Slashdot Log In
Stalling Cars Via OnStar
Posted by
kdawson
on Tue Oct 09, 2007 05:02 PM
from the let-the-hacking-begin dept.
from the let-the-hacking-begin dept.
Lauren Weinstein writes to tell us that GM will be installing OnStar systems on almost 1.7 million 2009-model cars that will allow law enforcement (or anyone who cracks the system) to remotely shut down vehicles. Here is the AP's writeup, which like most MSM coverage doesn't mention any privacy implications.
Related Stories
Submission: Stalling Cars Via OnStar: Hacker Dream Come True? by Anonymous Coward
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles" (Score:4, Insightful)
From TFA:
OnStar would call police and tell them a stolen car's whereabouts.
Then, if officers see the car in motion and judge it can be stopped safely, they can tell OnStar operators, who will send the car a signal via cell phone to slow it to a halt.
"This technology will basically remove the control of the horsepower from the thief," Huber said. "Everything else in the vehicle works. The steering works. The brakes work."
GM is still exploring the possibility of having the car give a recorded verbal warning before it stops moving. A voice would tell the driver through the radio speakers that police will stop the car, Huber said, and the car's emergency flashers would go on.
"If the thief does nothing else it will coast to a stop. But they can drive off to the side of the road," Huber said.
And from TFR (where "R" stands for "rant"):
The claim is that owners will have to give permission first for this capability to be enabled. Bull. I don't care what OnStar's privacy policy says, if the technical capability for this function is present, OnStar will have no practical choice but to comply when faced with a law enforcement demand or court order, whether or not owner "permission" was ever granted.
It is completely technically feasible for this system to need to be enabled in order for it to work. For example, with BMW Assist, BMW's OnStat-like service, equipment is physically disabled in the car if the user does not subscribe to a service.
This argument appears predicated on the belief that even if a customer doesn't voluntarily and willingly "opt in", that it can still somehow be used by police or hackers. I'm sorry, but that's simply not how it works.
Further, OnStar can currently be used to unlock vehicles. Why isn't that an "irresistible target for hackers"?
It's impossible to hack OnStar? Would you bet your life on that?
Um, no, because I wouldn't have to, nor would anyone else who opts in to the service?
And how long will it be before such systems are mandated, one might wonder?
Ah, my old friend, the slippery slope. Long time, no see!
This is no different than Lojack, which can also, in theory, be "activated" when a user chooses to have the service, in the same way this could be.
And if you don't believe GM's clearly stated privacy policies, which state, in short, that "OnStar will release information about a vehicle only for marketing research, to protect the rights, property, of safety of any person, in exigent circumstances, to prevent misuse of their service, when legally required to do so or when subject to a valid court order, or in various other circumstances", then you probably shouldn't buy a GM vehicle.
Good thing buying GM vehicles isn't mandatory, and GM isn't a government agency, huh?
(And of course -- and I didn't look at this at first -- because there is editorializing about how the "MSM" doesn't mention privacy implications, I'm not surprised to see it's posted by kdawson.)
Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles" (Score:5, Insightful)
That's not slippery slope; it's precedent.
Look at seatbelts or airbags. Maybe you can remember a time before they were federally mandated. Even the middle tail light on your back window is put there by government mandate.
I'm not saying that seatbelts or airbags are bad things, don't get me wrong; but ideally, a government wouldn't need to tell manufacturers how to build their cars -- people would buy cars with those features because they want a car that's safe. Likewise, I'm not arguing that the ability to hit a kill switch on a stolen car is a bad thing ... but as we've seen with everything from the Taser to the PATRIOT Act, the government will do as much as it can get away with, with the power it's given.
Parent
Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles" (Score:4, Insightful)
I also remember the arguments about shoulder belts and air bags killing people, and about how the CHMSL destroyed the aesthetics of the rear of a vehicle. Except that it was easily proven that the benefits of shoulder belts, air bags, and third brake lights outweighed any drawbacks.
What if a controlled remote kill of a vehicle under police supervision that has been reported stolen or is the subject of a court order has the same results? Returning stolen properly safely, preventing high speed police chases and death?
Same thing with Tasers. Tasers are statistically harmless, and a hell of a lot less harmless than a number of other ways of subduing a suspect, including lethal means. Whether Tasers are overused is a different question altogether, but being tased is a much better alternative than being forcibly subdued by any number of other means. Tasers are designed to be a safer and non-lethal ("non-lethal" in weapons terms doesn't mean "never, ever lethal or having any contributing effect on a possible lethal scenario whatsoever" - and please, don't link me to your favorite article or sob story about how oh-so-dangerous Tasers are: given their use, they are far, far less dangerous than the means they replaced).
And same with the PATRIOT Act. It was pretty much universally agreed that a lot of older laws needed updating. Given the size and scope of PATRIOT, only very, very small portions of it were controversial. Nearly all of the rest of it was benign or viewed as sensible by most people. Some provisions have been called into Constitutional question. But you don't throw the baby out with the bathwater, as we do when we imply that all of the PATRIOT Act rises to this level of controversy, when in reality it is very small portions of it, on the whole.
I don't fundamentally disagree with the government using the power it has, using anything it is given, and, inasmuch as it can be anthropomorphized, always "wanting more". But is this because of the evil or corruption or totalitarianism that is sometimes implied by such assertions, or because many in government simply use all the tools at their disposal? Governments and police agencies can do a lot more with vehicles, telephones, cameras, computers, databases, networks, Tasers, spike strips, and all manner of things than they can without. Technology is always enabling and is often a force multiplier.
Government mandates, and government in general, are not all sinister, nor are they all roses. But we should look at them on balance.
Parent
Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles" (Score:5, Insightful)
As long as its not illegal to completely disable these devices I wouldn't have a problem with it in my car, but its a very slippery slope as you alluded to with the seatbelt. The government could simply make it illegal to disable such a system, and next thing you know police are using it to disable cars with offensive bumper stickers (say a darwin fish in the southern USA? chevy loyal cops disabling fords? or just giving a cop an eye he doesnt like).
Police need far less powers not more. It is after all, just a car, and insurance will cover the damages if any. The GPS system and the constant data archiving of your and your routes is a bit more scary than remote disable imho. I would never buy a car that "phoned home" to the manufacturers database with info about where I am at all times.
Parent
Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles" (Score:5, Insightful)
Thank you! I made this same point back in the discussion about the "don't tase me bro!" kid. The problem is tasers isn't the 1 person out of 10,000,000 that's going to die as a result of being tased. The problem is that the taser has lowered the standard of when to use force.
Forgot about the gun v. taser debate. Would a cop have been willing to use his nightstick on that kid? Yes, he was being a jerk and didn't go prone for them. But would they really have whipped out nightsticks and used them? Not likely. The image of four cops beating up a single college kid with nightsticks wouldn't play very well, now would it?
Ah! But the taser! We can use the taser. It's lowered the standard for when force can be used. And that's a bad thing, imho.
Another taser story that sticks out in my mind was a judge out in California ordering his court officers to tase a defendant who refused to stop speaking when ordered to. Yeah, throw him back in jail for contempt of court, but TASE someone for speaking? Not even screaming and yelling. Speaking! That's bullshit. If I walk up to Dick Cheney and tell him to go "fuck yourself" in a normal tone of voice is that really grounds for his USSS guards to tase you?
Parent
Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles" (Score:4, Interesting)
You thought the John Kerry kid deserved it? If that situation isn't enough, you should really watch more SPIKE TV or Court TV -- with Sheriff John Bunnell, or whatever his name is. I saw a show entitled something like "COPS - TAZED AND CONFUSED" where they showed consecutive clips of cops using tazers in hilarious situations.
In one, here was the situation -- cop is following a pickup (somewhere in the rural western US). He follows the guy into a store parking lot, then puts on his flashers. Mind you, he has no information that this guy is shady in any way shape or form (though he was black) -- or Sheriff John certainly would have informed us, as he always does. So the guy I don't think even notices the cop at first, and starts to open his door. The cop draws his tazer and starts yelling at him like crazy, so much that I could barely make out what he was saying. He starts telling the guy how to step away from the truck and lie down face down on the ground. Again -- this guy did nothing wrong that the cop knew!
