I thought the rolling code thing prevented this. If anyone has a doc on how to use the Flipper for a car, please send it! I promise it's for legit use. I bought it originally to dupe the NFC key fob for my apartment and the RF fob for the garage door.
So.. I think CP rail is maybe a co-conspirator here? They have immunity from local law enforcement, and don't seem to require any title checks to move vehicles across border.
The problem here is probably the criminal lied about what was in the cargo container, and to process the tens of thousands of titles to ship new vehicles to manufacturers is obscene - and even then, criminals will still find ways to transport cars in shipping containers.
At the end of the day, it’s up to the ports (which again are a federal agency) to scrutinize cargo containers destined for these locations - which they don’t have the staffing or funds to do.
And now they'll be stretched further inspecting incoming shipments for flipper zeros.
> to process the tens of thousands of titles to ship new vehicles to manufacturers is obscene - and even then, criminals will still find ways to transport cars in shipping containers.
What whining is this about? Are you suggesting that we just let the thefts continue at scale using rail because 'paper work hard'? Are you serious?
If anything, it broadcasts to criminals that they can now steal cars with ease.
In practice, you could start a Hyundai with an USB key, because the manufacturer did not bother to implement any security measures (it's cheaper that way).
should be
"For example, to copy car keys. It is unacceptable that it is allowed to build cars without proper security that help car theft."
You can't carry a pocketknife in the UK, you can't carry a Flipper in Canada. Insane. I genuinely hope the US does not become even more of a farce of a democracy like these two.
Soon our own fingers will be banned "for our own safety."
It must be this educational low encryption open source device that criminals are using.
It’s a witch! Burn the witch!
Seriously the myth that key fobs are sooo insecure, they aren't.
Tell me how you have no idea about technology without telling me how.. Flipper is pretty much useless against cars keyless system, in fact, just look at any video of the how thieves do it, they never used flipper but far more sophisticated devices (except the kia switch USB trick). That ban is most likely because some boomer at ISED saw some tiktok and thought it should be banned or got mad after having their Tesla plug door opened remotely, meanwhile, you can import all types of sophisticated full-duplex SDR with all types of antennas that are far more powerful and dangerous than that toy.
I worked with ISED before, overall nice folks but technicalities not much.
UK knife law allows you to carry non-locking pocket knives with a blade length up to 3 inches (7.62 cm) without any need for a valid reason.
If you've got a job related need to carry a mofo knife (cane cutting with a machete) there's no drama.
Yes, it's regulated - but it's not what you claim it to be.
Next you'll be claiming there's no guns in Australia.
"Gravity knives" are banned too. Why? They are simply easier to open. As easy to open as flipper knives, which are legal. And you don't even have to open fixed blades - also legal.
Butterfly knives are harmless. It is literally easier to kill someone with a legal knife than a butterfly knife, because with a butterfly knife you're forced into a ridiculous opening animation. But it looks spooky, so banned. Pathetic.
You can't even own some of these items in your own house. Imagine not being able to buy a decorative shuriken or whatever. How many people have been killed to shurikens, again? But if you put one on your wall it's 4 years in prison.
More importantly, what criminals will even care to follow this law? Do you really think a criminal interested in stabbing another person will go "geez, well, I guess the law says I can't use this 3.5 inch locking knife!" Fuck no, worst case they'll grab a kitchen knife and get stabbin'.
Stop trying to justify this ridiculousness. The UK is a surveillance state clown show where things are banned for fun. More cameras per capita than China and you can't own a decent box cutter because some politician is trying to justify their worthless existence.
[1]: https://www.victorinox.com/us/en/Products/Swiss-Army-Knives/...
Imagine being sent to prison for 4 years and having your life literally ruined because you used this at a picnic. lol.
We’ve made plenty of dumb decisions as a country but I’d say trying to keep knives off the streets is not one of them.
There’s a reason that the UK is slowly losing its 1st world nation status. Self inflicted wounds due to among other things a people who want a nany state. Reap what you sow.
I'm fine with them.
> Stop trying to justify this ridiculousness.
I haven't tried to.
It's going to take some manpower, but every container going overseas will have to be inspected during loading.
The government's "solution" is putting in high tech x million dollar scanners that will take years to implement while the gangs keep stealing and shipping.
Then she started her political career.
Next, the root of all evils: screwdrivers, which, if you are smart enough, can be used to open things that are screwed shut!
Think of the children!
That said, banning tools? Seriously? Will they now ban hammers, crowbars and hacksaws, because they can be used for breaking and entering?
::slow clap:: The brilliance of the Canadian government on display here.
But in practice that's a lot of work. The reality is that most people don't want to be involved and are happy to have some figurehead do the work for them, even if that means complaining about it later.
edit: Further perspective: You need something that can perform a relay attack. You need someone with a powerful enough antenna to find the remote inside someone's home and relay it to a person near the car. This involves at least 2x CC1101's
> As you can see, small embedded antennas are very inefficient, however convenient. In all cases here, the antenna radiated less than 1% of the available RF power. Using a full sized high efficiency antenna has the potential to increase TRP by at least 20 dB, which is 100 times more power or about a 10x increase in communications range.
https://antennatestlab.com/antenna-education-tutorials/consu...
This is the type of device still available, far more useful and powerful than a banned FZ: https://www.analog.com/en/resources/evaluation-hardware-and-...
They banned a bunch of sport shooting and hunting guns because they look “scary” when criminals largely use handguns to commit crime.
