Slashdot Mirror
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!"
"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?
The bigotry of the nonbeliever is for me nearly as funny as the bigotry of the believer. - Albert Einstein
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....
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
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?
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?)
Opinions on the Twiddler2 hand-held keyboard?
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.
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...
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.
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
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.
# Erik
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.
Hammer of Truth
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.
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.
Warrant? You must be kidding. Let's not forget the PATRIOT ACT.
We don't need no stinking warrants!
Why oh why didn't I take the purple pill?
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.
Si la vida me da palo, yo la voy a soportar Si la vida me da palo, yo la voy a espabilar
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."
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
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 )
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Honest citizens are still in danger because of roving wiretap provisions and the lower standard needed for a warrent from the patriot act.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
The ability for them to open the mic without you knowing should be advertised clearly though ...
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.
My sources are unreliable, but their information is fascinating. -- Ashleigh Brilliant
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
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
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-