So the guy has his hands up (as ordered), and is ordered to get on the ground face down. So he starts putting his hands down to get down on the ground (as a somewhat fatter individual). The cop flips out (from like 20 feet away) and screams to continue putting his hands in the air, although he only moved them down like 6 inches as he was trying to go to his knees. The guy is scared by the scream, and puts his hands up, but kinda jumps up from his half-kneel, then starts trying to go back down. But he forgets not to lock his arms straight above his head. Cue announcer: "this officer had no choice but to subdue the suspect. Next time he thinks about not following a cop's orders, he'll remember THAT 50,000 volts!"
Turns out, the guy had some warrant for trespassing or something 6 months prior, but the cop clearly didn't know that until he ran his ID. I couldn't believe it -- and this is the "valor" that they show on national TV! Imagine the "normal" usages!
Parent
Then watch *these* cops taser *this* guy to death (Score:5, Informative)
This is video of Georgia cops tasering a man to death.
The guy was having a problem with his epilepsy medication, so his wife called the cops for help. They proceeded to medicate him - first with billy clubs, then with tasers - repeatedly.
Because the wife also called the FBI afterwards, the local DA got pissy and softballed the case before the grand jury, which didn't even bother to watch this video before finding the police blameless.
The man's last words?
"Don't kill me."
Here's the link to the video [google.com]
The link to the (minimal) media coverage [11alive.com]
And the link to the discussion over at Digg [digg.com]
When you're the guy in this video, then you can whine about people "screeching about tasers being overused."
P.S. When one's POV is that everyone is a person "who would kill or maime them in the blink of an eye," then naturally one "wouldn't hesitate to tase someone who i thought was going to turn violent on me."
But that's not seeing the truth of each situation, that's being caught in one's own psychosis and fear.
(Since consciousness is self-similar, of course we'll see this same behavior at the level of the person (in this case the poster, it seems, and the police) as well as the level of the nation (for example, our war in Iraq) ).
We don't get to hurt or kill other people just because we're afraid.
And the solution isn't to keep hurting or killing people until we're not afraid. Since the fear is an internal condition, and one that blinds us to the external reality, no amount of external violence and killing will ever stop it.
The solution is to stop, admit that we're afraid, breathe, and then notice we're still OK. And that takes a lot more balls than just beating or shooting or tasering or bombing everything that scares us.
Parent
Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles" (Score:4, Insightful)
Couple of (not so) minor quibbles:
- There is a massive difference between passive safety features and active features activated by someone other than the driver of the car (and yes, it will be hacked - same way that all remote locks to date have been hacked)
- Tasers did not simply replace guns as options for subduing suspects. They took over as option for the range of situations that sit between "suspect can be subdued by talking" and "suspect has a gun". As such, it de-escalated some situations, but escalated a whole other set of situations. So yes, they are actually more dangerous than some of the options it replaced. The end-effect is that your statistical harmlessness (seriously, only someone in the neo-con flavored spook business talks like that) causes harm in situation where no harm was done before.
- It is irrelevant that only 1% of the PATRIOT ACT is controversial. What is relevant is the impact that that 1% can have on 99% of the population.
It is interesting that all examples that you have given so far merely reinforce my suspicion that you have an unnaturally rose-tinted vision of the government and government employees - particularly law-enforcement.
Government might be not all sinister, but I'll be damned before I let some asshole cop ruin my day because he (far more likely than she) thinks that I'm not stopping fast enough in traffic. I'm astounded that you fail to grasp the cost a few bad calls can make, and that you equate passive safety features with remotely activated loss of control.
Seriously, stay the fuck out of my life. You have no concept of privacy, no concept of government abuse, no concept of the cost and benefit of liberty, and absolutely no idea that the government is there to serve me, not the other way around. And you're about 30 years behind in your analysis of the China threat. Not that I expect anything else from Military intelligence schools.
Parent
Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles" (Score:5, Insightful)
Thats fine and dandy, but at what point did government stop playing by the rules? If the constitution is irrelevant, then why don't we simply ignore it all together.
Is it just a sham to make people think that we have some sort of rule of law for our freedoms? I mean at least when the prohibitionists outlawed alcohol they did so in the proper fashion by an amendment to the constitution.