Licensed gun owners in Canada are statistically the least likely people out of all to commit crime of any kind (let alone gun crime), as they are background checked every day. Let alone the fact that criminals use illegal black market handguns smuggled from the US to commit the majority of gun crime and won’t have a firearms license.
I own guns, wish I could own more, and dislike 'liberal' and conservative infringements of my rights equally, but at least get the claims straight.
Sometimes tech lowers the barrier to commit crimes and should be regulated.
Yes, of course. Those with wealth hire people, often referred to as lobbyists, to put in the hard work. Technically, representative democracy requires everyone to be, or have, their own lobbyist, but in practice that's a lot of work that most people don't want to put in. They prefer to defer to a figurehead. It's easier that way. And, as such, give up power because of it.
Disclaimer: The following might make you feel hopeless - I apologize for that in advance. I guess I’m a little in shock right now by the latest Sam Altman news about him looking to pour trillions into driving people out of jobs and possibly jeopardizing humanity. This is indeed like Oppenheimer all over again. I can see it now. Or maybe I need a fresh perspective. Comments are welcome. /Disclaimer
Yes people don’t want to get involved. Yes they are stretched thin. Corporate America puts such onerous demands on them that apathy becomes rampant.
It only furthers the agendas of powerful figureheads. Their self-actualization goals influence how the society is governed (top-tier in Maslov’s hierarchy).
Individual needs of the people - the worker bees - suffer as a direct consequence. There is no longer the “life” part in work-life (the weekends maybe, if you take out kid duty and household chores).
There’s no easy way out, and as much as I love everything being done in the name of scientific progress, I don’t like the cost we are paying for it as a society. We’re an unhappy bunch - this wasn’t the American dream, or any dream.
I think what’s increasingly missing is some culture - like non-commercial good music. People doing stuff because they were motivated by themselves - not commissioned art. Maybe what we need is a renaissance.
Why? To help people losen up a bit, so they can start to remember what living used to feel like. Then maybe, just maybe, people will also start to care more about each other. And dare I say, they might even have some time to volunteer in the service of others.
Also, I am not saying everyone fits the above narrative. There are people who do this today - they have dedicated their lives to service. But it’s not the norm, it’s not even 20% of the population. People like me are the norm. We wish well, we want what’s better. But wanting doesn’t automatically translate into actions - that requires motivation and dedication. Which comes from being inspired. And you can’t get inspired by anything when your life is about surviving each day.
In practice there are no built-in mechanics to deal with representatives. Wait X years for reelection is not the option.
Liquid Democracy would be a possible solution, in which you have the right to vote on all policy directly, or delegate and revoke your voting rights at any moment to a representative. That would be the only way to deal with representatives that promise one thing in campaigns and do something different once they are in office (aside from the many other benefits it would bring).
There is if the population agrees that the representative is not acting in accordance to wishes of the population: Off with their head – literally. What are they going to do about it with no head?
In practice, representatives by and large do act in accordance with the wishes of the constituency to the best of their ability. The larger problem they face is a constituency that doesn't want to be involved. I expect at least 95% of the population have never even spoken to their representative even just once. But the representatives are only human. They do not possess mind reading abilities, so they can only go on what the tiny fraction of the population who are active submit.
But, of course, the tiny fraction of the population who are active are probably not representative of the entire population as a whole, and so you get large disconnects even when the representatives are acting in good faith.
But ultimately that's just people.
Hint: your mini 14, my g3, and my buddy's SKS all fell under this rule, despite having some distinct aesthetics (and all being pretty distinct from the dreaded AR15).
In other words they were designed to be given to young men in the military to shoot at other people.
I don't particularly like the new gun rules, but I think that gun advocates do themselves a disfavour when they pretend that an SKS or G3 wasn't designed first and foremost as a military weapon.
You don't have to be a gun nerd to know that a gun that comes standard with an attached bayonet is materially different from a rifle designed with deer hunting in mind. https://www.cabelas.ca/product/110383/chinese-sks-semi-autom...
I'm so confused now.
No doubt because, as you point out, the typical person would rather spend their time making ends meet (i.e. pay for the luxuries of life) than the worry about making agreements with their neighbours day-in, day-out. You can technically survive on very little time commitment to "make ends meet". Just look at the homeless population. It is not a life you would want to live, but it could be done if you truly saw the need to assert your power. But, understandably, most people would rather focus on their personal goals and let the figurehead worry about the community problems.
What's the alternative? It's just people at the end of the day. There is no magic. Those who do the work are going to do the work the best way they know how. Even if they value your input and want nothing more than to work with you so that you can show your better way, they are not going to scour the globe to find you. If you don't put the effort in to make yourself known on a regular basis you will be forgotten about.
Carney has Julie-Payette issues in his past and probably won't leave his board seats to clean up Justin's mess, but never underestimate the ego I guess.
They also don't assault women and apologize for being so forward because if they knew the victim was a reporter they wouldn't have assaulted them.
I have no idea how anyone can have a favourable opinion of Justin Trudeau. He's repeatedly been caught in racist or misogynistic behavior and it blows my mind the number of people who turn a blind eye to it and think he's different.
The way he handled Jody Wilson-Raybould, Jane Philpott, and Celina Caesar-Chavannes speaks volumes of his character and what he really thinks of women. Talk is cheap and actions speak louder than words. You can stand up on a podium and declare you're a feminist a million times but his actions repeatedly contradict that statement. He's no feminist and I don't think he cares about anything except for himself and his image.
The system isn't handed down to us by a higher power. It's just people. It's shaped simply by what people decide to do. Want different? Then you must do different.
