Stalling Cars Via OnStar

Lauren Weinstein writes to tell us that GM will be installing OnStar systems on almost 1.7 million 2009-model cars that will allow law enforcement (or anyone who cracks the system) to remotely shut down vehicles. Here is the AP's writeup, which like most MSM coverage doesn't mention any privacy implications.

Comments

It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[daveschroeder]

...the implication being that it just slams on the brakes or kills the engine or both.

From TFA:

OnStar would call police and tell them a stolen car's whereabouts.

Then, if officers see the car in motion and judge it can be stopped safely, they can tell OnStar operators, who will send the car a signal via cell phone to slow it to a halt.

"This technology will basically remove the control of the horsepower from the thief," Huber said. "Everything else in the vehicle works. The steering works. The brakes work."

GM is still exploring the possibility of having the car give a recorded verbal warning before it stops moving. A voice would tell the driver through the radio speakers that police will stop the car, Huber said, and the car's emergency flashers would go on.

"If the thief does nothing else it will coast to a stop. But they can drive off to the side of the road," Huber said.

And from TFR (where "R" stands for "rant"):

The claim is that owners will have to give permission first for this capability to be enabled. Bull. I don't care what OnStar's privacy policy says, if the technical capability for this function is present, OnStar will have no practical choice but to comply when faced with a law enforcement demand or court order, whether or not owner "permission" was ever granted.

It is completely technically feasible for this system to need to be enabled in order for it to work. For example, with BMW Assist, BMW's OnStat-like service, equipment is physically disabled in the car if the user does not subscribe to a service.

This argument appears predicated on the belief that even if a customer doesn't voluntarily and willingly "opt in", that it can still somehow be used by police or hackers. I'm sorry, but that's simply not how it works.

Further, OnStar can currently be used to unlock vehicles. Why isn't that an "irresistible target for hackers"?

It's impossible to hack OnStar? Would you bet your life on that?

Um, no, because I wouldn't have to, nor would anyone else who opts in to the service?

And how long will it be before such systems are mandated, one might wonder?

Ah, my old friend, the slippery slope. Long time, no see!

This is no different than Lojack, which can also, in theory, be "activated" when a user chooses to have the service, in the same way this could be.

And if you don't believe GM's clearly stated privacy policies, which state, in short, that "OnStar will release information about a vehicle only for marketing research, to protect the rights, property, of safety of any person, in exigent circumstances, to prevent misuse of their service, when legally required to do so or when subject to a valid court order, or in various other circumstances", then you probably shouldn't buy a GM vehicle.

Good thing buying GM vehicles isn't mandatory, and GM isn't a government agency, huh?

(And of course -- and I didn't look at this at first -- because there is editorializing about how the "MSM" doesn't mention privacy implications, I'm not surprised to see it's posted by kdawson.)

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[t0xic@]

This is all fine...until it becomes common to the point that just about "every" new car has them. Right now its hard to tell who has what system with the vast majority having no system at all. Once it is "assumed" you have one then it becomes worth it for people to hack it.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[PhxBlue]

Ah, my old friend, the slippery slope. Long time, no see!

That's not slippery slope; it's precedent.

Look at seatbelts or airbags. Maybe you can remember a time before they were federally mandated. Even the middle tail light on your back window is put there by government mandate.

I'm not saying that seatbelts or airbags are bad things, don't get me wrong; but ideally, a government wouldn't need to tell manufacturers how to build their cars -- people would buy cars with those features because they want a car that's safe. Likewise, I'm not arguing that the ability to hit a kill switch on a stolen car is a bad thing ... but as we've seen with everything from the Taser to the PATRIOT Act, the government will do as much as it can get away with, with the power it's given.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[Dunbal]

OnStar will release information about a vehicle only for marketing research

Automated email from the Onstar Market-Track Service

Dear On Star customer,

      Our automated system noticed that your vehicle was parked on the 3500 block of AnyStreet and SomeAvenue. Our marketing info shows that this area of town is populated by the gay community. Please click on the following links if you would like to:

      See a list of gay bars in your area.
      Subscribe to Gay Porn weekly.
      Meet gay men near you.
      Browse our OnStar Market site for other gay related items.

      Thank you for choosing On Star! We value you as a customer.

      This is an automatic message, please do not reply.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[Anonymous Coward]

"Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way."
--George W Bush 2004

Is AT&T a government agency? You are a fool who would gladly hand over your rights with a shit-eating grin on your face.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[alan_dershowitz]

All you did was restate the slippery slope fallacy? Where is the actual evidence that anyone is pushing to make this mandatory? Just because the government has eventually mandated some recommendations doesn't mean they will eventually mandate all recommendations.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[daveschroeder]

Yes, I remember (barely) the shoulder belt, the air bag, and the center high mounted stop lamp, better known as the third brake light.

I also remember the arguments about shoulder belts and air bags killing people, and about how the CHMSL destroyed the aesthetics of the rear of a vehicle. Except that it was easily proven that the benefits of shoulder belts, air bags, and third brake lights outweighed any drawbacks.

What if a controlled remote kill of a vehicle under police supervision that has been reported stolen or is the subject of a court order has the same results? Returning stolen properly safely, preventing high speed police chases and death?

Same thing with Tasers. Tasers are statistically harmless, and a hell of a lot less harmless than a number of other ways of subduing a suspect, including lethal means. Whether Tasers are overused is a different question altogether, but being tased is a much better alternative than being forcibly subdued by any number of other means. Tasers are designed to be a safer and non-lethal ("non-lethal" in weapons terms doesn't mean "never, ever lethal or having any contributing effect on a possible lethal scenario whatsoever" - and please, don't link me to your favorite article or sob story about how oh-so-dangerous Tasers are: given their use, they are far, far less dangerous than the means they replaced).

And same with the PATRIOT Act. It was pretty much universally agreed that a lot of older laws needed updating. Given the size and scope of PATRIOT, only very, very small portions of it were controversial. Nearly all of the rest of it was benign or viewed as sensible by most people. Some provisions have been called into Constitutional question. But you don't throw the baby out with the bathwater, as we do when we imply that all of the PATRIOT Act rises to this level of controversy, when in reality it is very small portions of it, on the whole.

I don't fundamentally disagree with the government using the power it has, using anything it is given, and, inasmuch as it can be anthropomorphized, always "wanting more". But is this because of the evil or corruption or totalitarianism that is sometimes implied by such assertions, or because many in government simply use all the tools at their disposal? Governments and police agencies can do a lot more with vehicles, telephones, cameras, computers, databases, networks, Tasers, spike strips, and all manner of things than they can without. Technology is always enabling and is often a force multiplier.

Government mandates, and government in general, are not all sinister, nor are they all roses. But we should look at them on balance.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[Anonymous Coward]

Your driving through the desert, vehicle shuts down and your Onstar system begins to talk to you.

Hi, this is the Nigerian Safe Driving Corporation, our systems indicate you were driving alone in the desert so we shut down your vehicle so we could safely talk to you. We think you need our assistance to drive safely through this area so if you will just give us your bank account information we will restart your vehicle and make sure you don't die of heat prostration or dehydration on the rest of your journey. Remember the Nigerian Safe Driving Corporation is set up to protect you but we can't help you without the required information.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[feed_me_cereal]

(And of course -- and I didn't look at this at first -- because there is editorializing about how the "MSM" doesn't mention privacy implications, I'm not surprised to see it's posted by kdawson.)

He also posted all the other stories since 2pm. That's not to say this is or is not partially his fault, but I thought it might shed a little perspective in a kdawson bashing world :)

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[DogsBollocks]

Tinfoil hat on the antenna.

Onstar uses the cellular network, so stop the cellphone signal from getting to the electronics and they can't turn off the car.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[R2.0]

"It is completely technically feasible for this system to need to be enabled in order for it to work. For example, with BMW Assist, BMW's OnStat-like service, equipment is physically disabled in the car if the user does not subscribe to a service.

This argument appears predicated on the belief that even if a customer doesn't voluntarily and willingly "opt in", that it can still somehow be used by police or hackers. I'm sorry, but that's simply not how it works."

Sure about that? Because such a feature is most easily enabled in software. For instance, the OnStar module sends a signal over the CANBus to the engine computer, telling it to go into the preprogrammed "stop, thief" mode. Now, what is there to "physically disable"? You can't simply "cut the connection" between OnStar and the ECM - it's only 2 wires (or 4?) and it carries all sorts of data. Sure, one could set a bit in the ECM that says "STOP_THIEF=disabled", but that bit is set via - wait for it - the CANBus. So the OnStar module could easily have a "suspected superbadguy" mode, where first the signal is sent to reset the bit - DESPITE the Owner's wishes - and then the "stop, thief" mode is activated.

Yes, it is possible to program hard protocols, or physical disconnects, and TFA is a candidate for a tin foil hat, but saying "it just can't happen" is naive at best.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[AK Marc]

It is completely technically feasible for this system to need to be enabled in order for it to work. For example, with BMW Assist, BMW's OnStat-like service, equipment is physically disabled in the car if the user does not subscribe to a service.

That is not the case with OnStar. Unless you break it yourself, it is always on. Even if you don't subscribe, the functionality is left on and operational. That way, you can just give them a call and they'll turn it on and bill you, no need to take it in to a dealership to take your money from you.

This is no different than Lojack, which can also, in theory, be "activated" when a user chooses to have the service, in the same way this could be.

That's an item that someone pays extra for to have their vehicle be able to be tracked. It isn't an included feature on many (most?) of the cars of one of the largest car makers on the planet. It's installed on very few cars by people that chose to have it installed.

And if you don't believe GM's clearly stated privacy policies, which state, in short, that "OnStar will release information about a vehicle only for marketing research, to protect the rights, property, of safety of any person, in exigent circumstances, to prevent misuse of their service, when legally required to do so or when subject to a valid court order, or in various other circumstances", then you probably shouldn't buy a GM vehicle.

You do know that GM may make OnStar, but OnStar is available on non-GM vehicles, right? How about the privacy policy on those? What if the law enforcement agencies like this and it becomes a "safety" requirement in the case of kidnappings and such and must be installed on all cars? Hey, they mandated airbags that killed infants in the name of safety, so why not this?

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[alan_dershowitz]

You know what, after I posted I remembered actually hearing about police wanting something like this to be mandated. I did a little googling and:

UK Police call for remote button to stop cars. So, if you are in the UK at least, no it would not be a slippery slope; they have already asked for this power to be added to all cars once it is safe. Interestingly, some politicians expressed interest in this being used as a way to prevent speeders by forcibly reducing your car's maximum speed around school zones or in bad weather.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[TooMuchToDo]

You can physically seperate the OnStar module from the CANbus system to prevent this action from being taken. Once unable to communicate to the CANbus, non-drive/owner-initiated actions are mitigated. Keep in mind, you don't get to use any OnStar services afterwards once this is done.

I've performed this procedure for a friend (also remove the entire GPS antenna). I can dig up pics of the entire operation if interested.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[Anonymous Coward]

See a list of gay bars in your area.

      Subscribe to Gay Porn weekly.

      Meet gay men near you.

      Browse our OnStar Market site for other gay related items. You forgot one:

• See a list of Apple Stores in your area.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[Anonymous Coward]

non-lethal ("non-lethal" in weapons terms doesn't mean "never, ever lethal or having any contributing effect on a possible lethal scenario whatsoever" - and please, don't link me to your favorite article or sob story about how oh-so-dangerous Tasers are: given their use, they are far, far less dangerous than the means they replaced).

I'm going to be pedantic here. I believe the term the industry uses is "less-than lethal". For exactly that reason. Rubber bullets, the bean bag rounds, tasers, etc...are all considered less-than lethal weapons.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[meringuoid]

From TFA:

OnStar operators, who will send the car a signal via cell phone to slow it to a halt

So: they will send the car a signal. And then it will slow to a halt.

What part of this doesn't sound like 'remotely shutting down vehicles' to you? I had my engine fuck out on me about a year ago - cambelt snapped. All the power went away. Electricals worked, steering, brakes, so I could pull over to the hard shoulder just on inertia and phone for help, but you know what? I'd call that 'shut down', even though I was still moving. And if I'd been out in the right-hand lane instead of going relatively slowly on the left, I'd have been fucked - stranded out in warp-speed M5 traffic with rapidly dropping velocity trying to get across the carriageway to somewhere safe. And they propose to let someone have the authority to inflict that on me remotely via a mobile? Sorry. I don't trust anyone that much.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that it was easily proven that the benefits of shoulder belts, air bags, and third brake lights outweighed any drawbacks.

Irrelevant.

I look through Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution, and I can't find the part where Congress Shall Have The Power to make cars better.

When you allow feds to do anything that seems like a good idea, you set a precedent that it's ok for them to do anything that seems (to someone) like a good idea. That's how you got from "drugs are bad" to the feds arresting people for taking the medicine that their doctor recommends. That's how you got them collecting income tax and then distributing some of it to states that set speed limits the way feds want. That's how you get 'em spending money on a "bridge to nowhere." The list goes on and on.

It's bad enough if a local government demands that cars be remotely attackable; at least you can visit your city councilor and have it repealed. But cars tend to be regulated at the federal level. That means we'll never have a say, and get never get rid of it once it happens.

And same with the PATRIOT Act. It was pretty much universally agreed that a lot of older laws needed updating.

Yes, and instead of repealing those laws-in-need-of-updating, they got expanded.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[meringuoid]

Additional: And if you don't believe GM's clearly stated privacy policies, which state, in short, that "OnStar will release information about a vehicle only for marketing research, to protect the rights, property, of safety of any person, in exigent circumstances, to prevent misuse of their service, when legally required to do so or when subject to a valid court order, or in various other circumstances"

In other words 'whenever the fuck we feel like it, for any reason whatever'. I mean, 'for marketing research'? So they'll sell your details to spammers. That's marketing research - for the spammer. 'Or in various other circumstances'? Wow, I feel secure trusting these people with my information.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[toadlife]

Even the middle tail light on your back window is put there by government mandate. It may be mandated, but apparently it doesn't have to actually work. I was rear-ended a couple of years ago and while my bumper was shot, my truck (Ranger) was still functional. The cop taking the report checked my tail lights to make sure they worked, and noted that the middle light was burnt out. He said to not worry about it; the law didn't require that it work, so my truck was still legal to drive.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[uniquename72]

There is no balance in safety legislation; the government simply legislates -- on a whim -- how we must behave for our own good. Think about it logically: Should you be FORCED to wear a seatbelt when driving a car, when I'm perfectly free to drive a motorcycle? It doesn't make sense. The government has arbitrarily mandated the personal safety of a behavior that is already safe compared to some other legal alternatives.

It's like mandating that no bathtub can be more than 2 inches deep (to keep you from drowning, don't you know) but keeping showers legal, despite the far greater likelihood of fatal shower slip-&-fall injuries.

As long as there are people like you who think giving up rights is okay as long as we don't give up too many (as in your ridiculous PATRIOT ACT example), freedom cannot exist.

And this doesn't even touch on the free market arguement: the ridiculousness of Honda being allowed to sell motorcycles (the most dangerous vehicles on the road), while not being allowed to sell cars without a shoulder belt.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[Kazrath]

I find it funny you used a taser reference. I guess your right though the taser is a bad idea. Most of these idiots should end up with hot lead and not a "mostly harmless" electrical jolt.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[crabpeople]

Hes not arguing that tasers are more deadly than a gun, hes arguing that when tasers were first released they were positioned as an alternative to deadly force - as in used in the same situation a gun would be used. In practice, we see them used as a quick effortless way to subdue someone for whatever reason, be they violent or nonviolent. Its not about the infrequent deaths, its about the perception by law enforcement that taser use is routine.

As long as its not illegal to completely disable these devices I wouldn't have a problem with it in my car, but its a very slippery slope as you alluded to with the seatbelt. The government could simply make it illegal to disable such a system, and next thing you know police are using it to disable cars with offensive bumper stickers (say a darwin fish in the southern USA? chevy loyal cops disabling fords? or just giving a cop an eye he doesnt like).

Police need far less powers not more. It is after all, just a car, and insurance will cover the damages if any. The GPS system and the constant data archiving of your and your routes is a bit more scary than remote disable imho. I would never buy a car that "phoned home" to the manufacturers database with info about where I am at all times.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[JimBobJoe]

Unless you break it yourself, it is always on.

True, but this will probably be simple for some time to come. GM doesn't offer it standard in a lot of its cars, so it has to be an add on feature, and like add-on features, they tend to be easy to remove.

In my car, Onstar has it's own fuse, so I can just remove it. I suspect that Onstar will continue having its own fuse.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[vertinox]

Tasers are overused is a different question altogether, but being tased is a much better alternative than being forcibly subdued by any number of other means. Tasers are designed to be a safer and non-lethal ("non-lethal" in weapons terms doesn't mean "never, ever lethal or having any contributing effect on a possible lethal scenario whatsoever" - and please, don't link me to your favorite article or sob story about how oh-so-dangerous Tasers are: given their use, they are far, far less dangerous than the means they replaced).

Personally, I would argue that because tasers are less than lethal they are used more often than required and often as the first resort.

Whereas when you only had a gun, you would use that as a last resort. The issue that I have is what are the situations in which a police officer wouldn't use a gun as opposed as a taser. One would think, that faced with a gun that the police officer would respond with a gun rather than a taser due to the nature of the situation.

So in effect, tasers did not replace guns but simply were an extension of subduing system such as existing technique such as mace and club.

Given the choice of being beat, maced, or tasered I think most people are hard pressed to know which one they would like to face. The issue of the taser I think most people have is that it is used in situations that is not required. Take the example of the boy who harrased John Kerry. Yes he may have deserved to be handful and forcefully ejected, but in no means was he a physical threat to anyone. The taser was simply used to make the securities job easier rather than concern of life or limb.

But I digress... I think the original issue was about unintentional consequences. I wouldn't be so concerned about the government using the onstar system to control the populace as I would be of disgruntled/stalker employees, denial of service attacks, and plain old bugs that cause system outages.

Imagine if you will that an error in the system caused all cars to slow down who used the service. Of course I'm sure OnStar has thought about it.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[NeutronCowboy]

Sigh... looks like you're the Slashdot voice of "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help."

Couple of (not so) minor quibbles:
- There is a massive difference between passive safety features and active features activated by someone other than the driver of the car (and yes, it will be hacked - same way that all remote locks to date have been hacked)
- Tasers did not simply replace guns as options for subduing suspects. They took over as option for the range of situations that sit between "suspect can be subdued by talking" and "suspect has a gun". As such, it de-escalated some situations, but escalated a whole other set of situations. So yes, they are actually more dangerous than some of the options it replaced. The end-effect is that your statistical harmlessness (seriously, only someone in the neo-con flavored spook business talks like that) causes harm in situation where no harm was done before.
- It is irrelevant that only 1% of the PATRIOT ACT is controversial. What is relevant is the impact that that 1% can have on 99% of the population.

It is interesting that all examples that you have given so far merely reinforce my suspicion that you have an unnaturally rose-tinted vision of the government and government employees - particularly law-enforcement.

Government might be not all sinister, but I'll be damned before I let some asshole cop ruin my day because he (far more likely than she) thinks that I'm not stopping fast enough in traffic. I'm astounded that you fail to grasp the cost a few bad calls can make, and that you equate passive safety features with remotely activated loss of control.

Seriously, stay the fuck out of my life. You have no concept of privacy, no concept of government abuse, no concept of the cost and benefit of liberty, and absolutely no idea that the government is there to serve me, not the other way around. And you're about 30 years behind in your analysis of the China threat. Not that I expect anything else from Military intelligence schools.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[Anonymous Coward]

Ahh so you're one of those intellectually useless "strict Constitutional constructionists" who never seem to FUCKING realize that the way the US Constitution was written and the way the real world works today do not mesh up 100%.

WTF makes you think I don't realize it? I just complained about how the government in the real world, is totally fucking us over compared to the fantasy government described in the constitution.

The early US government was better than what we have now. When you say it's ok for US government to mandate things that seem like good ideas (but aren't within their constitutional powers), you make things worse. I don't want to hear about good ideas like seatbelts (which people are free to use whether or not they're forced to), because that just paves the way for abuse. I want them to stay out of it, because telling government to stop expanding its influence, leads to a better "real world."

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[Larry Lightbulb]

So Google are going to buy OnStar?

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[vertinox]

Ahh so you're one of those intellectually useless "strict Constitutional constructionists" who never seem to FUCKING realize that the way the US Constitution was written and the way the real world works today do not mesh up 100%.

Thats fine and dandy, but at what point did government stop playing by the rules? If the constitution is irrelevant, then why don't we simply ignore it all together.

Is it just a sham to make people think that we have some sort of rule of law for our freedoms? I mean at least when the prohibitionists outlawed alcohol they did so in the proper fashion by an amendment to the constitution.

Simply stating that the government has the authority simply writes them a blank check at this point and AFAIK no one has pointed out a really good reason when this legally changed.

Its easy to kind of point out when people started to ignore the rules though. Jefferson was right in the respect that we should have re-written the constitution from scratch every 20 years or so.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[Anonymous Coward]

And same with the PATRIOT Act. It was pretty much universally agreed that a lot of older laws needed updating. [...] Government mandates, and government in general, are not all sinister, nor are they all roses. But we should look at them on balance.

You're funny. You imply that an act passed immediately following a major terrorist attack, with a name designed to label all who disagree with it as traitors, has something to do with "older laws need[ing] updating". You say we should "look at them on balance", and yet this bill was so long and rushed to vote so quickly that even my representatives didn't read the text of it -- only its loaded acronym. This is "balance"? It sounds like fear-mongering.

If you want to talk about "statistically harmless", start with terrorism. That's statistically harmless. In the USA, tobacco causes a 9/11 every 2.5 days.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[fyrewulff]

The only time airbags have even killed kids in baby seats is because the idiot driving thought it would be a good idea to put them in the front seat, which has always been a stupid idea.

Ideally, not only do you put them in the back, you put them in the center seat, which gives them the most "crunch room" if you are t-boned, rear ended or you hit something.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[localman]

Further, OnStar can currently be used to unlock vehicles. Why isn't that an "irresistible target for hackers"?

Because it's much easier to use a slim jim or break a window?

Disabling cars as they're driving is a pretty novel ability. Heck, I'd pay to be able to force the next inconsiderate asshole driver I encounter to pull over.

Cheers.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[localman]

Government mandates, and government in general, are not all sinister, nor are they all roses. But we should look at them on balance.

I would argue that there is a causal relationship: more power we give the government, the more sinister they become. See history for reasonably good data supporting this hypothesis.

Cheers.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

I'm not saying that seatbelts or airbags are bad things, don't get me wrong; but ideally, a government wouldn't need to tell manufacturers how to build their cars -- people would buy cars with those features because they want a car that's safe.

A friend of mine was living next to a house that was being renovated, and the builder was wheelbarrowing out uncovered loads of what looked like asbestos onto the street. Being health-conscious, he confronted the man about the loads, and he confirmed it was asbestos, and that when confronted about the health risk to others (such as himself), the guy simply replied "you've gotta go some time". Translation: "I don't want to spend the money on doing this safely".

Moral of the story: leaving certain things up to consumer choice is a bad idea, because people don't always account for the safety of others. I think we have the ideal situation already.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[ThirdPrize]

I agree. How is it that some people can find a government conspiracy in everything they read? It is not like you live in communist china or anything. You live in the US of A, one of the largest democracies in the world. God knows if you lived in Burma you would have something to complain about.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[Torvaun]

In actual use, sometimes Tasers replace talking. Where police would once try to talk someone down (6 year old threatening to cut himself with a broken piece of glass) they might now jump straight to applying voltage to the situation. If you want a fairly tame and not unreasonable slippery slope tacked on to that, as Tasers become used even more often, the police will begin to lose the skill of talking to defuse situations. You can't just Taser the guy on a window ledge. You state that Tasers are less dangerous than the means they replace, but there are cases where no police officer would even think of using a gun or baton where the Taser comes out as standard procedure.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[hedwards]

That's plausible, but the truck was probably old enough that it wasn't subject to the newer requirement. The regulations on this things go by model year and by the stock equipment that was for the vehicle.

If your truck was built during the period after the 3rd brake light was introduced and before they became mandatory, it is unlikely that you would be required to fix it. Though you should as it makes it easier to tell when you've put on the brakes. As well as making it possible for the car behind the car behind you to see that you're stopping.

In terms of the topic at hand, I would personally be more concerned at this point with onstar eavesdropping on conversations going on in the car. http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2003/Nov-19-Wed-2003/news/22620787.html

The main thing which would concern me about this development is if the system inadvertently caused the wrong vehicle to stall, because of a software glitch or operator error.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[Fulcrum of Evil]

I'm another one. I'd prefer a weaker government, largely because of what happens when you get the current situation where you ignore limits on government power. There's no reason for a remote kill that can be used by anyone that can convince a judge. I'll just wait for the first time a cop uses it on his ex girlfriend.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[timmarhy]

You people screech about tasers being over used, but i'm yet to see a single video of a cop using a taser on someone who didn't deserve it.

they aren't rounding up defensless fluffy bunnies you know. cops deal with people who would kill or maime them in the blink of an eye, so i wouldn't hesitate to tase someone who i thought was going to turn violent on me either. if anything i've seen the vast majority of cops display AMAZING patience.

What i HAVE seen though is the misuse of tasers by people who ARE NOT police officers. i think that little bit of power goes right to their heads.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[conufsed]

Maybe just need some common sense applied. I've read a few articles here in Australia where this feature has been used by police after a reported car theft, the police would be in communication with Holden as to where the car is and then once they are following, they wait until its safe to to stop the car (ie not at a railway crossing or somewhere else dangerous), and then bam car stops and owner doesnt have to deal with the normal crap of a car theft. I want this service should I one day actually buy a new car. If the government doesnt want me driving there are always going to be ways of stoppping me

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[Shakrai]

Hes not arguing that tasers are more deadly than a gun, hes arguing that when tasers were first released they were positioned as an alternative to deadly force - as in used in the same situation a gun would be used. In practice, we see them used as a quick effortless way to subdue someone for whatever reason, be they violent or nonviolent

Thank you! I made this same point back in the discussion about the "don't tase me bro!" kid. The problem is tasers isn't the 1 person out of 10,000,000 that's going to die as a result of being tased. The problem is that the taser has lowered the standard of when to use force.

Forgot about the gun v. taser debate. Would a cop have been willing to use his nightstick on that kid? Yes, he was being a jerk and didn't go prone for them. But would they really have whipped out nightsticks and used them? Not likely. The image of four cops beating up a single college kid with nightsticks wouldn't play very well, now would it?

Ah! But the taser! We can use the taser. It's lowered the standard for when force can be used. And that's a bad thing, imho.

Another taser story that sticks out in my mind was a judge out in California ordering his court officers to tase a defendant who refused to stop speaking when ordered to. Yeah, throw him back in jail for contempt of court, but TASE someone for speaking? Not even screaming and yelling. Speaking! That's bullshit. If I walk up to Dick Cheney and tell him to go "fuck yourself" in a normal tone of voice is that really grounds for his USSS guards to tase you?

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[RobertM1968]

The key thing here - as with many other places - is the wording...

"OnStar will release information about a vehicle only for marketing research, to protect the rights, property, of safety of any person, in exigent circumstances, to prevent misuse of their service, when legally required to do so or when subject to a valid court order, or in various other circumstances"

I am waiting for the first test of the "all inclusive" "other circumstances" clauses that users/owners of software, services, hardware, vehicles and who knows what else are forced to agree to. These clauses amount to no less than "whenever we feel like, for whatever reason we feel like"

Yes, people can buy their _________ (car, software, phone/phone service) elsewhere... but that list of elsewheres (that dont have such broad all-encompassing clauses) is decreasing rapidly.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[Shakrai]

so i wouldn't hesitate to tase someone who i thought was going to turn violent on me either

So when a judge out in California orders a defendant shocked because he refused to shut up when ordered to do so, that's ok?

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[Anonymous Coward]

Interestingly enough, there's generally a large overlap between the strict constitutional constructionists and the religious fundamentalists who insist on a literal reading of the Bible (according to their interpretation of the significance events in the Bible, of course, just as their interpretation of the constitution is the sacrosanct one).

There are significant lessons to be learned from both documents. Just the same, both groups are frequently composed of sanctimonious, control-freak dinosaurs.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[lwiniarski]

huh...Look at your title

"It doesn't remotely shut down vehicles"??

What sort of double-speak is this?

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[Romancer]

And you must be one of those "intellectually useless" people who can't admit that the way things improve is through criticism of the current state and proposal of better future situations. Part of that process is having the foresight of thought to see the possible outcomes of new technologies. RFID, Automatic updates, Software activation, Lasers, all of these have valid reasons for development as well as possible abuse issues that have been noticed by more than the fringe conspiracy theorists. If these things go unwatched we have no information to evaluate wether or not they are being abused. So keep your personal slurs in your head and be a little open when others voice concerns like these, just like you would appreciate people do with you.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[adavidw]

Another taser story that sticks out in my mind

Source?

