Electronic devices used for car thefts set to be banned

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c2046qlwzz3o

by zeristor • 1 year ago

47 75 1 year ago

bbc.co.uk

bell-cot• 1 year ago

It'd be lovely if there were also penalties for the firms which sell those vulnerable cars, so easily stolen if you have one of the now-banned little gadgets.

Oh well. I'm sure the problem will clear up, once all the crooks have dutifully handed their little gadgets over to the coppers.

chrisjj• 1 year ago

Interestingly this law does not require such a handover.

"the onus will be on someone in possession of a device to show they had it for a legitimate purpose."

"Making or selling a signal jammer could lead to up to five years in prison or an unlimited fine."

sandworm101• 1 year ago

I saw an ad recently for a car (Kia?) with a phone app that could sent an unlock/start code to someone else's phone. It was so you could lend your car to a friend without all the hassle of physical keys. What could possibly go wrong?

snailmailstare• 1 year ago

Assuming your friend has Internet access nothing could really go wrong. If you forget to send them the code they can just watch a short video.

seanmcdirmid3• 1 year ago

This is using NFC, which is impossible to intercept. So only the person you send the key to can unlock and start your car with their phone, and you need to hack their phone to steal the key, which I believe is impossible given the way that Apple implements it (you need to steal their phone and know their passcode to use the key unless they set it in express, and even then the phone has to be unlocked within a certain time period to actually start the car).

superkuh6• 1 year ago

So this is a change from the status quo where actually transmitting an interfering signal is illegal to one where having a device that might theoretically transmit an interfering signal is illegal? It sounds like ordering all pencils be made illegal because they can be used to write threats.

I can see why they might want to make this change but I can't see how it can feasibly be defined and enforced without making every LC oscillator illegal. But like most legislation I suppose the reality, and reality of enforcement, don't matter so much as having the law to point to. They'll ignore it most of the time but chose to enforce it arbitrarily if someone rocks the boat. And it's quite a bit of a performative, "We're doing something." move.

"These devices have no legitimate purpose, apart from assisting in criminal activity...

Expecting street cops to know RF electronics deeply enough to make these judgements of a "legitimate purpose" is beyond foolhardy and the claims of generalized signal generators as having no legitimate purpose is false. They would certainly consider my amateur radio lab equipment to be illegal.

HeatrayEnjoyer• 1 year ago

Radio equipment restrictions are as old as radio itself. Go into cellular telecommunication or, god forbid, radar, and you will find a great number of things you are not allowed to possess or sell, with very severe punishments for violation.

zmgsabst• 1 year ago

Like what?

superkuh6• 1 year ago

I am into radio communication and radar and I think the only thing I'm not allowed to do is sell high power traveling wave tubes, etc, to foreign nationals. I, myself, within the country am unrestricted in equipment ownership. I am, of course, highly restricted in what frequencies I can use in actual practice.

Please give a concrete example of radio equipment that would be illegal for me to own.

deergomoo• 1 year ago

It sounds like ordering all pencils be made illegal because they can be used to write threats

My country enacting overreaching and ill defined laws concerning technology? Colour me surprised…

nubinetwork2• 1 year ago

Did they seriously try to call an RF transceiver a jammer?

Also you can literally "jam" anything with anything, I used to have a pair of walkie-talkies from the 70s that were designed to use (what's now used as) the CB band... is that considered a jammer now?

Symbiote• 1 year ago

They call them "Keyless repeaters and signal amplifiers", but say people also refer to them as "jammers".

rahimnathwani2• 1 year ago

This is a confusing article. I'm not sure what 'scrambling' means here:

  Keyless repeaters and signal amplifiers scramble the signal from remote key fobs inside people's homes, enabling criminals to unlock cars.

And it talks about banning 'signal jammers'. How is a signal jammer useful for stealing a car? Wouldn't a signal jammer prevent someone from unlocking a car?

superkuh6• 1 year ago

The jammer prevents the car from hearing the transmitted un/locking signals while the jammer themselves collects and repeats it later.

