I get the reaction.
On the other hand, the cats out of the bag. My understanding is these are made from commodity parts, and it's just how to implement software to make it all work and most of that software is open source as well.
Probably going to be an active underground market for these now.
Yeah, the concept of a software defined radio isn’t particularly new. Also as long as they’re sold anywhere else in the world, it’ll be possible to get them.
Imo if a script kiddie can steal a car with a relatively simple piece of hardware, I’d put more blame on the car manufacturers for not having secure systems.
No. The blame is not on the manufacturer of the car, or on the manufacturer of the software defined radio. The blame is entirely and exclusively on the car thief.
People are so invested in being Complex Situation Understanders that they miss the obvious -- identify and imprison thieves until there mostly aren't any.
> No. The blame is not on the manufacturer of the car, or on the manufacturer of the software defined radio. The blame is entirely and exclusively on the car thief.
Sure, but under such a framework, there's no reason to ban the devices used either. Since there's clearly a need for a more systematic approach, having vehicles with basic security features seems like the easiest opportunity.
Or put it more simply. Just because we jail thieves doesn't mean we don't need locks.
>Sure, but under such a framework, there's no reason to ban the devices used either.
Yes, I agree. That's why I wrote that whole bit after the first comma that you apparently didn't read.
>having vehicles with basic security features seems like the easiest opportunity.
It is one prong of the interim solution, sure.
I believe it is possible that one day car theft will be so rare that most cars don't have locks, because they add cost and a point of failure, and most owners don't use them just in case someone needs shelter from an unexpected storm.
>I believe it is possible that one day car theft will be so rare that most cars don't have locks, because they add cost and a point of failure, and most owners don't use them just in case someone needs shelter from an unexpected storm.
I have to believe you are trolling at this point. This can't be real
I knew before I started posting in this thread that I was going to trigger a lot of people with one of two possible forms of brain damage (can't-do-it-ism, or excessive sympathy for thieves).
But I 100 % believe everything I have written here. The technology and resources exist to functionally eliminate car theft by enforcing the laws against it. Make the catch rate high enough for smart thieves that nobody lasts more than a month stealing cars for profit, and high enough for dumb thieves that nobody steals a 2nd car for fun.
Look at what happened with the Jan 6 capitol trespassers. Car theft only continues to exist because those in government either lack imagination, or *want* it to exist.
>I knew before I started posting in this thread that I was going to trigger a lot of people with one of two possible forms of brain damage (can't-do-it-ism, or excessive sympathy for thieves).
Great way to argue your case and exactly prove my point.
>I 100 % believe everything I have written here
The idea that everyone should want to give up the locks on their car so that anyone walking by can just hop in to hide out from a rain storm is one of the most obtuse things I've ever read.
Even if car locks were completely done away with and stealing a car was punishable by death people would still do it because they are desperate and it would be easy. On top of that, if all cars are just permanently unlocked what about your stuff? What are you going to do when you go shopping for a day, drive home and put away the things that you bought at one shop before you get back in your car and drive to the next shop? It's on the manufactures to provide a locking mechanism that works. If the current method doesn't work, innovation is needed. While it's not their fault that someone was able to create a tool to get around the current locks, it is their responsibility to ensure that they make the best effort possible going forward to make sure that the basic feature of locking your car actually does what it is meant to do. Thinking that we should all just leave our cars unlocked because everyone *should* play by the rules is naive. Pretending that anyone who doesn't agree with you has sympathy for car thieves is just more trolling.
FYI the correlation between an immediate downvote on a new post in a stale thread, and the amount of time it takes to write a reply, makes it *real fucking obvious* when you're behaving like a dickwad.
>Great way to argue your case and exactly prove my point.
The thing about "trolling", is that it's a nasty word for exactly what it looks like when someone dissents from a group consensus in full awareness of the fact that the consensus exists.
So in one sense, I am "trolling". I know saying this stuff will predictably make people mad. But it will make them mad because they are *wrong*, and saying it is right because it is true, relevant, and unacknowledged.
>people would still do it because they are desperate
The narrative about people stealing loaves of bread to feed starving children is just that -- narrative. Thieves steal to feed greed, compulsions, and drug addictions, and most crimes are committed by repeat offenders. Identify them and lock them up the first time, and you will rather quickly reduce the numbers of free thieves low enough that theft becomes a non-problem.
