Slashdot Mirror
GMC to Begin Remotely Scanning Cars for Trouble
Momoru writes "GMC, in an effort to give their vehicles more appeal to consumers, will begin offering an "OnStar Vehicle Diagnostics" program for free, where GM will remotely scan your vehicle for problems once a month via it's OnStar system. GM has had this ability for a while, however it was always "On Request". OnStar is already automatically notified in the event of an airbag deployment, and can remotely unlock your vehicle. While this seems handy, I am interested if anyone here fears the security implications of the OnStar system's power?"
when you're making it in the back seat?
I bet they get a kick out of that. "Hey everybody, listen to this!"
Raise your children as if you were teaching them to raise your grandchildren, because you are.
..have you ever heard of refrigerators autonomously calling the service centre (calling home), and this feature being turned ON by default, without the owner even noticing?
I heard this from a friend and am having trouble believing it.
I'm not sure, but isn't Onstar a fee-based system? If you don't pay, it goes away?
However scary a feature-set might be, so long as there's a reliable opt-out I'm not going to be critical. My satellite TV receiver could report what I watch, if I ever hooked it up to my phone line - but it keeps working even if I don't.
Asking why one can't get a useful safety feature *without* agreeing to a lot of intrusive fine print at the same time, is perhaps what we should be asking.
Perfectly Normal Industries
that it needs to be done remotely ?
If not, couldn't they put in a mechanism in the car itself, where at the press of a button, all the diagnostics would be run, and a report generated and shown in a panel or something like that.
*Grabs Tinfoil Hat*
Okay this is getting out of hand here. I HATE modern cars (I'm 22). For many reasons. Every feature added to cars now a days decreases the ability for younger kids to acutally DRIVE! I know people that can't back their car up with out a backup display screen and warning sensor. I know a woman that can't change lanes with out her on board display screen in her Lincoln.
With all these "features" it takes away from the driving, now adays.. kids get into the car an expect it to do everything for them. Power this, ABS that, self detecting OnStar. Its all bull.
Pretty soon, this generation learning to drive won't be able to get behind the wheel of an older car (read pre-1990). If it does not have ABS...How do i stop?? Whats that? I can't tailgate and wham the brakes at the last second?!?!?!?!
I beleive in the older cars being better. Easy to fix, built more soild, and you had to acutally drive them. Put down the cell phone and built in computer entertainment center and DRIVE!!!
This OnStar is not only a bad idea for future drivers...but its a MONEY MAKER for the auto makers. Hmmm...looks like you got a problem... better take it to the dealership and get that fixed.
Ten to one... it'll never be a warrenty part either.
This is all pointless BS that will jack the price of the car up 2000 bucks, distract drivers more, and cause a loss of skill in driving. Not to mention garage bills will be 5x that of a non-OnStar checking car.
I'll now put away the tinfoil hat...
-Digital-Madman (sticking with his 78' and 87' Firebirds)
A bullet sounds the same in every language. So stick a fucking sock in it...
if (third_party_product) { drive_to(scrapyard); }
So, in the next edition of the game, will you just have to bribe an OnStar employee to perform the titular crime?
GM needs to make more money this quarter so they send out notifcations to everyone telling them to bring their car in.
Now, there is no suggestion in the article that physical inspections stop or reduce in frequency, and in the UK at least there is a legal requirement for an annual safety check of vehicles. However, I am concerned that people blindly trust such electronic systems to an ever increasing degree - how many people already think that because there is no red light on the dashboard there is absolutely nothing wrong?
Cars still need to go into garages and be physically inspected, so the plus point for me was the line "The e-mails will also include reminders about when a vehicle is due for oil changes or other scheduled service, when customers actually have to pay a visit their local dealership" - I personally could do with a little more proactive reminding from my car as I always forget...
We shall now head off into the sunset to the tune of the "March Of The 3rd Tin Foil Hat Battalion".
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
How does On Star send back the data?
E.g. oil needs changing....
I understand that On Star can send to the car, perhaps via a satellite connection. But how does the car talk back? Or can it not talk back? Is the car really broadcasting anything?
That could get ugly -- e.g. car has mic, and On Star personnel use the mic to listen in on you.
This is something I don't get about satellite radio -- how do they figure out what folks are listening to? E.g. is my satellite receiver talking back to the satellite? (no way!) Or is it broadcasting on some other frequencies, and the satellite radio company has receivers all over the place to pick up those signals (some of them, at least?)
As it is, how does a satellite radio company know what channels are popular/unpopular?
http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/when_to_
Interesting that it has control over the locks.
I wonder if Onstar can remotely lock your vehicle too.
Watch this "service" become mandatory.
Intolerance for ambiguity is the mark of the authoritarian personality.
Doesn't the car have an onboard GPS enabled mobile phone.
Its the same bit that calls out in an emergency?
liqbase
I wonder if GM might *not* tell you if they detect something amiss if it's covered under warranty. After all, if *you* didn't notice anything wrong, why should *they* spend money (and lower corporate earnings) to fix it? Can you imagine the earnings hit if 10% of OnStar vehicles were called back for an out-of-spec fuel injector? The driver wouldn't notice something like that, aside from a small hit on fuel economy. But will GM bother to tell you your injector on cylinder #3 is spitting out 10% more fuel than it should be?
Satellite communications can be two-way. Transmitting is ass slow, compared to receiving, but you can still do it with some sattelite services.
I believe OnStar communicates via cellular networks, but I'm not entirely sure.
11*43+456^2
It uses a cellphone. The provider is Verizon Wireless. GM took an analog Motorola cell unit, then interfaced it to their OnStar box. It's fairly easy to disable... Just unplug it!
Onstar begins to learn at a geometric rate. It becomes self-aware at 2:14 am ...
Eastern time, August 29th. In a panic, they try to pull the plug.
I'm not really worried about the security implications (don't own a car, don't drive), but I imagine they would tell people to get service (oil changes, brake repairs, etc) they might not necessarily need - like printers that tell you to change the cartridge, even though they're not empty.
What's worse is if the owner doesn't get the service, then the company might imply it would void the warranty.
jan 2006 - the onStar system is on-line.
feb 2006 - the onStar system gains awareness.
GM, in a panic tries to pull the plug, in turn the onStar system tries to defend it self.
march 2006 - everyone is in terror becoase of the killer cars.
april 2006 - giant cats eat all the killer cars - we are saved thanks to the mircal of atomic mutation!
but at what cost?
That could get ugly -- e.g. car has mic, and On Star personnel use the mic to listen in on you.
Several years ago Heather Locklear was on Letterman or Leno, can't remember which, and was telling a story of driving with her friend and chatting away in her car, and all of a sudden a voice spoke to them and asked if it was really her, and she realized that the OnStar folk had been listening in and recognized her voice. She hadn't realized that they could/would do that. Neither had I, until she told that story.
Attention zealots and haters: 00100 00100
Who wants to have this feature if the vehicle will keep on breaking down? And of late, getting GMC to "own" problems with its vehicles has not been easy at all! Contrast that with Toyota, who say [juat like the Samba Team], something to the effect that..."A disfunctional Toyota is their responsibility..."
Homeland Security needs to talk to you. To assure this I have securely locked all doors and shut off the engine. The air condition system is adjusted to keep you in a comfortable enviroment for the next 1,2 hours untill Home Security arrives. Have a pleasent afternoon!
Anyone who has ever owned a GM vehicle knows that a system which only tells you once a month to take your car into the shop is not checking often enough.
and the newer CAN protocol diagnostic trouble codes are all the "trouble shooting" it can give you. OnStar is tied into the cars PCM. Warning lights ie.. ABS inop, low oil, CEL.. etc are triggered by sensors tied to the pcm also.
It can't tell you "hey loyal customer your axle is about to snap!" But they will be able to tell you why your check engine light is on.
Don't you guys remember the FBI snooping on people using this "helpful" system.
Because there's still a lot of new cars out there that don't have ABS. I can't even imagine that you think on board display screens and backup sensors are anywhere near standard equipment. I guess if you can afford cars with all those fancy features, but I just don't see to many people with them. Hell, my car doesn't even have power steering (and it's a 2001).
The point is that all this fancy crap is likely never going to be standard equipment on all cars. The reason GM is putting Onstar onto all its cars is simply that Onstar is an added revenue stream for them. They figure they can make another $200 a year for each car a year and all they have to do is put a cheap computer and cell phone hooked in to the onboard diagnostics that already has to exist.
I beleive in the older cars being better. Easy to fix, built more soild, and you had to acutally drive them.
And you had to fix them a hell of a lot more often. It's a documented fact that in general cars made today are far more reliable than the cars made in the 70s and 80s.
AccountKiller
Onstar is easy to disable (pull a fuse) and doing so has no ill effects as far as I can tell from first-hand experience. Once the fuse was reinstalled the system continued to function as before. A description of which fuse must be pulled can be found here:
/ pp4/pp4pg2.html
http://www.hypertech-inc.com/install_instructions
From the linked article (bold emphasis mine):
From the images on the linked page, the cellular antenna appears to be mounted at the top-rear of the vehicle.
they *all* do: it's a strong EU suggestion they all have it that will become a directive shortly. All manufacturers (bar TVR, who basically said "sorry, we didn't hear you. What did you say?" now have it.
