Ethical Issues Of The MPI Immobilizer Program

Last Updated on Thursday, 27 May 2010 01:07 Written by John Bain Tuesday, 13 April 2010 07:44

Introduction

From 2003 to 2007, Winnipeg had North America’s highest rate of vehicle theft per capita, with the highest rates in 2004. The cost of stolen vehicles was nearly $40 Million per year and despite the best efforts of the Manitoba Auto Theft Task Force, they were only to see temporary success. Theft rates would continue to climb.

Most thefts were committed by young offenders and virtually all the vehicles were stolen for “joyriding”. These young offenders would target certain models of cars readily found parked on the street. The majority of vehicles were older Chevrolet/GM, Chrysler and Honda models.

A new strategy was developed in partnership with Manitoba Public Insurance, Manitoba Justice, and the Winnipeg Police to help stop the auto theft. Winnipeg Auto Theft Suppression Strategy (WATSS) was a 3 tiered strategy which involved:

• Intensive Community Supervision of know young offenders
• Compulsory Vehicle Immobilizer Program
• Counseling to address the root causes of vehicle theft with young offenders.

The basis of this project is to highlight some of the ethical issues with implementing a mandatory vehicle immobilizer program, while at the same time taking great effort not to include other outside issues related to the immobilizer program or the 2 other tiers of WATTS program.

The following is a basic understanding of how the MPI immobilizer program worked and some of the technology that was used. Manitoba Public Insurance (or MPI as I will refer to it for the remainder of the paper) created a list of “most-at-risk” vehicles that were known as an easy target for car thieves. People who owned these vehicles were given a 3 three month grace period in which to make an appointment to have an aftermarket immobilizer device installed in their vehicle at a certified immobilizer installation facility.

The vehicle immobilizer was designed so that it could be installed in a variety of vehicles; it was responsible for interrupting three key systems of a vehicle's fuel combustion system. The immobilizer could be deactivated to permit normal operation with the use of an RFID “tag” located on the owner’s keychain and reactivated once the vehicle was shutdown.

Analysis

RFID (Radio Frequency Identification) is a wireless technology that stores and retrieves information remotely. It has been used for over 30 years and can be found in many car keys and bank cards. As its name implies, RFID systems are based on radio waves. Each tag is equipped with a tiny radio transmitter: When it "hears" a special radio signal from a reader, the tag responds by sending its own unique serial number through the air.

Sometimes the adoption of new technology can bring with it unforeseen implications, and the MPI immobilizer program is a good example of this. Some examples of unforeseen implications are as follows.

People who had a vehicle on the “most-at-risk” list were required to install the immobilizer or they would have their vehicle insurance revoked. This causes an ethical dilemma because the owners of the vehicles were most likely not the ones stealing vehicles and yet felt they were the ones being punished.

In Winnipeg there were only 2 types of aftermarket immobilizers that were approved by VSIB and MPI to be installed in vehicles. This is an ethical issue because some owners in an attempt to combat auto theft on their own had previously installed other aftermarket anti-theft systems out of their own pocket that MPI wouldn’t recognize.

MPI mandated that immobilizers could only be installed or repaired at registered and certified facilities. This caused an ethical dilemma because if an immobilizer stopped working outside of the province, the owner of the vehicle either had to tow the vehicle back to Manitoba to have the immobilizer repaired or have the immobilizer removed by an unapproved shop voiding its warranty. Once back in Manitoba the owner was required to pay the full amount to have a new immobilizer reinstalled in their “most-at-risk” vehicle.

With the effectiveness of the immobilizer program in Manitoba, there was a fear that there would be a displacement of benefits. This basically means that if all these car thieves were now unable to steal vehicles that they would move to other petty crimes. This brings up an ethical issue because one must decide if the means to an end will justify the solution.

To help value the importance and highlight the benefits of the immobilizer program let us asses the pro's and con's.

On the positive side the devices were effective at lowering crime rates according to studies conducted by the WATTS program, it is also now required by legislation that any newly produced vehicle be equipped with factory anti-theft devices, people who participated in the program were given a rebate on their vehicle insurance, jobs were created because of the immobilizer program and the MPI immobilizer made other aftermarket anti-theft devices unnecessary (i.e. The Club).

On the negative side, the mandatory program alienated some vehicle owners who did not appreciate being forced to modify their own car, only certified installers were allowed to work on immobilizers which prevented a lot of other 12 volt specialist from participating in the program, the immobilizers only had a 2 year manufactures warranty, there was a potential for the displacement of car thieves who were now unable to steal vehicles, some of the older vehicles had issues with the integration of the immobilizer, if the immobilizer was defective it could create false readings and misdiagnosis of other automotive issues.

Conclusion

The MPI immobilizer program has been in effect for almost 6 years now and as mentioned earlier there has been a noticeable decrease in the amount of successful auto thefts in Winnipeg, with very little displacement of auto thieves and as the immobilizer program continues to complete the “most-at-risk” vehicles newer vehicle enter Canada will already have integrated anti-theft systems. One of the things that only time will tell is how long the immobilizer will be able to stop the auto thieves.

If anything is to be learned from the immobilizer program it’s that not everyone will always agree with how mandatory programs operate but at the same if the program were not made mandatory its effects would have not been as successful.

Work Cited

"RFID Technology: How it works and why we use it." Manitoba Public Insurance. Manitoba Public

Insurance, 01 Mar 2010. Web. 26 Mar 2010. <http://www.mpi.mb.ca/EIC/RFID_Brochure.pdf>.

. Manitoba Auto Theft Task Force (Winnipeg Police Service, Manitoba Justice, Manitoba      Public Insurance), 13 Nov 2009. Web. 26 Mar 2010.            <http://www.popcenter.org/library/awards/goldstein/2009/09-42(F).pdf>.

Moore, Sean. "Applying the brakes on auto theft." Research News: umanitoba.ca/research. University of

Manitoba, 15 Nov 2007. Web. 26 Mar 2010.

<https://umanitoba.ca/research/media/nov_15_2007_linden_gtkr_kriellaars.pdf>.

"Auto Theft." Manitoba Public Insurance > Auto Theft in Winnipeg and Manitoba:. Manitoba Public

Insurance, n.d. Web. 26 Mar 2010. <http://www.mpi.mb.ca/english/autotheft/autotheft.html>.

"No immobilizer, possibly no car, MPI's 'basic math' finds." CBC News - Manitoba. CBC News, 01 Feb

2007. Web. 26 Mar 2010. <http://www.cbc.ca/canada/manitoba/story/2007/02/01/mpi

theft.html>.