I disagree that it
| would make it less likely to be stolen. Cars are not
| stolen by people walking off with their doors. Assuming
| that there is some means of ingress and egress enabling
| normal users to regularly enter the vehicle, that is the
| doors are not completely welded shut, thiefs will use
| that.
|
| If you are making the point that a vehicle completely
| welded shut would be less repairable, and also less
| likely to be stolen I guess I have to agree with that.
| For some reason I don't predict it to be a comercial
| success though.
|
| Common vehicle anti-theft features include immobilisers,
| steering locks, coded key fobs, car alarms, kill
| switches. I don't see that you have shown that these
| techniques make cars less repairable.
|
| > how about you just not buy kia.
|
| Consider it done.
|
| > why people want to involve the government in everything
| is just beyond me
|
| I can explain this part. People get their car stolen and
| they call the police to report it. They expect that the
| police will expend resources to find it and punish the
| thieves. Many in among these very comments have expressed
| that sentiment. That is where the government gets in the
| picture.
|
| Or people fall victim of some other crime. Like they have
| a hit and run traffic accident, or someone smashes into
| their shop window with a car and drives away with stolen
| goods, or any number of other crimes. They report it to
| the police who investigates and realises that the
| criminals used a stolen car to facilitate their crime.
| Because a ready source of easily stolen cars is not just
| a headache for the people whose car have gone missing. It
| undermines the security and safety of others too. This is
| an other way how the government got involved.
|
| Are you with me so far? Do you agree that people can and
| should report to the police when crimes have been
| commited against them?
|
| Assuming that we are on the same page so far. Or at least
| that you are seeing my point even if you are not
| agreeing: what happens next is that the police looks at
| their statistics and sees that many of these crimes have
| their root in the shoddy safety practices of a particular
| car manufacturer. They see that it costs them a lot of
| money too. So they go and ask their own government paid
| lawyer and ask them if they can do something about this.
| And presumably said lawyer told them that yes they can do
| something about it, they can sue the car manufacturer for
| public nuisance.
|
| That is how people reporting crimes leads to the police
| noticing a common theme in the crimes and that leads to
| the city suing the vehicle manufacturer. I hope that
| answers your question about how and why people got the
| government involved in this issue.
| Arrath wrote:
| You are making some strange connections here.
|
| You might as well argue that a car built to be human
| drivable is easier to steal since the human needs to be
| able to see the surroundings, and a car with glass
| windows is easier to break into than a steel box with
| some external camera and lidar modules.
| endisneigh wrote:
| Yes, that is true too, but the law says a car needs
| windows or similarly sized cavities. Within the minimum
| requirements for a steer legal car, more repair ability
| makes it easier to steal inherently.
|
| Idk why people argue against this obvious fact. Things
| have trade offs and this is one of them. Of course you
| can design things to be repairable and minimize risk of
| theft, but if you didn't care about that things could be
| even more accessible for modification if desired.
| bastawhiz wrote:
| An easily repairable safe is not an insecure safe. The security
| of the safe shouldn't be able to be easily compromised from the
| outside of the safe. Just because I can repair and replace
| parts doesn't make it insecure.
| endisneigh wrote:
| a safe that could be repaired from in and out of the safe
| would be even more reparable than one that could only be
| repaired from inside. thus, the most reparable safe would be
| also one that could be compromised. there inherently is a
| tradeoff between security and modifiability by end users.
| bastawhiz wrote:
| A safe that can be repaired from the outside isn't a safe.
| You're not even trying to engage in a reasonable
| conversation.
| endisneigh wrote:
| there is nothing about a safe that says it cannot be
| repaired from the outside (though it would certainly be a
| bad safe). regardless, my example isn't limited to safes
| to begin with.
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| Right? Why don't we all have our catalytic converters digitally
| paired with the Engine Control Unit iPhone-style? Is it the
| manufacturer's fault for not doing that?
|
| Heck, just like an iPhone, let's have all parts on a car from
| the headlamps to the door handles to the mirrors digitally
| paired together. That would stop theft, and any car maker who
| doesn't do it is encouraging theft.
| shagie wrote:
| That doesn't quite follow as the catalytic converter is
| melted down for its metals rather than used as is.
|
| As to "all the parts on a car paired" - there is VIN etching.
| https://www.allstate.com/resources/allstate/attachments/tool.
| ..
|
| The audio system has some semblance of paring.
|
| Though with he KIA, this is more often dealing with use (e.g.
| joy riding) of the car rather than reselling it.
| LgWoodenBadger wrote:
| Melted down? More likely they're sold to questionable
| "remanufacturers"
| shagie wrote:
| Justice Department announces takedown of catalytic
| converter theft ring -
| https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-
| announces-... //
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33444851 (405 points
| // 468 comments)
|
| > Federal, state, and local law enforcement partners from
| across the United States executed a nationwide,
| coordinated takedown today of leaders and associates of a
| national network of thieves, dealers, and processors for
| their roles in conspiracies involving stolen catalytic
| converters sold to a metal refinery for tens of millions
| of dollars.
|
| > ...
|
| > They knowingly purchased stolen catalytic converters
| and, through a "de-canning" process, extracted the
| precious metal powders from the catalytic core. DG Auto
| sold the precious metal powders it processed from
| California and elsewhere to a metal refinery for over
| $545 million.
|
| Ok, not quite _melted_ down, but reduced to rather base
| components. They are not reused in the same form.
| mrtweetyhack wrote:
| [dead]
| ineedasername wrote:
| So... is Apple going to be the hook in lawsuits because their
| phones are so desirable and easy to steal? Heck you don't even
| need a screwdriver and usb cable like with the cars.
|
| I should launch a lawsuit against the contractor who built my
| house because even though the doors have locks a third can break
| in with nothing more than a rock and some willingness to maybe
| get cut on shattered glass
| pfannkuchen wrote:
| Are there regulations requiring car companies to include this
| anti theft equipment? If not, that seems like the obvious route
| for government to pursue? Lacking a regulation requiring this up
| front, it seems like there is zero case here?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-05-12 23:00 UTC)