Roadside Assistance System Used for Eavesdropping

pegr writes "El Reg has a story about how a US appeals court has 'put the brakes on an FBI surveillance technique that turns an automobile driver's on-board vehicle navigation system into a covert eavesdropping device, after finding that the spying effectively disables the system's emergency and roadside assistance features.' Seems the right to get the service you pay for trumps the 'right' of the FBI to spy on you, using your own vehicle's systems!"

Comments

Surprised??

[Creepy Crawler]

OnSpy, how can we help you?

Re:Surprised??

[Anonymous Coward]

OnSpy, how can we help you?

OnStar seems kind of useless to me. It came free for a year in my new Grand Prix and I never used it. The antenna broke off after it froze over last winter and they wanted $75 for a new one and $16/month for continuing "basic" service. Now the threat of them spying on you on top of it?? I guess it's time to rip the box out of my trunk too while I'm at it. I bet it still works without the antenna and service if they are spying on you.

Re:Surprised??

[That's Unpossible!]

OnStar seems kind of useless to me. It came free for a year in my new Grand Prix and I never used it.

My boss uses his all the time, they are very friendly. On vacation, hit the button, "Hi, we'd like to stop for dinner at a decent chinese food restaurant in the next hour or so."

They'll search around near where you'll be in 60 minutes based on your speed and direction, call the place, make reservations if needed, explain to you how to get there. They'll even stay on the line with you as you navigate around. They don't usually seem to be in a hurry... nice service.

BTW, according to the article, it wasn't OnStar, it was their competitor being used by the FBI, FWIW.

Re:Surprised??

[javatips]

Note that if you have the system in your car and you are NOT paying for the service, then they can activate it and listen without any problem (if they have a warrant). They will not interfer with the service as you are not paying for it.

Re:Surprised??

[racermd]

I purchased a 2001 Chevrolet Silverado in May of that year and I *intentionally* chose NOT to add the OnStar "feature" for this very reason. It was offered as standard equipment on all the newest models, but the early 2001's didn't have it standard (from about Mar/Apr onwards, I think).

At the time, the dealer I was working with thought I was paranoid. Just a few short years later, I turn out to be the sane one...

Re:Surprised??

[Casshan-Robot Hunter]

Warrant? You must be kidding. Let's not forget the PATRIOT ACT.

We don't need no stinking warrants!

Re:Surprised??

[SatanicPuppy]

I always kind of assumed they did stuff like this. The capability is there, and its all controlled from their end. Seems logical.

I'm not a major privacy fiend, but I'd never use this sort of service.

Re:Surprised??

[Hatta]

Hah, where's your tin foil hat now!

Re:Surprised??

[MoneyT]

Try again, you still need a warrant. Might I suggest reading the PATRIOT act at some point?

Re:Surprised??

[Anonymous Coward]

sounds like extortion, kinda similar to that company spamming via windows messenger service that got shut down by the FCC. "Use our product/service and make sure this doesn't happen again"

Re:Surprised??

[netruner]

Could you then wire up the microphone to some type of audio player? After all, you're not using the service, so you won't miss out on anything. You could then play for anyone listening an endless loop of things that sound like they're coming from someone else's car. Imagine the problems you could cause when they think they've got the wrong car. (or better yet, you could play a recording of someone having a severe gas attack or other similar problems that nobody would really want to listen to ;-)

In reality, though, how hard would it be to put the mic, gps antenna, or other critical component on a toggle switch?

Re:Surprised??

[the_mad_poster]

Often, the only difference between being a paranoid whackjob and a prophet is whether or not you were popular in the first place.

Re:Surprised??

[mitheral]

The fun part is that with how unsecure the FBI hooks into the phone system are (the eavesdropping equipment installed into switches are Sun boxes hooked to the internet) it's quite possible organised and not so organised crime are also listening to OnStar subscribers as well.

Re:Surprised??

[ViolentGreen]

I have never heard of spying using these services.

You make it sound like a pretty nice service if you do a lot of traveling. It wouldn't be of too much use to me though.

I'd assume they'd have to get a warrent to use it to spy on you. Anything like that is worth carefully reading the privacy policy. I guess spying though one of these services is not a whole lot different then from having your phone tapped.

Re:Surprised??

[Anonymous Coward]

You're kidding, right? This is Slashdot, where you get instant mod points for redundant, overused bashings on the Patriot Act, George Bush, Amerika, SCO, Micro$oft, etc. You don't really expect these commentators to actually have knowledge of the finer points of any of these topics, do you? (As an aside, note to the complainers that a first post can be modded "redundant" if is is just another tired anti-(fill in the blank) statement).

It's like the WTO/World Bank protestors. Protesting for the sake of protesting, just to feel morally superior. You don't think they actually know anything about world economics, do you? I'd bet 9 out of 10 of those protestors couldn't even tell you what the World Bank does.

Re:Surprised??

[GeckoX]

Sure, a warrant is needed if they wish to use specific information they collect in court, but don't kid yourself...they deffinately don't need a warrant to tap you. They just use information collected this way to then find another legitimate reason to get a real warrant...if their initial tap warranted it in the first place. (Sorry about the pun ;-)

Re:Surprised??

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't worry, I'm sure they'll come for you last.

Re:Surprised??

[the_mad_poster]

Just like CALEA?

Re:Surprised??

[Ivan Raikov]

Try again, you still need a warrant. Might I suggest reading the PATRIOT act at some point?

Actually, they do not need a warrant if you are not a citizen, even if you are a perfectly legal resident. The Patriot Act essentially eliminated the Equal Protection Clause in the 14th amendment. Of course the Republican criminals want even more power by allowing the government to strip any American citizen of their citizenship, and to eliminate search and seizure protection (4th amendment). Wake up and fight for your rights, people.

Re:Surprised??

[ReasonLogicX]

All you need to do do disable the onstar unit so that it doesn't work is remove the FUSE from the FUSE PANEL. It will effectively cut power to the unit. Vehicle untrackable.

Re:Surprised??

[Anonymous Coward]

The ability for them to open the mic without you knowing should be advertised clearly though ...

Re:Surprised??

[Anonymous Coward]

If you can say like that, it is quite obvious that you have not read it...

NOBODY can read that piece of shit...
Please explain the finer points to all of us since you obviously are so damn smart...

When you write a law like this, NOBODY, without all the lawyers of IBM and SCO combined, have a chance of understanding it.

Just a small example:

SEC. 104. REQUESTS FOR MILITARY ASSISTANCE TO ENFORCE PROHIBITION IN CERTAIN EMERGENCIES.
Section 2332e of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

(1) by striking `2332c' and inserting `2332a'; and

(2) by striking `chemical'.


It might be true that you still need a warant, I am not disputing that, but to suggest to someone that they can just go and read the damn thing is plain stupid, and an indication that you have never done so yourself...

Re:Surprised??

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course the Republican criminals want even more power

As opposed to the Democratic criminals? If you recall, USAPatriot wasn't exactly a partisan bill. Your precious "liberal" pinko reps. goosestepped in line when this thing was passed.

Re:Surprised??

[operagost]

Unfortunately, the U.S. Constitution does not define the word "citizen". It and its amendments refer to "the people". However, it does often refer to "citizens of the States". Since a "citizen of a State" is also a citizen of the federal republic, I think to say that only U.S. citizens are guaranteed equal protection under the law is a fair hypothesis that warrants further investigation.

So, I'll fight for my rights, not for the rights of transients.

Re:Surprised??

[WeirdKid]

Oh, give me a break. Here's the privacy statement from the OnStar site.

I assume you paid cash for that truck, since you must be equally concerned about being tracked through your credit history. You must have cut up all your credit cards and ATM cards long ago, too. Geez, you'd better not ever buy a new cell phone once E911 goes live.

Seriously, ask yourself if OnStar did share this data with law enforcement it would have been big news by now and they wouldn't have 3 million subscribers.

Re:Surprised??

[Anonymous Coward]

Insightful? If you really had "insight" into how the system actually works, you'd know that it's impossible for OnStar to activate the vehicle hardware without you knowing about it.

Re:Surprised??

[Anonymous Coward]

Wire it up to play n'sync. That'll learn'em.

Re:Surprised??

[lobsterGun]

I too disconnected my OnStar system. I liked the warm and secure feeling I got from it, but it's signal kept sparking off of my AFBD.

Re:Surprised??

[MoneyT]

That's actualy quite easy to understand;

go to title 18 of the US Code and go to section 2332e.

Cross out the string '2332c' (that's what strike means, to remove) and put '2332a' in it's place.

Cross out the word 'chemical'

What was so hard about that?

Re:Surprised??

[MoneyT]

Nope, they can't do that. Evidence used to aquire a warrant must have been obtained in a manner such that that evidence is permissable within a court of law (hence the catch 22 of trying to get a warrant)

Re:Surprised??

[MoneyT]

Where does it say this? Please find the passage for me.

Re:Surprised??

[John Courtland]

They don't need a warrant to search your car, unless it's an RV (designated by the plates), so why would they need a warrant to evesdrop on you?

Re:Surprised??

[Anonymous Coward]

You should read it. It basically says that warrants are not necessary (the whole judiciary check is removed) if they have classified you as a terrorist. The DOJ has a very, very broad definition for a terrorist. They don't need warrants. Plain and simple.

Re:Surprised??

[stephanruby]

BTW, according to the article, it wasn't OnStar, it was their competitor being used by the FBI, FWIW.

It doesn't matter, the FBI will still access OnStar when they want it.

Re:Surprised??

[stephanruby]

And yes, they still need a Warrant for American citizens, but the criterion for getting the warrant is not "probable cause" anymore -- they just need to think you're a "terrorist suspect" and the judge has no choice but to give it to them.

Re:Surprised??

[Anonymous Coward]

It doesn't matter, the FBI will still access OnStar when they want it.

Other than being naturally paranoid, can you provide any real evidence of this?

Re:Surprised??

[stephanruby]

It doesn't matter, the FBI will still access OnStar when they want it.

"Other than being naturally paranoid, can you provide any real evidence of this? "

OnStar can turn on the mic when there has been an accident. It's not much of a stretch to think they can turn it on when you're just riding along. It's also not much of stretch to think that if one service provider doesn't resist the warrant, the other service providers probably won't resist either. And now that PATRIOT act has passed, the FBI doesn't need probable cause to get issued that warrant.

Re:Surprised??

[DunbarTheInept]

In order to use a warrant to search your house, they have to inform you in person that they are doing it. With wiretapping, you are not told that the warrant even exists. This is a problem because it gives you nothing to legally contest - you don't even know there's anything TO contest going on.

Re:Surprised??

[MoneyT]

Because the law says they need a warrant, just like the law says they can search your car if they have "reasonable suspicion" and they've pulled you over. The reason for this is that it is not possible for a warrant to be obtained to search the vehicle with out detaining you. But since you are not yet under arrest or charged with a crime (beyond the reason they pulled you over) they have no right to detain you.

Re:Surprised??

[jcr]

Of course the Republican criminals want even more power

Please list all the heroic democrats who voted agains the Patriot act.

Oh, wait..

-jcr

Re:Surprised??

[MoneyT]

Not quite. see for yourself, I've extraced the relevant details for you:

Here is the information pertaining to terroism definitions and wire taps et al

Re:Surprised??

[johnd39]

Unfortunately, the U.S. Constitution does not define the word "citizen". It and its amendments refer to "the people".

May I suggest you refer to source documents before posting?

Amendment XIV

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.

Re:Surprised??

[MoneyT]

More relevant information:

Terroism and Wire Tap juristiction as outlined by the PATRIOT act

Re:Surprised??

[Anonymous Coward]

wait a second, I didn't read the Patriot Act, but did you just mean to say that "they do not need a warant if you are not a citizen"?

So what?

If you aren't a citizen, you aren't a citizen. These Rights are for citizens of the United States. Period. If you can't handle that, too f$#$ing bad. Move to France if you don't like it (... and take me with you!!!! :D )

G-d Damn boy! Start drinking decaffinated!

-ron

Re:Surprised??

[MoneyT]

Read it for yourself:

Terrorism and Wire Tap jurisdiction as outlined by the PATRIOT act

Re:Surprised??

[El]

So, it's ok to tap all my phone lines, since my wife is a non-citizen, even though I am a citizen? Plus, her parents are Moslem, so she's probably a terrorist anyway, right? Yes, I try not to say anything on the phone that I wouldn't want an FBI agent overhearing...

Re:Surprised??

[pete_p]

OnStar can turn on the mic when there has been an accident. It's not much of a stretch to think they can turn it on when you're just riding along.

Sure it is. When there's an accident, the vehicle initiates the call. Obviously until that happens, OnStar has no friggin clue that something's wrong. Since (as far as I know) there's no benifit to designing it to be able to be activated remotely (as far as OnStar is concerned, that is. The FBI is welcome to think differently.), it seems logical to me that the device may not be capable of it - why program it in?

Of course, I have no inside knowledge of the system, and I admit that it is possible that it's designed such that the FBI could use it to spy on people. I just think it's unlikely.

(Of course, the other similar service obviously can work this way, so maybe I'm completly wrong... Wouldn't be the first time.)

Re:Surprised??

[zzendpad]

well, their commercials say that they can unlock the doors remotely. no reason to think they can't do anything else they desire to the system remotely.

Re:Surprised??

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, wait..

And who wrote it, lobbied for it, and rammed its passage through w/o debate?

Oh, thats right.

Re:Surprised??

[pete_p]

True, I had completly forgotten about that feature. Thanks.

Re:Surprised??

[racermd]

I'm well aware of the privacy statement, but that doesn't stop particular government agencies from gaining access to the system whenever they feel like it.

What about "Due-Process" you ask? The good ol' Patriot Act took care of *that* roadblock. Reasonable suspicion of any wrongdoing (that would cause a blip on the FBI's radar, anyway) seems to be enough to get the job done.

OnStar doesn't need to give their OK for the FBI to tap the system. If the FBI has a way in, they'll use it.

The real point is that I *don't* feel Safe and Secure knowing that someone can pinpoint my location at any time. I like knowing that I can go places without having someone else know that I'm gonig there. I don't have anything to hide, per se. It's just that I don't like being tracked like a bear through the forest. It's also a technology that I don't find all that useful, and that there's more harm than good in it for my taste.

And in case you're wondering:
I don't have a credit card. Not because I can be tracked with it, but because it's one less bill I have to worry about at the end of the month.
I do make regular use of my debit card, however, becuase the loss of anonymity doesn't outweigh the convenience of using it.
I've had 2 cell phones over the 4 years I've had service, and the switch was due to changing providers (I moved to an area that wasn't covered as well by the previous provider). I keep my current phone upgraded with all the software/firmware updates I can get the carrier to provide me with, but it's getting long in the tooth. I may not have a choice in what's included in my next phone, however. But I'm not too worried about it, as I can always turn the phone off if I'm *that* worried about it.

Re:Surprised??

[jcr]

And who wrote it, lobbied for it, and rammed its passage through w/o debate?

The dems didn't have to vote for it, did they?

Let's please quit trying to blame this travesty on just one wing of the Ruling Party.

-jcr

Re:Surprised??

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, except for Ron Paul and a tiny number of others, no-one even cared to read the thing before passing it.

Re:Surprised??

[mr100percent]

Oh sure, do you want a Democrat to step forward and get criticized for their lack of Patriotism? Look at how quiet Hillary Clinton got afterwards.

Re:Surprised??

[Anonymous Coward]

get your wife a citizenship then

Re:Surprised??

[El]

Welcome to the real world, where there is a 4 year wait for a green card. Guess where all those people in the INS now busy searching for terrorists came from? Hint: the INS didn't hire any new people.

Re:Surprised??

[maxpublic]

Which means that the Congressional report issued in '02, specifying that the FBI issued close to three THOUSAND illegal wiretaps in the previous year alone (no warrant, no probable cause), was just the fevered imagination of a few paranoid investigators?

Funny, the FBI didn't even try to deny it.

If the FBI is willing to flagrantly violate the law by installing 3,000 illegal taps on phones, just how naive is it to think that - for some reason beyond mortal ken - they'll treat your car as 'hallowed ground'?

Max

Re:Surprised??

[rastos1]

Try again, you still need a warrant. Might I suggest reading the PATRIOT act at some point?

All right. I'll take that in opposite order:
Your are right, I'm too lazy to read it, so I read only the analyzis.
And this is what I see:

FBI and CIA can now go from phone to phone, computer to computer without demonstrating that each is being used by a suspect or target of an order, or even specifically identifying the person targeted. The government may now serve a single Title III wiretap, FISA wiretap or pen/trap order on any person or entity nationwide, regardless of whether that person or entity is named in the order. The government need not make any showing to a court that the particular information or communication to be acquired is relevant to a criminal investigation. In the pen/trap or FISA situations, they do not even have to report where they served the order or what information they received.

To me it seems thay need just "any" warant. Hm?

Re:Surprised??

[pegr]

OnSpy, how can we help you?

That's OK, we already know! ;)

Re:Surprised??

[MoneyT]

Not I didn't say they haven't ever installed them (though it would be nice if you had a link). However, they are not permisable in court. IOW no matter what they get, they can't use. Period.

Re:Surprised??

[MoneyT]

That's nice. How about you read the document. That analysis is a stretch. Here's the relevant information regarding terrorism and wiretaps according to the PARTRIOT act.

Here

Re:Surprised??

[axxackall]

Wake up and fight for your rights, people.

Too late - I am already fighting US goverment from outside of US borders.

I call it as fighting for my human rights, in a common sense, not related to rights of a US citizen specifically. But I guess that US goverment would call it as the war against USA... if they would notice it :)

Funny FBI

[dolo666]

What's most disturbing is that they only passed this because it prevented the saftey features from working, and not because it was infringing on rights of privacy. Crap, if they have a bug order anyway, can't they just bug the car?

I mean, the cops are listening... so... uh... what's the point of having roadside assistance? If the car breaks down, the FBI or whoever was listening could repsond!

I remember CSIS was slammed some years ago for agents listening in on random phone calls to Canadian citizens, and gossiping about what was going on with other agents, in a kind of Real-Radio type gagfest.

It's a good sign from the states that they are stopping this stuff, but I don't have much faith in that being followed by every cop out there. If they want to know what you're up to, trust me... they will.

Re:Funny FBI

[Anonymous Coward]

It's much easier to have the customers pay for the cell phone link. If the FBI installs a bug, it might be noticed, plus the FBI has to pay for it.

Re:Funny FBI

[Creepy Crawler]

>>>What's most disturbing is that they only passed this because it prevented the saftey features from working, and not because it was infringing on rights of privacy. Crap, if they have a bug order anyway, can't they just bug the car?

It's not soo much even that. It's the fact that they're interfering with a commercial service that "donates to campaigns". The big bad corporate body didnt want bad press about their systems, so have Mr. bought_off_senator stop FBI.

Re:Funny FBI

[dolo666]

Too true. If the bugs are built right into the car, it makes the FBI's job way easier. Pretty soon, FBI directors will invent OnSpy for your home, so you can request help or service at the push of a button in any room. This law is going to be overturned because the FBI always get what they want, don't they?

Also, I thought the US just printed money when they needed more of it?

Re:Funny FBI

[InfiniteWisdom]

What's most disturbing is that they only passed this because it prevented the saftey features from working, and not because it was infringing on rights of privacy. Crap, if they have a bug order anyway, can't they just bug the car?

IANAL, but my guess is the laywer handling the case saw an easy way to win, and decided to stick with that rather than making complex arguments about rght to privacy and stuff. It doesn't imply that they would not have won otherwise.

Re:Funny FBI

[Anonymous Coward]

First of all the Constitution allows for violation of the 4th amendment as long as it has a court order. Second of all the FBI rarely gets what it wants anymore. Not since the days of Hoover at least.