There is no alternative. There is no magical genie that will grant you three wishes. If you don't do the work someone else will, and they will do it the way they want it done, same as you would.
Again, you are saying "no they're stated goal was X" but I've never heard them state that. You're going to have to show the receipts because I followed this closely and I have told you _exactly_ why they banned them - it's because of how they look.
I'll bite - what are these relevant material differences?
You seem to think that "designed" is important but is that a material difference by itself? If so, how does that work? Is that true for anything else? (There's a lot of cross-over between other outdoor equipment, such as vehicle drive systems, clothing, and shelter, so ....)
If it's that the intent results in other differences, what are they?
It's not the ammunition. It's not how the gun functions. (Yes, the SKS is supposed to be more tolerant of rough handling than most guns, but the AR-15 is less tolerant.) Surely it's not appearance....
Yes, people tend to shoot back, but what material difference in gun design/function is a consequence of that?
You contrasted deer hunting with shooting people, but how are they appreciably different at the same distance? (The obvious difference, that the military prefers wounds to deaths, works against your conclusion.)
.223, which is what the AR-15 shoots, isn't legal for deer hunting in some jurisdictions because it isn't powerful enough. 7.62x39, which is what the SKS shoots, usually is legal for deer, because it is roughly equivalent to the ancient 30-30. However, typical deer rifles are significantly more powerful. (Of course, people do hunt things other than deer.)
You seem to think that a bayonet is important, but are bayonetings a problem? If not, what material difference does a bayonet make? Does that difference persist after the bayonet is removed? If so, how? (I ask because the first thing that most people do with an SKS is to remove the bayonet.)
For one, I can stab someone in close quarters with a bayonet. It is a feature designed specifically with killing humans in mind. A bayonet has no legitimate or legal use in recreational hunting or shooting. It makes the weapon less useful for legitimate purposes if only as a weight penalty.
The issue isn't "how many bayonet attacks have there been?", the issue is "how many attacks with guns designed specifically as human killing weapons have happened?". The answer is that there have been thousands.
People want to draw the line at weapons designed as weapons of war, or more broadly, weapons designed as anti-personnel weapons (which is how handguns get included).
Pretending that an SKS wasn't designed specifically for killing other human beings makes people rightfully doubt the honesty of the rest of the argument. I personally think that under the right circumstances it is not unreasonable for a Canadian to shoot weapons of war recreationally. But I also think that if you can't acknowledge that an SKS was designed to kill people, and it has been used to kill tens or hundreds of thousands of people very effectively, then you have no business handling it.
If gun people keep making arguments about "looks" or guns being "military" as a bad criteria, then legislators will come up with functional criteria, and I really doubt that it will be less restrictive than what they already came up with.
From family history, you can't shoot a rifle well during a flat out four mile cavalry charge on machine guns, but you can sling a rifle and hold a bayonet.
https://anzac100.initiatives.qld.gov.au/remember/battle-of-b...
How does this argument hold water? If any military, anywhere, purchases your firearm design, it's now "too military" for the citizenry? Where is the line drawn?
How many bayonet attacks have happened in the US or CA in the last 100 years?
An M1 Garand is a weapon that was designed and produced by the US military specifically with war usage (killing people) in mind.
The issue isn't "how many bayonet attacks have there been?", the issue is "how many attacks with rifles designed as weapons of war have happened in the US or CA in the last 100 years?". The answer is that there have been thousands.
People want to draw the line at weapons designed as weapons of war, or more broadly, weapons designed as anti-personnel weapons (which is how handguns get included).
Pretending that an M1, or an SKS wasn't designed specifically for killing other human beings makes people rightfully doubt the honesty of the rest of the argument. I personally think that under the right circumstances it is not unreasonable for a Canadian to shoot weapons of war recreationally. But I also think that if you can't acknowledge that an M1 was designed to kill people, and it has been used to kill tens or hundreds of thousands of people very effectively, then you have no business handling it.
If gun people keep making arguments about "looks" or guns being "too military" as a bad criteria, then legislators will come up with functional criteria, and I really doubt that it will be less restrictive than what they already came up with.
What defines "weapon of war?"
Quit intentionally hand-waving with this "designed specifically for killing human beings" garbage - what does this mean in technical, industry terms rather than circular terms?
In the United States, Miller explicitly stated you only have a right to own things of military value (expanded in 2008 (Heller), 2016 (Caetano), 2022 (Bruen) but this was decided almost 100 years ago.)
> then legislators will come up with functional criteria
Let's write some! What would that criteria look like? The 1994 AWB and every similar state statute written since use cosmetic features.
Once we've written some, is there historical precedent for this kind of criteria (required under Bruen)?
> What defines "weapon of war?"
I already defined it, but to be clear: A weapon originally designed for the military market, or one derived from such a model. We can also include any gun designed for the police market, or for the self-defense market. If the primary design intentions was killing humans, then it shouldn't be allowed. They are inferior tools for the allowed uses of guns in Canada, and they are a fetish item for deranged individuals and the type of gun culture that isn't welcome in Canada. This doesn't have to be the only criteria.
As far as functional criteria lets start from first principles. The allowed uses of guns in Canada are: hunting, target shooting, and protection from wild animals. So for rifles: Single shot bolt action allows you to hunt and target shoot, a rifle is a poor choice for defense against a charging animal, if your aim is so poor that you need to spray bullets in a panic use pepper spray instead like the other 94% of the population. The sale and transfer of handguns is already prohibited, but if it wasn't: You don't hunt with a handgun, they are less effective than bear spray for defense, and for target shooting, you don't need anything more than a single shot 22. Shotguns: Hunting, target shooting, and animal defense can all be done with a double barrel. So any break action gun, and any pump action with a capacity limit of 2.
> Once we've written some, is there historical precedent for this kind of criteria (required under Bruen)?
Historical precedent is that American gun law is completely irrelevant north of the border. My criteria pass the test.
Why are you commenting on things you know nothing about and arguing about this with Canadians who actually know what's going on up here? This isn't worth engaging anymore, go to google.com and search for "Canada assault style gun ban" to learn more.
Being ignorant, asking me questions, and then disputing the answers when you don't know what you're talking about is not productive. I gave you all the information you need to educate yourself, so leave me alone and stop arguing with me about it.
https://arstechnica.com/security/2024/02/canada-vows-to-ban-...
https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/canada-to-ban...
How can you use a Flipper Zero to steal a car? Flipper Zero can't crack hard encryption.
Is the real problem that cars were made with security that they already knew was negligently weak at the time? If so, is a recall of those cars more appropriate?
Here's my template:
I am a Canadian citizen in your riding (A1B 2C3) and multiple business owner in the technology sector.
As an expert in the field of electronics and information security, I am concerned about the ISED’s initiative to ban Flipper Zero and similar devices, announced at: https://www.canada.ca/en/public-safety-canada/news/2024/02/f...
The Flipper Zero is a general-purpose tool for engineering and information security research. By banning the device, we will be doing a disservice to our country’s practitioners in these fields, while doing little to thwart car thefts.
If possession of a device like Flipper Zero is the enabler for car theft, then it leads me to believe that such cars had negligently insecure encryption from the day they were manufactured, and a recall of such cars would be more appropriate.
If different people want to mix up approaches, and hit various notes, to see what resonates, a couple thoughts (as a tech nerd, not a political communicator):
* "Information security research" has different connotations for different people. No matter how professionally you conduct yourself and respect the term, and no matter how much you promote the term positively as professional... if a particular reader considers the term to be a euphemism for behavior they think should be curtailed, and they think that's the only use of FZ, that might hurt your effort. (Unless you can find a way to promote both at the same time, to those readers, without compromising on either more than you want to.)
* All the hobbyist experimenting and building things, by kids and adults alike, I consider constructionist "education", which is valued. And I suspect it doesn't hurt to say "STEM", as a keyword for the kinds of jobs and economic development this leads to. (Imagine kids figuring out how modern devices work, which today requires more than just unscrewing an appliance and finding the motor and gears. Or getting interested in the RF that backs much of our global technology infrastructure, and inspired to pursue engineering or science. Or using that knowledge to build things that help get them into universities, or that become a tech startup company.)
While accurate, the standard may not be as rigorous as you'd like to imagine; there was a time not long ago when a wire coat hanger was enough to unlock a car.
A lot of vehicles - my wife’s 2015 Kia included - have a very flawed implementation of rolling key encryption. Basically, you need to capture three consecutive keys. The receiver is programmed to allow any future key (in case the fob was pressed away from the car), and will happily reset to past keys when you send three consecutive keys in sequence.
Ostensibly this is to avoid people’s fobs from becoming “unpaired” somehow if the car receives a future key. You just hit the button a few times and it works. In practice, it’s trivially easy to exploit.
It's the same approach they used for their recent (last 5 years) firearm bans. Whether or not I agree with what they're trying to accomplish with the bans, the ability to arbitrarily ban specific items without meaningful oversight isn't great for democracy.
Because honestly there are lots of ways of gaining access to the inside of a vehicle, and if it can’t enroll a new key it’s neither necessary nor sufficient for stealing a vehicle.
It’s impossible, you can’t even use it against garage doors rolling keys without accessing the garage unit and program it like a new remote. The ban has nothing to do with car theft.
Someone on the plane I was on kept triggering it to do bluetooth attacks ('not your airpods') while I was trying to read (and have my earphones on connected via bluetooth so fuck me right?).
There's hacked firmware's you can install [0]. I understand that there are probably tons of other devices like this out there but this one was SO fucking popular and easily accessible.
I've already seen this thing abused and used in a super obnoxious way. Frankly I think you should be arrested for having it on in the passenger cabin of an airplane.
Probably best not to have the tool in carry-on, even powered-off, and I'd understand if TSA didn't permit that (like they wouldn't let a chef carry-on their knives, another tool with very legitimate purposes).
It's a dick move but banning the hardware doesn't do anything because you can port such simple hacks to any platform. It's the action that should be policed.
I am not excusing the behavior, but I also don't see arrest as an appropriate remedy.
Sounds like running this is illegal and github hosting it, too
You're pulling a "Think of the children" here. Rest of your comment is fine, but this first statement doesn't hold water. Any incredibly small number of engineers and scientists would ever use this device. A Raspberry PI, Ardiuno, or other general purpose micro controllers and small form computing devices sure, I could believe that. But some niche device, no.
Edit: I wasn't aware of the popularity of the device, as suggested by comment below, when I wrote this
FWIW, I "funded" the Kickstarter for Flipper Zero because my startup was doing something a little innovative with various kinds of RF tags, to help solve a significant societal problem. (Which, besides what we could've contributed to a country in monetary value of our company, the application domain had significant implications for national economies, as well as for public safety. All things that lawmakers care about, in addition to reducing auto thefts.) We had Android diagnostic software, plus bespoke iOS apps with NFC that I wrote, but a Flipper Zero would've helped me work better and faster at some things.
> Any(sic) incredibly small number of engineers and scientists would ever use this device.
