Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
United Kingdom Transportation

Electronic Devices Used For Car Thefts Set To Be Banned in England (bbc.com) 99

Sophisticated electronic devices used by criminals to steal cars are set to be banned under new laws in England and Wales. From a report: More than 700,000 vehicles were broken into last year -- often with the help of high-tech electronic devices, including so-called signal jammers, which are thought to play a part in four out of 10 vehicle thefts nationwide.

Until now, police could only bring a prosecution if they could prove a device had been used to commit a specific offence, but under new laws in the Crime and Policing Bill 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.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Electronic Devices Used For Car Thefts Set To Be Banned in England

Comments Filter:
  • going to ban wire coathangers and paper clips?

    And cellphones of course

  • So what about my Flipper Zero? It's a very useful tool for my hobby stuff, but can also be used to steal cars.

    • Re:Flipper Zero? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Zocalo ( 252965 ) on Thursday February 27, 2025 @08:58AM (#65198487) Homepage
      Excellent question. It's absolutely got legitimate uses, so I guess it'll come down to whether you can demonstrate that to the satisfaction of law enforcement or a judge should it come to it. Of course, your chances of having to do that are probably a lot less if it's just sat around on your home workbench rather than in your backpack where it might get discovered in a stop and search. YMMV on how likely that all is with profiling and all.

      Ideally, you'd need to ask a lawyer how to properly frame a justification, but I expect some proforma responses will start doing the rounds in the UK's Flipper Zero community fairly soon. I recall a chef got stopped carrying his roll of knives around some years ago and once he'd demonstrated he was in fact a chef that was pretty much the end of the matter. Being able to easily demonstrate you are an Electrical Engineer or something else suitably appropriate would probably be a good start, especially given there would presumably be no obvious intent to use it for illicit purposes.
    • by Njovich ( 553857 )

      So what about my Flipper Zero? It's a very useful tool for my hobby stuff, but can also be used to steal cars.

      Yeah even before this law: https://www.dailydot.com/debug... [dailydot.com]

      But 99% of the time they will just let you through. If they ask what it is, just tell them it's a tamagotchi and show the animal.

      • If they ask what it is, just tell them it's a tamagotchi and show the animal.

        My god, it says here you haven’t fed the little guy since Jan 1,1970. Son, you’re coming down to the station for animal cruelty.

    • No idea what a "flipper zero" is, and I've got to boogie off soon. But TFS did say that (approximately) "the onus of proof" will be on you to prove that you have it "for a legitimate purpose". So if you're using your F0 (whatever it is) to programme RasberryPis at home to sprocket flanges instead of flanging sprockets, then it's fairly trivial to make such a proof. A letter to the prosecuting body (or investigating officer) would probably be sufficient to move the case from "investigation pending prosecuti
      • If you have no idea what a Flipper Zero is, you have no business being on Slashdot.
        • From the length of your UID, I'm pretty sure I've been on Slashdot since before you completed potty training (if you have.

          I'm also pretty sure it's a device "since" about 2008, when I stopped building desktop computers and went to just using laptops, because i wasn't on the same continent as my house for enough of my life to need the hassle of trying to keep up with hardware.

          I'll give it one try (because I'm really not interested ; if I had a use case for it, I'd probably have already encountered it.

          Oh,

  • by bogaboga ( 793279 ) on Thursday February 27, 2025 @08:54AM (#65198477)

    "...electronic devices used by criminals to steal cars are set to be banned under new laws in England and Wales."

    This is the pertinent question to ask:

    Are criminals using these devices because they (the devices) are legal?

    If the answer to that question is "YES", then the ban will have some [positive] effect.

    My take: Criminals just do not care. The crime will go on no matter what laws are put in place, I am afraid!

    • by phantomfive ( 622387 ) on Thursday February 27, 2025 @08:57AM (#65198483) Journal
      Point is (as the summary implies) that you can put them in jail if they use they have the device. That way, the criminals who don't care will be safely set away in jail. That is the theory anyway.
    • by Targon ( 17348 )

      Look at it from another perspective, are you actively using something for a legitimate purpose, or not? If the primary use of something is for criminal purposes, then a fair question is, "ok, you claim it's for legitimate purposes, so, what are you doing with it?". In this day and age, electronics that are specifically tailored for a specific criminal purpose really are just tools for criminals and nothing else.

    • by mjwx ( 966435 )

      "...electronic devices used by criminals to steal cars are set to be banned under new laws in England and Wales."