Re:Funny FBI

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, with the passing of the so-called "Patriot" Act (spit), the court order is no longer necessary. All they have to do is accuse you of "terrorism," and all your base are belong to Asscroft.

Re:Funny FBI

[HardCase]

What's most disturbing is that they only passed this because it prevented the saftey features from working, and not because it was infringing on rights of privacy. Crap, if they have a bug order anyway, can't they just bug the car?

How is it infringing on their "right" to privacy if the FBI had obtained a warrant to listen in on the service? For starters, there is no "right to privacy". The Bill of Rights enumerates a number of rights that, taken in summary, give what amounts to a "right" of privacy, but no specific right to privacy itself. But those rights compel a law enforcement agency to obtain a warrant if it wants to listen in on your private conversations. And that's what the FBI did here. They appear to have done everything by the book. Now, if you want to blame somebody for doing it wrong, blame the judge for not coming to the same conclusion that the appeals judge came to, that is, that the FBI is not in the business of responding to emergencies (assuming that the agents would even know what the tone coming through the speaker meant).

Really, the only difference between a wiretap or a bug is that the FBI used different technology in this case. Nothing has changed. The FBI identified a suspect in a crime, got a warrant for a wiretap and executed the warrant. I don't find it disturbing. Now, if they had just hijacked the signal without going through the legal hoops, THAT would be disturbing news.

Nothing to see here, move along.

I won't say it as a matter of fact, but I suspect that you didn't read the article.

-h-

Re:Funny FBI

[Anonymous Coward]

No. The 4th Amendment, which is often interpreted as the right to privacy, allows for warrants to override the right. In this case the FBI had the court order to listen in but not if it interupted in the intended purpose of the service. If they had put an old fashioned bug in the guys car this never would have been an issue. It's actually too bad that they couldn't get this to work but it would save tons on money on equipment.

I personally have no problem with wiretaps and the such as long as they have a solid court order behind them. They did some serious damage to the mob with them. That and RICO laws too.

Re:Funny FBI

[Anonymous Coward]

That has just yet to be challenged in court.

Re:Funny FBI

[smack_attack]

Everyone complains about being on a slippery slope in regard to the PATRIOT Act, until they look around and notice that we are already at the bottom of the slope, wondering how we got here.

Re:Funny FBI

[goofballs]

-How is it infringing on their "right" to privacy if the FBI had obtained a warrant to listen in on the service? For starters, there is no "right to privacy".).

yes, there IS a "right to privacy". the supreme court has interpreted the constitution as such, many times over the years.

-The Bill of Rights enumerates a number of rights that, taken in summary, give what amounts to a "right" of privacy, but no specific right to privacy itself. ).

Amendment IX- The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

in other words, just because they don't spell it out certain rights, it doesn't mean you don't have them.

Re:Funny FBI

[JayBlalock]

For starters, there is no "right to privacy". The Bill of Rights enumerates a number of rights that, taken in summary, give what amounts to a "right" of privacy, but no specific right to privacy itself.

Stop listening to Scalia, and go reread the 9th Amendment. In fact, I'll go on cut and paste it, as it's very short and clear: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Any questions?

Re:Funny FBI

[Stingr]

"my guess is the laywer handling the case saw an easy way to win"

Yeah but what happens when the FBI figures out how to do it without disabling the saftey features???

Re:Funny FBI

[Anonymous Coward]

in other words, just because they don't spell it out certain rights, it doesn't mean you don't have them.


Something Law-And-Order freaks tend to conveniently forget time and time again.

Re:Funny FBI

[Syberghost]

What's most disturbing is that they only passed this because it prevented the saftey features from working, and not because it was infringing on rights of privacy.

Oh, come on. A court-approved surveillance warrant doesn't infringe your right of privacy any more than a court-ordered arrest warrant infringes your rights of liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

We're not talking about the FBI running around tapping people's phones willy-nilly. Safety was the legitimate concern here.

Re:Funny FBI

[Anonymous Coward]

None of that makes any difference. They had a warrant. The issue was not the right to privacy. Wiretaps and other eavesdropping tools are legal as long as there is a court order to support them. This case had nothing to do with 4th or 9th Amendment "right to privacy." I would also say that the 9th Amendment is weak at best. I could also interpret it to mean that I have a right to pee on your front door.

Re:Funny FBI

[Anonymous Coward]

Any questions?

Yes. How did you get to be so retarded?

Re:Funny FBI

[cheezedawg]

Of course, with the passing of the so-called "Patriot" Act (spit), the court order is no longer necessary

No. In fact, the PATRIOT Act does not give law enforcement any new rights- it only gives judges more latitude in what kinds of warrants they can approve. Everything that required a warrant before the PATRIOT act still requires one.

Re:Funny FBI

[Anonymous Coward]

So how can this be challenged in court since they do not have to inform you and it is against the law for third parties (such as the OnStar personnel) to do so?

Re:Funny FBI

[SillySlashdotName]

For starters, there is no "right to privacy". The Bill of Rights enumerates a number of rights that, taken in summary, give what amounts to a "right" of privacy, but no specific right to privacy itself.

For starters, the "right to privacy" DOESN'T HAVE TO BE SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED(see Amendment IX).

In addition, any rights or requirements NOT SPECIFICALLY GRANTED THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT are specifically retained by the states and the individual (see Amendment X).

Really, the only difference between [this and] a wiretap or a bug is that the FBI used different technology in this case. Nothing has changed. The FBI identified a suspect in a crime, got a warrant for a wiretap and executed the warrant.

No. In a wiretap or bug, the service is not interupted, it is monitored. In this case, the FBI HIJACKED the service for their own purposes and use, which meant the people who were paying for a specific service were not able to use that service.

If the FBI got a warrent for a wire tap of your telephone, but instead of just listening in they interupted your telephone service so that you could not call anyone, but they could always hear your conversations as though you had called them and then put the handset down without disconnecting the call then I think it would be more like what they were doing in this case.

Nothing has changed.

Yes, it has. It has been possible for a long time to bug a telephone - either a microphone on the instrument itself, or by taping into the line somewhere outside of the premises - but the telephone could still be used for its primary and intended purpose. The issue in the article is that the FBI used the technology in such a way that it could not also be used for its' intended purpose. I like your use of the word hijacked, as that is exactly what they did.

Now, if they had just hijacked the signal without going through the legal hoops, THAT would be disturbing news.

I think just the going from passive listening to actively "hijacking the signal" is an alarming developement.

US Bill of Rights

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Re:Funny FBI

[dillon_rinker]

...there is no "right to privacy".

True. The phrase "right to privacy" does not occur in the Constitution (which includes the amendments.) Neither does "freedom of the press". Furthermore, there is NO phrasing to suggest freedom of broadcasting, or freedom of film, or of videotape, or DVD. ANY of these could be censored by the government without falling afoul of a literal reading of the Constitution.

Come on, do you honestly believe that the Constitution is intended to permit the Government to take part in or interfere with the private lives of citizens? NO! The Supreme Court rightly interpreted a "right to privacy" into the Constitution, along with freedom of the press, radio antenna, CD-burner, etc.

Arguing against a right to privacy is right up there with arguing against freedom of the press. The fundamental rights EVERYONE wants protected are to think what you want, express what you want, and be left alone by the government.

Re:Funny FBI

[Hatta]

Has the 9th amendment actually ever been used for anything? It seems to me an open and shut case that any prohibition against an adult consuming the substances of his choice would be unconstitutional. If only the founding fathers had the forsight to include an 11th ammendment, "what happens between consenting adults, remains between consenting adults."

Re:Funny FBI

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll have you know that we (GM) took the FBI to court on this to protect our bottom line. How can we expect drug dealers, terrorists, and other nefarious persons to buy our cars if they have to worry about the FBI listening in?

Re:Funny FBI

[JayBlalock]

The 9th Amendment was an admission on the part of the founding fathers that it would not be humanly possible to actually innumerate ALL human rights. It's a catch-all. People who attempt to claim there are NO other rights besides those specifically enumerated (*cough*Scalia*cough*) are going directly against the intent of the Founders, and the plain wording of the Amendment (the MOST clear and concise of them all), so they have an excuse to snatch up powers for the government without asking the People about it.

In contrast to your peeing example, I might point out that we ALSO do not have an ennumerated "Right to Breathe." Does that mean an "air tax" would be legal and reasonable? Under Scalia's definition of the Constitution it would be.

Re:Funny FBI

[Anonymous Coward]

Can't, not the way OnStar works......

Re:Funny FBI

[MoneyT]

You do have such a right, assuming my front door was public property. However, my front door is private property and as such I have a right to charge you with tresspassing.

Re:Funny FBI

[JayBlalock]

It seems to me an open and shut case that any prohibition against an adult consuming the substances of his choice would be unconstitutional.

And I would totally agree. The only reason drug prohibition exists is through a completely rediculous abuse of the Interstate Commerce Clause - even more than its usual abuses.

But, just as the Constitution can be reexamined to discover it provides no case for restricting what two adults can do in their bedroom, perhaps one day people will realize there's no basis for restricting what one can personally ingest...

Re:Funny FBI

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, keep in mind that the police *can* tap your phones at any time, but any evidence they get that way is inadmissable in court. You can still use it against a person, however, because if you hear him say "Yeah, I killed that bitch," even if you can't use that in court against him, you know you've got the right guy. It's a common tactic to collect evidence illegally and use what you find there to collect other evidence through legitimate paths. It's only illegal for them to use it in court.

Re:Funny FBI

[Saint Stephen]

"Pretty soon, FBI directors will invent OnSpy for your home, so you can request help or service at the push of a button in any room"

--

They did, it's called ADT and its ilk. Motion-activated microphones. I've been in the listening room at one of these facilities -- everything sigificant in your house is audible at all times.

Re:Funny FBI

[bill_mcgonigle]

I mean, the cops are listening... so... uh... what's the point of having roadside assistance? If the car breaks down, the FBI or whoever was listening could repsond!

If they're just gathering data, as long as an arrest isn't imminent, they'll record the data then have somebody (or machine?) listen to it at an increased speed, after all the silence is cut out. People can routinely listen to conversation at 2-3x (pitch adjusted, of course) maintaining comprehension.

So, in most cases the person would be dead a couple days before the FBI responded.

Re:Funny FBI

[ilsa]

The Constitution and its Amendments to not enumerate a right to mail letters to your elected representatives, or a right to sing the blues, or a right to earn a living, or a right to be free of prison sodomy, or a right to drink clean water and breathe clean air either.

As far as I am concerned, the 4th and 5th Amendments do constitute a basic right to privacy, although not spelled out in so many words. Granted, the FBI had a warrant. This being the case they should have planted a listening device instead of disabling a safety device. They would of course risk the bug being found, but thems the breaks.

If you would like to know a whole lot more about the investigation, intead of one out of context ruling, try this.

Re:Funny FBI

[Anonymous Coward]

> until they look around and notice that we are already at the bottom of the slope, wondering how we got here.

We have not yet achieved the type of Sovietization that was achieved in the original Soviet Union. True, we must carry our identity papers to travel by air, rail, road, or sea, and true, we now have a large secret police that can operate at home, *but*, we have not repealed habeas corpus entirely (only partially, if the govt is willing to certify a citizen as a terrorist -- well, ok, this is like mostly repealling it, but), we have not set up large concentration camps.

Well, ok, we have the largest prison system in the world, but it is a far nicer facility than the Soviet prisons in which Stalin passed his incarceration in Siberia.

Re:Funny FBI

[jd142]

Before, the President of the United States did not have the ability to take an American citizen, look him up, deny him access to a lawyer, and keep him from even knowing the charges against him. This would have been a blatant violation of an individual's 4th amendment rights.

Now, the President has done this at least twice.

But that's not the PATRIOT act of course. Specifically, section 213 changes the requirements for violating a person's 4th amendment rights, reducing the rights and protections given to citizens.

Re:Funny FBI

[Anonymous Coward]

Right on. Let's also remember that most everyone on ./ leads a pretty mundane, law-abiding, geeky life, so the government has little cause to spend the resources to watch you download p0rn and play Everquest. They have bigger fish to fry. To think that they really care about what you do every second of every day is pretty narcissistic.

Re:Funny FBI

[hburch]

Neither does "freedom of the press".

Perhaps not consecutively, but implied consecutively by conjunction in Amendment I.

Amendment I: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Right to privacy is not a phrase used, but it does talk about "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,..." in Amendment IV.

Amendment IV: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendmend I, III, IV, V, IX, and XIV are generally considered together to grant "the right to privacy".

I agree with your conclusion, just not the basis for which you give for those conclusions.

Re:Funny FBI

[bug-eyed monster]

Hmmm, that's a good question (I don't know the answer): can surveillance be compared to arresting?

If I'm arrested, I know exactly what's happening to me, I can get a lawyer to advise me, and I can say or not say things based on the situation.

If I'm being eavesdropped on, I probably don't know that, I will say all kinds of things, whether or not they're related to the crime I'm being suspected of, I have no way of defending myself based on the situation.

The other question is, how easier is it to get an arrest warrant as opposed to an OnStar eavesdropping warrant? Will the judge be less careful dishing out an eavesdropping warrant because it requires less resources and less explanations if it turns out to be the wrong person?

In a way, it's like comparing the stealing of a CD from the store to the copying of mp3s off the 'net.

Re:Funny FBI

[Frizzle Fry]

It seems to me an open and shut case that any prohibition against an adult consuming the substances of his choice would be unconstitutional.

I guess others agreed with you at one time, since they found it necessary to pass the 18th amendment rather than a simple law.

Re:Funny FBI

[Anonymous Coward]

"In a way, it's like comparing the stealing of a CD from the store to the copying of mp3s off the 'net."

How do you figure? Stealing is stealing, whatever you want to call it. You can whitewash a piece of crap, but that doesn't make it anything other than a whitewashed piece of crap.

Re:Funny FBI

[dolo666]

Given my comment about CSIS, how is this accurate? CSIS was given the access to eavesdrop on all phone calls in Canada during the early 90's. They abused the right and were set straight, har har har. But if the FBI *can* simply tune into any car they please, what's stopping them from totally abusing this "feature"?

If they plant a bug, there is evidence they made the action of eavesdropping, and they can be caught; but if they just tune into a particular car because it has OnSpy, there is no evidence, and no problem. They could listen to anyone they want. They likely could detect if the car has OnSpy, and find the frequency or what have you.

Maybe the information they want can't be obtained on warrant anyway, so they just listen in and find something else. Or maybe they are working for a particular Senator that wants to suppress a certain report from coming out, so they use the OnSpy thing to get past the red tape and impinge liberty, once again.

There are great uses for knowing what people are saying in a car. Blackmail is just one of many.

Re:Funny FBI

[red floyd]

The Constitution and its Amendments to not enumerate a right to mail letters to your elected representatives

Amendment I: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances

Care to try again?

Re:Funny FBI

[ViolentGreen]

Actually I don't think you do. I have seen people on several occasions get arrested for urinating in public places.

Re:Funny FBI

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you suggesting that public uriniation is a constitutionally protected right?

Re:Funny FBI

[HardCase]

Amendment IX- The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Thanks for making my argument for me. As I said, the Bill of Rights provides for no specific right of privacy.

Re:Funny FBI

[Anonymous Coward]

"We're not talking about the FBI running around tapping people's phones willy-nilly."

No, that would never happen would it?

"Safety was the legitimate concern here."

*cough*BULLSHIT*cough*

Re:Funny FBI

[MoneyT]

That has more to do with public health, and decency laws.

Re:Funny FBI

[Anonymous Coward]

Amendment IX- The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

At last!! Proof that the government's crusade against pot growers is unconstitiutional!

Re:Funny FBI

[HardCase]

OK, I'm going to reply to my own comment to point out that a bunch of people seem to be unable to read an entire posting before jerking their knees.

The Bill of Rights does not specifically enumerate a right to privacy. It does, when taken as a whole, provide a shield of privacy to the population of this country. One of the ways that law enforcement agencies can pierce that shield is by obtaining a warrant to conduct a specific surveillance task.

In this case, according to the article, the FBI obtained a warrant to conduct surveillance of an individual through his car's communication system. That means that they had to show probable cause that the individual in question had committed a crime and that the wiretap was necessary in order to conduct the investigation.

What is not said in the article is whether or not the FBI was aware that by using the communications system, they would be disable some of its functionality. The carrier of the system filed a suit to invalidate the warrant because the surveillance disabled some of its functionality.

The judge ruled against them, incorrectly, as it turns out.

That's all there is to this story. There's no erosion of our rights, there's no crippling of the constitution and, from the information available in the story, there is no indication that the FBI knowingly did anything wrong.

You can toss out the 9th Amendment all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that the Bill of Rights does not specifically grant the "right" of privacy. In summation, the Bill of Rights gives us rights that protect our privacy, but Scalia was right - there is no right of privacy, but there is a collection of rights that, taken in aggregate, give us privacy. And it appears that, at least as far as the article tells us, the government followed the rules.

-h-

Re:Funny FBI

[Syberghost]

But if the FBI *can* simply tune into any car they please, what's stopping them from totally abusing this "feature"?

The fact that they have to ask the company to tune them in. That is in fact what happened here; the company balked and went to court.

Re:Funny FBI

[dolo666]

So now that the FBI tried to go the legitimate route, do you think they'll just go the other way now?

Re:Funny FBI

[Deosyne]

Of course they wouldn't. This isn't a police state. Just watch what you say at all times and you will be fine.

Re:Funny FBI

[24-bit Voxel]

Stay in view of the camera at all times. Reading is strictly prohibited. All is well. Big Brother loves you.

Re:Funny FBI

[fenix down]

I've always been freaked out about those things. I had a friend with the whole setup in his house. Had those giant-ass keypads all the hell over that they actually had the balls to stick those stereo equalizer sound meter things on. Slam the door and it goes all crazy, would scare the shit out of me. I always ended up exhausted by the time I got out of there from trying to avoid mentioning anything illegal.

"Blah blah blah blah dime bag..."
*OCCUPANT YOU HAVE COMMITTED AN ERROR A CRIMINAL HAS TRICKED YOU INTO LETTING HIM IN PLEASE DUCK TO AVOID PHASER PACIFICATION*
"Jesus God no!"

Re:Funny FBI

[operagost]

When did this happen? That's a violation of habeas corpus.

Re:Funny FBI

[24-bit Voxel]

It is in San Francisco.

Re:Funny FBI

[eaolson]

As I said, the Bill of Rights provides for no specific right of privacy.

The Bill of Rights provides for no rights whatsoever. The Bill of Rights specifies limitations on the power of the government.

Re:Funny FBI

[ilsa]

Pardon me, I do stand corrected on this issue.

Re:Funny FBI

[Anonymous Coward]

What have you been smoking? They can lock your ass up indefinetly, not allowing you a lawyer, and you are prevented from disclosing to anyone the details of your incarciration. Read the damn document. If its too complex for you, go to: http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/Terrorism/ 20011031_eff_usa_patriot_analysis.php The Patriot act is the death-knell for the Bill of Rights.

Re:Funny FBI

[ibpooks]

Actually, establishing the postal service is one of the few enumerated powers of Congress. Article 1, Section 8: "The Congress shall have power...To establish post offices and post roads". Although not specifically a right, the implication is clear that mailing a letter to government is needed.

Re:Funny FBI

[T-Ranger]

The distinction beteween evidence gained via, say, a wiretap, and that gained through an interview is greate. In the former you say whatever you say freeley. You are not _obligated_ to provide evidence. Any interview with the police involves some amount of coersion. Evidence gatherd in interviews that dont involve a lawyer, unless that right is specificly waived, is tainted.

Re:Funny FBI

[Cognitive Dissident]

Actually, it's even more stark than that.

---

Amendment IV: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

---

privacy n.

1.
a. The quality or condition of being secluded from the presence or view of others.
b. The state of being free from unsanctioned intrusion: a person's right to privacy.

2. The state of being concealed; secrecy.

The American Heritage Dictionary, 4th Edition

---

Yes, the 4th Amendment DOES enumerate a right to privacy. In plain English. Only the sophistry of stupid lawyer tricks could interpret it otherwise. It only shows how far gone we are into double-speak and double-think that this is not considered a truism of American law.

Re:Funny FBI

[MoneyT]

It is a right, however, the government also has a right to regulate and restrict that right as defined in providing for the general wellfare. IOW you have the right to urinate in public, so long as it isn't a public health or safety concern. That's why it's legal to take a piss in the woods.

Re:Funny FBI

[maxpublic]

We're not talking about the FBI running around tapping people's phones willy-nilly.

Except that they actually did that almost 3,000 times in the year 2001 alone, without a warrant or probable cause. A *governmental* inquiry found every single one of those taps to be illegal - and the FBI didn't bother to deny either the tapping or the illegality. They just said that it 'was necessary' to the 'safety and security of the country'. And supposedly that's justification enough to piss all over the Constitution.

A large number of people here seem to be suffering from the delusion that the government in 21st century America is actually bound, in some Borg-like way, to adhere to the law. Fact is, government - including law-enforcement agencies - at times doesn't pay attention to the law.

Our Founding Fathers knew this and tried to purposely limit the size and scope of government. The smaller and weaker the government, the less capable it is of doing evil. Seems that a good many of us have forgotten that lesson in the last 230 years. Either that, or we've become progressively more stupid through the generations.

Max

you know you're being tailed

[Frymaster]

when the guys who show up to fix your flat tire are wearing dark sunglasses.

Re:you know you're being tailed

[Anonymous Coward]

Or if they show up in under 2 hours.

Re:you know you're being tailed

[AbbyNormal]

Be afraid if they are identical twins and can lift your car up with one hand.

"Hello Mr. Anderson".

Re:you know you're being tailed

[kurosawdust]

that exact situation happened to me, man - I got pretty freaked out until I realized it was just Corey Haim.

Re:you know you're being tailed

[beeudoublez]

And you haven't even called for help.

Re:you know you're being tailed

[fenix down]

Aaahhhh! Ahhh! Ahh! Aaaahhhhhhhaaaaaaahhhaaaahhhhh!

Re:you know you're being tailed

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, but I can't help but imagine guys in cleaning suits... whoops... wrong game.

my bad

Big Brother was late, but he's still on the way

[shystershep]

"Although the bottom line is that the surveillance order was rejected, the real effect of it is that this kind of monitoring is permissible as long it does not interfere with the service."

So how long until there is a federal law or regulation requiring these services to be able to work effectively even when the FBI is tapping in?

Re:Big Brother was late, but he's still on the way

[garcia]

they will require that two cell connections be installed. One is the main and the other is the "backup" just incase one fails due to various reasons.

It will be passed as a safety measure for consumers and a backdoor for the feds.

Of course the systems will be mandated to be put into all cars. Remember people we NEED GPS locaters on our cell phones because what happens if you are hurt... I would prefer that I get to make the descision of whether or not something is enabled the government isn't here to protect me, I'm a big boy now.

If my car breaks down, I'd rather walk uphill both ways, barefoot in the snow than have the chance that I could be spied on.

Just my worthless .02,

Re:Big Brother was late, but he's still on the way

[Shakrai]

Of course the systems will be mandated to be put into all cars. Remember people we NEED GPS locaters on our cell phones because what happens if you are hurt... I would prefer that I get to make the descision of whether or not something is enabled the government isn't here to protect me, I'm a big boy now.

On my cell phone (one of the Verizon Kyocera models) I can disable the sending of the GPS cordinates for all non-911 calls. Or so the user manual says. I'm not (yet) so paranoid that I think it's sending out GPS cordinates without my permission. Besides, if I was going to commit a crime or run from the authorities, the first thing I'd do is take the batteries out of my cell phone. Common sense says if you are hiding from the government you don't broadcast radio waves from your location, GPS or not.

Re:Big Brother was late, but he's still on the way

[Anonymous Coward]

If numerous towers with sufficiently accurate clocks are put up, they can do some math based on EM-wave arrival time and the speed of light through our atmosphere to find out exactly where you are standing.

Re:Big Brother was late, but he's still on the way

[Anonymous Coward]

yup but at least it takes them longer than looking at the screen and following my every move.

Re:Big Brother was late, but he's still on the way

[Anonymous Coward]

The first people I would question would be those who took no longer showed up in the tracking system when the crime occured.

Re:Big Brother was late, but he's still on the way

[Anonymous Coward]

True, just don't broadcast anything and you'll be fine. ;-)

Re:Big Brother was late, but he's still on the way

[Shakrai]

The first people I would question would be those who took no longer showed up in the tracking system when the crime occured.

And they would say "I'm not talking to you without a lawyer, bugger off" and that would be the end of the conversation. This is still America after all.

Besides, it's illegal for them to track everybody before a crime occurs anyway. They can tell which tower you are on (I wonder if the cell carriers keep logs of this and for how long they are retained?), but not your exact location without using the GPS feature of the newer cell phones, which (so they tell us) is only activated when you call 911.

If they need to they could use direction-finding gear to pinpoint your exact location (digital or analog) -- or activate the hidden GPS backdoors (that may or may not exist), but I highly doubt there is a massive screen in a basement somewhere showing the location of every activated cell phone in the United States. I also highly doubt that the cell phone carriers would keep exact enough logs to have a GPS location on you the entire time your phone is activated.

Of course, once they start looking at you, you are pretty much fucked if you are hiding something. But that's a given anyway (with or without technology) I think.

Re:Big Brother was late, but he's still on the way

[squiggleslash]

IIRC, CDMA (used by Verizon for their digital system) relies fairly heavily on knowing where each handset is in relation to the base. They don't use GPS for that part of the system - at the time CDMA was released the original civilian version of GPS wasn't accurate enough, but certainly the equipment has a fairly accurate idea of where every transceiver is.

While this is less necessary for Time division based systems such as "TDMA" (IS-136) and GSM, almost any radio transmitter can be triangulated if someone wants to be really creepy. That said, the only information about location routinely collected by GSM base station equipment (and presumably IS-136 stuff too) is distance from the nearest GSM base station, and that's fairly rough. (It's used to prevent adjacent packets from two different handsets from overlapping when they arrive at the base station due to distances and the speed of light. IIRC the distance is measured in something like miles rather than feet though, it's not massively accurate.)

Re:Big Brother was late, but he's still on the way

[Anonymous Coward]

Sadly you are quite backwards, due to the nature of tranmission of CDMA signals there is not an easy way to triangulate teh signal, which is why the military have used CDMA for quite some time. GSM and TDMA use a timing based system, which means the tower has a very good idea of how far you are away from it.. This combined with multi tower triangulation is the basis of EOTD based loaction service. CDMA can not perform EOTD style calculations. The carriers have chose a location method on GSM and TDMA which requires no handset hardware or software interaction. They can get you location without your help now. (well they will be able to after they finish the upgrades)

Re:Big Brother was late, but he's still on the way

[Anonymous Coward]

I haven't got it backwards, I didn't say you'd triangulate CDMA. You don't need to. Location is a part of the system. CDMA doesn't work if the base station doesn't know where the handset is. The reason why the military use spread spectrum techniques (not CDMA specifically) is because third parties cannot easily determine the direction of a transmitter.

And I said specifically, if you'd bothered to read, that only a rough idea of distance is collected with GSM and IS-136 which is why they've had to upgrade the infrastructure to support E911.

Where to start?

[Shakrai]

I could say something about being paranoid and not owning a car that comes with these systems (I really don't have a use for the roadside assistance anyway -- that's what my cell phone is for), but if the FBI really wants to bug your car, they are going to be able to do so. This just makes it easier for them. I guess as far as the civil liberties go I guess I'm alright with it as long as they had to get a warrant in the first place to do this. The scary thought is the idea of a private corporation or individual using this to spy on you.... don't ever dump/piss off that cute chick you met last night who works at the OnStar call-center :)

Interestingly enough, it seems that it was overturned because it stopped the system from providing the service that was sold to the customer (emergency notification when the button was pressed/airbags deployed in an accident). I wonder if the Feds will mandate that future versions of this system have the capability to spy on the customer and still work as provided?

You'd think the FBI would have been smarter then this. What would have happened if the suspect had a flat tire and tried to use his roadside assistance? Gig might have been up pretty quickly. I suspect some techie didn't do his homework....

Re:Where to start?

[swb]

I wonder if the Feds will mandate that future versions of this system have the capability to spy on the customer and still work as provided?

The deal's already been made. The FBI agrees to buy a new fleet of Suburbans and in exchange they get OnSpy redesigned to allow for snooping and concurrent emergency functionality.

Re:Where to start?

[camusflage]

I wonder if the Feds will mandate that future versions of this system have the capability to spy on the customer and still work as provided?

They can't. Or at least, they can't just yet. 1994's CALEA did just that for telephone systems, but, as was pointed out in the majority opinion, current law doesn't allow the FBI to mandate it.

What would have happened if the suspect had a flat tire and tried to use his roadside assistance? Gig might have been up pretty quickly.

Declan McCullagh posted an article about this. In it, he says:

When FBI agents remotely activated the system and were listening in, passengers in the vehicle could not tell that their conversations were being monitored. After "vehicle recovery mode" was disabled, the court said, passengers were notified by the radio displaying an alert and, if the radio was not on, the system beeping.

One can only wonder WHAT the poor CSR had to say about it once the customer called and asked, "WTF is with the message on my radio?!"

Re:Where to start?

[Anonymous Coward]

>that's what my cell phone is for

True, the FBI will never ever be able to track you via your cell phone.

Personally, I think you have a better chance at the FBI tracking you via your cell phone than you getting a good signal to call for roadside assistance.

Re:Where to start?

[pvt_medic]

The question is what precident is their for the FBI to demand that the OnStar be FBI friendly. I easily see teh FBI demanding this, and this going to court with OnStar saying they dont have to do that.

Re:Where to start?

[Shakrai]

The deal's already been made. The FBI agrees to buy a new fleet of Suburbans and in exchange they get OnSpy redesigned to allow for snooping and concurrent emergency functionality.

Umm, not to be cynical but what's your source for this? According to the article the system in question most likely wasn't even OnStar anyway.

Re:Where to start?

[Anonymous Coward]

Man, and I thought EZpass was bad enough!

Re:Where to start?

[swb]

I'm only speculating, but is it that hard to imagine? GM wants profits, not end-user privacy. The FBI wants spying power, not bureaucratic financial efficiency.

Re:Where to start?

[Shakrai]

One can only wonder WHAT the poor CSR had to say about it once the customer called and asked, "WTF is with the message on my radio?!"

Probably exactly what he or she was trained to say. Ya know something along the lines of "That message means you'll have to bring your unit in for out of warranty servicing". Cha-ching! Everybody wins!

Re:Where to start?

[camperslo]

>You'd think the FBI would have been smarter then this. What would have happened if the suspect had a flat tire and tried to use his roadside assistance?

Well, they really should have been the ones to respond. After all, the blowout could have knocked-out the RFID device in the tire!

hrm..

[xao gypsie]

i wonder what 'surveillance techniques' they havent put the brakes on......but then again, paranoia runs in my family....

xao

Re:hrm..

[Anonymous Coward]

paranoia runs in my family

That is a much better strategy than my family uses - here paranoid hides whimpering with its hands covering its head

Re:hrm..

[Anonymous Coward]

haha, awesome sig. why are bitter chicks so damn attractive?

Score one for little brother...

[Space cowboy]

... but I wonder how long it'll take before any system like this will have to have 2 channels, one for the security "people", and one for you...

Simon

Re:Score one for little brother...

[Tackhead]

> .. but I wonder how long it'll take before any system like this will have to have 2 channels, one for the security "people", and one for you...

I'm surprised it wasn't designed in from the first round, but I'm a cynical motherfucker.

Given advances in technology, it raises an interesting question. Why not just install it by default? Given the advantages it would give law enforcement in tracking vehicle theft (and vehicle theft is often a precursor to everything from simple burglary to drug trafficking and yes, terrorism), why not have the government sponsor the Big Three into supplying a LilbroJack as part of the standard model? Big fat pork contracts for the steel belt, sold as "improving safety by eliminating auto theft" to the voter, and the cash-strapped State governments would likely be onboard anyways to save on highway patrol funding. (ie.. Congress wouldn't have to threaten to withhold highway construction $$$)

As I see it, every car that rolls off the assembly line should get at least one, and preferably two, bugs built into it. 99% of the time the primary bug is off. 1% of the time the car is stolen, and the primary but is turned on when the civilian reports the car as stolen. (And 0.1% of the time, pursuant to the needs of law enforcement, the secondary bug only, is turned on for the sheer hell of it, but that's the price you pay for eliminating Grand Theft Auto across the country, with the exception of your PC/console gaming room :)

The existence of the secondary bug should be withheld from the public for as long as practical. Not sure how to easily integrate a Big Secret(tm) such as the secondary bug into an insecure manufacturing process like vehicle design and assembly, mind you. I'm sure people with a Need To Know have good ideas on solving that problem.

Both bugs could also hold a passive RFID chip containing the VIN(primary) and the VIN encrypted with the public half of an Uber Law Enforcement key (secondary) on it. Remove the primary bug, you've removed the VIN, you've automatically marked the car as stolen. Th33f = pwn3d! (And of course, if you so much as breathe the wrong way on the secondary bug, both bugs trip. Law enforcement can tell, by looking at which "VIN" (either VIN or VIN+UberKey) was transmitted at phone-home time, which bug was fscked with. Officer Friendly at your local precinct can track your stolen car with the primary bug, but only Law Enforcement of high enough rank to have access to the private half of the UberKey, however, could do anything with transmissions from the secondary bug.

Back to reality for a bit. It'd be a bit of a kludge, but I bet a dirt-simple variation of the primary/secondary bug trick (albeit one not locked to the VIN, not directly accessible to law enforcement, sans crypto, and ultimately based on security through obscurity, namely the vehicle owner's skill in hiding the second bug) could even be designed and sold as a consumer aftermarket add-on to a commercial system like LoJack.

Re:Score one for little brother...

[Anonymous Coward]

>>Why not just install it by default? Given the advantages it would give law enforcement in tracking vehicle theft

Because the smart car thieves know that the GPS/cell antenna is very easy to find to and all they have to do is snap it off and suddenly your vehicle is untrackable.

Re:Score one for little brother...

[Loki_1929]

"Why not just install it by default? Given the advantages it would give law enforcement..."

Why not install cameras throughout your home, in every room including your bedroom and bathroom, and then broadcast it all over the internet? That way, not only could the police make sure that no crimes are being committed in your house, but your neighbors could come and help you if you were hurt or in danger. Obviously, they'll need to also record sound and have night vision capabilities, and we'll have to make sure there's no easy way to disable them so an intruder can't render the system ineffective. We'll also have to make sure there aren't any uncovered areas of your house, especially in your bedroom and shower, where you are most vulnerable! Won't you feel safer knowing that all your neighbors are watching your children sleep at night? Doesn't it make you feel safe to know that your government is keeping a close eye on you at all times?

We could eliminate virtually all crime if we installed cameras in every room of every building in the country, along with all public areas, and then had law enforcement conduct daily door-to-door searches of every home and office in America. Violators of any law could simply be executed on the spot, as the evidence of their crimes would be obvious from the video tape. We'd have an almost crimeless society within 20 years; doesn't that sound wonderful?

We live with an imperfect system because the cost of perfection is our humanity. Stripping the dignity and individuality of each and every person is the goal of a totalitarian regime; not a freedom-loving society.

Re:Score one for little brother...

[Tackhead]

> Because the smart car thieves know that the GPS/cell antenna is very easy to find to and all they have to do is snap it off and suddenly your vehicle is untrackable.

And of the total population of car thieves in your city, how many of 'em qualify as "smart"? If you make it part of the "standard package", you have options like embedding the antenna between the layers of the materials that make up the rear window, much like rear window defrosters work. (Or in the corner of the windshield glass? Or in/behind the driver's side mirror? Or even in the weatherstripping around the windows.)

Even if you go the conventional route and mount the antenna where it can be removed, it's like having a lock on your front door. They present no obstacle to a professional lockpicker, but they keep Joe Thug out. Most criminals, thankfully, are stupid.

Re:Score one for little brother...

[Bigfishbowl]

Yeah, but there would be one easy way to prevent the bugs from calling home at all: stick the whole car in a faraday cage. As simple mesh of chicken wire would do the trick and now you can disable all the bugs without having to worry about them calling anyone. Sure the average thief isn't going to know this, but I'd bet the pros sure as hell would.

Re:Score one for little brother...

[Tackhead]

> Why not install cameras throughout your home, in every room including your bedroom and bathroom, and then broadcast it all over the internet?

Actually, I've thought of that as a pretty cool solution to burglary. If it's a wireless link that uploads in real time to a server in the basement, and that server in the basement uploads to a remote server at a friend's house, Joe Burglar can steal everything in your house, including the security system, but he'll go nuts trying to find "the 10-hour VCR" that holds the "tape". He can even steal the server in the basement (if he can find it) and it won't do him a lick of good, because all the video's on your friend's hard drive.

> That way, not only could the police make sure that no crimes are being committed in your house, but your neighbors could come and help you if you were hurt or in danger.

If I encrypt the video stream with my friend's public key and my public key, it wouldn't be hard to "log out" of my home (encrypt stream with Friend's public key only) when I leave for work, and "log in" when I come back (encrypt stream with both Friend's public and my public key).

1) When I'm "logged out" of my home, Friend and only Friend (assuming he keeps his private key secure) can watch the house while I'm away. House gets broken into while he's watching, he calls cops. Sends video.

2) When I'm "logged in" to my home, Friend can't see anything I do, but he can still give me the encrypted data stream I need to obtain pictures of the perp, should I have the misfortune of being the victim of a home invasion while wanking to g0at pr0^W^W^W^Wdownloading warez^W^Whaving a quiet evening with a significant other.

(Besides, what, you actually think some poor Agent wants to watch a Slashdotter's bedroom all night? Man, talk about a boring assignment! :)

Re:Score one for little brother...

[MadHungarian1917]

It's already here... There is a new emissons monitoring system called OBDIII (On Board Diagnostics III) all cars built since 1996 have OBD II (The thing that lights your "Check Engine" indicator). OBD III will phone home to the EPA when your check engine light activates. Just how much additional effort will it take to add an audio and GPS channel to this for Homeland Security use?

Re:Score one for little brother...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, back to reality indeed. What the hell does a bug (i.e., a microphone that lets others listen in on conversations inside the vehicle) have to do with preventing auto theft? First of all, cars are usually stolen by one person, so there's probably not much interesting conversation on the way to the chop shop. Do you really think the thief is going to say, "OK, I'm making a left on 21st St. I'm making a right onto Grant Ave. Now I'm turning into the secret chop shop at 204 Grant Ave. Now I, Juan Miguel Espinoza, am exiting the stolen vehicle to allow it to be repainted and the license plates replaced"? Once in the shop, the Onstar system could easily be disabled. The only thing that's going to help prevent auto theft is a GPS tracking device that can be turned on remotely. Oh, wait, they already have those.

Re:Score one for little brother...

[Anonymous Coward]

> What the hell does a bug (i.e., a microphone that lets others listen in on conversations inside the vehicle) have to do with preventing auto theft? First of all, cars are usually stolen by one person, so there's probably not much interesting conversation on the way to the chop shop. Do you really think the thief is going to say, "OK, I'm making a left on 21st St. I'm making a right onto Grant Ave. Now I'm turning into the secret chop shop at 204 Grant Ave. Now I, Juan Miguel Espinoza, am exiting the stolen vehicle to allow it to be repainted and the license plates replaced"?

"Yo, Juan, chu got ta chit chet?"
"Yo, homez, got ta car to make dee run, on my way to peek up dee chit."
"Tanks, Juan, chu geet paid good for thees."

Versus:

"Yo, Homez, I got dee car. We can steek up thee 7-11 now."
"Yo, Juan, den we git some payback on tha muthafukkaz from tha East Side"

*boom*. Voice + GPS = we know Juan deedn't steel thees car (or if it's his own car, we know he didn't pull out of his own driveway) for a joyride. If it's for a delivery, we know the whereabouts of the dealer to whom he made the delivery. And we know (by syncing the timestamps of the voice logs with the phone company's records) who Juan's dealer was, too.

If it's for an armed robbery or a drive-by, we have evidence of premeditation.

Re:Score one for little brother...

[Anonymous Coward]

are you real? dude go outside..... thier is a whole world out thier.

Re:Score one for little brother...

[Anonymous Coward]

Shh!!! We've already done this, starting in the 2002 model year! You don't want everybody to get suspicious now, do you! Keep quiet!!!

J. Ashcroft

Re:Score one for little brother...

[Anonymous Coward]

The existence of the secondary bug should be withheld from the public for as long as practical. Not sure how to easily integrate a Big Secret(tm) such as the secondary bug into an insecure manufacturing process like vehicle design and assembly, mind you. I'm sure people with a Need To Know have good ideas on solving that problem.

The problem is not hiding it during manufacture...it's hiding it from people who love to add stuff to their cars, and then see something that probably will have wiring, but won't show up in the wiring diagrams.

The future of automobiles will be much like the new Saab 9-3, which has everything hooked up on a fiber line to a central computer. You can't hide some extra component like that...people who work on cars will either know where every line goes, or will eventually find out.

Re:Score one for little brother...

[Anonymous Coward]

We could eliminate virtually all crime if we installed cameras in every room of every building in the country, along with all public areas, and then had law enforcement conduct daily door-to-door searches of every home and office

Welcome to Great Britain, where this has been in the works for a while.

Re:Score one for little brother...

[maxpublic]

And if it runs on Windows, pretty soon every script kiddie in the land will feature you and everyone else with this system in a series of new Kazaa home porno movies.

Max

Re:Score one for little brother...

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, you can set yourself up with tracking right now. Just go to www.networkcar.com.

They offer the same surveillance in an after-market solution. Unbelievable...

Some of their scary services:

Networkcar lets you know what your car is thinking. For you and your family, this means fewer unexpected problems, more peace of mind and a safer way to travel.

Key Features

Smart Roadside Assistance
Have a flat? Need a tow? We help you wherever you break down with complete roadside services directed to your car's precise location.

Stolen Vehicle Recovery
Is your vehicle the apple of every thief's eye? Networkcar protects your investment by allowing our call center to locate your vehicle and coordinate its recovery with the authorities in the event of a theft.

Onboard Technician
Troubled about that strange dashboard warning light? Networkcar notifies you and your service provider immediately with a description of the problem. We'll even let you know when a safety recall has been issued and when it is time to take your vehicle in for routine maintenance.

Car GuardianTM
Do you worry when someone else drives your car? Networkcar gives you unlimited online access to a map of the current location of your vehicle to help ease your mind.

Does this mean we should expect an "upgrade"?

[Anonymous Coward]

So if they upgrade the system so that spying doesn't interfere with emergency and roadside assistance, then will spying be ok? How long until this "feature" is added to cell phones?

Re:Does this mean we should expect an "upgrade"?

[Shakrai]

How long until this "feature" is added to cell phones?

They can already track you via your (digital -- not analog, far as I know with analog all they can tell is which sector around the tower you are in -- a general area but not an exact location -- correct me if I'm wrong) cell phone. That's how they caught that college kid last year sending the mailbombs (? something like that) -- he turned his cell phone on.

At least with a cell phone, if you are truly paranoid, you just take the batteries out of it. Not much the non-automotive guy can do to disable these systems (or the black-boxes that record information during an accident). Besides, the cell phone has legitimate uses -- my new Verizon phone supposedly has the ability to give my exact GPS coordinates to 911 centers.

Re:Does this mean we should expect an "upgrade"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is an upgrade even needed, ie. are there already features in the cell network & in cell phones that would make this work?

Didn't early Mot phones have a silent auto-answer feature? Can remote device provisioning & management features be used to push a 'firmware upgrade' or to turn on such a feature immediately before making a 'bugging call', etc?

Maybe someone here knows...

Re:Does this mean we should expect an "upgrade"?

[HermanZA]

It is already part of all phone systems...

Re:Does this mean we should expect an "upgrade"?

[Anonymous Coward]

My 2001 GM car came with OnStar and 1 yr free service. After the free year I did not renew the subscription. A little later I took the car in for service because the anti-theft alarm would go off for no reason and the repair guy thought it was a fault with the OnStar system. So he contacted OnStar and had them activate the system and run a diagnostic. It was then that he told me that OnStar could track my car even if I was not a subscriber. As soon as I got home that system was unplugged. It's none of their business where my car is.

Re:Does this mean we should expect an "upgrade"?

[mt2mb4me]

see the thing is, you can take the battery out, but have you ever noticed that if you take the battery out, the phone still remembers your numbers?? thats becuse there is a Li-Ion battery inside of it. tear yours apart and you'll see it :)

Re:Does this mean we should expect an "upgrade"?

[artemis67]

At least with a cell phone, if you are truly paranoid, you just take the batteries out of it. Not much the non-automotive guy can do to disable these systems (or the black-boxes that record information during an accident).

Just reach into the fuse box and pull the fuse...

Re:Does this mean we should expect an "upgrade"?

[Shakrai]

see the thing is, you can take the battery out, but have you ever noticed that if you take the battery out, the phone still remembers your numbers?? thats becuse there is a Li-Ion battery inside of it. tear yours apart and you'll see it :)

Hmm, I always thought it was a nonvolatile memory solution like CompactFlash cards that don't require a battery to retain the data. But then I've never cracked apart a cell phone to see. Guess what I'll be doing with my old Nokia when I get home tonight? :)

In any case, if this is true (and it probably is -- I'm not doubting you) I doubt that battery is powerful enough to transmit for very long. I suppose if you are truly paranoid you could say that they could have a feature built in to enable it to transmit just long enough for them to locate you, but how are they going to activate that feature if you have already removed the primary battery?

Are you telling me that the phone still checks the network every so-often even with the primary battery removed to see if there are new commands waiting for it? That's a bit of a stretch.

Re:Does this mean we should expect an "upgrade"?

[Anonymous Coward]

there's a SIM card with nonvolatile flash. put the tin foil hats back where you keep them.

Re:Does this mean we should expect an "upgrade"?

[mt2mb4me]

yea it is just a little battery, like the bios battery. its hard to say that it does anything. Frankly, if they want to watch you I think they can, and there isn't much you can do about it so why worry about it. but that is just me.

I don't have a problem with FBI taps

[pegr]

I just don't want it to be an easy thing for them to do. If they can spy on you in your car by flipping a switch, how many more taps are they going to have? Make it difficult because it's supposed to be difficult! (Patriot Act not withstanding...)

Re:I don't have a problem with FBI taps

[InfiniteWisdom]

If they can spy on you in your car by flipping a switch,

Correction getting a court order and then flipping a switch. I don't see this as being as horrible as people are making it out to be. Its just an easier option for them to install the bug having gotten the court order than having some guy sneak around an plant a physcical one... potentially risking the life of an agent if this was a dangerous criminal they were tailing... or certainly at much greater cost to taxpayers.

So long as they can't do this thing without a court order, I do not think there are major privacy issues.

Re:I don't have a problem with FBI taps

[SaturnTim]

So you want a wiretap version of security through obscurity? Guess what, they will find a way if they need to.

Contrary to what the tinfoil hat types say, the FBI and police do NOT wiretap without a court order. It's a waste of their time and resources. If they find anything with an illegal wiretap, they can't use it and would face loosing their jobs and criminal proceedings. I personally know FBI agents, they wouldn't even think about it.

Now, if they do have the court order, technical issues will not stop them. Making it "more difficult" is just going to make it take more tax dollars.

--ST

Re:I don't have a problem with FBI taps

[HardCase]

You didn't read the article, did you?

They have to get a warrant, meaning that they have to establish probable cause to a judge. Then they have to serve the warrant to the service provider. Then they have to arrange to handle the data in a secure manner.

Something easier? Sure, they could just get a warrant and slap a bug on the car.

-h-

Re:I don't have a problem with FBI taps

[pegr]

The court order requirement is understood. I'm talking about the relative ease of physically doing it. The FBI, like any other organization, has limited resources. If obtaining the tap is easy, they will have more taps, period.

Besides, judges approve wiretaps routinely. Getting a wiretap, if you're the FBI, of course, is pathetically easy. And I guarantee the Feds know which judges are easy and which are difficult. I know they play their weak cases to the easy judges. Think about it... Wouldn't you?

Re:I don't have a problem with FBI taps

[pegr]

Sorry, you're wrong, and I don't just mean in a J. Edgar Hoover way. Illegal wiretaps are common. The Feds are just as capable as anyone else. In fact, they're more capable. Do you know who to call in the phone company to get a tap established? I don't. The FBI does. And to state that they do NOT do it is foolish because only one exception kills your point. (Had you said "rarely", I would have agreed with you.)

Re:I don't have a problem with FBI taps

[InfiniteWisdom]

NO! I would take them all to the toughest of judge to ensure that all our procedures are put through the srictest of scrutiny so no innocent person't privacy in inadvertently violated.

Oh I'm also Santa Clause, btw.

Re:I don't have a problem with FBI taps

[kableh]

Not that it is in the mainstream news much, but the PATRIOT Act has already been used for cases not related to terrorism in the slightest. On of the worst provisions of the Act is that it allows searchs without informing those being searched, and wiretaps without warrants.

Still feel better about saving tax dollars?

Re:I don't have a problem with FBI taps

[pegr]

Here's the point: What's easier, providing your own bug, bug tracking, etc. or having the communications company do it for you? "Handling the data in a secure manner" means having the communications company seal the bag they put the tapes in before they drop it in the FedEx box...

And I read the article before I submitted it.

Re:I don't have a problem with FBI taps

[Hatta]

They don't have to leave their seats to use onspy. Besides, the warrent requirement is a complete non issue. With roving wiretaps the FBI can ask for a warrent in their favorite jurisdiction and it follows you everywhere. And under the patriot act, they don't even have to be investigating a crime, but only have guess that maybe they might hear something that could be relevant to a terrorism investigation. So what does this mean? It means that the fbi could readily get a warrent on your iranian doctor friend who's been sending money back home to a charitable organization who (unbeknownst to him) is suspected of having questionable ties. Since roving wiretaps follow him around, and say, you play cards with him on tuesday night they can tap your phone without getting another warrent. This is absolutely insane people.

Re:I don't have a problem with FBI taps

[pegr]

And to further my point, the FBI does not have an unlimited budget. If taps are cheap and easy, there will be more of them. If taps are hard and expensive, there will be fewer of them. I say make them hard and expensive so we get the taps we need rather than the taps they want. (Is my tinfoil hat on straight?;)

Re:I don't have a problem with FBI taps

[HardCase]

Please. Put your tinfoil hat on and get on with life.

The warrant is the crux of the issue. The FBI complied with the law to obtain a warrant for a wiretap. They didn't use the Patriot Act because it didn't apply.

You're comparing apples and oranges. Nice try.

-h-

Re:I don't have a problem with FBI taps

[monkeydo]

The barrier has never been the physical difficulty of executing a warrant, it's the legal hoops to get one. Getting a federal wiretap order is anything but trivial. I don't want the FBI wasting resources installing difficult taps when they already have a warrant.

Re:I don't have a problem with FBI taps

[HardCase]

"Handling data in a secure manner" does not mean "having the communications company seal the bag they put the tapes in before they drop it in the FedEx box". It means certifying a chain of custody, the accuracy of the recording equipment, the source of the data...there is a myriad of things that have to go right in data collection. That's why defense attornies attack those methods so vigorously.

The FBI can do the job better, from the point of view of doing it right legally, themselves than by using a third party.

-h-

Re:I don't have a problem with FBI taps

[Hatta]

Maybe it wasn't relevant in this specific case, just pointing out how getting a warrent isn't what it used to be.

Re:I don't have a problem with FBI taps

[pegr]

You are correct, of course. I was being sarcastic. Evidence handling is a major part being able to present evidence effectively. I will add, however, that just because they are supposed to hold to a strict criteria of evidence handling doesn't mean they do. Who is watching the watchman?

My point was simply that having the communications company do the hard work is easier for the Feds and as a result, the people are subject to more wiretaps than if the Feds had to do the hard work. Is the evidence "better" if the Feds do it themselves? I would tend to think so, but it's not going to stop them from taking the easy road. The Feds want a collar. The rules are simply an impediment to their game, something to be grudgingly acknowledged when they have to, but can be safely ignored in circumstances that don't lead directly to a courtroom. They cheat. Criminals (by definition) cheat. That's the way of the world and it's not going to change any time soon. Just be glad the FBI respects some of the rules some of the time. There are Three Letter Organizations that know very few rules...

I deserved to get popped for that comment, BTW. Touche'

Re:I don't have a problem with FBI taps

[HardCase]

I deserved to get popped for that comment, BTW

Well...my sarcasm detector was turned off ;-)

You are on the mark about the relationship between the FBI and criminals. I guess that's a debate that's been going on for ages - how do you maintain a sense of righteousness, ethics and morality by following the rules, when the guys you're chasing have no qualms about cheating the rules? Can you cheat a little? How much is a little?

-h-

Re:I don't have a problem with FBI taps

[MoneyT]

Please show me the passages where these are outlined:

www.thebaka.com/rants/patriot

Re:I don't have a problem with FBI taps

[MoneyT]

It is obvious you have not read the PATRIOT act as you would see you're pulling this out of your ass.

To start, to get a roving wiretap, it has to be part of a current and ongoing investigation. IOW there needs to be a crime.

Second, they can only tap the phones which the person they are investigating uses. IOW, if he comes to your house to play cards, but doesn't use the phone, they can't tap your phone

Third, they are still required to prove it in court.

Please educate yourself

vehicle tracking systems

[TWX]

Thing is, it might be fun to mess with people who are attempting to use such a system against you. Record the audio from movies where people are conspiring, and play it back when the car is driving. Shield the GPS receiver so that it doesn't receive properly, stuff like that.

Or, just learn how to be relatively self-sufficient on the road, so that they have a much harder time using things against you...

Re:vehicle tracking systems

[wrax]

Or just don't buy a car with an emergency roadside assistance package.

Correction...

[Pirogoeth]

Seems the right to get the service you pay for trumps the 'right' of the FBI to spy on you, using your own vehicle's systems!"

According to your article, it apparantly doesn't.

Re:Correction...

[pegr]

No, go ahead and read the article. It's ok, I'll wait...

Here, I'll do the heavy lifting for you...

"Under federal law, the FBI can obtain court orders compelling telecommunications companies, ISPs, landlords and others to assist the Bureau in spying on customers. But the law requires that surveillance in such cases be conducted "unobtrusively and with a minimum of interference with the services" provided by the company."

There. You want to try again?

Re:Correction...

[Anonymous Coward]

You just proved his point. He said, the FBI's surveillance doesn't allow them to interfere with a justly purchased service. You said, "yes it does" and snipped a section which states clearly that they can only compel a provider if the surveillance is unobtrusive and has a minimum amount of interference with the service provided. You lose.

Re:Umm....

[the_consumer]

No, it doesn't. RTFA.

Even closer to home.

[orthogonal]

What about installation of a trojan to turn on and transmit audio from your PC's microphone, or pictures from the web cam?

I'll bet this is already part of the FBI's arsenal.

Prudence dictates disconnecting that microphone when not in use. And hardware based (less easily suborned) monitoring of outbound network traffic.

(The accomplished tin-foil hat wearer will suggest that a disconnected microphone will just mean a free-standing bug being installed, and he'd be right. But why connect the mic and make it easy for you to be spied upon?)

Re:Even closer to home.

[Acidic_Diarrhea]

My mic port is currently occupied by a line out from a radio. Let them enjoy the sounds of the Savage Nation!

Re:Even closer to home.

[Gordonjcp]

Mine's wired up to a homebrew white noise source. Turns /dev/dsp into a very, very random source or random numbers.

Re:Even closer to home.

[Anonymous Coward]

Imbeded wireless or simply a protocol which is covered by FCC standards to be undetectable from network hardware or technical standards. Carefully created white noise can cover most transmissions, it''s also fairly easy to block almost everything useful. Detection of the other means filtering from a trustworthy device.

Re:Even closer to home.

[sirmikester]

that's totally true because all the hard criminals out there have microphones and webcams hooked up in the same room that they're doing their illegal deeds in... dumbass

Re:Even closer to home.

[PoopJuggler]

Whatever. All they will see and hear is a whole lot of masturbating.

Re:Even closer to home.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would the FBI be interested in the sights and sounds of your mother's basement? Get lost, troll. NEXT!

Re:Even closer to home.

[orthogonal]

Why would the FBI be interested in the sights and sounds of your mother's basement? Get lost, troll. NEXT!

Hey, those WMDs have to be somewhere, right?

Re:Even closer to home.

[Anonymous Coward]

*Thwack Thwack Thwack* Oh TUX!!!

Re:Even closer to home.

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously some intelligence agencies have thought of this already - or at least thought it might be tried. Before the US military took a bunch of laptops over to Iraq, each was opened and the wires to the internal mic were cut.

Don't ask me how I know.

Press Release of the Future

[Accord MT]

LOS ANGELES, Nov 1, 2033 -- Due to the overwhelming success of historic actions such as the PATRIOT act and the DMCA, this morning the United Corporations of America announced they will be launching SafeCam, their latest security-related legislative product.

Also known in the UCA as "consumers who look and act different", TERRORISTS have become a major threat to the consumer's way of life. The fact that he or she could be buying products from a real TERRORIST should send shivers down the spine of any good white God-fearing American consumer. There has been no way to effectively keep these TERRORISTS out of the marketplace, until now.

SafeCam is a nanochip-sized machine which locates consumer homes and positions itself in key strategic positions. The product records video and audio data of the consumer and his or her family, scanning their food, office, computer, medical records, and general lifestyle attributes. It automatically bills the consumer and sends everything it finds to a central server to be analyzed and, if necessary, be sent to the Department of Consumer Protection. If it uncovers evidence that a consumer might be a TERRORIST, it will alert the local Law Enforcement corporation using the tried-and-tested "Guilty Until Proven Innocent" algorithm so successfully employed by previous UCA legislative products. Evidence can include non-Christian religious material, photographs of middle-eastern-looking people, and any product with questionable foreign origin.

In the past, consumers have reacted positively to similar legislative products. Since non-TERRORISTS have nothing to hide, they do not mind 24-hour monitoring and reporting, and are now accustomed to the level of security the UCA provides.

The UCA reports they plan to initially deploy ten SafeCam devices for every one consumer into the air supply later this month. Of course, consumers may choose to block these devices from entering their homes and businesses, but this blocking will be used against them as evidence, because who else but a TERRORIST would be afraid of Big Brother?

About the United Corporations of America

The UCA is the world leader in consumer protection legislative products. Representing corporations throughout the world, the UCA's mission is to provide a safe environment for all consumers to enjoy working, spending, and enriching member corporations.

This document is hereby released to the public domain. You may (and are encouraged to) reproduce, republish, read, modify, and/or archive it without limitation.

Re:Press Release of the Future

[gricholson75]

LOS ANGELES, Nov 1, 2033

You think it's going to take 30 years? Probably happen alot faster than that.

Re:Press Release of the Future

[jd]

With micro-sized remotely-operated vehicles not much larger than a one-person coffee maker, and CCD devices less than an inch diagonally, this won't take 30 years.

Image-recognition systems have been tested. Sure, they failed in virtually every test, but since when does that stop anyone deploying?

It would be viable today to build a prototype of the system you describe. In fact, since DARPA published source-code for controlling ROVs, it would be viable for anyone to build a prototype. All you need is a wireless transponder in the ROV and the navigation software in a reasonably fast PC. So long as the ROV is within range of a radio receiver, the processing can all be done on the base station.

(The time-lag means that you'd need some sort of "quick reaction" hardware in the ROV, to avoid sudden hazards, but most things are much slower and the lag shouldn't be too much of a problem.)

No, what you need to be concerned about is an ROV with built-in Hellfire missiles for "instant justice".

Re:Press Release of the Future

[cutecub]

Don't you mean:

Also known in the UCA as "consumers who look and act differen ly"

Re:Press Release of the Future

[JuiceBySarah]

if i had points to give, you'd be getting more. ++have you read the jan/feb issue of Adbusters? walmart's soon-to-be-implemented RF-style barcoding technique is less than an arm's length away from your TheOnion-style scenario. scary.

Re:Press Release of the Future

[Anonymous Coward]

Get
A
Life

Re:Press Release of the Future

[cpeterso]

and consumers who spell different and Think Different.

What precident?

[shakamojo]

Don't get me wrong, I think this is a victory for privacy and liberty (albeit a small one), but isn't this setting a precident that's kind of scary? I mean as long as they don't interfere with the service it's ok? Granted, I'm sure that by the time the FBI is taking out warrants to listen in on your conversations you've probably already got worse things to worry about than this, but with everything becoming more interactive, how far away are we from losing what little is left of our privacy? Scary...

Re:What precident?

[pegr]

Unfortunately, this ruling spells out a technical error on behalf of the Feds, not a violation of privacy or liberty. As soon as they can figure out a way to do it and still leave you with the service you payed for, they can do it.

Of course, they can always put their own tracker/microphone gizmo on your car. (And you can find it and put it on Granny's car instead...)

Re:What precident?

[Le Marteau]

As soon as they can figure out a way to do it and still leave you with the service you payed for, they can do it.

It seems we all are so confident that they CAN'T activate and tap into OnStar today. This whole story smells like disinformation to me, distributed to make the bad guys confident enough to speak frankly in their Caddies. "Yo, Joey, dey can't listen in on our business... it says so in USA Today. They couldn't print it if it wasn't so."

People are so gullible it turns my stomach.

Re:What precident?

[b-baggins]

No kidding. The ones who crack me up the most are the gullible fools who buy into the whole covert ops/FBI/Secret Police monitoring your every move/Court orders and criminal wiretap prosecutions don't exist conspiracy theories.

Re:What precident?

[Le Marteau]

Yeah, of course, you're right. The NSA would never be able to crack GM's military grade OnStar security with something as technically advanced as radio waves.

Re:What precident?

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder if that's why bin Laden hasn't been seen on video recently - is he afraid of getting near any modern electornic equipment?

A congressman leaked that the CIA was tracking him via his satellite phone, so he ditched it. A geologist recongized the unique rock strata behind him in one of videos and told the US (who then stormed the area), so in his next video he sat in front of a blank sheet. Now all we get from him are scratchy audio tapes, probably made with a 1950's reel-to-reel recorder...

Re:What precident?

[Anonymous Coward]

as long as you ask kere you won`t get the answers. read revelaltions in the Bible.

Paranoia paranoia everybody's comming to get me...

[MoneyT]

Ok, to start, you will notice that first in order for this surveilence to be activated, they need a cout order. IOW they need a warrant. That makes this surveilence no different than a wire tap or sitting outside your house with a mic aimed at your window. If they hae the warrant, they can monitor.

Second, this seems overly paranoid on the safety issue, given that if the FBI is listening in, I'm sure they would be able to hear the person they're tapping scream "Holy FUCK!" before he hits the semi truck. And I highly doubt the FBI is just gonna sit on their ass wondering why they aren't getting any more sound.

Talk about collecting useful data!

[TPS Report]

Scene: Interrogation room, deep under FBI headquarters.

AGENT: We know you did it. We have proof.
YOU: You've got nothing!
AGENT: [to other agent] Bob, play the tape.


YOUR VOICE: I'd like the double cheeseburger meal, supersized with no pickles
MCDONALDS DRIVE THROUGH: What kind of drink?
YOUR VOICE: A large Coke please

AGENT: Damnit. Fast forward the tape a bit.

Re:Talk about collecting useful data!

[Coelacanth]

Oof. So, presumably, an FBI office somewhere has a tape of me on the Beltway screaming:

"Hang up and DRIVE, you FESTERING PUSTULE MORON DIPLOMAT!!!#$%(@#)"

Re:but Bush loves freedom

[orthogonal]

must be a great country he comes from where you can be "free" and be spyed on all at the same time, isnt democracy wonderful

Please report to your local Block Warden for re-education and social adjustment, Citizen!

Re:Umm....

[corbettw]

"Seems the right to get the service you pay for trumps the 'right' of the FBI to spy on you, using your own vehicle's systems!

No, it seems that a court has ruled otherwise, now doesn't it?"

Umm, do you know the definition of "to trump"?

Source: WordNet (r) 1.7 (Note #2)

trump
n : a playing card in the suit that has been declared trumps [syn: trump card]
v 1: produce a sound as if from a trumpet
2: get the better of [syn: outdo, outflank, best, scoop]
3: play a trump, in card games [syn: ruff]
4: proclaim or announce with or as if with a fanfare [syn: trump out]

FBI Roadside Assistance

[camusflage]

If the car breaks down, the FBI or whoever was listening could repsond!

Actually, in the majority opinion, they addressed that: "The FBI, however well-intentioned, is not in the business of providing emergency
road services and might well have better things to do when listening in than respond with such services to the electronic signal sent over the line."

Re:FBI Roadside Assistance

[tomhudson]

grandparent poster wrote:

If the car breaks down, the FBI or whoever was listening could repsond!

Most of the time the conversations are recorded to tape and reviewed later for any "good stuff". As a matter of fact, when warrants are issued, many times they include a restriction that requires the law enforcement agency specifically to ignore any conversation involving parties not mentioned in the warrant, etc.

Re:FBI Roadside Assistance

[Ralph Wiggam]

In the movie Casino, the mobsters have thier wives call each other and talk about shopping for 2 minutes. After the FBI turns off the recorder because it's not relevant, then the mobsters start talking. That movie teaches us so many useful things. Like always have the hole dug first. You don't want to sit out in the desert digging a hole. Someone could come by, and then you have to dig another hole. Life lessons.

-B

Re:FBI Roadside Assistance

[kommakazi]

That's what they'd like you to think!...

Re:FBI Roadside Assistance

[operagost]

Yeah, like you have to club a guy in the back or legs first, so you have enough leverage to club him in the head. Or that using the biggest gun when you wack somebody isn't the best idea, since they're too loud and the smaller caliber bullet does more damage ricocheting around in the skull anyway.

Re:FBI Roadside Assistance

[Anonymous Coward]

Aw, films like My Blue Heaven can tell you the same thing.

"Richie loved to use 22s because the bullets are small and they don't come out the other end like a 45. See, a 45 will blow a hole like a barn door out the back of your head, and there's a lot of dry cleaning involved. But a 22 will just rattle around like Pac-Man until you're dead."

- Vincent "Vinnie" Antonelli

RTFA

[siskbc]

It's not soo much even that. It's the fact that they're interfering with a commercial service that "donates to campaigns". The big bad corporate body didnt want bad press about their systems, so have Mr. bought_off_senator stop FBI.

Try reading the article first. It was stopped through the legal system, congress had nothing to do with it and federal judges are appointed.

Your paranoid conspiracy theory is compelling, it just happens not to be grounded in any facts in this case.

Re:RTFA

[Anonymous Coward]

...and federal judges are appointed

and who appoints those judges?

Re:RTFA

[siskbc]

and who appoints those judges?

I expected that inane comeback. Look at Sutter's voting record, appointed by Bush I and votes the Dem party line most times. Judges may be appointed by politicians, but assuming they're on the take when there's no evidence to that effect is irresponsible and uninformative.

Re:Paranoia paranoia everybody's comming to get me

[exhilaration]

Unless, of course, nobody's listening. I'm sure when they play back the recording three weeks later they'll rush to the scene of the accident to aid the sorry sap that's paying $9.95/month for the service.

Oh, I see

[Anonymous Coward]

It's only a bad idea to have them spying on us through those devices because it prevents those devices from helping us in an emergency. It's not like spying on us is a bad thing in and of itself, of course.

FBI spyguys make the best stock pickers

[Anonymous Coward]

A little boost in their incomes? Of course they all sign a non-disclosure agreement. "You agree not to disclose information gleamed from your illegal activities at he agency for monetary gain for those who are not members of the agency"

But as soon as they mandate that...

[burgburgburg]

OnStar changes it's service to allow eavesdropping without a service disruption, they'll be helpful agents listening to your every word as you drive across the country.

Call me a Luddite, but I'm not happy with that idea.

Who cares about the FBI.. what about the company?

[Anonymous Coward]

If the FBI wanted to monitor my phone calls or bug my car, there is absolutely nothing that I can do about it, except be an honest citizen and don't make myself a target of such investigation.

But what about the company itself? What sort of mechanisms does this company have where the employees themselves could not, in the middle of the night when they're bored, just turn this on and listen? What if they tapes some private conversation and released it on the internet? What privacy protections do we have from this private company?

examend the firmware in you cell phone?

[Anonymous Coward]

(I really don't have a use for the roadside assistance anyway -- that's what my cell phone is for), but if the FBI really wants to bug your car... ------ Have you checked the firmware in that cellphone you carry around? Could your cellular provider "turn on the mic" for the FBI?

Re:examend the firmware in you cell phone?

[Shakrai]

Could your cellular provider "turn on the mic" for the FBI?

I'm sure they could if the phone was designed to let them, but I wouldn't worry about this as much as the spying w/OnStar & friends. My cell phone, which has pretty impressive battery life (as cell phones go) only lasts for a few hours on "talk" mode. This would seem to limit the usefulness of this method (plus you'd start to wonder why your battery life had tanked...)

Re:examend the firmware in you cell phone?

[Dashing Leech]

Could your cellular provider "turn on the mic" for the FBI?

This is what I find odd about this story. Is the roadside assistance equipment designed such that they can listen in at any time? Forget FBI, can't the "operators" just listen in on random people for the fun of it? That alone is a scary thought to me, kinda like someone putting a camera in your house to watch you without you knowing.

But I don't understand why the 'mic' isn't hooked up to the 'on' switch at the user's end. Just install a simple 'on/off' switch on the mic so that it can only be used if you switch it on. I'm surprised this hasn't been designed into the systems (including cell phones).

Re:examend the firmware in you cell phone?

[rworne]

The reason there's no on/off switch is because if you wrap the vehicle around a telephone pole, you might not be able to reach the switch.

My questions to this matter are thus:

1. Were they monitoring paying customers? If the customers were on their 1-year trial or were subscribers, then yes, there's a problem.

2. If the service was not being used, then it's no different than a regular bug. About the only thing you can do as a non-subscriber (with OnStar) is hit the button and subscribe, otherwise the service is simply not there.

3. So they care about safety? So what happens when you drive the vehicle and crash it and the airbags deploy. Does a big red light come on over at OnStar and they call up your account and say "Wait! Don't call the ambulance! They didn't subscribe, so screw 'em!". Or do they come on the speaker in the car and ask the shattered bleeding occupant to provide a credit card number and activation fee so they can call emergency services?

"For only $9.95 a month and a $50 activation fee we can call an ambulance for you! May I have a valid credit card number and expiration date?"

"But both my arms are broken! I can't get my wallet! Where are my legs?!?"

"Our system shows all that and that you are also bleeding internally too... Are you sure you can't give us a valid credit card number? Hello? Hello?"

Re:examend the firmware in you cell phone?

[tengwar]

Could your cellular provider "turn on the mic" for the FBI?

No, I don't think so. I work in the mobile phone industry. For GSM, you can browse the standards at www.3gpp.org. Document 07.07 specifies inter alia a way of setting up a network-initiated GPRS connection (i.e. a data connection), but I've never come across a way of setting up a network-initiated voice connection and I'm virtually certain it doesn't exist.

Re:examend the firmware in you cell phone?

[Dashing Leech]

The reason there's no on/off switch is because if you wrap the vehicle around a telephone pole, you might not be able to reach the switch.

Likewise, if you fall in your shower you may not be able to call 911, therefore everyone should have cameras in their showers that 911 can access at any time.

It might be the reason, but it's a pretty lame one IMHO. I'd never get such as system where I didn't control when they could or couldn't listen in on me.

warrant should be required

[Anonymous Coward]

this is clearly a 4th amendment violation:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

I'm sure that the founding fathers would interpret a 'carriage' as an 'effect'.

Re:warrant should be required

[Anonymous Coward]

That's why the FBI had a warrant. They established probable cause, you troll.

Re:warrant should be required

[Anonymous Coward]

That's why the FBI had a warrant. They established probable cause, you troll.

From that secret court... which doesn't turn down warrants. At least it hasn't met a warrant it didn't like. I'll stop being "paranoid" when the government publishes some numbers on this... and stops claiming executive privlege.

Re:warrant should be required

[Anonymous Coward]

Statistics can't replace oversight. The FBI could easily submit lots of fishing expeditions, fully expecting them to be denied, to make the secret court look effective.

They win

[Anonymous Coward]

I think this officially means that the terrorists have won. They have persuaded us to take away our own freedoms.

Re:Umm....

[Anonymous Coward]

They'll circumvent the law to get what they want. Nothing has changed.

Busted again!

[Anonymous Coward]

You'd think the FBI would have been smarter then this.

Hah! This is the same FBI who just had one of their bugs found by the Philadelphia police in the mayor's office...

Where to end? Right here.

[erikdotla]

Sure they could bug your car anyway, but you could sweep for bugs (if you were a criminal, anyway).

The difference is that they're turning something that is a harmless, useful commercial service and remotely exploiting it for monitoring.

Then again, I suppose a long-range camera exploits "harmless photons" for the same purpose, which is why it would have been allowed, and the safety issues are the only reason the court rules against the FBI.

Other than revealing that the FBI actively pursues these kinds of tactics, which most of us already knew (perhaps not to this extent), this article only discusses one rare exception to that policy and laws which govern it.

uh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Seems the right to get the service you pay for trumps the 'right' of the FBI to spy on you, using your own vehicle's systems!

Actually, the ruling says it doesn't. Did you even read the article you submitted?

What's that couple in the car next to me saying??

[Angry_Admin]

Great, now that everyone knows it's possible, how long until we start to see plans for building your own box to enable this "feature" in other people's vehicles?

Figures...

[MoeMoe]

And this is the exact reason I got a Garmin StreetPilot III... that and my tin-foil hat ofcourse...

Tin Foil car covers

[DrJohnnie]

After reading this I'm starting a tin-foil car cover company!

Eeeek!

[Anonymous Coward]

Under federal law, the FBI can obtain court orders compelling telecommunications companies, ISPs, landlords and others to assist the Bureau in spying on customers. But the law requires that surveillance in such cases be conducted "unobtrusively and with a minimum of interference with the services" provided by the company.

Re:Who cares about the FBI.. what about the compan

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck you and your straw man argument. The FBI is the problem.

The end of Soviet Russia ...

[Midnight Thunder]

I'm trying to understand, did the USA end up employing the out of work KGB or simply liked the idea treating their country as if every citizen was a terrorist? I used to think this was the land of the free? It is looking more and more like the land of the 'guilty' until proved 'less guilty'?

END OF RANT

Re:The end of Soviet Russia ...

[MoneyT]

Where did you get this mindless drivle from? They still need a warrant to do the tap.

Re:The end of Soviet Russia ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Thats hardly a rant. I was thinking the same thing.

Back in the 70s our parents would tell us stories about the KGB and Soviet Russia to scare us witless.
I remember thinking how horrible it would be to live in a country where you could be arrested for what you thought and where men in black cars would follow you around and put bugs in your house.

I felt glad I lived in the free West .

The idea that the Berlin Wall was built to keep Evil IN rather than Freedom OUT seemed the only plausible explanation.

When the Berlin Wall came down it seems rather than the Russians getting freedom, slowly we got a Soviet lifestyle.

So much for victory of freedom over the commies/fascists/totalitarians/ - all the same insecure little pricks in the final analysis.

Re:The end of Soviet Russia ...

[Anonymous Coward]

What are you talking about ?

The Soviets did get a free lifestyle didn't they ? can't they travel freely without being checked for identity documents at every step ?

Unlike us in the U.S., of course, who now are checked for identity documents at each step :(

Re:The end of Soviet Russia ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow.

You mean that a piece of paper is required from one agency of the governement to allow another agency of the same government to spy on you?
And they seal it so nobody knows about it?

Yep. Sure is different.

Re:The end of Soviet Russia ...

[Algan]

Yes, until the one they're looking for is a terrorist, whatever the definition of the word is these days. Remember Patriot Act?

Re:The end of Soviet Russia ...

[MoneyT]

Read it for yourself:

SEC. 802. DEFINITION OF DOMESTIC TERRORISM.

(a) DOMESTIC TERRORISM DEFINED- Section 2331 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)(B)(iii), by striking `by assassination or kidnapping' and inserting `by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping';

(2) in paragraph (3), by striking `and';

(3) in paragraph (4), by striking the period at the end and inserting `; and'; and

(4) by adding at the end the following:

`(5) the term `domestic terrorism' means activities that--

`(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;

`(B) appear to be intended--

`(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;

`(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or

`(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and

`(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.'.

(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT- Section 3077(1) of title 18, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
`(1) `act of terrorism' means an act of domestic or international terrorism as defined in section 2331;'

Re:The end of Soviet Russia ...

[MoneyT]

So you don't trust the government to regulate the issuance of warrants, as outlined by law, and enforced by the judicial system and congress, but you trust the government with your votes?

Re:The end of Soviet Russia ...

[Anonymous Coward]

how many times do you people have to be told? i`ll say it again.... "read revelaltions in the Bible"

Have you read the patriot act?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, to start, you will notice that first in order for this surveilence to be activated, they need a cout order. IOW they need a warrant. That makes this surveilence no different than a wire tap or sitting outside your house with a mic aimed at your window. If they hae the warrant, they can monitor.

This was true _before_ the patriot act. Not any more. All they have to do is "suspect" you may be a terrorist, and all your 4th amendment rights are set aside.

Re:Have you read the patriot act?

[MoneyT]

Wrong. Try reading the actual PATRIOT act for once. They still have to get a court order to do taps.

Re:Have you read the patriot act?

[Hatta]

Yes, they need a court order, but the standard for getting one is vastly reduced. Further, combine this with roving wiretaps, and you find that if they have a warrent on a friend of yours, they can tap your phone without an additional warrent, and still be completely legal. This is scary scary stuff.

Re:Have you read the patriot act?

[MoneyT]

It isn't "vastly" reduced. If you actualy read the report you linked to, you'll note that they say many of the concerns are more likely over exagerated.

As for roving wiretaps, yes they can tap your phone, for the purposes though of investigatign your friend. Any evidence they collect on you, unless related to the crimes committed by your friend are inadmissable in court.

Re:Have you read the patriot act?

