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."'"
Exactly. Homeowner: "My house is on fire!" 411 Dispatcher: "Where are you?" Homeowner: "Erm, I don't want to say..."
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
If you're that paranoid, don't install anything trackable in your car.
Does that include a license plate?
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
If you call directory assistance (411) when your house is on fire, then you're probably going to die.
Then again, they can tell you the number for 911 and connect you for just 75 cents more...
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.
does anyone else see the irony in a registration required article preaching against the invasion of privacy of another device that can track people?
... can it also STOP your car and LOCK your doors?
You forgot the third option. Where onStar can lock you out of your car because your late on your payment. How about insurance companies viewing the information to see how you drive to determine whether they should jack up your insurance rates. In either case, I think the government in itself is the least of our worries in this case. For some reason, there are always people who believe that the government is out to get us. The problem is that while they are right, they don't realize that they already have us. I mean, we pay taxes. I'd say the government has us right where they want us.
If you don't believe me, recall the TIA project where the government wants to aggregate all avaliable data from public corporations about you.
Religion is a gateway psychosis. -- Dave Foley
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.
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?
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
OnStar commercials remind me of the crime prevention system commercial in the Minority Report. The idea that FBI can tap in and listen to the conversation in your or any car without anybody realizing anything is idiotic.
Now, from the article:
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.
Yes, this is true.
OnStar has said that its equipment was not involved in that case.
I don't think so. I got an impression that it was exactly OnStar technology that was involved in that case from this CNet article, saying the following:
The court did not reveal which brand of remote-assistance product was being used but did say it involved "luxury cars" and, in a footnote, mentioned Cadillac, which sells General Motors' OnStar technology in all current models. After learning that the unnamed system could be remotely activated to eavesdrop on conversations after a car was reported stolen, the FBI realized it would be useful for "bugging" a vehicle, Judges Marsha Berzon and John Noonan said.
When FBI agents remotely activated the system and were listening in, passengers in the vehicle could not tell that their conversations were being monitored.
Now back to NYT article:
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.
Then do not track more information, and not for any longer than it is necessary for you to provide emergency and related services. Also, do not under any circumstances let FBI listen in to people's conversations in their cars via your remotely activated microphone. But that's probably not in your business plan, or PR statement.
"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.
Slightly off-topic, but it's interesting to note that when Google News or other links send me to "registration required" sites, the username/password of password/password usually works.
;)
I first learned of that for the NYT links here on slashdot, but it seems to be everywhere.
It'd be pretty interesting to see the stats on this "password" person.
$0.02 (CDN)
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.
who are those slashdot people? they swept over like Mongol-Tartars.