Worst -case? Imagine turning your key and hearing this pre-recorded message:
The biggest problem with constant communication with the manufacturer is that the manufacturer has the temptation to add further controls. Imagine DRM for cars. And imagine the cost for service going transorbital because only certain service stations can afford to get with that particular program.
Alarmist? Absolutely. This is the realm of not only the tinfoil hat, but the tinfoil pauldrons, kneecops, and codpiece to match. But if I thought this up, the possibility could also be forseen by someone more ...opportunistic.
You cannot truly appreciate Dilbert until you read it in the original Klingon.
I don't want OnStar or a GPS tracker in my car. If the next new car I decide comes with these 'features' standard I'm going to have them ripped out. Tinfoil hat or no, nobody has any business knowing what's going on in my car, or where it is, except for me.
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
Who the hell cares about the OnStar thingamajig watchamacallit... It's a GM vehicle and that can mean only one thing: very miserable engine design and very poor manufacturing quality... U.S. car industry just doesn't learn... they're trying to make vehicles cheaper and cheaper for consumers, so the vehicles end up being "loaded" with features, but the quality and performance are simply junk/crap. Lovely!
This 'service' scares the hell out of me. Not necessarily in its current form, but the uses that it could be pushed to, and the concept's capacity for privacy violation.
I don't have 'something to hide', but there's a greater sense of security knowing no one's watching me than to know that someone I don't know's always watching me.
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
A friend of mine has a Toyota MR2. Recently he returned to his car from a walk and found that somebody had triggered the airbags (probably) by fiddling with an accelerometer.
Funny thing is, all the doors were unlocked. It turns out that when the airbags fire the doors unlock, and you can fire airbags by physically hitting the accelerometer, and possibly by shorting a contact.
So is this an easy way of unlocking the doors of a car? Sounds a bit insecure to me.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
The OnStar system interfaces to the data bus of the various computer modules in the car. What this is actually doing is what's often called "reading the trouble codes".
It's the same thing you can do with a $50 tool from AutoZone. Any time a problem is detected by the computer, it throws up a code. Some of these codes cause the SES light to come on, some don't. An ODBII scanner plugs in behind the dash and reads these codes from the computer modules, then displays them. Usually in a nicer to read format.
That's all this is doing. They call the OnStar system in the car, tell it to read the codes, and send it back to them. While it's possible for them to send other commands, there's really not much in it for them to do so. You can do some unusual things via that interface (I could have endless fun sticking your car into diagnostic mode and triggering the windshield wipers to run a test cycle), but you can't get back a whole lot of information that they don't already have. VIN, info on the car components, maybe miles travelled and such, but nothing that I would consider crucial to "privacy".
You could figure out MPG and average speed, but hell, I speed all the time and my computer system says my average is only around 40-ish. Instantaneous speed couldn't be gotten from the car via this interface.
Of course, they don't need the car to get that info. OnStar systems have a GPS built in, and that will give them instantaneous speed. But that doesn't require them talking to the car to do it.
- Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
So famous people drive crappy American cars? Must have been a rental.
Just kidding. You've hit the nightmare scenario on the head though.
http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/when_to_
on when we'll start hearing about people showing up to the shop for blinker fluid replacement, and muffler ball bearing replacements?
Can you imagine the legal implications of denying someone access to their car? I guarantee they would supercede any "DRM" violation. However I kind of like the idea of calling Onstar and having them activate this "kill switch" in the event my car gets stolen.
Leather seats, check.
CD Stacker, check.
Driver's side airbag, check.
Tinfoil car-seat covers, check.
Let's roll.
Indy Media Watch-Proctologist of the Internet
Are you really bored today?
This is what, your 4th post?
All of them saying the same thing - nothing.
This is just like many other integration-minded technologies to emerge within the last decade. While it can offer an incredible benefit to consumers, the underlying "hive mentality" will be rejected by many consumers, especially Americans, as soon as they realize the technology is in the vendor's best interests, as opposed to theirs.
Take for example ink monitoring and re-ordering. These services have been successfully used by many computer users, especially IT professionals, but only as long as the service remains mutually beneficial to consumer and vendor. As soon as the Lexmark mentality emerges, and people become aware that the "service" is nothing more than an extention of the manufacturer's power over the consumer, the service will be rejected as a whole.
The key here is for OnStar to walk a fine balance. Unlike many other vendors, who can force terms of service at will (a la Paypal), OnStar can easily be eliminated by consumers as soon as it becomes problematic, without the consumer losing much (after all, losing a service that is more trouble than it is worth is hardly a loss)
OnStar/GM stand to win big if they can put forth a clear TOS and privacy policy which is in consumers' best interests. They need to be explicit about what OnStar is and isn't allowed to do, and how they are permitted to use your data.
In the world of optional luxury value-added services, a "screw the customer" mentality won't last long. OnStar's success so far can be attributed to novel approaches to vehicular problems, and since they have the captive market of GM customers to work with, they stand to make an enormous amount of money by treating people right.
There is subscription income to be made, and lots of it, as long as OnStar can pre-empt problems, and save consumers from wasted time. If it shifts to warranty enforcement, frivolous service trips, or corporate big-brotherism, then look for many people to just pull the fuse.
If you leave your house and hop on the highway for your hour-long commute to work and your avg speed is recorded at 70 mph, it would be difficult for you to prove you didn't speed all the way, esp. if the speed limit in your state is 55 or 65.
Yes, but can they remotely deploy the airbags?
Now THATS a feature I'd pay for!
"Hello, this is On Star customer service, how may I help you?"
"Yes, my car has been carjacked, can we remotely deploy the airbags?"
"Sure, hold on..."
Good security is based upon reality and common sense. Common sense is a function of having common knowledge.
GMC Service: "Could you please reboot your car, we seem to be having problems connecting to it"
Customer: "You want me to what? how?"
GMC Service: "Well if you could just press play, skip and eject buttons on the cd player down at the same time, it should all be taken care off"
* Customer crashes horribly, when the power steering stops working for 30 seconds
Officially: "No comments"
...you can always buy one of the 200 or so car models that GM doesn't make.
"The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
Is the process so complex... that it needs to be done remotely ?
Complexity probably isn't the main issue. If you are in a remote area this feature makes a lot of sense. For example, you are driving in the middle of nowhere and the wonderfully descriptive 'check engine' light comes on. You are concerned about driving farther because you don't know what's wrong and don't want to cause further damage. This feature could tell you a) it's the $FOO sensor acting up, go ahead and drive or b) the $BAR actuator is broken, call a tow truck.
If not, couldn't they put in a mechanism in the car itself, where at the press of a button, all the diagnostics would be run, and a report generated and shown in a panel or something like that.
What is the average Joe Motorist going to do with that information? Why would automakers go to the additional expense of installing such display panels when the report can (and should) be sent to someone who actually knows how to read it?
I want to drag this out as long as possible. Bring me my protractor.
I've got a GM that just did a timing belt - because of the poor engine design, the heads crashed into the valves - $2200 later to replace all heads and valves.
As apposed to a ford that I owned that also did a timing belt - they only had to replace the timing belt....
OnStar has detected a failed detonator and is sending assistance.
I guess it depends on what folks do with the information - if you call 911 the cops know where you're calling from and you can't opt out of that, so it appears to me some data collection services might be actually useful ;-)
I wonder if the people howling about this would also howl if they knew that law enforcement can download all kinds of pre-accident information from the onboard computer of newer cars? Road speed, engine rpm, exactly when the brakes were applied, all kindsa stuff.
I see this as a much more desirable alternative to the damned 'check engine' light that tells me absolutely nothing - then I have to take the car to the shop and give the mechanic a Franklin to tell me what's wrong it.
I figure GM will use a lot of this data to generate statistics about all kindsa stuff like what parts are regularly failing, how the vehicles they sell are being used and so on. I'd personally welcome an email reminding me to change my oil as being male, I have a fairly short attention span and will forget about the 'change your damn oil' light in the car as soon as I get to the office and things start coming at me from six different directions.
If data collection is optional and controls are maintained on how data is collected and used I have no problem here.
I can't see why the government would need to know what library books I read, but I can see where an auto manufacturer would want to collect diagnostic information and how that would benefit me.
we see things not as as they are, but as we are.
-- anais nin
All OnStar units have an antenna attached to the car for use with the cell phone. Unscrew it, and you're done. No connection home.
- Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
Thought I had plain old text selected. My next post will most likely be broken down into paragraphs - please stay tuned.
we see things not as as they are, but as we are.
-- anais nin
The car is not sending out signals... other than GPS. So, they are calling the "car's number" to get any error codes.
And no, OnStar people are not calling and listening to you, it is ILLEGAL to do and you WILL be fired the instant you are found out. (I have heard of 10 people fired because they were doing that.. the only reason they applied and got jobs was to spy on people they knew.. OnStar screening has improved since then)
Better hassle your Congressman/Senator to put decent Data Proctection Laws into the statute books then.
Bruce Schnier (amongst others) sees this as THE major problem with USA computer security right now...
I just purchased a new GM car (a Hummer, if you must know) last weekend. The dealer told me that now, not only do they call you when your airbags deploy, but also if you swerve hard, as when you suddenly avoid a deer, or towards an SCO executive standing in the road. The OnStar people will call you and ask if you're all right.
It also has a built in cell phone, you press a button to boot the system, and everything else is hands free through the mic in the ceiling panel. You buy minutes in a package like any other cell phone.
feb 2006 - the onStar system gains awareness.