I personally know over a dozen people who own them and have tinkered with them in various ways. I managed to "break" my air conditioner unit (permanently setting it to C, not that bad of a "break") with one. Definitely less popular than a Pi or Arduino, but growing in popularity very fast.
I couldn't possibly comment on the practical consequences to STEM of banning it. I wouldn't make that argument. But it's silly to claim that it's a "think of the children" argument and nothing more.
*see https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto-man-finds-stolen-truc...
See also:
- banning various types of (previously) legal firearms vs cracking down on illicit handguns being smuggled in over the border from the US
- banning purchase of property by foreign owners vs addressing supply
- banning single use plastics vs buying a goddamn oil pipeline for billions of dollars rather than cutting oil extraction subsidies
etc. etc.
If you want to do real damage there are portable SDRs that can jam GPS and transmit just about any arbitrary radio signal from DC to 6GHz for less than $500. This is a mildly powerful toy that has a large, intelligent and curious community around it.
The reality is RF stuff is wildly under-explored right now outside of military spaces. On the consumer side I'd guess we're somewhere around the early 2000s internet in terms of security posture. It's probably best to consider the flipper community to be a gift of minimally destructive pentesters relative to what they could be if someone wanted to actually dish out real electronic warfare.
You can't import / use devices that have jamming capabilities.
The Xtreme firmware appeared to be one of the easy ways to get the 'BLE Spam' app which could crash the latest iOS devices until Apple patched it in December.
And that story really echoes the parent's point about Flipper users being a 'gift of minimally destructive pentesters' (love that quote). The Flipper community effectively notified/pressured Apple into fixing an issue that might have been used more nefariously. (Some really malicious folks could have used the ability to crash iOS devices to DoS/shutdown peoples phones at some critical moment as part of a scheme or theft)
That said, this is the most popular one, I'm sure there's clones out there already that fly under the radar.
None of the articles on this are actually showing the numbers. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/230727/cg-b0...
Car thefts have increased by a significant amount outside of their normal fluctuations, but they are still much much lower than they were before 2010. To call it a crisis is hyperbole. Canada's car thefts are the approximately the same rates as the US.
Flipper zero is a casualty of poor security practices, and the insurance companies need to be going after the car manufacturers for making it so easy. I would even say if it's so easy to bypass, then buttonless start should never have even been legal.
You can ban the flipper zero, but it does not seem that difficult to get them into the country nor does it seem difficult for criminals to make their own.
Without a police report your insurance won’t pay for a new car.
Just root a phone and you have a far more powerful hacking platform.
> Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (ISED) Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada will work with Canadian companies, and the automotive industry, to develop new solutions to protect vehicles against theft and to assist with recovery of stolen vehicles.
> ISED will pursue all avenues to ban devices used to steal vehicles by copying the wireless signals for remote keyless entry, such as the Flipper Zero, which would allow for the removal of those devices from the Canadian marketplace through collaboration with law enforcement agencies.
The actual solution would be to force auto makers to have better security that can't be cracked by script kiddies. Banning a tool like the F0 is like banning hairpins or paperclips because they can be used to pick locks. Their primary "purpose" isn't that at all. What would be okay is to ban the use of an F0 to steal a car. Not ownership of an F0, or a screwdriver.
Ban carrying them. If it's truly an educational tool you don't need to carry it around with you. Same as (in the UK) carrying a set of lockpicks is grounds to be arrested for 'going equipped' unless you're a locksmith.
That's interesting, here in the Netherlands I believe you can carry them about and use them, but of course only with permission of the lock owner.
The whole purpose of this device is to carry it and the portability aspect, else I will use my other powerful SDR.. I have many fobs that I would like to keep em all in one device than carrying the hardware for each, plus backing it up. UK, a country that still requires licenses for a TV isn’t a good example in your case.
Thanks to our Parliament!
But how many previously law abiding citizens will be hurt by not having this technology, or becoming criminals now?
> Office of the Honourable Dominic LeBlanc Minister of Public Safety, Democratic Institutions and Intergovernmental Affairs
mailer-daemon@googlemail.com
An error occurred. Your message was not sent.
A better contact is Dominic LeBlanc, and your local MP.
Emails seem to work fine if they already know you.
> Alex Kulagin, COO of Flipper Devices, said in an interview that his company received no communication from the Canadian government ahead of Thursday’s statements.
I've been pretty happy on balance with measures introduced through direct democracy in recent years (mostly happens at the municipal and state levels in the US), and it seems like most people are unhappy with measures introduced by the normal "democratic" means of governance in rich nations, where we elect people, who then make laws
Maybe we should do more of the former and less of the latter
Text uses the flipper zero as an example, not as the specific target of the ban.
Similar to how moving ssh to a non-standard port stops most attacks.
Auto manufacturers could .. create more secure devices for cars. Of course existing vehicles are a different problem. That was avoidable to some degree.
Just how many thefts are linked to its use.
Criminals will be add FZs to their gun and drug shipments to Canada
ISED is responsible for the radiocommunication act. Section 6(1) seems to give pretty broad powers to regulate different radio devices. https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/r-2/page-2.html perhaps its broad enough to allow banning such devices.
But, also, there's a reason cars have been using microchipped keys for the last 25+ years.
There are ways to transmit information securely that prevent replay and other attacks. (See: Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, TLS, etc.) If car manufacturers weren't lazy and cheap, they could solve this problem, but they don't really care. They get money when you buy the car, then if you're car gets stolen, they get more money when you buy a replacement. Not solving the issue is in their favor.