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[tacocat]

OK, just to clear up a few things because I can. Why, because I work there.

• It does not apply the brakes, it whacks the engines software modules (in a non-destructive, non-damaging way) to basically screw up the fuel/air/combustion mix rendering your 200 HP engine weak.
• You really can't get the local police to call in to OnStar to screw with these cars. They have been trying to do that for a decade and there is not ONE incident where they have successfully gotten OnStar to interfer with a vehicle without the permission and knowledge of the owner. So STFU about that one you paranoid aluminum jock strap wearing dweebs.
• Hacking OnStar is going to be about as easy has hacking SSH using a public private key authentication system. Good luck. There are so many hurdles go get through for a single car you would be far better off hacking it with a large rock.
• Normally I am pretty damn critical about big brother. But in this case I have to argue that they have a lot of the paranoid issues covered. The new changes in privacy are such that it's pretty difficult to figure out anything about a given vehicle. You have to really know the system, design, protocols, and transmission methods to get anything out of it. There are maybe 4 people who might be able to do that.

There seems to be a lot of Oh My God!! It's Big Brother!! going on around on this one. But seeing as I'm one of the system engineers who has worked on this stuff for most of OnStars life... Get over yourself and go worry about something more problematic like DMCA...

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[TW Atwater]

"This argument appears predicated on the belief that even if a customer doesn't voluntarily and willingly "opt in", that it can still somehow be used by police or hackers. I'm sorry, but that's simply not how it works."

You mean like how Windows Update can't install anything on your computer without your permission?

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[sabt-pestnu]

> Except that it was easily proven that the benefits of shoulder belts, air bags, and third brake lights outweighed any drawbacks.

Y'know, I never did see any of those studies about the proven effects of the third brake light. Could you point one or two out to me? And... at the time they were mandated, they were a novelty. Are they still as effective as they were initially?

I'll not argue the benefits of seat belts or air bags; my '91 cavalier was built before the air bags were mandated, and my '64 Polara before seat belts. I did see the point of the seat belts (but really really disliked the auto-enforcing ones), but I'm not yet convinced on the air bags (assuming seat belts are properly used).

> What if a controlled remote kill of a vehicle under police supervision that has been reported stolen or is the subject of a court order has the same results? Returning stolen properly safely, preventing high speed police chases and death?

I think you can safely remove the "stolen property" argument from the lineup. Police stumble across stolen cars when they find them at all; it's seldom that that said stolen cars are involved in high speed chases. Make On-star mandatory, and it becomes one more item in the chop-shop checklist before making off with the car.

Which means that the most likely person to be driving a vehicle the police 'control' this way will be the owner. Which pretty much leads to your point about mandated installation...

> Same thing with Tasers.
One may recall a scandal about using the sleeper hold in Portland, OR, some time back. Training is important in new technology as well as with new techniques, and there'll be some problems with that, always. (The headline from the article comes from some T-shirts some members of the police made in response to the scandal, basically making your "is better than the alternatives" argument. It wasn't received well...)

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[Anonymous Coward]

Especially since a car-thief/jacker wouldn't have any reservations about cutting across 3 lanes of traffic after losing power, even if it might cause a massive accident as long as it means he has a chance to get away on foot.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[davidsyes]

At first I'd read:

"STALL cars on Vista..."

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[DustyShadow]

"You people screech about tasers being over used, but i'm yet to see a single video of a cop using a taser on someone who didn't deserve it."

Have you not seen video of the University of Florida student at the John Kerry speech who was tased? There were about 6 cops holding him down and they tased him simply because he wouldn't stay still. I agree that the guy was being a total idiot and he brought it on himself but tasers have taught cops that instead of holding down a suspect, they can now just yell at them a couple times and tase away.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[tacocat]

You can also call OnStar and ask that you have your unit disabled. Just as effective but it does more to retain your vehicles resale value. Once disabled, it won't work until you call back into OnStar and ask for them to reactivate the unit.

As for removing the GPS antenna, that was dumb. The only thing the GPS it tied into is the OnStar unit and once that's disabled, there's nothing else to do.

It just leaves a more passive means of removing the functionality of OnStar without wrapping foil around your head.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[tacocat]

Well, I don't think that's how anyone wants to use it. Considering the level of control they have, they would fuck out your engine only after the police where in position. Read this as -- road cleared and you and the police are in a position to ensure your slow down is a managed process. If they didn't consider this as s concern for your safety and those around you, they would probably just detonate the 2 pounds wired into every GM drivers seat.

What a dick. Please try to keep in mind that even evil governments have to fear the more evil lawyers.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[DustyShadow]

"You can also call OnStar and ask that you have your unit disabled. Just as effective but it does more to retain your vehicles resale value. Once disabled, it won't work until you call back into OnStar and ask for them to reactivate the unit."

I think you misunderstand the point of disconnecting the system from OnStar.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[Bonobo_Unknown]

You were making a lot of sense up until the part where you start talking about tasers.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[tacocat]

I understand the point of disconnecting the OnStar unit.

I think you misunderstood the purpose and implication of having your OnStar unit disabled by GM.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[GreyPoopon]

Once it is "assumed" you have one then it becomes worth it for people to hack it.

And then there will be a sizable market for services to disable the system....

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[dangitman]

Your post contradicts itself. You say:

...the implication being that it just slams on the brakes or kills the engine or both.

Then you quote this as refutation:

"This technology will basically remove the control of the horsepower from the thief,"

Which says it does shut off the engine. I mean, it's in your own quote, and you still try to deny it's stopping the car? Did you even read your own source?

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[UncleTogie]

There's no reason for a remote kill that can be used by anyone that can convince a judge.

...unless someone uses "public safety/think of the kids!" as a goad...

Don't get me wrong, you're preaching to the choir as far as enumerated rights... The problem is just that most of my countrymen are too willing to start at the Bogeyman instead of thinking out the problems at hand in a rational manner that'd be fair to everyone...

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[Chelloveck]

It is completely technically feasible for this system to need to be enabled in order for it to work. For example, with BMW Assist, BMW's OnStat-like service, equipment is physically disabled in the car if the user does not subscribe to a service.

This argument appears predicated on the belief that even if a customer doesn't voluntarily and willingly "opt in", that it can still somehow be used by police or hackers. I'm sorry, but that's simply not how it works.

While it is certainly possible to design the system in such a way that a mechanic would need to physically flip a switch to enable or disable the system, in practice that's not how OnStar works. I don't know about BMW's system, but OnStar does not require a trip to the service station to enable or disable the device. I could go out to my car right now, hit the big shiny OnStar button, and activate service with just a credit card number. That's the way GM wants it, so it's easy to sign up as an impulse buy.

I see no evidence that this method of activation will change for cars with the new remote-disable feature. I'm willing to bet that, just like the current generation of OnStar, you're going to have to take a pair of wire cutters to it to really disable it, regardless of whether or not you subscribe to the service.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[Damarkus13]

I would assume that would mean activating and deactivating it remotely. (I doubt they send a tech to physically disable it) So why couldn't they, when ordered by law enforcement (or by a competent hacker), enable it remotely?

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[DustyShadow]

The problem is that OnStar has already cooperated with the FBI and eavesdropped on a suspect through the mic in the car. (See the FBI case in San Diego against the city official and strip club owners.)

http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2003/Nov-19-Wed-2003/news/22620787.html


Yea, they denied it. No, we're not stupid enough to believe them. There's no reason to trust that they won't abuse this new system.

If I ever buy a car with OnStar, I'm gonna do like Tony Soprano and have it ripped out of the car before I drive off the lot. My AAA membership works just fine.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[GreyPoopon]

It is completely technically feasible for this system to need to be enabled in order for it to work. For example, with BMW Assist, BMW's OnStat-like service, equipment is physically disabled in the car if the user does not subscribe to a service.

I completely agree with your post, but I think the issue was that the system would always be "enabled". However, the owner would have to give their permission for the shutdown procedure to be used, which would generally be in the case of a stolen vehicle. The problem is that the OnStar policy allows for compliance with law enforcement (which is pretty much required), and thus would allow police to order shut-down of your vehicle for nebulous reasons. If that were to happen, though, there'd be a nice log of the incident and who requested the shutdown that you could make available to the public. The big problem that still persists is one of hacking. If the system is installed and enabled by default (as the article seems to imply), somebody will probably eventually find a way to hack it. It's possible that we'll see countermeasures in place by then.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[DustyShadow]

"Disabling" is not the same as "disconnecting." If you have them disable it "over the air" all they have to do is reenable it "over the air" without your permission. OnStar has already been used by the FBI to listen to conversations taking place in the car. The only way to rid yourself of this problem is to tear the thing out of your car.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[tacocat]

Um... Because you can't reach it on the network anymore? You can place a 911-type of call from the unit, but nothing can get into the unit. In order to access the unit you would have to first convince the unit to register on the cellular network, which it won't because it is disabled. And then you have to convince the cellular network to route a call to this unit, which it won't because there is no phone number in the unit and no way to get one into the vehicle.

So, after you hack the cellular network in a variety of rather interesting ways, you might be able to access the unit. But you won't be able to hack into the unit because you don't know the protocols, keys, encryption methods, or anything else about the call process.

It would be easier for the police to just ram the car into a wall.

See, it's rather customer oriented...

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[daveschroeder]

Not a contradiction at all. If power steering and power brakes are still working, that means the engine is still running. Also, it does NOT kill the engine. That is a factual statement, and you can confirm it yourself by contacting GM public relations and requesting comment if you wish.

I also didn't deny it's stopping the car, anywhere. What I said was it doesn't "remotely shut down the vehicle, the implication being that it just slams on the brakes or kills the engine or both." It stops the car in a very controlled manner, and it's fairly complex how it functions. It is de-throttling the vehicle; the equivalent of taking the foot off the gas, putting the engine in an idle/coast state, but still running, and nothing more, leaving full power steering and power brake control.

Nowhere did I deny that it "stops the car"; of course it effectively "stops the car", but in a controlled way, and not by simply shutting off the engine or slamming on the brakes, as some people seem to think. Also, it is only to be used when police have the vehicle in sight and are in direct communication with OnStar; that's its purpose. So before people say "what if it's on a hill" or "what if it's not in a safe place to stop, even by releasing the throttle", it's only done when it is within visual contact of police, and a hell of a lot safer than a high speed chase, a spike strip, or the PIT maneuver.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[tacocat]

Once disabled over the air, there is no fucking way to enable it over the air. None. Not going to happen. You can hold a gun to GM's head and you still can't get the unit enabled over the air once it's been disabled by OnStar.

No Fucking Way.

Why?

You can't connect to the vehicle in any fashion no matter how strong your Kung Fu is.

The ONLY way to get the vehicle and unit back in action is to call OnStar from within the vehicle, using the OnStar unit, to force a call back to Onstar. No way to get a call into the vehicle. Ever.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[dangitman]

They have been trying to do that for a decade and there is not ONE incident where they have successfully gotten OnStar to interfer with a vehicle without the permission and knowledge of the owner. So STFU about that one you paranoid aluminum jock strap wearing dweebs.

So, because it has never happened before, it could never happen in the future? What an incredibly lame and weak argument. I think you acknowledge the weakness of your argument when you resort to name-calling of anyone who disagrees. Yeah, anyone who might have some concern about this system is a paranoid dweeb... whatever.

But seeing as I'm one of the system engineers who has worked on this stuff for most of OnStars life...

Yes, seeing as you have a vested interest in the project, we should not rely on your words and arguments. It makes you less credible than an independent observer who is not involved with the project.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[tacocat]

just have them disable the unit. You don't have to tear up your car to do it. Once disabled, no calls can be placed to it.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[daveschroeder]

OnStar is still wholly operated by GM, and it's the OnStar privacy policies that are at issue in any event, and OnStar is under GM's umbrella.

As to airbags, I spoke to that already in this post...airbags have saved far more lives than they have taken in narrow circumstances. Some people have argued that shoulder belts have also cost lives. Except for the fact they've saved many more. Third brake lights were also mandated and were sharply criticized in many auto rags for being ugly as sin, and many saw it as an example of government interference. Except they, too, provably save lives and property.

If a remote kill capability that is only used in the case of a stolen vehicle or court order becomes mandated, it will no doubt save lives and property as well. Your problem is that you think that just because it exists, it will automatically be abused, or just because air bags, shoulder belts, and center high mounted stop lamps have been mandated, this will also be. Well, as far as the former, that's a very cynical view, and for the latter, remote kill capability authorized by police is a far cry from shoulder belts and third brake lights.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[Cecil]

Except in the case where the advancements make other people safe without necessarily making you much safer specifically. In that case, our peculiar brand of self-centered capitalism will actively avoid those sort of enhancements for many reasons, but most especially because no one will pay money to make someone else safe unless it's a side-effect of some other benefit.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[fbjon]

Can someone explain why this would be a bad thing? Perhaps there should be a way to disable it, but the punishment for speeding should be harsher then, especially if there's an accident.

Similarly with this stop button. Instead of a driver speeding away from the police, potentially killing himself or a family in the opposite lane, the chase can come to a quick and safe (for everyone) halt. If someone hacks the system (and remember there's a human operator in the loop there, so the operator can perhaps only take instructions from the police station), then the worst that can happen is that cars start slowing down on the road. Whoopte-doo, privacy violations ahoy!

Or perhaps the police would abuse the system. For ... for what exactly?

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[DustyShadow]

Wiretapping calls are not the issue. It's an always-on mic for the FBI to listen to if they so choose.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[Anonymous Coward]

I had something witty to say about losing your freedoms when you stop fighting for them, but you already knew that, didn't you? Using relativity to compare our nation to another to state "how much better we have it" isn't the route I'd choose when talking about my government. In fact, just because we MIGHT be the best nation, doesn't mean we just concede and live about our daily lives. We have to strive DAILY to ensure that our rights are not encroached upon.

Don't go willy nilly about, "giving up" your rights. They're not yours to do so.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[daveschroeder]

Y'know, I never did see any of those studies about the proven effects of the third brake light. Could you point one or two out to me? And... at the time they were mandated, they were a novelty. Are they still as effective as they were initially?

Here ya go...

- The lamps were most effective in the early years. In 1987, CHMSL reduced rear impact crashes by 8.5 percent (confidence bounds 6.1 to 10.9 percent).

- Effectiveness declined in 1988 and 1989, but then leveled off. During 1989-95, CHMSL reduced rear impact crashes by 4.3 percent (confidence bounds 2.9 to 5.8 percent). This is the long-term effectiveness of the lamps.

- The effectiveness of CHMSL in light trucks is about the same as in passenger cars.

- At the long-term effectiveness level of 4.3 percent, when all cars and light trucks on the road have CHMSL, the lamps will prevent 92,000-137,000 police-reported crashes, 58,000-70,000 nonfatal injuries, and $655,000,000 (in 1994 dollars) in property damage per year.

- The annual consumer cost of CHMSL in cars and light trucks sold in the United States is close to $206,000,000 (in 1994 dollars).

- Even though the effectiveness of CHMSL has declined from its initial levels, the lamps are and will continue to be highly cost-effective safety devices.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[mosch]

You people screech about tasers being over used, but i'm yet to see a single video of a cop using a taser on someone who didn't deserve it.

Given recent, well-publicized events, I guess your definition of "deserves it" is anybody who annoys you. Right, bro?

There are a few options here. You're either very poorly informed, a troll or a big-government fascist. Which is it?

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[fbjon]

Isn't the alternative to throw the defendant out, then?

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[Mr. Freeman]

Ahhh, so you're one of those people that doesn't back up your statements and thinks that inserting curse words IN ALL CAPS makes your argument better.

Nice to meet you.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[hazem]

I know there is this whole list of logical fallacies and I even agree with a lot of them. But I don't put as much stock in dismissing an argument simply because it's a "slippery slope" argument.

I say this because I, myself, have implemented plans where this was exactly the method of getting something done. First get a little feature or control, then use that as wedge to get the full feature or full control I really want. It's not so unusual as you can often hear other people making the same strategic plans for their agenda.

Hell, it's even a common tactic for getting sex. One usually doesn't just rip off his clothes and try to copulate with the nearby female. Success rates are often higher if you're more strategic in your approach. Set the mood; nice dinner and wine; soft lights. Touching and so on... and now I'm sounding like either a Barry White album or that skit from Meaning of Life ("You don't have to go leaping straight for the clitoris like a bull at a gate."). In any case, you often need to guide her down that slippery slope...

Couple that with the very strong tendency of governments (or any organization with power) to stay in power and magnify that power, it's very easy to see that once there is the capability to do something desirable that those in power would make it mandatory to have that capability.

There are many many examples of this and frankly it pretty much invalidates the claim in arguments that a "slippery slope is a logical fallacy". It might not stand up in the theory of pure logic but it certainly is valid in the practice of real life.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[timmarhy]

what so because something isn't 100% fool proof we should abandon it? i guess you won't use a condom because there's a tiny chance it won't work, so why bother?

while i don't believe in government mandated everything, these are definately worth consideration. being able to simply shut a vehicle off as opposed to a high speed chase - which one do you think is going to be safer?

there's plenty of solutions to preventing abuse. have the device require 2 random passcodes, one given to police and one kept by the owner, and both being required to turn off the engine. In the event it's the owner who is driving and needs to be stopped, require a judge to provide a court order to the 3rd party who supplied the unit to use a ONCE ONLY cut off code, the use of which requires pyshically removing the device and resetting it after.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[rootofevil]

Or perhaps the police would abuse the system. For ... for what exactly?

who knows? i dont. and quite frankly im not so keen on finding out thankyouverymuch.

cops have trouble exercising the power they currently have appropriately and within the guidelines of the law. i dont think giving them additional powers over ordinary citizens is going to make them any more responsible.

maybe if our cops didnt flash their lights just so they didnt have to stop at a red light, or harassed innocent folks who are doing nothing wrong (and then threaten to kill the citizen in question when evidence emerges, see that youtube video some guy made specifically because the cops in his area were a problem), i wouldnt have such a problem with it. as it stands, the police have shown themselves to deserve less power, not more.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[dangitman]

that means the engine is still running. Also, it does NOT kill the engine.

Yes, it does. It says it "removes the horsepower." It doesn't matter if the engine is still running - if it can't deliver power, then it has been effectively killed. The entire purpose of an engine is to deliver power.

I also didn't deny it's stopping the car, anywher

Yes you did, it's in the title of your post.

What I said was it doesn't "remotely shut down the vehicle, the implication being that it just slams on the brakes or kills the engine or both."

Did anyone say that it does "slam on the brakes"?

It stops the car in a very controlled manner, and it's fairly complex how it functions. It is de-throttling the vehicle;

In other words, it remotely shuts down the vehicle. No matter how "complex" or "gradual" or "controlled" it is - it is remotely shutting down the car. So why did you say in your title that it doesn't remotely shut down the car?

of course it effectively "stops the car", but in a controlled way,

A controlled way? So, does it know if the car needs power based on circumstances that others have mentioned (on ice or snow, in the middle of a turn) and keep the power on, or does it still shut the power down anyway?

Also, it is only to be used when police have the vehicle in sight and are in direct communication with OnStar; that's its purpose.

But how do you know it won't be abused? It's not like the police have a wonderful track record of honesty, integrity and concern for public safety. It's not impossible for this to be hacked, either. So, what guarantee do you have that it will always be used properly and carefully?

t's only done when it is within visual contact of police,

Provided the police are honest and caring, and provided it is not hacked into, or abused by an OnStar employee with a grudge. That's a big caveat, way too big to simply dismiss.

What are your thoughts on those issues? How will we be able to stop police abuse of this system, when we've never been able to prevent police abuse of any other system?

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[timmarhy]

err that prove my point, that non police officers are the problem?

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[T-Bone-T]

Y'know, I never did see any of those studies about the proven effects of the third brake light. You've never driven behind an older vehicle at dusk, have you? Many times it isn't clear if their brakes are on or if it just the running lights. Having a third light that only comes on with the brakes makes it clear that their brakes are engaged.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[PlusFiveTroll]

Not to detract from your statement, but it should be noted.

1. Using SSH is a bad example, it's had many remote exploits in it's server and client in the past. It only takes one to root your box. I would really hate for my car to get pwnt.

2. It doesn't matter how many people currently know how to hack the system, all it takes is one to do it and post it on the internet. Obscurity is only temporary security.

Why can I not worry about the DMCA and remote automobile monitoring systems that could be used against me?

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[Robert1]

"There were about 6 cops holding him down... because he wouldn't stay still".

"tasers have taught cops that instead of holding down a suspect, they can now just yell at them a couple times and tase away."

So you used an example in which the "victim" was so unresponsive that 6 officers couldn't hold him down... an example which is completely contrary to your point to the extent that it is the exact opposite.

I really don't know what else to say.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[Anonymous Coward]

Not exactly a great counterexample. He'd been attention-whoring from the start, and he'd also been taunting the cops while he was in line for the mike.
BTW, they needed to make him stay still so they could handcuff him. At the time when they tased him, he was still waving his arms around.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[DustyShadow]

Actually 4 of the cops were just standing there watching. Go watch yourself on youtube.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[fbjon]

But that doesn't actually mean that this is a bad thing, just that the police need more oversight for this and in general.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[samkass]

I look through Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution, and I can't find the part where Congress Shall Have The Power to make cars better.

I know it's an overused clause, but the interstate commerce clause seems a LOT more relevant to cars than it does to marijuana grown in someone's closet in California. I can easily see keeping the way motor vehicles are built safe and reasonable as being relevant to interstate commerce. As for activities, such as speed limits, seat belt use, driver's license testing, and other things you DO with the motor vehicles-- those laws are all left to the states, as they should be according to the Constitution.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[tacocat]

What part of no calls can be placed to the vehicle don't you understand? Or are they putting mini-FBI guys in the glove box to tap into the mic?

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[shmlco]

Still doesn't mean that once they have a few test cases that one of our congress-critters isn't going to get a law passed saying, "...so for the public good, all new vehicles, starting in 2012, must have a network-accessible anti-theft GPS-enabled system that allows any law enforcement agency to...".

But hey, we promise only to track stolen cars and fleeing suspects and drug dealers and anyone possibly involved in a Amber Alert. And of course anyone of interest to national security or the DHS. And we promise NEVER, EVER to track suspected whistle-blowers or the press, or favors for "people in high places". Really. Cross our hearts.

Seriously, remember that all of those telephone call interception and voice recording systems were mandated after the fact too. And that similarly, they promised that they'd only be used with a written court order. And then came George and the "Patriot" Act...

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[tacocat]

Go ahead. I don't care. It's not like your post is going to do anyone any good. Other than for the one car.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[timmarhy]

A small list for a small mind, what can i say.

The challange stands. find me a video of a POLICE officer tasing someone who isn't being a total dickhead. put aside your rabid cop hate for 5 minutes and you'll see i'm right. it's rent-a-cops that do all the tasing. also keep in mind that in situations where a cop pulls someone over and they refuse to get out of the car, tasing them to get them out is the right thing to do because it's very dangerous for the cop to try reach into the car and get them - they could have a knife, gun or just drive over them.

often what seems like passive resistance is suspects actually conceling a weapon/drugs they are sitting on.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[DustyShadow]

Give me a break. You think 6 cops can't hold one small guy down? Each cop, by the way, was at least 1.5-2 times larger than the kid.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[mosch]

Please do not trivialize the potential abuses of remote shutdown capability by comparing them to mandatory safety devices like the third brake light.

The worst part of remote shutdown capability is that it does not benefit me in any significant way. Professional auto thieves will be able to quickly disable the device, and transport the stolen car without issue.

I don't mind having an extra brake light, or air bags. They make me slightly safer. But remote vehicle shutdown does the opposite. It makes me vulnerable to abuse by the government, hackers, and simple programming mistakes.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[tacocat]

Ok, you're right. Just because I happen to know how the system operates and I'm trying to set the record straight I should be discounted and the paranoid speculations should have more consideration. You've done a lot for the credit of Slashdot. Really, you have no idea.

If I was really trying to represent OnStar do you think I would be calling you a dweeb? Please, I'm rather certain that they will be very quick to remind you that my comments are not endorsed by my employer. If you check my history, I do not always carry the Shill banner. Rather I'm one of the first to criticize them if I think they are doing something silly.

But in this case I'm just trying to identify areas where people have a lot of ignorance about what is actually going on with the system. So exactly what kind of a person are you going to give credence to? One of the people who have worked in the engineering side of the company? Marketing types? Or someone who starts with the assumption that the OnStar unit can read your brain waves.

Or would you rather I just publish everything you need to know to hack into millions of vehicles just to prove myself worthy of your consideration?

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[bobschneider8]

For example, with BMW Assist, BMW's OnStat-like service, equipment is physically disabled in the car if the user does not subscribe to a service.

Are you sure about that? I just bought a new BMW about 10 days ago. Today I pressed the BMW Assist button, to see if it was working. The nice lady who answered said that I wasn't enrolled in the service, and they couldn't sign me up until I went to the dealer and signed a subscription form. This conversation took place over hardware that, if you're right, was physically disabled because I never signed the subscription form.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[timmarhy]

you don't know if he was on any drugs or not. typically one small guy off his face needs ATLEAST 3 people to properly secure him. have you ever tried to handcuff someone? it's not fucking easy at all, if they are putting up a real fight and are hyped up on something you need a person on each leg and arm and one person to put the cuffs on.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[adminstring]

If the USA were a democracy, (1) the person who received the most votes would always become President, and (2) an unpopular occupation of a foreign land would not be carried out indefinitely. What we have here is a representative republic in which the interests of the majority are often disregarded by those in power.

While those in Myanmar have more to complain about than we do, that does not mean that our own government doesn't have its own problems. Any institution will try to extend the scope of its power, and that includes the US government. It's common sense, and requires no conspiracy. It's just how institutions operate.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[tacocat]

If you are that worried about it, get rid of your cell phone.

Even before the PATRIOT act came along it was pretty easy to track someone using their cell phone, of any technology and any settings. All you have to do is leave it on.

And it's entirely legal, even by 1970's standards.

The trick is to track the registration of your phone through each cellular segment. I can't place you exactly but I know which segment you are in and at exactly what time you hand off from one segment to another. In some cases this puts you within a mile. I have a pretty good idea where you are going. Good enough to be there when you arrive. You don't even have to place a call. All you have to do is have it on.

But then even without the phone it's pretty easy to track someone. Planes work great for this.

I'm surprised at how little people know about surveillance and how easy it is to do.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[tacocat]

That is not the case with OnStar. Unless you break it yourself, it is always on. Even if you don't subscribe, the functionality is left on and operational. That way, you can just give them a call and they'll turn it on and bill you, no need to take it in to a dealership to take your money from you.

Not quite there... It's on when you purchase the vehicle. But if you call and request that it be disabled then it is physically disabled and cannot be remotely enabled.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[DustyShadow]

My point really has nothing to do with whether or not he was resisting with extreme force. My point is that when there are 3 or 4 officers just standing by watching the situation, they just be ordered to help before the other cops use a taser on the suspect.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[Score Whore]

Or perhaps the police would abuse the system. For ... for what exactly?

I dunno. Maybe they want to murder their ex-girlfriend who is running away in her 2009 GM automobile. Or perhaps they want to stalk their ex-girlfriend.

Government officials aren't exactly super human. They are people like everybody else and they will abuse anything they have available to them.

Similarly with this stop button. Instead of a driver speeding away from the police, potentially killing himself or a family in the opposite lane, the chase can come to a quick and safe (for everyone) halt.

In some jurisdictions they have solved this problem by not giving chase. This way citizens could decide which they are more concerned with, an abusive government employee or a crook stealing their car.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[Sparr0]

the worst that can happen is that cars [carrying single women at night in deserted areas] start slowing down on the road [to a stop in the middle of nowhere, where a serial killer is waiting] There, fixed that for you.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[epee1221]

if anything i've seen the vast majority of cops display AMAZING patience.

They're not the ones people worry about. The good cops are, by definition, not going to abuse their power. The bad cops will.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[c6gunner]

The problem is that the taser has lowered the standard of when to use force.

No, it's only changes the type of force used. Previous to the taser, we would have used pressure points, choke holds, fists, and batons - all of which can be just as dangerous as a taser, if not more so.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.justfuckinggoogleit.com/search.pl?query=california+stun+belt+court+judge

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[xanadu113]

What YouTube video is this?

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[compro01]

then the worst that can happen is that cars start slowing down on the road.

resulting in a 10+ car pileup.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[mosch]

find me a video of a POLICE officer tasing someone who isn't being a total dickhead.

Officers are not supposed to tazer people for being dickheads. They're supposed to be used when there is no other safe way to temporarily restrain a subject.

