Hacker News Reader

Comment by gchamonlive | Hacker News Reader

Security flaws are not born equal. I think there is supposed to be a clear distinction between flaws inherent in technology -- since you only know what you know nobody should be expected to develop impenetrable digital fortresses since that doesn't exist and would actually be harmful for the consumer -- and those flaws born out of neglect. The latter should be specified and treated accordingly, because it isn't a valid excuse that technology can't be 100% secure that the industry should accept poor standards.

Also, Flipper Zero can be made DIY, so I don't know if I get it, but the law will be DOA, and actually work against the democatization and awareness of such flaws by the public.

View on HN

> Security flaws are not born equal.

Absolutely. And let's bring risk into this.

Security risks are not born equal.

Serious security thinkers evaluate according to factors of likelihood, impact, mitigation cost etc.

A car is a dangerous weapon, especially in the hands of a group of giddy kids, maybe drunk or way too high to drive. The likelihood of someone getting seriously injured or killed by joyriding is high. It's really high. And there's no mitigation to a dead child. The penalty? A very firm "please don't do that again!"

But then a kid like Aaron Swartz downloads some files and gets nine felony counts totalling 50 years in jail and a $1 million fine.

A justice system with these values has no concept of risk and proportionality and is beneath contempt.

> especially in the hands of a group of giddy kids

Also the scenario where it's being used as a disposable battering-ram to smash into a store. (As you might expect, those are the stolen cars with lesser potential resale value.)

Europe expects you to. Otherwise you will be fined 15,000,000 euros. Thank you cyber resilience act.

Your point are generally good.

I should say I drive a twenty year old car with an immobilizer chip and basic logic sounding the alarm when someone breaks a window to open a door. As far as I can tell, that makes it very secure. So it seems like the onus in the car manufacturers to create a vehicle at least as secure as this simple system.

Yes that is supposed to be the baseline, but the mentality of go fast, break things is just too seductive for the industry to pass on, apparently.

> Also, Flipper Zero can be made DIY

What's the actual wording, is it a ban on the FZ specifically? Could anyone sell a "Zipper Flero" clone?

Guns can be made DIY, but laws still mitigate.

There is a big difference in putting together deadly artifacts and electronic devices you can fabricate using off-the-shelf chips and open protocols. Not saying you can't discuss regulating them, but to me they are in a different set of categories. Weapons are by default dangerous, their sole purpose being to cause physical harm, while a flipper zero can be used for instructional purposes and research.

As much as I hate the concept, it would be ridiculous for me to propose regulating Alexa because a kid can cause financial harm to the parents using it, but a weapon can't be in any imaginable circumstance reachable by anyone untrained.

> but a weapon can't be in any imaginable circumstance reachable by anyone untrained.

I agree with your main point that the FZ is easily reproduced. I think you miss the mark with this one. Firearms are easily made at home with simple tools and off-the-shelf materials. For example, the United States has a rich tradition of home-made firearms. To provide a concrete example, a shotgun can be made with a length of steel plumbing pipe, electrical tape, a nail, and a cap. Yes, it's that simple.

Well that is not my main point in the comment you responded to

If I understand now, your argument is that flipper zero is not a social danger, while firearms are, am I correct?

If by social danger you mean I would be really impressed if you managed to throw a flipper zero into someone and kill him, then yes that is the gist. It's a matter of degree.

ok - well I agree with you. You had a good comment, and I appreciate it :)

cheers! I also liked to be put to test in whatever argument I find myself in. Hope it was as interesting for you as it was for me.

>while a flipper zero can be used for instructional purposes and research.

Only in the same way a weapon can be used for instructional purposes and research. Someone buying an off the shelf product and using it in the way it was intended isn't doing research except in the loosest sense of the word. E.g. "Does the radio transmission open this garage door? Does it open this garage door? Does it open this garage door?" v "Does this rock swung hard cave in this skull? Does it cave in this skull? Does it cave in this skull?"

Genuinely curious, outside of sports, can you name other functions for guns that don't involve killing things?

Driving nails, launching flares, deterring physical violence

Reply on news.ycombinator.com