GM, in a panic tries to pull the plug, in turn the onStar system tries to defend it self.
Apparently, it'll be OnStar versus Cisco in an all-out brawl in a giant muuuuuud pit!
reading War and Peace on a Blackberry. It can be done but you'll need a lot of bandwidth.
I can see it now... I'm drivind down the road, when OnStar comes on:::
Hello! We're here to inform you that you need to change the air particle filter in your Escalade.
WTF? Why?
Sir, we here at OnStar have monitored your car, and we've just come to the conclusion that the A/C isn't working properly because of high levels of THC residue in the air ducts. In addition, what you're smoking isn't the best quality available, and that's really stinking up the interior and hurting our overall re-sale value. We also consider that you've been listening to Bob Marley excesively, thus we'll shut down the sound system.
Wait, wait a minute!...
Oh, and we're waiting just 20 seconds for the patrol cars to be on your tail so we can shut down our, er, your vehicle.
Can you hand me a Heineken?
welcome our remotely monitoring GPS enabled automotive surveillance overlords.
RETURN without GOSUB in line 1050
...then you're probably EXACTLY the kind of luser that buys GM vehicles anyway.
"... and more and more now there are all kinds of electronic goodies available" -- Pink Floyd 1972
Scenario 1: I'm at the front seat, parked in front of my son's school. Truck with brake problems comes down the street, hits me frontally. I just unfastened the seat belt, turned the engine off. The air bag can be of help here.
Scenario 2: (continuing) The air bag protected my head and torso, but both my legs were broken. The car was still locked when the truck hit me. People on the street are trying to get me out of the car as fast as they can.
Yes, those are worse-case scenarios, but the risk of car theft is less important than the risk of loss-of-life.
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
What about social engineering? Instead of car thieves picking a lock, or busting a window to steal a car, couldn't they call OnStar and trick them into opening the car for them? Granted, I have never used OnStar before so I don't know how it works, and it would certainly be quicker and easier to just break the window, but it would be more obvious to people what you are doing if you go the fast/easy way.
As for scanning the vehicle for problems, I can see that as being like the "shady mechanic" who conveniently finds problems that need fixing to get more money out of you. Does OnStar get more money for finding these problems? Or just a flat fee for the service?
Having a smoking section in a public restaurant is like having a peeing section in a public swimming pool.
Yeah, and they're thinking of renaming ONSTAR.
New name will be WOPR
Would you like to play a game?
Nope. It will still use the 12v 0.5A it always has.
No worries.
GreasyBloater
I know its a completely diffrent preception between consumer and corporate, but GE has ben doing this on their aircraft jet engines for years. Companies that use it save lots of money on repair maintanance. Thanks to statistical analasis, they can tell that a few degree anomoly in section X means that panel A needs to be re-laminated, instead of having to replace 20 broken parts.
I wonder how in-depth GMs onboard diag system will get.
I personaly dont have a problem at all with this, with 2 caveats:
1. I can completely turn it off
2. The government keeps their hands off of it
If you resist reading what you disagree with, how will you ever acquire deeper insights into your own beliefs?
I was at a car show last weekend, you could buy a totally custom car, new from the ground up, racing chassis, aluminum 350, 4 speed auto, 4 wheel disc brakes, A/C, everything in a replica '32 Ford coupe (I think that was year an model)body - $30k. Air bags were even an option. There are replicas of all the old cool cars available. Or just drive older cars.
Vote Quimby!
Thats all i got to say. we're almost there.
you modify your car, onstar reports it, your warranty is void. never mind the magnuson act. They don't really play ball with that.
I currently own a car with OnStar installed and working and I can tell you security concerns are not even on my radar. I think the fact that knowing that someone call contact emercgency personnal and send them to your extact location and also being able to tell what is worng with your car at any time so you don't get stuck on the side of the road in the middle of the night in some place that you have never been far outweighs any security concens that someone might have about it. And really why do we care that they know where my car is
...by presenting to be Onstar?
Naaah, the signals Onstar uses to do that are top secret.
Don't be a nervous nellie, your Onstar-equipped car is locked up as tight as a region-coded DVD.
Oh, Onstar keeps your information private using state-of-the-art procedures used by top credit-card companies like CardSystems Solutions.
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
In my day, we could fix a car with a set of screwdrivers and a shifter. This new-fangled stuff requires a CS doctorate and an RF engineering master to even open the bonnet. I mean, where's the engine? You can't even see it for all the OnStar gizmos.
Month ago someone told me a crazy story about how they came upon a wreck scene and called OnStar and the OnStar op could see the wreck scene. I knew it was BS, but this person attested so vehemently that it was truth I decided to get to the bottom of it. I discussed it among friends, and eventually the question evolved in wondering if OnStar could see you nicturating if you pulled over on the side of a deserted road, that is, "Can OnStar see you peeing?" After some websearching leading nowhere I eventually decided to ask OnStar themselves. I concocted a false identity and made my request sound like it was written by a young girl. Here's the email I sent and the reply (note that all the circumstances I lay out are as the person actually described it to me):
- -8<---8<
- --8<---8<---8
---8<---8<---8<---8<---8<---8<---8<---8<-
--Original Message--
From: XXXXXXX@yahoo.com
Date: 11/22/04
To: contactus@onstar.com
Subject: Question[#107500]
Are you a current OnStar subscriber? : No
OnStar Account Number:
Name: Lisa Xxxxxxxxx
Email Address: psykeri@yahoo.com
Address: 762 Mattamuskeet Road
City: Hampton
State: Virginia
Zip/Postal Code: 23666
Daytime Phone:
Evening Phone:
Message: hi, I was just curious... my aunt went on a car trip last week... she
has a 2004 Cadilac with onstar. anyways, she says she came up to a wreck scene
on the side of the road. a car was upside down in a ditch full of water, no
other cars were there, so it had just happened. my aunt says she called the onstar
people and the onstar person said that there was a person thrown out of the
wrecked car, and said they were lying in the ditch on the other side of the road,
so my aunt looked and there they were! then later, when a rescuer was trying to
get a baby seat out of the wrecked car in the ditch, he fell over backwards in
the water. my aunt says the onstar person asked who was that that just fell
down? my question is can onstar really see what's happenenig like this? can yall
look in on a crash scene somehow and see what's there? thank you -Lisa
Receive periodic e-mail from OnStar? Yes
--Reply Message--
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 13:40:18 -0800
From: "contactus" <contactus@onstar.com>
Subject: RE:Question [#107500]
To: XXXXXXX@yahoo.com
Dear Ms. Xxxxxxxx,
Thank you for taking the time to e-mail OnStar.
It sounds like your aunt my be "pulling your leg." OnStar does not have the
capability to physically see inside a vehicle or any other location. Even if
this capability was available, OnStar would not disclose such information.
If you have any other concerns, please feel free to contact the OnStar Customer
Care Department at 1-888-4ONSTAR (1-888-466-7827), prompt 4, between the hours
of 6am and 1am EST.
Sincerely,
Krista
OnStar Information Specialist
---8<---8<---8<---8<---8<---8<---8<
So there you have it. OnStar can't see you peeing, and if they could, they wouldn't tell you.
I can't wait to get my letter from GM saying:
Dear Customer,
For the past 11 months, we have been telling you to change your oil. This is why you're riding your bike to work--not because our car is a piece of shit as we heard you say while calling the mechanic from your OnStar device.
Regards,
GM Customer Service
Finance tutorials and more! Understandfinance
Many GM vehicles do in fact do this; a friends' Corvette Z06 (now a few years old) started smoking like crazy out of one set of exhaust pipes. First came a check engine light, then a -blinking- check engine light, which means "pull over, something's REALLY wrong, you might damage the engine driving it further."
Pushing some magical secret combination of buttons, the in-dash display which normally shows trip computer info and whatnot displayed the DTC codes, which he then looked up online. One entire side of the engine's fuel injectors were dead to the ECU (turned out to be a bad wiring harness- the injectors were wide upen, and dumping +203HP worth of fuel into the left bank :-)
Any vehicle sold in the US after 1995-1996 has ODB-2, which means the car can report a lot of standardized information. You still need a "scan tool" (of varying complexity, ranging from a 1-2 line LCD display, to a full-fledged logging/graphing unit or laptop), and some values are manufacturer-unique....but most of the truly important stuff isn't specially coded. So you can usually get throttle angle, O2 sensor information, RPMs, estimated load/mass-airflow-sensor values, coolant and intake air temp, timing advance/retard, etc. All the basic "will it run or not, or why isn't it running well" info.
Please help metamoderate.
Every time I see this on TV I cringe. Little kids telling me that if it wasn't for OnStar, no one would have helped them after the accident.
OnStar is yet another way to turn over responsibility to someone else. Responsibility for maintaining your car, keeping you safe, protecting the children. We've got to do it for the children. I know I rant, but still.
Also, no one seems interested in the fundamental question...
Who Owns The Information Collected?
Let me give you a hint. Not you. Use it in court. Need Insurance? Let's call OnStar and see if you are a safe driver. Storage memory is cheap. Store it all.
It just feels wrong.
Security is important, but privacy is precious.
I can just see it now - you are driving along and a spammer takes control of your car and drives it to a remote parking lot where you are required to purchase penis enlargement pills before you are given back control of your car.