I'm nearly amused that you claim you aren't a fascist, but then endorse the tasering of people who annoy you, even if they are causing no danger to anybody, and have already been restrained.

I say nearly amused because I'm saddened that so many of the kids of today are pathetic, shrill, lying, fascist assholes, like you.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[c_forq]

I guess your definition of "deserves it" is anybody who annoys you.

I personally think resisting arrest counts, that is a pretty stupid move. Just being arrested would have gotten attention.

You're either very poorly informed, a troll or a big-government fascist. Which is it?

You should be marked a troll for this, this sentence is is no better than what you see on Fox News.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[mosch]

I personally think resisting arrest counts

I would care more deeply about your opinions if you weren't a crazy fascist fuck who thinks that it's a good idea to tazer anybody who passively resists arrest.

Thank fucking God that fascist idiots like you weren't around in the 60s.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[Anonymous Coward]

As long as its not illegal to completely disable these devices I wouldn't have a problem with it in my car

As a former Engineer for OnStar's 4th, 5th, and 6th Generation Models (it is presently on 7th Gen) I feel I should let the community know that there has always been a particular PIN on the device that logically toggles between Application Mode and Test/Debug Mode. So while I don't have a schematic for the 2009 model, I'm pretty damn sure that if you can find that PIN and switch to Debug Mode, there's no way anyone will be able to do anything remotely to your vehicle. Although, there is always the possibility that if you force the Test Pin you'll get a warning light or something...

Happy tweaking...

--
X's and O's for... oh, crap Anonymous...

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[Sentri]

The complete lack of evidence, even circumstantial (which is what the youtube video would be) that police are using tasers un-reasonably, even when you are calling for it does two things.

-Makes me wonder whether people are being tased for pointing a camera at a man with a taser

-Makes me wonder whether people are being tased by cops

Come on slashdot, show us a video or three of a cop using a taser on someone who was complying with their requests, provide that circumstantial evidence that tasers have lowered the barrier to a forceful response.

Currently its all he said/she said arguments, but the burden of proof is on those who say cops are using tasers inappropriately. So show us...

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[Anonamused Cow-herd]

i'm yet to see a single video of a cop using a taser on someone who didn't deserve it.

You thought the John Kerry kid deserved it? If that situation isn't enough, you should really watch more SPIKE TV or Court TV -- with Sheriff John Bunnell, or whatever his name is. I saw a show entitled something like "COPS - TAZED AND CONFUSED" where they showed consecutive clips of cops using tazers in hilarious situations.

In one, here was the situation -- cop is following a pickup (somewhere in the rural western US). He follows the guy into a store parking lot, then puts on his flashers. Mind you, he has no information that this guy is shady in any way shape or form (though he was black) -- or Sheriff John certainly would have informed us, as he always does. So the guy I don't think even notices the cop at first, and starts to open his door. The cop draws his tazer and starts yelling at him like crazy, so much that I could barely make out what he was saying. He starts telling the guy how to step away from the truck and lie down face down on the ground. Again -- this guy did nothing wrong that the cop knew!

So the guy has his hands up (as ordered), and is ordered to get on the ground face down. So he starts putting his hands down to get down on the ground (as a somewhat fatter individual). The cop flips out (from like 20 feet away) and screams to continue putting his hands in the air, although he only moved them down like 6 inches as he was trying to go to his knees. The guy is scared by the scream, and puts his hands up, but kinda jumps up from his half-kneel, then starts trying to go back down. But he forgets not to lock his arms straight above his head. Cue announcer: "this officer had no choice but to subdue the suspect. Next time he thinks about not following a cop's orders, he'll remember THAT 50,000 volts!"

Turns out, the guy had some warrant for trespassing or something 6 months prior, but the cop clearly didn't know that until he ran his ID. I couldn't believe it -- and this is the "valor" that they show on national TV! Imagine the "normal" usages!

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[adminstring]

OK, here is a video of three 200-pound officers from the Pittsburgh police department tasering a 100-pound female protester who is lying on the ground.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[c_forq]

You and I have a far different definition of passive. I'm sorry that you think I'm a fascist, as my views are more liaise fair when it comes to government intervention in business than to anything resembling fascism.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[delvsional]

keep believing the dribble from the government and their lackeys. so far all the "crazy" people predicting this stuff have been pretty much dead on. I always heard that onstar would never be used to remotely shut down cars, but we all knew differently then.

I don't have a problem with the people enforcing the rules. I have a problem with the people making them not actually listening to the people they work for: you and I.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[SEWilco]

And a friendly female voice announces "You are being kidnapped. Please remain calm."

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[Reaperducer]

Actually, the moral of the story is that health-conscious doesn't always mean smart.

Asbestos isn't radioactive. It doesn't magically give you cancer from looking at it on the street or even touching it a few times.

Unless your friend planned to spend the next few years living under a tarp on top of the pile of asbestos in the street he had nothing to worry about. Your friend should read a book before he assumes he's smarter than everyone else and that the world is going to kill him but it's not his fault.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[Reaperducer]

Our automated system noticed that your vehicle was parked on the 3500 block of AnyStreet and SomeAvenue. Our marketing info shows that this area of town is populated by the gay community. Please click on the following links if you would like to:

I'm so glad that Clippy managed to find a new job. I guess the Microsoft COBRA ran out.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[dangitman]

Ok, you're right. Just because I happen to know how the system operates and I'm trying to set the record straight

But how does knowing engineering aspects of the project make you any more or less correct than anybody else about the social aspects? It doesn't matter how much you know about the system - that has nothing to do with whether it gets abused or not. Engineers have never been able to stop people from abusing the products of engineering, and this is a huge blindspot that engineers tend to have.

But in this case I'm just trying to identify areas where people have a lot of ignorance about what is actually going on with the system.

Your post didn't do anything of the sort. I didn't see anybody claiming that the system just slams the brakes on. You are claiming ignorance without any evidence. You weren't replying to anybody who made any such misconceptions, so this ignorance is just a mythical strawman. You might have a point if people were going around saying "OH MY GOD, IT SLAMS ON BRAKES AND READS BRAINWAVES!!!!!!", but nobody has said anything like that, so I'm not sure why you make such things up.

As for your other comments, they don't actually set anything straight. They just demonstrate blind faith - you say that it has never been used without authorization before, and you say it's hard to crack. But that's meaningless - it might be used without authorization any time in the future, and it may be hacked at any time in the future, even if it is difficult. Humans have done some very difficult things before. And why would you have to "crack" the system if you were an employee? Couldn't a disgruntled employee simply do it directly?

Anyway, you accuse people of ignorance and being paranoid, just because they raise some valid concerns. That's pretty sad. If the system is so foolproof, wouldn't you be happy to see it questioned? What have you got to fear? Dismissing any concerns as crazy seems like a way to deflect scrutiny. but isn't this the kind of thing that should be heavily scrutinized?

One of the people who have worked in the engineering side of the company? Marketing types? Or someone who starts with the assumption that the OnStar unit can read your brain waves.

I don't recall anybody claiming that OnStar could read your brainwaves. Anyway, none of the above are very good options. Better options are independent observers, particularly those who are aware of the social and legal consequences of technology. As I mentioned before, engineers generally have very poor abilities in this area, and tend to think that things will just work as planned or designed. In reality, there are often unintended consequences that are not foreseen by engineers. Otherwise we wouldn't have things like spam, would we?

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[UbuntuDupe]

And I'm going to give you a harsh dose of reality, which you would do well to listen to, since I'm not stupid enough to work for a company that's failing because of unfunded impossible promises it made:

-You don't need to factor giant semiprimes to hack OnStar. You just need to corrupt someone with access to the private key database. Encryption is as strong as its key.
-Allowing a software failure to cascade to the engine is just stupid.
-Someone who resorts to naked emotional appeals in radio ads doesn't believe in the quality of his product. (GM promotes OnStar with real radio recordings of people panicking and being saved by OnStar. )
-OnStar only exists because GM is trying to guilt people into overpaying for something in which it has a comparative advantage so it can hope to pay off legacy costs it should have funded in advance.

***

That said, I fully support the right of people to make an informed decision to allow this kind of device in their car if they believe it will work to their advantage.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[wizzat]

Because obviously the overseer needs more oversight? What happened to the citizens overseeing the government? What happened to governments serving their citizens? What happened to public servants?

Governments, by nature, take as much power as they can get their grubby hands on. Things like this are dangerously close to living in a police state. Police states do not exist to serve their citizens, but only to collect and consolidate power for some select few.

People putting their foot down and saying "No" is the oversight of the police that you were asking for.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[Reaperducer]

I have a vision of some sort of tubular metal bar and nylon belt contraption for securing a baby seat in the bed of an F-150.

It's probably already been done. In Texas.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Yeah, that'll work. you've proposed key escrow, which again requires trusting the government (generally). The fact is, handing a kill switch to the gub is a non starter, or have you been asleep for 250 years? This country is built upon mistrust of authority, and with good reason.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[alan_dershowitz]

Slippery slopes are not a fallacy. Some are real, obviously. For example, an actual slippery slope. It can be a fallacy if there's no evidence that any escalation is taking place. The fallacy is not the slippery slope, it's seeing a slippery slope where in reality there is just a small change to something.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[penix1]

Can someone explain why this would be a bad thing?

My problem with it isn't so much the police as it is all the other agencies out there. Implement this and I don't think it will be too long before it becomes government and/or insurance required. It is the mandating that I dread. To really put my tinfoil hat on this could be taken to the Nth degree and used by other groups. For example, overdue on insurance? No problem. Your car won't start or will slow down to a crawl until you do. Didn't make that car payment? Well we no longer repossess the car we disable it! Going a little too fast? Automatic transmitters get triggered to disable you until police can show up to give you your ticket. See where this is going?

Yes, I know those are extreme but they are not beyond the realm of possibility.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[rootofevil]

this one.

some followup.

i actually couldnt find it on youtube this time aroung, but thats where i saw it the first time. a quick youtube search for 'police harassment' brings up dozens of entries.

not only that, but it appears that the harassment has continuted even after the offending officer was fired.

the cops know no bounds.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[KKlaus]

The video of that ID-less kid refusing to leave the library at UCLA was pretty bad. And those WERE definitely cops. Really the problem with the taser is nothing to do with its lethality, it's simply that some cops haven't been trained that the taser is not a good method of difusing a situation and preventing a scene. In fact, because it hurts like a bitch and tends to make people scream, it's good at doing pretty much the opposite.

So you can argue about whether that guy at the recent John Kerry rally deserved to be tased, but either way the police involved should have known that the route of a quick and professional resolution to the incident was probably more along the lines of carrying him out, rather than giving him 20000 volts. And by they way of course, they WERE definitely cops. Browse youtube more often or something.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[Sentri]

-"Police spokeswoman Tammy Ewin initially said no pepper spray was used on protesters, but Sgt. Clint Winkler, a supervisor on duty, told The Associated Press he tried to use pepper spray on one woman who would not leave, but it hit her glasses. She was then subdued with a Taser, Winkler said."

- "Winkler said campus police tried to quell the march, and at one point protesters grabbed the camera of a freelance media photographer and broke it. City police tried to help and said some protesters fought the effort to break up the march.

- "That's when they were told, due to the violence, that this was no longer a lawful protest," Winkler said. "They were told to disperse, peacefully disperse, and failed to do so we started down the sidewalk _ officers in front, K-9's behind us, and started pushing the crowd down the sidewalk.""

- ""The response was way over the top," Meieran said. "Why in the (expletive) were they using Tasers on these nonviolent protesters in the first place? I heard no dispersal order. What they're saying is total (expletive).""

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0821-01.htm

- "I was taken to the ground by a police officer during that time
      I was pepper sprayed the officer picked up my glasses sprayed my face
      with the pepper spray. Once I got to the ground I was then tasered in
      the thigh for what felt like an eternity. It was the most excruciating
      pain I have ever felt. I felt like I was burning. My hand reached
      down to feel what was on my leg and I felt an electrical shock running
      through my entire body. I could not stop myself from screaming. It was
      horrifying. I could not believe that after I had already been sprayed
      and on the ground they would then proceed to taser me."

http://pittsburgh.indymedia.org/news/2005/08/20117.php

"McNeilly said the officers' use of pepper spray and Tasers
at the protest was justified because protestors had turned
from peaceful conduct to active resistance that became an assault on officers.

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_374322.html

Hmmm, I'm not saying I support the use of a TASER in this case, but it's not exactly a clear cut case of police brutality. A peaceful protest turned violent and she was at the front of the line, wrong place and wrong time?

Hmm, a little more digging gets this:
"And a breakdown of events (from a local man posting on Digg, corroborated by the news):

1. A man, Edris Robinson, strikes a cameraman covering the event (later charged with assault)
2. The cameraman runs to get police
3. Robinson runs to the crowd
4. Police find Robinson, try to apprehend him
5. His girlfriend, Deanna Caliguiri, tries to pull him away (later plead guilty to disorderly conduct and resisting arrest)
6. The cops use pepper spray on Deanna, she continues to resist
7. The cops warn Deanna a few times that they will taser her
8. The cops taser her"

That site also states some of the action happens offscreen on the youtube video
http://ronpaul.meetup.com/342/boards/view/viewthread?thread=3559981

Make your own conclusions I suppose

Oh wait, another oped piece here with a longer youtube video tha pushes "tasers are bad":
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/9/19/14057/0584
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qVdH1G0KQt4 (again whatever happens that makes the cops taser the girl happens offscreen, but the video goes for 10 minutes)

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[rootofevil]

because the oversight current in place is clearly working to curb their oppression of the citizenry. make no mistake, the police do not help solve the problem. the police are part of the problem. the ones that absolutely arent are more than made up for by the ones that are, or at least tolerate the ones that are.

see the links i posted to the other responder about the kid in missouri. inconceivable.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[Anonymous Coward]

I was yet to see a single video of multiple police beating a citizen to death until Rodney King. It's not like police are only abusive when on camera, and even when someone deserves it there are plenty of videos showing excessive force.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[Anonymous Coward]

Why the caveat for government intervention in business? Is it ok for government to interfere with people but not corporations?

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[KKlaus]

The problem is people don't understand that the taser is actually a really crappy method of restoring order or difusing a public disturbance. Getting tased makes people go crazy, and go "Ouch" really loudly. But, it's not scary in the same way a big stick is, so they aren't motivated in the same way to be quiet. So the cops tase them again, and then again (and maybe again) until they are finally quiet. Meanwhile we've had a pretty long period of the person being tased screaming and yelling for the cops to stop.

Whatever you think about tasers, I think we can all agree that at the very least non-lethal does not in any way imply non-painful. For non-violent confrontations, it's frequently in everyone's best interest to just keep it in its holster and try something else.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[daveschroeder]

Yes, it does. It says it "removes the horsepower." It doesn't matter if the engine is still running - if it can't deliver power, then it has been effectively killed. The entire purpose of an engine is to deliver power.

No. As ordinary people, mechanics, whomever you chose, what "killing the engine" means. Every one of them will tell you the engine is shut off. They won't say that it's in a idle state with no throttle with power brakes and steering still functional. When someone says "remotely shuts down vehicles", the clear implication is that the vehicle is being turned off. It is not.

I also didn't deny it's stopping the car, anywhere

Yes you did, it's in the title of your post.

No. I said 'It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"'. I didn't say it didn't stop the car. That's the very purpose of this system. It does NOT "shut down" the vehicle, and I define exactly what I mean by "shut down" in the very first sentence, which is a continuation of the subject, in my post.

In other words, it remotely shuts down the vehicle. No matter how "complex" or "gradual" or "controlled" it is - it is remotely shutting down the car. So why did you say in your title that it doesn't remotely shut down the car?

No. I said exactly this:

'It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"...the implication being that it just slams on the brakes or kills the engine or both.'

If you said to someone that a vehicle is remotely "shut down", with no other information, nearly all people would immediately assume that meant the engine and all systems were simply turned off. The clear follow-on to that, and a major objection, would be that such an action would be massively unsafe. That's what the submitter is implying all throughout her blog post, saying things like "would you be your life" on this, etc.

It does NOT remotely "shut down" the car in the context of what I clearly described in the furst sentence of my post. You can sit here all day and say that if you can't apply power to the wheels to drive, the vehicle is effectively "shut down". Yeah, I get it...but you don't: I wasn't implying that this doesn't stop the car, and NEVER said that. Obviously you can see from my initial and subsequent posts that I understand exactly what is going on. But you just don't agree with my stance, so instead you're try to say I'm contradicting myself, when I in fact intended to say exactly what I said for exactly the reasons I said it.

A controlled way? So, does it know if the car needs power based on circumstances that others have mentioned (on ice or snow, in the middle of a turn) and keep the power on, or does it still shut the power down anyway?

Which is why "if officers see the car in motion and judge it can be stopped safely, they can tell OnStar operators".

That's the whole point.

Does a spike strip know when to not pop the tires? Does a vehicle performing the PIT maneuver know to spin in a beautiful, exact 180 degree half-circle and come to a graceful rest? The idea is that this is SAFER than those technologies, and safer than a high speed chase.

Now if you believe it will be used in contravention of the ways they're explicitly and specifically saying it will be used, that's another story entirely. But that should also mean we should have heard a lot of other examples of OnStar abuse, since it's been around for a while, except we haven't.

But how do you know it won't be abused? It's not like the police have a wonderful track record of honesty, integrity and concern for public safety.

Actually, police, to most people and for the most part, do have exactly that track record. That's, you know, their job.

You just apparently choose to take examples of corruption and abuse, and assume that is the norm, when it is the exception.

It's not impossible for this to be hacked, either. So, what guarantee do you have that it will always be used properly and carefully?

None, because there is no

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[The-PhotHog]

Right on, right on, put succinctly and well.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[c_forq]

Not at all, but government ties to business is one of the central tenants of fascism.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[ConceptJunkie]

Thats fine and dandy, but at what point did government stop playing by the rules? If the constitution is irrelevant, then why don't we simply ignore it all together.

Didn't that already happen? I mean what part of the Bill of Rights isn't habitually violated, other than the quartering of soldiers in our houses. Is there anything couldn't possibly be rationalized by the Interstate Commerce Clause? I sure haven't heard it. Our government has been increasing its power geometrically for some decades, and it's showing no signs of stopping, but rather of accelerating. I'm sure the Founders wouldn't recognize the country they created, because it no longer exists. In fact, one could argue it hasn't existed since the 1860's.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[timmarhy]

why should 6 people risk a bite from someone who could have some diesease when they can be subdued without injury to the suspect or themselfs? your problem, is that you don't think of cops as people with families etc. they aren't drones impervious to harm, nor do they deserve to be put in harms way just because someone wants to be a dickbrain. being a cop is just a job at the end of the day, and you have no right to expect them to put themselfs at more risk then nessacary, just because you think tasing looks cruel.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[timmarhy]

errr judge != government. if anything they are the balance against abuse of power.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[mosch]

You're incredible.

You justify the random application of pain, when it will serve absolutely no purpose except the satisfaction of people who dislike that person, and that you claim you are not a fascist because you hold libertarian values when it comes to commerce.

That might be the worst excuse I've ever heard.

People like you make me really wish that everybody had to apply for citizenship, not just immigrants. Because you sure as shit don't deserve the freedom that so many fought and died to give you.

Fucking pathetic. Every time you try to excuse yourself, you sound even worse than you did before.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[Anonymous Coward]

If _they_ want to drive _your_ car, they should pay for it too...

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[mosch]

The central tenet of fascism is that the individual is not as important as the state.

You have defended the use of force against people who are not currently presenting a threat to anybody, simply to cause them pain.

This is completely and directly compatible with fascist beliefs.

That said, there is no point in attempting to converse with you. I simply cannot relate to anybody who believes that government should be so large and so powerful that it is allowed to induce unnecessary physical pain in any individual who bothers it.

I'm for less government, not more.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[timmarhy]

You keep calling me a fascist with no proof of my polictical ideology at all. Maybe you think if you repeat it enough someone might start believing you?

1. use dickhead as an umbrella term to cover the various types of behavour i've seen in tasing video's. since you seem to lack the faculties to comphrend this i'll make a short list - resisting arrest,assult,verbal abuse. 2. you fail once again to provide a single video of someone being tased who is complying with police. i've seen probably 50+ online video's of tasing incidents, and every single one of them brought it on themselfs through their own stupidity. 3. I'm far far from being a kid. i suppose you'd like to think of me in such terms to feel superior in some pathetic way, but the truth is unless your very old or very rich i have more life experience then you.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[Anonymous Coward]

"when legally required to do so or when subject to a valid court order, "

Court order? Who needs that anymore. They have 'national security letters' for that now. Much more convenient.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[c_forq]

You justify the random application of pain, when it will serve absolutely no purpose except the satisfaction of people who dislike that person

I heavily disagree with this statement. I don't think the recent headlined case served a purpose of satisfaction, and even if it somehow did it was definitely not solely for that purpose.

Because you sure as shit don't deserve the freedom that so many fought and died to give you.

I will most definitely fight and die for freedoms that I believe in. I don't think actively resisting arrest is one of these freedoms. I also think the freedom I would fight and die for would allow people to express idea far more insane and inane than you think mine to be.

By the way, the reason I brought up the commerce factor is because you would have been better served to accuse me of supporting a police state or a dictatorship than of supporting fascism. I personally hate the way fascism is thrown around with disregard to what fascism really is. There are equally villainous words you can use that won't dilute the meaning and usefulness of the term fascism.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[timmarhy]

So anyone who doesn't agree with your unfounded rabid cop hate deserves to be deported?

why don't you back up your claims a little more then retoric.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[mosch]

Keep on trolling, jackass.

You're still the one who thinks it's totally cool to taser people whose only crime is "being a dickhead".

Your position is so fucking indefensible that it's no surprise you've resorted to absurdist attacks. Even your tiny, tiny little mind realizes that you can't stand by what you wrote without being openly anti-American, and pro-fascism.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[mosch]

I heavily disagree with this statement. I don't think the recent headlined case served a purpose of satisfaction, and even if it somehow did it was definitely not solely for that purpose.

The suspect was not violent, was on the ground, restrained by six officers. He had no weapons and posed no physical threat to anybody.

I agree he was a douchebag, and he hurt his cause far more than he helped it. But tasering a restrained individual with no weaponry, who has made no threats, in that situation? Only a violent fascist thug would agree to that.

Personally, I don't want the state having that much control over my body. I believe in freedom, something that you clearly do not value.

I guess there will always be the intellectuals who believe that freedom is overrated, probably because you believe yourself superior to others, and assume that you will always be the taserer, not the taseree. It's an awful, dangerous and short-sighted view.

I hope that you grow up someday, and learn why freedom is important, even when it comes to the rights of douchebags.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Do you really think that the cops would use choke holds and batons on someone for not shutting up?

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[rastoboy29]

I would agree, as a libertarian, but the fact is without the gov't stepping in these things would never have happened.  People would NOT opt for the safer vehicle, they would opt for the cheaper one.  In your soul you know this to be true.

Government is not universally evil.  It's just mostly evil.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[Anonymous Coward]

What fucking kind justification is stupidity for using excessive force? Do you even think about what you write before you submit it? I do not think you are a fascist, I simply think you are an ignorant fuck.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Yeah, that's why the FBI can eavesdrop on conversations using onstar. The only reason they can't really get wiretap warrants right now is that it interferes with normal onstar operation. Given that this is GM, I don't trust them to have made this secure. Most likely, you've read the marketing literature. Doesn't mean it has anything to do with reality.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[arminw]

....Congress Shall Have The Power to make cars better.......

The constitution does give Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce. Most cars travel interstate. So Congress does have the right to make a law that says the cops can push a button to remotely stop your car. The feds mandate all sorts of design "features" of cars already. What's one more?

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[zippthorne]

maybe if our cops didnt flash their lights just so they didnt have to stop at a red light,

Frankly, I'd be pretty happy if they started doing this again. As opposed to what seems like the current practice (at least in my area) of driving like drunken rice-boys.

What with the tailgating (don't think I don't know they're trying to nudge you into absent mindedly speeding), excessive speed, and unquestionably dangerous unannounced activities in intersections, I'm surprised the leading cause of accidents isn't the traffic patrol, itself.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[Anonymous Coward]

Those cops have yet to be scheduled to return to work, it's not at all clear that they will *ever* work in law enforcement again, a federal case is pending against the University, and the victim is (very wisely) keeping his mouth shut. If the Kerry campaign is quietly funding the legal expenses, those cops are probably as good as dead.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[timmarhy]

1. absurdist is not a word

2. you fail to provide any proof of your statements inspite of all the claims about abuse of tasering. surely someone would have caught a cop red handed with all the camera phones around these days, yet the best anyone has produced so far is a woman who assulted police while they were arresting her b/f who also assulted police and a cameraman. she then resisted arrest, fought through being pepper sprayed and ignored the warning she was about to be tasered. hardly a very convincing argument that police abused their power or taser. 3. the word fascist clearly gives you a woody, there can be no other explaination of your constant misuse of the term.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[bronney]

as a way to prevent speeders by forcibly reducing your car's maximum speed around school zones or in bad weather.

Seems to make sense at first until you're a hardcore Canadian driver like me. Sometimes, the only way you can survive an accident is by giving the right input and speed the hell up. I remember the idiots who merge at the right moment where I got away by speeding up. If I do anything else but sped up, the cars behind me will cream my buttocks because we're on ice :)

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[fishbowl]

>why should 6 people risk a bite from someone who could have some diesease when they can be subdued without injury to the suspect or themselfs?

Before you can even ask that question, you must show that the "cops" have a right to "subdue" the person to begin with.

If the situation is such that the use of force is justified, say, the use of a taser as an alternative to .45 shots to the head, thorax and pelvis, that's one thing. If you are trying to make your "bite" case in defense of police action that isn't justified to begin with, it's irrelevant.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[timmarhy]

as long as the douchebag complies with lawful orders from police officers, yes.

the problem with your argument is that that's NOT when police are using tasers. if you assult a cop, i support their right to arrest you. doing the old 5yo trick of rubber legs doesn't count as a defense ok?

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[arminw]

.....when I'm perfectly free to drive a motorcycle.....

In many states, not without a helmet! If you would be OK with just scraping an injured motorcyclist not wearing a helmet off the pavement and denying them medical care unless they pay for it, cash on the barrel-head, then fine. Don't force taxpayers or insurance payers to subsidize your "freedom" to cause yourself more injury and driving up the already high hospital bills even more.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[DDLKermit007]

Others on here go on about the Florida incident. I go on about the UCLA student. THAT was a PRIME example of, "do what we say or be tasered". They didn't even try to get physical, said no, don't touch me, and surprise! Taser! Repeatedly no less.After one hit from a police issue taser your pretty much unable to resist, let alone stand up which is why they continued to taser him. He was flatly unable to do so. Go forth, and check Youtube. I'm surprised people have already forgotten about that one, and it was a bit more egregious then the Florida one.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[fishbowl]

>Do you really think that the cops would use choke holds and batons on someone for not shutting up?

Yes. I've experienced this personally. I've been very painfully restrained while being ticketed for
occupying public land. I can put you in touch with hundreds of others who have had similar experiences,
and a few who have been shot at, and even severely injured by being intentionally run down with vehicles
or horses. For doing nothing more than peacefully gathering on public land.

This is my personal "worst civil rights atrocity perpetrated by the government", at least since the draft ended.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[fishbowl]

>I look through Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution, and I can't find the part where Congress Shall Have The Power to make cars better.

As long as it doesn't say they are NOT allowed to, then if the PEOPLE abide by it, they have the power.

Are you one of those people who thinks no rights exist except those specified in the Constitution? Or are you one of those people who believes Congress does not represent the consensed will of those who put them in office?

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[arminw]

.....we see them used as a quick effortless way to subdue someone for whatever reason,.....

So if a cop wants to arrest you and you resist, would you prefer to be bonked in the head with a Billy Club? That's what they used to do, before Tasers existed.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[sickspeed6]

I am right there with you. Being an auto enthusiast. haha, the username makes sense after all. I have heard horror stories about what cops can do when they want to be pricks, or are just crazy. would you guys like some proof. here's a link to the youtube video, hosted elsewhere. Read the transcript. the cop threatens to make up charges against the kid. now, lets imagine that the cop had started beating the kid and when the kid escaped to his car, the cop had it disable and the doors unlocked so he could finish "arresting" him.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[dangitman]

No. As ordinary people, mechanics, whomever you chose, what "killing the engine" means. Every one of them will tell you the engine is shut off.

You'd be wrong on this. Most people, if their engine lost most of its power, would say that "The engine died", even if the engine is still running.

They won't say that it's in a idle state with no throttle with power brakes and steering still functional. When someone says "remotely shuts down vehicles", the clear implication is that the vehicle is being turned off. It is not.

Again, no. If you car won't move forward when throttle is applied, it has been shut down. What use is a car that doesn't move when commanded to?