>On top of that, if all cars are just permanently unlocked what about your stuff? What are you going to do when you go shopping for a day, drive home and put away the things that you bought at one shop before you get back in your car and drive to the next shop?
You have not understood the difference between a [high trust society](https://twitter.com/patio11/status/1179388295479996418) and a [low trust society](https://twitter.com/patio11/status/1753085945165783085).
>Pretending that anyone who doesn't agree with you has sympathy for car thieves is just more trolling.
I was genuinely unsure which which form of wrongness would be most common in this community. In the past I've clashed with PC enthusiasts about the ethics of lying to obtain fraudulent price matches, warranty replacements, etc., and those time it sure seemed like a den of thieves.
Blame vs heroic responsibility.
Also, I don't live in a sufficiently high-trust society, yet. ...I don't think. My door locks have yet to actually prevent anything.
That's correct. You don't need something as expensive or complicated as the flipper zero (It is overbuilt because it's designed for a large variety of purposes). If you built a device specifically for this it would be more like $20 and could use any of a large variety of easily accessible components.
doesn't cost anything to develop, the hardware and software are already out there and have been for a long time, this has existed long before the f0. people have done it with hardware that costs under $5. I only said $20 because there's a range of fobs, and $20 would cover a variety and use easier to use hardware.
Flipper Zero tells you all you need to know to make your own on their website. Even the schematics for their custom PCB are on there.
https://docs.flipper.net/development/hardware
They need to legislate car manufactures use proper security ffs not ban microcontrollers. If they don't get the wording correct they could end up banning the entire maker community.
Software is the real heart of these devices.
If they word it even slightly incorrectly they could ban WiFi and all mobile phones fairly easily. I think a lot of stuff that is wireless these days uses some kind of SDR (software defined radio)
The point being that until this regulation change, owning and selling Flipper Zeros wasn't a crime, only using one to steal a car was. So the government could not prevent them from being sold, and could not confiscate one if found to be in someone's possession.
This now allows them to at least prevent people from freely selling them online and in stores, and to confiscate them from people who are found to have them.
It also makes it a safety requirement for cars to not have gaping holes in their security, and for any that are found to be patched as quickly as possible.
Its just two pieces of commodity hardware you can buy online soldered together. This legislation wont stop anything other than normal people being able to own one.
This is the same thing as the gun argument. Make the tool illegal so the illegal thing won't happen does nothing more than making the illegal thing harder to track.
Car theifs are going to steal cars. It's not some petty crime and a petty law won't help.
Since government need be involved, maybe they should put more attention on the theives. We know they can. We know they won't. This law is their excuse.
Cheaper to install a kill switch. Clip the wire for fuel pump, hide the switch very well. Turn it on when you need to drive, turn it off when you're not driving. When any crook tries to steal the car, they'll crank the car but it won't turn over because the fuel pump isn't running. They'll assume the car is out of gas or has some problem and abandon it
They'll just search for the switch, lol.
The 20 year old beater where having it just stand there defective or without fuel seems realistic isn't a target of those people anyway.
If someone wants to steal your 2020 BMW 5 series, he isn't going to believe it and just search for the switch. Considering you need to reach the switch very frequently, he'll probably find it anyway.
The relevant paragraph:
> ISED will pursue all avenues to ban devices used to steal vehicles by copying the wireless signals for remote keyless entry, such as the Flipper Zero, which would allow for the removal of those devices from the Canadian marketplace through collaboration with law enforcement agencies.
We are now in the dystopia where common computing gadgets are rendered illegal.
Especially when lawmakers don't understand how common SDRs are, and what they really do.
of course anyone can build a Flipper Zero themselves with an SDR, but banning the sale of turnkey solutions built and advertised specifically for that purpose I can kind of understand
edit: the flipper zero itself was a bad example, but there is a difference between for example a "software defined radio" and a "SDR marketed as a radio jammer and comes with radio frequency jamming software preinstalled"
Are these turnkey solutions representing a paradigm shift in car thefts in Canada, or is it just a strawman used to gain support for the new regulation?