Simply stating that the government has the authority simply writes them a blank check at this point and AFAIK no one has pointed out a really good reason when this legally changed.
Its easy to kind of point out when people started to ignore the rules though. Jefferson was right in the respect that we should have re-written the constitution from scratch every 20 years or so.
Parent
Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles" (Score:5, Informative)
Here ya go... [dot.gov]
- The lamps were most effective in the early years. In 1987, CHMSL reduced rear impact crashes by 8.5 percent (confidence bounds 6.1 to 10.9 percent).
- Effectiveness declined in 1988 and 1989, but then leveled off. During 1989-95, CHMSL reduced rear impact crashes by 4.3 percent (confidence bounds 2.9 to 5.8 percent). This is the long-term effectiveness of the lamps.
- The effectiveness of CHMSL in light trucks is about the same as in passenger cars.
- At the long-term effectiveness level of 4.3 percent, when all cars and light trucks on the road have CHMSL, the lamps will prevent 92,000-137,000 police-reported crashes, 58,000-70,000 nonfatal injuries, and $655,000,000 (in 1994 dollars) in property damage per year.
- The annual consumer cost of CHMSL in cars and light trucks sold in the United States is close to $206,000,000 (in 1994 dollars).
- Even though the effectiveness of CHMSL has declined from its initial levels, the lamps are and will continue to be highly cost-effective safety devices.
Parent
Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles" (Score:5, Interesting)
UK Police call for remote button to stop cars [guardian.co.uk]. So, if you are in the UK at least, no it would not be a slippery slope; they have already asked for this power to be added to all cars once it is safe. Interestingly, some politicians expressed interest in this being used as a way to prevent speeders by forcibly reducing your car's maximum speed around school zones or in bad weather.
Parent
Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles" (Score:4, Insightful)
who knows? i dont. and quite frankly im not so keen on finding out thankyouverymuch.
cops have trouble exercising the power they currently have appropriately and within the guidelines of the law. i dont think giving them additional powers over ordinary citizens is going to make them any more responsible.
maybe if our cops didnt flash their lights just so they didnt have to stop at a red light, or harassed innocent folks who are doing nothing wrong (and then threaten to kill the citizen in question when evidence emerges, see that youtube video some guy made specifically because the cops in his area were a problem), i wouldnt have such a problem with it. as it stands, the police have shown themselves to deserve less power, not more.
Parent
Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles" (Score:5, Insightful)
Governments, by nature, take as much power as they can get their grubby hands on. Things like this are dangerously close to living in a police state. Police states do not exist to serve their citizens, but only to collect and consolidate power for some select few.
People putting their foot down and saying "No" is the oversight of the police that you were asking for.
Parent
Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles" (Score:5, Insightful)
I dunno. Maybe they want to murder [cnn.com] their ex-girlfriend who is running away in her 2009 GM automobile. Or perhaps they want to stalk [schneier.com] their ex-girlfriend.
Government officials aren't exactly super human. They are people like everybody else and they will abuse anything they have available to them.
In some jurisdictions they have solved this problem by not giving chase. This way citizens could decide which they are more concerned with, an abusive government employee or a crook stealing their car.
Parent
Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles" (Score:5, Insightful)
I say this because I, myself, have implemented plans where this was exactly the method of getting something done. First get a little feature or control, then use that as wedge to get the full feature or full control I really want. It's not so unusual as you can often hear other people making the same strategic plans for their agenda.
Hell, it's even a common tactic for getting sex. One usually doesn't just rip off his clothes and try to copulate with the nearby female. Success rates are often higher if you're more strategic in your approach. Set the mood; nice dinner and wine; soft lights. Touching and so on... and now I'm sounding like either a Barry White album or that skit from Meaning of Life ("You don't have to go leaping straight for the clitoris like a bull at a gate."). In any case, you often need to guide her down that slippery slope...
Couple that with the very strong tendency of governments (or any organization with power) to stay in power and magnify that power, it's very easy to see that once there is the capability to do something desirable that those in power would make it mandatory to have that capability.
There are many many examples of this and frankly it pretty much invalidates the claim in arguments that a "slippery slope is a logical fallacy". It might not stand up in the theory of pure logic but it certainly is valid in the practice of real life.
