Slashdot Mirror
OnStar Nav. System Used to Track Bank Robbers
andrew writes "Looks like companies and/or authorities really do use car navigation systems to track us despite their indignant denials."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
There is no abuse here - the car was stolen and I assume the owner gave them the permission to use the GPS technology in the car to track it, Or at the very least, even if they didn't ask him for an explicit permission - I guarantee you he doesn't object to it one bit now
Five people are dead, the suspects may be apprehended, and the only thing that comes out of it is. "I always knew the feds were using luxry autombiles to track us. I just knew it." Did it ever occur to the rather focused poster that the reason they used OnStar is because the car was STOLEN and that's one of the things it's FOR.
I know that electronic surveillance is frightening but this was not a case of unwarranted electronic tracking. A horrible crime was committed, and technology, for once, did what it was DESIGNED to do and helped catch actual suspects. It would be very different if law enforcement tracked all the onstar vehicles to look for patterns of suspicious activity. There is a difference between the legitimate use of technology to fight crime and using technology to as the ultimate panopticon where we are constantly under surveillance.
-a
"The plural of anecdote is not data." -- Roger Brinner
It was stolen, he tracked it. The people who stole it were caught.
What's your complaint exactly?
I disagree completely. The person who owned the car consented to have the tracking system and when the car was stolen Onstar fulfilled its obligation to track the car and notify the authorities of its whereabouts.
Despite the fact that John Ashcroft is our attorney general, the police still require search warrants. No amount of technology can change our basic right to freedom from unreasonable search and seizure.
Sure, the system can be abused but no one has given an example where that has taken place. All you say is that they CAN use it to track your "activities" at 7-11. I can follow you around all day and it's perfectly legal. If the government wanted to do it they would have to get a judge to approve it.
The point of all this is that there is no bright line between tracking a stolen car and tracking you. You offer no analysis of how the jump will be made from kidnappers to joe schmoe. Please see my sig below.
-a
"The plural of anecdote is not data." -- Roger Brinner
If my car is stolen (equipped with LoJack) and then used in a bank robbery as a getaway vehicle and the cops are looking for it because of my LoJack, that's perfectly acceptable for me. it wasn't their property they were in, they were chased down because of the anti-theft features of someone elses car (which is DESIGNED to catch someone who has stolen your car).
:)
On the flip side, even though I'm sure even though it wouldn't be considered acceptable, if the police knew I had lojack and I was on a high speed persuit and lost them, I'd half-expect them to find me because of my lojack anyways. I'm just glad that me speeding doesn't automatically alert them as I run through their zone.
Geoff "Mandrake" Harrison
Some Random UI Hacker
The thing you don't realize is that everybody is a lawbreaker. Sure, most of the laws you break are pretty minor, and nobody seems to care. But this gives law enforcement the opportunity to track/monitor everybody, all the time. How often have you broken the speed limit, even by just one MPH? Or rolled through a stop sign. Sure, you slowed down, but you didn't come to a complete stop. I do it all the time! So do you.
In this country, we (used to) value the ability to break the law and get away with it. Some of our laws still reflect this. (the legal process, innocent until proven guilty) But more and more, it's possible to catch people who break the law, and now we are feeling the effects of having our lawbreaking being no longer easy to get away with.
We are not heading to '1984', nor to paradise. We are finding that the laws we created with the intent of people breaking them are becoming enforcable, and that the actual laws are too strict. "victimless crimes" are more enforcable than ever, and we (as a country) are finding that we don't like that.
I think what we will see in the next 10-50 years is a relaxing of our laws, and much stricter enforcement, due to increased monitoring.
Nathan Brazil?
Yeah. Uhm. I can see the problem here. A technology that is in part designed to track stolen cars is used to track a stolen car. So naturally, we can expand that argument to cover the government caring about your bowel movements.
There are technologies that are worth worring about (car rental companies using GPS to attempt to enforce speed limits) and then there ones that are used appropriately (as in this case). I do care about issues like this, I value my privacy. But comments like this do not help the cause - they hurt it by making us all look silly.
But that's not the point here at all -- the point is that allegations that future laws may erode your rights is not an argument against the lawful enforcement of existing laws, which is what we have in this case.
Is the submitter of this really that far gone? Did he even read the article where is stated that the *stolen* get-away vehicle was equipped with OnStar? What does he think OnStar is for, finding the nearest latte shop? OnStar is a more feature enhanced LoJack..you know the little device that is placed somewhere in your car to help incase it's stolen.
If you are such a privacy nut, then please, mark your vehicles with big stickers, "Not Equipped with Tracking Device" so those car-jackers and bankrobbers will take your car, and help the insurnace rates on my OnStar equipped vehicle go down even further.
I just hope the bastards don't get off on some technicality about them being tracked with OnStar, an 'invasion of privacy'.
Sig? What's a Sig?
Who is to decide which laws were meant to be obeyed and which laws were meant to be broken? Should we each deside for ourselves? What if we disagree? And if laws can be broken without consequence, why do we have them?
When you have a system where laws are enfoced by selective prosecution you can't complain when they selectively prosecute you for breaking a law. If you break a law, you are opening the possibility of prosecution. If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.
-TheDawgLives suckitdown