this post was submitted on 10 Feb 2024
751 points (99.1% liked)
Technology
60084 readers
3135 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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:
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 🤷
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.
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
So the article is biased, and you swallowed it whole sale.
How so
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
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.