The clear follow-on to that, and a major objection, would be that such an action would be massively unsafe. That's what the submitter is implying all throughout her blog post, saying things like "would you be your life" on this, etc.

But it is massively unsafe to remove power, even if the other systems are running. So I'm not sure what your point is.

Which is why "if officers see the car in motion and judge it can be stopped safely, they can tell OnStar operators". That's the whole point.

But what guarantee do we have that this will be the only time it is used? What's the guarantee there isn't a glitch in the system causing to happen without police supervision?What's the guarantee that the police, if in visual range, will judge the safety of stopping at that point correctly?

Now if you believe it will be used in contravention of the ways they're explicitly and specifically saying it will be used, that's another story entirely. But that should also mean we should have heard a lot of other examples of OnStar abuse, since it's been around for a while, except we haven't.

No, that's a non-sequiter. There's nothing to stop it happening in the future, even if it hasn't happened in the past. We also don't know if past OnStar abuse has happened but been covered up. Your statement is not logical. Recently, some banks lost a whole ton of private customer information. That had not happened in the past. By your logic, the banks shouldn't have lost vast amounts of personal information, because they hadn't previously. But it happened.

Actually, police, to most people and for the most part, do have exactly that track record. That's, you know, their job.

In bizarro world. In reality, police corruption is widespread, and the police endanger the public's safety constantly.

You just apparently choose to take examples of corruption and abuse, and assume that is the norm, when it is the exception.

I never said it was the norm. But it's far too common. It's not an insignificant problem as you seem to be making it out. It's actually unreasonably common.

That's no excuse to completely write off a technological solution to a problem just because it can be hacked or abused. OnStar can currently unlock doors on every OnStar equipped vehicle. Seems like that's a pretty ripe target, and so by the logic trotted about here, that should already have been hacked to shreds.

That's an entirely different issue. Theft is an annoyance, but it's not the same as putting the public at risk. We have to apply much higher standards, and ask if the benefit outweighs the risks. The benefits seem rather dubious to me, so it doesn't seem worth the risk.

And once again you misrepresent the argument. Nobody is saying it must be "hacked to shreds" - just that there is a chance that it could be. And it happening even once is a pretty serious matter when people's lives are at stake.

I have an idea: let's all be luddites, and dismiss any technological solution to any problem, whether the government is using it or not, because it might be able to be hacked or abused. That's a ridiculous view of the s

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[fishbowl]

>Thats fine and dandy, but at what point did government stop playing by the rules?

They didn't, at least not in the sense that's being implied by this thread.
The Constitution establishes the power of Congress to make laws, and constrains that power in certain ways
intended to preserve the rights of the people and the power of state governments.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[Chaos Incarnate]

They should risk it because it's their job. It's not the job of the target of their assault to be electrocuted.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[arminw]

.......we see them used as a quick effortless way to subdue someone for whatever reason,.......

So? In earlier times they used the more "humane" method of a billy club to subdue violent suspects. If a cop tells you that you're under arrest, go quietly and no physical means are needed. Then keep your mouth shut and ask for a lawyer.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[mosch]

I know this is a lot to ask of a hard-core, big-government, right-wing fascist, but PLEASE LEARN TO READ.

In my example the suspect was already restrained when he was tasered. He was incapable of attacking/resisting/etc, because he was already restrained.

You either know this and are just trolling, or you know it but don't care because you get your rocks off watching the police brutalize a restrained man.

Either way, fuck off and die in a grease fire.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[mosch]

1) yes it is, dumbass.

2) You are such a pathetic fucking liar that you pretend 'absurdist' isn't a word. You claim nobody provided links when multiple people did. You claim I didn't reference an obvious example when I did.

You're nothing but a liar. An awful, pathetic liar.

There's no point in discussing anything with you because you are such an enormous fucking uncontrollable liar that you lie about whether or not words exist.

The world will be a measurably better place when you die, you awful, dishonest, fascist loser.

HAND DIAF

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[Phroggy]

Sorry for being even more pedantic, but "less than lethal" still means not lethal. The correct term is actually "less lethal", as in "less lethal than shooting someone with a handgun loaded with standard bullets". Tasers and bean bags CAN be lethal, under unusual circumstances, but they're not as lethal as other options.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[dangitman]

If you are that worried about it, get rid of your cell phone.

That's your answer to government abuses of power? You seem to be missing the point - it's not about how easy it is technically to do the surveillance - it's about the government abusing the contract made with the citizens. How does not using a phone remedy the abuse of power?

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[timmarhy]

no, it's wasn't "suprise taser" they warned him so many fucking times it wasn't funny "get up or we will taser you, get up or we will taser you".

he was in a college computer lab and refused to produce ID when asked ( which was a condition of entry i might add) and then refused to leave when asked by staff. if you had some nut job at work that refused to identify themself and refused to leave you'd call the cops as well.

he then refused to leave when the cops asked him. it's not clear from the video if he was acting aggresive or not because the one i saw didn't show the start of it, but i'm betting he was resisting a simple hand on the shoulder and being lead out the door. cops don't pull tasers out at the drop of a hat like all the idiots on here think, fuck do you have any idea of the PAPER WORK invovled for just unholstering the taser? they want to avoid it if possible.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[pnewhook]

I agree. In fact I can't believe it has taken this long for a feature like this to become available.

Some asshole steals my car and there's nothing I can do but watch hime drive away? People talk about infringement of rights but where's my right to keep my own stuff?

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[lazy_playboy]

Fine, except without the engine the driver is likely to lose power steering and servo assisted brakes. Not a problem if you're ready for it (you just need to try harder to push the pedal/ turn the wheel), but if you don't know what's happening you're very likely to crash.

Stupid idea that will cause crashes and probably involve bystanders.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[timmarhy]

there's been 2 examples given. the woman who was arrested at a protest and the florida jackass in the library.

both of them were shot down very comprehensively - do i really need to recap for you? in any event, even 2 examples is hardly proof of gross misuse. in fact it would be amazingly good considering the crap police put up with every day.

I would however like to note the wonderful level of angst you are suffering purely because i refuse to argee with you. I choose to look at the situation calmly and not get emotive, something you are clearly not capable of doing. you have resorted to name calling, completely giving up any pretense of logic or proving your point with facts.

this good sir, means I WIN.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure if you are confused... or just joking. By "they are NOT allowed to" and "thinks no rights exist" are you suggesting that the constitution enumerates the state's rights? The constitution enumerates the *powers* of the government. Not rights. If the power is not granted in the constitution then the state does not have it. I have never heard this called a "right" before. For example, the bill of rights enumerate the peoples right's. And as a matter of fact, if a right is not enumerated that still does not mean the people do not have it. See 9th.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

I'm not sure about the "people's will" and "abiding" and all that. The people (through congress or not) cannot "abide" by something unconstitutional. If the people "abide" by a law that gives the state a power that is not listed in the constitution, this it is, by definition, unconstitutional. Oh, wait, I'm sorry, they *can* do that... by amending the constitution.

Kinda like, "the dude abides by that unconstitutional law... by changing the constitution."

You know, I think you were just joking.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[timmarhy]

great solution, carry him out kicking and screaming. i'm sure that would be less dramatic.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[adminstring]

In a perfect world, that would work. In reality, the police sometimes shoot pepper first and ask questions later, and sometimes they're mad at someone else and take it out on you. I'm sure some cities have cops that play by the rules. I'm also sure that some don't.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[fractoid]

Slippery slope, yes. Fallacy? He's pointed to a bunch of examples where similar devices' partial adoption has led to mandation. It's definitely not proof, as you point out - but it's a reasonable prediction that once the technology becomes widespread, insurance companies will offer substantial discounts to people with the device fitted, and if (not when, I concur ;) a sufficient percentage of people have said device, the remainder will not be a significant market force.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[pnewhook]

There's no reason for a remote kill that can be used by anyone that can convince a judge. I'll just wait for the first time a cop uses it on his ex girlfriend.

Yup, and they also say that knives are only meant for butter and cutting food. But I know better. Once someone uses their knife to kill someone, that'll bring some sense back into the world and we can get rid of these liberty threatening knives once and for all.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[ThirdPrize]

Yeah, but democracy means that the COUNTRY gets the president/ruler that the COUNTRY wants. It may not be the one that you particularly want but that's the way it goes. Eventually, you will keep voting and another party will get in.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[Anonymous Coward]

"but i'm yet to see a single video of a cop using a taser on someone who didn't deserve it."

That's not hard to find. Here you go, a recent example that has been in the news:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaiWCS10C5s

I bet that the rest of YT's search results contain more examples:

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=taser&search=Search

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[timmarhy]

whats really hypocritical around here is that the second people are in trouble, the first thing they do is call the cops, the very same people who shrilly proclaim how corrupt police are.

in countries where there's a working court system and decent oversight, the police forces are for the most part very honest. I've known plenty of cops, they've all been decent people. not saints mind you but they've all had a good sense of fairness.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[ThirdPrize]

Thing is, there is a % of /. readers who can see the negative side of practically everything. Just because 'they' can trace mobile phones doesn't mean we should all chuck ours away. Just because 'they' disagree with you, they are wrong. Did you see the pic of the person who submitted the story?

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[DDLKermit007]

Your shitting me right? Even if the first taser hit could be excused, how do you explain the multiple times they taser him for not getting up? You can't resist very well, nor comply to such commands as, "stand up" once hit by a taser immediately after. They even continued to taser the student AFTER he was handcuffed. For fucks sake, when asked by a student for his badge number the officer threatens a student with being tasered. You seriously think thats seriously within an officers power to say that in response? Thats illegal! Hell, just for shits & giggles, the student was on his way out when the police got there as reported by MANY eye witnesses. Their own intervention is what set the problem off. All that because the guy forgot his student, fucking, ID.

Plain and simple, the cops were abusing their power (and it's just once instance where it was caught on video!). Incidents like that make students such as myself very apprehensive of police on campus, and in general. The rent a cop security guards on campus are one thing. They do stupid shit with a student, and they can be fired quite easily. Cops on the other hand, at worst get told to use the taser only once, "next" time. Once the damage is already done, and news of their transgressions has circled the globe, twice.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[advocate_one]

thankfully it was a Tazer and not a gun the stupid cop was using...

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[Petersson]

Some asshole steals my car and there's nothing I can do but watch hime drive away?

Or the thiefs steal only your registration marks, place them on another car and what happened if police chases them? It's YOUR car that stops moving, not the stolen car.

Dumb idea, or another smart step in tightening of society control.

BTW. GM now stands for Goverment Motors.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[adminstring]

That doesn't sound hypocritical to me - it sounds perfectly normal. People complain about plumbers, yet call them when they need plumbing done. People complain about lawyers, yet call them when they need legal work done. The simple fact that police perform some useful services in exchange for some of our tax dollars, and we continue to call them when necessary, does not insulate them from criticism. Furthermore, unlike plumbers and lawyers, if we aren't satisfied with our local police department, we can't fire them and hire another one. We're pretty much stuck with the one we have. In addition, they are entrusted with weapons and are authorized to use force when necessary. That trust means they must be held to a higher standard than some other professions - if they screw up, someone could be injured or killed. here is an example of one such instance. The police choked this woman to death, then claimed she "choked herself to death." This is not possible; they are engaged in a cover-up. This happens far too often, and there is very little accountability for police officers.

Another thing to keep in mind is that the "sense of fairness" of cops is often very much related to how they perceive you - if you're clean cut, and of the appropriate race, you are treated well. If you aren't, you can be treated like dirt. Ask a homeless person how the police treat them sometime. Their experience is probably different from yours and mine. Cops tend to be very polite to me, because I look just like them. If I didn't, it might be a different story.

I've known some great cops and some terrible cops. That's similar to any profession. However, there is no reliable mechanism (in my city , at least) to remove the bad ones. I appreciate the fact that they're out there picking up violent drunks and wife-beaters, and I understand that that's a tough job which can be stressful, but if anyone can't deal with the stress of their job and takes it out on innocent people (or even the not-so-innocent) it's time for them to find a different job.

As for why so many of us don't want a police state... here's a quote from Ayn Rand:

There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted and you create a nation of law-breakers.

When this is the case, the police get to choose who they go after and who they don't, and the law is simply another tool of control. This worked great for Stalin, and it could work as well in the US if we let it. Before you say "it can't happen here" think about what happened with the COINTELPRO program.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[heinousjay]

This country was built on slave labor, tax avoidance, and near genocide. Don't be too enamored with history.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[Loconut1389]

So said Diebold.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[adminstring]

If by "COUNTRY" you mean "those who make an appropriate level of political contribution" then perhaps the term you are defining is plutocracy rather than democracy?

The real problem is that both parties take contributions from the same interests, and neither represents the will of the populace. The majority of Americans are not campaign contributors, and therefore are second-class citizens. Their votes can be "bought" with advertising (which wouldn't sell if it didn't work.)

The 2000 Presidential election is an even better example of why the United States is not a democracy: Gore undoubtedly won a majority of the popular vote, but "lost" the election.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[Johnno74]

In New Zealand the police have just been trialing tasers. I have very mixed feelings about this, because last week some guy was shot dead by police because he was nutting out and charging them with a hammer. One side says if they had tasers, then he would still be alive. The other side says its his own fault.

But a few years ago they trialed pepper spray, judged the trial a success and now all police carry it. Last year video came out of a drunk dude being arrested by about 4 police. Once he was subdued on the ground and handcuffed behinid his back one of the cops bent down and sprayed a shitload of pepper spray into his face at point blank range.

Yes, he probably deserved to be arrested, but he didn't deserve that. Non-lethal weapons are all well and good when they are used as an alternative to lethal force but the reality is they will be misused by a minority of police because they know they are non-lethal.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[Anonymous Coward]

Hell, it's even a common tactic for getting sex. One usually doesn't just rip off his clothes and try to copulate with the nearby female. Success rates are often higher if you're more strategic in your approach. Set the mood; nice dinner and wine; soft lights. Touching and so on... and now I'm sounding like either a Barry White album or that skit from Meaning of Life ("You don't have to go leaping straight for the clitoris like a bull at a gate."). In any case, you often need to guide her down that slippery slope...

I'm sorry, this is slashdot.

Could you please use a more familiar metaphor?

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[Anonymous Coward]

So, wouldn't it be funny if I camped near a highway with my little laptop and some 1337 h4x0r sk1llz and decided to shut down, say, 10 random vehicles? What do you think would happen? I'll tell you what'll happen: mayhem. This is just too nice a target. But wait, maybe I should be putting this a different way, a way Americans might understand a bit better ... WHAT IF THE TERRORISTS GET ACCESS TO IT? Right? Consider yourself boned.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[dr_d_19]

You really can't get the local police to call in to OnStar to screw with these cars. They have been trying to do that for a decade and there is not ONE incident where they have successfully gotten OnStar to interfer with a vehicle without the permission and knowledge of the owner. So STFU about that one you paranoid aluminum jock strap wearing dweebs.

I believe you. But I you had told me ten years ago that the US would be stalking citizens and unlawfully listen on citizens private communications in 2007, I probably wouldn't have believed you. However, policy has a tendency to change. For the worse. And as long as your system is not designed to be technically incompatible with those policy changes, your argument is moot.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[Anonymous Coward]

The real questions is "Is our children learning??"

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[dave420]

You'd be perfectly right if it were not for the fact that there are a great deal of folks out there who are, and I choose my words carefully, idiots. Seatbelts, for example, when not used, affect other road users. It's not the driver's decision whether his mangled corpse should slam into someone else's vehicle or a pedestrian. The same goes for airbags, only this time they're there to remove the tax burden on other people when the fire service spends hours trying to remove a steering wheel from a driver's face. Seatbelts and airbags cost money, so people will frequently choose to forego them in order to save some cash when purchasing a car. That is dangerous, as it puts the price of their car ahead of their health and taxes (and the health and taxes of those around them). The government did the right thing when it made these mandatory, as it removes the "should I buy these safety features?" question so many of us would answer incorrectly, at the cost of others.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[4D6963]

Similarly with this stop button. Instead of a driver speeding away from the police, potentially killing himself or a family in the opposite lane, the chase can come to a quick and safe (for everyone) halt.

Funny thing, I misunderstood the first part of this sentence the first time I read it into something to the effect of "such a system could potentially kill the driver or a family (although not in the opposite lane)" because, here's what I figured :

Suppose you're a thief on the run in a stolen car, doing a 90 mph on the leftmost lane on the freeway. Then the police remotely shuts down your engine, only allowing you to steer and brake. By the time you realized that you can't do anything about it, no matter what you try, you decide to pull to the side of the road. Only problem is, you're now doing a 40 mph, and cars on the left lane are doing a 70 mph. So you have two choices, stop your car on the left lane, which might result in a chain accident, or risk crossing the lane(s) to the right to stop on the side of the road, while risking again a chain accident.

All of this just so some rich dude with a good insurance can get his stolen car back, and not even arrest the thief? (with such a system, as a thief you'll quickly run away/steal another car and run away as soon as the stolen car would be stopped by the police, thus rendering your apprehension difficult)

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[Magada]

Seconded, and I don't care enough about my karma to post anonymously.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[Magada]

Do you read what you write, or just post stream-of-consciousness-like?

But you won't be able to hack into the unit because you don't know the protocols, keys, encryption methods, or anything else about the call process." But the manufacturers of OnStar do. That info is readily available to law enforcement (peril #1 in my book) and also, less readily (perhaps at the cost of bribing/threatening a couple employees), to anyone else. Great, innit?

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[monsted]

They're not killing the engine, just the drivers ability to control the throttle. Basically, they're just cutting the accelerator pedal wire.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[4D6963]

Thats fine and dandy, but at what point did government stop playing by the rules?

Sorry about pointing you to the Bush administration, but given my young age I know about it better than any previous administration. Only to tell you, look at all the stuff they have done. How much of it is arguably unconstitutional? A lot.

If the constitution is irrelevant, then why don't we simply ignore it all together.

Once again, tell the Bush administration, or rather don't, they're already vastly ignoring it.

Jefferson was right in the respect that we should have re-written the constitution from scratch every 20 years or so.

Oh yeah, brilliant idea, I'd love to see Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush rewrite the constitution from scratch. "Oh wait, where did the Habeas Corpus go? And who merged the executive and the legislative branches together?"

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[c6gunner]

A bad cop would, absolutely. And I'd expect him to be held responsible for it, regardless of the type of force used.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[tacocat]

The ignorance lies in the ideas that in order to protect your privacy you have to take some action to physically disable the hardware (pull the fuse, pull the plug, whatever) when in fact you can have the unit disabled by OnStar thereby rendering is non-functional. The only difference is that you will still be able to place a very limited type of call from the vehicle (like when you hit a tree).

The other point of ignorance is that this features slams on the brakes. That's just dumb.

These are not social issues. But there continues to be a backlash against this information in terms of, "Of course you would say that, you work for them." Well, I can't do much about that so I'm going to just skip that one and leave it to the Marketing Department to decide how to handle that one.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[tacocat]

Abuse of power is always going to be a tug of war and it won't go away.

But in these specific cases of people claiming a big brother feature exists with OnStar and therefore OnStar must be evil they are missing the point that their phone is even more evil. For OnStar to be used in an evil manner someone used to require a warrant (not so much these days, thanks to the new KGB of America). But to track someone by their cell phone doesn't require any kind of warrant.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[tacocat]

Well, if the advertisements were not effective, they wouldn't be using them. Perhaps they are appealing to a different crowd. Typically the people who are more likely to respond to such Fear ads are older people or the suburban soccer mom types. So the ad doesn't appeal to you. Odds are, you aren't one to buy OnStar no matter what they say. Fact is, young single men are the last group to consider getting OnStar.

For them, it's as bad as asking for directions.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[bhtooefr]

Also, pickup trucks didn't get the 3rd brake light requirement until... I believe 1985.

(Cars got it in 1986.)

But, most states don't require that it be functional - just that all model year 1986 cars have it.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[Anonymous Coward]

...the implication being that it just slams on the brakes or kills the engine or both.

It does neither.

From what I gathered looking under the hood of a new Saturn Vue, the throttle control is electronically actuated. The pedal is simply connected to a potentiometer of whatever other goodie will give off a measurment for the ECU.

Makes implementing cruise control a LOT easier than the maze of vacuum hoses, canisters and cables of the original.

All Onstar would have to do is tell the ECU to do is ignore info from the gas pedal. Throttle closes, car comes to a nice, clean stop.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[apparently]

resisting arrest,assult,verbal abuse

Because if someone's being arrested without being told why, it's just totally silly, foolish, and insane for them to:
Resist said arrest
Pull away from said arrest, or in your words, "assault"
Or verbally shout at a cop who is abusing their authority.
Man, I really wish I could live in your world where everyone who signs up to be a cop is an A-class citizen, and even if they're not, their will should still be complied with, just because they're a cop.

When you believe that the orders of an authority figure should be complied with in silence, just because they're an authority figure, that rightfully earns you the rank of fascist, or at minimum, ignorant.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[FireFury03]

Can someone explain why this would be a bad thing?

Because sometimes it's better to accelerate out of a dangerous situation than brake. The last thing I want to happen while I'm overtaking with a lorry heading towards me is the car to decide that I'm breaking the speed limit and to cut the power. Speed limits are there to make the roads safer - enforcing them without regard for the current situation would make the roads much more dangerous (unfortunately, enforcing laws for the sake of enforcing them seems to be a common attitude these days - here in the UK we have more and more speed cameras and "traffic calming" measures despite the fact that in many situations these measures make the road more dangerous by promoting hard braking and requiring people to pull out into oncoming traffic).

This is very similar to a fly by wire system enforcing the flight envelope without access to all of the information - if it's a choice between hitting the ground or exceeding your flight envelope, you don't want the computer denying your choice to do the latter.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[pnewhook]

Or the thiefs steal only your registration marks, place them on another car and what happened if police chases them? It's YOUR car that stops moving, not the stolen car.

I doubt that would happen. Since OnStar also knows the make of your vehicle and where it is, if that information didn't match the information provided by the police then obviously they wouldn't shutdown the vehicle.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[dnoyeb]

Of course this will be government mandated before it ever hits the streets. This is how the automotive companies work. In order to avoid lawsuit, the auto companies get the government to mandate the feature. So if its used against you or harms you in some way, you can only sue the government for the fact that its there.

Yes airbags were done the same way.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[Ihlosi]

I doubt that would happen. Since OnStar also knows the make of your vehicle and where it is, if that information didn't match the information provided by the police then obviously they wouldn't shutdown the vehicle.

Oh, yeah. Right. Just like vice managers of fast food joints wouldn't strip-search one of their own employees when told to do so over the phone by a con artist posing as a cop. Right. It won't happen. Ever.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[pnewhook]

Oh, yeah. Right. Just like vice managers of fast food joints wouldn't strip-search one of their own employees when told to do so over the phone by a con artist posing as a cop. Right. It won't happen. Ever.

No it wouldn't because there is a check and balance in the system. The cops don't shutdown the vehicle - OnStar does. If the information provided doesn't match or they don't provide all the information required then the shutdown doesn't happen. With a properly setup check and balance the possibility of abuse drops to near zero.

And I'm not sure of the situation that you're describing, but it's not the same.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[Ihlosi]

The cops don't shutdown the vehicle - OnStar does.

You mean "the minimum wage drone at OnStar does", right ?. And he or she can probably be talked into doing anything the "cop" wants, if the latter appears convincing enough. Sometimes, it's truly amazing what you can get people to do if you're speaking from a position of authority ... or at least appear to be.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[plague3106]

Where is your evidence that the government doesn't continue pushing for more and more power? I've not seen it yet where they say, "well this is far enough, we shouldn't get this much involved in people's lives."

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[Jaysyn]

Looks like they hit her with the Tazer cause she couldn't stop writhing from the pepper spray.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[c_forq]

Why do you resort to name calling, profanity, and general trolling? You have an argument that you could actually argue here, but instead you refuse to engage counterpoints, call the dissenter names, and show way too much angst. I would think someone with such a low ID number would be more reasoned and a better example of Slashdot. From your posting in this thread I can only assume your mother was killed by a taser and your father was raped by one, making it impossible for you to have a controlled and cohesive discussion on the issue.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[pnewhook]

You mean "the minimum wage drone at OnStar does", right ?. And he or she can probably be talked into doing anything the "cop" wants, if the latter appears convincing enough.

That's why there are procedures, checklists, training and supervisors. And best of all a computer system that won't let it happen unless all the provided information is presented and correct.

Sometimes, it's truly amazing what you can get people to do if you're speaking from a position of authority ... or at least appear to be.

I would say that it is incredible how stupid and gullible some people can be. The manager who strip searched the employee for example. Can't decide who has the lower IQ - the manager or the employee. Geez. Makes you wish there was some sort of minimum intelligence and social aptitude requirements to breed.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[TooMuchToDo]

As I said, I performed the operation for someone, not myself. I'm well aware that without the OnStar unit, the GPS antenna isn't going to be operating.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[Mr. Slippery]

As long as it doesn't say they are NOT allowed to, then if the PEOPLE abide by it, they have the power.

No. Powers of the federal government are strictly limited to those given in the Constitution. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." It's right there in Amendment X.

Are you one of those people who thinks no rights exist except those specified in the Constitution?

No. Rights of citizens are not limited to those given in the Constitution. "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." It's right there in Amendment IX.

Really, read the damn thing. It's not hard.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[Anonymous Coward]

So my cell phone is going to shut down my vehicle? Or are you picking and chosing your strawm...opponents arguments?

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[toiletsalmon]

-why should 6 people risk a bite from someone who could have some diesease when they can be subdued without injury to the suspect or themselfs?
Because it's their JOB. They are Law Enforcement Officers. They VOLUNTEERED to deal with all the "nasty" people in society. Apparently, to a certain extent, they decided that they wanted to do that sort of thing on a daily basis.

-your problem, is that you don't think of cops as people with families etc.
They aren't "people with families". Again, they are an extension of the government. It's their job to sacrifice themselves to a certain extent for society. To serve and protect. What good is it to protect people only when there's no risk of being shot, smacked around, or bitten. If they aren't going to protect us when the going gets rough, then screw em. Send them all home, give me my tax money back and I'm going to buy some guns.

-they aren't drones impervious to harm,
Very true. Just like our military personnel, we should not "abuse" their protection in trivial ways.

-nor do they deserve to be put in harms way just because someone wants to be a dickbrain
Again, yes they do. It's their job.

-being a cop is just a job at the end of the day
Actually, no it's not. I'm not obligated to stop some old lady from being mugged. I'm not obligated to try to save someone who's drowning. I'm not even obligated to stop some guy from robbing a bank. In fact, I can usually grab a bag of popcorn and watch the show without getting into "trouble" (US law of course). Police officers ARE obligated to help people in those types of situations. And it's a 24 hour a day duty, so "at the end of the day", they are still obligated to serve and protect. 3AM. Lunch time. Even in the middle of taking a crap. Being a cop isn't a "job". It's playing a vital role in our society.

-and you have no right to expect them to put themselfs at more risk then nessacary, just because you think tasing looks cruel.
Again, I think you're wrong about that.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[BlackSnake112]

Do you mean the license plate(s)? Unless the stolen car is the same make/model/year/color as your car when they run the plates the police will know that they are following a different car.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[Anonymous Coward]

This has the possiblity of being government mandated, like so many safety and for your own protection ideals.

If you want this service, go for it, but stay out of my vehicle and my life!

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you overlook a main problem. If the police is on the tail of the thief, slowing his car down won't allow him to cause another accident ( police already cleared the back way ) or allow him to run off ( since they are at very close proximity with him)

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[mikeabbott420]

since the 1860's ? Because Jefferson and the rest would be appalled by the lack of slave wenches? Not every change is bad. I do agree abuses like using the Interstate Commerce Clause to persecute cannabis users are obscene and part of a pattern of self righteous freedom hating but there ain't no lost paradise in the misty past either.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[Anonymous Coward]

The fallacy is not the slippery slope, it's seeing a slippery slope where in reality there is just a small change to something.

Is that what you are suggesting here?

I believe this is a slippery slope, it is something that would allow a lot of power to law enforcement, it is something they have proven they will seek.

It can be a fallacy if there's no evidence that any escalation is taking place.

Not true. A physical slippery slope is what it is regardless of whether anyone is slipping on it. Are you arguing while tired or drunk? Me personally, I'm sick.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[Shakrai]

Whatever you think about tasers, I think we can all agree that at the very least non-lethal does not in any way imply non-painful. For non-violent confrontations, it's frequently in everyone's best interest to just keep it in its holster and try something else.

The worst part about the "don't tase me bro!" kid, IMHO, is that FOUR cops really should have been able to remove him without even needing to touch him. Cops are trained to be intimidating by nature. I've watched old-timers in law enforcement able to diffuse a nasty situation with a few words and the right body language. Are you telling me that four cops really couldn't handle one college student without using the taser (or pressure points, night-sticks, etc, etc)?