[Hatta]

Before they had to present evidence that you were likely involved in a crime. Now they only need to suggest that they might gain relevant information. I think that's pretty dramatic. As to your other point that other information would be inadmissable, I'd really like to see a source for that. And even if it's true, it's small consolation. Completely honest people deserve privacy too.

Re:Have you read the patriot act?

[MoneyT]

They still have to show that they have reason to beleive they can gain relevant information. IOW they have to have a link between your phone and the investigation. They can't just tap everything in a 4 block radius because a criminal lives in that area.

I don't recall the source I read it in specificaly, but IIRC one of the aspects of wire tap law is that information gained and permissable in court has to be relevant to the investigation in question. Otherwise, it's just like an illegal wire tap. This is why wire tap and warrant requests have to name a specific person to be tracked and detailed.

And I don't know about you, but setting up the laws so that the police when investigating someone can't tap anything except the primary phone of the criminal just seems stupid. That would mean that if I were to conduct a drug deal over the phone, all I would have to do is use other people's phones, and the cops couldn't do jack shit.

I don't know about you, but if someone is using my phone to conduct drug deals, and they can get evidence on this guy, they can tap away.

I think I'll start a business...

[StandardCell]

I will modify vehicles such that the on-board microphones and the GPS antenna are tied to two devices - a switch, and an airbag deployment system. Unless I hit the switch, the microphones and on-board GPS are disabled. The switch is superceded only when the airbag deployment is detected, and at that time the microphones and GPS are effectively reactivated.

Considering that GM was planning to put OnStar on every vehicle eventually I think my business could only grow in the future.

Re:I think I'll start a business...

[Anonymous Coward]

Problem is that you'll commit a felony under DMCA, because the whole thing'll be "securely protected".

This is a very scary story.

Re:I think I'll start a business...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but how long before legislation is passed making it illegal to circumvent these "safety features?"

Other OnSpy "Features"

[Anonymous Coward]

Among other things, they can pop the locks on your car/truck no matter where it is. Now how easy would this be to hack?

"Wow! This guy's got a helluva system in his ride! Lemme just pull out my palm (beep beep beep) and... POP! Jackpot baby."

What else can this system do that we don't know about? Disabling the car entirely perhaps? Oh and the advertisments that you'll get from your driving habits...

Re:Other OnSpy "Features"

[Anonymous Coward]

It isn't that hard. I saw an AAA guy use a simple device (piece of metal) to open a car dor in ten seconds.

Re:Other OnSpy "Features"

[Anonymous Coward]

It isn't that hard. I saw an AAA guy use a simple device (piece of metal) to open a car dor in ten seconds.

But unlike that piece of metal called a slim jim (not to be confused with the mechanically seperated beef/chicken snack of the same name), Onstar can probaby do other nifty things, like disable the built in security system.

JUST SAY YOU NEVER MET ME

[Elwood P Dowd]

(see subject)

The future?

[Anonymous Coward]

We are there already! And it's worse than 'Guilty Until Proven Innocent', it's more like "Guilty As We Choose Without Right To Trial".

What's scary...

[Anonymous Coward]

... is that these Americans have appointed themselves defenders of freedom across the world. Let's hope our respective countries aren't forced^W^W don't implement "American freedom" anytime soon.

Re:What's scary...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, just keep your psychotic buddies off of our commercial airliners and we won't have to come over there to implement our style of "freedom." Murdering civilians is not a valid form of political expression. Seriously, you f***ing nuts neet to borrow some tactics from Ghandi and Martin Luther King, Jr.

Re:What's scary...

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's put this in perspective. If it were not for 9/11, we would not have overthrown the Taliban and the U.S. would have been content to let Saddam continue to wave his dick around in the air and steal from the oil for food program for the rest of his natural life.

Re:What's scary...

[fenix down]

Non-violence needs some role models that haven't been shot by the people they were trying to make friends with.

Re:What's scary...

[Anonymous Coward]

No one ever accomplished anything of note without some personal sacrifice...

Re:Umm....

[SillySlashdotName]

Umm, do you know the definition of "to trump"?

Trump
1.a. any playing card of a suit that for the time outranks the other suits. such a card being able to take any card of another suit. ...
3.to take with a trump. ...
5.a. to play a trump
5.b. to take a trick with a trump ...

Also

Trump card
1. Trump
2. something that gives a person or group a decisive or willing advantage.

Source: Websters College Dictionary

So "Seems the right to get the service you pay for trumps the 'right' of the FBI to spy on you, using your own vehicle's systems!" is indeed the case as reported in the article.

Also that is exactly the conclusion of the court as well.

Can you hear me now?

[John Jorsett]

BAD!

In light of these findings...

[hookedup]

What if someone had attempted to use their Roadside assistance system, only to find it not working, which resulted in more damages to that person or their property. And if said person was able to prove the FBI had commandeered their system, would the FBI be liable for the damages?

Re:In light of these findings...

[Anonymous Coward]

Ask yourself this, do they have to buy you a new door and furniture when they kick your door in and cut your furniture open looking for evidence? (the answer is no)

Re:In light of these findings...

[Anonymous Coward]

But those 'techniques' have not been ruled against by the courts

Re:In light of these findings...

[Anonymous Coward]

Good point, hadn't thought about that.

Easy solution for the paranoid

[John Jorsett]

How about a blinking dash light that indicates the system is active?

Re:Easy solution for the paranoid

[pentalive]

Becuase it will be designed not to blink when (dum dum duummm) THEY don't want it to. It wont blink for spying but it will blink for normal conversations with MON-star headquarters about the nearest taco bell.

Not all telematics system supports this.

[LqdSlpStrm]

Have been developing systems like this for years.

A few telematics systems lets you silently call upp the vehicle and eavesdrop using the handsfree functionality, but most don't. Some of the protocols supports it, while the vehicle implementation of it does not.

What a call center operator can always do, however, is silently track your car. It usually works by calling up the vehicle over Verizon's WIN4 net, transmit authentication codes and a request to track the car's progress. Every five-fifteen minutes thereafter, the car will call up and transmit a GPS log to the call center.

Remote door unlock is often also a trivial matter.

No, you cannot call up and hijack the vehicle from the ordinary phone network since all WIN4 subscriptions have an areacode of 500, rending them unreachable from any ordinary phone. Calling out to them is a long and tedious process. On top of this, every vehicle usually have a unique passcode generated when the car is built. A list of these passcodes are then sent directly to the call center who uses them to access the cars.

No, you cannot reprogram the 800 number dialled by the vehicle in case of a crash or other event. The number is setup in the WIN4 network. No matter what number you are trying to get to from the handset, you will end up at the same DNIS.

My $.05

Re:Not all telematics system supports this.

[LqdSlpStrm]

Hmmm.

I forgot to mention that the article's description of the eavesdropping blocking the line for emergency calls points to a incorrectly designed telematics system.

What should happen is that any non-emergency call is aborted when a higher level event, such as an airbag deployment, occurs.

This frees the line for emergency use.

Re:Not all telematics system supports this.

[bill_mcgonigle]

It usually works by calling up the vehicle over Verizon's WIN4 net, transmit authentication codes and a request to track the car's progress.

Does the protocol specify an authentication code revocation list to be stored in non-volatile storage in the car's system?

Just curious how it deals with code theft. Thanks.

Re:Not all telematics system supports this.

[Tyb]

So if the FBI figured out they could use this to as an effortless bugging device, what happens when the state governement realizes they can use this information to prosecute speeders, determine fault in accidents, and track every stop we make on the way into the office? Have we volunteered for the same "around the ankle" tracking device given to those who are on in-house confinement?

Re:Not all telematics system supports this.

[ebonkyre]

The eavesdropping IS an "emergency call", at least as far as the system is concerned. They tap the car by ordering the provider to activate the "stolen vehicle" mode.

Re:Not all telematics system supports this.

[Anonymous Coward]

500-numbers are not unreachable from ordinary phones. Verizon, in fact, uses them for dial-up Internet access.

errr

[ambienceman]

How could one know that it was a possible and probable action? With GPS and your systems usually linked to a name in their OnStar (or some other telematics provider), it's pretty freaking obvious that it could be hacked into. Add that to your cellular phone and the ability to tap into it (unless you used one of those aforementioned encrypted mobiles), and you're pretty much giving them access to your business and whereabouts. Big Brother is growing, but it is a sly and deceptive creature; it tricks us into thinking that we're gaining benefit at the expense of some other liberty...almost like the Patriot Act...

and remember: JOHN ASHCROFT IS WATCHING YOU!

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't wait to see what's next.

Mr. Ashcroft?
Mr. Gates?

One other spying gadget

[Chagatai]

Well, there is this one other tool that the FBI has to detect if you are lying or not, but it only works on people with pacemakers. However, if you actually are lying... well, you can imagine the consequences. Grandpa will be truthfully protected at the bottom of the stairs.

An easy to Defeat these Things

[Anonymous Coward]

Nah, just listen to your favorite music. Even new bugs tend to pick up the wrong signal.

If you ever find one, I'm sure you can think up a way to have fun with it, like connecting it directly to your sterio at maximum volume.

Big Brother is a idiot.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Common sense says if you are hiding from the government you don't broadcast radio waves from your location, GPS or not."

Common sense tells you that's the reason all these "ideas" that the government dreams up will not work. A crimminal by definition doesn't play by the rules.

The average citizen more times than not, does and is the one "caught" in these kinds of schemes.

Re:Big Brother is a idiot.

[MoneyT]

Criminals are for the most part, stupid as fuck. Ever read darwin awards? Or for that matter the local news? How many people get caught each year for robbing a place they frequent?

Re:Big Brother is a idiot.

[Shakrai]

Common sense tells you that's the reason all these "ideas" that the government dreams up will not work. A crimminal by definition doesn't play by the rules.

Actually they will work, because the large majority of criminals are idiots. How many people would get away with crimes (ranging from "harmless" shoplifting to murder) if they had only been smart enough to keep their mouths shut?

Never underestimate the stupidity of criminals.

Re:Big Brother is a idiot.

[the_mad_poster]

Care to back that up with statistics? Go look up how many new businesses fail each year and then look up how many crimes go cold. I don't know what the stats are either, but I'm willing to bet they're more than suprising.

"Stupid crook" stories make good journalism because they're entertaining. The other type of crime the media loves is "true crime drama" like car chases, serial killers, etc. In other words - something that the criminal hasn't been caught for yet, but almost certainly will be. It keeps people frightened which means they watch, but eventually they'll get caught which provides resolution. For the people who aren't unfortunate enough to have their eyes scooped out with a soup spoon by the killer, it's great drama. Ratings soar. Yahoo fun stuff...

The media HATES crime that goes unsolved (unless they're doing an expose to resurrect the case - risky, but fun) because the bad guys win (big no-no in American culture) and the story dries up and gets dull without a climax.

In other words, you only hear about crime in any detail when it makes for good ratings - and "the one that got away" doesn't make for good ratings, no matter how often it happens.

Re: Reminds me of a Good Times joke

[Anonymous Coward]

Rerun, nobody runs in your family!

Easy fix...

[kabocox]

It sounded like that they were sending all the info direct to the FBI. Easy fix is for the company to get the info, perform whatever services, and then redirect it to the FBI.

This isn't funny at all...

[setzman]

More like insightful or interesting to me... Or a better mod would be +5 Scary.

Re:This isn't funny at all...

[BoRegardless]

Good is Dumb... Which is why hackers driving in the car behind you could be listening on your discussion of your family matters, father's probate, or your next business deal. Goodbye OnSpy.

Re:Paranoia paranoia everybody's comming to get me

[paranoic]

You're assuming that the FBI is actively listening, instead of recording it to be played back later.

Don't Worry

[HermanZA]

The next version of On Star will be improved so that the emergency features will still work - no need to worry about this... Most Americans do not realize that all phones can be listened in to. Even PBX equipment has special features to make this possible. Only Holiwood spys need to go out and plant bugs. The FBI doesn't need to do that.

reminds me of blurbflies

[bodrell]

in Jeff Noon's "Nymphomation." But the blurbflies mostly served to whisper advertisements into consumers' ears.

Another literary reference that comes to mind is the saboteurs in Kurt Vonnegut's "Player Piano." Everyone was always suspected of being a saboteur. In the finale there is chaos--people destroying machines everywhere. One guy exclusively destroyed traffic lights. Technology can certainly enslave as easily as it can liberate.

Seriously, though, this kind of intrusive surveillance does justify paranoia and, ironically, the very anti-government sentiments it is meant to address. And people scoff when I complain about GPS in all new cell phones. Not that they couldn't triangulate coordinates anyway, with an older cell phone.

Don't laugh

[Anonymous Coward]

After we get nationalized health care, supersizing may well become a federal crime.

It's their loss...

[switcha]

My 'car-a-oke' renditions of todays top hits are really not to be missed.

What about cell phones?

[FuzzyDaddy]

How long before your cell phone is turned into a device to eavesdrop on you? Could this be possible by remotely programming existing cell phones, without needing hardware modifications?

I'm going to start selling a little clip on to the cell phone to light up or beep when it detects that the phone is transmitting. I bet the paranoid would pay $50 for that. It wouldn't cost more than a few bucks to make, with a mini-circuits rf amplifier and mixer.

Re:What about cell phones?

[MoneyT]

That would work great. For about an hour and a half. Then the battery would die. And then they'd be stuck with nothing.

Re:What about cell phones?

[Anonymous Coward]

Great! Then it can be marketed as a eavesdropper detector/jammer! Double bonus.

Re:What about cell phones?

[Anonymous Coward]

Too late - they've been around for years. They're called "flashing antennas", and can be found at any cell phone retailer...

Re:What about cell phones?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is this considered funny?

Do you really know what your cell phone transmits? There is no electrical diconnect like on conventional phones, its just controlled by the software.

It may have a low power mode that doesn't trigger normal devices (which are already available for a few bucks).

Re:What about cell phones?

[Algan]

The problem with this is that your phone is constantly emmitting. It needs to periodically communicate with nearby cell towers so that incoming calls know where to find you.

Re:What about cell phones?

[Anonymous Coward]

yeah, i don't feel like creating an account. i have an older (about 2 years) simple nokia. it has a feature that allows you to control whether or not your phone talks to a satellite to verify the correct local time. as it lights up the screen when it's doing this, i've noticed that, having the phone sitting while in a dark room, it does this every 20 - 60 minutes. seems a bit exessive. i'm sure newer phones communicate more info. also, i think that the phone is always transmitting *something* while it is within range of cel towers - that's where you get your 'signal strength' indication from - to test this, hold your phone next to any monitor or car radio and listen to the fun sound of interference!

The trick is

[gearheadsmp]

The trick is knowing they're watching you in the first place. If you don't know they're listening, how do you know to start playing movie soundtracks, or to turn the radio on high volume when holding a "sensitive" conversation?

Re:The trick is

[TWX]

Well, if you have a certain number of free calls with the associated service, use 'em. If the system is hardlocked into the FBI, it won't work, and you'll know. Once you know, start having fun. Play Ranchero music, or Polka, or something obnoxious.

here in San Antonio...

[Anonymous Coward]

here in San Antonio, an SAPD special street/drug crimes unit has been known to call up the Transguide Operators (highway cameras for traffic and safety conditions) and ask them to train a camera on a suspect or two.

supposedly this pissed off some city officials and the practiced has been "banned" - yeah, right.

Flash can already do this

[gearheadsmp]

Flash can already do this - even the version available for Linux. Now, whether this actually would record anything is another matter.

Camera Help
Microphone Help

Re:Paranoia paranoia everybody's comming to get me

[Le Marteau]

Second, this seems overly paranoid on the safety issue, given that if the FBI is listening in, I'm sure they would be able to hear the person they're tapping scream "Holy FUCK!" before he hits the semi truck. (emphasis mine).

Say WHAT? OMFG. You're SURE the FBI would hear it? What if the FBI guy was out taking a leak. What if the tap was not being listened to live, but was being taped to be listened to at a later date.

how bout a workaround?

[Dot_Killer]

What happens when the company can make an onboard system that allows bugging and doesn't disable road side assistance?

The article said it came from a case about listening on criminals who stole a car. What about cases not involving car theft?

If you do not have the service shouldn't it be illegal for them to activate the service just to use it to spy on you? That isn't like using a phone and then having it bugged.

Re:Where to end? Right here.

[Nachtfellen]

The interesting thing in your point about sweeping for bugs is that now the general community of "people with things to hide" (who would sweep for bugs) also know that they need a kill switch for the services that come with their car. The general populace won't be doing that though, so they're the ones who will be susceptible to this new lower common denominator type of spying.

Re:Where to end? Right here.

[NeoSkandranon]

If you were the type to sweep for bugs i rather doubt you'd leave that onstar system intact anyhow

OnStar

[raelimperialaerosolk]

My new vehicle came with a free year of onstar service. I've only used it once when I called and set up the service.

I asked the dealership where the onstar equipment was, and they said it was buried deep in the dash somewhere, totally inaccessible. I had the vehicle home and 5 minutes later found it underneath the passenger rear seat. It's not labelled "ONSTAR UNIT", but it was pretty obvious. You pull the cover back and there is a nice motorola built case with two data cables going into it and a 3rd coax connection (for the antenna).

The Onstar stats say they recover 500 vehicles a month. Thieves really are idiots. All you have to do is disconnect the onstar box, or, at the very least pull out the antenna cable.

I was considering disconnecting the unit after my year was up, but then my wife's cousin who consults for onstar was telling me that they will perform 'public safety' services even if you don't have an active account. He said if you're even in a bad neighborhood, just hit the button and say "I don't feel safe", and they'll guide you out.

Interestingly, the onstar documentation doesn't come right out and say it, but it implies that they can use the onstar system (with built in gps) for reasons other than helping you. I can envision a situation where one parent might 'kidnap' their own kid and the other parent could get a court to use the Onstar system to locate the vehicle (or something like that).

Re:OnStar

[LqdSlpStrm]

Ripping the GPS and/or phone antenna may not be enough.

1. If you are in a good AMPS coverage area, the radio will get a signal even without an antenna.

2. If there is no GPS signal available, the car is still able to temporarily track itself by measuring the wheel speed of the left and right (non-drivetrain) wheels and do dead reckoning calculation based on speed, time and direction (left/right differences == turning car). This method is only valid for a while since the errors add up over time.
Also, not all cars have this feature either.

Re:OnStar

[phorm]

I was considering disconnecting the unit after my year was up, but then my wife's cousin who consults for onstar was telling me that they will perform 'public safety' services even if you don't have an active account

Why not just unplug until you need it? It only needs a continuous feed for the paid services...

Re:OnStar

[raelimperialaerosolk]

Yeah....that's certainly an option. The problem is if I'm lost in a bad part of town, I'd have to stop the car, hop in the back seat, disconnect the car seat, toss that aside, pop the rear seat forward, lift off the cover, fumble with the connectors, hop back into the front seat THEN call Onstar. The matter gets only worse if the kid is sitting in her carseat.

I find it hard to imagine being in that situation where I'd need help out of a bad neighborhood. I mean, how many times have you been chased down the street by a gang of gun waving thugs?

I've always what would happen if I let my subscription lapse, then come back to the parking lot to find my vehicle gone. I've wondered if I could call Onstar on my cell, say "hey, I'd like to sign up for onstar", give them my credit card, then say "oh, by the way, my vehicle has been stolen...can you call the police and see if you can get it back for me". I'll have to ask my wife's cousin on that.

Re:OnStar

[Anonymous Coward]

Or, why not build a device to switch the antenna in and out of the circuit? There is probably a power source back there to tap into, although I don't know enough about the high frequencies to be able to switch w/o degrading performance. You might be able to get away with a modified satellite tv switch of some sort.

