Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

The flip side of this story is someone like an abusive spouse social engineering a car tracking firm with a story like this and then using the data to track the car's occupant with tragic results.

You just can't win.




The only way to win is to not play.

Stop putting tracking devices that you control in other people's vehicles, if you don't want the liability of it.


If there is no tracking then doesn't the boy being kidnapped lose?


No. There wasn't tracking in this case.

This is the same sort of argument used to get rid of encryption, among many other privacy invasions.

If you want to put a tracker in your car, that's up to you. Should the federal government mandate trackers in every car so they can always find any vehicle?

"Think of the children!"

I am thinking of the children. Having some semblance of life outside of Big Brother's watchful eye is essential for the children.


> Should the federal government mandate trackers in every car so they can always find any vehicle?

This is a red herring. The federal government doesn't mandate this. You said "if you want to put a tracker in your car, that's up to you." People are choosing to put trackers in their cars.

Honestly, as someone who is fairly strict on matters of privacy, I'm fine with a tracker in my car. I don't drive it that often. And when I do, it's around town.


No. They aren't. VW is. And VW, not the owner of the car, is controlling that tracking.

I'm arguing against a comment that implied tracking is good, even if it is controlled by others, because it might save a child. The best version of such a system is if it is owned by the government, not some company trying to make money off of it, so that's the version I decided to argue against.

That's not a red herring. It's steelmanning.


> They aren't. VW is.

A private company. From whom a person decided to buy a car. Hyundai, Kia, Mazda and Nissan make cars without trackers or even GPS. That's obviously not most consumers' preference.

> best version of such a system is if it is owned by the government

I strongly disagree. That said, if someone wants to install a government tracking device on their car, I suppose I'm not against it. (Didn't you start by arguing against mandated surveillance?)


Kias get stolen so often you can't insure them in some places; hyundai's have that "catch on fire spontaneously" controversy, and that steel shavings in the engine problem; nissan has their infamous CVT transmissions. I don't know much about mazda.

It's hard to find a reliable car. Last time I dug into the subject it was a stress-nightmare


Honda and Toyota are the canonical reliable cars, I thought that was well-known, so not sure how finding a reliable car is difficult. I associate Kia and Hyundai with inexpensive, so that wouldn't be my first choice for reliable. (My two Hondas have been fantastic. I bought my Honda Fit used, and from 75k miles to 150k miles I have had no problems at all, no maintenance required besides oil changes. (I suspect the clutch is going to need to be replaced soon, though.)


> Didn't you start by arguing against mandated surveillance?

Yes. That’s the point of steelmanning. Put forward the best argument of your opposition. Then tear it down.


Just require police presence. Pretty easy to get around. Use third party aka police to verify validity.

The firm involved in this should have its board thrown in jail (vw and their contractor). Holding investigative information related to a crime hostage to a fee is criminal enough. Board members and managing directors should cop jail time. Basically anyone from the point of command who said "no! pay up" north. jailtime.

But provisions protecting consumers from companies is weak so unlikely to happen.


In the article:

> the family claim Volkswagen refused to assist authorities

An abusive spouse wouldn't usually ask the police to track someone down. I also assume the request was off the back of an official missing persons/kidnapping charge.

Also, parents of a child would have rights to the location of their children a spouse or partner wouldn't, outside a missing persons report.


There are people who register domains like polizei-dortmund.nrw, set up a reverse proxy to a real police site, and set up a email server. Then, they send an official looking mail to discord.com‘s support with some made up emergency, like the person behind account X is a suicidal, depressive teen and one of their online-only friends reported to us (the police) that he intents to end his life. Then, discord instantly gives us the IP and even address (if they had purchased nitro), and we got that person doxxed.

This is a service available on the obvious scene boards. It’s classic social engineering, and I bet it works for these car tracking services too.


That's called impersonating an officer and is wholly illegal af. Those services whilst available are asking for a knock on the door from folks way nastier than your local cop shop. Rip. That's got state entity attraction written all over it.


Process to verify law enforcement officials are easy to create and use if people are competent.

The main issue I'd be concerned about are LEOs (or other government actors with access to LEO databases) abusing that system.


Failing to work with police is a bit different. To be fair VW say they have a process and it wasn't followed (by them), which may well make them liable or not.


Holding information that is integral to a criminal investigation hostage to a fee. That's criminal af.

Jailtime should be the only answer.

Legit I'm gonna crack a bottle of champagne the day that holding companies criminally liable for their criminal acts becomes the norm. Remember if it's punishment is only a fine not jailtime its a law for the poor.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: