Results: Mainstream and Social Media - crime fighters or crime spreaders?
Some kids in the US, who call themselves "Kia Boys", figured out how to hot wire several models of Kia and Hyundai cars and posted how to do it on a social media platform. This remained under the radar on the platform until mainstream media felt "The public had a right to know" and published headlines like the following (CNBC) "TikTok challenge spurs rise in thefts of Kia, Hyundai cars."and "Videos stealing and driving the cars on social media using the hashtag “Kia Boys” have more than 33 million views" and then "The thieves are mainly young teens who use a USB cord to hot wire the car. " The results (to me at least) were predictable.
1.
1.
On Friday, CNN reported that two large U.S. auto insurers were refusing to cover some older Hyundai and Kia models because the cars and SUVs are too easy to steal. They lack basic auto-theft prevention technology known as electronic immobilizers which prevent a car from being started unless someone is using a key that contains the proper computer chip that communicates with the vehicle. Other media outlets went so far as to list the specific models that were vulnerable. Does this type of article actually benefit the public or simply increase the number of thefts?
The media does not care one way or the other.
26%
•
554 votes
The media is actually promoting theft for profit knowing full well that these articles will increase theft which they will consider newsworthy.
25%
•
534 votes
These articles will devalue the sale price of anyone owning one of these cars and the media and Tik Tok Teens will now look for other makes and models that use a similar system.
22%
•
460 votes
Neither the media nor the young delinquents are to blame for this. The manufacturers are to blame for not making a more theft proof product.
15%
•
313 votes
Other (please specify)
2%
•
35 votes
Not Applicable
32%
•
675 votes
| Other Answers | Percentage | Votes |
| 0.69% | 13 | |
| All of the above | 0.11% | 2 |
| The media was correct to do this. | 0.05% | 1 |
| These kids should be charged. | 0.05% | 1 |
| The kids don't watch the news so no effect | 0.05% | 1 |
| undecided | 0.05% | 1 |
| I read all 4 and they all are true ,As technology advances there wll always be ones that will find a way to bypass that technology | 0.05% | 1 |
| Where are the parents? | 0.05% | 1 |
| this is completely the fault of the thieves. Is the media to blame when it reports on a murderer? | 0.05% | 1 |
| Both | 0.05% | 1 |
| The media did everyone a favour by warning these people of the thieve that are out there. Just another example of why Tik Tok needs to be banned. | 0.05% | 1 |
| This is nothing new. Only the means by which the info is spread has changed. Do you really think the news that certain cars are much more vulnerable to theft WOULDN'T have circulated without social media? Through newspapers, tv news, word-of-mouth | 0.05% | 1 |
| I could say the media is not to blame but I can't agree that the teens are not to blame. Just because you CAN do something, does not mean that you should and obviously taking someone else's hard earned property is wrong under any circumstances. | 0.05% | 1 |
| Let's put the blame where it belongs!! The parents!! | 0.05% | 1 |
| Don't know enough about it all to choose a concise answer | 0.05% | 1 |
| Teaching criminals what's available to steel | 0.05% | 1 |
| All the above. | 0.05% | 1 |
| the media is not to blame car theft has been possible since the creation of cars its the car companies fault they need to make a work around if they want to keep good face (which kia and hyundai never had to begin with) im sure they could fix it | 0.05% | 1 |
| I have no idea. | 0.05% | 1 |
| blame automaker | 0.05% | 1 |
| Benefit future owners | 0.05% | 1 |
| young delinquents are to blame for this as well as people who steal vehicles | 0.05% | 1 |
2.
2.
Two large US auto insurers are refusing to cover these vehicles and now other insurers are sure to follow or increase premiums or exclude theft from their coverage. The vehicles affected are very popular models owned by people who bought them in good faith. The cars are unlocked using a key. Newer security options are available but at a cost. What do you think should happen now?
The insurance companies should be forced to insure these cars because otherwise the owners can't drive them.
27%
•
564 votes
The manufacturers should have added these extra security measures as original equipment regardless of cost - the American public would have paid the extra cost.
24%
•
512 votes
The manufacturers should be forced to add these measures now at no charge to the original purchaser
35%
•
730 votes
The manufacturers (or if someone else - who?) should be sued because of the financial loss and stress this publicity has caused.
12%
•
242 votes
Other (please specify)
1%
•
23 votes
Not Applicable
33%
•
702 votes
- Add the device myself - it shouldn't be too difficult?
- sell it
- I'd booby trap it. My car would be a mess when I got it back, but the thief would be easy for the police to find. Green paint works wonders for that type of thing.
| Other Answers | Percentage | Votes |
| 0.58% | 12 | |
| The owners should add the device rather than take the risk. | 0.05% | 1 |
| young delinquents who post on social media as well as those who stole the vehicles can pay | 0.05% | 1 |
| these companies shouldn't have gone "WOKE" | 0.05% | 1 |
| Don't know | 0.05% | 1 |
| The kids should go to jail. This is a crime and should be dealt with. | 0.05% | 1 |
| Insurance companies should offer to continue insuring them if the owner installs a proper anti-theft device | 0.05% | 1 |
| insurance companies are run by banks | 0.05% | 1 |
| unsure | 0.05% | 1 |
| sue tik tok and arrest these delinquents | 0.05% | 1 |
| how about arresting the thevies? | 0.05% | 1 |
| Old vehicle, the owner should buy an aftermarket theft deterrent | 0.05% | 1 |
3.
3.
Kia and Hyundai vehicles in Canada not affected by this U.S. theft issue because of Canadian regulations. These rules require auto-theft prevention technology known as electronic immobilizers. These prevent a car from being started unless the key contains the proper computer chip for the vehicle. Not every vehicle has this technology in the U.S., particularly those with key ignitions—but it has been required in all new vehicles sold in Canada since 2007. How do you feel about these differences in regulations?
I'm glad my (Canadian) government had the foresight to build this technology into its regulations. Americans visiting Canada in one of these cars are taking a risk of theft now that Canadian car thieves have been given this "heads up" from the media.
21%
•
435 votes
I'm angry my (American) government didn't have the foresight to build this technology into its regulations. Canadians visiting the US in one of these cars are able to avoid the risk of theft from car thieves who have been given this "heads up" from the media.
21%
•
433 votes
The regulations should be the same in both countries and the highest standard should be the one adopted, not the cheapest. The cost is not only a financial one. Some kids will steal cars and then crash them with injury and loss of life.
21%
•
447 votes
The manufacturers are only obligated to meet the standards in effect in the country and or state where the vehicle is sold. They cannot be expected to anticipate new technology and retrofit it in all vehicles sold at no cost. They cannot be liable if government sets lower standards than are prudent.
11%
•
228 votes
Other (please specify)
1%
•
19 votes
Not Applicable
40%
•
834 votes
| Other Answers | Percentage | Votes |
| 0.51% | 8 | |
| people who steal can pay | 0.06% | 1 |
| It's a pain in the butt; our Canadian bought Ford cost us over $300 to disarm their stupid anti-theft system and would have cost the same to recode the keys; the system just went nuts. the car is a 2008..... | 0.06% | 1 |
| Many cars don't require keys to start--I believe that was the problem, at least with Hyundai. | 0.06% | 1 |
| the US should be required to have theft protection especially since our crime rate is so much higher | 0.06% | 1 |
| Shame on the manufacturers for not stepping up. I learned my KIA lesson several years ago. Cheaply made car with expensive parts | 0.06% | 1 |
| In my old car before this Ataxia disability affliction, i had a steering lock device for an anti-theft device. | 0.06% | 1 |
| unless the manufacturer misrepresented their product, no one is at fault. | 0.06% | 1 |
| The manufacturer already provides a free security software upgrade to all affected cars, making this question irrelevant. | 0.06% | 1 |
| Chipped keys are ridiculously expensive to get a second copy of or to replace. We should all have the option of not having them in our cars. | 0.06% | 1 |
| Maybe start arresting these kids and they will be less likely to do it. | 0.06% | 1 |
| Manufacturers should be obligated to meet these standards whether or not the government foresaw them. | 0.06% | 1 |
4.
4.
There is now pressure being exerted on Kia and Hyundai in the US to have a recall of the thousands of vehicles that don't have electronic immobilizers installed. Meanwhile Hyundai is making a device available for $170 plus installation with other devices available elsewhere. Whether or not you have a Kia or Hyundai, should you pay to install one? Should the US Federal government change the regulations more proactively to make sure the rules are kept up to date for this and other risks?
Kia and Hyundai met existing regulations. If a recall is mandated, all or part of the cost should be covered by the government and or insurance companies, or in a three way split with the consumer..
13%
•
266 votes
There should be a recall and the company should pay.
34%
•
715 votes
Consumers should pay but their insurers should give them a premium discount if they have one of these devices (and its future versions from time to time)
12%
•
250 votes
I am in Canada and already have one of these devices. I feel so much better knowing this?
6%
•
134 votes
Other (please specify)
1%
•
15 votes
Not Applicable
42%
•
878 votes
- no
- no
- No.
| Other Answers | Percentage | Votes |
| 0.65% | 9 | |
| criminals should pay | 0.07% | 1 |
| You get what you pay for, tough luck | 0.07% | 1 |
| Government regulations should be changed to include these safeguards, but not retroactive. | 0.07% | 1 |
| You have the facts incorrect, the issue has already been remedied. | 0.07% | 1 |
| Consumers should pay. No discount on premium. | 0.07% | 1 |
| No one should recall the vehicles. | 0.07% | 1 |
Comments