      This is the pertinent question to ask:

      Are criminals using these devices because they (the devices) are legal?

      If the answer to that question is "YES", then the ban will have some [positive] effect.

      My take: Criminals just do not care. The crime will go on no matter what laws are put in place, I am afraid!

      You're asking the wrong question...

      The question you should be asking is "is car theft illegal".

      Well of course it is.

      What you also don't get is that this is not about preventing these devices from getting onto the street... they already are. What it is about is adding to the weight of evidence against the offenders. The UK is a nation of laws and has a presumption of innocence. So if the prosecution hasn't got enough evidence or some of that evidence is questionable, said offender walks. Car thefts

      • by mysidia ( 191772 )

        The question you should be asking is "is car theft illegal".

        Well of course it is.

        Yes.. And criminals are going to bring with them whatever tools necessary that are easiest for them.

        There are a lot of tools which pose a danger to property which people should not be just carrying around casually. For example, grinders, crowbars, lockpicks. I think it is fair if you are caught walking around with one in your bag you should have to show an explanation with credible substantiation for what you use it

        • by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

          There are a lot of tools which pose a danger to property which people should not be just carrying around casually. For example, grinders, crowbars, lockpicks. I think it is fair if you are caught walking around with one in your bag you should have to show an explanation with credible substantiation for what you use it for and why you would be carrying it around that night while you were seen suspiciously casing the neighborhood, etc.

          The problem is those tools often have legitimate legal uses as well, so peo

          • by mysidia ( 191772 )

            Even lockpicks have legitimate uses, and that's why lockpick laws are usually worded as "illegal if used in ..

            If you were found carrying lock picks after being searched for legitimate reasons then you have a very high chance of being convicted for possession of burglary tools - the default presumption on the purpose of the tools against you. The authorities usually don't have to prove that you have actually broken into a house. Problem is by the very nature of the tools they create little evidence.

            Tho

    • I agree, and the motor vehicle manufacturers should disable this electonic feature and go back to physical keys only, security vs convenience is a slippery slope and i rather select the secure side of that argument
      • by jp10558 ( 748604 )

        It's hilarious that you think physical keys are secure. Watch LockPickingLawyer and friends on Youtube for a little bit and if you take a judicious look at the channels you'll find that not only are they basically worthless if you're skilled, there's LOTS of dumb and easy to use bypasses of physical keys out there of all kinds, including some "make it easy" tools.

      • >"I agree, and the motor vehicle manufacturers should disable this electonic feature and go back to physical keys only, security vs convenience is a slippery slope and i rather select the secure side of that argument"

        There are lots of ways the electronics could be made better or used DIFFERENTLY and be far more secure. For example, by default, don't allow long-distance unlocking, only broadcast the code weakly while the fob is directly next to the car, for example. Allow users to disable remote/network

    • by AvitarX ( 172628 )

      The idea is that you have to catch the criminal in the act of using it to break into a car, or with a stolen car to prosecute without the law.

      With the law you can find someone being suspicious, find the device, and that alone is a crime, and perhaps prevent a car theft.

      Note: I'm not sure I agree with the premise that acting suspicious and having a tool that can facilitate crime is a good, but that's the concept of the law.

      This is similar to how lockpicks are treated in my state in the US, and other multi us

    • >"My take: Criminals just do not care. The crime will go on no matter what laws are put in place, I am afraid!"

      Bingo.

      It is the same with the so-called "gun free zones", which are not gun-free by criminals because, by definition, they don't care about the law. Who really believes someone illegally-armed is going to see a sign on a street or a store or some other unsecured place and say "OMG, I shouldn't go into that area"? Only the "good" gun-carriers will avoid the areas, which actually makes the zone

  • Shouldn't there be a way to look at logs or something to figure out if one of these devices was used on a car?
    • They know these types of devices are being used to steal cars, they can usually find a small amount of damage where they've tapped into the CANbus. (Broken side mirror as an example)

      But knowing a particular car was stolen by accessing the CANbus doesn't tell you which device was used to do it.

      Imaging you have 5 potential thieves, each has a device capable of being used to steal the car, you have no way to determine which person actually did it unless they left other evidence behind. Nobody is running DNA fr

      • Generally I agree with your points, but from the article it sounds like they are talking about a jammer. Jammers are already illegal in most places, including America.
  • by Spinlock_1977 ( 777598 ) <Spinlock_1977NO@SPAMyahoo.com> on Thursday February 27, 2025 @09:13AM (#65198513) Journal

    I don't know much about stealing cars, but 60 minutes and others talk about "intercepting" the codes usually transfered between electronic key fobs and the car. If someone leaves their car keys near the front door, a bad guy with a scanner of sorts can communicate with the key fob and grab the codes necessary to steal the car. There's no mention of a jammer. In fact, a jammer would make interception impossible. Is there something I'm missing?