IMHO, the taser should be used as a replacement for deadly force, not as a new level of force used to compel people to do what the cops want. Recently our local cops shot and killed a mentally distributed individual who pulled a knife on them and refused to drop them. That sounds like the perfect scenario for a taser. Not some college kid that refuses to willingly leave a room. DRAG HIM OUT KICKING AND SCREAMING if you must, but I fail to see how a taser is justified in that scenario.

I work a mental health facility for seriously emotionally disturbed children and teenagers, some of whom are violent and bigger then a lot of the staff working here. And somehow we manage to control them and remain safe without using tasers, chemical restraints, or what have you.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[soft_guy]

In the late 1980s, before airbags were mandatory, the only cars that had them were very expensive. I think Mercedes had them in some models (and somehow I'm guessing the high end models), but the car I drove certainly didn't have airbags.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[Anonymous Coward]

You really can't get the local police to call in to OnStar to screw with these cars.

What about when the FBI used OnStar to monitor the conversation of suspected criminals, without a court order? I'd call that "screwing with these cars", and indication that OnStar has previous history of malfeasance.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[Cro Magnon]

If it was a gun, the stupid cop might not have been so quick to use it, since dead bodies are hard to explain.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[davidsyes]

Humourless clod. ALL the anti-or sour-vista commentary, and ALL the other articles out there that are ready in funny ways due to the eye movement, and you, you clod, display a DEARTH of humour. Pity.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[Cro Magnon]

It sure would have got less press.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[Anonamused Cow-herd]

As stupid as some people are, no cop would be that stupid. I'm sure he's aware that the camera on his cruiser is rolling the whole time, and there's absolutely no way he would have been able to justify shooting the "perp". That's exactly the thing -- tazers are supposed to replace guns in many situations. Instead, they have absolutely no relation to the utilization of guns; if a cop actually NEEDS to take you down, he's going to use a gun, not a tazer.

A tazer's more like a fun toy that they give cops and tell them that they're not lethal, so just go to freakin town. Imagine my scenario without a tazer -- the guy would have complied (albeit perhaps taking his hands down to the ground, and the cop would have just yelled a little bit. It might have taken a little longer, but it's not as if the cop was in any danger from the suspect.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[UbuntuDupe]

Of course a vice manager of a place is going to be trigger-happy about strip searches. Duh?

Assistant managers should show a little more restraint though.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[mosch]

The only thing you win is a dim and hopeless future in which the state is all-powerful.

The Nazis won too. For a while. I bet you would have got along great with them, you power-loving, abuse-loving little maggot.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[zen-theorist]

i dont get your drift here, but thanks for the sex tips!

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, and the only angst I feel when I read your posts is that I can't go back in time and unrape your awful mother, to keep you from joining this world.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[Jedi Alec]

I'm sorry, you consider verbal abuse to be a valid excuse for tasing? I work in a callcenter, if I had to go out and hit people everytime they resort to verbal abuse I'd never get any work done. Maybe callcenters need to hire rent-a-cops as well.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[Mr. Slippery]

You people screech about tasers being over used, but i'm yet to see a single video of a cop using a taser on someone who didn't deserve it.

Perhaps you've ignored the recent news stories about students being tasered for declining to cooperate with misbehaving cops. (The one guy was assaulted by cops for not showing a library employee an ID, the other assaulted for hogging the mic at a Q&A after a Kerry speech.) Or perhaps you're such an fan of authoritarian behavior that you thought those students "deserved" to be tortured.

But it's not the job of a cop to decide that a person "deserves" to be punished by being tortured with potentially fatal electrical shock. In a free society, it's the job of a cop to stop behavior that is a threat to the rights or safety of others, using the minimum force necessary.

There are good cops out there. Most are not outstanding but are competent in ordinary situations. But there are all too many bad ones.

Most are undereducated for better jobs. In 1967, the President's Commission on Law Enforcement and the Administration of Justice, recommended "that all police personnel with general enforcement powers have baccalaureate degrees," but very few forces have any requirement beyond a high school diploma. Less than five percent of large police forces require a four year degree.

(Of course, it's probably hard to find people who are educated, and yet will take a job where they are expected to put people in cages for drug possession, prostitution, and the like. Better laws would undoubtedly attract better candidates to enforce them.)

And most police are undertrained for the job they have. In some states only a few hundred hours of training are necessary.

Some are attracted by power rather than service. Many feel that they are entitled to mete out punishment (like the Baltimore cop who proudly told me how he punched a suspect who tried to run - not to subdue him, but "of course I popped him one for trying to get away.")

they aren't rounding up defensless fluffy bunnies you know. cops deal with people who would kill or maime them in the blink of an eye

Sometimes. Much more often they're arresting petty criminals guilty of non-violent drug crimes or minor property crimes. And often they're putting down political protest, whether that be one individual standing up for his rights or a group action.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[arminw]

......As for why so many of us don't want a police state... here's a quote from Ayn Rand:.......

Here is a quote from St Paul why the those who do good don't have to fear a police state. The Roman Government in power at the time Paul wrote this was not democratic or without corruption by any stretch of the imagination. Romans 13:1-10:

"Every person must be subject to the governing authorities, for no authority exists except by God's permission. The existing authorities have been established by God, so that whoever resists the authorities opposes what God has established, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. For the authorities are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you like to live without being afraid of the authorities? Then do what is right, and you will receive their approval. For they are God's servants working for your good. But if you do what is wrong, you should be afraid, for it is not without reason that they bear the sword. Indeed, they are God's servants to execute wrath on anyone who does wrong. Therefore, it is necessary for you to be subject, not only because of God's wrath but also because of your own conscience. This is also why you pay taxes. For rulers are God's servants faithfully devoting themselves to their work. Pay everyone whatever you owe them--taxes to whom taxes are due, tolls to whom tolls are due, fear to whom fear is due, honor to whom honor is due. Do not owe anyone anything--except to love one another. For the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. For the commandments, "You must not commit adultery; you must not murder; you must not steal; you must not covet," and every other commandment are summed up in this statement: "You must love your neighbor as yourself." Love never does anything that is harmful to its neighbor. Therefore, love is the fulfillment of the law."

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[AK Marc]

The only time airbags have even killed kids in baby seats is because the idiot driving thought it would be a good idea to put them in the front seat, which has always been a stupid idea.

When airbags were mandated, there were no warnings about rear-facing child seats in the front seats. They were also required in pickups, 2-seater sports cars, and such which all (or mostly?) have disable switches now for the passenger for times when someone other than a large unbelted male (what airbags were initially designed to protect) are riding there.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[AK Marc]

As to airbags, I spoke to that already in this post...airbags have saved far more lives than they have taken in narrow circumstances.

Belted females sitting behind first-generation airbags were more likely to die than in the same car without an airbag. If you consider being female a "narrow circumstance" then you are right. Airbags were deadly as mandated. They were designed to save unbelted large males, and weren't designed or properly tested regarding belted passengers and those outside the norm picked. It was a case of Joan Claybrook and Ralph Nader trying to protect people from themselves to the harm of those that did choose to protect themselves. They are better now, but when started, they were causing more harm to properly restrained people than help. And if you did pay attention to what they said, they touted the "air" of the airbag to imply they are soft, and they said they are fine for children (with no mention the infants would have a reasonably high chance of decapitation if in a rear-facing seat). This makes me think that Joan and Ralph didn't mind killing a few babies in order to force airbags down our throats. Yes, I just said Ralph Nader is a baby killer. If you feel that is an unfair characterization, please feel free to forward this to his lawyers. I'd love to be on the receiving end of that libel suit.

Your problem is that you think that just because it exists, it will automatically be abused, or just because air bags, shoulder belts, and center high mounted stop lamps have been mandated, this will also be.

I believe that it can be abused, not that it automatically will be. You can't prove it won't be abused, so people should be at least aware it could easily be abused. And name a single safety feature proven to work with a cost under $1.5 millon per life saved that hasn't been mandated. DRLs almost made it, but someone pointed out all the studies that showed they worked were only of places more further north than the US (Canada, Finland, and such) and studies in places south showed no difference. ABS was on the way too, until people pointed out that ABS resulted in more and worse crashes than vehicles without ABS. Even then, with ABS statistically "proven" to be unsafe, it was discussed as something that should be mandated anyway. Other than those, everything else brought before the NHTSA that I'm aware of *is* mandated. So, tell me what they've ever chosen to not mandate that they thought would save lives. Just one thing, it should be easy.

Oh, and the $1.5 million per life is what the federal government set as the price of a life. That is what they set for the cutoff (or did, the number could have changed since the last time I checked). And by the government's own standards, airbags are a complete failure. They cost much more per life saved than the federal goverment's standards, even using the most favorable numbers anyone has come up with for them. The same money, spent on helicopters for rural areas, would have saved more lives. So, per dollar spent, airbags are killing people by diverting dollars from many other proven safety measures. Airbags are not safe. Airbags don't make a statistically significant increase in safety of a belted occupant. Airbags cost more than the federal guidelines allow. If the money wasted on airbags were diverted to other avenues, more people would be alive now.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[Anonymous Coward]

Hacking OnStar is going to be about as easy has hacking SSH using a public private key authentication system. Good luck. Step one: acquire the key.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[xnebox]

As long as its not illegal to completely disable these devices I wouldn't have a problem with it in my car, but its a very slippery slope as you alluded to with the seatbelt. The government could simply make it illegal to disable such a system, and next thing you know police are using it to disable cars with offensive bumper stickers (say a darwin fish in the southern USA? chevy loyal cops disabling fords? or just giving a cop an eye he doesnt like). Of course cops would not get away with this. If they could, they would do it now. Most people do stop when the flashing lights come out. The reason that would never happen is the same reason that it doesn't happen now. Cops like their jobs and don't want to pay you for the rest of their lives for something stupid like that because you will sue them into submission. I personally think most cops are good. Some are evil, and if they are already evil. Bottom line is, if anyone, cop or civilian begins to believe they are above the law, then bad things happen.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[Damvan]

"Every person must be subject to the governing authorities, for no authority exists except by God's permission."

So we are to obey all authority because they were put in authority by God?

"For they are God's servants working for your good."

And all authority are God's servants and are working for good?

Interesting, but I am sure you will find millions of people throughout history that will disagree with that statement.

God put Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot in power, they were God's servants and always worked for good? I guess all those millions they killed were bad people.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[BobMcD]

Research the Reconstruction a bit. The argument presented in the GP is basically that our Federalist system we currently have is a result of the Civil War.

To grasp that, you'll want to replace the word 'slave' with something less emotionally charged. Yes, the Civil War was the 'War to Free the Slaves', but that is at least a little bit of propaganda at work. The Civil War was what happens when you let democracy take its course. The majority of voters in the Confederate States wanted to choose for themselves whether or not [doing immoral thing x] was acceptable. Under the plain-old Constitution of the US the Northern States really didn't have the power to dictate how the other states handled intra-state affairs. Only affairs between states were covered, theoretically. When the South couldn't vote its way out of the problem, they left the Union. Then 300,000 lives were spent settling whether or not the South had the right to choose its own laws (whatever immoral things those may entail). Turns out, they don't.

And that's what set us on the path we're on today.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[PalmKiller]

Or perhaps the police would abuse the system. For ... for what exactly? Cops...well the ones I know would use it for the ultimate booty call. Fine blond drives by, he hits the disable button and then drives by and says...what seems to be the trouble ma'am. Then he talks her out of a little and "fixes" her car and sends her on her way.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[Anonymous Coward]

"In any case, you often need to guide her down that slippery slope..."

Actually, they're usually so fat that they have to guide me down the, um, slippery slope.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[Anonymous Coward]

WHEN it changed? I suppose when FDR put His People into the Supreme Court so that the "Commerce Clause" could be used to justify rampant expansion of the federal government. The 10th amendment is null and void today.

There are some who claim that the federal government's limitless expansion began with Lincoln, however.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[rs79]

Simon Higgs reports:

"Someone should be reporting the number that are already installed and in
use.

There was a car chase in LA about a week ago that left the LA city
limits and was headed north on the 14 freeway (to Lancaster/Palmdale)
after a liquor store robbery. The local TV station(s) covering the chase
went to a commercial break and when they came back the car had
mysteriously stopped on the freeway and the occupants were on the ground
being handcuffed.

The news chopper pilot just commented that the driver had stopped the
car on the freeway for no apparent reason. Even after the chase was
over, none of the stations aired footage of the car actually stopping."

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[Damvan]

Ok, you are the same guy who posted a quote from the Bible to justify the actions of our "authority" figures, and now you are posting that a person who wasn't wearing a helmet doesn't deserve medical treatment because it would raise your hospital bills.

You are getting your Christianity all mixed up. What happened to "love your neighbor"?

What would Jesus do?

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[dangitman]

when in fact you can have the unit disabled by OnStar thereby rendering is non-functional.

But the question is - what happens if (when) the government makes these units mandatory, and makes it illegal to disable them? I think everyone here is aware that they can be disabled today, but what about the future?

The other point of ignorance is that this features slams on the brakes. That's just dumb.

That is dumb. Who said that? I read most of this story's comments, and didn't see a single post claiming it would do that.

These are not social issues.

The part about disabling the unit is a social issue. It's not going to be an engineer who decides whether to make these systems mandatory, it will be a politician.

But there continues to be a backlash against this information in terms of, "Of course you would say that, you work for them."

Again, misrepresenting what I said, and what you said. When I said that your word was not worth any more because you worked for them - you were not providing any more technical information, nor addressing those points. You were making an illogical claim that because abuse has not happened before, it won't happen in the future - and you were calling people paranoid dweebs just for having concerns over the security and safety of the system.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[arminw]

.....I guess all those millions they killed were bad people......

Probably our humans standards we would consider many of them, if not most of them innocent. St. Paul himself was executed by the Roman Government. However he and other writers of the Bible tell us that it isn't our human standards that apply, but God's justice standard of absolute perfection and holiness.

By that standard we come up short -- missing the mark. That's what the translated word "sin" means in Greek. One of its uses back in Paul's day was in archery, where the arrow completely missed the target, not just a little off.

As Creator, God has the right to govern His creation. He has the right to make physical and moral laws by which it operates and by which He may justly judge violators. He has the right to say that anyone who tells one lie, murders, covets, commits adultery, etc. is committing cosmic treason against His lawful government of the universe and decree the penalty of physical death now and eternal death finally, for such treason. We have this right over the things we make. A writer has every right to toss his manuscript into the fire.

The reason that you and I and billions of us are still allowed to breathe His air and walk upon His planet, is because of His GRACE. We are so used to this grace and mercy, that we have begun to feel we are deserving of them and have a right to live here.

You and I along with every other human that ever breathed, will one day appear before God for judgment. At that time, only justice will be available. Right now though, we may ask for mercy and forgiveness in the name of Jesus and it will be granted, now and forever. I have chosen mercy, how about you?

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[arminw]

.....person who wasn't wearing a helmet doesn't deserve medical treatment because it would raise your hospital bills......

Of course such a person should have the best treatment available regardless of cost. However, as a payer of the bill (taxpayer) I have a right to demand that people should be forced to minimize the possible cost in case there is an accident. A helmet, in the motorcycle case and seat-belts in cars have been shown to reduce death and injury and hence cost.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[shilly]

Armin, if this is how your God behaves, then I say to you frankly, if he exists, he's a twat. There's no other word for it. This being has omnipotence, creates in the foreknowledge that we're going to fail against his standards and then judges us as having failed and punishes us? If a human did that, we'd call them an evil twat, and the same goes for your God too. It's not graceful behaviour, it's graceless behaviour. It's setting the hamsters running in the cage and it's just plain mean.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[Anonymous Coward]

1. use dickhead as an umbrella term to cover the various types of behavour i've seen in tasing video's. since you seem to lack the faculties to comphrend this i'll make a short list - resisting arrest,assult,verbal abuse.

Tasering is justified for verbal abuse? You might as well just sign up for the Nazi party right now, you fascist fuck.

DIAGF.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[mosch]

You lose at life, you fascist fuck.

You think people should get TASERED because of "verbal abuse".

That would possibly be the largest, stupidest and easiest to abuse expansion of government power in history if that was actually legal (instead of just being sadly common.)

Some idiots always think that big government is the answer to anything. Fuck you for that, you fascist idiot.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[operagost]

Oh, great. Yet another profession where we have to put ourselves in debt for 5-10 years and waste time in garbage classes being indoctrinated by leftist professors using overpriced, error-laden textbooks. Cops don't make enough to put themselves through that. Oops-- I guess that means we'll have to pay them more. Up go the taxes. And we still get tasered by more expensive police officers because no one is taught civics in any kind of educational institution, anyway.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[arminw]

........creates in the foreknowledge that we're going to fail against his standards and then judges us as having failed and punishes us? ........

He knew all along that we would fail to measure up to His standard of perfection. Yet to be just, the results for such failure had to be exacted. God is not a liar, like we. He said in the beginning; "The day you eat thereof you die." He could not violate his own word. It was truly a divine dilemma, be just yet also merciful. He knew that the debt was too much for anyone to pay, so He paid it Himself.

He who exists in eternity, entered time, became a man, who DID measure up to God's standard of perfection. His human name is Jesus. He took the penalty that you and I deserve. This way God could be just, yet not overlook sin, kind of sweep it under the cosmic carpet, but actually get rid of it forever.

If you got yourself impossibly deeply into debt, would you accept and be grateful if someone with means graciously offered to pay this debt? Your requirements are simply to accept, be thankful and endeavor to have a strong desire to remain out of debt in the future.

It is a very humbling thing to admit total failure and ask for help. There is something in our human nature that makes this one of the hardest things to do, especially toward God. God tells us He resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble. It is not mean of God to tell us to put away our pride and humbly come to Him, so that He may forgive us, not on the basis of merit, but on mercy extended by grace.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[jimicus]

With a properly setup check and balance

That's one huge assumption right there.

Both the OnStar operator and the computer they're controlling have no idea what the situation is on the ground. And a rogue cop who's just split up with someone whose car had OnStar fitted (similar example was used earlier) would easily have access to all the information needed to get the car shut down.

Off the top of my head, the closest you could get to a check and balance would be some sort of authorisation code which needs to be enabled by at least two people - but that sort of idea probably won't be implemented because of the time delay it would add in what could be an emergency situation if a car is being driven recklessly.

More likely it would boil down to one person in OnStar's service centre's judgement. And how reliable do you think that judgement is going to be when there's a cop screaming at them to stop the damn car?

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[pnewhook]

Both the OnStar operator and the computer they're controlling have no idea what the situation is on the ground. And a rogue cop who's just split up with someone whose car had OnStar fitted (similar example was used earlier) would easily have access to all the information needed to get the car shut down.

There's a possibility of abuse with every system. However the possibility of saving lives with this type of system greatly outweighs the possibility of abuse. Whats more common - a rogue cop trying to kill a girlfriend, or criminals strealing cars and killing innocent people on the highway? I think the latter is far far more common.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[Mr. Slippery]

Yet another profession where we have to put ourselves in debt for 5-10 years

The cost of a college education is a significant, but separate, problem.

being indoctrinated by leftist professors

Educated people tend to be more liberal, yes. Given that the conservative movement in America has aligned itself with people who want to teach religious myths in biology classes, and believe in economic theories in which natural resources are unlimited, this is not a surprise.

I guess that means we'll have to pay them more. Up go the taxes. And we still get tasered by more expensive police officers because no one is taught civics in any kind of educational institution, anyway.

Yes, we should pay cops (and teachers, and fire fighters) more. Quality costs.

If we also improve the laws they're enforcing such that we're no longer jamming the prisons full of non-violent drug offenders, we'll save enough that taxes can go down. (Or they could, if we weren't so deep into debt thanks to borrow-and-spend Republicans that taxes will be high for generations just to keep paying the interest.)

I'm sorry that you didn't have civics in any of your schooling. I certainly did; "Constitution, Citizenship, and Political Issues" was mandatory in high school, and elements came up again in college classes in criminal justice, economics, and even theater.

But more to the point, college-educated cops have been shown to have fewer disciplinary problems, incur fewer complaints, and use force less often.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[jafac]

Don't worry.

This will all be so much more fun when GM and AT&T are owned by the Chinese thanks to our massive Federal Budget and Trade deficits. (crypto's only as strong as its key, right?)

Warrantless Wiretapping?
Your car controlled remotely?
By ChiComs?

Not a single shot will be fired.

And it was the Voodoo economics faction of the Republican Party that made it happen! Woo hoo!

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[toddestan]

Allowing a software failure to cascade to the engine is just stupid.

What rock have you been living under? Virtually every car sold in the US in the past 25 years has a computer controlled engine.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[tacocat]

No, actually I've been reading the engineering literature. Even if it is GM there are reasons why they want to have the unit disabled such that you can't call back, eavesdrop, or anything else. It's a dead brick.

Tell you what. Why don't you get an OnStar unit, have it disabled by OnStar, and see for yourself if there is any way to communicate over the air to that unit.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[UbuntuDupe]

Yes, but did they allow a software failure to cascade to the engine? Have there been recalls because of software that causes the engine to e.g. decrease the fuel mix when it's not supposed to?

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[toddestan]

Yes, but did they allow a software failure to cascade to the engine? Have there been recalls because of software that causes the engine to e.g. decrease the fuel mix when it's not supposed to?

It's happened to the Prius, which sounds actually a lot like what is happening with the On-Star system. Overall it seems that engines computers are pretty solid, as it seems that most common computer glitches tend to not kill the car, but rather just mess with the emissions systems or turn on the idiot lights on the dashboard rather than killing the engine.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Yeah, I'd rather get a subaru. Don't think they do Onstar

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[Anonymous Coward]

aww. Baby has no response to the peoples who were mean to him.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Fuck you. Perhaps you should stop and think before you start condescending to me. I happen to be acquainted with the guy, certainly more so than you, and I can tell you he's very well read, and he wouldn't be so stupidly arrogant as to assume he knew a person from the phrase "health-conscious".

He lived next door to the place with the asbestos. The walls filter nothing. The same place has gotten fumigated twice, and it apparently reeked over there, as if the fumigation was happening over at his house. He would have gotten the air-born particles floating around in his house from the demolition, which are harmful. Plus the guy was wheeling it out, piled high, on a windy day, so it would have been air-born outside too. There are protocols for this thing, and this builder wasn't breaking them to champion a world without health and safety restrictions, he was being an uncaring tight-arse. Tell me what the fuck is wrong with complaining about a guy like that?

Fucking mod only gave you mod points because health-consciousness is seen as irrational on slashdot for some reason, which of course makes it heresy, and in being heresy, you can be an enormous arrogant, ignorant prick in your comment, so long as you laugh at the strawman stereotype.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[ConceptJunkie]

Read the Federalist Papers... they don't make much sense if there's no right to secede.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[KKlaus]

You're right, and really their big mistake was that they escalated the situation, rather than controlling it. Controlling the situation would have meant either no force, or they just all grab him and carry him out. None of this zap him once... then again, then maybe a few more times, then stand around while he cries... I mean come on.

But you're obviously aware of how the situation turns out differently when professionals handle it.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[shilly]

I've read it once, I've read it twice, and I'm still inescapably drawn to the conclusion....it's gibberish.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[NDPTAL85]

Damn right I am. What you and many others fail to realize is that if you don't occassionaly use exciteable language than The poor caps lock button WON'T GET ANY USE. Perhaps if you had a bone of sensitivity in your body you'd realize that the other keys of the keyboard shouldn't get all the time in the limelight.

Nice to meet you.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[Anonymous Coward]

Ha. Looks like the big pussy got turned into a deafmute.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[Shakrai]

But you're obviously aware of how the situation turns out differently when professionals handle it.

Well, again, where I work, the objective is to calm the situation WITHOUT having to use force. We are all trained in various take-downs and physical restraints (even the non direct-care people such as myself). But it's considered a failure if you have to use one of them.

Granted, it's a different story if you are dealing with somebody high on PCPs. I wouldn't even blink if the cops pulled out the taser in that scenario. But one punk college kid? They should have been able to bring that situation to a resolution without having to use weapons.

Glad I own a Toyota!

[Anonymous Coward]

Glad I own a Toyota! No bullshit remote turn-off doohickies

Re:Glad I own a Toyota!

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

RFID in your tires?

http://www.rfidjournal.com/article/view/269/1/1

http://www.rfid-weblog.com/50226711/goodyear_implements_rfid_in_tires.php

Yeah. That's to PROTECT the consumer... Yo' ass is tracked!

Re:Glad I own a Toyota!

[ackthpt]

I have a 1986 Volvo. Not that I'm worried about someone shutting it down, but if a thief did steal it they'd have to figure out how to get it started.

Car personality == security

Re:Glad I own a Toyota!

[LurkerXXX]

According to your middle link, the reading distance is 24 inches. If they are 2 feet from our car they can read the freaking vin number by your windshield if they want to. Put away the tin foil hat.

Re:Glad I own a Toyota!

[RpiMatty]

Paranoid?

If you want to track a car there are better ways than an rfid tag in the tires.
The whole point of putting rfid tags into tires is to improve accountability/tracking thru the manufacturing process. With rfid (or barcode) tracking someone could scan a tire and figure out exactly where/when it was built, cured, and get the final test results. Barcodes are currently used in many goodyear plants, however rfid would be better because the exact placement of the rfid tag would be less sensitive than the barcode label.

Re:Glad I own a Toyota!

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

Embedded in the pavement.

This is My Tin-foil Hat.
There are many like it, but this one is mine.

Re:Glad I own a Toyota!

[AaronW]

As I understand it, the RFID is used for a pressure sensor to detect if a tire is very low and to give a warning to the driver. Each wheel has a unique ID, presumably in case you park really close to another Toyota.

Re:Glad I own a Toyota!

[LurkerXXX]

Well, tires wear out. Just pay for your new ones with cash so "the man" can't track your every move.

Re:Glad I own a Toyota!

[SAABMaven]

Me too (a SAAB, of course, of the same vintage). Wouldn't want anything newer... too much dependence on junk technology. People are starving, still stuck on only one planet, but engineers design GPS units so that SUV drivers should never have to learn to read a map.

Obligatory Comment

[Anonymous Coward]

In Soviet Russia, car hacks you!

Re:Obligatory Comment

[Anonymous Coward]

In Soviet Russia, Obligatory Comment posts you!

Great...

[CaptainPatent]

Now along with hardened thugs, we'll have half of the /. community hijacking cars!

Duh!

[morari]

Whoever thought that giving corporations not only the exact location of your vehicle at any given time, but also complete control over it was a good idea?! I'm going to go ahead and point my finger at the yuppies...

Re:Duh!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm going to go ahead and point my finger at the yuppies...

Yuppies?? Welcome, strange traveller from 1987

Re:Duh!

[ScrewMaster]

No, the Yuppy subspecies is alive and well, I'm afraid. I'm surrounded by them in my subdivision, although, to be fair, most of them seem to be DINKs with topheavy mortgages and even bigger SUVs.

The American Dream in action, sort of. Well, not really I guess.

Re:Duh!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm going to go ahead and point my finger at the yuppies...

Yuppies?? Welcome, strange traveller from 1987

Yup. I'll see you two yuppies and raise you four yuppie puppies.

Call.

Another reason

[Anonymous Coward]

Another reason ill never sell my El Camino.

Re:Another reason

[veganboyjosh]

Another reason ill never sell my El Camino.

What was the first?

Re:Another reason

[Mike Buddha]

What was the first? Gran Torino

California History

[Anonymous Coward]

We had a state rep here in CA named Mike Honda who proposed mandating a similar system for all cars here in CA 7 or 8 years ago. The privacy implications are horrendous. The idea never took root but he was rewarded by being elected to the US House.

Now I know I can bank on the stupidity of the american people - we are embracing the invasion of our privacy as a service.

all hope is lost.

Re:California History

[mh1997]

Now I know I can bank on the stupidity of the american people - we are embracing the invasion of our privacy as a service.

Not just in cars, 3 weeks ago I recieved a change in policy letter from Verizon for my cell phone. It said if I do nothing, they will be able to improve my service by tracking my location and selling that info to 3rd parties. If I wanted to opt out and risk not helping to improve the Verizon cell phone network, then I had to call a number.

How many people receive the same kind of letters everyday and either don't read them or fall for the increased service at the expense of privacy crap.

Re:California History

[Anonymous Coward]

Well of course "Mike Honda" would make a proposal that makes GM cars look bad.

Re:California History

[Doogie5526]

I called the number and they said I had some "special circumstance" and had to do something else to opt out (write a letter or call some call center during a designated time). It's not even easy to opt out =(

Re:California History

[cyberjock1980]

You want to RISK not helping them! Oh my god no!!!!!!!

Re:California History

[rhizome]

Well then how about canceling your service? Surely you can figure out a way to get their attention.

Re:California History

[Night Goat]

Wait, that was MIKE Honda? I thought I was voting for E. Honda!