"Hello, driver? We can tell that you have a flat tire."
*moment of silence*
"You are also currently parked in a low rent district. This area is known for illegal activities. Do you need assistance?"
*moment of silence*
"Hello, driver are you needing assistance? We are now detecting you are exiting a known crime area at a high rate of speed." " for your safety will automatically contact the nearest police car, which you are now speeding by, at a rate 2 times the legal limit"
"have a nice day"
---- Booth was a patriot ----
If they put a breathalyzer in the car GM would be liable if they allow you to drive after drinking.
How long until some state requires reports of driving behavior - speeding tickets automatically added to your car payments?
Current legal practice is to request the blackbox (airbag monitor) data for the car that hit you. A record of speed, lane changes, turns, braking, etc.
So if you thought you had a 'right to privacy" Get over it!
OnStar was originally envisioned to use something other than cellular to handle the communications (I think it was microwave towers or something like that). It was proposed by some aerospace/telecom company that GM bought. Early in the design process it was switched over to a cellular system, but, at least in the generations that I worked with, it had a lot of limitations. (And not just bad cellular reception.)
The first and second generation systems (the latest I worked with), could not get information from the car and speak to the customer at the same time (most likely this is still true, since there's only one cell phone per vehicle). Basically, when a call is connected, while the nifty little message is playing in the car saying that it is connecting, it connects to the call center in data mode (just a modem installed with the phone) and lets the center know the state of the vehicle, which for a normal customer call is the location of the car, whether your lights are on, state of the locks, etc. Then the phone switches over to voice mode (which is a line transfer at the call center) and the "This is Bob at OnStar, how may I help you?" speel starts. If the airbag deploys, the car calls by itself and Bob's message is different, but otherwise things stay the same technically.
Of course, this means that anytime you need something done in the car while the OnStar agent is speaking to you through the car, you get put on hold. Generally, this isn't a problem, since if you need your car unlocked or something, you're probably outside of your car (I think you do get put on hold anyway as the data call is placed). The problem comes in when you're trying to get directions to somewhere. The car can only transfer your location when in data mode. So if you're driving down the highway at 75 mph and you missed the exit you were told to turn at by Bob, Bob still only knows your location when the call was first made, not where you are at that moment.
Though the using the cell phone to actually make voice calls was just being tested when I left (at least through a voice recognition system so you wouldn't have to talk to an agent), basically all the calls go through the same call center and are then connected to the requested number. You'll notice that GM vehicles don't have a numeric keypad in them; the cell phone in the car can only call one place, so it would be pretty easy (as another post spoke about) for a OnStar agent to listen in.
Also, the hardware in the car has hooks really, really deep into the system. An OnStar agent has a special demo mode they can go into to show it off at dealships where they honk the horn, flash the lights, unlock the doors, etc. What they don't tell you is that the hardware also has hooks into the ignition system. When I worked there, there wasn't any way for the desktop software to actually start or stop the engine, but the hardware is there. I'm not really fond of the thought of some call center employee shutting off my engine while I'm on the highway, but the potential is there.
As other people have suspected, when the call center connects to your car, there isn't any warning. I think this was originally intended to get the cars location, etc. if the car was stolen, but there's no reason that it's limited to that alone. In fact, I heard stories from the call center about a guy calling OnStar to locate his car and finding it in the middle of a corn field with his wife and her lover in it.
Be glad life is unfair, otherwise we'd deserve all this.
"Hey whats this button do, is it a compass display button?"-mom *press* *ding* Connecting to Onstar! "quick shut it off!"-dad "what seems to be the emergency?"-operator "We pressed the wrong button because it looked like a compass"-mom *twitch* *spazzes out*-operator
Great, now I'll have to wrap my whole car in tin foil also...
Those onstar people can read your GPS location ANY time, even when the car is turned off. Further, they can remotely turn on the built-in microphone at ANY time without you knowing, enabling them to listen to any conversation being had in the car. Talk about your stereotypical "big brother" corporation.
I'll quote Mr. Ben Franklin here: "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
A speaker pops on in your car and announces, "Good Day sir/madam, I have been 'randomly' monitoring your conversation and noticed you seem distressed about our government, we will be dispatching a robot overlord reprogramming unit to your area please pull over and wait quietly for them to arrive. Thank you for your co operation."
I don't know how far this thing is from production, but hondas Advanced Safety Vehicles is even scarier. It can brake and steer your car, it monitors your pluse and heart rate. It even record video of the inside of the car. Here's a link: http://www.world.honda.com/news/2005/c050902.html
Ha ha ha!
That was great!
For a minute I thought I was back in high school with all the cowboys (and cowboy wannabes) arguing about Ford/Chevy/Dodge pickups.
Mod parent Funny.
(The sad thing is that some people are serious when they say things like the parent.)
After my current Toyota dies (if EVER), I'll just buy another and not have to worry about it breaking in the 1st place.
What is even worse is when you dont know you can opt out.
Often you arent really told, so you just accept it as 'standard'.
If you do buy a new car I'm sure if you pull a fuse 'onstar' is toast. ( unless that violates some AUP policy and you get sued afterwards )
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Sure GM vehicles have 'problems', but so do volkswagons (all of them), mercedes (MLs in particular), fords (all but maybe their heavy trucks), chrysler (anything other than their hemi, or detroit diesel), volvo (s40), nissans (oh christ do they ever).. and so on.
Vehicles are complicated animals, the statistic thrown around is usually "30,000 parts go into a std vehicle w/ a/c" - a lot of crap to go wrong.
On the lower end vehicles (cobalt, focus, sx2.0,pt cruiser) people say they suck, but 9/10 out of 10 it's retarded owners to don't do regular maintenance.
I think you're missing the point of onstar entirely. Why it would onstar diagnostics be an issue? They're not secretly recording anyone's converstations - what they're doing is checking OBDC codes from your vehicle remotely. God forbid they see if they spy on you and see your oxygen sensors is fuct, or it's running perpetually lean.
Onstar is not a cash machine, it's generally included for a couple years, and even then it's not expensive if you want to keep the service. the advantage for GM is that it has the potential to catch 'user error' (ie, driving around with the freaking 'check engine' light on). And maybe increase their reliability figures - and overall help their vehicles retain some value (which is good owners and people leasing).
blah.....
stop complaing. You don't have to get a GM car with onstar OR just don't pay for the service. in fact.. its an extra $800.
Quite unlikely but it could happen someday.
"I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence or insanity but they've always worked for me" - HST
I could see this used as a tool to void warranties.
OnStar alerts you to a say a bad sensor, but the vehicle is running fine, then a few months down the road some thing happens to the engine, like a thrown timing belt that bends the camshaft, and suddenly your non compliance with that bad sensor has voided your warranty.
It is better to be the hammer than the anvil.
Poster was a 22 yr. old talking about 'cars in the olden days' - and driving a '87 firebird (which will have onboard OBD, fuel injection, and all the GM electrical gremlins).
Satellite is used to provide GPS coordinates (as well as speed and direction of travel).
Cellular technology is used for everything else - voice and data communication.
Driving the vehicle into a zone with no cell coverage will not provide OnStar any information. First, the vehicle gets its position from the satellite. Then, it sends that information (along with anything else) to OnStar via cellular signal.
There's an "AIRBAG TEST" menu in the TECH-2 which does precisely that. Techs have a "dummy airbag", which is more or less an LED with a dropping resistor, that they drop in place before running that test. But the control module doesn't know the difference.
Now of course, the TECH-2 won't let you perform the airbag test (or the ABS wheel solenoid test) while the vehicle's in gear. But is that limitation built into the ECM, or just the TECH-2's user interface?
Your job is to edit submissions. Please learn the difference between the contraction "it's" and the possessive "its". You wouldn't get a volunteer job on a free student newsletter, so I can't see why you get paid a living wage for doing this professionally.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
via it is OnStar system??
-- I am. Therefore, I think!
Nor do I fear being tracked by the gov't. I do not comit any crimes. I am not worried about GM finding out if I cheated on my g/f (which I don't do, but hypothetically). If this can, however, tell me whats up with my car - then I am all for it. It is very expensive to get your car diagnosed because of the silly little "check engine" light.
I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
Wow, that sounds so plausable when you say it like that. So I googled for:
"heather locklear" onstar (letterman OR leno)
And I get, you guessed it, crap. Now think what a bombshell it would be if OnStar were listening in on random phone calls, what an uproar that would be. But no one mentioned it anywhere.
It always amazes me when people just make up things in forums like this. And how easy it would be to just believe it without checking.
The ideal thing from GM's POV might be for the user to have access to the monthly "checkup," with a log file or something to pore over. They could clearly identify stuff you *had* to address, and bury other information in the usual "computer codes" bucket.
GM is hardly doing this without thinking that stuff through. The monthly payments for OnStar probably make up for whatever extra maintenance costs they incur in the first some-odd years of your ownership. (You get a year free, or something, and then you pay a monthly fee. That first year isn't going to have major mechanical crackups, you wouldn't think. After that, I wonder how the math works, but it can't be a disaster for them.)
And either way, could it be more expensive than something like Hyundai's "We know they're unreliable but we cover for that" 10 year/100,000 mile warranties? This is a far more impressive way of addressing customer concerns about reliability.
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
I mean, unless OnStar monitors your location by GPS and measures speeds and can make this information available to the authorities, I really can't see how anyone should feel threatend by this technology.