Re:OnStar

[lgftsa]

I mean, how many times have you been chased down the street by a gang of gun waving thugs?

*pant* *pant* Oh, about 30 seconds.

Can't talk, they've found me again! And this time they've got pitchforks and flaming torches, too!

Re:OnStar

[phorm]

In that case, is it pulling battery power? Why not just wire a toggle switch between the receiver and battery. I do the same thing for my subwoofer amps... that way if it's late and I don't want to rock the neighbourhood (but still want music) I can turn 'em off.

Re:OnStar

[El]

I can envision a situation where one parent might 'kidnap' their own kid and the other parent could get a court to use the Onstar system to locate the vehicle (or something like that).

Note to self: be sure to use a rental car when committing custodial interference.

Re:OnStar

[RavenLrD20k]

Actually, from the way you described it, are you sure you didn't find the vehicles main operating computer? I know that GM usually puts the main computer underneith the seats and navigational / Onstar Systems get put benieth or behind the dash to make it cheaper so they won't have to run wires all through the unibody/chassis of the vehicle to operate the monitor window.

On that note, if it is the main computer, do NOT under any circumstances disconnect those lines...unless you don't want your vehicle to even start untill you plug the thing back in. The main computer monitors everything about your car to make it run, from how much Hydrocarbons it's producing, to how lean/rich of a gasoline mixture is hitting your pistons. Without this information, the car will either run like crap or not run at all. On some models (especially later ones), the main computer will actually be what operates your dashboard (speedometer, Odometer, gas gague, tachometer, oil pressure, temp, battery, etc).

How do I know about this? I've actually replaced a chip in the main computer to give my Blazer more power from the same engine. Use to be you just turned a screw on the carb to do the same thing.

Re:OnStar

[raelimperialaerosolk]

Pretty sure it's the OnStar unit. It's got a motorola label. If it were the main computer, I'd expect a Delco label. Also, the coaxial cable antenna cable is a dead giveway.

I suppose there's an off chance that it's *BOTH* OnStar and the main computer. When I get a chance, I'll experiment and report back...

Welcome to introductory English comprehension.

[Kwil]

Let's take another look at that shall we, specifically, your #2 definition that you so kindly point out:

trump: get the better of [syn: oudo, outflank, best, scoop]

Now, let's substitute the meaning for the word in the sentence.

Seems the right to get the service you pay for gets the better of, outdoes, outflanks, bests, and scoops the 'right' of the FBI to spy on you, using your own vehicle's systems!

Now, since the court ruled that the FBI doing so was not proper because it interefered with the service being provided, the sentence seems to be fully accurate.

Unless you have some alternative reading I'm not aware of.

Bot only used for....

[_ph1ux_]

I call upon you, the American People to realize that this action is only used to gather intelligence on the Axels of Evil - these terrorists in our midsts. This only furthers our resolve to do whatever we must to protect your freedom.

Re:Bot only used for....

[Reziac]

Oh, great, now my truck thinks it has Evil Axles and refuses to go down rough roads anymore!

Yeah, kidnappers and bank robbers have rights too!

[Anonymous Coward]

I mean it's getting pretty out of control.

You kidnap a lady and take off in her own car, which has OnStar. And then the FBI dares to use that to find you?

It's the beginning of the end I tell you. The second thing the Nazis did was start using OnStar to locate and arrest people who had commited a crime(s).

I've been looking for you guys on TV all day, but I can't see any "Bush = Evil/Hitler/Threat to World Peace" protesters in London using WiFi equipped laptop computers to post to /. Where are you 'revolutionary defenders of people's rights against the Evil U.S.' hiding today?

Fucking Morons. Learn to base your opinion on reality, not a single /. 'blurb'.

Re:Paranoia paranoia everybody's comming to get me

[mamba-mamba]

Second, this seems overly paranoid on the safety issue, given that if the FBI is listening in, I'm sure they would be able to hear the person they're tapping scream "Holy [expletive deleted]!" before he hits the semi truck. And I highly doubt the FBI is just gonna sit on their ass wondering why they aren't getting any more sound.

You are dreaming. As many others noted, no one may be listening live. Also, if they respond, they are blowing the surveillance, which may tip off co-conspirators. Furthermore, you may believe that law enforcement has some kind of over-riding duty to respond to emergencies where life is threatened, but they don't. Legally, they don't even have to respond when people call 911. It's a quality of service issue, not a legally enforceable obligation.

Mac
--

Re:but Bush loves freedom

[Anonymous Coward]

That's right because the FBI NEVER, NOT ONCE, EVER, snooped in ways that violated the 4th Ammendment prior to January 20, 2001.

On that date, they turned into a rogue agency!

But your point of his hypocrosy is spot on.

Wait until you get the bill ...

[pherris]

From the article:
"... agents obtained a court order compelling a telematics company to secretly activate the stolen vehicle recovery feature in a customer's car. The feature, designed to listen-in on car thieves as they cruise around in a stolen auto, turns on a dashboard microphone and pipes conversations out over a cellphone connection -- normally to the company's response center, but in this case to an FBI listening post."

Honey, what's this $3000.00 phone call to Quantico, Virginia?

Jeeze, I hope they didn't activate the LoJack at the same time.

Re:Wait until you get the bill ...

[pegr]

ROFLMAO! gawd, I wish I could mod you up...

The law in Canada

[Hamster Lover]

If police in Canada want to tap your phone or place listening devices they must prove during the warrant process that the information gathered cannot be obtained by any other means.

The court's reasoning for this is that the privacy of individuals not under investigation must be considered.

An ex-girlfriend is in the RCMP communications team and she told me that you would be amazed at what you hear (no specifics of course) and that alleged criminals more often than not are very unconcerned about the content of their telephone coversations. Maybe they figure it will never happen to them.

What is most distressing is the attitude of most law enforcement agencies; it seems the prevailing opinion is that the end justifies the means. You will never hear law enforcement agencies ask for increased safeguards for privacy or to even question the constiutionality of their procedures. It seems that most police lack any impartiality and that everyone is guilty and it is simply a matter of collecting enough evidence. Where are the ethics?

I recall an episode of Law and Order where the two detectives are questioning the owner of a car repair shop. The police wish to search a van on the premises, but they do not have a warrant. What do they do? They manufacture a story that they heard a woman scream and then search the van.

Re:The law in Canada

[mitheral]

It seems that most police lack any impartiality and that everyone is guilty and it is simply a matter of collecting enough evidence.
That's because most people they deal with are victims or guilty of something. People who don't fall into one of those two categories almost never talk to police officers.

Same deal with help desks. A year of working a help desk will get you thinking everyone on the planet is a complete moron if you don't make an effort to realise you're only seeing the people with problems who couldn't figure it out for themselves.

OMG!

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a ploy for advanced alien civilizations to send sausages to our dinner plates!!!!!!!!!

DMCA violation? {funny}

[Anonymous Coward]

So is the FBI violating the DMCA by reverse engineering the protocols and hacking the device?

Re:Where to end? Right here.

[LinuxHam]

not to mention, i can't imagine that anything even remotely modern uses fixed frequencies anymore, vs spread spectrum (and therefore undetectable by a so-called "bug sweeper")

Vindication

[nurb432]

This what have i been telling you people all along.. but nooooo all i get is fucking 'tin foil hat' cracks..

Everyone needs to wake up and look around at what is going on... get your heads out of the sand and fight for what freedom we have left.... before its too late ( if it isnt already )

Re:Vindication

[Anonymous Coward]

What part of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" do you not understand

What part of "Red Dawn was fictional" do you not understand?

Re:Vindication

[Anonymous Coward]

i agree but.... read revelaltions in the Bible because that IS where we are heading. if 666 were to become a reality tommorrow that would prove the Bible correct. trouble is it would be to late to do anything get it? that`s my point. if every free thinking person were to grasp 666 in all it`s horror you`d have a hell of a lot of people screaming bloody murder. but untill then.... things will continue just the way it`s going.

Re:Vindication

[mikeswi]

There will always be people with their heads in the sand. People who dismiss things out of hand are generally too ignorant to bother arguing with about it. The ones you want spend time on are the ones willing debate it.

Re:Who cares about the FBI.. what about the compan

[fredrated]

"except be an honest citizen and don't make myself a target of such investigation."

Oh, so honest citizens are never investigated? Investigations are only carried out on criminals? If you know ahead of time they are criminals then what is the point of the investigation?

Re:Who cares about the FBI.. what about the compan

[Hatta]

Honest citizens are still in danger because of roving wiretap provisions and the lower standard needed for a warrent from the patriot act.

Re:Paranoia paranoia everybody's comming to get me

[MoneyT]

No one may be listening in, and then there is a problem yes. As such, it appears the system needs fixing, a single cell line on these things seems like a bad idea anyway.

They don't nessesarily have to blow the surveilence to respond, they can switch the call over to the company, or they can have someone trained to respond in the same way respond.

Last I checked, if you ask for help, law enforcement is required to provide help, especialy if not doing so would prevent you from getting help

expect a new eula

[oogoody]

If people start tampering with these devices
expect a new eula that will make such
activities illegal. In the end we won't
own our cars either.

So how does this help

[Anonymous Coward]

So how does this help find terrorists, since they know about it they disable it or get something else to drive, and what does the FBI have a perfect way to spy on us for no good reason, we are not all "TERRORISTS" -- stop treating us like them...

DUI!

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder how many people OnStar has helped convict of DUIs?

Hello Sir?... I've got a signal that your air bags have deployed. Sir?... I'm sending the authorities.

Oh nooo, I'm fiiiine, I'll just walk it off. No need to send anyone.

Re:Who cares about the FBI.. what about the compan

[eatdave13]

You do realize that the phone company can listen to all of your phone conversations and that your upstream provider can capture every single packet of data you send, right?

Geez, they had a warrant guys.

[sideshow]

They could have just easily "borrowed" the car while this guy went to the movies and installed anything they wanted in the car.

They took the cost saving route on this one but the whole act of recording what goes on in the car has been around for decades.

Eavesdropping my car

[thatguywhoiam]

--- FBI SURVEILLANCE TRANSCRIPT
--- NOV.20/2003, 8:19PM
--- AGENT SMITH ON DUTY

SUBJECT'S CAR (MAKE AMC PACER, EQUIPPED WITH BUGGED ATX ASSISTANCE SYSTEM) WAS BOARDED AT 8:19PM BY PRIMARY SUSPECT; PROCEEDED TO DRIVE TO FIFTH & MAIN, WHEREUPON SUSPECT STOPPED AND SEEMED TO TAKE ON PASSENGERS.

8:19 -RUSTLING SOUNDS-

8:21 -DRIVING SOUNDS... CAR STOPS, DOOR OPENS-

8:32 SUSPECT #1
Hey, what's up... Ah fuck.. where is it...

8:33 SUSPECT #2
I got it. This is hot shit. Check this out.

AT THIS POINT SUSPECT #1 SEEMS TO BECOME AGITATED. HE BEGINS SCREAMING LOUDLY.

8:33 SUSPECT #1
YOU CAN'T BE ME I'M A ROCK STAR I'M RHYMING ON THE TOP OF A COP CAR I'M A REBEL AND MY .44 POPS FAR

-AGENT NOTES SUSPECT IS ARMED WITH A PISTOL AND POSSIBLY LONG-DISTANCE WEAPONRY. ALSO NOTES SUSPECT #2 SEEMS TO HAVE AN ELECTRIC GUITAR.

8:34 SUSPECT #2
uh huh.. yeah... uhhH!... yeah yeah

8:34 SUSPECT #1
IT'S ALMOST OVER NOW IT'S ALMOST OVER NOW...

So, when...

[SharpFang]

...will they start billing you for bugs, surveilance equipment etc?

"Guilty of robbery and assault, 5 years of prison. Additionally should pay $100 for FBI phone bug, $30 for police phone calls, $5 for ammunition used by the police in shooting, $40 for fuel for police cars, $20 for paper, stamp ink and writing equipment used up in the court, and $0.50 for a donut the surveilance officer ate while observing his house."

Lo-Jack

[Chris Burke]

When I bought a car recently, the finance guy tried to sell me Lo-Jack, which if you don't know is a microwave transmitter that the police can remotely enable and then pick up the signal from their squad car, ostensibly to retrieve your car when it gets stolen.

The relevent part is when he said "... and since it's only turned on when you report your car stolen, it isn't Big Brother-ish like On-Star and the others".

A microwave transmitter in my car that is directly controlled and monitored by the police. And that's not Big Brotherish. Riiiight.

That the guy seemed genuinely startled when I pointed out this obvious problem tells me that we've already lost.

Re:Lo-Jack

[hetairoi]

That the guy seemed genuinely startled when I pointed out this obvious problem tells me that we've already lost.

Did he install it even though you said you didn't want it? If not then I don't see a problem. As long as your not forced to use something like this what's the big deal? Some people really like and need services like Lo-Jack, OnStar, etc. And you would likely get better insurance rates if you do have one installed.

Some of us don't have to worry about it though. No one seems to want my car. It's actually been broken into and then left in the same spot. Maybe the thief got spooked but I figure they broke in, sat down and looked around then thought "aw, fuck this" and left.

I do, however, kinda see your point about it becoming commonplace. First it's Lo-Jack then we are inserting transmitters into newborns because "think of the chiiillldryyyyyyn." Still, I give this a firm 'meh'

Re:Lo-Jack

[Chris Burke]

Did he install it even though you said you didn't want it?

If he was going to install it against my wishes, would he tell me? Now that I think about it, the answer to your question would be "I don't know."

If not then I don't see a problem.

The problem is that he thought and tried to convince me that this Big Brother-ish system was not Big Brother-ish.

Obviously it didn't cause a problem for me, since I understand and avoid such things. What about every other poor guy who walks into the dealership, doesn't want to be spied upon, but doesn't realize that this is exactly what these systems allow? And when they do try to make this required, is he going to object?

As far as I'm concerned, there isn't much difference between shoving Big Brother down our throats, and coating it in chocolate so we swallow it willingly ourselves.

Some of us don't have to worry about it though. No one seems to want my car. It's actually been broken into and then left in the same spot. Maybe the thief got spooked but I figure they broke in, sat down and looked around then thought "aw, fuck this" and left.

Well, there's that. More with my old car (87 Tercel) than my new (03 Echo). I still never lock my doors, since I don't want them to have to break a window to find out there's nothing worth taking in my car. :)

Which reminds me of the hilarious part of this encounter: After I rejected the $600 Lo-Jack system, he then tried to sell me a couple policies that, for a combined value of $400, would not only pay off the remainder of my loan in the event that my car is stolen, it also gives me $5000. Which means that for the first few years it's better for me to let my car be stolen, because I'd actually make a profit off of it. He also looked pretty startled when I told him that. :)

I do, however, kinda see your point about it becoming commonplace. First it's Lo-Jack then we are inserting transmitters into newborns because "think of the chiiillldryyyyyyn." Still, I give this a firm 'meh'

Lo-Jack itself is "meh"; it's the attitudes that make people so unwary of putting something like that in their car that worries me.

Re:Lo-Jack

[hetairoi]

would not only pay off the remainder of my loan in the event that my car is stolen, it also gives me $5000.

I'll take two please!!

your unlocked door story reminded me of my own funny, yet off topic, story. I used to drive a Jeep Wrangler and left the top down much of the time meaning anything left in it was likely gone when I returned. The radio didn't work anyway so I never worried about it, but one day I noticed that someone had stolen the knobs! Not the radio, just the knobs.

i also had some of those carpeted truck speakers, the really crappy kind you can get at wal-mart. they got rained on all the time (top off) and were generally worthless. I was walking up to my jeep one day and noticed something in the road. it was the side panel of one of the speakers. someone had stolen them from the back of my jeep and they were so rain-soaked and rotten that when they picked them up they fell apart. i really hope they tried to sell them to a pawn shop and got laughed at.

ok, uh, what were we talking about? ahh, I might as well go do some work :)

Re:Lo-Jack

[Anonymous Coward]

If he was going to install it against my wishes, would he tell me? Now that I think about it, the answer to your question would be "I don't know."

Would he plant a hidden microphone in it to listen to your private cell phone calls?

Would he follow you home after purchasing the car so he could plant a camera in your room to watch you and your wife having sex?

Err sorry bad example, since we are on Slashdot.

Really though, if they did do something that specific against your wishes, then you can always take them to court for it, and I'm sure any judge would rule in your favor if you provide the right evidence. You can also take the tin foil off your head, they are not listening in on your thoughts.

Re:Lo-Jack

[jcr]

What I really want is a device in my car that tells *me* where it is, and sends me a picture of whoever's in the driver's seat.

If my car gets stolen, I'll either go and take it back myself, or fax the location and a picture of the perp to the cops.

Re:Lo-Jack

[Reziac]

I'm reminded of the alleged bicycle my roomies and I shared in college. About once a week it got stolen. We'd invariably find it a block or so away, where the thief gave up on it after being stabbed in the groin when the seat fell off.

We knew all its evil tricks, so avoided bodily injury :)

Re:What about cell phones? It already is...

[blackchiney]

Just ask one deceased Columbian druglord, pablo Escobar, who had a smartbomb dropped on his ass. Guess how they found?
IIRC, an informant gave the DEA his cellphone #, from that they were able to determine his whereabouts. Even though he turned the cell off, the service provider called into it every hour to track him, while he was asleep.

Of course if he was using my GF's shitty Moto V120 he would have gotten away just in time. The damn thing makes every electronic device in our home whistle and pop seconds before a call comes in and then some.

I don't get it

[jarkun]

If someone is listening continuously wouldn't they be able to provide emergency/roadside assistance?

Does this mean once they fix that "bug" that the FBI will be back in business? All in all not a big win for privacy & security

My car is safe !

[HansF]

Ofcourse if you're paranoid like me, you driva a 1991 Fiat Fiorino, and you don't own a cellphone.
Next on my whishlist are the neat rotating (and changing) licence plates like KIT used to have. And while we're at it , a bit of 'turbo boost'(mpeg-file)
(kit or not... that car HAD to crash on landing)

China Re:So, when...

[mitheral]

China already does this to a limited extent. If you are executed for your crime they charge the family for the price of the bullet.

From http://www.boycottmadeinchina.org/en/why_boycott/r ationale/additional_reasons/part3.shtml
"The immediate families of the victims were, formerly, required to be present at the execution and to make a denouncement of the victim. This is no longer mandatory. However, the victim's family is still required to pay the cost of the bullet used in the execution."

Re:Paranoia paranoia everybody's comming to get me

[gnu-generation-one]

"Ok, to start, you will notice that first in order for this surveilence to be activated, they need a cout order. IOW they need a warrant."

FBI agent: Can we have 300 warrants for *these* (holds up printed list) people, and wiretap warrants for *these* people?

Lowly court clerk: wiretap warrants *approved* (stamps warrant and signs it), ask judge james about the others

Judge: warrants *approved* (stamps and signs it), what did you want them for again?

FBI agent: Sorry, can't tell you that

Judge: Okay, good luck

Re:What's that couple in the car next to me saying

[Anonymous Coward]

That would violate the DMCA.

That's what your cell phone is for?

[NotClever]

True. The only problem is that if you have a serious accident and are unconscious. Thats where these systems should come in handy.

How to fix this

[Thomasje]

If there were some easy-to-see indication on the dash that the system's phone line was open, this kind of sneakiness would be impossible.
Of course, the next step would be for a law to be passed that forced OnStar, ATX, etc., to put code in that would allow Big Brother to open the phone line without the indicator being activated.

This reminds me of something I read a long time ago, about how it used to be possible (maybe still is?) for the phone company to open a line to your phone without having it ring... Using this trick, they could easesdrop on anything that happened within earshot of your phone, and you'd never know what was going on.
Actually, this kind of eavesdropping should also be covered by this court decision, since your phone would be busy and hence unreachable while this kind of eavesdropping was going on.