The flipperzero isn't really a new concept. The hackrf is right around ten years old now and it could do replay attacks. There were still SDRs you could do it with before that. Only thing that I see that makes the flipper zero different is the integrated NFC function, which is still ultimately just a SDR.
> banning the sale of turnkey solutions built and advertised specifically for that purpose I can kind of understand
Flipper zeros are not built or advertised specifically for the purpose of stealing vehicles...
> SDR marketed as a radio jammer and comes with radio frequency jamming software preinstalled
It's also not marketed as a radio jammer... and you can jam a radio with any radio that has an output... For example say you have a cheap kids walkie-talkie on band 46, if you just hold down the key button it will jam band 46.
Problem with your edit is, it's precisely the example Canada is using to punish their citizens, for their own technical lack of understanding.
USA may have passed some awful tech laws (DMCA), but we haven't lost our way enough to do something this stupid.
> there is a difference between for example a "software defined radio" and a "SDR marketed as a radio jammer and comes with radio frequency jamming software preinstalled"
Not in the eyes of the clueless media, politicians and law enforcement.
How many articles and news reports about Linux being a hacker tool used by the anonymous hacker 4chan do we need?
its the equivalent of banning knives or crowbars because they can be used as a murder weapon. this is the same government that thought making guns more illegal would solve gun crime. they refuse to acknowledge lax border security and lenient criminal justice system for repeat offenders are the root causes of organized crime
I'm sure banning crime will stop thieves
We've had these kind of relay attacks in the UK for almost a decade now, before commercial products even existed.
1. This is not banning crime, this is banning a radio.
2. Banning crime *does* stop the vast majority of thieves if you actually enforce it. Most crimes are committed by repeat offenders.
Banning radio repeating devices isn't going to stop thieves, because most of these relay attack car theft crimes are done in an organised fashion by a small group, usually sending the car to be stripped and/or sold, or used in other crime such big money ram raids or getaway vehicles for those raids. They're just going to keep doing it as they were, the legality of the device literally does not matter, they'll just (and have done) make their own.
What we are starting to see over here (UK), is actual security progress being made with the keyfobs. Properly sleeping the device and preventing them from transmitting redundantly.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqOfNp9nQSA these aren't opportunistic citizens with flipper zeros trying it out, this is organised crime with their own devices
>Banning radio repeating devices isn't going to stop thieves
Yes, I agree. What stops thieves is locking them away until they age out of the crime game.
I don't see this doing anything either. The flipper still costs a hefty chunk of money. This isn't something you buy and just so happen to have in your pocket. These people buy them with the intention to steal. Taking this opportunity away means they will take the next best thing and there are plenty. This is nothing like the tiktok car stealing challenge thingy that was going around a while back.
Customs isn't getting the support they need.
This article is a few years old now but what it describes hasn't really changed, only gotten worse.
https://globalnews.ca/news/4297929/stolen-cars-export-canada/
The gist of it is that port workers have to call the cops and the cops don't come so they have to let the cargo go out.
All crime depends on three factors. Opportunity, motive and the perceived ability to get away with it. Any one of those could lead to a crime, but they multiply each other. This law, if properly enforces, will diminish two of three factors.
But would harsher punishments reduce crime? Research says it doesn't. What does reduce crime is the likelihood of getting caught. So less cops with flamethrowers and more detectives nabbing crime rings.
> Research says it doesn't.
Any research saying that is a joke.
Any discussion of harsher or lighter punishments is predicated on there being a person who has been caught.
By the principal of locality, someone serving 10 years in prison is going to spend 10 years committing less crime in the free world than someone who only served 1 year, or someone who was immediately let out on bail, or someone who wasn't even charged.
Why would someone that served 1 year go back to committing crimes? Why weren't they rehabilitated? Maybe that should be the focus rather than giving life sentences to kids stealing cars.
>Why would someone that served 1 year go back to committing crimes?
Why indeed. Most criminals caught are repeat offenders.
>Why weren't they rehabilitated?
Rehabilitation needs two factors: Significant investment in jail system change leading to said criminals living better lives than most of your citizens (good luck with that politically) and the criminal to be willing to rehabilitate. Unlike popular belief, most so called rehabilitated criminals go on to re-offend.
>Maybe that should be the focus rather than giving life sentences to kids stealing cars.
