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!"
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.
... 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
Physicists get Hadrons!
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...
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
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?
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.
Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
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...
My sources are unreliable, but their information is fascinating. -- Ashleigh Brilliant
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.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
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.
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.
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.
The enemies of Democracy are
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.
r ationale/additional_reasons/part3.shtml
From http://www.boycottmadeinchina.org/en/why_boycott/
"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."
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.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
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...
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