Comments on: Lojack as a collective good

By: cm

cm — Thu, 25 Nov 2004 09:53:10 +0000

butter on rice: A club will not deter a professional or determined thief, but a certain joyrider demographic. That’s something if you own a relatively low-value car that no professional would touch. At any rate, it makes the theft if only marginally more risky by adding to the time to complete it.

By: Butter on Rice

Butter on Rice — Thu, 25 Nov 2004 03:11:40 +0000

I can’t take any of this seriously, because The Club is For Suckers. You simply hacksaw through the steering wheel, slide out the club, and you’re ready to drive. Big deal, you now need a new steering wheel; enjoy the new car! And hacksaws canalso go through those steel steering wheel security covers, too. You need engine disabling. But nothing can protect you from towing.

By: Joe O

Joe O — Wed, 24 Nov 2004 18:04:36 +0000

It doesn’t hurt Lojack when people’s cars are stolen. They are more likely to then sell a system to the victim’s friends ,neighbors and relatives. This could be another reason for the lack of stickers.

By: Scott D

Scott D — Wed, 24 Nov 2004 16:59:04 +0000

My recent experience serving on a grand jury (in a US county with the highest percentage of stolen cars per capita) taught me one thing about car theft—it’s not about the parts. It’s joy-riding or using the vehicle as part of another crime. The DA told us chop-shops doesn’t exist as they once did. By the way, there is a federal task force activated here in which units drive around, punch in license plates to a central database, and bust the stolen drivers. Usually these drivers can be linked to recent crimes and/or narcotics. How low-jack and economic thinking affects this I don’t know, but analysis should draw from the latest trends. Cheers, Scott

By: kbm

kbm — Wed, 24 Nov 2004 13:16:32 +0000

“Yes, but Simon, what about the thieves who steal the car, put it in an alley overnight, then come back for it the next day if the police haven’t found it?” Apparently this is exactly what happens once the smarter car thieves catch on that they are operating in an area where Lojack installations are more common. The appropriate police response to this behavior, of course, is to stake out the car rather than recover it immediately (with, one would hope, the approval of the car owner.)

By: Xavier

Xavier — Wed, 24 Nov 2004 02:29:01 +0000

“The counter-play may turn out to be this: leaving the cars alone and stealing something else instead. Abducting little children for ransom, for example.” Are you suggesting that preventing car theft is bad because it might encourage car thieves to turn to more violent crimes instead? Then maybe we should ban car locks. Car theft would be so easy, no one would bother committing armed robbery.

By: abb1

abb1 — Tue, 23 Nov 2004 20:49:41 +0000

It has to be possible, with a complex but reasonable amount of effort, to find out where these networks are located. Complex? Check your local junk-yard.

By: Cranky Observer

Cranky Observer — Tue, 23 Nov 2004 20:37:03 +0000

> Its not likely that lojack would > eliminate car theft, even if every > car had it Again, there simply can’t be that many car theives or networks for selling stolen parts. Particularly with the incredible sophistication and inter-relatedness of components today (not like the 1960s where you could just chop out an ignition system for example), and the fact that every sellable component is marked with a non-removable serial number. It has to be possible, with a complex but reasonable amount of effort, to find out where these networks are located. Snap up a large percentage of them. And use standard techniques to start working up the chain. It can be done. It wouldn’t be that hard. It isn’t being done. That tells me something. Cranky

By: limberwulf

limberwulf — Tue, 23 Nov 2004 19:47:41 +0000

The same collective good argument could be made about gun ownership, and has been many times. Even as a supporter of gun rights I would certainly not want a mandate from the government saying everyone had to have one. Its not likely that lojack would eliminate car theft, even if every car had it. There is always a way around things, including and emp or other chip killer on standby to kill a signal as soon as its activated. There is always a way to break a lock, the key is to make it difficult. Lojack is indeed a good system, but it is not good enough to warrant a forced application, thereby raising the cost on everyone. The problem with collective good practices is that they never perform as well in real life as they do in theory, and you often have a poor cost reward ratio.

By: decon

decon — Tue, 23 Nov 2004 19:28:08 +0000

Lojack doesn’t really help catch car thieves. It only helps catch those in possession of stolen cars. No small difference, as every experienced car thief, prosecutor, and criminal defense attorney knows.

By: abb1

abb1 — Tue, 23 Nov 2004 19:14:04 +0000

History suggests there’s a workable counter play for every seemingly foolproof scheme for eliminating crime. The counter-play may turn out to be this: leaving the cars alone and stealing something else instead. Abducting little children for ransom, for example.

By: robbo

robbo — Tue, 23 Nov 2004 18:35:08 +0000

Yes, but Simon, what about the thieves who steal the car, put it in an alley overnight, then come back for it the next day if the police haven’t found it? That would simply become the standard practice if everyone put a sticker on their car (if it isn’t becoming the standard already). History suggests there’s a workable counter play for every seemingly foolproof scheme for eliminating crime.

By: Jeremy Osner

Jeremy Osner — Tue, 23 Nov 2004 18:23:53 +0000

It imposes costs for the theives of non-Lojack cars but brings benefits only to the owners of Lojack cars; the cars with Lojack will (if all goes according to plan) be retrieved while in their cooling-out alley period.

By: Kimmitt

Kimmitt — Tue, 23 Nov 2004 18:19:09 +0000

Getting caught in the chop shop leads to all manner of possible serious charges, so they avoid that by letting the car cool off in an alley somewhere. Even this is an externality—it imposes costs on the theives for both Lojack and non-Lojack owners. It’s the vague equivalent to herd immunity.

By: Simon Rippon

Simon Rippon — Tue, 23 Nov 2004 18:04:11 +0000

Here’s a way to internalize those benefits: Instead of selling the expensive Lojack system, sell Lojack warning stickers for 1/10 of the cost. Warning sticker owners are entered into a lottery, and 1 in 10 of them gets the Lojack system installed in their car. It’s not worth it for the theives to rip the stickered cars apart looking for the chip if there’s only a 1/10 chance of it being there, but thieves would also rather steal a car that has no chance of having Lojack than one that does, so Lojack sticker owners collectively get the benefits of not having their cars stolen. Their neighbors that didn’t buy the Lojack stickers will get their cars nicked instead.