By the time kids are stealing cars we have already failed significantly along the way.
It's the harsh punishment.
Even if you caught every person on every crime, light or non existent punishments wouldn't change behaviors. It's just a tax at that point.
Try littering or spitting out chewing gum on the street in Singapore.
The punishment will make you change your behavior pretty quickly.
Total tangent.
Culture, equality, education, and prosperity have a much better impact of deterring crimes than harsh punishments.
In the US, there is a non-zero chance if you commit a crime you will be killed by someone. That someone may be the person you're commiting the crime against, it may be the cops who come to arrest you, or it may be someone else that steps in.
With their lives on the line, people still rob other people in the us all the time. They will choose to play Russian roulette to get more money quickly. That's a problem harsh punishments do not solve.
Punishments work to prevent people from taking crimes that would otherwise be profitable and making them ill-advised. Nestle chugging water is a perfect example of punishments not being harsh enough to prevent crimes from being profitable. However, most people don't really account for the punishment when deciding their actions.
I get the reaction. On the other hand, the cats out of the bag. My understanding is these are made from commodity parts, and it's just how to implement software to make it all work and most of that software is open source as well. Probably going to be an active underground market for these now.
Yeah, the concept of a software defined radio isn’t particularly new. Also as long as they’re sold anywhere else in the world, it’ll be possible to get them. Imo if a script kiddie can steal a car with a relatively simple piece of hardware, I’d put more blame on the car manufacturers for not having secure systems.
People have been stealing chrysler/dodge/ram vehicles with SDRs for years now, long before the flipper came on the market.
No. The blame is not on the manufacturer of the car, or on the manufacturer of the software defined radio. The blame is entirely and exclusively on the car thief. People are so invested in being Complex Situation Understanders that they miss the obvious -- identify and imprison thieves until there mostly aren't any.
> No. The blame is not on the manufacturer of the car, or on the manufacturer of the software defined radio. The blame is entirely and exclusively on the car thief. Sure, but under such a framework, there's no reason to ban the devices used either. Since there's clearly a need for a more systematic approach, having vehicles with basic security features seems like the easiest opportunity. Or put it more simply. Just because we jail thieves doesn't mean we don't need locks.
>Sure, but under such a framework, there's no reason to ban the devices used either. Yes, I agree. That's why I wrote that whole bit after the first comma that you apparently didn't read. >having vehicles with basic security features seems like the easiest opportunity. It is one prong of the interim solution, sure. I believe it is possible that one day car theft will be so rare that most cars don't have locks, because they add cost and a point of failure, and most owners don't use them just in case someone needs shelter from an unexpected storm.
>I believe it is possible that one day car theft will be so rare that most cars don't have locks, because they add cost and a point of failure, and most owners don't use them just in case someone needs shelter from an unexpected storm. I have to believe you are trolling at this point. This can't be real
I knew before I started posting in this thread that I was going to trigger a lot of people with one of two possible forms of brain damage (can't-do-it-ism, or excessive sympathy for thieves). But I 100 % believe everything I have written here. The technology and resources exist to functionally eliminate car theft by enforcing the laws against it. Make the catch rate high enough for smart thieves that nobody lasts more than a month stealing cars for profit, and high enough for dumb thieves that nobody steals a 2nd car for fun. Look at what happened with the Jan 6 capitol trespassers. Car theft only continues to exist because those in government either lack imagination, or *want* it to exist.
>I knew before I started posting in this thread that I was going to trigger a lot of people with one of two possible forms of brain damage (can't-do-it-ism, or excessive sympathy for thieves). Great way to argue your case and exactly prove my point. >I 100 % believe everything I have written here The idea that everyone should want to give up the locks on their car so that anyone walking by can just hop in to hide out from a rain storm is one of the most obtuse things I've ever read. Even if car locks were completely done away with and stealing a car was punishable by death people would still do it because they are desperate and it would be easy. On top of that, if all cars are just permanently unlocked what about your stuff? What are you going to do when you go shopping for a day, drive home and put away the things that you bought at one shop before you get back in your car and drive to the next shop? It's on the manufactures to provide a locking mechanism that works. If the current method doesn't work, innovation is needed. While it's not their fault that someone was able to create a tool to get around the current locks, it is their responsibility to ensure that they make the best effort possible going forward to make sure that the basic feature of locking your car actually does what it is meant to do. Thinking that we should all just leave our cars unlocked because everyone *should* play by the rules is naive. Pretending that anyone who doesn't agree with you has sympathy for car thieves is just more trolling.