    • by mjwx ( 966435 ) on Thursday February 27, 2025 @09:49AM (#65198571)

      I don't know much about stealing cars, but 60 minutes and others talk about "intercepting" the codes usually transfered between electronic key fobs and the car. If someone leaves their car keys near the front door, a bad guy with a scanner of sorts can communicate with the key fob and grab the codes necessary to steal the car. There's no mention of a jammer. In fact, a jammer would make interception impossible. Is there something I'm missing?

      This is a simple relay attack. A device just relays the signal from the key fob to the vehicle. As the key fob is "contactless" it doesn't require any interaction on the key fob to be activated. Just a signal asking for a response. Neither the signal, response or handshake need to be decrypted, just relayed to gain access to the vehicle. The device also gets around any proximity detection the vehicle might have.

      Security experts have been screaming about this for-freaking-ages. However car manufacturers sold the idea as convenience "look, you don't even have to get your key out of your pocket to open the door" and lazy fuckers with zero knowledge on security bought it in droves.

      The good part of this law is that it's one step closer to pushing the responsibility for this back onto the manufacturers. Even though I've a traditional "push button to open" key fob that is not vulnerable to this, my insurance still goes up because loads of other cars are.

      As for jammers, they are of limited effectiveness and most people won't use the because it defeats the purpose of the key in the first place... it means they have to do something to unlock their car. Having to take their key out of a Faraday pouch is too much work. What needs to happen is for this kind of thing not to be put in cars.

      • When your purse is not organized, and your key falls to the bottom of your purse, it's a pain to find it. That is why those kinds of keys are popular.
      • by sinij ( 911942 ) on Thursday February 27, 2025 @10:14AM (#65198627)
        There are multiple solutions (that are not implemented, because for a car manufacturer stolen car is one more person shopping for a car) that could make it harder to pull off relay attack. For example, key fobs can be fitted with an accelerometer and go dormant when not moved for a few minutes. Also, there is no reason not to implement proper 2-way authentication on a car start. Sure, you don't want to delay car door opening, but it takes some time to open the door and get in, in that time you can establish proper secure channel to authorize engine start, limiting relay attacks to opening doors.

        Car manufacturers should be held responsible for vomiting insecure products on customers, resulting in increased insurance costs for everyone.
      • by mysidia ( 191772 ) on Thursday February 27, 2025 @10:22AM (#65198647)

        This is a simple relay attack. A device just relays the signal from the key fob to the vehicle. As the key fob is "contactless"

        The thing is there are SEVERAL types of attack, and some attacks use jammers and some of them don't.

        Some attacks simply use a jammer to prevent the car from locking when the owner presses the Lock button on their remote. That leaves the car unlocked so it can be accessed easily.

        Other attacks thieves may be performing are against the rolling code system itself and involve blocking the car from receiving signal when the "Unlock" button is pressed to induce the owner to press the button several times until it finally unlocks for them, but in reality the thief was recording the signal each time the unlock button was pressed in order to prepare an attack against the weak rolling code system for later.

        • by sinij ( 911942 )
          I bought a new car last year, unless you go basic trim on an economy car you can't get one without contactless key. These are the cars that are getting stolen. While these contactless keys do have buttons, these buttons are not typically used as operation is proximity based (e.g., car unlocks when you push door handle if the key is in proximity). To steal a car with such key all you need is a signal booster to spoof key proximity and a thief can get into the car and start it. More so, once the car is starte
          • by Bert64 ( 520050 )

            Having the car shut itself off would be dangerous and disruptive, and most likely illegal.

            • by mysidia ( 191772 )

              Having the car shut itself off would be dangerous and disruptive, and most likely illegal.

              I would say putting the car into gear should require the system to verify the doors are all shut and the key is still present. If not, then the drive by wire system should simply refuse to take it out of park. Also that same check should be required again before first accelerating above 3 mph - if the key is not present, then lock the accelerator to 0 while the speed reads higher than 3 mph.

              It's likewise dangero

              • >"It's likewise dangerous for the car to allow itself to be driven off without the key, because that would presumably cause the driver to become stranded after they parked and needed to get their car turned back on."