Parent
What are you complaining about?? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles" (Score:4, Insightful)
If your truck was built during the period after the 3rd brake light was introduced and before they became mandatory, it is unlikely that you would be required to fix it. Though you should as it makes it easier to tell when you've put on the brakes. As well as making it possible for the car behind the car behind you to see that you're stopping.
In terms of the topic at hand, I would personally be more concerned at this point with onstar eavesdropping on conversations going on in the car. http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2003/Nov-19-Wed-2003/news/22620787.html [reviewjournal.com]
The main thing which would concern me about this development is if the system inadvertently caused the wrong vehicle to stall, because of a software glitch or operator error.
Parent
Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles" (Score:5, Funny)
Automated email from the Onstar Market-Track Service
Dear On Star customer,
Our automated system noticed that your vehicle was parked on the 3500 block of AnyStreet and SomeAvenue. Our marketing info shows that this area of town is populated by the gay community. Please click on the following links if you would like to:
See a list of gay bars in your area.
Subscribe to Gay Porn weekly.
Meet gay men near you.
Browse our OnStar Market site for other gay related items.
Thank you for choosing On Star! We value you as a customer.
This is an automatic message, please do not reply.
Parent
Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles" (Score:5, Informative)
That is not the case with OnStar. Unless you break it yourself, it is always on. Even if you don't subscribe, the functionality is left on and operational. That way, you can just give them a call and they'll turn it on and bill you, no need to take it in to a dealership to take your money from you.
This is no different than Lojack, which can also, in theory, be "activated" when a user chooses to have the service, in the same way this could be.
That's an item that someone pays extra for to have their vehicle be able to be tracked. It isn't an included feature on many (most?) of the cars of one of the largest car makers on the planet. It's installed on very few cars by people that chose to have it installed.
And if you don't believe GM's clearly stated privacy policies, which state, in short, that "OnStar will release information about a vehicle only for marketing research, to protect the rights, property, of safety of any person, in exigent circumstances, to prevent misuse of their service, when legally required to do so or when subject to a valid court order, or in various other circumstances", then you probably shouldn't buy a GM vehicle.
You do know that GM may make OnStar, but OnStar is available on non-GM vehicles, right? How about the privacy policy on those? What if the law enforcement agencies like this and it becomes a "safety" requirement in the case of kidnappings and such and must be installed on all cars? Hey, they mandated airbags that killed infants in the name of safety, so why not this?
Parent
Once again daveschroeder slings the propaganda (Score:5, Interesting)
He implies that this system will be under the owner's control, and that police will only activate the system when they can see the car, and know it can stop safely. Because the police always operate in such a safe and sane manner. And our government has never taken voluntary safety devices like seat belts or air bags and made them mandatory. And the government has never, ever lied to us.
Thanks again, dave! Without you, we wouldn't know what to be scared of (terrists) and what not to be scared of (the status quo).
Parent
Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles" (Score:5, Insightful)
OnStar operators, who will send the car a signal via cell phone to slow it to a halt
So: they will send the car a signal. And then it will slow to a halt.
What part of this doesn't sound like 'remotely shutting down vehicles' to you? I had my engine fuck out on me about a year ago - cambelt snapped. All the power went away. Electricals worked, steering, brakes, so I could pull over to the hard shoulder just on inertia and phone for help, but you know what? I'd call that 'shut down', even though I was still moving. And if I'd been out in the right-hand lane instead of going relatively slowly on the left, I'd have been fucked - stranded out in warp-speed M5 traffic with rapidly dropping velocity trying to get across the carriageway to somewhere safe. And they propose to let someone have the authority to inflict that on me remotely via a mobile? Sorry. I don't trust anyone that much.
Parent
Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles" (Score:5, Informative)
OK, just to clear up a few things because I can. Why, because I work there.
There seems to be a lot of Oh My God!! It's Big Brother!! going on around on this one. But seeing as I'm one of the system engineers who has worked on this stuff for most of OnStars life... Get over yourself and go worry about something more problematic like DMCA...
Parent
Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles" (Score:4, Interesting)
I've performed this procedure for a friend (also remove the entire GPS antenna). I can dig up pics of the entire operation if interested.
