Slashdot Mirror
OnStar Considered Harmful
Frisky070802 writes "A few weeks ago Slashdot ran an article on the privacy issues in EzPass. Some of the comments referred to other things Big Brother could do with GPS in cars, and now the New York Times has run a column on what else your car is saying about you (free registration req'd). From the article: 'Aviel D. Rubin, the technical director of the Information Security Institute at Johns Hopkins University, said that every new technology with the potential to invade privacy was introduced with pledges that it would be used responsibly.
But over time, he said, the desire of law enforcement and business to use the data overtook the early promises. "The only way to get real privacy," he said, "is not to collect the information in the first place."'"
It is impossible to be completely private. This is not a bad thing.
I have been pwned because my
If you're that paranoid, don't install anything trackable in your car.
Most technology can be used to violate your privacy.
.
OnStar is a good system, and can even save your life in the event of an accident.
Or, the government can use it to track you down and assassinate you because of your contributions to
Which one of these two situations are you more likely to be in?
Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
What it boils down to is this: I care more about progress than I do about whether a criminal's got to worry about being wiretapped in a car he's stolen.
Maybe if the Beagle 2 had onstar they would have an idea where it is now. privacy be damned.
Onstar: "Onstar operator here. I see that your airbags have deployed do you need assitance?"
Beagle 2: "Uh, no, everythings fine here."
Onstar: " We are concerend that you have fallen in a crator, can you confirm?"
Beagle 2 : " Look can I get some privacy here! I am in the crator taking a wicked piss. You would to if you had to travel that far without a potty break! I'll be in contact when I am done."
See mystery solved and an example of when to much privacy causes confussion.
Papa Legba come and open the gate
Google link here
every new technology with the potential to invade privacy was introduced with pledges that it would be used responsibly. But over time, he said, the desire of law enforcement and business to use the data overtook the early promises. "The only way to get real privacy," he said, "is not to collect the information in the first place."'"
From the New York Times' mandatory registration page: "We'll keep your information private. The following fields are required. NYTimes.com respects your privacy, so we will never share any personal information without your consent."
What's on the front page tomorrow, an in-depth report on the pot and the kettle?
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
You see this all more and more often, our privacy is pushed back to make room for more and more "helpful services." I wouldn't be surprised if OnStar would report you to the police if you just happened to go over the speed limit or some other activity. Pfft, for all we know we could have to submit to random memory scans in the future as a new wave of "drug tests" that can do much more. Where is our privacy now?
FuckTheFuckingFuckers.com - Post your th
excuse me sir, what the fuck are you talking about?
by the way your url doesn't work, even when i reversed the g and the h.
wears a tinfoil hat.
Ben
Work Safe Porn
Click on the top search result. Link text is: This Car Can Talk. What It Says May Cause Concern."
1993 Ford Escort Hatchback
64 Bhp naturally aspirated Diesel engine, 4-cyl, 1753cc. Not fuel injected.
Mechanical fuel pump control
Manual gearbox
No ABS
No trip comp.
Just try and hijack this. Can even disconnect the vehicle battery and remove it, it'll keep on driving until you need something electrical (radio, lights or starter...)
The only way to get real privacy is not to give them the information in the first place.
As with most things in life, this is an easy problem when approached from a cost/benefit viewpoint.
In this case, we have:
(risk of being spied OnStar)*(loss of privacy) +
(risk of being stranded)*(result of being stranded) +
(added price of OnStar and service)
(<,=,>?)
(risk of being spied on with a cell phone)*(loss of privacy) +
(risk of being stranded w/ cell phone)*(result of being stranded) +
(added price of cell phone and service)
If you've already got a cell phone, and you always have it with you, that side of the question is pretty small.
My little formula ignores the gee-whiz-me-too value of having a built-in car phone and other trivial factors.
sigs, as if you care.
... can it also STOP your car and LOCK your doors?
This Car Can Talk. What It Says May Cause Concern. By JOHN SCHWARTZ Published: December 29, 2003 Last year, Curt Dunnam bought a Chevrolet Blazer with one of the most popular new features in high-end cars: the OnStar personal security system. The heavily advertised communications and tracking feature is used nationwide by more than two million drivers, who simply push a button to connect, via a built-in cellphone, to a member of the OnStar staff. A Global Positioning System, or G.P.S., helps the employee give verbal directions to the driver or locate the car after an accident. The company can even send a signal to unlock car doors for locked-out owners, or blink the car's lights and honk the horn to help people find their cars in an endless plain of parking spaces. A big selling point for the system is its use in thwarting car thieves. Once an owner reports to the police that a car has been stolen, the company, which was started by General Motors, can track it to help intercept the thieves, a service it performs about 400 times each month. But for Mr. Dunnam, the more he learned about his car's security features, the less secure he felt. A research support specialist at Cornell University, he is concerned about privacy. He has enough technical knowledge to worry that someone else - say, law enforcement officers, or even hackers - could listen in on his phone calls, or gain control over his automotive systems without his knowledge or consent. Any gadget that can track a carjacker, he reasons, can just as readily be used to track him. "While I don't believe G.M. intentionally designed this system to facilitate Orwellian activities, they sure have made it easy," he said. OnStar is one of a growing number of automated eyes and ears that enhance driving safety and convenience but that also increase the potential for surveillance. Privacy advocates say that the rise of the automotive technologies, including electronic toll areas, location-tracking devices, "black box" data recorders like those found on airplanes and even tiny radio ID tags in tires, are changing the nature of Americans' relationship with their cars. Beth Givens, founder of the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, said the car had long been a symbol of Kerouac-flavored freedom, and a haven. "You can talk to yourself in your car, you can scream at yourself in your car, you can go there to be alone, you can ponder the heavens, you can think deep thoughts all alone, you can sing," she said. With the growing number of monitoring systems, she said, "Now, the car is Big Brother." James E. Hall, a transportation lawyer and former chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board, said the monitoring systems presented a subtle blend of benefit and risk. "We are moving toward a kind of automobile that nobody's ever known," he said. "It's mostly good news, but there are negative things that we will have to work through." Mr. Dunnam said he had become even more concerned because of a federal appeals court case involving a criminal investigation in Nevada, in which federal authorities had demanded that a company attach a wiretap to tracking services like those installed in his car. The suit did not reveal which company was involved. A three-judge panel in San Francisco rejected the request, but not on privacy grounds; the panel said the wiretap would interfere with the operation of the safety services. OnStar has said that its equipment was not involved in that case. An OnStar spokeswoman, Geri Lama, suggested that Mr. Dunnam's worries were overblown. The signals that the company sends to unlock car doors or track location-based information can be triggered only with a secure exchange of specific identifying data, which ought to deter all but the most determined hackers, she said. As for law enforcement, the company said it released location data about customers only under a court order. "We have no choice but to be responsive to court orders," Ms. Lama said. Other information systems being added to cars can be used for tracking as well. Electronic toll systems ar
Boycott everything - they're all trying to fuck you one way or another
This company is promoting a 24/7 GPS service that enables you to track your vehicle and it will keep you informed if there is any maintenance needed.
I've heard the commercials on the radio, and they spend about 20 seconds describing the technology, then the other 40 seconds are spent on a female voice reading what at first sound like legal disclaimers. But then she says something like "Network Car may not be used to track your husband, find out how lost he got on the way to the grocery store, and then call him to make fun of him." Pretty funny stuff, actually.
Homestarrunner.net -- It's Dot Com!
It seems like it's relevant to ask in a privacy related thread, so please share with us all of you who don't register for the nytimes.com silliness, why do you avoid this formality? The cost seems very slight for some of the best journalism (IMHO), especially compared to salon.com which makes you watch click-through ads.
This may sound like flamebait, but take a moment to think about the complaints about the registration vs. the information that the ny times provides, then if you still think i'm a jerk for asking, mod me down.
Yawn.
Anything that can track when and where you are is subject to violation - either by the government or anyone else. Get used to it or abstain; take your pick.
...we are from the government - we are here to help...
I'd imagine it can. Maybe they're just waiting to implement this "feature?". Scary...
I think slashdot hashing id so that we can't vote twice, yet nobody can look up our id/address as associated with an action (except by brute force). Wait, just had a thought. If my address is adam@somedomain.com and the law was interested in whether I said something, they could just subpeona your hashes and the key and see if mine was the right one. So, it's like a brute force with a very, very good guess. Hmmmm.
This is what OnStar customers must do. OnStar is considered HARMFUL by many, but some smart individuals with a passion for tinkering may wish to alter their vehicles or completely disable the system altogether.
Why order the package at all, if you're going to disable the system? It IS an OPTION, afterall.
See this post in the same story.
In 2002, Nebraska's largest bank robbery took place in Norfolk, Nebraska. 5 people were shot and killed, and the robbers stole a brand new Subaru. They got about 100 miles away and would probably have gotten away with it except that the OnStar system shut the car down and told the police the location of the car (it had been reported hijacked an hour or so earlier).
I don't post this with the intention of saying how "great" OnStar is - infact I am wearing my tinfoil hat right now - but simply to illustrate what the system is capable of.
I don't know about stopping the car, but I know that onstar can lock your doors. They've done this before. People who were delinquent on there car payments quickly found that they could not get in there car because onstar locked them out. its an effective way to ensure that you make timely payments.
damnit can WE somehow block this guy from EVER submitting another blah blah blah story about his imaginary self???? It is really KILLING me!
Probably kind of hard to get a lot of POON TANG while keeping your face buried in books.
Wait, you're a nerd; couldn't get any in the first place.
I think that's a general rule with information that's often not taken very seriously.
When I look at my (non-US) government and a large number (not all) of organisations that I give personal information to, I generally trust them. Within certain bounds, it's not very likely that most people will abuse the trust that you put in them. They ask for information because they think it might be useful for what they're doing for you, and that's initially its primary use. There are obviously some exceptions with marketing motivations -- I don't trust spammers with my email address and never gave them permission to use it. Partly that's where privacy policies and legislation should come in where possible.
The problem, though, is that times change, organisations change, the people running them change, societial views change, and ethics change. Data that you've given to an organisation, on the other hand, doesn't change on its own. It stays right there to be interpreted and used in whichever ways the current powers see fit.
Consider how many organisations and governments have changed over the last 50 years. Then consider that most of the information collected 50 years ago is probably still on record. Just because you trusted the people heading an organisation or a committee or a council or a government at a particular time does not mean that those people won't change later on.
Information collected today will almost certainly be on record 50 years from now. In fact, it's likely that much more of it will remain on record than from the past 50 years until now, because digital information is so easy and cheap to manage and manipulate compared with paper.
For the same reasons when I was a membership secretary for a small-medium organisation I felt an ethical obligation to destroy at least the digital membership records of former members a year after they left, unless there was a good reason to keep them. I wasn't going to do anything deceptive with them, but I couldn't guarantee who would be on the committee in five or ten years' time. This isn't the norm with most organisations, though.
Realistically I do trust the majority of people and organisations when they tell me that they wouldn't abuse information that I give them. It means a lot more to me though if they'll commit to destroying it after they no longer need it.
I don't know if this is a problem that can easily be fixed. Realistically information about people is what the world runs on -- it's a fuzzy boundary and matter of opinion that determines how much is too much or what constitutes misuse. If it suits you then you could get all paranoid and not give out any personal information to anyone, but that's not an option for most people and in some situations it's not legal for arguably reasonable reasons.
The Only connection from the world from a on* system is simply a watt analog cellular phone. Remember the Old MOTOROLA BAG PHONES.... same tranciever. So if peoiple are truely that paranoid, throw out your cell phones. because it's only when it dials out or in from a on* call centre is that GPS data being trancieved. So anyone trying to track has to get info from the on* people, not the vehicle. Maby from the MTSOs' of some areas if you know the ESN of the tranciever. To wich you can only tell wich towers the vehicle was closest to at the time of any calls, incomming or outgoing from the onstar unit. In fact if one were to plug in a handset into the rj45 connector of the side of the cellular tranciever (to wich I have many) one can even know the number of the call centre. GO back to your PCs G33ks, This 21 year old technie knows the cellular systems well, espically analog AMPS. Have one mounted in my 03 cavalier as a car phone, same tranciever as used the on* system but just as a phone, and a touch older. It's fun to use it to listen to other peoples cellular conversations by using test mode.
in my case, i really am more likely to be in the 2nd situation. the government should just fuck out of my and everyone else's life. seriously. they constantly exceed any reasonable interpretation of the constitution. therefor they should be eliminated at whatever cost.
There had better be something to that affect in the contract, Otherwise they could be in a heap load of trouble. Imagine this scenario, Young couple is about to have their first baby, there is some complications with the pregnancy where they need to rush to the hospital. Now imagine that their OnStar system has locked them out of the car. I can just see the lawyers circling.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
My friend bought a brand new Mustang a few weeks ago. He comes into the living room yesterday and told me that his car tracks speeds, seatbelt information and even the way he drives. Also right after that it says that it can be downloaded by ford, the US government and that he can even request the information. I dont want a car that spies on me, thats just a bit much
life sucks, then you die
I think I remember you, I was contracting for Magnusson-Moss at the time and I think we were in a few meetings together.
-- Maintainer: Wine (Is Not an Emulato
Well considering that they could have had someone collect (steal back) the car, your scenario is little more than an appeal to pity.
Discovery ran a piece on these repo guys. All hollywooded up, but these were real down and dirty guys with tow trucks sneaking into driveways at night and towing cars. Hot stuff. So Onstar doesn't actually add a new threat in that arena.
PS. If you are having a baby, maybe you should continue those payments one more month until she delivers.
I figured most colleges it takes a 4.0 to top out the class, and there tends to be more than one person.
Get it straight, I could care less if a computer decided it wanted to catalouge and profile my life to help me out. Most people feel this way. I'd love to have a PDA that was intellegent enough to tell me what restuarants served food with my preferences (such as no msg, no feedlotted beef, no tap water, etc) or that'd give me directions in my car when I got lost, or could call up emergency services if I get stranded in the desert. But I have HUGE problems with the US goverment, companies and buisnesses, or even my neighbors having that information. The potential for abuse is to great for me to allow myself to be invaded like that.
Why? Because the information people have about you is power they have over you, and I don't trust anyone accept family with that information. I DO NOT trust the US goverment as much as I trust my parents or siblings and that's how it's supposed to be. I DO NOT trust sony to know what my buying preferences or toxic waste distributors like coca cola to know I don't like drinking their toxic waste. Infact, the very fact that most of us are scared shitless at the US goverment or corperations or buisnesses prying is proof enough that something's wrong and something needs to be done before a real civil war takes place and people begin shooting and dieing and nuking.
Candy-Coated Knowledge
What is the big deal with onstar while the number of cars carrying it are stuill countable whereas millions of cell phone users, announcing their whereabouts (maybe with not that exact accuracy but it also is coming) minute-in and minute-out.
....
It also sounds like an NYT staff writer or freelancer is at odds with someone from GM and/or onstar team. I personally do not take anything that I read on media for its face value, especially from a paper like NYT, who has a very skewed angle for looking at the world events.
Next please
__________
The more I know people, the more I love animals
"How about insurance companies viewing the information to see how you drive to determine whether they should jack up your insurance rates."
I'm all for that, and so should you be. I drive obeying all posted signs and speed limits. Were it not for the fact that I live in a provice with socialized insurance on my car, I'd be paying about 3-4 grand per year to insure my car (worth about 1500$ CDN), rather than the 720$/year I pay now. Plus, since I have no accidents on record, I get a discount of 1% per each year of no accidents (6 years since I got my licence accident free).
The thing is, I'm a male in my low 20s. Most insurance companies traditionally track what they'd charge based on the age and gender, which (thanks to other drivers my gender and age being retards) would put me in a very shitty spot. Anything that lets insurance companies rape bad drivers while leaving better drivers with lowered rates and protection in case of stupid drivers is fine by me!
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
http://www.cockeyed.com/inside/aluminum/aluminum.h tml
- Rob Cockerham (if I were him, that is)
You only pay to use the services - AFAIK all GM cars that have the option have the hardware installed.
Once a pending scheduled service comes due, our Mercedes will contact the local dealer and make a service appointment...all on it's own.
Not that any of that type of servitude qualifies the gathering of historical data as relates to location, exceeding the speedlimit, etc. Just a matter of time before insurance companies misuse that info, just like they do when profiling/redlining.
There is a way round this. In the UK the Data Protection Act (Here) Specifies that data is kept no longer than required.
I'm not sure how enforcable this is, but the legislation is there.
just a tip ALL diesels are fuel injected, its impossible to not have a fuel injected diesel see those things on the head where your spark plugs would be... diesels dont have spark plugs buddy, take a look at that line running between all of them, its a fuel line, wonder that could be....
As they say around here, RTFB (blurb):
"The only way to get real privacy," he said, "is not to collect the information in the first place."'"
That, my friend, is the bottom line of the article summary, and also the bottom line for many of us. Some fights are worth fighting for purely on their merits, and privacy is one of them. Pragmatism has nothing to do with it. I just enjoy my privacy, so do thousands of others here on Slashdot, and it's nice to remind everyone else of that.
The more people sign up for the NYT online, the more acceptable it is for companies to do it. Thanks, but no thanks.
Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
3.98? Bah, if you'd have used the newer patched Pentium you wouldn't have had the rounding errors and Excel would've given you a 4.0 (oh wait, I mean, after you probably helped invent those too, that is). Are you related to Al G?
One question for you: How long will it be until an OnStar-like system is required in every vehicle?
Think about it. OnStar saves the lives of so many grannies on their way to bingo, or some diabetics who went into insulin shock, or... whatever. Then, using their typical logic, Congress decrees that, since it's helped some people, everyone now has to have it if they want a new car. They did it with on-board defib units in planes, they did it with GPS in cell phones, they even did it with closed-captioning in televisions.
To update an old saying, when having privacy is outlawed, then only outlaws will have privacy.
Amsterdam, eh? Hmmm...
Telstra, eh? Hmmmm.....
At least in GM cars It seems to have full access to the vechiles data bus, so it can proablly do anything it want's. From locking your doors, to even what presets are on the radio.
Oh my goodness, does it cause cancer? Does it distract drivers and cause them to crash? Does it short out the car's computer and cause the car to stall? What harm does it do to anybody? Oh, it allows people to be tracked...
Now I realize that privacy is a big concern, and many Slashdot users are extra vigilant about their privacy since they know how easily it is to misuse this information, but HARMFUL?!?! Invasive, cause for concern, intrusive, worrisome, a bad step, worth investigating, worth disabling, whatever, all these are acceptable and valid descriptions. But not HARMFUL. Why must everything posted be overblown? Do you really think fewer people would read the article if you had a realistic, nonsensational headline?
How about a little accuracy...
I had an incident last year where Subaru took my monthly check (paid on time, thank you very much) cashed it, then failed to credit my account and started calling me and harassing me about non-payment. I had to go to the bank, get a copy of the canceled check and fax it to them to clear it up.
Needless to say, I will never buy Subaru again. Still, it would have been worse if the car had actually locked me out.
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
One problem solved.
Jack
OK, who are the dipshit mods who marked this thing as 'interesting'?
Parent is a complete bullshit troll. NOT ONE WORD HE SAYS CAN BE CONSIDERED RELIABLE.
Nobody's going to spy on you using your mare!
Because the US government does shit like putting opposition party members (such as green party members) on No Fly lists. There is no reason to think they will not abuse this technology. The police and FBI are also totally incompetent fools and often make mistakes. They also have a big chip on their sholder and will not admit any mistakes, so if they make a mistake and charge you with a crime based on this "evidence" from OnStar, they would rather frame you than admit they were wrong.
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
Related, I think, is the necessity that We The Consumer insist information trafficking products fully disclose what information is collected, how said information is used and, most importantly, present the option to disable any and all of everything!
"Nothing in education is so astonishing as the amount of ignorance it accumulates in the form of inert facts." - Henry A
I registered once, I don't know what the login is... Just easier to click a link.
You might just be able to pull of the next Frank Abagnale, Jr.!
-Rob
Marriage doesn't have to suck!
Whomever wrote that OnStar is considered Harmful is a retard. The title itself implies that OnStar causes some sort of damage/harm to it's users, when that could be the farthest thing from the truth. When I bought my car, the dealer made a great selling point on how they can quickly recover stolen vehicles with OnStar and that if I ever got in an accident, OnStar would automatically come on asking me if I needed help. Sure, hackers, FBI, et al, can hack into the system, but the odds of that happening are very, very low.
"Jeremy, you need to get to an internet cafe and cut and paste some appropriate sentiments about me from the world wide
"it wont effect me"
How many times has that been said throughout history, just before they come knocking on the door?
Slow encroachment and slow acceptance, are the 2 biggest dangers.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
You know the old chestnut:
... ... ... ...
"What'd you pull me over for, Officer"
"Yer headlight's out"
"Not its not"
{smash, tinkle}
"Yes it is"
Here's the future of OnStar...
"Sir? This is OnStar. Your car has reached a recommended service interval. Would you like to book an appointment now?"
"No, thank you."
"OnStar, how may I help you?"
"My car will only do 5 miles an hour."
"That's correct sir. As a courtesy to OnStar members, GM offers their GOFAST, GM Online Failure Avoidance Safety Tracking System free of charge. For your safety and convenience, your car will continue to operate at this safe speed until the safety systems have been verified by a GM-ceritified engineer."
"I heard that, sir."
"OnStar, how may I help you?"
"The hood won't open"
"The system indicates that you are not at an authorized GM service center."
(somebody else can finish the story...)
Well...my guage of how much something infringes on my privacy is to ask myself, "Could this same information be collected by a cop sitting on public property?" For example, say it reports if you're speeding. That's nothing a motorcycle cop with a radar gun couldn't see.
You get tracked driving to your terrorist buddy's place to buy some illegal weapons. Nothing the FBI couldn't see by tailing you.
btw what's wrong with defibs in planes? And frankly I *want* GPS in my phone when I call 911. I did that once for a fire in the middle of nowhere and it took a good few miles before I hit an exit and could tell the dispatcher where I was (this was in California where they don't believe in mile markers...) And once again when there was an "incident" when I couldn't stay on the line long enough to say where I was. The situation diffused itself, but it *really* would've helped to have gotten a cop there.
Closed captioning pisses me off, but just because I don't feel like I should have to pay for it...
Its a joke/omage. There's a very (in)famous computer science article by one of the founders of computer science titled "Goto Considered Harmful". The article details the "harmful" effects of the "goto" construct in the C/C++ langauges. (I wont editorialize on this subject).
Religion is a gateway psychosis. -- Dave Foley
I think everyone that collects information starts out with the best intentions. But, sooner or later, any information resource that can be abused will be. So the more persistent information becomes the greater the abuses that will occur. I think there has to be a reaction at some point. Can't help thinking people will wake up one day and it will hit them how invasive information gathering has become and push back. Then I go to some public place and look around and realize...these people are fucking idiots.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
"I drive obeying all posted signs and speed limits"
You're either lying or a dweeb.
Neither is a flattering portrait of you, and you're one of those "Internet-Nanny-Do-Gooders" who tell other people how they should live.
Me, I'll tell you the truth. I drive double the limits, I obey signs when it makes sense, and I haven't gotten into an accident or even gotten a ticket in 20 years.
You strike me as a loser. I hope you lose the ability to drive in some hideous fashion.
You're f*cking welcome.
I got an impression that it was exactly OnStar technology
Minor quibble. Same technology, but not the same company. It was Tele Aid (from ATX, used by Mercedes Benz), not OnStar, that was involved in this case. This is covered by Kevin Poulsen in this SecurityFocus article.
The truth about Scientology, Xenu, and you: Operation Clambake
if its naturally aspirated, its not fuel injected..
It's an option on some vehicles (generally the base model) and is a factory-included standard feature on others. In other words, if you want a Buick LeSabre, there is no model that does not come with OnStar.
If you want a Buick and don't want OnStar you must opt for the least expensive Buick (eg Century).
There are many examples of GM vehicle models where OnStar is mandatory.
Known troll, don't bother.
C|N>K
If you have a car with OnStart and you are not using it, unplug your antenna. Pull the small cable that is coming out of the little black box at the top of your windshield (that is where it is on mine). You may have to use some force to get the sna adapter out, but it will come out and your OnStar light should turn red.
Subaru, the car maker, is not the entity from which you borrowed money to buy the car. So it's pretty silly to say "I will never buy Subaru again" instead of "I will never borrow from Lender X again". There are dozens of places you could borrow to buy a car, not to mention the option of saving up the money beforehand.
The reason? Cydonia exists, but the people aren't ready to deal with not being the center of the spiritual universe (Brookings Report).
You want a system in your car that calls the paramedics and fire department when your airbag is deployed and you're knocked out. But hey - that may monitor your location (start getting paranoid).
Let's not do anything that might gather some information!
I suppose the practice in some poor areas of giving a free cell phone to a nearly ready to pop pregnant woman should be stopped - the government may find out how many children we're really having.
Does anything of a legal nature you're doing really need that much privacy?
It's funny, for all of the people doing illegal things trying so hard to keep things private - they're actually easier to identify that way.
Who is suspected?
The guy with $10,000 in a (traceable) checking account or the guy with $10,000 in cash in the trunk of his car?
The guy that has credit card receipts, FasTrak bill, cell phone calls from where he said he was and so on or the guy that avoided anything and everything that would provide any details as to his location.
It isn't just the police that get interested when nothing can be dug up on someone.
These people probably aren't the best date material either:
"I like to be able to step out with no way for you to contact me with our untraceable cash."
"I know you want a cell phone for when we go through a bad part of town but with one satellite and two helicopters they triangulate our position."
"Yes, my middle initials are AKA."
or the famous "never ask me about my business".
The only company that makes a device (the Vetronix CDR system) to extract the data from it charges thousands of dollars for it--there's a secretive Yahoo group of "accident reconstructionists" that make their living extracting data from these devices and testifying for those willing to pay expert witnesses (e.g. insurance companies).
Those who don't value their privacy will say that people should be held accountable for their actions. Fair enough--but these data are open to interpretation, and only those with the cash will be able to pay one of these people to get the interpretation they want.
Well...my guage of how much something infringes on my privacy is to ask myself, "Could this same information be collected by a cop sitting on public property?"
Personally, I'd ask myself how easily a cop on public property could collect the information. For instance:
say it reports if you're speeding. That's nothing a motorcycle cop with a radar gun couldn't see.
Fine, but the cop has to be sitting there, and you have to be in an area where the cop is allowed to use the radar gun, and the cop can actually look at the situation as it is happening.
Now, we're suddenly talking about an automated reporting that is pulled completely out of context. Days, weeks, months after the incident, someone looks at the raw data and sees only one thing: the speed your car was going between two specific points on the map.
Do you watch your spedometer constantly? Do you never drift over the speed limit accidently, or speed up to avoid a dangerous situation? Never miss a sign announcing a change in speed limit? Never glance down suddenly to realize that anxiety has caused you to speed up without noticing? Should we make it so everyone receives an exact bill every time they get one mile over the limit? Where does the line get drawn?
As much as it pains me to agree with Mike Hawk on something, In this case he is correct.
Besides, while many lenders may hassle you for a late payment, most are hesitant to just pull the car without a fair bit of nagging and warning first. They take back the car, they don't make nearly as much money as they would if you keep up the payments. The car is yanked when it becomes obvious that you cannot pay it back, ever.
This is not to say that the data collection/tracking thing isn't a bad thing, I am just saying lets stay realistic and behave like rational thinking beings for a second.
They're public records, right? Joe Average doesn't have access to any new information. What's the problem?
It's quite possible, even likely, that an arm of Subaru is carrying the financing if it was obtained through a dealer. Although it may well be a case of one hand not knowing what the other is doing between two divisions of a large company, his wrath at Subaru in general may not be misdirected.
Off-topic but here's a how-to on following cellular channel handoffs using an old Motorola phone in test mode:
AMPS Cellular System Call Monitor
Of course, if you're still bragging about your GPA more than 3 years after graduation, you must have accomplished nothing of importance since then.
Subaru, the car maker, is not the entity from which you borrowed money to buy the car
How do you know that?
Most vehicle manufacturers (including Subaru) have their own finance departments. They are a separate legal entity, but they're owned by the same people.
As an example, my Neon is financed by "Chrysler Acceptance Corporation" - note the name there.
So - how exactly is it that you know more about where this guy got his financing from than he does?
Do we have privacy in public transit? We buy tickets and have schedules that can determine precisely where you are and at what speed you are going.
Likewise, maybe we should view driving in the same light.
Why should we view driving as a public affair? Well, because we all depend on it, the government pays for the roads (tracks) and other electronic equipment to keep it safe. Also, it kills many citizens every year. It is of public interest.
A lot of slashdotters are all about public transit anyways, isn't tracking automobiles as the same as tracking cars that go on railroad tracks?
Plus, when we have automated guidance systems, we'll need these kind of monitoring anyways.
- Philosophistry
Philosophistry
(Score: k-lined, psycho granola hippie)
So long, freak. Get out of Berkeley before its too late. And for God's sake, learn how to spell "dying".
user: slashdot2003
pass: slashdot2003
--
Power to the Peaceful
But why should have have to remember a stupid username and password to LOOK AT A NEWS STORY - and yes if I happened to be in the same place all the time, using the same browser, I could have the browser save it, but why. So I either have to record and track YET ANOTHER GODDAMN password, or I have to fill out the form every time.
/. links to the NYT login page. It would really be nice if /. established a policy allowing only news links that actually link directly to the relevant story/content, and stopped posting ones that lead to login forms. On the rare occasion that I am *REALLY* interested in the subject at hand, I enter a bunch of bullshit info on their form, read the story, and be done with it. Since they cant verify the information, it baffles me why they bother asking. But I suppose the majority of the drones that go there really do enter their real info, and 'maintain' their account with NYT so they can be profiled. If more people starting entering random/fake data in these types of forms, then sites would stop annoying their visitors with them.
I can understand a user/pass for my online banking, its protecting access to being able to order bills paid, transfer funds, etc.
But this is a NEWS STORY - not some secret private information. Its a PUBLICATION. Print copies of it probably end up blowing around the streets of NY the day after its distributed, or in litter piles. Its bullshit that I should have to have an 'account' to read a news story.
I usually just ignore
Folks - this isn't about speeding. OnStar is everything : GPS, location tracking, speed, locking and unlocking your car doors, disabling the engine, knowing how many people are in the car (determined by how many seat belts are latched), and the real kicker : real time audio surveillance.
You read that right - they can open the phone connection on your in-dash phone and listen to everything said and done in the vehicle. In theory they should announce themselves, but don't kid yourself.
Think you are being entirely too cool taking your secretary out in your new Mercedes Benz for a ride in the country and a romp in the back seat? Not only do they know where you picked her up, where you went, where you stopped in the country to tap a little ass, they can listen in on the juicy parts.
If you think they are not already doing it, think again. Watch the movie Enemy of the State and remember it is about 5 years old. That's about 28 in computer years.
Glonoinha the MebiByte Slayer
Ah yes, the voice of reason.
Its right up there with "why shouldnt I piss to prove my innocence since I have nothing to hide?"
Its amazing how a country which spouts freedom is so easily lulled into giving them up.
You dont complaing about abuses AFTER they are made but before.
Not to worry, there will eventually be some useful 'event' which will make us realize how wrong we are to worry.
While what you're saying's probably too true, gross incompetence etc. in places of authority can certainly become lethally dangerous in a hurry.
Mistakes, negligence, stupidity, et al., has rendered many lives' truly Kafkaesque. Hell, falsely convicted people are being executed...*shudder*
True, most of us can probably sleep soundly (most of the time), even with some small wrong-doings on our conscience. But if/when 'dumb power' fixes us in its sights, "Abandon all hope, ye who..."
668.5
Im too lazy...Any more questions
Naturally aspirated means that it is not turbo or supercharged. Nothing to do with the fuel. aspirate=breathe
I can't read their paper without registering for it. How is that privacy?
Seems they are doing the same thing, as my name and some personal information is disclosed to them. They can also track my logins, the pages I view, the topics I read.
How is that invasion of privacy any different from your stupid car tracking you? (And if you don't want it to, turn the shit off or don't buy a car with it!)
"Kettle, this is pot. You're black."
I wouldn't want my personal information collected - period.
I think a foreign party having a small amount of information about you is usually not dangerous. However, collected, comprehensive, and/or easily acessible information about you is a risk. If the data is organized, someone can search it; if the data is in one place, someone can get all of it; etc. The barriers to these tasks, no matter how impossible at one time, will go down.
When that information can't be changed (like biometric data) or the barriers to changing it (like changing addresses, names, etc.) become too costly, your information is that much more valuable. If that data could be easily searchable by multiple parties (or one big, influential party - Walmart, the government, etc.), the information suddenly becomes more valuable. If enough good information is sitting around, someone will find a way to make money off it.
The real barrier is collecting information and then matching it to something significant and/or having it readily available. That is why some people simply do not like having to register to recieve a free newspaper article. Obviously, nothing is really free. Registering is doing something for the New York Times. It could be and probably is anonymous number crunching. But there seems something wrong (or maybe just scary) about a society where we give away information about ourselves for a small price. Information is freedom right? So how much is it worth to me? I don't want to find out.
for certain classes of information this is a perfect scenario for the use of DRM.
The lender is Subaru American Credit, dumbass. Besides that, the car is a piece of shit.
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
Subaru with an Onstar? Nice. What did they do, steal the onstar system out of a GM car and wire it into the Suby before driving it away?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
The problem is as follows:
Define "no longer than required".
The only reason we have the rights we have is that people just like us died to gain those rights. -- Cheerio Boy
Its mostly the older crowd buying Cadillacs; so perhaps this is hitting exactly the part of the market they want.
I suspect it isn't the BMW/Porsche crowd looking to be tracked by OnStar.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
New Saturn Minivan the Relay has Standard Onstar at all trim levels. They throw in a year of emergency service for free.
I'd bet GM will start putting Onstar standard in many new cars since the greater numbers will make it cheaper per unit. You might not even know you have it.
I guess if you are shopping for a car, that's one thing you might want to look out for. I imagine there will be procedures posted on line for disabling the Onstar system, or at least crippling it. I know that's one of the first things I'd do.
"He's lost in a 'floyd hole"
Let's take this another step further. You're in your car. Your car has windows. You have to drive your car on public roads (most of the time). How the hell much privacy do you expect to really have out in the middle of the bloody road? Honestly, this sort of situation doesn't really need to be pointed out, but so far nobody else has. If you want absolute, untouchable privacy, then just bury yourself in five feet of lead-lined concrete and be done with it.
"Why Subscribe?" Good question...
Is to live like a hermit without technology away from everyone else. No thanks. I'd rather go through life realizing that I don't give a damn if someone knows what kind of jeans I wear or where I was last saturday night or what time I passed through the toll booth.
See also http://www.sema.org/content/?id=8124
Speaking of privacy, the FBI is now concerned that almanacs can be used for terrorism! You think I'm kidding? So, when the guberment locates your vehicle, they will arrest you for your almanac, and probably your road maps.
Who the heck gives real, personally-identifiable information to those things?
Heck, I use a login shared with a bunch of people anyways.
There's a big difference between tracking info about what somebody (not personally identified) is reading, and actually tracking the physical location of a piece of property that belongs to a verified person who has signed a contract...
(posted anonymously, just because.)
OnStar's not a bad thing. I'd just like to be able to choose to buy a car without purchasing the hardware or service and be absolutely certain that it can't be remotely activated without my knowledge. I don't see that option available on GM cars right now.
OK, so I can buy another brand of car. But what happens to my ability to choose when the cost benefit to insurers or some other party dictates that they all move toward a market equilibrium in which this feature is standard and expected?
I also don't want to permit something like OnStar to allow insurers to track everyone's driving behavior so completely that they can statistically turn insurance rates into a game of 'Operation' -- "Oops, you touched the sides once, your rates will be going up one hundred million percent effective immediately!" Five perfect drivers who never actually drive and who lock up their cars in armed-guarded bank vaults each get to pay $5/year for insurance and the rest of us are treadmilled on a sliding scale with the lowest rate set somewhere in the mid-thousands... Sounds like supermarket loyalty cards and banks who cancel credit cards on customers who pay off their cards each month -- too much power in their hands and not enough in ours.
I'm Canadian. I mostly trust government, but I am reminded of two things.
First, income tax was instituted as a wartime measure, back in July 1917. Basically the government said, "Temporary measure -- wartime necessity. Trust us. We'll get rid of it when the war's over". Still in effect, over 80 years later.
Second, in 1964 our government chose to implement a social security numbering system. We call this a "Social Insurance Number", and it was originally heralded as only being a file identifier for Unemployment Insurance and the Canada Pension Plan. Eventually all government services would require its use. Today it is not possible to open a bank account or get a job without a number any more. Too bad if somebody steals your credit card--you're the one with the blip on your permanent record.
Lesson: be careful entrusting government with new powers. They are loathe to recind them, and even the most innocuous of these powers tend to grow with time.
Wow, thatd be so terrible taht every vehicle sold in the US had life saving capabilities included.
Quit being so paranoid. Who cares if the gov't has the remote possibility to tell where you are? what are you so afraid of them finding out. I work for the gov't, and seeing what i see the only thing they'd use it for is developing better intersections and highways. Maybe some safety data. What is the big deal.
Yea, and i've got a bridge to sell ya.
Oh yea nhe gov't is our enemy according to you.
People like you vote liberal, and they want 'big govt' to come back.
Reality cheack.
Why not? He's completely right about the warranty issues. What makes you think nothing else he says is reliable?
'Standards' in computing only impress those who are impressed by things like 'standards'.
So I'm assuming you've never paid for a newspaper subscription, and have not ever once bought a paper from a newsstand? Quit bitching about pointless borderlin psychotic paranoid bullshit. I've fucking had it with this place.
'Standards' in computing only impress those who are impressed by things like 'standards'.
man are you off your rocker.
Way to take something out of context.
This is way far fetched. Get a grip on reality and hold on tight.
AMEN.
Wrong, natural Aspiration means no turbo or supercharger -- or in some purists belief's N2O.
All Diesels are injected, most are turbo charged (not N/A). Be it mechanical or electronic injection, it's still injection -- without the above mentioned forced air inducers though, it's a N/A vehicle.
So I think you missed one. He's a dyslexic Israeli consultant, National Weather Service researcher, associate professor of a nonexistant college and a corporate lawyer. All in one day. Still pretty impressive...
for $20, I'll fuck your sister (provided she's over 18).
For $50, I'll do your mother, (again provided she's over 18).
If they're under 18, we'll leave it to the government or Wal-mart; they seem to fuck everybody sooner or later.
I held a 3.98 GPA and graduated first in my class.
I had a 4.0.
Liar.
A note from the real world. If your list of accomplisments begins with a brag about your collegic GPA -- your not living in it. This goes double for grad school, where your reasearch projects are 10x as important as your GPA. Your troll would have been much more effecitve without that opening paragraph.
Hey, dumbass, get a clue and actually research what this guy's telling you. Is it so hard to listen to someone and check Google to see if they're full of it or not, instead of assuming they are?
Oh, but wait, you know everything and liberals are stupid. As if privacy knows party lines and liberal/conservative is relevant in this discussion.
"We invented personal computing." - Bill Gates
Here is a device to jam GPS and OnStar-style cellular tracking systems:
Cellular Phone/GPS "Burst" Tracking Device Jammer
You might not even know you have it.
;-) Tell them the signal is poor in the parking garage at work.
The big button marked OnStar is kind of a give-away.
Regarding disabling it, It's not recommended. It's the best lo-jack system out there. Car stolen, call them. police find a nice traffic light ahead, get there, have the system shut down at the light. No high speed chases, no crooks getting away, etc. If you want your privacy, don't steal an on-star equiped vehicle.
If you are not going right home after work however, you might want to disable the GPS just for the trip.
The truth shall set you free!
You are off your rocker. we're talking about Onstar.
What does this have to do with supposed no-fly lists?
You are paranoid. Yes.
Actually, did you know tht slashdot tracks all of your posts? Holy shit the gov't might have access to this.
----
Go bury hole and live in it.
My 1968 Camaro SS 396 Big Block violates no ones privacy and gets me dates. For the required tech appeal I have an empeg in dash MP3 player and a well hidden bluetooth handsfree. If I have a horrible wreck and need emergency assistance some soccer mom driving by in her Onstar equipped SUV will probably report it.
In my province, registering your car (= making legal to drive) is also insuring it. SGI is the one government body which does the car registration, auto insurance, and licencing for everything in the province.
:)
There's no way you can drive your car without insurance, as everyone has it. If you do decide to drive an unregistered car, it's immediate jail time. The insurance is no fault; if there's an accident, you pay your deductible, and they cut a cheque for the rest. This also makes for the interesting situation where it may be cheaper to swerve into a pedestrian that it would be to let yourself be hit by a car that's out of control, because the no-fault stuff covers any liability in that case.
SGI's also pretty reasonable for an insurance company. I bike all summer, and some guy decided to open his door into me (despite my shouting and his looking back at me). I ended up being fine, but he managed to destroy everything in my pocket (GSM phone, Palm pilot, pen). I got a cheque for $400 after a week and 1 report to SGI.
I like insurance on something like a car. Nowhere else do you typically involve yourself with devices that can easily cause so much personal or property damage. Insurance means you have a small, controlled expense in the event of an accident. That's really the goal of insurance -- everyone pays a small amount so that those who need it aren't fucked. If I hit a 70,000$ BMW, I pay my deductible and walk away fine mostly fine: I will pay more for registration and have points on my licence if I'm at fault, but I won't have to sell everything I own and declare bankruptcy!
Yea, you can argue that you'd be better off sticking that money in a bank account and accumulating interest on it, but insurance is always there with no build up period, plus it requires no discipline on your part beside paying for it -- there's no temptation to run out and buy a new car or home theatre with the money. In that sense, insurance is already escrow.
Saying that auto insurance is an artificial industry is like saying that medical insurance is an artificial industry. The only people who say that are those who haven't yet used it, or incredibly naive people. Everyone wins with these kinds of social agreements -- go take an economics course, and you'll understand why
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
OnStar could be a great aid to terrorists. Plant bombs, and wait until the target drives by to detonate them. Load in a list of targets (politicians, cops, judges, journalists) and the next one to drive by gets it.
Protest, write some letters, mention the cool rates that
;)
SGI has for people in otherwise crappy brackets. There's a rate calculator if you click in (I get about 612$/year for my car). If I go by one of SGI's sample rate comparisons, I'd pay about $1,000 a year for a car that'd cost about $8,000 a year in Toronto for insurance. Yeesh!
This is also why I don't plan on moving to Alberta until sometime after I finish my degree
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
SGI isn't, though. They're a crown corporation. Any profit is given back in the form of lower rates.
You can still make money on insurance without having everyone pay really large fees -- you do have the chance to earn interest on all the money you're holding in escrow, you just can't put it into anything very risky because of the regular payouts.
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
You ever heard of SMLM? Soviet Military Liaison Mission? If you think that Onstar is bad, you have a long way to go before you get to the truth.
I'll prob get in trouble for this telling but and i mean but.... There are more sharks in the the water than you think.
Sincerely, Czephyr
Because he is lying, his previous post claimed he was a consultant for the Israelis, the post before that he was a weather consultant.
He never consultated for the Magnusson-Moss act, and is simply Karma Whoring, because he is permanently on -1 for being one of slashs more colourful trolls.
We're talking about privacy issues, and if we're going to be specific, we're talking about OnStar privacy issues. However, you are apparently one of those people that enjoys playing the "You're off-topic" card whenever it's convenient for yourself. If you care about being on-topic on a "thread" you started, how about you nip it at the bud and say "Hey, I don't want to get into this shit because it's off-topic" but that's not what you did, you taunted.
Excuse me for answering your taunt.
By the way, anything is related to anything else. The OnStar (And similar systems in deployment) have serious privacy concerns, and you seem to have missed the part about the FBI court order in this whole thing. The government has already tried to take advantage of this privacy slip and don't think they won't try again anyways. It's ignorance like your own that allows governments to get away with ignoring the constitution. People say oh, boohoo, not only do I have nothing to hide, but I also don't care, so long as I'm "safe" for a bit longer!
Not only is OnStar and similar systems on the road to becoming a required component of any automobile, it's also run, mostly, by people that care about money. The government is run, mostly, by people that care about power. Money and power go hand in hand, and it doesn't take much to figure out that backdoor deals as well as exploits of flaws in the sytem will go ignored.
You may call us paranoid, but I, sir, call you blissfully ignorant in your own little world. Your naivete contributes more than you know to the maintenance of the status quo. Do some research on history and realize that things aren't all peachy below the surface.