                My motorcycle has a proximity fob. If the active RFID part of the fob goes dead while riding, it will immediately put a warning on the screen so you won't be stranded because you will know there will be an issue when it is turned off. If the bike is turned off, I believe it will allow a re

    • by EvilSS ( 557649 )

      There's no mention of a jammer. In fact, a jammer would make interception impossible. Is there something I'm missing?

      The thieves are using jammers to disable WIFI security cameras (which are the most common type at private residences) while they do their thing.

    • by EvilSS ( 557649 )

      There's no mention of a jammer. In fact, a jammer would make interception impossible. Is there something I'm missing?

      Thinking about this some more, they might also use a jammer to jam the car's cellular modem and/or GPS receiver. Most recent model years have cellular modems for telemetry and can be tracked by the owner using an app or police with help from the manufacturer.

    • I don't know, but I suspect what happens is that the key can no longer send signals to the car when the owner leaves, so the car doesn't lock, and the thief can get in, steal from the car, and possibly drive it away. Basically, from the car's perspective, the last known position of the key was in the car when the owner was driving it, so it stays unlocked. If it erred on the lock side, jammers would cause cars to lock when the driver was present.

    • There's no mention of a jammer. In fact, a jammer would make interception impossible. Is there something I'm missing?

      Yes, you're missing that in a modern car it is as important to replay the keyfob as it is to then cut off communication afterwards. Thieves that don't jam GPS / cellular connections to vehicles find themselves very quickly pulled over and arrested while the car phones home its location.

  • SO they are going to ban USB cables. Been using those are used on Kia's (at least in the usa). One would think upping the penalty for car theft would be a better option than banning something used in the crime.
    • The more crimes they can layer the better. Rather than stealing a car being a solitary crime, if you steal a car you've likely broken half a dozen crimes. The more the better cause if you can get off on some technicality of one charge they have 5 other charges they can try to pin on you.
  • by MeNeXT ( 200840 ) on Thursday February 27, 2025 @09:20AM (#65198527)

    Lead for vehicle crime, Assistant Chief Constable Jenny Simms said the possession, manufacture, sale and supply of signal jammers had provided an "easily accessible tool for criminals⦠for far too long".

    "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." She added.

    If she can't think of one simple legitimate use for these devices then she is a moron.

    Criminals don't care. We see violent offenders out free in less time. What make you think the legal system will be stricter on car theives?

    Why do we need a hands free system to start the car? We need to press a button on the key fob to lock it. Why not have a similar button to activate the FOB for 2 minutes giving us time to start the car?

    How I see it is that we invent all these car theft prevention addons that are cumbersome and inconvenient but avoid the simple solutions.

    • If she can't think of one simple legitimate use for these devices then she is a moron.

      A device designed specifically to intercept and replay keyfob codes followed by jamming a signal has no legitimate use. In fact no signal jammer has a legitimate use in the UK since interfering with any radio communication through sending out erroneous transmissions is illegal. The fact that some people may play with it at home without disturbing others doesn't make something less illegal or more legitimate.

      • by MeNeXT ( 200840 )

        First signal jammers do not give you access to the car.

        Second If the signal jammer is operating the key fob doesn't work.

        Third if it's illegal to own a tool then there is no way to test against these tools. Also a phone or computer with a transmitter can be configured to be a signal jammer and if we are talking about WiFi that would mean every computer on the market.

        Fourth using a hammer to drive a screw defeats the purpose of the screw

    • by jp10558 ( 748604 )

      Why can't they use time based things like 2FA to prevent replay attacks? Seems like this ought to be a solved problem.

      The problem with pressing buttons is it's a real PITA when you expect the car to unlock when you're close to it and it doesn't and now your hands are full and you don't have easy access to the keyfob to unlock it.

  • The Bluetooth radio in a cell phone can be programmed to do the same things a Flipper Zero can.
    • This isn't targeting your toy. Thieves use purpose built devices, not Hackaday's latest fun gadget which does have plenty of legitimate uses. Thieves aren't hackers or creative geniuses. You've just been watching too many Fast and the Furious movies. They buy special purpose gadgets designed for one use, often pre-programmed for one make of car.

      Note the law is countered by proving a you have a legitimate use for the device.