They steal cars by either breaking a window or by getting to the CAN bus through the bumper and hijacking the car by programming a new key using the car's VIN. Ban Toyota and Honda from selling cars with shitty security if you want to do anything about this problem without having to ask the police to be useful.
¹ Caveat: Some cars will accept rolling code signals with a counter only 1-3 values off. So a Flipper recorded unlock message could be replayed successfully if the owner hasn't used their fob again. Plus, replaying codes can desynchronize the car's system from the fob, leading to non-functional keyfobs. You can find online reports where Flipper users did this to themselves: https://www.reddit.com/r/flipperzero/comments/yxgn60/flipper...
edit: A deeper dive makes me think a the Flipper could help with some attacks. On some cars recording multiple successive unlocks and replaying them in order will make the car resynchronize its counter to the messages on your Flipper and the next one will unlock the car. It seems this attack relies on the first signal being jammed, but you could do that with two Flippers. One next to the car jamming, and a 2nd closer to the keyfob recording. Lots of info here: https://i.blackhat.com/USA-22/Thursday/US-22-Csikor-RollBack...
However, what we do have is a pretty welcoming, friendly, and adventurous population that's a great basis for building a home, even if that doesn't mean having a house. If you have no sentimental attachments, no social life, no outdoor hobbies, no family, no job, and no prospects for a job, all of those together are perfectly legitimate reasons for getting the hell out and seeking prosperity where it might actually be found.
For me, I haven't had a job for almost a year, nobody's hiring, nobody will be hiring, rent is increasing, I'll almost certainly never own a home or be able to retire, and I don't think having kids would be feasible if I was set on it; all together, a miserable situation to be in. But... I do have friends, I have places to spend my time, I don't need to worry about medical expenses, I have a roof (for now), and I'm in better shape than many people in their early thirties. I like the vibe, and don't think I'd have better opportunities in those respects anywhere else.
That said, I did already move for work once, and picked the most appealing place imo, so anywhere else would have to pass a very high bar in order to compete. I'm also relatively more outgoing and open than people who claim to want strong social lives, and am willing to put in the groundwork. If you're a lonely, socially anxious or inept person, or a sweaty careerist tryhard who doesn't take time away from work anyway, being here vs anywhere else probably won't be such a significant difference except a better account balance.
Edit: I'd qualify my characterization of being welcoming, open, and adventurous, with the possible exception of smaller towns and cities where quite the opposite can be true. No so much because they don't like newcomers or because they're bigoted, but many people in those places—even if they're relatively cosmopolitan—haven't bothered to look beyond their high school friends for connection, even well into adulthood, and I've heard that can be quite difficult to break into. But I also don't think it's unique to Canada and it's a worthwhile experience to get the hell out of your hometown no matter where you're from by your mid-twenties I think, if even for a few years.
Im sorry but this is one of the saddest things I've ever read. As a Canadian of this was my experience of Canada I would be doing everything I could to get out. Thankfully it isn't yet, but things definitely are not looking good and I am worried about the future
This is not to say that the alternative is immune to these problems, but as a former long time california resident direct democracy was directly responsible for many of the state's problems, i.e. prop 13.
In many cases any special interest or sufficiently motivated rich person can also just keep putting their pet issue on the ballot over and over until it passes.
Sufficiently motivated and rich people are also motivated to repeatedly put their pet issues to our political representatives (sometimes alongside big political contributions).
Seems like a case of pick your poison (and antidotes).
Direct democracy means a lot around here, like not having a single party long term in some control positions who could block or manipulate bills. Voting on topics instead of politians is only a small aspect of this all working.
Two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1978_California_Proposition_13 (massively screwed up the housing market in California, not feasible to reverse it now)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_California_Proposition_8 (defined marriage in the state constitution as between a man and a woman, still on the books but invalidated in court... for now)
That basically summaries the Canadian government's history, and how we end up in multiple crisis and negative gdp per capita situation now.
I think the real problem is that the system is rigged.
Your vote only matters if youre in a non-gerrymandered swing state.
Even if your vote did matter you have to choose from a a small amount of candidates selected and vetted by the RNC and DNC.
So its less an issue with representation democracy and more an issue with how rigged and pointless the system has become in my opinion.
An example: Contactless payments, I can pay up to €50 by just pressing my bank card against the receiver. Very convenient, but, anyone can hold a receiver up to where I have my card and steal money that way. There's insurances of course, in this case the bank is pretty clear in saying "we know this is a risk and you will be compensated", same as with their apps etc. But it is a tradeoff.
https://www.usenix.org/system/files/conference/usenixsecurit...
This is a good start.
I agree with OP, it's bad that its being used to try and take down phones on flights and also if it's being used to steal cars.
My take is that what makes the Flipper so revolutionary/disruptive is that it puts all these previously difficult to pentest systems (NFC/RFID and sub-GHz radio mainly), behind a dead simple UI.
One example is intercepting a particular NFC card's password to read its protected sectors. This requires reading the card's UID, then presenting that UID to a reader hooked knows that UID's password, recording the password it sends, then using that password on the NFC card.
Prior to the Flipper this NFC password interception was possible but difficult. The Flipper make this sort of NFC MITM attack dead easy. It's literally just 4-5 clicks in the UI. I've cloned my own hotel key cards this way. (And it's impractical to secretly clone someone else's card this way since it requires tapping the Flipper on the same card twice)
Banning lockpics is just security theater and does nothing to reduce burglaries.
Bump keys are also much more effective by the way. And look like normal keys to the uninitiated.