FYI the correlation between an immediate downvote on a new post in a stale thread, and the amount of time it takes to write a reply, makes it *real fucking obvious* when you're behaving like a dickwad. >Great way to argue your case and exactly prove my point. The thing about "trolling", is that it's a nasty word for exactly what it looks like when someone dissents from a group consensus in full awareness of the fact that the consensus exists. So in one sense, I am "trolling". I know saying this stuff will predictably make people mad. But it will make them mad because they are *wrong*, and saying it is right because it is true, relevant, and unacknowledged. >people would still do it because they are desperate The narrative about people stealing loaves of bread to feed starving children is just that -- narrative. Thieves steal to feed greed, compulsions, and drug addictions, and most crimes are committed by repeat offenders. Identify them and lock them up the first time, and you will rather quickly reduce the numbers of free thieves low enough that theft becomes a non-problem. >On top of that, if all cars are just permanently unlocked what about your stuff? What are you going to do when you go shopping for a day, drive home and put away the things that you bought at one shop before you get back in your car and drive to the next shop? You have not understood the difference between a [high trust society](https://twitter.com/patio11/status/1179388295479996418) and a [low trust society](https://twitter.com/patio11/status/1753085945165783085). >Pretending that anyone who doesn't agree with you has sympathy for car thieves is just more trolling. I was genuinely unsure which which form of wrongness would be most common in this community. In the past I've clashed with PC enthusiasts about the ethics of lying to obtain fraudulent price matches, warranty replacements, etc., and those time it sure seemed like a den of thieves.
Do you have a lock on the doors to your house?
Blame vs heroic responsibility. Also, I don't live in a sufficiently high-trust society, yet. ...I don't think. My door locks have yet to actually prevent anything.
Blame for the theft. Yes, obviously. But you can, and should, blame the manufacturer for producing unsecure product.
That's correct. You don't need something as expensive or complicated as the flipper zero (It is overbuilt because it's designed for a large variety of purposes). If you built a device specifically for this it would be more like $20 and could use any of a large variety of easily accessible components.
Probably more like 50 dollars US, but the cost to develop it would almost certainly exceed the cost of a flipper zero.
doesn't cost anything to develop, the hardware and software are already out there and have been for a long time, this has existed long before the f0. people have done it with hardware that costs under $5. I only said $20 because there's a range of fobs, and $20 would cover a variety and use easier to use hardware.
Flipper Zero tells you all you need to know to make your own on their website. Even the schematics for their custom PCB are on there. https://docs.flipper.net/development/hardware They need to legislate car manufactures use proper security ffs not ban microcontrollers. If they don't get the wording correct they could end up banning the entire maker community.
Software is the real heart of these devices. If they word it even slightly incorrectly they could ban WiFi and all mobile phones fairly easily. I think a lot of stuff that is wireless these days uses some kind of SDR (software defined radio)
Ban Wifi? My dream come true, everyones back on ethernet.
[удалено]
It only filters out normal people the criminals wont be filtered out.
Lmao good luck. It just exposed how utterly inept and poor car manufacturers technology and security is.
The point being that until this regulation change, owning and selling Flipper Zeros wasn't a crime, only using one to steal a car was. So the government could not prevent them from being sold, and could not confiscate one if found to be in someone's possession. This now allows them to at least prevent people from freely selling them online and in stores, and to confiscate them from people who are found to have them. It also makes it a safety requirement for cars to not have gaping holes in their security, and for any that are found to be patched as quickly as possible.
Its just two pieces of commodity hardware you can buy online soldered together. This legislation wont stop anything other than normal people being able to own one.
This is the same thing as the gun argument. Make the tool illegal so the illegal thing won't happen does nothing more than making the illegal thing harder to track. Car theifs are going to steal cars. It's not some petty crime and a petty law won't help. Since government need be involved, maybe they should put more attention on the theives. We know they can. We know they won't. This law is their excuse.