Re:California History

[forand]

You mean by paying them the early termination fee? Yeah that will show them I will give them 175 USD and they will cower in terror.

Re:California History

[Doogie5526]

Odd thing is that I had canceled my service about a month earlier. I called to opt out because I saw "releasing my personal information to third parties to help improve my service" mentioned in the update.

My guess is, since I have could opt out, my contract wouldn't have been altered--so I may not be able to get out of contract. What also sucks is even though my service was canceled, they still have my information, and their contract and terms are likely still applicable.

Re:California History

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, that's not a cell phone, that's a tracking collar. =)

Re:California History

[rastoboy29]

No!  All hope is not lost!

Your problem is that you think all the problems we face are new.  They are merely new aspects of the same old problems that have caused civilizations to rise and fall through the ages.

So, quit yer bitching and start fighting.  There is a place in the world for rational people like you, and that is how you will fight, with your mind.

Re:California History

[Anonymous Coward]

Now I know I can bank on the stupidity of the american people - we are embracing the invasion of our privacy as a service.

Fortunately, this is on GM cars, and nobody buys those.

Interesting,

[Descalzo]

But what I want to know is this:

Is there any way for me to use the OnStar in my wife's van for anything else? There's gotta be a hack for this stuff.

Re:Interesting,

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, But only in the older onstar units. Is a mod to reuse the gps signal. I'd love to see an interface built for some plug and play fun. The onstar computer has access to the whole car I'd like to just hand that access over to a fpga or small via box that I control.

Re:Interesting,

[TooMuchToDo]

Build an interface to the CANbus system onboard, and you have a fair amount of control over the vehicle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controller_Area_Network

I've worked on controllers to interface to CANbus systems on Toyota hybrid vehicles, to increase the total range using an additional battery pack. It's amazing some of the things you can do once tied into CANbus.

Re:Interesting,

[flyingfsck]

Hmm, consider that most satellites are just 'bent pipes' in that they simply transpond whatever gets to them and sends it back down again, then it should be quite feasible for you to put a dish in your backyard and intercept your wife's van signals...

Slippery Slope

[nurb432]

I remember being told 'that will never take place, we are a passive monitoring service' early on when i asked about 'can you shut my car down remtotely'.

Next step is discounts on car insurance if you have one. Then you get penalized by higher rates, then it just becomes required by law, ' for your protection' of course.

Anyone remember how the seat belt laws did the same thing? "They are for your safety".. " cant build a car without one".. "you gotta wear one or you violate the law"..."well, we can only charge you if we stop you for something else nad notice it".. Now they have roadblocks..

Re:Slippery Slope

[Dzimas]

*Anyone remember how the seat belt laws did the same thing? "They are for your safety".. " cant build a car without one".. "you gotta wear one or you violate the law"..."well, we can only charge you if we stop you for something else nad notice it".. Now they have roadblocks*

Huh?? People rocket around at a mile a minute in fragile little tin roller skates. When two roller skates run into each other, the contents tend to get badly shaken up. Without seat belts, you're far more likely to be ejected or impact the steering column with your face. I acknowledge your right to freedom, but at the same time I have no wish to fund your care while you spend 30 years fading to black in a vegetative state because your brain got scrambled in a relatively minor accident.

br>That said, OnStar shouldn't be in a position to disable a stolen vehicle while its rolling because they cannot assess the potential for injury to others. There's no reason they can't simply disable a stolen vehicle while its stationary and pass on its location to the police.

Re:Slippery Slope

[Eternal Annoyance]

While you might get some injury from a seatbelt, it certainly beats getting killed by a frontal crash at 120 KPH (whether you cause it or not). Seat belts were eventually required by law because manufacturers found it too expensive to put them in cars, well, the law fixed that.

This system is something completely different. It is wide open for abuse (where seat belts are not) but its intentions are well meant (a thief is stopped by simply turning off the car)... but people are bound to figure out how this works and stop legitimate flight attempts. And how about abuse of this by law enforcement departments (I understand the US justice system is fairly rotten)?

Re:Slippery Slope

[PitaBred]

Yeah. I love when my tax dollars go to scraping retards off the road and exceptionally expensive emergency service calls because they didn't wear their seatbelts, magnifying injuries and cost of response, as well as more delays to everyone else on the road as investigations need to be extended.

We either need to either require seatbelts or make emergency services check to make sure you can pay for it before they scrape you off the pavement and take you to a hospital. Which one do you choose? Oh, never mind... you're one of those "magic invisible hand will fix everything!" types.

Re:Slippery Slope

[Vellmont]

I acknowledge your right to freedom, but at the same time I have no wish to fund your care while you spend 30 years fading to black in a vegetative state because your brain got scrambled in a relatively minor accident.


Then you'd agree that we should ban skydiving, rock climbing, bull riding, car racing, and anything else you might have to "fund your care for 30 years".

What makes you think people having health care gives you the right to start controlling what they do, simply because you also pay for health care? Not wearing a seatbelt is pretty dumb, or at best self destructive. But why don't people have the right to be dumb or self destructive?

Re:Slippery Slope

[Attila Dimedici]

While you might get some injury from a seatbelt, it certainly beats getting killed by a frontal crash at 120 KPH (whether you cause it or not). Seat belts were eventually required by law because manufacturers found it too expensive to put them in cars, well, the law fixed that.

The law didn't "fix" anything. The law didn't make it cheaper to put seat belts in cars, it just made it so that you could no longer buy a less expensive car without one. The law raised the prices of cars. When they had a choice, many people were not willing to pay the extra price for the additional safety that seat belts provide. Air bags are worse. When the law mandating airbags was passed, airbags decreased your odds of being killed in a car accident, but increased your odds of being crippled for the rest of your life (many of those people whose lives were saved by airbags, suffered lasting injury instead). So the best excuse for mandating seat belts "I don't want to have to take care of you because you didn't wear a seatbelt" didn't apply to airbags. Airbags, at that time, actually increased the likelihood that society would need to foot the bill for your care going forward after an accident.

Re:Slippery Slope

[uniquename72]

We either need to either require seatbelts or make emergency services check... I take it this is also a call to make motorcycles illegal, then? Or do I just not deserve emergency medical attention because some asshat runs a stop sign in front of me, and I end up hitting him?

Oh, never mind... you're one of those "pussies who blindly does what you're told and everyone who behaves differently deserves nothing."

Let me guess, you also think McDonald's should be illegal because they make people fat, thereby raising your insurance rates?

Re:Slippery Slope

[This_Is_My_Happening]

But why don't people have the right to be dumb or self destructive? You answered your own question already. People don't have the right to be dumb and self destructive when the cost of those actions is shared by everyone (or anyone) else. If you want to act dumb and self destuctive, do so in a way that is a cost only to you.

For example, go buy a speed boat and play chicken with iceburgs in international waters - you won't hear much complaining then. But roads were paid for and are maintained by everyone's tax money; no single person has the right to abuse them (on the other hand if you want to bomb around your farm without a seatbelt and stay off the roads, that's fine with most people too).

Re:Slippery Slope

[ivan256]

Without seat belts, you're far more likely to be ejected or impact the steering column with your face. I acknowledge your right to freedom, but at the same time I have no wish to fund your care while you spend 30 years fading to black in a vegetative state because your brain got scrambled in a relatively minor accident.

That's a really really terrible argument for seat belt laws, and a really really excellent argument against universal health care.

Caused yourself expensive injuries by violating traffic laws? Insurance claim rejected. Plug pulled. Problem solved.

Re:Slippery Slope

[ivan256]

You answered your own question already. People don't have the right to be dumb and self destructive when the cost of those actions is shared by everyone (or anyone) else. If you want to act dumb and self destuctive, do so in a way that is a cost only to you.

It seems then, that in a free society the solution shouldn't be to ban said behaviors, but to eliminate the entitlement to the services which "cost" in those situations.

The parent poster asked you:

"What makes you think people having health care gives you the right to start controlling what they do, simply because you also pay for health care?" ...and your answer is essentially "yes, I have the right because I pay for their health care"?

I can't think of a nice way to say this: "Fuck you. I don't want you to tell me what to do. I'd rather you take your universal health care and shove it up your ass. That way I get to keep my freedom."

Re:Slippery Slope

[garett_spencley]

People screw over other people, whether knowingly or unknowingly, all the time. You can cost someone far more money than you would ever pay out of your tax dollars to support a coma patient simply by getting into a car accident and causing a traffic jam while he's on his way to a job interview.

The minute you start to use "I don't want to support your stupidity" as an argument you are supporting restricting the freedoms of others solely for your convenience. And then all kinds of ethical and philosophical questions come in to play, mainly "where do we draw the line?"

Not to mention the fact that you probably spend WAY more out of your tax dollars to support government ad campaigns to educate people on wearing their seat-belts and police programs designed to arrest and ticket motorists than you ever would supporting the health care of people injuring themselves due to not wearing their belts. Plus, seat-belts save lives, they don't prevent injuries. Think about all the people who would have died vs. those that are now in critical condition because they chose to wear their seat-belt. The "my money is too important to me to support your idiocy" argument is a complete fallacy.

In my opinion the government does not own me and simply has absolutely no right to tell me what I can or can not do with my body. If I feel like risking my ass driving without a seatbelt that is my risk to take.

BTW - I ALWAYS wear my seatbelt. I just don't like being told that I have to. I'm an adult and can make my own choices.

Re:Slippery Slope

[nurb432]

Personally i have always worn them, even before it was law. It is the right thing to do.

But, it should be MY choice.

Re:Slippery Slope

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a really really terrible argument for seat belt laws, and a really really excellent argument against universal health care.

Caused yourself expensive injuries by violating traffic laws? Insurance claim rejected. Plug pulled. Problem solved.

Speak for yourself. I think that's excellent. Arsefaces who injure themselves and others due to their own negligence deserve what they get.

Re:Slippery Slope

[gl12]

Then let's get the government out of healthcare, so you won't have to.

Re:Slippery Slope

[fyrewulff]

This is what I don't get. Nobody is "telling" you to wear a seatbelt. It's just logical.

You are going 35mph (the speed limit around here on main streets), suddenly something happens and the driver slams on the brakes.

Two things happen.

1) You stop because your face hits the dashboard/windshield/seat in front of you. You suffer broken bones, a concussion, or worse, break your neck.

2) You stop because as you start going forward, the seatbelt becomes taught and stops you from going more than one foot.

I was in this situation last month, because somebody decided it would be a good idea to suddenly jump out in front of the minivan I was riding in. The cars never impacted or anything, but if I hadn't had a seatbelt on I would have easily broken a rib/nose/arm. Instead, I just got an adrenaline rush that subsided after a few minutes.

Re:Slippery Slope

[GrahamCox]

Anyone remember how the seat belt laws did the same thing? "They are for your safety".. " cant build a car without one".. "you gotta wear one or you violate the law"

People who think their freedoms are being somehow violated by being required to wear seatbelts are barmy. Feel free to exercise your freedom - and thereby do us all a favour by removing your stupid genes from the gene pool.

Re:Slippery Slope

[Dzimas]

This has nothing to do with universal health care, because you're the one footing the bill in both private and public systems. Seatbelt laws were passed to save lives. I'm too young to remember the pre-belt days, but I'm sure there were millions of supposedly intelligent people who didn't like the inconvenience of buckling up and chose to "use their arms" to hold themselves out of harm's way in an accident. Dumb.

Re:Slippery Slope

[This_Is_My_Happening]

Public roads are shared by all drivers. To use them, you must adhere to conditions that the majority of people (or their representatives) agree on. These conditions exist to make the roads a better place for all. The same situation exists for most services and commodities that have been paid for with everyone's tax money. You no more have the "right" to act recklessly on public roads than I have the "right" to dig up the water main passing near my property with a backhoe. I sacrificed my freedom to indiscriminately use a backhoe when I decided to settle down in a city full of amenities instead of in the arctic tundra (for example).

If you feel your freedom is abridged because you are not allowed to act recklessly while driving, then you still have the freedom to not drive. Can't because you need to drive to work and there's no public transit? You have to freedom to move or quit your job and get something closer. Freedom doesnt mean everything gets to be the way you want - in a society we compromise.

That said, if you want to abandon modern society and go live alone in the middle of nowhere, build your own roads, sewage, water and power services, then you can have all the "freedom" to act dumb that you could ever want. But if you want to share anything with the rest of society, be prepared to live by societies (admittedly sometimes arbitrary) rules. It's the cost of doing business, so to speak.

Re:Slippery Slope

[vux984]

Then you'd agree that we should ban skydiving, rock climbing, bull riding, car racing, and anything else you might have to "fund your care for 30 years".

Most of those activities have safety guidelines to minimize the incidence and the extent of injuries.
The last time I took my car on the track I had to have the vehicle inspected, wear the seatbelt, and a helmet too.

As well as sit through a short refresher on track safety, track signals, and an overview of the track itself including a discussion of the various corners and how to take them, and the fact that one of the straightaways that did double duty as a drag-strip tended to be oilier than the rest of the track.

Next factor in that there are no 'intersections', and that if an accident does occur anywhere, the rest of the vehicles are immediately signaled to alert them of the unsafe conditions ahead, and/or signalled to stop or slow down and not attempt passing as needed.

Next factor in that emergency crews are on hand, and spotters line the track.

Finally, if anyone drives in an unsafe manner they are immediately flagged down and removed, warned, and likely suspended from re-entering.

Overall, I'd say its far *safer* than driving on the street, despite the higher speeds.

Not wearing a seatbelt is pretty dumb, or at best self destructive. But why don't people have the right to be dumb or self destructive?

Good question.

As long as you are being covered by insurance it is reasonable to require you to take *reasonable* steps to mitigate health and safety risks.

Frankly, I'm willing to allow people to be outright self destructive if they can demonstrate an ability to pay for any consequences [and go off the insurance by putting some millions into escrow instead], and they can demonstrate that they are of sound mind going into it.

The first criteria is because I don't think we the public, or even we the other people paying insurance premiums should subsidize your *deliberate* stupidity. But I don't want to create a position where we let you die while you beg for help because you've gone 'off insurance' and now can't pay.

The second criteria is there because I don't want to enable people who aren't thinking straight to do suicidal stuff. (Going a bit on-tangent, I am pro euthanasia, and right to die, but temper it with a belief that most people shouldn't *want* to die or injure themselves, and that if they do it is right to try and help get people through it. But if they are in constant unbearable pain, and just want out, by all means, they should have the right.

That said, how many people really qualify on both criteria? I suspect if there were actually enough of them to matter, they could get a law passed to allow them to do what they want. I for one wouldn't stand in their way *IF* they could pay, and *IF* they weren't of unsound mind.

Re:Slippery Slope

[cyberjock1980]

If the vehicle was stationary why would you care about disabling it? Just tell the cops where it is and they can drive over and get it!

Re:Slippery Slope

[Dzimas]

Should it also be your choice whether you choose to buckle in your children? How about someone else's child? That's where things start to get ethically difficult. The notion behind legislating public safety is that it is for the greater good. To that end, we have democratically elected officials who draft laws intended to protect the public as a whole.

Re:Slippery Slope

[Jherek Carnelian]

To use them, you must adhere to conditions that the majority of people (or their representatives) agree on. These conditions exist to make the roads a better place for all. Quit being such a tool. Whether someone else wears a seat belt has absolutely nothing to do with "making the roads a better place."

You don't "respect" the OP's freedom one bit.

Re:Slippery Slope

[Anonymous Coward]

People who think their freedoms are being somehow violated by being required to wear seatbelts are barmy. Feel free to exercise your freedom - and thereby do us all a favour by removing your stupid genes from the gene pool. Except that if such person sits behind you in the car when it comes to a sudden stop, that person could slam against the back of your head and break your neck. So really, I wouldn't recommend anyone to "excercise their freedom" in this case.

Re:Slippery Slope

[Anonymous Coward]

"I acknowledge your right to freedom, but at the same time I have no wish to fund your care while you spend 30 years fading to black in a vegetative state because your brain got scrambled in a relatively minor accident."

And if we had universal healthcare in this country, that argument might begin to make some sense.

Re:Slippery Slope

[sabt-pestnu]

> I have no wish to fund your care while you spend 30 years fading to black in a vegetative state because your brain got scrambled in a relatively minor accident.

You might consider: you aren't doing the funding. The insurance company is. Or, more likely, isn't, if it's quite so catastrophic as all that. Discounting, of course, the possibility of death instead of injury.

Another argument used by the "pro-motorcycle helmet lobby" is "think of the poor emergency room workers", and "think of the poor employers and their insurance bills".

There is something to be said for personal responsibility here, and for the freedom to make that informed choice.

Re:Slippery Slope

[This_Is_My_Happening]

Quit being such a tool. No need to be insulting.

Whether someone else wears a seat belt has absolutely nothing to do with "making the roads a better place." I disagree. I feel safer on a road where everyone is wearing their seat belts. But regardless, I said "conditions", plural. The "better place" part applies more aptly to laws about speed limits, or signaling, or against me randomly shooting at people who cut me off, etc. All of these are conditions we agree to when driving on public roads. Keep in mind I did say that some of socities rules are arbitrary - seat belt laws may fall into this clasification for you, but apparently not the majority.

You don't "respect" the OP's freedom one bit. I respect his/her freedom exactly up until the point at which his/her actions affect me. At that point my freedom starts being degraded. Like I said, we all compromise. It's a balance, and usually not a delicate one, but it's the best we have.

Re:Slippery Slope

[FleaPlus]

Most of those activities have safety guidelines to minimize the incidence and the extent of injuries.

Guidelines, yes, but for the most part not laws.

Re:Slippery Slope

[G Fab]

Wearing a seatbelt does not make you safer to other cars on the road.

You already know that your argument is ludicrous. You were arguing that seatbelts make hospitals less expensive and crowded, not that they make roads safer.

It's none of your business whether I eat a big man in my car or not, even though it wille ventually harm me. Same applies to seatbelts. The laws that demand it are not justice, but oppression, even if it's a very minor oppression that actually helps people.

I don't have a real problem with the seatbelt laws, but your argument is stupid.

Re:Slippery Slope

[mcsqueak]

Seat belts are just a good thing all around. I have no problem with them being mandatory. To be fair, I was in a roll-over car wreck where I believe that wearing a seat belt was the only thing that saved my life. It was a roll-over wreck on a freeway bridge, and the car rolled over about 2 to 3 times before being stopped on it's side by the guard rail. The back bench seat had popped out of the frame, and the guard rail left a 1 or 2 foot deep dent that ran the entire length of the passenger side of the roof. Basically, if anyone else was in the car they would have been really messed up/dead.

Lucky for me, the driver area sustained almost no damage and because I had my seatbelt on I remained locked down while the car turned end over end. I was able to unhook myself and climb out of the back of the car. I went to the hospital and besides some soreness and a bunch of tiny broken bits of glass that were embedded in my scalp, I was fine. The car, however, was not. It was a 1983 Toyota Carolla hatchback and by the look of it after the wreck, would never, ever drive again.

At any rate, I'll go without the OnStar tracking systems and the like, but seat belts and additional tail lights are all good in my book.

Re:Slippery Slope

[mr_stinky_britches]

No, the parent is right on the money mate. Calling you a tool isn't an insult, it's just stating the facts. You really are a pathetic little shit of a tool.

I wouldn't be surprised if you're related to Rick Santorum.

Re:Slippery Slope

[dangitman]

But why don't people have the right to be dumb or self destructive?

It's not a matter of being self-destructive. If not wearing a seatbelt only affected the non-seatbelt-wearer, then that would be fine. But an unrestrained person in an accident becomes a projectile, and can kill and injure other people when they get thrown.

Re:Slippery Slope

[This_Is_My_Happening]

You were arguing that seatbelts make hospitals less expensive and crowded No I wasn't; could you be confusing my replies with the OP? My arguement was always that to use something for which the cost is shared by society (in this case roads), you have to obey the rules that the majority agree upon.

As a matter of record, I agree with the point of Ivan256 above, namely:

that in a free society the solution shouldn't be to ban said behaviors, but to eliminate the entitlement to the services which "cost" in those situations. However, modern societies are so interdependent that I believe such a solution to be impossible - we will always be sharing the cost for one thing or another as long as we live in groups. And as long as we share the cost on a service or on infrastructure, we will to have to compromise on how it can be used.

Re:Slippery Slope

[ivan256]

This has nothing to do with universal health care, because you're the one footing the bill in both private and public systems.

That's because stupidity riders on insurance policies are illegal.

It's not your job to save the lives of people who don't want your help.

Re:Slippery Slope

[vux984]

Guidelines, yes, but for the most part not laws.

1) In the case of skydiving, the FAA regulates the activity. That's more than 'guidelines'. And the helmet requirement is not a 'suggestion'.

In the case of racing, the various 'guidelines' while not enforced as 'laws' they are still strictly enforced. You drive unsafe on a track and you'll be removed from that track immediately.

2) Pretty much *Everybody* travels by car as driver or passenger. So it impacts pretty much everybody. On top of that there were 6.28 million -police reported- crashes in the US in 1999... one every 5 seconds, so accidents happen a LOT.

It should be no surprise that there is an entire section of the government devoted to operating motor vehicles on the road.

And if we as a society decided en mass to all go rock climbing every day you should pretty much expect to see an extensive body of law written around that too.

Re:Slippery Slope

[stoicfaux]

Anyone remember how the seat belt laws did the same thing? "They are for your safety"..

And they're there for other people's safety. If you're not behind the wheel, then you're not in control of your car, which is dangerous to everyone else around you. So for moderate to minor accidents, you won't get bounced out of your seat, lose control and make the accident worse.

Re:Slippery Slope

[Dzimas]

So we should just let 5-year-olds wander into traffic? ;) Excellent.

Re:Slippery Slope

[jackbird]

It's none of your business whether I eat a big man in my car or not, even though it wille ventually harm me.

Not necessarily, if you use condoms and/or are monogamous/choosy.

Re:Slippery Slope

[Penguinoflight]

Bah, a real man would refuse to wear his seatbelt out of principle.

Re:Slippery Slope

[Anonymous Coward]

You're a troll dude, but I'll bite in order to make a point: even if it was the truth, it's still an insult when it comes from someone you don't deeply trust.

Re:Slippery Slope

[Anonymous Coward]

Personally, I don't like the prospect of a little kid getting traumatized because they saw my head split open after I flew through the windshield. Hell, I'm in my 20s, and I'm not sure how I would handle seeing a gruesome scene like that.

So, to reduce the chances of someone else getting traumatized by viewing a horrible accident that happened in a public place, I protect myself. If it is on your own property, you can do whatever you want. On public roads, your accident isn't just a monetary problem for everyone else. It might be psychological too.

Re:Slippery Slope

[porpnorber]

What makes you think people having health care gives you the right to start controlling what they do, simply because you also pay for health care? Not wearing a seatbelt is pretty dumb, or at best self destructive. But why don't people have the right to be dumb or self destructive?

Actually, the analysis of this is pretty subtle. It's to do with the fact that we have partial but not uniform or total socialism. If we had a system that did not make use of legacy structures (such as employers and the family) in order to assure public welfare, but just gave people an adequate level of support by right, then people could arguably go ahead and maim or kill themselves without burdening others; we might still want to levy idiot taxes on people with damaging but survivable hobbies like skydiving or living below sea level, assuming we indeed plan to patch up their boo-boos, but in principle, people's behaviour becomes their own business - it's just a question of the particular insurance model. Similarly, at the other end of the spectrum, when we decide we are pure libertarians and society makes no quality of life guarantees for its citizens, you can be free to kill yourself, because now we don't give a damn about you or your friends, coworkers, family, and you can mess with their lives as you see fit.

But where, as now, there's a half-assed system that coerces family and employers into looking after spouses and children, then responsible behaviour becomes a mandatable requirement, first because you yourself are an agent of the social welfare mechanism (and it is largely on those grounds that the state invests in you, to the extent that it does) and second because others, also clients of the state, are coerced into providing welfare, locally, differentially, and non-uniformly to you.

Sure, some people are radically unattached and this argument doesn't really apply to them, but various social forces (including an inadequate separation of church and state) have led to such people being marginalised as targets of policy; at a completely different level they are seen as not living their lives properly - they should settle down, get married, and, yes, assume their proper burden as components in the half-assed, decentralised, fundamentally amateur, welfare system.

In short: there is a serious imbalance in the notion that people have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness without providing a direct mechanism to create the circumstances necessary to attain and maintain them. It results, indirectly, in responsibilities that seem asymmetric and incommensurate with these rights.

(And if I can preempt those who are about to start flaming me as a communist, no, none of what I've just said is incompatible with market economics. It's all down to providing a stable virtual social environment in which the market can operate. Operating system design principles can be applied to politics, too.)

Re:Slippery Slope

[G Fab]

golly, that was quite a damn typo, 'eh? /parkinsons=typos

Re:Slippery Slope

[KKlaus]

You really don't see the difference? First off, in a bottom line utilitarian sort of sense, the things you listed don't injure nearly enough people for society to get in a fuss about it. Contrast that with the huge number of people that get killed and injured in auto accidents, and I think it may be obvious why society cares about one and not the other. But a better reason is that some risks just seem more reasonable than others. Yes, people get hurt climbing large rocks, but at least it's enjoyable enough that it seems like an OK trade. Sky diving is also a lot safer than you (apparently) think.

But the difference to me is that letting people make obviously bad, harmful decisions is not somehow a virtue. We all know that no one needs a nanny state that can't abide by the thought of anyone getting a scraped knee, but seriously, where is the sense in allowing stupid people to throw away their lives for nothing? We know that it's a much better idea to wear a belt - its not inconvenient or uncomfortable, and its much, much safer. So tell me, where is the good in ignoring that?

And by the way, its not like there aren't regulations surrounding sky diving, because people DID decide that some risks were reasonable and some were not. If you're asking why it hasn't been banned, well, neither has driving. WE JUST REQUIRE PEOPLE TO PUT ON A BELT.

Re:Slippery Slope

[KKlaus]

>>If I feel like risking my ass driving without a seatbelt that is my risk to take.

And if the people with all the guns and dogs think that its the right idea for you not to, I guess they can do that to.

Re:Slippery Slope

[Nefarious Wheel]

2) Pretty much *Everybody* travels by car as driver or passenger

With the rest, presumably, as freight.

Re:Slippery Slope

[FleaPlus]

1) In the case of skydiving, the FAA regulates the activity. That's more than 'guidelines'. And the helmet requirement is not a 'suggestion'.

Like I said, mostly, although in my opinion if somebody seriously wants to jump out of an airplane without a helmet, they should be allowed to.

In the case of racing, the various 'guidelines' while not enforced as 'laws' they are still strictly enforced. You drive unsafe on a track and you'll be removed from that track immediately.

My point exactly.

Re:Slippery Slope

[martinX]

That's an interesting and thoughtful argument.

I never thought I'd read an interesting and thoughtful argument from someone whose nick is Porpnorber. What does that even mean?

Re:Slippery Slope

[yaman666]

And insurance companies get money out of thin air? Or do employers decide to decrease "their" paycheck instead of yours to cover the increasing insurance costs? It is YOU who is doing the funding in the long run.

Re:Slippery Slope

[rastoboy29]

There's no reason they can't simply disable a stolen vehicle while its stationary and pass on its location to the police.

Very wise.

Re:Slippery Slope

[Anonymous Coward]

lol. "where does it stop!". Its a seat belt. It's pretty bloody obvious that it stops with the seat belt.

They tell you to wear it so you don't die.

Put it this way; you don't just wear a seat-belt to protect yourself, you wear a seat-belt to protect the sanity of the people who slam their brakes on in front of you, before you die due to your lack of seat-belt.

It isn't *always* about the driver, speed limits aren't but they are obvious. Seat belts make *everyone* happier (less deaths = happier), and *everyone* safer.

Re:Slippery Slope

[gwbennett]

That defeats the purpose. I work for the police department where I live (I am not a cop) and I can tell you the object is not to recover the stolen auto. Police don't care about getting back your stolen car. They care about cuffing the person that stole it. And perhaps that's not such a bad thing.

Re:Slippery Slope

[forgotten_my_nick]

Forget about funding his care. I have no wish to have some moron launch through his windscreen and kill me in the event of a collision.

Re:Slippery Slope

[porpnorber]

Thanks - I do, in fact, usually try to be coherent.

Porpnorber is a gibberish word that was once bandied about on alt.stupidity (gibbering is a hobby of mine, of sorts). I use it as a nick here and there simply because it is (to me) memorable (remembering logins is a great trial for me) and it can be used as a more or less rigid pseudonym even in these latter days when (a) going by one's true name no longer seems wise and (b) everything sensible is highly contended. Perhaps not the wisest choice if I want to be taken seriously, but at least it's not, say, XXXm0r0n696969....

Re:Slippery Slope

[Ihlosi]

Then you'd agree that we should ban skydiving, rock climbing, bull riding, car racing, and anything else you might have to "fund your care for 30 years".