De_Delph• 1 year ago

That, or to prevent the tracker in more expensive cars from doing their job. In mainland Europe, some high end cars need to be fitted with a GPS tracker for insurance. Thieves will try to jam GPS to those trackers until they're: A) figured out how to disable/remove it, B) fled the country.

rahimnathwani2• 1 year ago

It seems challenging to jam a transmission from being received, whilst capturing that same transmission.

Maskawanian• 1 year ago

Yes, it would stop somebody's key from working, and that's the entire point, because most key fobs work on rolling ciphers, and if you block one, you can reuse it. Typically the fob will allow like 10 or so presses. It depends on the model before you're forced to re pair to the car. But by jamming it and capturing what it sent, you can then use that to get into the car.

gambiting2• 1 year ago

You can sit around a car park with a jammer and jam the signal as people walk away from their cars - some people don't notice that their attempt to lock the car just didn't do anything.

alex7o• 1 year ago

I don't know how that is still a problem. I drive a 2019 Renault, and it has both rolling codes and it locks automatically if it doesn't detect the key anymore.

friendzis• 1 year ago

How is a signal jammer useful for stealing a car?

I can't vouch for UK in particular, but generally having some sort of tracker (level x security system) is mandatory to insure more expensive/exotic cars. A signal jammer prevents the tracker from calling home and, well, the stolen car being tracked before the tracker is found, disconnected and destroyed.

patmcc• 1 year ago

Oh, thank goodness, they're finally banning these evil devices.

Hopefully they'll move on to bobby pins, coat hangers, screwdrivers, and hammers next.

mihaaly2• 1 year ago

I feel it a bit ironic arguing about "devastating effect on victims, who need their vehicles to go about their everyday lives" while the lock of homes including brand new ones are from the last century, somehow not the same worry about the place where people live. And in a car based society - more like forced outside of London which has usable public transportation - made itself so vulnarable to the use of cars for basic necessities like going to work and shopping, yet the practices and public infrastructure (parking in traffic lane, blocking traffic for safety, damaging neglected potholes) are making it worse like car theft. Seems like very selective worries from a theatrical public figure.

parineum2• 1 year ago

Or they are just exaggerating the consequences so they can pass a silly law that let's them say they did something next time they run for office.

hn_throw2025• 1 year ago

Frustrating this law comes from my country, which seems determined (for now) to be at the vanguard of draconian over-reach. It isn't hard to see this being extended to SDRs.

I fear for the day that the state insists on limiting our computing choices to sanitised controllable devices, and that having a root-access programmable computer is viewed by them with the same suspicion as keeping Great Grandpa's old service revolver in the attic.

BiteCode_dev3• 1 year ago

Ah, those law abiding thieves will surely stop procuring themselves those devices now that they are illegal.

FabHK• 1 year ago

It will reduce supply, but it will also make it easier to prosecute those that have these devices.

I frankly don't understand the sentiment. Should we not outlaw murder because "ha, surely criminals won't murder anymore now"?

parineum2• 1 year ago

Murder and stealing are the the things that are outlawed already.

The equivalent argument would be banning knives so people don't commit murder.

vbezhenar• 1 year ago

We should not outlaw tools. Lock picks are fun and some ordinary people have a hobby of lock picking. You shouldn't go to jail because you possess a lock pick. Electronic devices are the same.

It's dangerously close to the "thought crime".

In the IT world that would mean going to jail if you have John the Ripper installed.

mirzap• 1 year ago

Stealing is already outlawed, so banning the devices is not comparable to murder. What would be comparable if the government decided to ban knives and hammers? Those "devices" are used to commit murders, and anyone possessing them could be prosecuted for the crime of murder.

BiteCode_dev3• 1 year ago

Then you should outlaw knife, all cleaning chemical, hammers, amateur radio...

But not guns. They are fine.

DoingIsLearning• 1 year ago

The sentiment is very much strongly warranted. It derives from 1) an inversion of the legal onus, and 2) a dangerous slippery slope in civil liberty.

