No we punish the companies now, not the thieves, see Kia and Hyundai.
If you provide a product that is intended to offer a certain level of security you should get punished when your product fails in a spectacular manor.
It would be one thing if Kia and Hyundai advertised “anti theft” via an immobilizer then didn’t actually put one in. They just left it out because the company is being cheap. The cars being sold with this vuln are cheap. You get what you pay for.
https://www.moneygeek.com/insurance/auto/average-price-of-a-...
This is even worse when vehicles from both brands have absolutely terrible resale value and depreciation.
Pedantry about what security was advertised or not will not make a compelling case. What a strange thing to try to argue.
This kind of willful ignorance about cars goes so far that insurance companies willfully chose to insure these cars against theft, and claimed they had no idea that the cars didn't have immobilizers. And now they are suing the manufacturers. It's the insurance company's job to evaluate risk. All they had to do was read the fucking manual and if it didn't say something in there, ask.
Basic security shouldn't be a premium feature.
> Basic security shouldn't be a premium feature.
That’s your opinion presented as a fact.
But your argument that this is okay is also an opinion.
You stated a basic security feature such as an immobilizer should be installed by default because it’s cheap.
Am I missing something?
If there was no implication intended, then "it would be one thing if X" would be a tautology. Which wouldn't make sense as a post.
And then in contrast, my opinion is that this product offering is not acceptable.
You can punish both.
Especially considering immobilizers have been mandatory in the EU since the ‘90s and cost a manufacturer less than $1.
This is not some state of the art high tech high cost mitigation.
If you distill it down, it essentially comes down to not doing things that no law explicitly requires (lest you end up with walls and walls of law books simply describing very specific matters), but can be reasonably expected of you to have done.
What’s reasonable depends from time period to time period and the norms that exist, nevertheless the concept exists.
A good example would be you owning a house with a balcony in an unincorporated area where no law exists that sets requirements on structural integrity of such things.
You’re aware that the balcony might be a bit iffy and it has been decades since last it was checked out by a professional.
You have guests over, you don’t bother telling anyone to stay away from the balcony. Some of your guests walk underneath the balcony, or worse, they go out onto the balcony to have a smoke.
The balcony collapses and your guests get injured or die.
You’re on the hook for negligence. Specifically negligence that resulted in tort in this case.
Hell, in some places, depending on the prosecutors in the area and the laws on the books, you might even be criminally liable for negligent homicide.
My comment on the EU and the regulations there isn’t to imply that the laws there apply to here in the US, rather it’s used (and could be used in real life) as a way to argue that the solution is inexpensive and not implementing it could be considered negligent because there is an easy solution available due to that regulation.
But what we're talking about here is that there are "bad guys" (tm) who stopped by your party and used a chain saw to cut the supports under the balcony, which would not otherwise have fallen down. But you could have prevented this if you had reinforced the supports with steel posts.
The Kias and Hyundais didn't steal themselves. Let's put the blame where it lies, on the f**ing criminals.