Watching C-SPAN's live stream on your laptop would, for example, require a TV license, whereas watching Netflix or playing video games using a TV as a display would not.
The definition of "live television broadcast" is somewhat vague, and is essentially "duck typed". The BBC has said an online tv channel would count whereas watching streamers on Twitch wouldn't.
Also, the license covers the address, but there are weird exceptions, such as when watching on a laptop whether that laptop is plugged in or not.
(I live in the UK, and have informed TV licencing that my address does not require a license so they will stop wasting paper by sending threatening letters)
Unfortunately I think Philly is more dysfunctional than GTA. Perhaps the greatest of American cities.
For example, I don't really want to own a house to begin with, but if I did it would be a modest condo in or close to my current neighborhood where I've established myself, not some arbitrarily cheaper place where I'd get some bungalow and there'd be no jobs outside of trades anyway, not many people to re-establish a social life with, or would require a car, or a remote job that I don't have and wouldn't want to do from home in an isolated prairie town. These are just all factors in the system I'm in that don't serve anyone but people who already have quite a lot of money and want to make more by sitting on property. Until then, I'll eek by living in this studio basement suite owned by boomers, sharing rent with my partner, figuring out what the next move is. Maybe eventually I'll have to yield and bail, but I'll cross that bridge when I end up at zero (real zero, not zero + savings) again.
The systems have more or less been the same for many decades, and they've been getting pushed for at least the last one, just not everywhere all at once to their breaking point. They are slow, complex systems that require people to give up control usually, and that's unfortunate, but it is what it is.
> Then what does per capita have to do with it?
If you are really interested, look up Canadian's policies. Tldr: import 'low cost' labor to pop up monopolies without real growth, declining average Canadian quality of life. Flattening gdp/huge labor population import = negative growth
It’s like getting upset by a lock picking set except this isn’t even a lock picking set and more like a door knob diagnostic tool.
The TSA also doesn't care, they don't look for, and don't remotely have the training to detect suspicious electronics. Even if they did the flipper looks very innocuous unless you know what it is. You can reliably get much more entertaining things onto airplanes without them batting an eye.
It’s legal in most states to own lock picks and use them on locks you own.
I also believe most of the same states allow you to use them on any locks with the permission of the owner, but there may be a few that require a locksmith for that, even if you aren’t selling the service.
No. https://www.toool.us/lockpicking-laws.php
Oddy enough, owning lockpicks is sorta illegal in some Canadian provinces.
Sure you do... all you need is a very high resolution camera in the vicinity....
It just depends what your personal circumstances are whether that's a reasonable deal or not, and it's not for me to judge one way or another. If I could make U.S software money from Canada, it's a no-brainer, I just can't and wouldn't really want to live there long-term. The outcome I could hypothetically have doesn't seem all that compelling, but it probably does for a great number of people for obvious reasons.
For me though, there's something a bit too intensely capitalist I guess that rubs me the wrong way. So many things and people are American size, and super, and mega, and excessive, and seemingly lacking nuance in a way I just don't like. I do get used to it and forget I'm there, and always enjoy the visit, but I can't see myself being there for more than 6 months.
It has been both absolutely disastrous and incredibly popular.
There are competing interests and multiple perspectives to most of these issues where one position is not absolutely right as compared to the other.
This is in no way an endorsement of fucking around with one on an airplane, or even off an airplane when used without the consent of the target.
Numbers? I see in 2023 they did 80m rev which is what, half a million devices sold worldwide? That’s very niche. % wise close to 0; it’s a geek tool. Nice but not immensely popular.
Look at the state of CB radio. Anybody can buy and use one. The airwaves are clogged with the trucker equivalent of YouTube Poop. It's like being in a fucking mental hospital.
Ham radio requires licensing. There are still cranks but now there's a barrier to entry for most of them. It's still usable.
Lockpicks are illegal to carry in parts of America, unless you're a licensed locksmith.
Look at the state of the internet, 1997 vs now. The difference is we onboarded everybody.
Broadly speaking, trolling/crime (and tools to perpetrate it) should not be frictionless. Attacks on infrastructure (malware, etc.) are getting too expensive and social attacks are basically free to execute and costly to respond to.
You can bring any western company to a grinding halt by getting a bunch of entry-level stooges to file false workplace violence and other complaints indiscriminately in bad faith. There's no cost or consequence for this, and the company will panic trying to accommodate in good faith, but do the same with police reports and everyone gets charged with misdemeanors for abusing the system.
Unearned privileges are always abused.
Also, there have been 9 reported deaths worldwide that have been linked to choking on the toy inside a Kinder Egg. 7 Children in the US die ~every day~ from being shot. It seems pretty clear to me which one is a bigger issue.
500K is a _lot_.
Runaway success unless you're: A) Apple B) Samsung
The 350K product I'm referring to defined a whole category for years and is universally well-known in tech.
To be 100% clear, next time you see "500K sold", your decision tree is:
Is it Apple? If yes, can be disagreeable whether it is well-known / successful.
Is it Samsung? If yes, can be disagreeable about whether it is well-known / successful.
Still here? It's well-known and successful, you'll look silly if you choose to be disagreeable.
Just above we can see a clear point that criminals will still have guns.
They won't turn them in. You'll only take away the ability of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves.
My wife carries a gun because she is smaller and weaker than most men, she needs it to protect herself.
I don’t think we (Canada or anybody) should necessarily ban guns, but I don’t think the US should have the 2nd amendment (as it’s now interpreted anyways) either.
The debate in the US is largely about what constitutes well-regulated and is a mess as States are not aligned.