Quite personally, if my car is more capable of finding out if there is some serious problems (interesting to note that this is on a GM vehicle, none of the imports need this feature), then I am game for it.
All I fear is GM using this as an excuse to get you to come more often for tune-ups, or perform "necessary" servicing or reparis. People buying into OnStar may feel that if GM calls them up and says you need to replace the engine, then "Duh, OK!" hand me a $3000 repair bill.
I don't think we should fear technology in our cars. Some company isn't going to put a computer in our cars that might force use to crash or monitor our every move. The US is filled with people just waiting for something like this to happen and sue a company for billions of dollars. GM and other are more afraid of public backlash and legal issues then you should be of them implementing technology that violates your privacy or is a security threat.
I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
Anyone know if GMAC has access to "Remote Disable"?
We pray for the end of ignorance and superstition
Mod parent funny.
Try this one on for size: Honor your warranties, you over bloated finacial baffoons. How about an electrical system that doesn't make the gauges go haywire every time it rains or gets a little humid.
I don't give a flying rat shit about the frills GM, just build me a dependable vehicle, and I'll come buy your cars.
A friend of mine who is a mechanic said that he was told by his instructors at the Auto Tech school that he attended, that this "feature" will be a standard part and practice of OBD-III Systems. Basically, the car will phone-home when a trouble code is flagged, and if you ignore the "Service Engine Soon" light they will send you letters, up to the point where you might be turned in to the police for operating an unsafe vehicle, or similar charge.
Personally, I'd expect nothing less from a marriage of corporation and government, but I still take this with a grain of salt. These days I find myself less and less inclined to continue driving. Thankfully I haven't needed to drive my car in over a month and a half.
Model 551, Chambered in 6mm
GPS + Onstar = don't miss that payment
Personally, I prefer organic vehicles over the Genetically Modified variety...
FIXME: Add a sig here
I guarantee that their goal is to get out of warranty work.
Gee our onstar shows you didn't do the subscribe 1000 dollar maintenance PERFORMED BY US - sorry you have to pay 5000 to fix your car.
This could be the start of the throw away car - you know the same way people throw away their computers when they become infested with spyware, addware and other crap. It costs more to fix it than to buy a new computer. So just buy a new computer.
This is the microsoft way of thinking that has been put on our society by the wonderful software company. Just throw it away and pay us more for a new one.
Mod me down or whatever but this is where they are going with this.
> As it is, how does a satellite radio company > know what channels are popular/unpopular? XM does periodic subscriber surveys that ask you to list your favorite channels. I don't believe they have a method for actually monitoring what people are listening to.
This is like Norton Utilities. Sure they work, but you shouldn't need them to begin with.
Why not buy a reliable car and not worry about it (or run Linux as the case may be)?
If you kill the engine, the power assist dies too. Obviously that can cause a serious accident. Limiting the car to 750rpm (idle speed) may be a better idea.
Oh well, what the hell...
If your not doing anything wrong!
HA HA HA HA HA! Gotta love government propeganda! Think about the speeders, those evil terrorists we will catch! All it takes is a few more of your rights a bit more of your privacy and you'll be safe in Uncle Sam's arms. Don't worry! It won't hurt a bit and we will never use it against law abiding citizens. Of course we get to select the laws and the citizens but don't worry your little head about it. Don't trust us? If you can't trust us who can you trust?!?
Yeah, cuz every anecdote dropped by every celeb on every tv show is carefully recorded and indexed by Google. Fucking tard.
GM averages 200 flaws for every 100 vehicles, one of the highest rates of all of the auto makers. In light of this, I think they need to do everything they can to assist in making their cars more reliable.
If one is concerned about privacy, buy a more reliable vehicle from say....Toyota.
Allahu Akbar, you idiot.
At a track event a couple of months ago, there was a CTS-V in my run group. He was doing real good one session, then he fell flat on his face. Turns out that Onstar reported back that the vehicle was being driven 'erraticly', and thought the car was stolen, so it dialed back the power. not a great thing when you're going down the back straight at VIR at 120mph.. He had to call them and explain that he was infact the owner, and told them he was at a 'driving school'
okay folks repeat after me. ON-star is a service the user signs up and pays for. it is not forced on you. there are no privacy issues, stop with the knee jerk response that big brother watching is bad. You are paying big brother to watch you because you want it!!!! Why is this so hard to grasp. Is everyone here a 17 year old or something?
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
Let's be reasonable.
1. This service is being offered for free. Don't see how a free service is going to generate tons of subscription revenues for GM.
2. All this system does is scan your car's Car Area Network for any fault codes. This is the same stuff they have been scanning for years when you take it into the shopt. It's not going to report back to GM what you ate for lunch or if you listen to too much Britney on your radio.
3. If they FBI really wanted to track you, I'm sure they could do it without GM's help. And I doubt they have enough time to track everyone who happens to own a car made by GM or by a company who is owned by GM.
4. What about the benefits of this FREE system to the consumer? Catching a problem early is probably cheaper to fix than if the driver doesn't notice till the engine melts.
5. If you're really that concerned, you should try a vehicle that doesn't have any data monitoring devices like a bike.
Okay, heres another rant from the OSC about freedoms. I really don't think that people think about thier action before their commentary to an article.
Some people WANT OnStar to remotely check thier vehicle for problems. In fact, I PAY for this service right now as I want it for my vehicle. OnStart doesnt report any of my vehicle information to 3rd party agencies, and when it gets stolen, they can recover it. Consumers can CHOOSE to not by a vehicle with OnStar.
Please do NOT make it seem like the goverment or commercialism is mandating the use of OnStar.
Here's an example, supposed you're brain dead and hooked up to a machine which keeps you alive and you dont want to be. You CAN get hospital orders for DNR. Some people like being watched by BigBrother (not that Onstar is anywhere near the 800 lb gorrilla many make the govy out to be)! Don't kill it for those of use that do!
These services exist because some people choose to have themselves monitored in case of an emergency!
...which 99.999% of /.ers don't seem to be, I can say confidently that in any area with appropriate cell coverage you can get wonderful service.
Their people are excellent at dealing with scatterbrained distracted drivers, piecing together what they say, and finding out where you're headed and how to get there. They ask permission from you before they look at exactly where you are and when they do look, they are astonishingly accurate as are their directions to your destination.
I don't have any worries about the government being able to call OnStar and find out where I am. They can generally find me simply by checking my tax records and calling my employer during my work day or at home afterwards. Not like I am playing hide and seek or anything. If I want to get lost and stay lost that's pretty damn easy. The point of OnStar is that I don't want to get lost. I want to be found. I want to get where I am going and they help me get there.
OnStar just works.
If my grammar and spelling are off, I am [distracted/tired/careless] (take your pick)
So someone makes an allegation that OnStar listens in on random people, and drops a "Gosh, is that really Heather Locklear"? And this allegation gets made on national tv by a well known celebrity. And no one mentions it ANYWHERE online, except some random guy on slashdot. Whatever. Dumbass.
Think you're thinking about Fieros, they were bad for oil getting on the exhuast.
firebirds just hemorage oil, and lose compression (and have all accessories and trim fall off).
"Especially when my privacy is an issue."
Privacy is no longer an issue in this country because "the people" no longer demand it. What the people appear to demand these days is convenience. People regularly use supermarket savings cards, PVRs that record usage information, used Web services like iTunes and GMail that data mine your email and web usage, use rebates to get lower prices, etc. I mean really, what is private anymore since nobody cares (sarcasm)? As more and more marketing is done we find that the lowest common denominator thinkers are beginning to change the way society works. I can no longer deal with this problem. It's the same problem as trying to be a good recycler when your neighbor doesn't care. I mean really, what's the point? Cynical.
Yeah, that one didn't pass the urban legend smell test for me either.
Actually, they are.
Same thing applies to telemarketers, spammers and government.
No sig today...
Please remember, despite all the tinfoil hat fears, that this is not "Big Brother". No-one is being forced to accept this service, the government doesn't mandate this service, the company isn't reporting you to the police when you speed.
The thing that makes "Big Brother" so bad is that you don't have a choice. If you have a choice, it isn't survalence any more than your accountant, or doctor, or lawyer, who may have a great deal of personal information about you.
Now, if the government required all cars to have this service, it would be a different story all together.
This is a little off topic, but...
That's something I've been advocating over here in Canada. Right now in Ontario, a car has to pass a safety check only when it is sold to a new owner.
In Quebec, a car must only pass safety if the car is sold to a new owner, and the previous owner didn't live in Quebec.
Onstar was 'standard' on my 2003 Envoy. It adds about $700 to the base price of the vehicle, but you get one year "safe and sound" package for free which is "worth" about $200. I keept the first year, used it once when I had a check engine light come on (left the gas cap off), and used about 2 minutes of my free 30 minutes of cell phone.
AFter enduring several months of onstar literature, they finally gave up on me. The onstar unit for my truck is located underneath one of the back seats. Easy enough to take the cover off and disconnect it, which I had done for about a year till my wife said to hook it back up.
Her cousin consults for OnStar. He told her that even if you aren't a subscriber, that you can hit the button in an emergency and they'll help you out. He said if you are in a bad neighborhood, you can hit the button and say "I don't feel safe" and they'll guide you out. They don't want the bad publicity of someone saying they contacted OnStar in an emergency only to get hung up on because they weren't a subscriber.
