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."'"

Comments

"Real privacy"?

[ObviousGuy]

It is impossible to be completely private. This is not a bad thing.

Re:"Real privacy"?

[cfuse]

Unfortunately, it'll require that the government be more disciplined, and the citizens will have to ditch the attitude that the gov't is out to get them.

Two things that will happen shortly after hell freezes over.

Seriously, I expect my elected officials to abuse any and all surveillance methods available to them. They do so already (ie echelon, et al.), why is this any different?

Re:"Real privacy"?

[tx_kanuck]

and the citizens will have to ditch the attitude that the gov't is out to get them.

On the contrary, this attitude should never get weaker, but stronger. Everyone knows the quote "Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutly", and this is true with regards to the gov't as well. As citizens, we cannot afford to give the gov't any more power then they are required to have in order to do thei job we hired them to do. When they start taking power just to do a job they think they should do to be re-elected, then they have too much power.

Re:"Real privacy"?

[lone_marauder]

I think there's middle ground, especially when the cost of that freedom is the saving of human life.

I don't know about you, but I am tired of being held hostage by the words "If it could save just one life, it would be worth it."

Well, no, actually, it wouldn't. The idea of freedom, as it exists (however tenuously) in the United States, came about as a result of those willing to die for that freedom. I consider that principle one of the more noble and valuable in human history, and choose to reflect that in my own life, even if it affects my personal safety.

Re:"Real privacy"?

[YrWrstNtmr]

You also have to consider that you can be legally blind, mentally retarded, and have frequent seizures and still get a drivers license in this country as long as you have a doctor sign a slip.

Roads like that in many other countries don't even have speed limits.

Those two statements do not mesh well. The sometimes no-speedlimit Autobahn in Germany is possible because the standards to get a license are higher. Lower the limit on who can drive (and how they are trained) and you (we in the US) must accept lower limits on driving speeds.

The usual.

[Renraku]

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?

Re:The usual.

[Angus Prune]

I imagine your likely to be someone who wouldn't raise suspician. There are allot of people who could be seen as suspect. From anyone with a muslim sounding name to the guy who went on an anti-war march to some poor guy on holiday in africa who gets mistaken for a wanted fraudster. As soon as the data is collected we have no control over it. I get worried when I have no say in who knows more about myself than I do.

Re:The usual.

[JaredOfEuropa]

Holland has a law that states "any data about the customer that is gathered into a databank, shall not be re-sold or used for any purpose other than the one stated without the customer's consent". So if I sign up for OnStar, the data cannot be sold to insurance companies, unless the fine print in the contract allows the company (GM?) to do that. Not a bad law...

Even so, I still don't trust this. Naturally, governmental organisations are more or less exempt from these rules, not so much by the letter of the law as in the way it is enforced. The law does not allow law enforcment to use the data without a search warrant... which means that they cannot use it to gather evidence that is admissible in court, for example to give me speeding tickets. But, it can still be used to gather interesting data. As another reader pointed out, the police might use OnStar records to check on every person in the vicinity when a homicide has taken place. Not admissible in court, but it may still expose you to some interest from the police, perhaps even arrest.

Farfetched? Our country has seen many illegal phone taps and even searches of peoples' houses, not to gather evidence for a court case, but to gather clues in order to further certain crime investigations. Mind you, the people being investigated were suspect, but with such tenous ties to the case that no court would and has issued search warrants. It became quite the political scandal, but in our fine tradition of sweeping internal governmental affairs under the rug, nothing ever came of the inquiry.

Yes, you would do well to mistrust your government.

Re:Anything can be abused

[LostCluster]

If you're that paranoid, don't install anything trackable in your car.

Does that include a license plate?

Re:Anything can be abused

[leonardluen]

does anyone else see the irony in a registration required article preaching against the invasion of privacy of another device that can track people?

cost/benefit analysis

[RealProgrammer]

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.

Re:Google link(OT, but...

[Stigmata669]

What is it with everyone and their phobia of registering for the nytimes? Use fake information, do it once, and save us all from your "requires sacrifice of first born" comments and useless google caches.

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.

It's not the information itself, but who has it.

[TyrranzzX]

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.

Re:FUD (yes, thank you for that dose)

[madcow_ucsb]

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...

Re:Cool!

[Detritus]

Be aware there is a difference between a bad driver and somebody that dries well but above the posted artificialy low limits.

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.