So what's the ratio of number of accidents during the activities mentioned above to car accidents ? It's a number with a zero in front of and quite a lot of zeros behind the decimal point. Millions of people drive cars every day.

Also, "cost of care" is only a minor argument - the major argument is availability of emergency services. Wouldn't you be really pissed if you bled to death after an accident, or died after a heart attack, just because the ambulances were to busy trying to haul in all the dumbasses who "just wanted to be dumb and self-destructive" ? Guess what, they've just succeeded in destroying _you_ with their stupidity, because paramedics can't make the decision to leave the "dumb and self-destructive" guy to die and go pick up the person who's done everything right and just had some bad luck.

Re:Slippery Slope

[Knetzar]

And we should pass a law requiring some sort of safety equipment when jumping out of a plane.

Re:Slippery Slope

[Random832]

The "better place" part applies more aptly to laws about speed limits, or signaling, or against me randomly shooting at people who cut me off, etc. While the "randomly" is an issue, I'm not sure the road wouldn't be a better place without the laws preventing you from randomly shooting at people who cut you off. Kind of like how there weren't any more really big wars after the most powerful countries (and France) all got nukes.

Re:Slippery Slope

[Anonymous Coward]

At the tender age of 16, LeAnn Paynes-Miller was riding in her car, sober, with her seatbelt on. A car containing a passenger WITHOUT A SEATBELT ON crossed the double yellow line coming the other way, and hit her head on. His body became a projectile flying at ONLY 45 miles an hour, out of their windshield, into hers, killing her instantly. The police said if he had been wearing his seatbelt, LeAnn would have lived. She was a singer, and a good student, with a kind boyfriend. She liked to roller skate, and to draw. She was loved by many people. She always wore her seatbelt. So please, pretty please with sugar on top, will everybody who thinks that seatbelts are only for your own safety please wake up and smell reality? This isn't a question of rights, or freedom...it's a simple matter of physics.

Re:Slippery Slope

[Anonymous Coward]

What makes you think people having health care gives you the right to start controlling what they do, simply because you also pay for health care? Not wearing a seatbelt is pretty dumb, or at best self destructive. But why don't people have the right to be dumb or self destructive?

My take on this is: sure, you're allowed to be dumb and self-destructive. And if I cause an accident in traffic, I'm responsible for you injuries. But if you're not wearing a seatbelt, I want to be only responsible for your injuries up to the amount I would if you WHERE wearing a seatbelt. Your stupidity is your problem, not mine.

Re:Slippery Slope

[Muad'Dave]

It's none of your business whether I eat a big man in my car or not...

Freudian slip, dude? Perhaps you meant 'Big Mac'.

Re:Slippery Slope

[Dzimas]

We do have universal health care in my country, along with OnStar. And even if we didn't, someone has to foot the bill for private health care. That someone will always be you, either indirectly through your employer or from your own pocket.

Re:Slippery Slope

[Hoi Polloi]

Then you'd agree that we should ban skydiving, rock climbing, bull riding, car racing, and anything else you might have to "fund your care for 30 years". When all of those activities become necessary to survive in our car based society and their numbers become similar to the number of drivers then you'll have a point, otherwise it is a straw man argument.

Re:Slippery Slope

[Hoi Polloi]

Speaking of rock climbing. If you read the accident reports the majority of accidents tend to involve people misusing or not using standard safety equipment. There are loads of people not using helmets and getting hit by loose rock, rappelling off the ends of ropes, etc. Those accidents are the equivalent of careless driving or not wearing a seatbelt not unavoidable risks.

Re:Slippery Slope

[Anonymous Coward]

It is hard to take anyone who says "Booth Was A Patriot" seriously.

Re:Slippery Slope

[looper_man]

It's none of your business whether I eat a big man in my car or not To each their own...

Re:Slippery Slope

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you Ivan. If it could exist in a vacuum, I would be all for socialism. But on this planet as soon as people share your costs, they assume they have the right to tell you how to live.

Re:Slippery Slope

[KlomDark]

You ate a big man in your car? Impressive!

Re:Slippery Slope

[srleffler]

One point that seems to be missing in this discussion is that driving is not a right. You're free to do whatever you want in general, but if you want to drive your car on publicly-owned roads you require a license from the state. That license comes with terms and conditions, among them that you be properly trained and tested and that you operate the vehicle in accordance with the law. That law includes the requirement to wear a seat belt. If you don't like the terms of the license, you are free to not choose to be licensed and to simply not drive. Your choice.

Note that in most states passengers found to be not wearing a seatbelt are not fined. The driver is fined, for operating the vehicle while a passenger was not properly secured. The state has no right to tell you what to do with your body, but they certainly do have a right to tell you how you may drive your car (on publicly-owned roads).

Re:Slippery Slope

[xnebox]

Considering that no one has a right to drive on a public road. It is a privilege afforded by the government, then I say the one who doles out the privilege can mandate it's use in any way they choose. If you play on my yard, you'd better not tear up the grass, even if you use your own toys. And you can't be stabbing yourself with your own toys in my backyard either. I'll make you leave. Now, as far as I know, there is no law that prohibits driving a car without a seatbelt on your own land, or driving without a permit, etc. You can be a stupid as you want on your own road, but not on the governments' road. I think it's great that those who use my money to build the roads we all use makes being stupid on the road more difficult.

Re:Slippery Slope

[Anonymous Coward]

ahh the appeal to emotion... a weak argument if ever there was one.

A friend of mine was killed by a motorcyclist... lets ban motorcycles
Another friend of mine fell off a ladder & was paralyzed for life... lets ban ladders.
What about all those people who died on 911? lets ban air travel

The moral of the story? Life is hard, bad things happen to good people, wear a helmet 24hrs a day or get over it.

Re:Slippery Slope

[Huge_UID]

You can make your own choice on this matter. Wear your seatbelt or get a ticket and pay the fine. Do you mind being told you can't drive while wearing earplugs (in California)?

Re:Slippery Slope

[L0rdJedi]

Then you'd agree that we should ban skydiving, rock climbing, bull riding, car racing, and anything else you might have to "fund your care for 30 years".

You seem to be forgetting that people who do those things tend to take a lot more precautions before starting such activities than Joe Blow moron who gets into his car and doesn't put on his belt. The skydiver has a backup rip cord, the mountain climber uses ropes and hooks to make sure that if he falls, the rope keeps him from hitting the ground. The bull rider, while not wearing very much protective wear, has rodeo clowns around to get the bulls attention so he doesn't get trampled when he's knocked off. People that race cars professionally are strapped into the car with 3 or 4 point harnesses, helmets, and fire retardent outfits.

If everyone took the same precautions as those professionals do, we wouldn't need seatbelt laws and we wouldn't have to worry nearly as much about people leaching off public healthcare because they were to stupid to keep themselves safe.

By the way, I agree that we shouldn't have seatbelt laws. However, I'm not about to compare stupid people that don't buckle up to guys that race cars for a living and use every safety measure available to them so that when their car gets into a pile up, they aren't killed. We shouldn't have seatbelt laws and we shouldn't have any public health care in that case.

Re:Slippery Slope

[toddestan]

Wearing a seatbelt does not make you safer to other cars on the road.

Actually, they do for drivers. With the seatbelt, the driver is more likely to remain behind the wheel of a vehicle (and hence better able to control the vehicle) in the case of an accident/spin/whatever. I really don't see why a passenger should have to wear a seatbelt though.

Re:Slippery Slope

[Trogre]

Perhaps you might see it if the passenger was sitting behind you.

They might be the last thing to go through your mind...

Re:Slippery Slope

[Ihlosi]

With the seatbelt, the driver is more likely to remain behind the wheel of a vehicle (and hence better able to control the vehicle) in the case of an accident/spin/whatever.

With a seatbeld, everyone in the care is much more likely to actually stay inside the car during an accident and not become a projectile (whole or in parts) while being ejected from the vehicle.

I really don't see why a passenger should have to wear a seatbelt though.

The above goes for anyone inside the car. Don't see why there should be a difference between the driver and the passengers.

Re:Slippery Slope

[oO Peeping Tom Oo]

Unsecured passengers can fly around a carriage, smacking into people who cared enough to buckle up. People don't have the right to be dumb when it has the potential to seriously harm others.

Re:Slippery Slope

[martinX]

That's amazing! Gibbering is a hobby of mine, too! But my wife doesn't understand why I need to drink so much beer to indulge in my hobby.

Wiretapping vis Onstar works well too...

[Zymergy]

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=FBI+Wiretaps+via+Onstar&btnG=Google+Search
I am wondering if the electronics that are used to operate the Onstar system can be disabled without the car being rendered useless?
(as in pull the fuse)
Perhaps aftermarket companies will sell Onstar "Tinfoil Hats" to cover up the transceiver antennas on the Onstar systems to give the consumer a choice in if they want to use the system or not.

Re:Wiretapping vis Onstar works well too...

[merreborn]

I am wondering if the electronics that are used to operate the Onstar system can be disabled without the car being rendered useless?
(as in pull the fuse)
Perhaps aftermarket companies will sell Onstar "Tinfoil Hats" to cover up the transceiver antennas on the Onstar systems to give the consumer a choice in if they want to use the system or not.

Of course, if you can disable the engine-kill feature... Then so can a thief, rendering the system ineffective.

And of course, you don't want onstar, until you're in an emergency situation -- e.g. you've locked your keys in the car or your car's been stolen. But of course, it's too late to remove your "Tinfoil Hat" then...

It'd really make more sense to make onstar hardware installation optional, rather than wasting resources installing it in every car, and having a subset of buyers "disable" it after the fact.

Re:Wiretapping vis Onstar works well too...

[jshackney]

It'd really make more sense to make onstar hardware installation optional, rather than wasting resources installing it in every car, and having a subset of buyers "disable" it after the fact.

However, overall, I'd imagine that it's less expensive to install the unit in every vehicle they can regardless of whether or not it's being used. Some sort of economy of scale there. Also, maybe, just someday, someone might get a bug up their @55 and say "Hey, I wonder what this On* thing is about anyway." They subscribe, and a new customer is born.

Re:Wiretapping vis Onstar works well too...

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Oh, how did I ever get on without onstar, woe is me! Waitaminnit - I don't have onstar, and I'm just peachy.

running from the cops

[jammindice]

ok i could see how this would be eternally useful if someone STOLE your car, but what if your just cruising and don't feel like stopping for said officer? (not saying i've done it, or recommending it) could they use it against you? probably... i wouldn't ever need onstar.... i'd rather use my cellphone to call about information or directions, or holy shit maybe plan ahead for a trip... and i keep a coathanger in the bed of my truck for those unfortunate incidents where i've become so forgetful as to leave my keys in the truck... and this stuff just goes too far, it's all about lazyness... or the american way whatever you want to call it...

People are going to PAY for these cars

[damburger]

Its all well and good complaining that our government/corporate masters are tightening their control over their lives - but they couldn't do that without the cooperation of the masses.

There is no point directing your anger at opportunistic invasions of privacy. Direct your anger at the sheeple happily gambolling into the slaughterhouse. They are the ones that provide said opportunities.

Re:People are going to PAY for these cars

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder if they're going to call it Trusted Motoring like Trusted Computing and DRM...

War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength.

Re:People are going to PAY for these cars

[Anonymous Coward]

>There is no point directing your anger at opportunistic invasions of privacy. Direct your anger at the sheeple
>happily gambolling into the slaughterhouse. They are the ones that provide said opportunities.

I won't buy a GM, never will because they were the FIRST to implement blackboxes that recorded the vehicle's speed.

Secondly, I will simply not use OnStar and neatly cut the wires connecting the hardware to the engine, regardless whether or not this is illegal (if you are concerned about that, then simply stop invading my privacy) This is practically no different than automated traffic enforcement. I simply will not participate when it comes to having automated technology used against me as a means of control by the authorities.

GM should work on building running cars first!

[Anonymous Coward]

I think most GM product would die regardless...

Forget thieves, think teenagers!

[PIPBoy3000]

I imagine some parents would be thrilled about installing something like this in the car of their teenagers. "Come back by 10 pm or I'll shut off the car."

On a more serious note, not all tracking systems are inherently bad. There's an interesting story about a teenager whose parents installed a GPS tracking system into his car. Now he's going to court as the GPS record shows he wasn't speeding, unlike the police officer who wrote him a ticket.

Re:Forget thieves, think teenagers!

[Anonymous Coward]

The issue here, from a privacy point of view, is that you want absolute control over that data. If it proves your innocence you want to use it. If it shows your guilt you want it subject to your rights under the Fifth. Remember, a warrant gives the bad guys the right to search but not a guarantee that they will find.

Re:Forget thieves, think teenagers!

[pclminion]

I imagine some parents would be thrilled about installing something like this in the car of their teenagers. "Come back by 10 pm or I'll shut off the car."

Yeah, brilliant fucking plan there, Einstein. You DON'T KNOW WHERE YOUR CHILD IS. He could be on his way home on the freeway when his car suddenly shuts off, he collides with something and dies. Or he could be in the worst part of town, and you've just STRANDED him there. God, I hope you don't have kids.

Re:Forget thieves, think teenagers!

[tempest69]

That's why you use the GPS function first. Plus they arent stranded, just slow as sin..

Re:Forget thieves, think teenagers!

[pclminion]

That's why you use the GPS function first. Plus they arent stranded, just slow as sin..

Calling him on the phone isn't an option? By stranding him what are you accomplishing? You want him home so... You make it impossible for him to get home?

Re:Forget thieves, think teenagers!

[TooMuchToDo]

If OnStar can turn the car off, they can also provide the GPS location to the parent in realtime, perhaps thourgh a web interface (updating every X seconds with latest position) for a nominal fee.

Re:Forget thieves, think teenagers!

[Anonymous Coward]

Who said anything about getting him home ? I'd just be pissed the asshole didn't return my car when he was told to. The kid gets what he deserves. Shut off the car and call a tow truck giving them the GPS coordinates. Strand the kid and maybe some gang will beat some sense into him. Bet he'll not make that mistake ever again.

Parents are far too lenient with their kids these days. Especially considering the kids have the upper hand with technology (usually). It's time for us to take it back and show the kids who's boss.

I fully support the development of any technologies that enable parents to remotely shove their foot up their children's asses. Kids these days are in need of tough love and giving them cars only makes it easier for them to avoid it.

Re:Forget thieves, think teenagers!

[davidsyes]

"Now he's going to court as the GPS record shows he wasn't speeding, unlike the police officer who wrote him a ticket."

Now *THAT* is the cool part. THAT also is probably the UNSPOKEN reason the police WANT (read DEMAND) this be enabled by default. It enables them to know WHICH cars and drivers they can f*ck with with near impunity. Had the falsely ticketed kid pre-warned the cops he had OnStar, they might have just cracked his tail light and written him a fix-it ticket.

I wish *I* had had an OnStar like system back in '90 when two rogue CHP officers accused me of speeding when they saw my car weaving down 101, southbound, near Moffett Field south of Embarcadero Expressway. There were cars (maybe 5 of them) about 2 miles ahead of me, OPENING in distance, closing in on Lawrence Expressway or already beyond. There were cars BEHIND me, CLOSING distance, about 1 mile behind me. there were NO cars abreast of nor in any proximity to me to be hit within 1 minute (assuming I would slow down gradually to enable those behind me to hit me, or if I were to speed up to hit those well ahead of me).

Now, let me interject here: I do NOT harbor anti-cop feelings, except the 1% or 2% that's dirty AND allowed to interact with the non-criminal population in the public. I like uniforms, some models of cop cars, flashing lights, and hard-core weapons (but I own NO firearms, and haven't discharged one in a range in maybe 10 years), and find MOST cops with whom I've interacted to be nice, congenial and so on.

Now, to continue....

I'd leaned over to adjust the heating louvers to keep my friend and his wife warm, and the changed angle between me and the steering wheel causes my gripping hand to allow the car to drift more than I'd anticipated. But, I did NOT weave appreciably (not enough to BE or LOOK like a DUI driver) NOR cross over any Botts dots. I'd stayed completely in my lane, but must have gotten their attention nevertheless. They closed in, turned on the "take-down" lights, and I warned my friends we were being pulled over, to check their seat belts, and to NOT be looking around (yeh, I know about "furtive movements" getting people into more trouble with cops than they bargain for).

The elder CHP officer had a rookie with him, and must have wanted to give him some experience writing a ticket.

They gave me a field sobriety test. I told them I was not drunk, that I had ONE drink that night (I think I had one, or none), and it was more than 3 hours earlier, maybe 10PM or so) and that we had left the Edge only about 8 minutes or that earlier. I passed the FST, of course, and then they must've had enough of me (I offered to recite the US mil general orders, and other stuff), so the rook said, "I'm going to cite you for speeding..."

"WHAT???!!!" Speeding. HOW was I speeding? You paced me, at under 55, on a clear, dry, uncongested road. You and that pack of cars behind me were CLOSING, and that 5 or 6 ahead were OPENING. If ANY body is speeding, it's that pack ahead of us, long gone..."

They weren't having any of it. I told them to the side of my car, at the right rocker panel and look at the damage. I told them I KNOW the CVC handbook states that damage over $500 MUST be reported to DMV. I had NOT done so. I was in clear violation of a vehicle code that they COULD happily write, and have stick against me. But, no, NOT another ticket. I'd had had too many moving violations already, and any more would have possibly lead to revocation of my license.

They continued to write the ticket, and I became furious as hell. THOSE are the kind of uniformed personnel you Jet-Li-style take down and cuff to their cars. So I ripped off from my car an antenna I'd installed (to replace the original that was torn off by drunkards at another club), and hurled it to the ground. I was right, and they were WRONG! That I threw tantrums could have gotten my ass shot, but they KNEW they were wrong, had written a bogus ticket, and incited my rage. So, of course, they didn't want any unjustified shooting

Re:Forget thieves, think teenagers!

[pclminion]

If OnStar can turn the car off, they can also provide the GPS location to the parent in realtime, perhaps thourgh a web interface (updating every X seconds with latest position) for a nominal fee.

So you'll only strand your kid in "safe" locations? I had no idea you could determine the safety of a location based on its GPS coordinates. Do you have some kind of formula that does this?

Also, how is disabling you kid's vehicle going to get him home on time?

Re:Forget thieves, think teenagers!

[pclminion]

Who said anything about getting him home ? I'd just be pissed the asshole didn't return my car when he was told to. The kid gets what he deserves. Shut off the car and call a tow truck giving them the GPS coordinates. Strand the kid and maybe some gang will beat some sense into him. Bet he'll not make that mistake ever again.

You are a moron as well as an asshole. Why have children if you are just going to be sadistic with them? I can't seriously believe any parent would want their kid beat up by a gang because he was a few minutes past his curfew. You are one sick fuck.

Parents are far too lenient with their kids these days. Especially considering the kids have the upper hand with technology (usually). It's time for us to take it back and show the kids who's boss.

How about not letting the kid take the car again and docking him one month's car payment? Too obvious? Not cruel enough? I'm sure you were a perfect fucking angel as a child.

I have a sneaking suspicion I'm being trolled, though.

Re:Forget thieves, think teenagers!

[spinlight]

I have actually seriously considered this before. The first time was almost a year ago when I was channel surfing and came across one of those reality cop shows. It was a typical traffic stop unfolding, and the shot was being filmed from the state trooper's "dashboard cam". The officer walks up to the driver's side window, mumbles some gibberish, which is politely subtitled as standard traffic-stop, "can I see your license" stuff. Then, the officer suddenly takesa step back, pulls out his gun and starts yelling at this guy through the window! I was like, "What the hell?". Then the narrator pops in explaining that the officer noticed the guy reach under the seat, "Like he was reaching for a weapon." It turned out that the guy was trying to push a bag of dope farther back under the seat.

A rather long story only to bring me to the question which I asked myself, "Why do the troopers record traffic stops?" The answer: Evidence. The videotape serves as evidence to back up the officer's story. I then became curious about the availability of said video if it worked against the officer. Then I took it one step further an asked, "why don't I make my own recording of myself in my car?"

Imagine if you were capturing video from your own "dashboard cam" when you got in an accident. IANAL, but that might go both ways. I suppose that your dashboard cam could be subpoenaed. But, it might help you out with your insurance claim. Same with GPS monitoring of oneself and video/audio recording yourself during a traffic stop. I wonder how a court case would go if it came down to my "dashboard video" vs. an officer's dashboard cam. Or the officer's radar gun vs. the defendant's GPS.

It's interesting that GPS/video evidence trumps a real, live, human being's testimony any day of the week.

Re:Forget thieves, think teenagers!

[Fulcrum of Evil]

If you need this stuff to deal with your driving age kid, you have failed as a parent.

Re:Forget thieves, think teenagers!

[Penguinoflight]

Not bad, a cop getting busted for fabricating evidence. Too bad you have to spend thousands to catch your own.

Re: Forget thieves, think teenagers!

[Anonymous Coward]

If you need this stuff to deal with your driving age kid, you have failed as a parent.

How so?

It seems you have the thought in your head that if a child isn't perfect it is the parents fault.

My mom had another mom scold her for corrupting me because as a 2-year-old I took a toy away from her child. The other mom was Mormon.

Pretty freaky huh? But essentially what you are asserting. And I reject it with horror just as I reject your assertion, with horror; the horror that a literate person can think that parenting is a simple mathematical game that you can always win. Or a religious game where the parent just has to avoid losing.

Either way it involves no thought, just a mindless arrogance.

Re: Forget thieves, think teenagers!

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Don't be arrogant yourself. 16 year olds are 2 years away from adulthood - if you can't trust them out of your sight without surveillance, you don't trust them at all, and you won't be able to do much once they are adults. At 16, they should be able to go off for a day or two without you worrying. Also, by that time, if they're so irresponsible that they need constant supervision, they won't change in 2 years (unless they go to jail or something). Honestly, your job as a parent is mostly the first 8 years, by which time the core of a kid's psyche and moral center should be mostly formed. By 12, they should be about how they will be through adulthood.

Kids don't have to be perfect to be able to function apart from their parents.

Re:Forget thieves, think teenagers!

[KKlaus]

Ah I wish I hadn't already posted a bunch of times and could mod you up. The OP's point was stupid on so many levels it's ridiculous.

Re:Forget thieves, think teenagers!

[drew]

Brilliant plan, genius.

"Sorry dad. I was dropping my girlfriend off from the movie, and there was an accident on the way to her house. By the time we got there, it was almost 10:00, and the car died right as I was pulling out of the driveway. I couldn't go anywhere once the car quit, so I just had to stay at her house all night."

Re:Forget thieves, think teenagers!

[moco]

On a more serious note, not all tracking systems are inherently bad. There's an interesting story about a teenager whose parents installed a GPS tracking system into his car. Now he's going to court as the GPS record shows he wasn't speeding, unlike the police officer who wrote him a ticket. The real issue here is that the GPS unit installed in that case was under the control of the car owner.

Re: Forget thieves, think teenagers!

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't be arrogant yourself.

You are implying I'm being arrogant, but other than not agreeing with you, I don't see where that comes from. Explain.

16 year olds are 2 years away from adulthood - if you can't trust them out of your sight without surveillance, you don't trust them at all, and you won't be able to do much once they are adults.

You have 1 presupposition, which you mistate. You have 1 syllogism, which is false, and even if true doesn't detract from the earlier assertion that it would be nice for parents to have the ability to monitor location and control their own car. Finally you make a statement which, while irrelevant, is also not generally true in actuality.

The presupposition is that a 16-year-old is 2 years away from official adulthood, but adult != mature. In my experience it is a rare person under 22 or so that is mature.

The syllogism is that trust is binary. No shades of gray for you, no sir/ma'am! But there are always shades of grey, even when it is pretty deep gray and pretty light grey. And anyway, there are some kids that aren't trustable. Parents are still responsible (a word I suspect you abhore) for their kids until they are 18, out of high school, and (unofficially) out of the house. (Ir)regardless of what they do once they are adults, and living on their own. And turning 18 in my house doesn't mean you are a full adult with part ownership in the house.

I've heard the "you won't be able to do much once they are adults" assertion before. Crap. From what I've seen is pretty rare (run off to join Marines, etc) where that is true. And it doesn't abrogate any responsibility (there is that annoying word again!) the parents have, nor does it mean they don't love their kids and want to guide them as best they can--even if sometimes a bigger hammer is needed.

Honestly, your job as a parent is mostly the first 8 years, by which time the core of a kid's psyche and moral center should be mostly formed. By 12, they should be about how they will be through adulthood.

Do you have some sort of reference for that? I understand you believe it, but that isn't what I mean. I'm talking a scholarly reference. And then explain how it it is relevant! I say, based on my experience, that you are wrong. And based on my experience, you'd be a terrible parent--if you managed to hold on to those beliefs, which I doubt. You would, however, make a marvelous self-rightous, rebellious kid.

Kids don't have to be perfect to be able to function apart from their parents.

You say that like it is somehow in doubt, or like it is some incredible revalation you've had. It is irrelevant to the discussion. Again, with your apparent "everything is black or white". Can you admit that for some parents the ability to rein in some kid's wild years a bit might actually be (gasp) responsible parenting and not an indication that the kid and/or the parent(s) are failures?

Look, it is simple to me. You make blanket statements based in incorrect and ill-thought-out beliefs and a worldview that is both cynical and completely lacking in nuance. IMHO.

Re:Forget thieves, think teenagers!

[Anonymous Coward]

...because he was a few minutes past his curfew.

Who said "a few minutes"?

Re:Forget thieves, think teenagers!

[B1ackDragon]

Heh, next up: OnStar enables remotely changing the radio/disabling the cd player. Actually, you don't even need remote assistance, just a programmable password protected cdplayer...

Parent: "Listen. Between the hours of 10pm and 6am, the family car will only play Simon and Garfunkle's greatest hits. See you at 10."

Not that I condone such heavy handed parenting tactics, however ;-)

Re:Forget thieves, think teenagers!

[mrzaph0d]

if he's old enough to be out past his curfew, he's old enough to call and say "i'm running late but i'm on my way home now, please don't shut the car off".

Re:Forget thieves, think teenagers!

[Anonymous Coward]

If OnStar can turn the car off, they can also provide the GPS location to the parent in realtime, perhaps thourgh a web interface (updating every X seconds with latest position) for a nominal fee.

They could, but probably not for a nominal fee. It uses the cell phone network, so the cell company would want a cut for sending the many messages (I know it costs them next to nothing, but cost doesn't translate to price).

Hacker angle is fun...

[Uksi]

... but law enforcement angle is not so fun and is the real problem. Potential for misuse is huge. There's already enough bored suburban police looking to make up a budget shortfall. I just don't trust local police to remotely stall cars responsibly. Why bother pulling out and putting on the blues when they can call in and stall your car that drove 40mph into an unmarked 35mph zone? Incompetent low-wage OnStar operator disabling the wrong car by accident? They won't care. This is a serious tool--where's the due process?

I can't imagine people wanting to choose vehicles with OnStar with such a "feature."

Re:Hacker angle is fun...

[Dunbal]

when they can call in and stall your car that drove 40mph into an unmarked 35mph zone?

      Call in? Sheesh, I think that you're not thinking technologically. How about an automated system that stalls your car when you speed. "Please pull over, and wait in the vehicle. The doors have been locked for your protection. A police officer will be along shortly."

Re:Hacker angle is fun...

[QuantumRiff]

exactly, If I'm driving down a road, and a car stops suddenly right before me because the police wanted it stopped (maybe they're a few blocks back, or maybe they got the license plate wrong, whatever) and I get into an accident with them, who's fault is it? the drivers, OnStar, or the police?

Re:Hacker angle is fun...

[Javi0084]

Yours for not keeping your distance.

Re:Hacker angle is fun...

[wytcld]

Police will stop your car ... as a reason to stop your car. The police will say, "We didn't do it. Maybe it was some hacker. Maybe you were just stoned and driving in a confused way. Of course once you pulled over, we needed to stop and see what the problem was. Since you appeared disoriented, even disturbed, we needed to search your car and sample your breath. You have the right to an attorney. We've done everything by the book, and within the Constitution."

Seriously, here in Vermont the police stop out-of-state cars for having fuzzy dice hanging - there's a unique law here making anything hanging from your rear-view mirror illegal. But they don't care about the fuzzy dice. They just want to check you over to see if they can bust you for something more serious. Yet they can't just pull you over with not violation apparent. Being able to stall your car at will can provide them with a real convenient violation - apparently erratic driving, driving too slow for safety on the freeway, improperly maintained equipment, whatever.

Re:Hacker angle is fun...

[EvanED]

If you rear-end someone, 99% of the time it's your fault.

You can be sitting at a stoplight behind someone, get rear-ended, and pushed into the person in front of you, and I think that the law still says that it's your fault.

Re:Hacker angle is fun...