Car manufacturers have been repeatedly caught with their pants down on the multiple security flaws in keyless ignition systems. These are multi-million dollar businesses choosing not do spend money on recalls or R&D to mitigate this. These corporations are effectively externalizing private costs with public over-reaching legislation and public law enforcement.

Secondly, and much more gravely, the criminalizing with 'unlimited fine', as most laws, will rely on non-technical people's interpretation. In practice this means (as prior history shows with regards to legislation and tech), that the step between banning Bulgarian RF repeater/jammers for key fobs, and charging a 16 year old with a several thousands Pounds fine just for using an SDR dongle becomes something very real.

For anyone with experience past or present in autocratic states it is also an obvious reduction of civil liberties in (what should be) a democratic society.

_trampeltier2• 1 year ago

"Making or selling a signal jammer could lead to up to five years in prison or an unlimited fine."

I can understand you like to make some devices illegal. But really, five years prison, unlimited fine. Is everybody insane now.

boredatoms• 1 year ago

You get less for 34 felonies

MrBuddyCasino• 1 year ago

We‘re talking about the UK here. They’ve jumped the shark long ago and are now at the „legislate blunted butter knives“ stage.

r0ckarong• 1 year ago

You're talking about the UK here, have been insane for centuries. And then George Orwell wrote a manual.

optimalplusone• 1 year ago

Standard UK culture. You can be arrested for social media posts.

mathw4• 1 year ago

Well of course you can. We have freedom of speech, not freedom from consequences.

throw9494949• 1 year ago

In UK it is a crime to silently pray at your own home. It is a different culture, court decides who is a criminal. There are no civil liberties or constitution like in US!

rich_sasha2• 1 year ago

This is ridiculously untrue. Please do not spread Musk disinformation.

First statue of Liberty, Magna Carta, predates the US itself by more than half a millennium.

creativenolo3• 1 year ago

Wow the other comments on this thread are all ironic, exaggerated, and misleading.

A little context is necessary.

“Up to” is worth emphasis. Even if in an extreme scenario a 5 year sentence was disbursed only up to 2.5 years would be in prison (and likely far less), automatic release at 2 thirds in the worst case.

superkuh6• 1 year ago

When you are being attacked by a government prosecutor these "up to"s matter very, very much. It allows them to force the acceptance of inappropriate settlements by waving the (very real) possibility of these "up to"s in your face if you try to actually have your case heard in a court.

rich_sasha2• 1 year ago

"Up to". I guess maybe appropriate for a car theft kingpin selling these by the thousand?

How does it compare with the sentence for actual car theft?

TheChaplain• 1 year ago

Car theft is not only a unnecessary cost for the victim, but the whole process it starts demands a significant amount of tax payer money.

_trampeltier2• 1 year ago

Car keys are so crap and easy to copy, that's the real crime.

slt2021• 1 year ago

regular key must be replaced with mobile phone based key, because it is more secure

kleiba• 1 year ago

I'm always amused when law makers try to fight crime by making new laws. Because that affects exactly everybody except criminals who - by definition - don't care about laws.

Like, I can really imagine the reaction of professional car thieves when they heard of this new ban: "Damn, Bobby, let's pack it in! I guess we're not allowed to use those jammers any more. Too bad, they served us well."

woodruffw2• 1 year ago

This is shoddy reasoning: you don’t have to care or not care about laws to not want to receive the deterring effect of incarceration. Laws, in their most basic form, exist to dangle that threat and others like it.

yorwba• 1 year ago

That threat already exists without the new law, since car theft, like all theft, is illegal. Car thieves already don't believe they'll get caught. Make a specific kind of car theft extra special illegal and they still won't believe they'll get caught.

Will the new law lead to more car thieves getting caught? If not, it's just a symbolic gesture to the electorate: "We know you want us to do something about car theft; this is something."

Mashimo2• 1 year ago

It's so they can arrest people they catch with just the jammer, but not a stolen vehicle.

mingus883• 1 year ago

This is a dumb take. Being able to add additional charges on top of the already illegal car theft charge is useful for a number of reasons.

