politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Indeed. I screen every call now and check the voicemails.
What is this referencing?
Hyundai and Kia cut costs by excluding industry standard engine immobilizers in their vehicles.
Most cars have a chip in the key, which is read by the car when you insert it into the keyhole, to verify the key is legit. Even if you cut a new copy of the key, the engine won’t start without that chip. That’s an engine immobilizer. It also prevents people from just brute-forcing the keyway into turning, with something like a screwdriver. Because again, no chip means the car won’t start.
Hyundai and Kia decided to forego these, as a cost cutting measure. And now those Hyundais and Kia’s are virtually worthless (and nearly impossible to insure,) because car thieves know how easy they are to steal. In the past few years, as the methods have gotten posted on places like YouTube and TikTok, anyone with a screwdriver can go steal a Hyundai or Kia. And theft rates have skyrocketed, to the point that some insurance companies are outright refusing to issue policies for them because they know it’ll eventually be stolen.
As for why it was referenced here, my guess is that they were making a parallel about how the technology to prevent spoofed phone numbers already exists. But the companies have decided not to implement them, as a cost-cutting (and anti-competition) measure.
Currently, some phone carriers already offer caller verification. But that only works for internal numbers. For instance, an AT&T caller dialing another AT&T phone. But the companies have refused to cooperate, and allow competitors to access their internal verification systems. So for instance, if an AT&T customer calls a T-Mobile customer, both AT&T and T-Mobile can verify internal calls. But neither company wants to play nice with the other, so they refuse to verify each others’ numbers. So when a spammer spoofs a number, any kind of verification would only be effective if the spammer has the same carrier as the target.
Wooow. Holy shit. Those car makers really fucked up. Those class action suits should have mandates to replace the cars or install immobilizers.
I think that they did. My brother in law had an affected model, and I know he brought it in to get one installed. Not sure if he went out of pocket, but pretty sure it was covered.
I'm dubious that's all it is; for example, My '03 S10 has a purely mechanical key. In fact, if you have a GM vehicle with that little "chip" in the root of the blade...note that it's in a symmetrical key, so it could go in either way, and it's only got two pins. Because it's just a resistor. The car's security system is pretty much just an ohmmeter.
The fact that Hyundai and Kia chose not to include an industry standard anti-theft system, leading to them being piss easy to steal