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?"
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...
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.
i ts_incar_fbi_spying/
That doesn't make GM any money. You can't charge a subscription fee for it if you do it that way.
GM sees OnStar as a mongo profit center - they would like to be able to charge a yearly fee to each and every GM owner. That's why they've announced that they will push OnStar into the default configuration of even their cheapest north-american vehicles within just a couple of years.
For me, that alone will keep me from considering a purchase from GM (not like they don't have a lot of other problems too). I'm just not enough of a consumerist to pay subscription feess for my car and the FBI has already made use of similar systems to "bug" a vehicle without having to touch it.
Mercedes took the FBI to court where the court ruled that it is OK to spy on car owners through a system like OnStar as long as it doesn't interfere with the safety functions of the system. I'll bet my bippy the FBI has leaned on GM and others to enable remote snooping without having to worry about those pesky safety functions. Doubly so if you haven't paid the subscription fee but haven't physically disabled the unit.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/11/20/court_lim
Not that I'm worried about the FBI spying on me, or even joe random hacker abusing the system and spying on me. It is the fact that the system facilitates spying, possibly on "important" people like political dissendents, whistle-blowers, etc that bothers me enough to make me boycott it. I don't want to encourage such systems to become so common-place that everyone takes them for granted and accepts that much further an encroachment into our rights to be free from unreasonable search and seizure.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
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.
Not to mention automatic transmission, power steering, hydraulic brakes, automatic spark advance, electric starter and fuel pump.
How can you call it real driving when the car does everything? If you don't set the spark advance yourself, or hand pump the fuel to the carburetors, how can you call yourself a driver? "Turn a key and it starts" - bull, I tell you. Bull.
Yes, making things convenient and useable is obviously a bad idea.
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
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..."
...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.
so long as there's a reliable opt-out I'm not going to be critical.
Since when is it okay for there to be an opt-out? What happened to OPTING IN!?
Next people will be saying "as long as the fee for opting out is reasonable I'm not going to be critical."
I'd personally much prefer opt-ins to opt-outs. Especially when my privacy is an issue. However this certainly won't be an issue for me, as I'm not planning on buying a brand new car anytime soon.
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
So is this an easy way of unlocking the doors of a car? Sounds a bit insecure to me.
You think that's insecure, check this out: The only thing between a thief and your stereo is a pane of glass! All they need is a rock or something heavy, and they can easily get into your car and take anything they want! And get this: This works on ANY MODEL OF CAR! No car is immune to this kind of attack!
Can you believe such an easy-to-bypass security system exists in every single car model on the road?
</SARCASM>
My point: If people are willing to damage the vehicle they are attacking, then no system will completely protect you. The safety afforded by having the airbag active all the time is no more of a security "loophole" than relying on glass to deter thieves.
Like woodworking? Build your own picture frames.
That would be buying the optional subscription service.
I'd personally much prefer opt-ins to opt-outs.
In general I tend to agree. However, there are definite times and places where opt-outs are more appropriate. For example, long, long time ago I was once a resident advisor in college - I was responsible for helping out the other students on the floor, that people followed the community rules, and providing information. My first year, I established an email list to facilitate with communication. That year the email list was opt-in and only a small handfull of individuals signed up (~5 or so out of 100). Everyone kept saying that they'd sign up and several asked why they didn't get emails, it's just that they kept forgetting to actually sign up. The following years I automatically signed everyone up and offered an opt-out option. Only one person opted out, and he rejoined after a month. The listserv was one of the best things that ever happened to the floor as it greatly enhanced communication between the members of the floor.
I vastly prefer opt-in options as I think many businesses abuse (and ignore) their opt-out clause. Sometimes, however, the opt-out philosophy is the way to go.