P.S. -- Before you even attempt to claim that the court order is proof the gov't won't be allowed to get away with attempts at the same stunts, realize that it's the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals we're talking about here, and they're overturned quite often.
"We invented personal computing." - Bill Gates
I ask an honest question and I'm a troll? Fuck your dog too. Now you can mod me a troll.
'Standards' in computing only impress those who are impressed by things like 'standards'.
Euroderf
> Your car has windows.
:)
A car with windows brings new meaning to blue screen of DEATH, doesn't it
My other car is first.
I don't even have a credit card. Refused to ever get one. Just for that reason.
And I also don't use checks for regular purchases.. ( things like mortgage payments, they already know about that so i use a check )
If you don't think in this current world where the government is invading your privacy and rights like there is no tomorrow and you shouldn't be cautious.... then you are either a fool or blind..
If you need facts, just wake up and look around.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790 (This sentence was much used in the Revolutionary period. It occurs even so early as November, 1755, in an answer by the Assembly of Pennsylvania to the Governor, and forms the motto of Franklin's 'Historical Review,' 1759, appearing also in the body of the work.--Frothingham: Rise of the Republic of the United States, p. 413.))
> some of the best journalism (IMHO)
Whether or not a news outlet contains `the best journalism` is hardly a matter of opinion - it's a matter of fact. Read some Chomsky for more details of the pro-US government bias of the NY Times
> I've fucking had it with this place.
So this will be your last post here, I take it? Or...more bullshit in a Slashdot post?
Two Words: GPS Jammers. They already exist. As usual criminals will learn how to resist any technology because it is in their best interest to and they have resources, will and money to. The everyday citizen will just have to explain to his employer why he said he was sick while his car was going somewhere ; nobody will believe his wife took his car.
And if somebody is thinking about insurance premium cuts if you install the tracking device: as soon as it becomes standards, there will be no premium for installing it ; therefore the insurance companies will need to find some other way to do money if they have to keep the price low because of Onstar or other tracking stuff. Remember insurance companies as any other company are in the business for -profit- not for helping you.
Anybody got the lowdown on this?
Free Mac Mini Yeah, it's
This is one of the flaws. It is soemthign that could be followed up. If a company is keepign records for suspect reasons it is possible to get the onbudsman involved.
If the data cannot be shown to be neccersary it will be forcibley deleted. Of course there is no way of ensuring that every copy is deleted but that would recquire a deliberate and organised breaking of the law which can never be protected fully against.
Something that is taken into account when working out how long is required is the spirit and circumstance under which the information is given. If information is given to have a refund sent to you then there is no legitimate reason for keepign the data for mroe than a year or so. If it is information on car ownership there is reason to keep the infolrmation for the life of the car plus a 'cussion period' afterwards.
Maybe the measure of a new, potential privacy invasion can be taken not by the extent to which it will snare the guilty, but the extent to which the innocent will have recourse when they get caught, too.
to clarify: What happened with Gitmo shouldn't have been possible, not because it was ineffective at catching the guilty, but because the innocent- if there are any- have no way to refute the charges, no way to get out of it once they're in it. Using library data to find terrorists doesn't work because there's no way to prove whether or not you were taking out a book for a politically acceptable reason or not- only to prove, if they find a WMD that you've been building in your living room, that you weren't just curious about how long you've got to live once someone drops the bomb on us.
So the question i have is... how easy would it be to refute the charges?
With speed traps, it's sometimes simple- insist at the hearing upon a test of the equipment used. If the radar gun's out of whack, you're off the hook. If you really were speeding, and you know that you were speeding but it was because your wife was having a baby, show them the hospital record.
How easy will this be once the human factor is taken out of the process? The human factor leads to errors and fallibility, but it also lends correctibility to the system- a way to point out where the exceptions belong. If you're automatically issued a speeding ticket for defective equipment, how hard will you have to fight to clear your name when it's used to show which cars were near a crime scene at a certain hour? ...and why should we accept that fight as the standard?
If, on the other hand, public uproar causes this use to require a court order, you might avoid having to miss work for three days because you were in court for the murder you didn't commit (but that your car records, library books, and membership in the Ginsu-knife-of-the-month club say you were perfectly capable of.)
At what point does data become evidence, in other words?
I don't mean to confuse the issue- i'll admit it's 8 AM here and i'm still waiting for the coffee to kick in. I don't know that tinfoil hats are necessary, but i do think that the questions we need to ask are... who has access to the data, what bans and bars would we like in place to prevent its misuse, and what checks and balances exist/will exist to allow us to clear our names, or better still, remain outside suspicion, when we ARE in fact innocent?
joke "...I don't want to go to drivers' concentration camp without a hearing, y'know?" /joke
"I'd say 'Have a good time,' but arson is still illegal.
It's "homage". Just because the "h" is silent doesn't mean you can leave it out!
.
Progress is not necessarly positive, ya know.
Free Mac Mini Yeah, it's
Your best evidence for this government intrusion into our lives is a 5 year old Will Smith movie? Are you planning on pointing to Independence Day next as evidence for how dangerous computer virus' are?
.. to a thread about the New York Times complaining about privacy when their site requires you to register and log in, thus tracking what you read.
The analogy is: could a cop sitting on public
property, watch me drive 24/7?
As long as OnStar is not mandatory, I'm fine with
it. As soon as it becomes required, I'll scream.
-a (ezpass-free in nj)
... but I once had a customer on the phone ordering satellite TV. Having given me her name, date of birth, maiden name, and credit card details, I asked for her address.
Her - "Oh, I never give my address out over the 'phone, you just don't know do you?"
Me - "Erm, you do know that we need to send someone to your house to fit the dish?"
Her - "Yes, but I won't give out my address on the phone"
I hung up on her.
For the NYTimes:
Username = nypost
Password = nypost
Most of the news sites that require registration have a similar combination. For example, to get to the LA Times, the username/password is "laexaminer".
No, I didn't put these in; I just found them.
And remember, there's no law (yet) that says you have to fill out their little questionnaires truthfully.
Welcome to the Turing Tarpit, where everything is possible but nothing interesting is easy.
I have no phobia of it. I'm sick of having to do it over and over. It's really nice to have a link you just click on. Why don't you think that's better?
As someone pointed out to me here a year or more ago, username "no_reg" and password "no_reg" work on the NYT site.
These people look deep into my soul and assign me a number based on the order I joined.
I just bought a car with OnStar installed. I like the features that OnStar provides, but I do fear of the privacy issues. I'm curious if anyone knows of a way to temporary disable this until you need it. If not this could be a nice little project to work on (provided your not violating any copyright laws!!!!!). Your thoughts on this issue?
You recommend that we "Use fake information"?
Believe it or not, there are still a few of us in the world who believe that telling lies is morally wrong, in and of itself, much less legally wrong (what you are advocating is called "theft of service").
If you were going 86 and you crashed more than likely the OnStar will be BROKEN BEYOND REPAIR and you WILL BE DEAD. You won't have to worry about and ambulance, they will just send the hearse.
;-)
Nice theory, however lots of freeway accidents are ones where someone rear-ends someone else who is not stopped, but slowing. The speed between vehicles could be as low as 15 mph and still deploy the airbag. Rear ending someone who suddnly slowed to 75 is an impact speed of 11 mph. After the air bag deploys, you could glance off the guard rail, spin out or perform other slowing manuvers that do not involve a fatal sudden impact.
There are some safety features built into the freeway system. No intersections with cross traffic, barriers between traffic directions, hard to hit light poles, break away signs, etc all reduce the force of impact by design. Anyway, stick a smiley in your post and I'll see the humor.
The truth shall set you free!
They might put the box in all cars as it is easier to manufacture that way. Possibly integrate it with the car's stereo. You wouldn't have to have an Onstar button for the behind the scenes stuff to be there and be operating.
"He's lost in a 'floyd hole"
Your personal safety is your personal responsibility. Big Brother / Big Nanny schemes are not necessary, nor are they as effective as personal vigilance.
Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
You know, you can disconnect the battery in ALL cars once they are running. The alternator should be more than enough to run your electrical system. If it isn't, I'd suggest getting it repaired.
Only a cop would mix up "your" and "you're" in speech.
Nice shot.
Any sufficiently well-organized Government is indistinguishable from bullshit.
A few months after getting my 1997 Dodge I took it to the dealer's service because the check engine light came on. They plugged in their handheld computer and told me there's a computer problem. Each computer records every trip I take (up to some limit I assume), storing duration, top speed, distance, and a few other things. If the 2 computers fall out of sync with this info the check engine light comes on to say there's a computer problem. One of the computers apparently broke and was replaced. I was very surprised to hear in 97 that my car kept all this information. Anyone with the right computer could plug in and read it. Luckily it's not transmitted and isn't kept with location information. But it's still a little scary.
Developers: We can use your help.
"Mr Jones - the file sez you drove over to the east side of town a few times back in 2004. Lotta A-rabs in that part of town. You like A-rabs Mr Jones? Gotta lotta A-rab friends? And you're a teacher? What're you teachin' them kids anyways? I don't think I like someone who hangs around with A-rabs teachin' good all-American kids. You wana tell me what other teachers're are symps, huh? With a past like yours I sure know I wouldn't wanna get a reputation for not co-operating with the proper authorites..."
