Canada declares Flipper Zero public enemy No. 1 in car-theft crackdown
Canada declares Flipper Zero public enemy No. 1 in car-theft crackdown
How do you ban a device built with open source hardware and software anyway?
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/11789263
Canada declares Flipper Zero public enemy No. 1 in car-theft crackdown
You're viewing a single thread.
Smh... Lol this is how you end up with widespread vulnerabilities in everything.
Seems more to me like vulnerabilities are widespread in everything, and this thing ended up being made to exploit them?
*edit
Wait, did you mean the same thing I said? Phrasing wasn't clear to me.This is made to exploit them in the same way a knife is made to cut. It can be used for harm (although is a very weak, outdated tool for it that intentionally knee-caps this use) or it can be used for good, where it is a basic, unspecialized option that anyone can make or aquire. Like if the government tried to stop violence by banning knives, a ban would have little impact except on the least committed individuals (IE not organized crime) while being an annoyance to normal people by focing them to sharpen their own metal plates rather than buying them pre-made.
If they actually want to stop these crimes, more reasonable courses of action might be tracking what is shipped, acting on reports of stolen property, trying to impede large-scale organized crime when it is found, or requiring that vehicles maintain security protocols that take into account the existance of computers outside the vehicle.
OK, sure. I appreciate that explanation but I wasn't unsure about how ways the Flipper Zero or devices like it might be used (just as I'm aware there are reasons for and against the existence of backdoors in software). Based on your response, did you think I was in favour of banning it? I never intended any value judgments about how it might be used, but perhaps some people are reading into my use of the term "exploit" even though it's not always a negative term.
I added the edit above because I was trying to figure out the intended meaning of the comment I was replying to, since it didn't make sense to me. Probably it's just awkwardly worded and that threw me off, since it doesn't make sense otherwise.
Pretty sure he's saying they're ignoring the vulnerabilities entirely, and instead trying to push the blame onto pen-testing tools. Like saying that a disease is spreading because of all the testing, rather than because they stopped treating the drinking water.
Cool, if that's the case then it actually was the same thing I was saying. If someone had just made harmless fun of the misunderstanding I would have laughed right along. Too bad the atmosphere got weirdly ugly for some reason. Anyway, thanks for taking the time.
Wow, I check back to see if clarification is available and now I have downvotes? People really are getting meanspirited on here.
Yeah I've started to notice people are engaging in less good-faith conversation than when I first joined Lemmy last summer.
I think a lot of ex-reddit users, after the initial excitement and novelty of the migration to Lemmy, eventually slipped back into their bad habits from reddit. Reminds me of this this blog post denouncing the unhealthy behaviours that are all too common of online discourse.
There's a reason hackernews just straight up denies you from downvoting direct replies... and it's to discourage a knee jerk reaction to downvote anyone who disagrees with you.
Maybe lemmy should count loading a comment as an upvote
Yeah, that's the bright side here. If they try to control everyone by banning science, bitch, I've already got it!