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?
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.
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.
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.
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
True, but that isn't the crux of the matter. What happens when abstinence is no longer permitted?
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
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.
You might just be able to pull of the next Frank Abagnale, Jr.!
-Rob
Marriage doesn't have to suck!
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...
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
Sorry but they do "rape" bad drives aka people with accidents on there record or even getting caught speeding. Be aware there is a difference between a bad driver and somebody that dries well but above the posted artificialy low limits. Funny that you thing the insurance would be so high without socialization I pay 1280 a year for car worth 12k in the US I'm also an unmarried male in my 20's.
Besides all of this is there realy a good reason to require insurance to drive it's realy an artificial industry in wich nobody benifits but the insurance people. Yea it's nice to know that the other driver should be insured but there are no real safegaurds in place to insure that they are or realy have enough coverage. In my state I would have to post a significant ammount in an escro account earning no significant interest it would be nice if the government would stop proping up artificial industries and let me say use 100k in a money market account or stock portfolio as surety.
No sir I dont like it.
I hope we all enjoy living our squeaky clean lifestyles free of petty crime or peccadilloes.
The difference is rationalization.
Most people believe that they are "better than average" drivers, even if they have no evidence to support that belief. That's just human nature.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
Setting aside your exceedingly poor taste in word choices, just what exactly do you think insurance is for? It's to pay for expenses associated with accidents.
And how do they pay these expenses? With premiums from everyone. As insured people, we pool our money with the expectation that if we are involved in an accident the pool will cover our expenses. We expect that the persons managing this pool will take good care of it, and dole it out when necessary, and only when necessary. We also expect the people managing this pool to make a fair profit. Not outlandish, but fair.
How do you figure on fairly charging people for access to this pool of money? If you think young unmarried males pay too much, what would you suggest instead? Would you suggest all payers in the pool simply pay equal amounts? Why should I put an equal share of money in the pool if I have a spotless record? Why should I put an equal share in the pool if I drive a beaten-up 1976 Oldsmobile? If not equal shares, then how would you have them predict the future "accident-proneness" of drivers?
As the manager of this pool of money, I need incentives to force the drivers in an equal-share pool to not cost the pool extra money? If all shares are equal, and if your record doesn't matter, you'll drive around bouncing off everyone, costing the pool a fortune. It would be irresponsible to everyone else in the pool to charge you the same amount as everyone else if you're going to cost the pool lots.
If the pools simply raised your rates after you show a propensity towards using them, as a smart consumer you'd simply switch pools to avoid the premium increases. As this is still a mostly free country, you can't be locked into a lifetime agreement to pay whatever rates the insurance companies demand of you.
So, it finally seems that the insurance companies need to charge people based on their likelyhood of getting into an accident. Since the insurance companies do not have the gift of foresight, they have turned to statistical analysis, which provides a reasonable estimate of this likelyhood.
Actuaries are the people at the insurance companies who compile these statistics. They have determined many things that tend to be true over a large group. People with accidents on their records tend to have more accidents. People with speeding tickets tend to have more expensive accidents. People convicted of DUI tend to have more injury accidents. Students with good grades tend to have fewer accidents. Young unmarried males tend to have more accidents, and so on. Premium rates are determined on the basis of these statistics. It's not based on "who can we make the most money from", (as they would then simply charge you based on income,) it's based on "who is likely to cost us more."
You are certainly welcome to set up your own self-insurance scheme. First, escrow a big chunk of money. What? You don't have half a million dollars to guarantee expenses in an accident? Then I guess the insurance industry is your choice.
Do you really think insurance is superfluous? Have you ever been involved in an accident? A simple parking lot fender-bender with a Mercedes could set you back many thousands of dollars, really quickly. If you drove that Mercedes, wouldn't you expect the guy who hit you to pony up for the damages? Would you still think the laws requiring insurance coverage are onerous? Or would you rather take your chances in a lawsuit with a yellow-toothed drunk in a rusted-out 1968 Bronco who's already 18 years behind in his child-support payments, and is about to be fired for being late to his minimum wage job?
Finally, if you don't like the thought of the insurance companies making a fortune off of people like you, then go invest in one! Reap some of this profit you seem to claim they're making. Here's a list of insurance companies for you. Pick one, buy some shares, make lots of money off the rest of us, it's how capitalism works.
John
It would appear that you have absolutely zero experience in local politics, nor what they would do if they could get their hands on such information.
And forget anything dealing with state, or above... just imagine what the "known to associate with" spins would look like once a few GPS coordinates are correlated. Think the commie witch hunt of the 50s was philosophically gross? It's nothing compared to what we could do with a system like this, today. And God Help You(tm) if you discovered, say, an intentional flaw & abuse of some new nationwide electronic voting system.
Secondly, you illustrate the other basic lie regarding this concept... it'll do *nothing* to stem any intentionally illegal behaviors of "real" criminals, it'll only be used against the average public who only manages to break, on average, about 3 or 4 laws per day (speeding, not completely stopping at a stop sign, failing to signal a lane change, tailgating). All it eventually equates to is another tax on the middle classes (through fines), and more money for the insurance lobby. No benefit to the public, only more behavioral micromanagement by an invisible watcher. A watcher, by the way, with no accountability.
help me i've cloned myself and can't remember which one I am
The government dosent pay for the roads! YOU DO! Dont EVER forget that. The whole point of an elected government is that they spend YOUR money only at YOUR sufferance. This may be a little off-topic but I think it needs to be said. People need to stop thinking that the government can do whatever they want with no oversite from the citizens that they serve. Now the FBI, CIA, MI5 etc.. thats a different story. We dont get to elect them, we give them broad ranging powers and they dont have to report what they do to the electorate, or even the government. They are the people I am worried about getting hold of too much personal information. If you want to see how bad it can get go and visit the old Stazi headquaters in Berlin, they have bottled scent samples of their citizens for gods sake!
-- If you think my attitude stinks, you should smell my fingers.
And how do you feel about the guy who was priced out of the insurance market in this way? Couldnt give a rat's ass?
How do you feel about him once he's decided to drive anyway and fuck the insurance. And he's run you down - now you cant work anymore, your wifes in a wheelchair and your kids need care for the rest of their life - long after your dead.
Well its OK isnt it 'cos the guy got life in prison. Mind you you're financially fucked. but hey at least you got cheaper insurance in the days you could drive. And the insurance companies made more money through the reduced claims. Everybody won.
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.))
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.
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.
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"?
Why do i care 'they' know that i do a legal activity?
Beacuse ifs none of their damned business where i go or what i purchase.
Me get a grip? No, you wake up.
---- Booth was a patriot ----