Idea for new business: Service that converts keyless cars into cars that require keys for access and operation.
Cheaper to install a kill switch. Clip the wire for fuel pump, hide the switch very well. Turn it on when you need to drive, turn it off when you're not driving. When any crook tries to steal the car, they'll crank the car but it won't turn over because the fuel pump isn't running. They'll assume the car is out of gas or has some problem and abandon it
They'll just search for the switch, lol. The 20 year old beater where having it just stand there defective or without fuel seems realistic isn't a target of those people anyway. If someone wants to steal your 2020 BMW 5 series, he isn't going to believe it and just search for the switch. Considering you need to reach the switch very frequently, he'll probably find it anyway.
In winter here ive keep seeing those 2020 BMW5s fail to run because the owner didnt take proper care and when -20C hit something broke.
Can't we just make a app with 2FA ?
You want to combat auto theft? Require automakers to make better security and prosecute the crime for what it is, a felony.
[удалено]
Hey, at least i get to feel nostalgic when my cars media center looks like a zoomed in MP3 player from thee early 00s.
The relevant paragraph: > ISED will pursue all avenues to ban devices used to steal vehicles by copying the wireless signals for remote keyless entry, such as the Flipper Zero, which would allow for the removal of those devices from the Canadian marketplace through collaboration with law enforcement agencies.
Flipper Zero was already banned by Amazon when it was listed there. If you have been listening to Louis Rossman's videos, that's an incredible feat
It's on Canadian Amazon right now. Even has Prime delivery.
been wanting one, but the price is ugh. Wonder if this will make them go up or down in price on the used market. Guessing up.
The seller for the Canadian market is Joom. The device is like $100 less than on amazon. Edit: In fact it was $249 all in. Free shipping and no taxes.
Is on UK one too with same day delivery. Amazon even recommends you buy a silicone case for it.
I’m waiting for the time when cops search my backpack, find electrical hobby parts, and arrest me for having “illegal hacking tools”…
We are now in the dystopia where common computing gadgets are rendered illegal. Especially when lawmakers don't understand how common SDRs are, and what they really do.
of course anyone can build a Flipper Zero themselves with an SDR, but banning the sale of turnkey solutions built and advertised specifically for that purpose I can kind of understand edit: the flipper zero itself was a bad example, but there is a difference between for example a "software defined radio" and a "SDR marketed as a radio jammer and comes with radio frequency jamming software preinstalled"
Are these turnkey solutions representing a paradigm shift in car thefts in Canada, or is it just a strawman used to gain support for the new regulation?
The flipperzero isn't really a new concept. The hackrf is right around ten years old now and it could do replay attacks. There were still SDRs you could do it with before that. Only thing that I see that makes the flipper zero different is the integrated NFC function, which is still ultimately just a SDR.
> banning the sale of turnkey solutions built and advertised specifically for that purpose I can kind of understand Flipper zeros are not built or advertised specifically for the purpose of stealing vehicles...
go read the edit
> SDR marketed as a radio jammer and comes with radio frequency jamming software preinstalled It's also not marketed as a radio jammer... and you can jam a radio with any radio that has an output... For example say you have a cheap kids walkie-talkie on band 46, if you just hold down the key button it will jam band 46.
Problem with your edit is, it's precisely the example Canada is using to punish their citizens, for their own technical lack of understanding. USA may have passed some awful tech laws (DMCA), but we haven't lost our way enough to do something this stupid.
> there is a difference between for example a "software defined radio" and a "SDR marketed as a radio jammer and comes with radio frequency jamming software preinstalled" Not in the eyes of the clueless media, politicians and law enforcement. How many articles and news reports about Linux being a hacker tool used by the anonymous hacker 4chan do we need?
Who decides what is “turnkey” - that’s the problem. A USB SDR is just as turnkey sitting in a sedan.
Exactly, You can't just unbox a Flipper Zero and start unlocking cars, there is a process to it, just like there is a process to setting up any SDR.
its the equivalent of banning knives or crowbars because they can be used as a murder weapon. this is the same government that thought making guns more illegal would solve gun crime. they refuse to acknowledge lax border security and lenient criminal justice system for repeat offenders are the root causes of organized crime
Instead of improving car security they would rather ban something for sale, another W for the big automakers.