Parent
Not only that (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Not only that (Score:5, Funny)
Sure, the 1971 Plymouth RoadRunner my friend drives gets only about 10 miles to the gallon on a good day, the 383cid engine is mechanical or electromechanical in every part. The only transistors in this carburetor fed monster are in the factory AM/FM radio. Don't waste time installing a remote kill system on a car in which cruise control consists of placing an object (optional) under the gas pedal and mashing it down.
Now I just hope they don't ban lead substitute fuel additives before he replaces his valve seats...
Parent
Re:Not only that (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Not only that (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, car owners without this feature may be more subject to successful thefts, and therefore LESS profitable than their counterparts with the service, but unlike someone who just found out they have terminal cancer and is looking to get insurance, they are still SOMEWHAT profitable, just less. I assume that they are still profitable, because clearly no one has this service now, yet auto insurers are making money.
So anyhow, whereas some people can't get health insurance because insurers know that they are far too likely to take a big loss on them, people will have an easy time getting auto insurance without this feature because auto insurers will still be able to make money off of them. People without the feature may have to pay more for that insurance, and they can independently decide whether that's what they want to do, but they'll certainly be able to find it.
Parent
Great... (Score:5, Funny)
California History (Score:5, Informative)
Now I know I can bank on the stupidity of the american people - we are embracing the invasion of our privacy as a service.
all hope is lost.
Re:California History (Score:5, Informative)
How many people receive the same kind of letters everyday and either don't read them or fall for the increased service at the expense of privacy crap.
Parent
Re:California History (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Slippery Slope (Score:5, Insightful)
Next step is discounts on car insurance if you have one. Then you get penalized by higher rates, then it just becomes required by law, ' for your protection' of course.
Anyone remember how the seat belt laws did the same thing? "They are for your safety".. " cant build a car without one".. "you gotta wear one or you violate the law"..."well, we can only charge you if we stop you for something else nad notice it".. Now they have roadblocks..
Re:Slippery Slope (Score:5, Interesting)
Huh?? People rocket around at a mile a minute in fragile little tin roller skates. When two roller skates run into each other, the contents tend to get badly shaken up. Without seat belts, you're far more likely to be ejected or impact the steering column with your face. I acknowledge your right to freedom, but at the same time I have no wish to fund your care while you spend 30 years fading to black in a vegetative state because your brain got scrambled in a relatively minor accident.
br>That said, OnStar shouldn't be in a position to disable a stolen vehicle while its rolling because they cannot assess the potential for injury to others. There's no reason they can't simply disable a stolen vehicle while its stationary and pass on its location to the police.
Parent
Re:Slippery Slope (Score:5, Insightful)
I acknowledge your right to freedom, but at the same time I have no wish to fund your care while you spend 30 years fading to black in a vegetative state because your brain got scrambled in a relatively minor accident.
Then you'd agree that we should ban skydiving, rock climbing, bull riding, car racing, and anything else you might have to "fund your care for 30 years".
What makes you think people having health care gives you the right to start controlling what they do, simply because you also pay for health care? Not wearing a seatbelt is pretty dumb, or at best self destructive. But why don't people have the right to be dumb or self destructive?
Parent
Re:Slippery Slope (Score:4, Insightful)
It seems then, that in a free society the solution shouldn't be to ban said behaviors, but to eliminate the entitlement to the services which "cost" in those situations.
The parent poster asked you:
"What makes you think people having health care gives you the right to start controlling what they do, simply because you also pay for health care?"
I can't think of a nice way to say this: "Fuck you. I don't want you to tell me what to do. I'd rather you take your universal health care and shove it up your ass. That way I get to keep my freedom."
Parent
People are going to PAY for these cars (Score:5, Insightful)
Its all well and good complaining that our government/corporate masters are tightening their control over their lives - but they couldn't do that without the cooperation of the masses.
There is no point directing your anger at opportunistic invasions of privacy. Direct your anger at the sheeple happily gambolling into the slaughterhouse. They are the ones that provide said opportunities.