The phone-eavesdropping evil can be defeated by only using phones that physically disconnect the handset from the line while on-hook. With OnStar/ATX, you don't have a handset, so that would be a bit harder to fix.

Lots will be caught out by open mics

[t_allardyce]

You cant trust anything connecting a microphone to a transmitter unless it has a physical privacy switch. Most web-cams have little shutters because no fool is going to trust that something in windows or macromedia flash 6 hasnt turned on your camera and if you have a microphone it can probably be unplugged. Your mobile phone has no switch and theres nothing to say you couldnt install a simple app on a modern phone that made the screen "look" like it was on standby when really it was transmitting voice (and they can pick up allot of sound), same goes with allot of laptops with wifi etc. Its a simple privacy precaution and it may seem paranoid or anal but ill bet allot of people will be caught out by things like this - Britney and Bush have famously been caught out by open mics slagging people off but it will start happening on consumer gadgets.

Grand theft auto -- I don't want it back!

[aquarian]

I'd never buy a Lojack, or any other tracking scheme. If my car is stolen, I don't want it back! Who knows what they did to it? Even if cosmetic damage like dents, etc., can be repaired "good as new" (yeah, right), you never know what *else* happened to it -- motor overrevved, driven through a river, etc. So if my car disappears, I hope they never find it. I don't want it back. I'd rather have my insurance company buy me another one!

Fair Trade Agreements

[ear2ground]

So if my girlfriend had an electronic mike put in her nearby purse and I said something that could be construed as illegal during a moment of passion, that would be permissible - but if it were a *sex worker* whose services I paid for - then that's not - Right?

Re:Fair Trade Agreements

[Anonymous Coward]

and I said something that could be construed as illegal during a moment of passion, that would be permissible

You mean it isn't usually?

If they can do in cars why not Cell Phones

[The Tweaker]

I've often wondered if they could this sort of thing with Cell phones or Land lines as well? I mean how hard can it be to bybass that little hangup switch?

I doubt you'll get such a promise from the eels - Pricess Bride

Re:Surprised?? -- Puh-leeeze!

[Anonymous Coward]

Read the article -- this wasn't OnStar. Trust me, vehicle tracking is very expensive for OnStar to perform and it's not a service they're willing to provide for Bush, Ashcroft, et al.

In fact, I can tell you with absolute certainty that any location data that comes in with an incoming call is immediately discarded after providing the location to the advisor. This is done so that OnStar cannot ever be expected to provide this information due to a court order. The feds can't get what isn't there. What's more, they don't update the location mid-call without your express permission, and even then, the location is transient data (not stored anywhere, ever).

Paranoid people who tear the OnStar units out of their cars are completely ignorant to the actual capabilities and limitations of the technology and how the end-to-end system works.

You should be more worried about your credit cards and ATM cards.

It's not about me

[mec]

To think that they really care about what you do every second of every day is pretty narcissistic.

Straw man. It's not about me or you. It's about whether the FBI is wire-tapping Michael Moore or Matthew Drudge (to pick two guys with different political views who both like to publish stories that embarrass sitting presidents).

I like living in a country where ordinary people can grab their video camera or their HTML editor and publish news. I like living in a country where it's legal for anyone to organize a million people for a demonstration. You don't do these things, and I don't do these things, but we both benefit from the people who do.

Re:Paranoia paranoia everybody's comming to get me

[jakupovic]

Paranoid or not when I realized I did not have OnStar in my car I was happy since it occured to me that it would be possible to use this technology for more nefarious means. And now my suspicions have been proven correct.

Not all rights are enumerated in BoR

[David Jao]

The Bill of Rights does not specifically enumerate a right to privacy.

True.

there is no right of privacy

False.

You are repeating the same mistake that brought on all those "knee-jerk" responses. You claim that the lack of a specific enumeration of a right to privacy means that "there is no right of privacy". The 9th amendment undermines your claim: it specifically dictates that there may exist rights which are not enumerated in the constitution. In the view of many people here (including myself, after much deliberation), privacy is one of those rights.

I think that in the context of 18th century america, our founding fathers expected a certain level of privacy from monitoring and didn't bother writing it down because they couldn't imagine how it could be taken away.

There is no way that our founding fathers could have imagined technologies such as GPS satellite tracking or thermal imaging of home interiors. The context of our constitution's formative years must be taken into consideration when making a judgment about whether or not the government should be bound to respect peoples' privacy.

Re:Not all rights are enumerated in BoR

[HardCase]

I think that in the context of 18th century america, our founding fathers expected a certain level of privacy from monitoring and didn't bother writing it down because they couldn't imagine how it could be taken away.

Privacy rights in the 18th century were virtually nonexistent, at best. Remember, in America, this was a country that was rebelling against a monarchy that was very nearly dictatorial in its treatment of its colonies. Far from expecting a certain level of privacy from monitoring, the founding fathers had to be constantly aware of the potential of the British-controlled government monitoring of their every move, without any redress available. The very reason that the Bill of Rights reads as it does was because the founders were extraordinarily distrustful of government - they knew that it had to exist for a country to work, but that it must be limited in nature for freedom to flourish. Thus, the created a Constitution that placed significant limits upon the government. You'd better believe that they knew that privacy could be taken away - it is one of the chief tools of a repressive government, and the founders of this nation had gone through a war to throw off the yoke of a very repressive government. But these were extremely smart guys...and fortunate for us. They knew that formulating a Bill of Rights that was very specific in what it granted would just allow the government to work around the specificity. So they framed the 12 Amendments very broadly, without making any reference to privacy as such, and in the end, they had enumerated rules for a government in its dealing with its citizens in such a way that their privacy was guaranteed, without specifically guaranteeing their privacy. That, to me, is extraordinary.

They didn't have to envision incredible technological advances. The wording of the Bill of Rights is so broad that it encompasses them. It's not necessary to consider the context of the Constitution's era. It truely is an ageless document because the founders did not strive to address specific issues, but concerned themselves with broad, sweeping concepts. They allowed their descendents to place specific issues against the broad concepts of the Constitution. And that shows exceptional forsight...and trust.

-h-

Re:Not all rights are enumerated in BoR

[David Jao]

I agree with most of what you just said, but no part of it supports the original assertion that we have no right of privacy.

I don't agree at all that privacy rights in the 18th century were nonexistent. Back then any two people could walk out into the middle of any open field at any time and converse in total privacy. The equivalent act cannot be performed today because of long range microphones, remotely operating bugs, etc.

It's not necessary to consider the context of the Constitution's era.

This statement, I think, is too idealistic to be realistic. I don't think it is appropriate to ignore history when interpreting the constitution. After all, there's a reason why high school students learn about the constitution in history class. If nothing else, the meaning of certain words (like "militia") has changed between then and now, and it is unreasonable to expect that the modern meanings are what the authors intended.

explicit user permission is required

[cpeterso]

This is true, but these audio/visual features in the Flash Player require explicit user permission. The Flash Player pops up a little warning dialog, asking if you want to allow or disallow camera and/or mic recording.

Criminal evolution.

[khasim]

Most of the stupid ones are kids out for a joy ride. Something like this would be great. You could find your car soon after you notice it was stolen.

But for everyone out to really steal your car, they'll just cut whatever they need to to kill the transmitter.

Those that don't know when they start stealing cars will learn while they're in prison.

I think it is a good idea. It will help with most of the joy riding crimes. But I think it wouldn't last very long. More on that soon.

But it isn't a solution to professional criminals. They will know about the systems and how to bypass them.

Not to mention that once it was known, would you, personally, take any steps to disable it? If you did, you'd have to be careful not to break the system that allows you to find your car after the joy riders have taken it.

Once you know about it, the kids doing the joy riding will soon learn of it and be able to take the same precautions as the professionals.

Unless they change the system or location fairly frequently.

No.....

[Anonymous Coward]

FBI is not abusing the Patriot act. Yeah right... Little by little we have lost all of our rights. The US is nothing more than a rich bannana republic.

Jose Padilla

[cameldrv]

About a year and a half ago. Lookup Jose Padilla.

Court Order

[KevinIsOwn]

What many people who are posting in outrage here because of an overbearing government (including the article poster) is that there was a court order obtained to obtain the access codes so the FBI could utilize the onboard navigation system to their advantage:

The case arose from a 2001 FBI surveillance operation in Las Vegas, in which agents obtained a court order compelling a telematics company to secretly activate the stolen vehicle recovery feature in a customer's car.

If law enforcement obtains a court order that means they have sufficient evidence against the suspect. This is no different from tapping phones in that law enforcement has some evidence against a person but is looking for the final piece of the puzzle. Using the onboard navigation system goes one step further, however, allowing police to actually track someone down who is running from the law.

The only problem with using these systems is the problem brought up in this court case, that using the data gleaned from the system is detrimental to its operation in case of an emergency.

Ultimately this case is not one that /.ers should be having a party about. The only way in which it protects privacy is that it ensures a company can provide the services it promised a consumer. While some may disagree with me in that I support the use of these devices if a court order is obtained, this does not do anything to stop the FBI from using these devices (assuming they can find a way to work around the purely technical, not legal, problems presented in this case)

Re:Court Order

[glassesmonkey]

If law enforcement obtains a court order that means they have sufficient evidence against the suspect. This is no different from tapping phones in that law enforcement has some evidence against a person but is looking for the final piece of the puzzle. Using the onboard navigation system goes one step further, however, allowing police to actually track someone down who is running from the law.

No, read the latest DCMA/SuperDCMA. Fact is there are now blanket terrorist claims that do not need "evidence" for court orders AND in many cases, a court order is not needed. The bigger concern is most criminals who are running from the law WILL NOT HAVE ONSTAR(tm) at least not until they are in most vehicles. Most people with ONSTAR are wealthy, middle-class, boring mini-van owners.

OT: Hawaii's not a state?

[Rudolf]

From the article:
"The decision, released Tuesday, is only binding in the 9th Circuit, which covers eight western U.S. states and Hawaii."

I thought Hawaii had been admitted to the Union. Did they change their mind?

Re:OT: Hawaii's not a state?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hawaii is not a _western_ US state.

Re:OT: Hawaii's not a state?

[Rudolf]

Hawaii is not a _western_ US state.
Really? Please explain. Or tell us which US State is further west than Hawaii?

When the memory gets cheap enough

[stephanruby]

When memory gets cheap enough, they'll probably require the companies to record and archive the recordings for future possible warrants. That's what they did with ISPs.

Off Topic: Re:Lo-Jack

[stephanruby]

When I bought a car recently, the finance guy tried to sell me Lo-Jack,

On a side note, one should never talk to the finance guys, they're all a bunch of scam artists.

When I buy a car, I get my financing done online, they fedex me a cashier's check overnight, and if the salesman still insists that I talk to the finance guy, I simply walk away. And more recently, I've also been using the fax to get the best quote. I copied that idea and the letter I found in a book called "The Millionaire Next Door".

Re:Wrong conspiracy.

[qtp]

Close, but no cigar.

I know some of you like to think that all government problems arte due to "the rich" buying off our congressmen, but it isn't as simple as that.

It wasn't a bought off senator that is bringing a stop to this, but the courts (appointed judges), who are using this decision to establish the right of the FBI to monitor your private conversations in your car. It is a decision that is cleverly disguised as being protective of your rights, but it only applies to subscribers to the service, and it allows monitoring of anyone who has this equipment, but is not subscribed or has "turned off" the service at the moment.

Our intelligence agencies have been enjoying this Patriot Act stuff a little too much, and it has already and will increasingly be applied more and more to monitor and otherwise ("sneak and peek") violate our fourth amendment rights.

Why *this* reason?

[DunbarTheInept]

... after finding that the spying effectively disables the system's emergency and roadside assistance features.

What irks me is that THAT is the reason for the objection - it interferes with a service a business is trying to provide. Yah, that's a problem, but what about the bigger problem that they aren't supposed to be searching me without a warrant, which is what unannounced wiretapping (and RF evesdropping) essentially amounts to?

Re:Why *this* reason?

[jgoemat]

They did get the required court order for surveillance. Presumably they had to go to court with enough evidence to persuade a judge to sign off on it.

Re:Why *this* reason?

[DunbarTheInept]

They did get the required court order for surveillance.

THIS time, yes. But the software is designed to work without that invervention if they feel like it. That option shouldn't even BE there.

Re:Paranoia paranoia everybody's comming to get me

[MoneyT]

That speaks more of a problem with the courts than with the law doesn't it?

Re:but Bush loves freedom

[Anonymous Coward]

Heh. I'm spying on you right now. Thanks for your cooperation ( http://slashdot.org/~orthogonal )

Not if DCMA is in place

[glassesmonkey]

Thanks to DCMA, you won't be able to do this!

BBaseless assumptions

[El]

You really think it's cost effective to have an FBI agent listening live to every wiretap 24/7? Do you think that maybe, just maybe, they might be using a voice-activated recorder, so that they come back days later and just listen to the actual conversations? I say the chances of there being a live agent listening to your "oh, shit!" and responding to it in real time are practically nil.

Doesn't this create the possibility of a whole new product to sell to the tin-foil hat crowd -- a simple device to attach to on-star, etc., that lights up an led when it's transmitting? These things DO have antennas, don't they?

Re:BBaseless assumptions

[MoneyT]

1) If I'm tapping a car for information, chances are I'm also monitoring when the person I'm tapping is in the car. When they are in the car, I'm going to put someone on the tap to be listening in.

2) This does however highlight a problem in the system. Having only one chanel going in and out seems like a really bad idea.

what about this, jerky?

[Scudsucker]

• Amendment IV
• 
  

  
  The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Eat that, bizzo.

Re:what about this, jerky?

[HardCase]

The Fourth Amendment does not guarantee the right to privacy. It specifically protects us against unreasonable searches and seizures. As with most of the other twelve amendments that compose the Bill of Rights, it provides a portion of the shield of privacy that we enjoy. In and of itself, however, it doe not provide a guarantee of privacy. It only protects against an aspect of our privacy.

Do none of you get it? I never said that we have no protection of our privacy! I said that the Bill of Rights enumerates no specific right of privacy, but that as a whole, it provides the privacy that most of you seem to think it enumerates as a right. Open your eyes, for heaven's sake. The Framers could have simply made a single Amendment to the Constitution that specifically enumerated a right to privacy. But, in being so specific, they would have allowed the opportunity for the government to worm its way around the Amendment. Instead, we got a series of Amendments that are somewhat general in scope, against which specific situations must be gauged. Good fortune for us, I would say.

-h-

Re:what about this, jerky?

[Anonymous Coward]

hey dumbass, the fact that you think there are 12 amendments in the Bill of Rights pretty much means you should shut up on this topic!

you "never said that we have no protection of our privacy"? you said (exact quote here): "For starters, there is no 'right to privacy'". so if you have no "right" to privacy, what's the protection for? your "privlege" to privacy?

Re:what about this, jerky?

[Scudsucker]

Just because it doesn't say "privacy" anywhere in the amendment doesn't mean it doesn't have anything to do with it. "...secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects..." sounds pretty specific to me. And, just how do you violate someone's privacy, *without* violating the security of said items, or doing "unreasonable searches and seizures"?

Why bother...

[CheeseTroll]

The crooks of interest to the FBI aren't driving Caveliers and Hyundais.

Until now, I guess.

Re:Paranoia paranoia everybody's comming to get me

[qeveren]

Wouldn't they just fall under good samaritan(sp?) laws just like everybody else?

Re:Paranoia paranoia everybody's comming to get me

[MoneyT]

I would think they would have an even greater obligation given their job is to Serve and Protect

Heroic Democrats

[ssstraub]

Senator Russ Feingold, Democrat Wisconsin

"He was the lone senator to vote against the USA Patriot Act last fall, has been its most vocal critic, warning that the act infringes on constitutional freedoms. He also introduced legislation that would put on hold the government's "Total Information Awareness Program"."

Statement Of U.S. Senator Russ Feingold On The Anti-Terrorism Bill From The Senate Floor

epic.org mentions Feingold

Off-Topic

[pegr]

Sorry to use this forum for this message... (It's an old story now so no one will care...)

Dude, that truck is way cool! All I got from Grandpa was a Bowie knife. Cool in it's own right, but far less impressive. I know you want to keep it stock, but it would make one hell of a custom! Chrome, pipes, glossy black w/flames, headers, mags... Yeah, that's the way if you ask me. Wish I could find a cherry "custom starter kit".

Re:Off-Topic

[HardCase]

Thanks! My wife says keep it stock, so I guess it stays stock...

Re:Who cares about the FBI.. what about the compan

[Anonymous Coward]

except be an honest citizen and don't make myself a target of such investigation.

Being an honest citizen, yes, everyone must.

But you can make yourself target of such investigation while being perfectly honest and clearly within the boundaries of the law if you lawfully do things people/organizations with power (or authorities) don't like!

court's decision excerpted

[Cade144]

D. Requirement of a Minimum of Interference

That the Company is both a "provider of wire or electronic
communication service" and an "other person" within the
meaning of 2518(4), and may therefore be required to furnish
facilities and technical assistance is not, however, the end
of the story. The question remains whether the order goes too
far in interfering with the service provided by the Company,
by preventing the Company from supplying the System's services
to its customers when a vehicle is under surveillance.

We conclude that it does.

16153 In re: IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION

[12] Court orders granted pursuant to the authority of
2518 must specify that assistance be provided "unobtrusively
and with a minimum of interference with the services
that such service provider, landlord . . . or person is according
the person whose communications are to be intercepted."
2518(4) (emphasis added). The "a minimum of interference"
language was added in 1970 as part of the amendment
that added the explicit assistance requirement to title III. Pub.
L. No. 91-358, 211(b) (1970).

[13] Looking at the language of the statute, the "a minimum
of interference" requirement certainly allows for some
level of interference with customers' service in the conducting
of surveillance. We need not decide precisely how much
intereference is permitted. "A minimum of interference" at
least precludes total incapacitation of a service while interception
is in progress. Put another way, eavesdropping is not performed
with "a minimum of interference" if a service is
completely shut down as a result of the surveillance.

Our interpretation of the "a minimum of interference" language
is bolstered by our reading of title III, which, we
believe, does not evince a congressional intent to authorize
surveillance in the face of complete disruption of a wire and
electronic communication service for a particular customer.
As the Supreme Court stated in United States v. New York
Telephone Co., "[t]he conviction that private citizens have a
duty to provide assistance to law enforcement officials when
it is required is by no means foreign to our traditions." 434
U.S. at 175 n.24. At the same time, the Supreme Court
stressed that the order in question in that case (approved under
the All Writs Act, not title III) "required minimal effort on the
part of the Company and no disruption to its operations." Id.
at 175 (emphasis added). The obligation of private citizens to
assist law enforcement, even if they are compensated for the
immediate costs of doing so, has not extended to circumstances
in which there is a complete disruption of a service
they offer to a customer as part of their business, and, as we
read title III, Congress did not intend that it would.

[14] In this case, FBI surveillance completely disabled the
monitored car's System. The only function that worked in
some form was the emergency button or automatic emergency
response signal. These emergency features, however, were
severely hampered by the surveillance: Pressing the emergency
button and activation of the car's airbags, instead of
automatically contacting the Company, would simply emit a
tone over the already open phone line. No one at the Company
was likely to be monitoring the call at such a time, as
the call was transferred to the FBI once received. There is no
assurance that the FBI would be monitoring the call at the
time the tone was transmitted; indeed, the minimization
requirements, see note 23, supra, preclude the FBI from listening
in to conversations unrelated to the purpose of the surveillance.
Also, the FBI, however well-intentioned, is not in
the business of providing emergency road services, and might
well have better things to do when listening in than respond
with such services to the electronic signal sen