Good thing that could never happen.
it did.
Driver: I sure am hungry.
Passenger: Me too. I could really go for some Mexican food.
OnStar: Hi, this is Jack from OnStar. I've been notified that you're hungry for Mexican food. LaCasita is 7 miles away from your present location and has 2-for-1 Margaritas. Don't drink too many though, we'll be reviewing your Visa bill before we'll allow the vehicle's engine to start. Shall I make reservations and give you directions?
I don't really mind being corrupted absolutly. In fact, I downright enjoy it.
~To choose doubt as a philosophy of life is akin to choosing immobility as a means of transportation. -Yann Martel
WOW!! 13 spelling mistakes in one paragraph. (14 if you include the Subject line)
/. Speak and Spell.
Congratulations, you have won a
I am not quite sure what a 'technie' is, but I think I have read a few Chinese instructions booklets written by you.
allyourbasearebelongtome
SGI's not bad, they're just not great.
;)
I would've switched to another insurance provider if they screwed you that way. You have that option, I don't. SGI's the only auto insurance company in my province.
As for speeding, I never mentioned it, although you being so defensive over it is funny. Perhaps if you had fewer speeding tickets, your insurance company would've been more reasonable
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
They won't integrate it into the stereo. Too big, for one thing, and that eliminates their ability to use premium-priced stereos as a profit maker.
Proof follows:
If you have 8 drivers, about skill level 7 and two at level 1. Average skill level is 5.8 and thus 8 out of ten drivers _are_ better than average drivers, with large margin.
I'd say level difference 1 to seven isn't even large enough to cover real life, but it's enough to this simple demostration.
"Average" is in most cases a meaningless statistical value, as my example clearly shows.
Any questions?
I was in Lincoln, NE when it happened. Listened to it all on the radio. What actually happened was that after the killers (they took no money) hijacked the car (took the keys from the owner at gunpoint). The police were tracking them using the onstar system when the radio/TV companies started broadcasting their theories and asking the police if they were using the onstar to track them. The police, of course, were 'no comment'. This caused the killers to ditch the SUV and the police finally caught them in an stolen old pickup some distance away from the abandoned SUV.
Many people were upset with the media there because they felt that the killers heard about the onstar on the radio and ditched the SUV because of it.
I don't read AC A human right
"Fine, but the cop has to be sitting there, and you have to be in an area where the cop is allowed to use the radar gun, and the cop can actually look at the situation as it is happening."
Yes, and the cop has to be in a listening boot, has to be allowed to use Onstar, and has to be listening to onstar. What's your point?
Okay, I had drunk a few Canadian BEvEReges and was having a nice buzz at the time of the post. As for Chinese, I think it'sd called Manderin? I barely know how to ask permission to use the pooper in french. Both my '03 cavalier and '93 caprice (x-cop car) have motorola 3 watt Cellular trancievers in them. If I'm worried about Big Brother, I'll just turn off the phone as I drive. Chris Wood Freelance Technologist & Furry Dragon "It's Big It's nasty It's Rear Wheel Drive!"
TEST
line 1
line 2
line 3
oops, I forgot to put the HTML in to my last post, this wasent alcohol related this time, just plain goofup.
Chris Wood
Freelance Technologist 'n Furry Dragon
"HTML IS YOUR FRIEND!"
i buy old cars.
:)
:)
Both of my cars dont have airbags, don't have integrated phones, dont have cup holders, don't have automatic transmissions, and don't have day time annoyance lights.
Hell, one of them even has rear windows that go down all the way
Both have ABS, but one has a switch on the dashboard to turn it off (the other is easy to turn off, but not THAT easy
Both are fuel injected, both are performant, both are a blast to drive.
Germany. Home of worthwhile cars.
My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
Don't assume that such a system would be setup without obvious checks and balances. With such a litigation-happy country as the US, I'm sure the insurance companies have flocks of consutants who do CYA work on that stuff rather than let it just be a machine that generates money-sucking lawsuits.
Don't assume that all technology will be applied thoughtlessly and incorrectly.
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
You and everybody else has yet to cite what you are afraid of. You keep saying the gov't can track you if they really really really wanted to. Ok. Your boss can track your gps enabled nextel phone, too.
My viewpoint is different than yours. I would rather the gov't have the ability to track. How can you expect society to get any safer if you're not willing to give up a little bit of privacy?
Yeah..the XLR just looks weird; certainly the corvette engine makes it interesting.
All the new Cadillacs are hideous. In fact, here in Austin, I've noticed some people recently using the expression "ugly as a Cadillac" as a perjorative regarding design, style, or even architecture/structure.
Two instances come to mind - one was describing a ghastly room someone had seen on "Trading Spaces" or some similar show, the other was amongst Slashdot-type folks discussing the Windows Registry. (If the Registry isn't "ugly as a Cadillac", I don't know what is...)
Really, it's a shame, some of the new Cadillacs are actually decent cars (the CTS-V comes to mind), but there is no way I'd ever buy a car that ugly, no matter how good it is or how well it performs. Of course, my last experience with GM was with what was billed as "the best car GM can build" - the Aurora. Awesome engine, excellent body stiffness and handling, and the very worst of everything else. Interior trim quality was abysmal. The tan leather turned *green*. The cars far-too-numerous electronic systems were beset by demons and gremlins incessantly. When I finally traded the turkey in, the in-dash computer was on the fritz, the seats settled at a point about a tenth of an inch higher every time you adjusted them through the presets, which was the only way that they moved at all, and the twilight sentinel would lose its mind and flash the headlights on and off for no good reason when the car was parked in the garage, draining the battery. I've owned many Italian cars, and I never thought I'd see an American car with a worse electrical system. This "flagship of General Motors" was afflicted with worse problems than the 1974-75 Italian cars I've owned, built during the worst of the hard-core labor strikes and protests, when they were lucky to get anything out the door at all, and quality wasn't even mentioned...
Sadly, the Aurora ended my desire to support my own countrymen by buying American. I'm done with GM, done with Chrysler (what good is a long warranty if the company refuses to honor it?), and Ford seems to refuse to build anything I want to drive. (Why they don't offer SVT packages as options across their line, with automatic transmissions is beyond me - they have the incredible sales boost of the original Taurus SHO automatic to prove this is a combo people really want to buy...)
On the other hand, Acura seems to be cribbing from tha Alfa Romeo design department these days, so perhaps that will have to do until Alfa finally returns in 2007. (One of my favorite cars was a 1991 Alfa Romeo 164S - Awesome car, in every respect - the "S" is a *very* different car from the other 164s. Compare the bodyside groove of the new TL with the 164... )
"The future's good and the present is nothing to sneeze at." - Roblimo's last
I for one am sick and tired of the Government taking control of my life and removing my freedoms one by one because they somehow seem to think they "know what's best" for me. Speaking of loss of freedom. There's a poll on foxnews.com about the ban on ephedra products in this country now because 100 people have died from use of it. The poll asks if people are in support of the ban because if it saves one life, it's worth it. Surprisingly people who agree with the ban on ephedra hold approximately 80% of the vote. And what those idiots are saying is, they're willing to give up their freedom to put ephedra in their body just so that careless individuals that are too ignorant to look out for themselves (and in my opinion should not breed because of that fact) will be safe. It chills me to the bone and makes me feel less proud to be an american by the minute. I live in a nation controlled by the ignorant majority. The only way to reverse this problem is for all the intellects to start reproducing like the ghetto dwellers did during the crack baby boom of the 80's-90's. Use of illicit drugs not recommended. Someone help! It's getting crazy around here!
Subaru has offered OnStar since 2001
Clear, Dark Skies
"In America, you say 'erbs'; in Britain, we say 'herbs'... because it's got a fucking aitch in it." -- Eddie Izzard
Does it need to be safer? I don't think so. Death by terrorism is so rare that you'd save more people by giving away flu shots for free.
I will not give up privacy for "safety".
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
Since you made a personal attack on me, I'll make one on you. It's interesting to me that so called "conservatives" such as yourself rarely can argue logically. Instead, you try to change the subject around when you get in a corner. Also, you cannot spell and are clearly in need of more formal education. Conservative economics: Run up the deficit and put the economy in the ditch. Conservative Civil Rights: Laws that protect cops who murder and rape the innocent, whiling lining their own pockets with money from drug sales out of the evidence locker. Conservative Foreign Policy: Ship all our jobs overseas, bomb a whole bunch of random countries, and say "bring 'em on" over and over.
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
Wow, thatd be so terrible taht every vehicle sold in the US had life saving capabilities included.
You nailed it right here. Not only are these life-saving capabilities, they are also life-taking capabilities. Police in England are asking for this right now. How long until it's in the USA as well? And, after that, how long until it's hacked and used as a weapon by criminals?
Who cares if the gov't has the remote possibility to tell where you are?
If the government can, what's to stop anyone else from using a tracking system in my car?
I bought a 330i last year and it is a nice car; I would have bought an Acura, but the TL at the time just didn't have it.
