[flagged]
Crime exists, this is the world we live in. Failing to implement even the most basic security measure, which is considered industry standard, in a high-value product that is known to be very attractive to thieves and then selling that product to consumers with no warning that "unlike most other cars on the market, which have many layers of security features, this car can be stolen using a cheap toy" makes the inevitable thefts absolutely Kia's fault.
It's not like people are saying the thieves did nothing wrong, both sides are at fault: the thieves stole people's cars to enrich themselves and Kia secretly omitted a basic security feature which in turn enabled thousands of fully predictable and preventable thefts from their customers, again, to enrich themselves.
Also, insert the usual point about how many people are forced into crime by poverty and the complete lack of a social safety net in the US here.
I think the manufacturer should fix things so they are more in line with other manufacturers. But I also want to see some repercussions for the thieves.
There is no way your colleagues want the thieves to not face any consequences. It's a completely different thing to not trust the justice system to give an appropriate consequence.
I don't think this logic works. If you buy a classic vehicle, they don't have these kinds of things either. People make replicas that likewise don't. And there is no clear line here. Basically any car can be stolen by, if nothing else, replacing the car's computer with one that accepts the thief's key.
Meanwhile a car is a large purchase where people can reasonably be expected to do some research. If you're about to buy a car you should read some reviews, and the reviewers should tell you if their security is bad. Then you know and can make your decision. People who learn of this may want to buy a different car, or take some other countermeasures if they buy this one.
Kia doesn't have any kind of a monopoly in this market. There are many other carmakers. Maybe you don't care that their security is bad because you always park your car in a garage. Maybe you like the discount you got because other buyers wanted a car with better security. Why does it have to be illegal, instead of letting the market sort it out in the presence of actual competition?
Not a good analogy, because buying a classic vehicle automatically waives a bunch of safety and other features that are not only expected in modern day, they are straight up legally required.
A car manufacturer cannot remake a classic vehicle from the 80s and release it in the US in 2024. Or, probably, EU too, I cannot speak for that due to my unfamiliarity with vehicle laws there, but afaik they are more strict than the US. It would be just illegal to sell that car. Thin pillars that won’t pass any modern safety tests, no backup camera (which makes it illegal to sell as a new car in the US), not enoug crumple zones, etc.
And if you were going to do that in this case, the thing to require is the ability for third parties to fix the manufacturer's software mistakes. Otherwise the carmaker goes out of business, as happens from time to time when they don't make a decent product, and then you can't go to them to fix something like this when it subsequently comes out even though their cars will be on the road for many more years.
Whereas if anybody could patch the code in their own car, you wouldn't have this situation where Kia ignores the issue, because third parties would have done it already, the same whether they're incompetent as bankrupt.
Looking for details, I found that there have also been recent changes to ease requirements for small-batch (< 325/year) turn-key replica manufacturers.
No need for a monopoly, just bad incentives. All manufacturers could just decide that it's better to save more money and omit basic security features across the entire industry, making it impossible to buy a new car with certain standards. What are people going to do, not drive any cars? That's why it's near impossible to find a printer that's not garbage.
They're going to buy a car and then pay someone to install an aftermarket immobilizer.
> That's why it's near impossible to find a printer that's not garbage.
Brother laser printers are widely regarded as decent. You're also legally permitted to buy cheap garbage for low prices. It will be cheap garbage, so maybe don't buy it.
Reviews rarely talk about things like this, this information is not explicitly given to reviewers or customers and neither can be expected to find out on their own (i.e. by trying to hack the car themselves), the car manufacturer spends insane amounts of money advertising to the buyer using every psychological trick in the book, the buyer is often under time pressure, the savings from cost-cutting are rarely passed down to the consumer...
Buying things in the current market landscape is a battle, not an optimization problem.
Reviewers don't get the information by penetration testing the car themselves. They get the information because their profession is reviewing cars, so when they hear of this through their high contact surface area with industry news, they add it to their review on their website.
> the car manufacturer spends insane amounts of money advertising to the buyer using every psychological trick in the book
Because cars are big ticket items where a single incremental sale can justify a lot of ad spend, not because buyers are incapable of reading a review.
> the buyer is often under time pressure
The buyer is rarely under time pressure. Most people don't wait until their car breaks down to replace it, and even if they did and desperately need to have a car, then they would rent or lease one in the interim while shopping for another one. This is often even covered by insurance. Almost nobody is in the position of having to buy a car immediately without time to do any research, and the percentage of people who are isn't enough to significantly affect which cars or features succeed in the market.
> the savings from cost-cutting are rarely passed down to the consumer
That would imply that all new cars sell for the same price. Clearly they don't, because customers distinguish between them and are willing to pay different amounts.
> Buying things in the current market landscape is a battle, not an optimization problem.
So what you propose is that we reduce the information available to the buyer by requiring cost cutting to be underhanded rather than overt because overt cost cutting is prohibited, or that it not occur and instead prices go up even if you didn't need that feature and then poor people go broke because everything is more expensive.
Especially that no security is absolute. Effort matters.
Trust me. I have similar issues, to a clinical level, in fact.
Does this sound familiar?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obsessive%E2%80%93compulsive_p...
It's possible for multiple people to share the blame for something. You _are_ the victim. The person who stole it _is_ the bad guy / criminal. But you _both_ share the blame, because you did something to put yourself at risk when you had better options.
If I'm out late at night, wearing expensive jewelry and have 2 ways home; one longer but down a well lit road, the other shorter but through a dark alley in a crime ridden neighborhood; and I chose the dark alley and got mugged... I would be the victim AND be partially to blame for making a stupid choice.
Making choices that put yourself at risk by ignoring the realities of the world, when you don't need to, mean you share the blame.