Ok. Let's take a breather here
by
DmitriA
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
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
Re:Ok. Let's take a breather here
by
NiceGeek
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
I agree, I'm as paranoid and cynical as the next slashdotter but griping about this seems a little extreme. It was a stolen car for crying out loud....and the point of the OnStar system IS to track your car. So, if you don't want bank robbers to be tracked in your stolen car...then don't get the OnStar system installed.:)
I mean really . . .
by
amorico
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
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
OnStar / LoJack
by
Mandrake
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
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.:)
A friend of my family owns a car with one of these services in it. One time we were eating dinner at a very nice chinnese resturant in a not so nice part of town and the persons car got stolen. We used a phone and reported it to the police. We then called On* and informed them of the theft. We gave the phone to the police officer who arrived, who then called in the location of the car. The cops we talked to later told us the thief and his girlfriend were scared shitless when the 2 cop cars out of no where came and blocked him off. The Front drivers seat had to be Reupholstered after that. The car was also out of the possesion of the theif withing one halfhour after being reported. My friend definatly got his moneys worth for the Fee he has to pay for the onstar service.
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
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
A friend of my family owns a car with one of these services in it. One time we were eating dinner at a very nice chinnese resturant in a not so nice part of town and the persons car got stolen. We used a phone and reported it to the police. We then called On* and informed them of the theft. We gave the phone to the police officer who arrived, who then called in the location of the car. The cops we talked to later told us the thief and his girlfriend were scared shitless when the 2 cop cars out of no where came and blocked him off. The Front drivers seat had to be Reupholstered after that. The car was also out of the possesion of the theif withing one halfhour after being reported. My friend definatly got his moneys worth for the Fee he has to pay for the onstar service.
(Score:0, Interesting)