Companies that put out egregiously vulnerable vehicles should be held liable, though.
https://www.hbsslaw.com/press/hyundai-kia-car-theft-defect/c...
Which then - Dealers still sell Hyundais and Kias vulnerable to theft, but insurance is hard to get https://www.npr.org/2023/05/04/1173048646/hyundai-kia-car-th...
And in October - Wheels Of Steal: Some Kias, Hyundais Easy To Hotwire; Owners Sue Carmakers, Get $200 Million https://www.forbes.com/advisor/car-insurance/kia-hyundai-ant...
The Challenges of Insuring a Kia or Hyundai in 2024 - https://www.marketwatch.com/guides/insurance-services/insuri...
---
I suspect that this has lead to Kia and Hyundai taking note of insurance rates and changing things.
The responsible party should be the automaker that built or installed the security system, not the person who was sold a lie.
Flipper, lock picks, bolt cutters, etc. are all reasonable tools. So is the expectation that using them to commit a crime should result in penalty for the individual committing a crime using those tools, not the target of the crime they are committing.
Punishing people for taking advantage of that vulnerability is certainly warranted, but it's also closing the barn door after the horse has already bolted.
The locks are not the problem. Stealing cars is the problem.
They sold a negligently defective product.
> How are those locks adequate in say, South Korea...
They aren't. If I write code with a SQL injection in it, it's bad code even if no one winds up attacking it.
https://www.ctvnews.ca/autos/kia-and-hyundai-vehicles-in-can...
Meanwhile other modern countries (albeit with much stricter law enforcement and a more unified value system) can operate with 0.1% of the equivalent crime and that’s not what we aspire to. Instead we want to blame the manufacturer who must have certainly enticed antisocial, destructive behavior. What an awful and poisonous worldview.
It seems entirely reasonable to take the article's point of view which is "don't ban FlipperZero just because it can be used to facilitate car theft [among 1000 other uses], but rather regulate cars so that they become harder to steal".
Further, I realize you didn't put a ton of thought into the specific 0.1% figure, but I seriously doubt that other modern countries are 1000x better on equivalent crime measures than either the US or Canada.
Even New Zealand, with quite strict gun laws, has a firearm death rate that is a little over 1/12th that of the US's: https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/gun-death...
No. Car manufacturers should still take reasonable steps to prevent it.
To make an analogy, people should not steal from banks... but it would still be negligent to leave the bank unlocked at night.
Kia needs to fix their fuckup AND organized gangs need to be investigated and broken up.
It doesn't help that premium calculations are nonlinear and trade secrets. In the real world, it would take a computer and a large database to fuzzily estimate the impact of a particular car purchase on your personal premiums forecasted over the next few years with an error margin any less than a few hundred dollars per year (unless your life is particularly stable and well aligned to some major stereotype you can use to get a closer estimate).
If each insurer just published a table of the incremental impact of a given model of car (or better yet, how linear contributions for theft vs crash-rate vs death-rate-on-crash vs ...) then that'd be easy enough to use during purchasing. If you own a 90s civic in Oakland vs Redwood City though you're much more likely for the defective security measures to be used, and the insurers use a proxy for that information in their calculations, so in practice you have to get a personalized quote for every single car you might be interested in purchasing. Moreover, if you buy the car in a low-car-crime locale and move you can still be surprised by the massive rate hike [0]. And so on; modeling arbitrary risk is complicated, which is (part of) why professionals get paid the big bucks to do it. If there are other workable solutions, I'd prefer most of those to requiring the general public to have to do non-trivial math and statistics for every car purchase, especially above and beyond what they already have to do when estimating the total lifetime costs due to fuel economy or whatever.
[0] My personal solution was just to sell the car in that low-car-crime locale where it had a market value and buy a new vehicle in my destination, but then you're trading premiums for transaction costs, which isn't easy to model if you don't know how often you'll move in 5yrs either (hindsight, definitely worth it by a wide margin).
Unless you are an MP, that stuff stays in the armory cage. And if you are headed to the range, ammunition is delivered separately to the range and systems are stringently checked for ammo before returning, afterwards they will do a lockdown inspection of the barracks and everyone's personal vehicles.
I can only speak about US law, but there has been repeated case law that the police do not have a duty to protect any person in particular (except possibly when people are in their custody which isn't really relevant here).
The function of the police isn't to stop criminals in the act - given their response times that's largely impossible anyhow (well, outside of traffic violations). They largely deter crime by catching criminals after the fact.
The examples given like military facilities have secure fences, 24 hour guards, etc. They are actually secure facilities. As opposed to someone's driveway.
No; willfull negligence is something that should engender liability.
The same isn't true for, say, Kia/Hyundai's decision not to include immobilizers:
https://www.ctvnews.ca/autos/kia-and-hyundai-vehicles-in-can...
> CNN reported that only 26 per cent of Hyundai and Kia models from 2015 to 2019 were equipped with electronic immobilizers in the U.S., compared with 96 per cent of all other vehicles in those years, making the Hyundai and Kia models roughly twice as likely to be stolen.
Those stats make it pretty clear that immobilization was already the industry standard. Skipping them was like knowingly writing open SQL injection holes in a web application.
> CNN reported that only 26 per cent of Hyundai and Kia models from 2015 to 2019 were equipped with electronic immobilizers in the U.S., compared with 96 per cent of all other vehicles in those years, making the Hyundai and Kia models roughly twice as likely to be stolen.
If 96% of buildings in a neighborhood have iron bars over the ground floor windows, and you build a development in which only 26% of them do, yes... that's probably negligent, unless there are other factors to explain the discrepancy.
If theives start disproportionately breaking into your development's properties, your tenants can probably be a bit miffed about your lack of security measures.