Forget thieves, think teenagers! (Score:5, Interesting)
On a more serious note, not all tracking systems are inherently bad. There's an interesting story [pressdemocrat.com] about a teenager whose parents installed a GPS tracking system into his car. Now he's going to court as the GPS record shows he wasn't speeding, unlike the police officer who wrote him a ticket.
Hacker angle is fun... (Score:5, Insightful)
I can't imagine people wanting to choose vehicles with OnStar with such a "feature."
Re:Hacker angle is fun... (Score:4, Insightful)
Call in? Sheesh, I think that you're not thinking technologically. How about an automated system that stalls your car when you speed. "Please pull over, and wait in the vehicle. The doors have been locked for your protection. A police officer will be along shortly."
Parent
Re:Hacker angle is fun... (Score:4, Insightful)
Seriously, here in Vermont the police stop out-of-state cars for having fuzzy dice hanging - there's a unique law here making anything hanging from your rear-view mirror illegal. But they don't care about the fuzzy dice. They just want to check you over to see if they can bust you for something more serious. Yet they can't just pull you over with not violation apparent. Being able to stall your car at will can provide them with a real convenient violation - apparently erratic driving, driving too slow for safety on the freeway, improperly maintained equipment, whatever.
Parent
"INFO" Fuse (Score:5, Interesting)
Removing this fuse should work on 2000-2007 Chevy/GMC pickups and full size SUVs (built on the "GMT 800" platform). I believe the procedure is similar for all other GM vehicles.
Hack it even better (Score:4, Funny)
Put a switch there that way you can go on a heist and the cops will think "hey we can just shut him down " and then "flick" notta problemo.
Parent
Re:"INFO" Fuse (Score:5, Funny)
Did your Sierra sing "Daisy, Daisy" as you did it?
Parent
Privacy? With OnStar? (Score:5, Interesting)
Privacy? With OnStar?
They can already:
- Locate the vehicle and
- Bug the conversations in it.
Seems to me adding the ability to halt the car has no privacy implications because there IS no privacy with OnStar (or a similar system) installed.
Re:Privacy? With OnStar? (Score:5, Informative)
"The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals said Tuesday that the FBI is not legally entitled to remotely activate the system and secretly use it to snoop on passengers, because doing so would render it inoperable during an emergency."
http://www.news.com/2100-1029_3-5109435.html [news.com]
This only applies in California, Oregon, Nevada, Washington, Hawaii, and other states that fall within the 9th Circuit's jurisdiction so I presume the FBI can still do this in other areas. If the FBI can avoid interfering with the service itself when using it for interception then the order blocking this activity may not matter.
Parent
What does this have to do with PRIVACY? (Score:5, Insightful)
LoJack does it better. (Score:5, Interesting)
LoJack, which has a very good track record in stolen car recovery, is better designed from a privacy standpoint. LoJack hides a box somewhere in the car. It normally doesn't transmit anything. The box just listens to a subcarrier on broadcast stations for a signal that tells the LoJack boxes to turn on. When the box turns on, it starts sending out a signal, which suitably equipped police cars can pick up and home in on by radio direction finding.
It's reasonably easy to monitor LoJack for abuse. The broadcast control signal can be listened to by anybody, and the signal from a LoJack box isn't a much of a secret either. When it's triggered, every police car with LoJack gear in range lights up, so there's considerable visibility of its use. Southern California has about 500 LoJack activations a month. [wsati.org] LAPD has their helicopters equipped with LoJack receivers, so stealing a LoJack-equipped car is likely to result in being spotlighted from the air within minutes.
One more reason to *NOT* buy GM (Score:4, Interesting)
All of that aside, this step crosses the line. What they have implemented here is a means to remotely take control of the car from the driver. Think about that for a minute. They've decided that an "override" function should exist which would superceed the judgement and will of the pilot of the vehicle. This is the same kind of reasoning that caused the Airbus A320 crash at the Habsheim air show in 1988. The computer overrode the pilots attempts to climb and crashed the aircraft, killing many.
If I ever own a vehicle with such technology installed, the first thing I'll do before driving it will be to completely disable it.
--
This space for rent
Re:Duh! (Score:5, Funny)
Yuppies?? Welcome, strange traveller from 1987
Parent
cruising for a bruising (Score:4, Funny)
Then, O.J., the real fun begins.
Parent