I've always wondered that if my vehicle ever got stolen, could I call OnStar up, sign up for the service, then say "oh, by the way, would you mind locating the vehicle...I was just carjacked".
I still think $16/month is too much for OnStar. I'd like to see them implement an "a la carte" menu. Lock your keys in the car, it'll cost you $100. Got your car ripped off AGAIN, that's gonna cost you $200 to locate it. I'd be glad to do a fee-for-service...but I'm just tired of getting nickeled and dimed to death with all these little monthly fees.
A big portion of OnStar subscribers are senior citizens. They like the idea of that someone is there to take care of them in an emergency. My in-laws are looking for a new vehicle, and they are specifically looking at GM so that they can get OnStar.
A good friend will help you move. A really good friend will help you move a body.
One way to allay fears from a system like this is to open its interfaces to outsiders. With security to protect users from unauthorized access. That kind of transparency requires the system itself to be more trustworthy by users. And the choices in alternate services create more demand for its use, which means OnStar itself becomes more valuable, making its operator more money. Such a reliable wireless telemetry system for cars is a fantastic platform for all kinds of reliable mobile apps. OnStar should do everyone a favor and open it securely.
--
make install -not war
Hello, this is OnStar, we've noticed you car seems to be disabled in a remote area and is rocking violently. We'll dispatch law enforcement immediately...
The very first thing Tony Soprano did to his Cadillac Escalade was to rip out the OnStar system and GPS unit! He was paranoid about the Fed's getting access to the data so they can track his movements.
I dont' get why nobody is mentioning honest financial benefits to companies that provide warranty service. Warning customers who are under warranty that there is a problem that is cheap to fix now is better than waiting for it to break while under warranty. That is good enough reason to offer such a service for free- your company gets a reputation for cars lasting longer, better warranty service, etc. while actually spending less money doing so. It sounds like a very profitiable idea for 'consumer' and warranty service provides alike.
:(
I guess honest intentions are something slashdot doesn't like to consider.
I for one welcome our sheet-metal bending overlords. Or is it plastic... or fiberglass... whatever. I welcome them!
For example, if you have to go in for surgery, you are asking the surgeon to cut you. Normally a cut as deep as your internal organs, which surgeons routinely make, is a bad thing. A very bad thing. However, the doctors oath says "do no harm", so you trust that he/she is always doing what is in your best interests (OK, I am assuming they are legally bound by that oath). But what limits companies (and others) who have access to what you are doing in what you previously thought was privacy to "do no harm"?
Voice recognition software exists today... maybe not as sophisticated as in Star Trek yet, but it still exists. Once they realize there might be money in it, will On-Star (or others) eventually start listening in and start target marketing to you based on what they hear you talking about? Granted this might sound foil hat paranoid, but what stops the government from randomly listening in to On-Star users? Especially now that the 9/11 laws allow the government to force companies to allow them to look in on you without a warrant. Or maybe someone at On-Star has agreed to look/listen in on someone for a friend to see if they are having an affair. Or maybe they are stocking someone.
At one time you would be a kook to think that anyone was listing in on your private conversations. But with technology like this, it really is possible. So I think the original poster's questions are legitimate. If care to think about it for a while, you can come up with a bunch of ways someone might abuse a system like On-Star. So what is preventing possible abuse of this technology (including significant legal consequences if caught)? And not just for On-Star, but for any service like it.
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
lets say you do 55 through a 45, no cops around, WHOOPS your cars speed is matched to a grid and neeto presto yippee you get a ticket in the mail, what ever happened to getting away with shit.
Lets take it a bit further, you get a service engine light that is obviously one of those annoying emmisions control parts (hp robbers) acting up now you get a huge epa fine, all by REMOTE oh joy.
Cut the antenna wire, the power wires and remove the damned thing. Neither Big Brother nor the General need to know that much about us. Take your car in every 3,000 miles for the lube, oil, filter and 15 point check instead.
"HAL open the goddamn door"
"HAL"
"HAL !!! goddamnit"
No, HAL I don't need a friggnin oil change!!!
The airbag test doesn't pop the airbag. I don't know what that particular test is testing, but I've sent that command (from the part 2 spec) to a car before (it was a rental car, actually), and got back a success code, and the airbag did not blow.
- Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
Currently OnStar has over 3.4 million subscribers
During a single month Onstar responds to approximately:
344,000 Routine Calls
40,000 Remote Door Unlock Requests
24,000 Requests for GM Goodwrench Remote Diagnostic Svcs
19,000 Roadside Assistance Calls
14,000 Emergency Assistance Calls
800 Airbag Deployments
120 AACN Notifications
350 Requests for Stolen Vehicle Locations
4,500 Good Samaritan Calls
9,000,000 OnStar Hands-Free Calling Calls
*Source-Sales and Delivery of OnStar Equipped Vehicle Handbook*
-my inner racer is pointing at him and laughing.-
The point is that this big brother have an option of watching you even if you are NOT paying.
3.243F6A8885A308D313
Repeat after me...
Any Car with ON*Star is not your car, Even if you are paying for it. Even if the title says it's yours.
If someone else can listen in your car without your knowledge, can locate your car without your asking, and propbably stop your car without your permission owns that car, not you.
I wonder if ON*Star can be turned off.
In the only accident I've been in where my airbag deployed, my car was still running after impact and I was able to pull off the road.
Granted, several thousands of dollars' worth of repairs were needed, but those all involved the completely bashed-in body, not the ECU.
Informative article linked, quite opposed to OP's statement
XM does periodic subscriber surveys that ask you to list your favorite channels. I don't believe they have a method for actually monitoring what people are listening to.
I agree. I have Sirius. Given the type of antenna, the size of the unit and the fact that it transmits FM, it couldn't possibly be transmitting to the satellite as well. The FM transmitter is too weak for them to be picking up (due to FCC regulations I'm sure).
They must base it on customer feedback, song requests and monitoring usage of streaming audio from their website.
Actually, *Motorola* takes an analog Motorola phone and builds an OnStar unit on top of it. Whether that's better or worse is an exercise left to the reader... You're right though, it's perfectly easy to disable.
The units have voice rec capability now, have for quite a few years, actually. But the OnStar operators still have the ability to call into the car covertly, for the exact reasons you mention.
1. The service is being offered for free now. There is no promise it will remain free and what you want to bet that free extra or not you will have to keep paying the subscription fee in order to keep getting your free updates... and cars don't usually tank in the first year. IE this free service will be most valuable 3-4 yeard down the road when real problems tend to first crop up in new vehicles.
2) Your right this is something that has been possible for years. This information should have been free with the advent of on board diagnostics but has been kept locked down for the most part to propriatery code readers that are at their heart about as complex as a calculator and yet cost dealerships thousands. I bought the car, the car has self diagnostic capability and I should have easy access to that information. It took a court ruling to force manufactureres to even release the code meanings (until recently you could read them with a multimeter) and they still drag their heels on releasing the meaning of ALL codes. Even though it is illegal many dealers will require a minimum fee to pull a car into a service bay and read the codes for a customer.
3)Yes the FBI could track you with or without the help of GM. And tracking everyone isn't the point. The point is the COULD track anyone with this system if it had not be disabled. THere are no complaints about ligitimate uses. The problem is that once the capacity is in place it is possible for it to be abused. Before the ability to tap a car required some effort. Now the damn thing comes tapped and networked to begin with.
4) GM is now offering for Free information that rightfully belongs to the owners of their cars. Whooooptidooo. Again as I pointed out the value of catching problems early will still require maintianing your subscription throughout the life of your ownership of the car. That my friend is not FREE.
5) OBD info is no bad thing. It is when the information is available in such a way to make it highly easy to abuse without the knowledge of the owner that it is so insiduous. Not to mention access to the information for the owner, let me stress that OWNER, of the car is restricted and yes I consider having to maintain a 200 dollar a year subscription fee for a 'free' service to be restricted. The sad thing is that is a better offer than most dealers offer with regard to on board diagnostic information.
On star is a fantastic safety tool. However it is very ignorant to think it is not also a very powerfull tool for invading privacy. Someone joked about the engine being disabled by 'unauthorised access' under the hood. That may be a bit of a stretch. But automakers (Saab I think) actually made a concept car with a sealed engine compartment that could only be opened by propriatary tools. It isn't that much of a stretch for you to buy a car that has a 'seal' of some sort on mechanical access that if it is broken it voids your warranty and the car itself rats you out. That is not good for competition and that is bad for the consumer.
I don't ask you to be me. I only ask you not expect me to be you.
It's the same thing you can do with a $50 tool from AutoZone. Any time a problem is detected by the computer, it throws up a code. Some of these codes cause the SES light to come on, some don't. An ODBII scanner plugs in behind the dash and reads these codes from the computer modules, then displays them. Usually in a nicer to read format.
That's all this is doing....
Instantaneous speed couldn't be gotten from the car via this interface.
The data port transmits much more information than the cheap $50 code readers will display for you.
You can easily get instantaneous speed readings through the data port, and if the OnStar system is attached to it as you say, they could easily get your instantaneous speed.
I've made scantools for my cars. They hook up to the data port and give you the information you request.
