In particular, it's not necessarily worse than the status quo ante. Cars had mechanical locks, which were pickable. A "slim jim" could unlock many cars. Once you were in the door, you could hotwire the ignition. So to be able to defeat a computerized anti-theft system... no gain from the computerization, but is there any loss from it?
The difference is that physical attacks require 1) individual skills and 2) prolonged physical contact in compromising pose.
Where every single thief had to be a skilled lockpicker before, now you just need a few specialized crackers and then you can mass-produce user-friendly hacking devices or even downloadable software.
Where a thief had to spend several minutes in a compromising pose near the car, often carrying suspicious tools, now he can just sit on a bench nearby, wait for the magic click and then choose the right moment to stroll in. A passerby might as well think he's the owner.
a thief had to spend several minutes in a compromising pose near the car
A couple of weeks ago I saw someone using a slimjim, and I did nothing. I have never done anything in reaction to a car alarm. I'm not sure that thief's pose is sufficiently compromising.
Exactly. And it's insanely easy to physically break into a car. If you have the chance, watch a pop-a-lock guy. They essentially bend your car door backward at the upper portion, and then stick something into your car to pull the lock up. Not difficult.
Its not a matter of difficulty, but of reproducibility.
Mechanical locks imply that each individual thief needs to learn how pick locks. With computerized locks, you only need one hacker to crack the security for each model of car, and then a bunch of two-dime thugs will only need to download the app and get going in with the car-thief franchise.