  • They should also ban rocks, because one could smash a car window with a rock to steal it. On a more serious note, many electronic tools used to steal cars also have legitimate uses, such as car diagnostic or security research. This is like banning Wireshark because hackers use it. Absolutely insane, but no surprise coming from UK legislature.
    • by sinij ( 911942 )
      Some examples:
      * Signal jammer is anything that is capable of broadcasting on 315 MHz or 433.92 MHz frequencies
      * Keyless repeater is anything that can receive and transmit on these frequencies
      * OBD scan tool, especially if it is done via dongle and laptop, is a key cloning device.

      Sure, you may win in court but it will cost you a lot to pay lawyers and experts.
    • The UK is more likely to ban rocks because someone might use one to defend themselves, as opposed to stealing a car.

    • It's just a matter of choosing your poison. The United States is so much more concerned with protecting people who might want to carry around this kind of equipment.

      On the other hand, the United States is one of the best places in the world to be gunned down by a policeman simply for having the wrong skin colour.

      • by sinij ( 911942 )

        On the other hand, the United States is one of the best places in the world to be gunned down by a policeman simply for having the wrong skin colour.

        Not true. If you look at the data for police shootings in US, adjust it for criminality instead of demographics, then a white criminal is more likely to get shot by cops than visible minority criminal.

        • Could you please share this data.
          • by sinij ( 911942 )
            Here you go. [statista.com]1173 civilians having been shot, 248 (21%) of whom were Black, as of December 2024. While blacks are about 13% of US population, violent crime committed by black is at 26.6% [fbi.gov]. Adjust for criminality, and you can see that police shootings are not disproportionate.
            • your table does not show that violent crimes are committed by 26% blacks, it shows that 26% of those arrested for it was blacks. If the police bias is to stop and frisk only blacks then for obvious reasons they will be arrested to a higher degree than e.g whites.
              • by sinij ( 911942 )
                There is huge margin in black criminality over white criminality, you would have to demonstrate large disparity between arrests and conviction in violent crime between races to try to defend the original point (blacks get shot by cops due to higher incidence of black criminality and not murderous racist cops). Since you are the one making such assertion - produce the data to back it up.
                • to begin you would have to show that police are more often shooting to kill when arresting violent offenders since that is the single stat that you base your entire argument on.
        • You didn't know there's more white people than people of colour, and therefore statistically more likely to be shot by a rogue cop? How does that work out for you when you use per capita figures? LOL.

  • If I remember correctly, signal jammers are illegal in the US. Anyway, I want to point out two things (which haven't been mentioned in the comments): 1) The key fob of a car is read using software defined radio. Here's one I found on Amazon that sells for $35:

    https://www.amazon.com/RTL-SDR... [amazon.com]

    Then, using open-source software, such as GNU Radio, you can start reading car fob signals.

    The actual signal jammer can be made from (one) Arduino. Here's a project I found on YouTube that jams wifi signals. I assum

  • by kid_wonder ( 21480 ) <slashdot AT kscottklein DOT com> on Thursday February 27, 2025 @11:43AM (#65198827) Homepage

    "When ____ are outlawed, only outlaws will have ____."
    - Louis L'Amour

    • That's ... the whole point. If they have _____ they are now labelled an outlaw and can have the book thrown at them, rather than the technicality of "sure officer I have all of this highly purpose built equipment designed only to steal cars, but did you actually see specifically me steal a specific car?"

  • UK:

    From the article: Making or selling a signal jammer could lead to up to five years in prison *or an unlimited fine*. Emphasis added.

    US:

    From the US constitution's eighth amendment: Excessive bail shall not be required, *nor excessive fines imposed*, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. Emphasis added.

    • "Unlimited" fine doesn't mean that an unreasonable fine can be imposed. Just that it's up to the judge (and potentially the appeal courts) to decide what's reasonable.
       

    • From the US: the constitution.

      From the US: also gitmo because apparently making up a category for people is enough to torture them for 20 years. Also the US: obsessed with solidary confinement, widely regarded as cruel. Also the US: civil forfeiture because it doesn't count as a fine of you simply steal someone's money. Also the US: fines for torrenting so large that for 99.999% it's a bankruptcy.

      Two wrongs didn't make a right but on the other hand, lobbing bricks from inside a very small greenhouse might

  • UK needs to get to the root of the problem and ban car thefts.

  • Is this just a backdoor way to ban SDR?

    Europe seems hellbent on spying on all of its subjects and ensuring the subjects can get transparency back from them.

  • Good they left. They can limit your freedom even more. With this they just blanket ban the use of ISM bands.

"It's curtains for you, Mighty Mouse! This gun is so futuristic that even *I* don't know how it works!" -- from Ralph Bakshi's Mighty Mouse

Working...