Now the new TSX is nice, but I would have seriously considered the new TL.
Oh well, no GM cars on my horizion for probably 10 years. I'll be an old man by then, so maybe the cadillacs will impress .
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
"Society" doesn't need to be any safer, and the crux of the matter is that my privacy is my own and is not up for trade. America needs to rediscover it's roots, badly, because people fought and died in the very revolution that birthed this nation for sovereignty and to a large degree, privacy .
To paraphrase the well-known Ben Franklin, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Live free or don't, I prefer not to see my country's ideals torn down for the sake of fear-mongering.
P.S. -- In case it hasn't been made clear, what we're afraid of is our nation becoming a police state managed through fear of some invisible enemy around the corner of every street whose going to run a plane into us. Personally, I can't believe you'd ever offer up your privacy for such an insignificant return. When was the last time you heard the Justice Department showing actual proof that the PATRIOT Act was a boon to the general public? When was the last time you heard about a terrorist plot being foiled thanks to what's been done recently? That's what I though, you havn't.
"We invented personal computing." - Bill Gates
Yes it does. Personally i don't think rolling the dice is suitable, there should be 0 chance of any terrorist act. Put yourself in the government workers' position and tell me how you plan on making the united states safer from terrorism.
When so many people hate the united states and its citizens so much that they are willing ot brainwash their youth and have them blow themselves and americans up, its time to get serious and aknowledge the threat.
Yes the chances of being hurt by a terrorist act are very slim, the chances of being affected on the other hand are very real. Everybody is affected.
hey, if you want to take it personally, fine.
If there's one thing i admire about you its your floccinauccinihilipilification of anything i say.
I don't see the cops as my enemies, i think they should have laws to protect them. If they are doing something wrong, they should be broght to justice. A few shouldn't ruin for the rest.
I'm not going to get into the rest, its too generic and off-topic from On-Star.
The real issue is not whether this is good or bad as a stand alone issue about OnStar. It is about the slow, minutely incrimental errosion of personal privacy. That in and of it's self is not an issue even until some zealot decides to take control and define all others conduct by their personal set of rules and mores. Then there is the mindset that "I" find it suspicious the "you" have any objection to "The Government" monitoring your activities. What have you been up to? Where have you been? Arlo Guthrie wasn't totally wrong in "The Pause of Mr. Claus" or "What About The Last Guy". And lets not even get started about the "Red Scare" or the Mc Carthy Hearings, et al.
In a fully just and balanced society, it's a non-issue. In the real world it is only a non-issue until some one makes it so.
Kevin M. Childers
Computer repair and networking tech.
Available over most messaging services as KC1111111111
I was being sarcastic, i think its a great idea. I would love to have onstar in every car. I have yet to see how it is life taking in addition to live saving.
First of all, nobody has proven that the government has the ability to track anybody with onstar. If they were going to they would have to prove to a judge that you were dangerous which means they would be tracking you anyhow. Secondly i don't think any of us know enough about onstar to be making any serious judgements here. As far as i know its basically a gps receiver/analog cell phone/modem. I doubt that it even has the ability to be tracked as it only transmits (as far as i know) when you push the button or there is a crash.
You know as well as I do theres plenty of stuff going on that doesn't get reported and a foiled plot is only a blurb while anything that succeeds is front page news.
I have seen evidence that plots were being foiled left and right on tv news stations. I trust the government a lot more than the rest of the slashdot crowd, apparently. I don't have a problem with them and i think they should have the ability to eavesdrop. How else are they supposed to gather intelligence?
Intersting, do you think the Patriot Act is evil and should be repealed or never should have passed? What do you think should be in its place?
If you go to the OnStar.com website, you'll see that "locating stolen vehicles" is one of the "features" OnStar has. OnStar has that ability, and it would take only a search warrant (or even a stolen vehicle report, possibly bogus) to use it.
As for life-taking, not OnStar yet, but remote shutdown of a car is on the table in England. Don't for a second believe that "only the police will be able to use this". Once it's cracked, just like anything else, when it falls into the hands of evil-doers, they'll get their kicks going around terrorizing people on the freeways. Think about it: you're driving on the M-1 at about 100 kph, and suddenly two guys pass you on the right, pull in front of you, and the passenger turns around, aims a device at your car, and BOOM your car's engine stops running. What can you do? Power brakes are nearly useless without the engine, and so is your power steering. You're at the mercy of inertia and friction. Meanwhile, the guy behind you was following too close, and he smacks your rear bumper. Chain reaction collision ensues. That's why it's a bad idea.
Still, it requires a search warrant. Therefore nobody is tracking you. If the police are going through all of that red tape, you've done something wrong.
As for remote shutdown; I don't believe GM would put such a feature into a car. I agree that would be a bad idea for the same reasons. There's no need for such a feature. Cars run out of gas and why would you need to shut it down if you know where it is anyways?
I think that we can both agree that so far OnStar is a Good Deployment of a Good Thing. Would you rather onstar _not_ have the stolen vehicle location feature? I know i'll sleep better at night knowing i have that feature. The only feature that onstar has that is eery is the remote door-lock feature, which as far as i know has not been abused at all. If it came to the point that it was being abused all over, which it won't but possibly could, then GM will remove the ability and just keep the location service so they can send a towtruck.
Obviously you have never had a car repossesed. I have. And you get quite a bit of noitice before they "steal" your car back. In my case I talked with the repo guy. He was nice enough. I didn't want to fight him and hell I figured everyones got a job to do. He took mine in broad daylight.
And for when my wife had her pregnancy complications I was payed up on my car. After I lost my son nothing really seemed to matter for awhile.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
Well I can say with complete confidence that no, unlike yourself, I don't know of any plots being foiled that are ignored by the mass media while they love throwing around failure. A large amount of current terrorist suspects such as Jose Padilla are being held unconstitutionally for long periods of time w/out any charges being filed and access to a lawyer refused. Jose Padilla himself has been in a navy brig in South Carolina under military control since June 9, 2002.
Does anyone honestly think there's any sanity to holding people as terrorist suspects for indefinite amounts of time w/out any charges filed? It's a ludicrous abuse of power and, thankfully, the courts have ruled that any President of the United States of America cannot make such tyrannical decisions. I'm not calling Bush a tryrant here, I'm just observing the obvious, that this is wrong.
P.S. -- The PATRIOT Act didn't allow evedropping and wiretaps to take place, it simply made it so that law enforcement doesn't need warrants a lot of the time anymore. How do you think intelligence was gathered before the PATRIOT Act came storming through congress with little to no consideration and debate? There's a whole host of concerns regarding the PATRIOT Act, and for an in-depth overview, check the EFF's analysis page.
And it's not like everyone hasn't heard about the USA being warned ahead of time and something fishy was going on, even countries like Saudi Arabia were suspicious. Lot of good intelligence does when nobody pays attention.
"We invented personal computing." - Bill Gates
It's the same with Gun Control or the Patriot Act or any other invasion of fundamental rights.
It's not that I mistrust any particular administration or governmental entity (although there are some that I do NOT trust). It's that I'm not sure I can always trust the government. It's that the system can be abused, not that I think that it will be abused immediately.
Think about this: Let's say you trust a particular president and Congress combination. Doesn't matter which party either group belongs to, just matters that you trust that combination. They ask to restrict "hate speech." You think, "Well, that makes sense! Keep the nasty racists from spreading their venom!" Everything goes along fine for awhile. But, things change. After a few more years, a different administration comes into power. Not too radically different from the previous administration in policy, but less tolerant of criticism. "Hate speech" laws start getting used against anyone who speaks against the government.
Privacy issues are similar. At first, we trust those who ask for the information. They use it responsibly. Over time, however, more and more excuses are found to use the information in ways you didn't expect. Eventually, the information is used outright unethically. How do we keep that from happening? The best way is to not allow the use of the information in the first place. Do you really need to have all the convenience that everyone wants to sell you? I don't. I think that there's quite a bit I should be able to do for myself and should put up with certain amounts of inconvenience in my life.
GM would not voluntarily put such a feature into their cars, but they would if Congress told them to. Even the NTSB could probably bring it about on their own.
Remember the crash data recorders? They were supposed to be used by the automakers for crash performance analysis. Now they're being used as forensic evidence. (Not sure about warrant requirements.) It's just one more "unintended consequence."
If given the chance i will vote that they be accepted by all.
Every car's computer has ram and in that ram a small amount of data is kept. This is where the evidence is coming from. I'm not making this up or talking out of my ass, somebody in a car the same model as mine (1995 z28) got into a wreck and said he was going 60. They decided to look at his computer which indicated the last speed to be 115 mph. They can only hold a few seconds of data. Don't believe me there is extensive information available about this specific computer, how to program it, etc. A good starting point would be camaroz28.com message board.
Anyhoo, i see your point but i don't agree that its a bad thing.
This got modded up as "funny". It deserved the upmod, but there's no joke here. Anyone want to bet that somebody is drawing up maps designed to misinform terrorists? I don't mind getting lost one in a while in the name of Homeland Security, but I shudder to think that such maps might fall into the hands of emergency services people.