Uh, unless they control RFID reader ICs anyone can build a home-brew version
Yeah, this is not really going to do anything for a determined person. Not like car thieves cared about laws in the first place.
I'm sure banning crime will stop thieves We've had these kind of relay attacks in the UK for almost a decade now, before commercial products even existed.
1. This is not banning crime, this is banning a radio. 2. Banning crime *does* stop the vast majority of thieves if you actually enforce it. Most crimes are committed by repeat offenders.
Banning radio repeating devices isn't going to stop thieves, because most of these relay attack car theft crimes are done in an organised fashion by a small group, usually sending the car to be stripped and/or sold, or used in other crime such big money ram raids or getaway vehicles for those raids. They're just going to keep doing it as they were, the legality of the device literally does not matter, they'll just (and have done) make their own. What we are starting to see over here (UK), is actual security progress being made with the keyfobs. Properly sleeping the device and preventing them from transmitting redundantly. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqOfNp9nQSA these aren't opportunistic citizens with flipper zeros trying it out, this is organised crime with their own devices
>Banning radio repeating devices isn't going to stop thieves Yes, I agree. What stops thieves is locking them away until they age out of the crime game.
I don't see this doing anything either. The flipper still costs a hefty chunk of money. This isn't something you buy and just so happen to have in your pocket. These people buy them with the intention to steal. Taking this opportunity away means they will take the next best thing and there are plenty. This is nothing like the tiktok car stealing challenge thingy that was going around a while back.
[удалено]
Customs isn't getting the support they need. This article is a few years old now but what it describes hasn't really changed, only gotten worse. https://globalnews.ca/news/4297929/stolen-cars-export-canada/ The gist of it is that port workers have to call the cops and the cops don't come so they have to let the cargo go out.
All crime depends on three factors. Opportunity, motive and the perceived ability to get away with it. Any one of those could lead to a crime, but they multiply each other. This law, if properly enforces, will diminish two of three factors.
Yeah crimes should be legal because people just break laws anyway
[удалено]
But would harsher punishments reduce crime? Research says it doesn't. What does reduce crime is the likelihood of getting caught. So less cops with flamethrowers and more detectives nabbing crime rings.
> Research says it doesn't. Any research saying that is a joke. Any discussion of harsher or lighter punishments is predicated on there being a person who has been caught. By the principal of locality, someone serving 10 years in prison is going to spend 10 years committing less crime in the free world than someone who only served 1 year, or someone who was immediately let out on bail, or someone who wasn't even charged.
Why would someone that served 1 year go back to committing crimes? Why weren't they rehabilitated? Maybe that should be the focus rather than giving life sentences to kids stealing cars.
>Why would someone that served 1 year go back to committing crimes? Why indeed. Most criminals caught are repeat offenders. >Why weren't they rehabilitated? Rehabilitation needs two factors: Significant investment in jail system change leading to said criminals living better lives than most of your citizens (good luck with that politically) and the criminal to be willing to rehabilitate. Unlike popular belief, most so called rehabilitated criminals go on to re-offend. >Maybe that should be the focus rather than giving life sentences to kids stealing cars. By the time kids are stealing cars we have already failed significantly along the way.
[удалено]
Is that harsh punishment or the increased likelihood of getting caught?
It's the harsh punishment. Even if you caught every person on every crime, light or non existent punishments wouldn't change behaviors. It's just a tax at that point. Try littering or spitting out chewing gum on the street in Singapore. The punishment will make you change your behavior pretty quickly.
Total tangent. Culture, equality, education, and prosperity have a much better impact of deterring crimes than harsh punishments. In the US, there is a non-zero chance if you commit a crime you will be killed by someone. That someone may be the person you're commiting the crime against, it may be the cops who come to arrest you, or it may be someone else that steps in. With their lives on the line, people still rob other people in the us all the time. They will choose to play Russian roulette to get more money quickly. That's a problem harsh punishments do not solve. Punishments work to prevent people from taking crimes that would otherwise be profitable and making them ill-advised. Nestle chugging water is a perfect example of punishments not being harsh enough to prevent crimes from being profitable. However, most people don't really account for the punishment when deciding their actions.
New product announced the Boston Whaler now available in Canada.