Australia is less than 10% the population of the U.S. Its easy to get to the majority of 20 million people to agree to something. It’s impossible when you have over 300 million. And the U.S. has a wide history of different states with different attitudes.
Also gun laws are codified in the constitution in the U.S. that’s not the same way in every other country in the world. I wish I could remember who said it, but to paraphrase, Constitutional rights are God-given rights as viewed by Americans. Every other country has government-given rights which can be taken away whenever the government wants. That’s not the case in the U.S. and why it’s so much more entrenched and impossible to get rid of.
What other nonsense is in the US Constitution and Ammendments?
My neighbour here in the Australian wheatbelt enjoys ULR shooting at 5,000 yards.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7owwTz7Z0OE
Perhaps you might like to do some actual fact checking before being utterly wrong in public?
W.Aus Firearms Act 1973 (current): https://www.legislation.wa.gov.au/legislation/statutes.nsf/l...
W.Aus Firearms Regulations 1974 (current): https://www.legislation.wa.gov.au/legislation/statutes.nsf/l...
But of course anyone is welcome to attempt to get a majority of state legislatures onboard to ratify a new amendment.
Analogous terms are encoded into most state constitutions - probably have to knock those pesky provisions out as well.
Even Ginsburg agreed: "well-regulated" as written in the Constitution does not mean "restricted." The English language has changed some since 1791!
This is settled jurisprudence since at least 2008.
That can be repealed, if so there is no right for our government to make firearm regulations.
The 1974 Regulations are the evolving regulations, the fine detail about what the licence requirements are, the purchase and sale requirements are, the various classes, storage requirements, and conditions for disqualification.
These can be changed.
Their point was nonsense.
We have a "Washminster" system of government, it's a bit like the UK Westminster system and a bit like the US Washington system .. only it was formed after looking at the shortcomings of both.
> Australia [..] done mass firearm bans or confiscations in recent years
Awww, you read the US NRA dot points on Australia then?
Twenty eight years ago Australia took out the (then) mass shooting world record https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Arthur_massacre_(Australi...
The response here was to unify gun regulations across all states and territories. At the time the bulk of the Australian population had gun regulations .. Queensland (then low population), Tasmania, and Territories (low population) did not.
Once regulation was uniform and gun licencing was taken seriously there were a lot of guns that people didn't want to licence ("we have the three we mainly use and another three out the back that grandad used in the war") - so there was a federally funded buy back scheme "cash for guns" to encourage handing in unlicenced weapons for cash, this resulted in pictures of skip bins full of "confiscated guns".
There are still semi automatics being bought, sold, and used in Australia - these are licenced for feral pig control use.
You cannot get a semi automatic to barrel polish and strut the street in the city with, you can get one if you're going to kill a lot of pigs.
You can get a licence to drive a three trailer prime mover (road train), you are still not permitted to drive these fully loaded on a large number of urban roads.
Rights are by definition not "pending repeal of statute."
The point being, reasonable countries view gun ownership as a privilege that can be lost, instead of a right that cannot.
After Regulations were agreed upon, these were codified.
The base right as that citizens of the state can have weapons, the agreed regulations (that can be overturned) are citizens with violent criminal records, domestic assault allegations, unqualified in handling, not willing|able to safely store cannot have weapons - these are our background conditions.
The US also has background checks for sale and possesion - they're just weak on enforcement.
The US is an oddity is they felt after the fact of constitution that they had to whack on an ammendment to spell out common law for firearms - but not for explosives, poisons, motor vehicles, etc.
You do not have the right to own a firearm in Australia regardless of whatever mental gymnastics you want to perform.
- The fact that a forcible confiscation (governments cannot "buy back" something they never owned) campaign could happen at all means you do not have this right. "Give us these items or go to prison or die when we come to take them" - some right you have there!
- If you cannot own remotely the same articles that your police do, you do not have a right to bear arms. You have a privilege to own a limited set of items under a limited set of circumstances - all of which would be useless for mounting violent resistance.
When in history did we ever need, oh wait...
This is repeated a lot and shows that at bottom, gun ownership ideologues are violent thugs, they all promote using violence to impose their political views dressed up as a fight for "rights".
Ultimately it proves that restrictive gun laws are absolutely correct.
The entire purpose of the Second Amendment - at least in the United States - is to enable violent resistance against tyranny. Not hunting, not culling predators, not sport, not home defense.
> Ultimately it proves that restrictive gun laws are absolutely correct.
"We need to restrict something that prevents further restriction."
You need violence, firearms, and "violent thugs" to go around disarm people who possess them - this in Australia is the threat of prison time.
Pot, meet kettle?
This is plain bullshit, the historical context doesn't support your wishful thinking.
You can justify violence any way you like, but at the end of the day you're promoting violence and killing people based solely on your political views.
You're repugnant.
The most left-leaning members of the United States Supreme Court disagree with you legally on this point, just as much they would agree with you in principle.
> You can justify violence any way you like, but at the end of the day you're promoting violence and killing people based solely on your political views.
Where did I "justify violence?" The Second Amendment is quite clear and contains its own justification.
Again, you need violence to disarm people - so you're really not "against violence" - you're just against those using it that you don't agree with.
> You're repugnant.
Come and take them.
That doesn't make the least bit of sense, but I can see you were desperate to say that, ie "I'm armed, there's nothing you can do!"
But the idiocy of the armed is the delusion that they are safe. A person can kill another person at a safe distance, at their convenience. Having a gun doesn't help you at all.
Maybe one day you'll start thinking for yourself and come to your senses.
But I doubt it.