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.
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_
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?
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?
It happens. I was recently involved in a project where commercial kitchen equipment monitors itself and reports performance and any potential problems via wifi to a central PC which will automatically inform the manufacturers of performance, maintenance issues and call out an engineer or manager if required via email, SMS etc. An big freezer full of food that dies in the middle of the night could be very expensive, one that rings you up so you can get it fixed as soon as possible can save a fortune.
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..."
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.
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.
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?
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.
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
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.
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.
Speak for yourself Mr. Anonymous Coward, your posts are all over this article!
...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 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.
That, my friend, would violate the Magnusson-Moss Act, which is the same law that permits you to maintain your own car (or have Dingbat Lube do it) without violating the warranty.
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
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.
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.
Wrong. A large number of modern engines are non-interference. For example, Toyota realized in the 80's that they could greatly reduce their warranty repair cost by utilizing non-interfence engines. As a result, nearly all of their engines currently in production are non-interference.
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.
Unless you're Belgian, in which case you just drive as if you're the only vehicle on the road anyway. Thus, you never look at the mirror because anything you'd see in it 1) is static 2) is behind you and 3) you've already missed it, by some miracle.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Same thing applies to telemarketers, spammers and government.
No sig today...
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.
Please check the below link, it's to an older news article, but it makes a point to remind people that the On-Star in-car mic's are either always on or can be easily tapped. The back story (that I've heard, just can't find justification) is that in Arizona, the FBI recorded the conversations of a mobster over the On-Star system in his new caddie...
I =473
http://www.bobbarr.org/default.asp?pt=newsdescr&R
(yeah, yeah, no HTML skills...)
Beyond that, it is an op-in option... there are plenty of car manufacturers. On the other hand, if I were to buy anything not GM, Ford, or Chrysler made, I would end up having to tow it somewhere (over 50 miles) to get it looked at under warranty...
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." -Anon.
I'm just wondering which engine you had. GM hasn't made an engine with a timing BELT since 1985...
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.
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,
FALSE
OnStar is both a package of remote telematics equipment included in the base configuration of many GM vehicles AND a subscription service that makes use of the remote telematics equipment.
Here's the key part - even if you do not subscribe, the equipment is still in the car and functional. It can be turned on at a moments notice without the consent or even knowledge of the vehicle's owner.
GM has publically promised to include the OnStar equipment in the base configuration of ALL GM vehicles within a few years.
If you do not understand how such a system can enable extreme abuses of privacy, you must have been living in a cave for the last 200 years.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
I don't know what you're smoking, but no they're not. Chrysler is a division of DaimlerChrysler :)
Chevy is one of the GM brands.
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."
You use your social security number everywhere, and you hand your credit cards and checks to people you've never even met before (cashiers) without even thinking twice.
Maybe you do, maybe you haven't heard of this new trendy crime sweeping the nation? Identity theft. It is people like you with your head in the ground approach to the risks involved that have enabled identity thieves to thrive.
And yet you worry about a car company attacking it's own consumer-base? That'd be the absolute stupidist business decision a huge company like GM could make.
I don't see anyone besides you and your strawman claiming that GM will "attack its own" customers. Do banks steal your identity? No. But they provide part of the infrastructure that makes it trivially easy for a third party to do so.
OnStar and similar systems have signifcant and non-obvious privacy risks. Just because *you* are too dull to see them doesn't mean a clever and malicious person won't see them and won't abuse them for his own benefit.
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
You mean like the FBI remotely activating the On-Star system and using it to track people and record conversations?
Note that the most disturbing part of that article is the fact that the courts didn't have a problem with the FBI doing this--they were only forbidden to do so because it was making OnStar fail during emergency contact.
Think they got that bug worked out during the last two years?