First, a “throw the book at them” approach leads to easier convictions via plea deals and the ability to be guilty of one charge even if another doesn’t stick.

Second, if lawmakers did not adapt the criminal code in the face of new technology then we’d all be posting here about how out of touch and behind the times they are. Or we’d be bemoaning how law enforcement can’t go after this type of crime because it turns out not to be explicitly illegal to maliciously block RF signals used to lock doors.

And also, writing new policy is their job? Are you just suggesting that we pay lawmakers to never try to address things affecting their constituents, because we care about what the criminals think?

mathw4• 1 year ago

By making tools used to commit crime illegal where they don't have a legitimate reason to be carried, you can charge people with that crime if they're found rather than having to wait for them to actually commit the crime the tools are for. Less harm done but they still get stopped, is the idea.

The other idea is that if the tools themselves are illegal it's a higher barrier to entry for the people who want to get into that kind of crime so maybe some of them will never start in the first place.

And it does work in some circumstances.

They perhaps could have gone with clarifying or strengthening existing legislation instead of course. There's already an offence of "going equipped to steal", but it is hard to prove because you might be able to get a court to believe that you were carrying a bunch of housebreaking tools around in the middle of the night for some legitimate reason.

So that's why we tend to pass laws to target tools.

And yes, hardened car thieves probably won't be deterred, but it will be easier to prosecute them if they're found in suspicious circumstances and found with these now-illegal devices. It's not like criminals usually think they're going to get caught - the deterrent effect simply doesn't work on some people.

ok_dad• 1 year ago

"These devices have no legitimate purpose, apart from assisting in criminal activity, and reducing their availability will support policing and industry in preventing vehicle theft which is damaging to both individuals and businesses."

Now I wonder what devices are going to be banned by this law that have a legitimate purpose which they actually want to ban. Will they use this law to ban SDRs or something?

Bairfhionn• 1 year ago

They should fine the car manufacturers for ignoring the security flaws.

mingus883• 1 year ago

Doors everywhere have been trivially easy to bypass for all of history. The crime has always been in taking advantage of that.

For millennia we have been doing ok by focusing on punishing the bad actor and not punishing people for making something that isn’t exactly perfect.

karlkloss• 1 year ago

How about banning the sale of cars that don't use time of flight measurement in their keyless go system?

The problem isn't thieves using easy to get standard equipment for car theft, the problem is car manufacturers making it pretty easy for them.

Remember when you could open cars using an old coat hanger? Did they ban steel wire to prevent this?

Ballas• 1 year ago

This. There is seemingly no incentive for manufacturers to make it harder to steal their cars - every stolen car is likely a new sale.

Daviey• 1 year ago

Unlike the US, it was also illegal to listen in on police radio frequencies. I always felt this was madness to make it illegal rather than adopt encryption. Thankfully they are now encrypted.

nubinetwork2• 1 year ago

I thought I heard something about UK police using a channel hopping routine similar to how Bluetooth works... if you know the channels used at the time, you can still listen in and piece the conversation together... do they still use it, or did they change to a new method?

mathw4• 1 year ago

That wouldn't help people who have cars that already don't do that very sensible thing which yes should be mandatory on all new cars with keyless entry worldwide.

Ekaros• 1 year ago

Real failure is the unwillingness to spend resources to track the stolen vehicles and apprehend the responsible. UK is an island, proper tracking in ports of exit and quick response should be possible.

Or just add enough surveillance so you can track the stolen cars to logical points where they dissapear.

mathw4• 1 year ago

Sure, search every outbound shipping container in case it's got a stolen car in it. Super practical.

And what about the cars which are stolen and then broken up and sold as parts? That's fairly common.

And the ones which are given false plates and resold - perfectly doable if nobody checks the VIN - and never leave the country.

Just because we're an island doesn't make it easy.

But we do need to spend more resources on crime prevention and the apprehension of criminals, we've known that for years but we've also kept electing governments who refuse to do it while also claiming to be "tough on crime" so it's the usual mess.

Electronic devices used for car thefts set to be banned

Related Stories