• BossDj@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    10 months ago

    This is like banning usb cables

    If USB cables were used almost exclusively for illegal and just generally anti social behavior.

    I’d never heard of this thing, and it does sound fun, but this was the use case list from the paragraph calling it a “humble hobbyist device” doesn’t come across as very defensible:

    People can use them to change the channels of a TV at a bar covertly, clone simple hotel key cards, read the RFID chip implanted in pets, open and close some garage doors, and, until Apple issued a patch, send iPhones into a never-ending DoS loop.

    But also agreed on fuck those car companies that just don’t care and would rather weaponize the government than try to fix anything (without a subscription fee of course). Anti social behavior forced Kia to change their shitty grift of a product so 🤷

    • edric@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      57
      ·
      10 months ago

      exclusively for illegal and just generally anti social behavior.

      Except they aren’t. These devices are used for various non-illegal purposes and are actually helpful for pentesters so we can learn about potential vulnerabilities on wireless systems before they can be exploited by bad actors. The same way a usb cable is useful for transferring data and at the same time can be used for illegal stuff (like literally any hack where you connect to a device via usb). The worst part (and the article mentions it), is that it doesn’t even work on security systems on cars built since the 90’s. So they’re banning something that isn’t even a problem in the first place.

      • BossDj@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        10 months ago

        I totally get and agree this is a dumbfuck response to the problem they allege to be fixing, and hopefully their committee it whatever concludes the same, but the article didn’t mention any redeeming values for the device as you did

            • n3m37h@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              10 months ago

              but the article didn’t mention any redeeming values for the device as you did

              This means the writer has a bias of negativity towards the device and now you are arguing that’s it’s a good thing it is being banned.

              You would vote to ban dihydrogen monoxide if you found it has been consumed by every murderer in existence and also has been found at every school shooting too

              • BossDj@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                10 months ago

                I said “this is a dumbfuck response to a problem they allege to be fixing and hopefully their committee concludes the same”.

                Translation = it’s stupid to ban it.

                I was giving credit to that other guy for listing some redeeming qualities of the device as the article did not.