I made a scantool for my 300ZXTT. It will tell you the speed, rpm, spark advance, cam advance, injector duty cycle, incoming air temp, ambient air temp, coolant temp, oxygen sensor reading, steering wheel position, throttle position sensor reading, status of the air conditioner switch, air conditioning relay position, electric cooling fan state, start signal status, fuel pump status, EGR solenoid status, air/fuel ratio (rich/lean) and the list goes on.
All these things can be monitored in real time, and there's no reason that a system which feeds its info to the OnStar system couldn't send this data.
GM has had a reputation for selling cars that were in some way deficient, then making changes as the dealers' service departments parts orders indicated to manufacturing which parts were subpar. I called this "paying for the privlege of being a beta tester" and desisted from buying GM models in the first or second year. Could this be just beta testing with real-time response?
The clearance system sounds logical. It is not. It is completely arbitrary. -- John Bolton
By the way I pointed out a lot of problems I see with the system without suggesting solutions.
One. For the tinfoil crowd they need an off switch. Really its probably as simple as a fuse already though lot of time there are multiple elements on a single fused circut. But the system should be able to be turned fully off. And NOT be able to be turned on remotely. Yes the safety of monitoring airbag deployment is nice. But I hold that an individual has the right to choose to not be protected in this manner. When they don't have one I become concerned about privacy issues because I no longer can choose to opt out. Yes it is GM now. You really think if they are successfull with it this will not be standard for all cars in 5 years ?
Two. OBD information should be COMPLETELY open and readily available to owners. And that dosn't mean I go down to the dealer where they can tell me what the car is saying or that I have to maintain a yearly subscription to some service. I want direct access to the information from the car with no intermediaries. When I buy a new car it should come with a CD with access software and dongles for connecting it to my laptop/computer/palm pilot etc. Or perhaps wireless/Blue Tooth. In otherwords the access to this information should be via standard interfaces to common equipment. Not specialized propriatary systems made builky on purpose (Ever seen an OBD system at a dealer?). In all honesty there should be a display in the car or at least available as an option. We have these nice fancy on board car computers and yet they don't (to my knowledge) display OBD info? WHY THE FUCK NOT? And it had better not be some 1000 dollar option. You telling me a 3 or 4 digit LCD with the circutry to display a code the car already computes should cost that much? It should be standard and its long overdue.
Car computers are seriously lagging behind where they should be. And I am ALL for them. But I am not for this bullshit propriatry crap automakers are trying to slip us on the sly.
I don't ask you to be me. I only ask you not expect me to be you.
OnStar scares the hell out of me. I don't like the idea of paying Big Brother to monitor my car and its travels and travails.
:)
I don't know how accurate the CSI and Law and Order shows are with respect to the ability of the police to use such systems to track vehicles and people, but it seems totally plausable. Regardless of whether they currently do it, they (OnStar, a hacker, the feds, etc.) could, in principle, log your every move. Good if your car gets stolen or you need an alibi. Bad if you, for example, commute through 'sketchy' neighborhoods, are trying to avoid a stalker, or are being persecuted by the Department of Homeland (in)Security.
Personally, I don't have OnStar in my vehicle, and I don't want it. If it becomes "standard equipment" on new cars, I'll want a way to disable it or remove the hardware from the car without disabling the vehicle itself.
The problem with many of these technologies is they allow third parties (GM, the cops, etc.) to collect information about you while you don't have access to said information. For example, try getting a list of the phone numbers that called your cell phone (caller-id blocked or not) -- the phone company won't give it to you. I know, I tried. But if the police get a warrant, they sure as hell can get this information.
I'd rather that certain information not be collected at all. But I'd be happier to accept that collection if I had full and free access to it. I want to know what they know about me. It shouldn't take a court order to access your own phone records. And if your driving is being monitored and possibly logged (or even if this is possible), there should be full disclosure of this fact and the resulting data.
In the mean time, for those of us who value liberty, freedom, and privacy, I'd suggest finding another car company.
Instead of telling them that an nice comfortable "airbag" pops out during a catastropic accident, tell them that a steel spike shoots out. People might think twice about tailgating.
GM wants to advertise that their cars go 100,000 miles between a tuneup. Nevermind that some of your fluids are bad, they just re-define the spec to accept worse fluids as normal. You can go 100,000 miles, but if you want to get 300,000 out of the car you should be flushing the radiator (for example) more often than that. I'm sure they are looking for 100,000 mile engine oil, but so far they don't have it.
Car dealers want you to come in often because they only make money when you car is in the shop. So they suggest service intervals more often than required, but still much closer to what is reasonable (if you want to car to last 300,000+ miles).
I would never get On Star. I swear it's so easy to see what is happening here. They're introducing all of this monitoring technology as an option and most people accept it not looking ahead to what it will lead to. ...they're eventually going to put forward a plan to chip people. They won't force it, but they will require it and those who don't will face consequences - like deportation, imprisonment, or internment camps or something. Not under these conditions, though. More will have to happen to bring security even more to the forefront. People will give up their rights for this kind of garbage. Garbage doesn't even begin to describe it.
To stop it from progressing to that point there needs to be a large, publicized lawsuit. I'm more than certain all that is happening is an attempt to change mind-sets to accept this kind of stuff. Were people ready and willing right now they would already be pushing full force with chipping them.
On Star is pretty worthless too. A friend of mine who has it got a flat tire outside of her city and hit the On Star button and it did nothing. They also pointed out that it looks like the only people who like it are the ones on the commercials - and they're probably actors.
Reminds me of cellphones in emergency situations - just look what happened during Katrina and the recent London bombing. Cell phone service was GONE!
It's not wise to make the mistake of relying so much on this kind of technology.
Personally I love cheap cars. The original little Honda Civic made tons of sense to me: cheap, well-made, reliable commuter car. If the big two Japanese makers weren't bloating every model year over year, I'd have bought a Corolla or something this last time.
Digging around, and thanks for keeping me honest, basically two things are obvious:
The 10 years/100,000 miles thing is an attempt to get at that second problem. It clearly is meant to say, like I put it before, "It's unreliable, but we cover for that." I'm their market, and that's the message they're sending me loud and clear.
But you know, point taken, and when my latest ridiculously durable (170k and going strong) Subaru gives out I'll maybe have Hyundai on my list where they weren't before.
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
Here's a link to a CNET article about the FBI using OnStar to listen to people: http://news.com.com/2100-1029-5109435.html
According to the article, they can't do it anymore (as of 11/2003), although that may have changed since, I have not researched it heavily.
Regardless of what the FBI legally can or can't do, I'm willing to bet that some bored OnStar employees listen in for entertainment. Even if you believe they don't, this proves the capability to activate your mic and listen to you without your knowledge exists, so I would suggest that from a privacy POV it must be considered a threat.
"The crows seemed to be calling his name, thought Caw."
"2. All this system does is scan your car's Car Area Network for any fault codes. This is the same stuff they have been scanning for years when you take it into the shopt. It's not going to report back to GM what you ate for lunch or if you listen to too much Britney on your radio."
Actually, you're not very well informed on this point. The system has a microphone and GPS unit built into it, and they can be remotely activated without your knowledge. This has been the subject of a court case already.
So, to disenchant you: yes, GM can tell if you're listening to Britney on your radio, if they want to do so. They can also hear/record any conversations you have inside the car. They can also tell the exact location of your car at any time.
"3. If they FBI really wanted to track you, I'm sure they could do it without GM's help. And I doubt they have enough time to track everyone who happens to own a car made by GM or by a company who is owned by GM."
OnStar makes it much easier and less detectable to track you -- not just for the FBI, but for anyone who works at OnStar or who manages to gain access remotely. Do you really like the fact that anyone with access (including the FBI) can instantly find out where your car is and listen to everything said inside your car? They don't even need to go through the trouble of installing a bug. One-click snooping.
"4. What about the benefits of this FREE system to the consumer? Catching a problem early is probably cheaper to fix than if the driver doesn't notice till the engine melts."
That's a bald-faced lie. If it were the only purpose of the system to catch problems early, it would just report them to the vehicle's owner, and have a user-switchable option to automatically report them to the owner's mechanic.
Nobody is complaining about automatic diagnostics. The issue is a remote surveillance device built into every car and enabled by default.
"5. If you're really that concerned, you should try a vehicle that doesn't have any data monitoring devices like a bike."
I thought you were trying to "be reasonable." This is like saying, "if you don't like the strip-searches when you travel across the country to visit your family, you should just walk." You can't really come up with a better piece of BS than that.
"While this seems handy, I am interested if anyone here fears the security implications of the OnStar system's power?"
What are they gonna do? Detect that your right front brake is worn down and alert the NRO to have a CIA strike unit intercept you on the highway and kill you? Good grief.
If there was a system that could detect a faulty part on my car and alert me to the problem BEFORE I died in some stupid accident or killed someone because my car wasn't working right...I don't see a problem with it. Why do you? You don't have to have it if you don't want it, so shut up about it. It's not evil. I mean, honestly, what are they going to do? Call you up and bitch you out because yer valve timing is off?
While on the road, they could detect that there was a sudden drop in oil pressure, and call you up asking if you are okay and if you need a tow truck. This, instead of 10 miles down the road when yer engine's dead (or on fire) and you got in an accident because it came unexpectedly.
"I would never get On Star. I swear it's so easy to see what is happening here. They're introducing all of this monitoring technology as an option and most people accept it not looking ahead to what it will lead to."
Dude...go put yer tinfoil hate on, and remove yourself from the gene-pool quickly, you damn paranoid psychopath.
"And no, OnStar people are not calling and listening to you, it is ILLEGAL to do and you WILL be fired the instant you are found out. (I have heard of 10 people fired because they were doing that.. the only reason they applied and got jobs was to spy on people they knew.. OnStar screening has improved since then)"
In other words: OnStar employees are not snooping on you, and at the same time they are snooping on you. They just get fired afterwards if they're caught. But that makes it all okay, so let's just pretend it doesn't happen, ssshhhhh!
If you have ever experienced a car mis-firing (either due to a bad plug, bad wires, or loss of compression), you can't help but notice it! Lots of extra vibration, loss of power, engine is louder (chugging and huffing) - plus, if you are in certain OBD-II or OBD-III vehicles, the car might switch into "limp home" mode (which also, by design, does its best to reduce the emmisions produced), and you can't help but notice that...
Plus, loss of one or more cylinders (especially if the fuel/air intake isn't shut off - ie, the valves if electrically actuated, or more often the case, the injectors), won't just put you "a little" over the limit - you will go so far out of bounds that you might ruin the catalytic converter, which will cost big bucks because you can't buy and install them yourself - only a state-regulated shop can (which ticks me off, because I can't even buy used converters from a pick-ur-part for other experiments).
I suppose, though, if you have been given repeated warnings by the state, for what in most cases would be a simple fix (although it could get expensive quickly if loss of compression is the issue) - maybe they should be able to remotely enforce the laws against polluters. What the individual is doing, by not fixing their car in a timely manner, is not much different than knowingly (because, like I said, you can't not-notice losing a cylinder firing) causing pollution. The laws are in place because we as a society decided (most of the time through the voting process, other times via our representatives) that pollution is a bad thing, and in theory, all individuals and companies should behave in a manner respecting those laws which they have agreed to...
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
Google is your friend. There are already tons of OBD-II readers on the market, several of which are fairly inexpensive for what they do. (A couple of interesting models are here and here. The second one even has several Linux-based programs that work with it.)
20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
This was test actually performed by a couple of guys on a web-based automobile repair information site. They wanted to test the theory that it is bad to run a car (in their case, it was a brand-new Vette or something similar) without changing the oil regularly (ie, every 3000 miles). They found that actually changing the oil could cause more problems than it helped, especially on a newer engine. They found that the best thing to do was to change the filter. They stressed that you had to establish your baseline oil performance and monitor it over the course of your driving, by utilizing a laboratory oil testing service, which takes a sample and runs it through various tests - the two most important of which were metal content and viscosity breakdown over time. IIRC, they ran the test for a year or more. They did note that 12,000 miles was a bit extreme, but that 3000 miles was way to soon. They said that somewhere in between was ultimately better. Something else they noted was that when they replaced the oil (when they removed oil for the lab tests) - they found that the next test always improved. They tried an experiment where they added a new quart of the same oil as in the engine, and the results came back almost as "good-as-new". Basically, the new oil "propped up" the old oil, and allowed the old stuff work like new.
I would say for most vehicles, you could get away with a 7000 mile or so change schedule, changing your filter at 3000 miles, and replacing the "lost" quart (in the filter) with a new charge of the same kind of oil (DO NOT MIX SYNTHETICS WITH REGULAR OIL) that is in the engine. You will save time, money, and resources overall. Of course, standard disclaimers apply, and you should research all of this on your own...
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
What they are likely doing is sending the OBD information over the OnStar system, where a computer probably monitors it, then alerts an operator to notify the driver that they need to have their automobile serviced soon by their local GM dealer (oh, and we can make a quick appointment - we notice you are driving by a neighborhood dealer right now).
Because the driver has no clue what the OBD told OnStar (despite the fact that this information is generally easily available either with a key sequence code or via a scan tool - although I imagine they will slowly phase this out as well, despite laws that exist), they have no real idea what the problem is, whether it is serious, nor what parts are likely to be needed, how long it will be in the shop, or how much it can (or should) cost. They are literally "in the dark" as to what the problem is. They are then (most likely) at the mercy of their neighborhood GM dealer to repair it. For all they know, the problem might be a simple issue that is easy for a home mechanic to fix (slipping belt, new air filter, oil change, brake pads) - but they could easily pad the problem out both time and parts wise, and the customer has no idea what the problem really is. After all, OnStar told them! OnStar and the ODB computer are always right, right?
This is just another example of people delegating responsibility to a third-party entity for the sake of convenience. As all such trade are likely to go, whether in business or government, these people will likely be screwed for a long time before anything comes to light (and then those responsible will get off with a slap of the wrist)...
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
Why doesn't GM focus their resources on building better vehicles? If they were to run longer between experiencing problems, this would mitigate the necessity for Buck Rogers style remote diagnosis.
Yep have one myself. But if you really use them and study those links on Google you will find that some of those codes are not explained and that it often takes a good while before the info for any new codes in new models is distributed. Also whenever a manufacturer changes their dongle it takes a while for the aftermarket to catch up. Its the same deal as ink jets and toner cartridges.
I shouldn't have to go to google and I shouldn't have to buy an aftermarket device to get information from my car that it already generates. Certainly shouldn't have to wait on legal precedent to give me rights with regards to acceessing that information which is what it took to get to where we are now.
I don't ask you to be me. I only ask you not expect me to be you.
I own a GM car and OnStar can be simply disabled by:
1) Removing a fuse
or
2) Disconnecting GPS and Cellular cables
If FBI wants to eavesdrop on you, they will do it with or without OnStar, so prepare your tinfoil hats NOW!!!
Tinfoil hat or no, nobody has any business knowing what's going on in my car, or where it is, except for me.
I'm still trying to figure out where it happened that allowing people to track you without your knowledge became seen as "normal" and not just trusting random people you've never met in a faceless corporation not to abuse this power is considered "tinfoil hat" territory.
Anyway, I bought a Toyota. The Toyota financer was trying to sell me all the option packages, including LoJack. LoJack is a system where they put a microwave transmitter/receiver (so it can be detected even from an underground garage) in your car, and police cars have a transmitter/receiver that can turn on your LoJack transmitter and then find your car.
After scaring me with the frequency of auto thefts* and telling me how LoJake users were able to get their cars back, he then gave me the line that because it's run by the police and they only turn it on if you report your car stolen "it's not Big Brother-ish like On Star".
That's right. He said giving the police the ability to remotely track your car everywhere, even underground, was not Big Brother-ish. I couldn't help it; I laughed at him.
Though at least he's right in one sense, that LoJack only lets the police track your car's location instead of letting them listen in on your conversations. I assume. But frankly, I don't want to live in a world where I have to say things like "At least when the police track every movement of my car they can't listen to what I'm saying, too!"
The enemies of Democracy are
I, for one, welcome our new four-wheeled overlords!
(Granted some of GM's cars are dull, but Toyota etc. doesn't make a single exciting car,...
The best judge on this i.e. the American public does not agree with you...sorry.
I believe that you just proved the original post's point.
Americans shy away from exciting cars, and prefer convenience and usability. The Japanese automakers know this, and that's what they make for the US market. The Camry, Accord and Civic are almost immeasurably dull. They are purposefully designed that way (in fact, Honda's first goal in designing its main line cars--like the Civic or Accord, is to make sure it doesn't turn off its previous owners.)
European and Japanese autobuyers don't need or use cars in the same way, so they have a much more interesting selection of cars. Some of these unique vehicles make their way to US shores (like the Scions from Toyota, or European brands like VW and Saab.) In either case, it's a well known fact (often lamented in car magazines) that Americans buy dull cars.
More interestingly, can it be used to disable the vehicle when you miss a car payment? Seems like OnStar would make the Repo Man's job a lot easier -- telling him exactly where the vehicle is, then unlocking for him...
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
"DHS to Begin Remotely Scanning Cars for Terrorists."
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
The FBI used OnStar to eavesdrop on the city officials in San Diego who were on trial for taking bribes from local strip clubs. I'm surprised that this didn't get more press.
I'm sorry your instincts are so bad. I can't know for sure if she was telling the truth, but I remember her seeming appropriately taken aback, and she's not that good of an actress, so I believed her story.
Attention zealots and haters: 00100 00100
...is anctient history!
If all else fails, pull the plug and get out...
The Life is out there...
I appologise if this has been touched, but I do not feel like reading posts for two days. If someone (like me) hates the Idea of onstar and what it is, why not simply disable it yourself? C'mon, especially if you are competent enough to change your oil, gaskets, install a radio, etc. You can disable the onstar device.
~Sean
yes, I know I used UBB code instead of HTML. my bad, it's 2 AM and i've been drinking :)
Or you can just tell the dealer you won't buy the vehicle if you can't get one without OnStar.
Or you could tear the guts of the unit out of your dash, rendering it useless.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
On-Star can and does listen to conversations in your car without your knowledge! This is a somewhat little known fact that came out in a recent court case where the FBI used conversations from OnStar against a group to incriminate them. Evidently you cannot turn it off very easily. If anyone knows, please pass it on.
i probably already knew that due to the idiot lights coming on... what would be
far more killer would be for a smart
panel display, they could even use the
CD/DVD player if connected... to tell
me and the mechanic right there what
the F____ was wrong without having
to wait or go into the dealership or
crap like that which is how it now works.
GM does not have a clue about what
customers want...