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree and don't trust local police with too much power and the ability to misuse. Hell look at all the stuff in the news about misusing stun guns. They don't even use those right. Some of the videos I have seen on the web.

Re:Hacker angle is fun...

[Radon360]

Oh, come on, now. You haven't taken that technological thinking far enough! <grin>

The automated system is supposed to tell you, "Your credit card account on file has been charged $122.51 for payment of your moving violation and your drivers license has been charged with three points. You have eight points remaining at this point. Additionally, you have been penalized 15 minutes for this infraction, after which, your vehicle will resume normal function."

Of course, if you run out of points, can't pay the fine, or some other "take you in to the station" reason surfaces, THEN the car remains stopped and locked until the police arrive.

Something tells me if the technology ever got as out of control to reach this point, there would be a great black market for GPS spoofing devices.

Re:Hacker angle is fun...

[Anonymous Coward]

Call in? Sheesh, I think that you're not thinking technologically. How about an automated system that stalls your car when you speed. "Please pull over, and wait in the vehicle. The doors have been locked for your protection. A police officer will be along shortly."

I used to think there might be a day this would happen, but the trend is now obvious. You'd simply be mailed a ticket months later when you'd have no way to remember any information needed to contest it.

Re:Hacker angle is fun...

[Swaffs]

"They just want to check you over to see if they can bust you for something more serious."

Well yeah, that is their job. Living in a safe society means being scrutinized once in awhile.

"INFO" Fuse

[ChangeOnInstall]

Pulling the "INFO" fuse in my GMC Sierra renders OnStar entirely inert. The fuse is located in the underhood fuse box. I have had this fuse removed since I purchased the truck 3 years ago and have found no ill effects from its removal. Having reasonable knowledge of network security, I've never liked the idea of my truck being connected to a network.

Removing this fuse should work on 2000-2007 Chevy/GMC pickups and full size SUVs (built on the "GMT 800" platform). I believe the procedure is similar for all other GM vehicles.

Re:"INFO" Fuse

[b0lt]

So, if you remove this fuse in cars with this feature, will it prevent OnStar from disabling your vehicle, or will it prevent you from operating it?

Re:"INFO" Fuse

[Monkey]

So, if you remove this fuse in cars with this feature, will it prevent OnStar from disabling your vehicle, or will it prevent you from operating it?

Must...resist..."In Soviet Russia..." joke.

Re:"INFO" Fuse

[nomadic]

Pulling the "INFO" fuse in my GMC Sierra renders OnStar entirely inert.

Did your Sierra sing "Daisy, Daisy" as you did it?

Re:"INFO" Fuse

[patches]

Just out of curiosity, how do you know it is totally inert? Did you subscribe for a month and see if they could unlock it? What if the part of the system that unlock remotely, and possibly remotely kills the car, is a different part then the push blue button, talk to operator part.

Re:"INFO" Fuse

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow! It's a good thing all car thieves are too stupid to know how to remove a fuse! Oh wait... well, don't you feel MUCH more secure now knowing that it will take car thieves 15 seconds longer to steal your car? (Just long enough to pop the hood and remove the fuse.)

Re:"INFO" Fuse

[TooMuchToDo]

It should only prevent OnStar from functioning (hence, the INFO label on the fuse). The rest of the car should continue to function normally.

Re:"INFO" Fuse

[ChangeOnInstall]

Based on what I have read online, all the onstar components are on this circuit, but I haven't seen anyone specifically verify that all components are dead though. I know for a fact it disables onstar's ability to communicate with the PCM (powertrain control module), as you must remove this fuse when uploading new firmware to the PCM (otherwise onstar may try to talk to it during reprogramming).

Perhaps a better approach would be to physically disconnect the onstar's VCIM (vehicle control interface module) behind the glove box. Also just read that some vehicles have the remote in-dash CD changer conncted to the INFO fuse as well, so pulling the VCIM is probably the best bet.

Re:"INFO" Fuse

[Kazrath]

Some fuses take a bit longer than 15 seconds to remove as you generally have to pop the hood, unscrew a bolt, remove the cover and verify which one is the right fuse... But this is a fairly inconspicuous activity that may even render pedestrian assistance.

Re:"INFO" Fuse

[brjndr]

On some models you can just unscrew the Onstar Antenna. On my car it's the little stubby one above the back windshield (Cadillac STS).

I actually do subscribe to the Onstar emergency service. I did have them unlock my door locks for me once when a valet lost my keys.

Re:"INFO" Fuse

[Sponge Bath]

I've never liked the idea of my truck being connected to a network.

I read something similar on Commander Adama's automotive tips blog.

Re:"INFO" Fuse

[Anonymous Coward]

Great...now you've just told the GM engineers reading this that they'll have to route circuitry that WILL adversely affect your vehicle if you remove it, (oh, let's say your headlights won't come on if you remove it...)

Re:"INFO" Fuse

[sabt-pestnu]

Reminds me of the DRM debate.

Gee, this widget will protect us all! ... except that you can disable it quite so simply...

Yay! Breeding smarter car thieves! Give 'em a checklist of things to do before pulling out with the hotwired car...

Re:"INFO" Fuse

[tacocat]

From what I've read in the engineering documentation on the OnStar unit design... You can have OnStar disable the unit and it's a virtual brick to be reactivated only by you taking direct action inside the vehicle. Of course, feel free to fuck with the electricals all you want. But if you really don't want it, or any of it's Big Brother features, just call OnStar and have them cancel your account and disable your Onstar unit.

Re:"INFO" Fuse

[oliphaunt]

Dear ChangeOnInstall,

This letter is to inform you that your post #20918375 may violate Section 1201 of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act. Please delete your post, go out into your garage, replace the fuse, and weld your hood shut to prevent any repeat occurances.

We reserve the right to sue you for damages or put you in jail if you ever tell anyone about this letter.

Thanks for being a GM OnStar customer!

Re:"INFO" Fuse

[mungewell]

Currently it's that easy.... but also for the guy/girl who steals the car, so in all likelyhood disabling the anti-theft device won't be quite so easy.

Munge.

Re:"INFO" Fuse

[Tablizer]

Did your Sierra sing "Daisy, Daisy" as you did it?

"Dave, I saw you bang Derra in the back seat. Surely, this is information you don't want your wife to obtain..."

Re:"INFO" Fuse

[toddestan]

It wouldn't be hard for them to integrate the systems to the point where they are inseperable. Actually, that's probably inevitable as combining the hardware would be a cost saving measure.

Costs vs Benefits

[b0lt]

While I can see the benefits of the system for law enforcement (stopping car chases, immobilizing stolen vehicles), do they outweigh the costs? What happens if they cut off power to the wrong vehicle, causing an accident elsewhere? Is the system easily reversible, or is it a one-way operation? Who has the authority to immobilize a vehicle? Tech support? Their managers? What happens if (when) their systems get infiltrated, by malicious users, or pranksters? There are far too many potential disasters that could happen, in my opinion, for this system to be worth it for either the consumer or OnStar.

Liability

[Jadware]

And then who is responsible/liable for the accident caused by the thief when the car is remotely crippled? Policeman issuing the order, company enabling the system, or the technician who actually presses the button? What it really becomes is a practically useless system that will cost you $1k when buying the car and save you $5/month on insurance.

Re:Liability

[MirthScout]

And then who is responsible/liable for the accident caused by the thief when the car is remotely crippled?

The thief is definitely responsible. In a perfect world the thief is also laible but we've had some imperfect court decisions in the past and will again in the future. It is my belief that anything that happens as a result of a criminal act AND anything that happens durring that criminal's attempt to evade is the criminal's responsibility and liability. If the car is disabled (even if its the wrong car) in an attempt to stop the thief then anything that happens as a result is the thief's responsibility and liability, both civil and criminal. Yes, I mean that if an accident occurs and someone dies then the thief should be charged with negligent homicide in addition to any civil action.

I do, however, realize that in our spread the blame around and sue the one with deep pockets society that the above is probably not what would actually happen, but I've already conceeded that we've had imperfect court decisions and will again.

I'm not saying I like OnStar. In fact I won't have this system functional in any car I own. For me to accept this system I would have to be able to set the code that disables my vehicle such that I am the only one that knows that code and I am therefore the only one that can use it. But none of that changes who is responsible for the consequences of a criminal act.

Heh, now the police had better be sure a criminal act was in fact commited because, if not, then they are responsible.

Re:Liability

[Ihlosi]

The thief is definitely responsible. In a perfect world the thief is also laible but we've had some imperfect court decisions in the past and will again in the future.

Good luck collecting any damages. You'll need it.

It is my belief that anything that happens as a result of a criminal act AND anything that happens durring that criminal's attempt to evade is the criminal's responsibility and liability.

That's just opening the door for law enforcement to liberally cause collateral damage and then tell the victim to hold the criminal (who can't pay anyway) liable. That pretty much ensures that the victim ends up screwed.

Yes, I mean that if an accident occurs and someone dies then the thief should be charged with negligent homicide in addition to any civil action.

I'm sure the survivors will find this very consoling.

Privacy? With OnStar?

[Ungrounded Lightning]

... the AP's writeup, which like most MSM coverage doesn't mention any privacy implications.

Privacy? With OnStar?

They can already:
  - Locate the vehicle and
  - Bug the conversations in it.

Seems to me adding the ability to halt the car has no privacy implications because there IS no privacy with OnStar (or a similar system) installed.

Not a good idea

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't wait until someone does a remote kill of all remote vehicles (kill as in making them slow in a stop, from TFA, whatever... the vehicle is disabled regardless) during rush hour in a city... Keep repeating, and the city would starve to death because there would be no way in and out except for air traffic due to the sheer amount of immovable vehicles on the stalled roads.

Or even worse, waits and does this when people are trying to evacuate during a natural disaster. Picture the havoc if a hurricane was going to hit a coastal city like Houston, traffic piles on the roads, and GM cars get repeatedly stalled.

This is the main reason why I refuse to buy GM cars. I don't trust OnStar, period.

Another scenario:

Picture carjackers sitting near a highway (I-20 for example), someone rolls by in their new Escalade. The carjackers force it to a stop with a directional antenna, kick the owner out (or just squeeze a 9mm round or two into the guy's chest to ensure the victim stays quiet), and take the vehicle. Instant unsolvable crime. Or, if someone is into kidnapping, just wait with a pursuasion device (a sawed off shotgun is decent for this) and a directional antenna. Stop the car, jack the victim.

Re:Not a good idea

[Dunbal]

squeeze a 9mm round or two into the guy's chest to ensure the victim stays quiet), and take the vehicle. Instant unsolvable crime.

      Ahh, but that's what the CCTV cameras are for... oh, wait!

Re:Not a good idea

[SnoopJeDi]

Instant unsolvable crime.

Assuming the thieves disable the OnStar, that is. Sure, if they're smart enough to use the directional antenna, this is an obvious thing to them, but it still is a point.

G.M. - A company with a very specific instinct

[burni]

.. what people don't want, and won't buy, or simply rip-off

Sorry, but are the company's leaders braindead ?
At the moment G.M. is hardly recovering from a near Chapter 11 situation, and now this precious move, I hope the land of the free will vote by boycotting this, but I think it will be
marketed as an anti-theft device, and succeed.

Reno 911! Scenario

[mynickwastaken]

Police Officer: OnStar, OnStar, Please stop the car with the registration plates: XXXX-XXX
OnStar Operator: Roger that. Procedure Initiated. The car will start stopping in 10 Seconds

10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1

Police Car Speakers: Dear Sir, the Police was requested that your car need to be stopped. Please follow...
Police Officer: Shit

Hack it even better

[jameskojiro]

Wire up a switch to the fuse and put the switch next to the big blue button, that way if you are in need of using it, you don't have crawl upside down out of you rolled over SUV, drag yourself across the ground using the bloody stumps of what used to be your legs, pry the hood open with teeth and replace the fuse you removed and then crawl back into the cab to call for help.

Put a switch there that way you can go on a heist and the cops will think "hey we can just shut him down " and then "flick" notta problemo.

Re:Hack it even better

[merreborn]

Wire up a switch to the fuse and put the switch next to the big blue button

Unfortunately, this also makes it easy for a thief to disable the system after they've stolen your vehicle.

And of course, it's completely useless in the event that you've locked your keys in the car.

Usually, by the time you actually need onstar, it's too late to switch it back on, and you really don't want it to be possible to switch it off at that point, either.

Re:Hack it even better

[darkpixel2k]

Unfortunately, this also makes it easy for a thief to disable the system after they've stolen your vehicle.

I drive a 1984 Dotson/Nissan pickup truck. It has more rust-spots than paint-spots, it's noisy as hell, and it drives like a BMW would drive during an 8.5 earthquake.

I don't have to worry about it being stolen. Hell--I leave leave the keys in it 24/7 and during the summer the windows are rolled down.

I guess it's just not attractive to car prowlers.

I suppose if anyone did steal it, it would be easy enough to track without onStar--just follow the plume of smoke and look for the POS that can barely make it to 50 and looks like it's probably on fire.

Re:Hack it even better

[carterson2]

I will offer a $100 reward for anyone who can hack onstar. Contact me at gpscruise.com

What does this have to do with PRIVACY?

[pclminion]

You could make the argument that this is a violation of certain rights (although I'm not sure which rights those would be). But PRIVACY? What the hell does the functional status of your motor vehicle have to do with your privacy?

Re:What does this have to do with PRIVACY?

[GizmoToy]

OnStar has always had privacy issues, but I don't see how this modification makes it any worse than it was before. They can already track where the car is at all times and listen to the conversation in the car if they want to. Being able to shut the car down isn't a huge step forward from that.

Re:What does this have to do with PRIVACY?

[rastoboy29]

I think we're talking about a fairly broad definition of privacy.  For example, the drug laws are a violation of privacy in this sense by the government, because you are forbidden, say, to smoke marijuana by yourself in your own home.

Which I do think is an invasion of my private space, or privacy.  This thing is very similar.

Thank you Big Brother!

[WillAffleckUW]

Now our privacy-enhanced automobiles will be safe from non-governmental control and our guardians of morality can search our vehicles and stop them without warrants, popping the trunk lids and opening the doors so that our Police Helpers may lock us up in Reeducation Camps with less trouble!

I for one welcome our comrades and am glad that Soma is available for any problem!

This problem isn't specific to cars

[MobyDisk]

This problem isn't specific to cars. There is commercial software that will zap the contents of a hard drive if the computer is stolen. Naturally, that is controlled by the company providing the service. Hopefully, they used some good encryption on that signal. And hopefully the thief doesn't know how to disable that. But this is the limitation of remote access of any kind. I can remote into my computer - that means that someone else with the correct password can also do it.

So what?

[iamacat]

Would you rather police shoot some teenagers tires and potentially kill him as well as innocent bystanders in a resulting accident or guide the car to controlled stop? The technology to stop cars within a policeman's sight are already there and heavily used. I am more worried about GPS-based tracking, especially since it may not be immediately obvious to the driver.

Re:So what?

[Dunbal]

Would you rather police shoot some teenagers tires and potentially kill him

OMG YES please won't someone PLEASE think of the children???

To be honest- YES. I'll take my chances.

Re:So what?

[iamacat]

Would you rather police shoot some middle aged black guys tires and potentially kill him, or guide his car to a controlled stop? "Children" part is not key here, the problem is killing people who are simply trying to run away.

Re:So what?

[Dunbal]

"Children" part is not key here, the problem is killing people who are simply trying to run away.

      As far as I know the police don't do that NOW - unless the person is acting in a really reckless manner and/or shooting at people from the vehicle. Why would they suddenly start killing people who try to run away? Oh they will chase you, and they will spike your tires, and they'll throw you on the ground when they finally catch you. But kill you? Come on, you watch too much tv.

Re:So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

why dont wee just shoot the driver with a 50 caliber rifle ? that way it will come to a controlled stop and we dont need to worry about this miranda nonsense. a depleted uranium sabot thru the drivers skull and conveniently thru the engine block would also work.

Re:So what?

[iamacat]

Are you saying that spiked tires never lead to traffic accidents that injure or kill the driver, innocent/minor passengers, policeman and bystanders?

Re:So what?

[Deadstick]

But if the cops could shut down a car remotely, there wouldn't be any Amazing Police Chases videos. Doesn't anybody care about John Bunnell?

rj

Re:So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

And when some hacker figures out what radio signal to send to disable the car? Or some guy at GM gets the license plate - car mapping wrong and stalls the wrong car? Or the interface is just buggy, and switching gears while the sun visor is at a certain angle with the headlights on and the right turn blinker is exactly halfway through it's 3rd blink cycle causes the thing to trip and stall.

There are a number of things that can go wrong, some of them are more catastrophic than cops shooting some idiot who thought it would be fun to run.

Re:So what?

[ChrisMaple]

Shooting a hole in a tire of a moving car is very difficult, particularly with a handgun (and it will be really far away by the time you can make a rifle ready to shoot). Most modern cars are front wheel drive, and shooting out a rear tire (the only tire visible on a car moving away from you) will be of limited effectiveness. The implied claim that police frequently use bullets to stop a car is a fantasy.

Re:So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, they will at the most give you a couple of rounds with the taser when you are sitting cuffed in the back of their car.

This should provide for some fun times

[Whuffo]

Much of the "hacking" is done by young people with an "I'll show you!" kind of attitude. Listening in on some in-car conversation isn't much fun, and unlocking doors provides no feedback. But if you could stall the cars - now we're getting into "watch me do this" territory.

This would elevate the DOS attack to a new level. Download the script, run it, see the story on tonight's news. Great fun...

Wonderful...

[cyberjock1980]

So what happens 10 years from now when everyone has it in their vehicle and some hacker figures out a way to stall all the cars in LA? Imagine someone being able to control all the vehicles in the USA(or maybe the world!). This would be a very useful tool for terrorists. I promise I won't be running out to buy a car with OnStar!

Assuming that a terrorist is able to stop all the cars in the USA in one nice swoop, does the vehicle automatically re-enable after 30 seconds? What kind of limitations are there on the OnStar's ability to control the vehicle after it has been disabled? Does the care auto re-enable after so much time and can't be disabled again until it's 'reset' locally?

I can't even begin to imagine all of the bad things that can go wrong with this setup. This is yet another reason why the futuristic shows that show everthing 'connected' is bad for us.

Re:Wonderful...

[wizardforce]

why do you assume all the cars will have this? how many people mod their cars, especially if all it takes is removing a single fuse? why bother with hacking on-star when you can set off an emp weapon and target everything regardless of what is installed?

This is yet another reason why the futuristic shows that show everthing 'connected' is bad for us.

no, technology isn't the problem- it is never the root of the problem. the agnorant and apathetic nature of society *IS* the root of the problem. take away the checks and balances of power and you get corruption. without corruption, there isn't a problem.

Re:Wonderful...

[Anonymous Coward]

"So what happens 10 years from now when everyone has it in their vehicle and some hacker figures out a way to stall all the cars in LA?"

You are apparently new to the LA area. 'Stalled' is the default state of most cars here between the hours of 7am and 7pm.

Re:Wonderful...

[Sloppy]

This would be a very useful tool for terrorists

Not to mention pedophiles and drug dealers and .. uh .. Dammit!! I always forget who the 4th horseman is!

Re:Wonderful...

[Howitzer86]

It's like China launching a nuke, detonating it 60km over the US, and frying all the electronics from coast to coast.

If another country was found to be the source of an OnStar hack, and all it did was disable a quarter of the countries cars, then we might have some diplomatic troubles.

Bit if OnStar was on every vehicle - including the 16 wheelers - then we would have a nuclear war.


Good thing I like old cars... though I don't think that'll save me from giant fireballs.

Re:Wonderful...

[cyberjock1980]

Correct, but terrorist will use whatever is the easiest means to get the end result, terror. It does not matter if it is OnStar, EMP, nuclear, biological, chemical, or even throwing rocks at your dog. If it is something terrorists wants to use and it is convenient then they'll use it.

Look at Skype. Brought down by what is being told is a bug.

What would happen if Onstar had some kind of problem? Buffer overflow that ends up disabling every vehicle in their database. BIG BIG problems for everyone. And what if the vehicles DON'T re-enable later automatically. Can you imagine every vehicle everywhere having to be sent to a 'dealership for repair'?

A fuse might solve the problem, but how many people are really going to remove a fuse? You yourself said it's the ignorant and apathetic nature of society. The nature of society is 'If it isn't broke why pull the fuse?' Not to mention that pulling that fuse disables ALL of the OnStar functions. Some people might not want to disable it all. Especially since the consumer(read: you and me) will pay for this stuff to be put in a car even if choose to de-fuse. And what do we do if removing the fuse disables OnStar AND the car?

Re:Wonderful...

[kent_eh]

...figures out a way to stall all the cars in LA

Who would tell the difference from a regular rush hour?

Re:Wonderful...

[dangitman]

Not to mention pedophiles and drug dealers and .. uh .. Dammit!! I always forget who the 4th horseman is!

Al Gore.

Re:Wonderful...

[numeralxvi]

Freeways in Los Angeles are already so congested that most people won't notice whether or not their car has been disabled. They'll simply roll to a stop on the freeway and think it's because of the usual traffic jam ahead of them.

Re:Wonderful...

[Ihlosi]

I promise I won't be running out to buy a car with OnStar!

Too bad that won't help you when you're stuck in the middle of a traffic jam caused by thousands of On-Star equipped vehicles disabled by some joker (terrorist).

Re:Wonderful...

[Quiet_Desperation]

So what happens 10 years from now when everyone has it in their vehicle and some hacker figures out a way to stall all the cars in LA?

I think someone took the latest Die Hard movie a little too seriously.

Re:Wonderful...

[British]

I think someone took the latest Die Hard movie a little too seriously.

I think an entire paranoia-wrapped country took the latest Die Hard movie a little too seriously.

Re:Wonderful...

[Cro Magnon]

Yippee Caiyay, mudder fsker!

Re:Wonderful...

[Anonymous Coward]

This would be a very useful tool for terrorists

Not to mention pedophiles and drug dealers and .. uh .. Dammit!! I always forget who the 4th horseman is!

Communism. The correct order, is Communism, Drug Dealers, Pedophiles, and then Terrorists. Emigrants can be substituted as needed.

Re:Wonderful...

[Quiet_Desperation]

The biggest laugh was when they rerouted the gas lines to blow up the power station.

It's annoying when the general public thinks it's even possible to do the magical uber-hacking Hollywood depicts, but when a Slashdotter falls victim to it, well, it's just sad.

Republican

[Irvu]

Why why would registering with any party or voting for someone who claims an interest in freedom but favors social controls matter?

The good ol knock on MSM

[Anonymous Coward]

as oppose to internet media? Exaggerated headline that has nothing to do with the story. The same tired cliches (political, environmental, The fellating of Apple, etc etc). If the past 3 months worth of headlines that appear on Digg, Reddit are any indication of something that's better than MSM, I'll pass.

2007:computer virus halts information superhighway

[circletimessquare]

2017:computer virus halts actual highway

Only on GM products?

[Average_Joe_Sixpack]

How would you distinguish a remote disable from a normal breakdown?

Re:Only on GM products?

[Dr Caleb]

"How would you distinguish a remote disable from a normal breakdown?"

The amount of smoke emitted, and the number of people trying to get out by breaking the windows.

I BLAME O.J.

[quonsar]

Damn that White Bronco!

American Cars Stall Themselves

[SoyChemist]

This would be alarming if I did not expect them to stall randomly anyway.

Not only that

[cicho]

but insurance companies will first offer discounts to car owners who have this enabled, and eventually you will not get auto insurance at all if you refuse.

Re:Not only that

[stilwebm]

Enter the classic car.

Sure, the 1971 Plymouth RoadRunner my friend drives gets only about 10 miles to the gallon on a good day, the 383cid engine is mechanical or electromechanical in every part. The only transistors in this carburetor fed monster are in the factory AM/FM radio. Don't waste time installing a remote kill system on a car in which cruise control consists of placing an object (optional) under the gas pedal and mashing it down.

Now I just hope they don't ban lead substitute fuel additives before he replaces his valve seats...

Re:Not only that

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

Which is yet another reason why car insurance should not be mandatory.

Hoping that the "free market" will preserve your rights is ludicrous at the best of times. When an industry practically owes its entire existence to government mandates, you can bet it will tow the party line at every turn.

Re:Not only that

[KKlaus]

You're drawing an incorrect parallel to what has been happening with health insurance, and car owners without this feature will be fine. While improvements in the abilities of health insurance companies to predict who is going to get sick have started to make it near impossible for certain people to get health insurance, that's only because those people are literally UNPROFITABLE (as in taking a loss) for the insurance companies. The word unprofitable there is the key though.

Yes, car owners without this feature may be more subject to successful thefts, and therefore LESS profitable than their counterparts with the service, but unlike someone who just found out they have terminal cancer and is looking to get insurance, they are still SOMEWHAT profitable, just less. I assume that they are still profitable, because clearly no one has this service now, yet auto insurers are making money.

So anyhow, whereas some people can't get health insurance because insurers know that they are far too likely to take a big loss on them, people will have an easy time getting auto insurance without this feature because auto insurers will still be able to make money off of them. People without the feature may have to pay more for that insurance, and they can independently decide whether that's what they want to do, but they'll certainly be able to find it.

Re:Not only that

[Anonymous Coward]

Will they also offer a discount to the owners of cars who rear-end you when your car drops from 70 to zero?

I've seen cars suffer that sort of mechanical failure, dropping from 70 down to dead stop in the middle lane of seven lanes. Sure it was a slow drop but they came to a stop in the middle of traffic nonetheless. I-85N at Clairmont, where 85 road curves uphill and to the left. Bad place to stop.

What happened to the stopped car? I don't know exactly because I got past while the car was still moving and there was a LOT of tire smoke from everyone trying to dodge out of the way. Another driver came along, one who wasn't paying enough attention, went around the curve and hit the car from behind. That pushed the fuel tank into the passenger cabin and a family of five died.

Causing a car to stop like that is just damned dangerous. Onstar should just get ready for the lawsuits. They WILL happen.

A car is a piece of property. It can be replaced. It's not worth risking anybody's life to recovery property.

For me, this just makes me even more sure I won't buy a GM car. Too bad for them.

Re:Not only that

[fractoid]

Enter the classic car. Agreed 110%! My car's a good 18 years newer than your friend's Plymouth, and it does have some transistors in a box under the bonnet for the EFI and electronic ignition, but when it comes down to it, it's still electromechanical, not electronic. The only cars I've driven other than it have been newish (Y2k+ models) that have been choc full of electronics and friendly helpful features like the retarded 'assisted braking' where under certain conditions the car craps its dacks and ups the sensitivity of the brake pedal, ending in you coming to a screeching halt the moment you try and heel+toe a gearshift. The primary rule that I drive by is that there's only one driver. I don't care if it's me, someone else, or the car itself, but if it's me, then no way in hell will I put up with the car trying to guess what I meant. Modern electronics can go f**k themselves until they get to the point that I really *can* put on the cruise control and hop in the back seat for a nap.

Re:Not only that

[drsquare]

Considering the small percentage of car crashes that involve police chases, I can't see this lowering insurance much.

Re:Not only that

[Anonymous Coward]

A car is a piece of property. It can be replaced. It's not worth risking anybody's life to recovery property.

Arguable.

Some, myself included, would say that the recovery of my car is not worth anyone's life, including the thief or even Saddam Hussein's. Others (even the average Slashbot if my regular readings of these comments are correct) would have no moral qualms about risking or taking the life of anyone not in their immediate family if it would prevent a car theft.

Indeed, the more extreme people I see commenting on issues regarding what they link to the "personal responsibility" meme so often misused by the predatory liberalists, would happily accept the destruction of their own car just so long as "that bastard wot took it" got his comeuppance.

Re:Not only that

[nospam007]

but insurance companies will first offer discounts to car owners who have this enabled, and eventually you will not get auto insurance at all if you refuse.
___

Ah yes, criminals won't want to run cars without insurance to rob a bank.

Re:Not only that

[smurfsurf]

> no way in hell will I put up with the car trying to guess what I meant.

Well, ABS guesses that you want to brake in a way that leaves the car reactive to steering. Even if you do not manage to do so yourself. I appreciate ABS, you don't?

Re:Not only that

[v01d]

I appreciate ABS, you don't?

A lot of people in snowy and/or sandy climates very much do not appreciate ABS. The problem with ABS is that it detects slippage when breaking in sand so won't lock. Any human can figure out to go ahead and lock anyway, but most ABS system's practically disable your breaks on sand.

Re:Not only that

[sherms]

The hell with the older cars. How about I give a bonus to the first person that hacks me a Corvette..

Red in color please.

Re:Not only that

[fractoid]

I appreciate ABS, you don't? No. The only part of ABS that I remotely appreciate is the fact that on wet roads, my (static) brake bias is too far forward, and the fronts lock too easily compared to the rares because I don't have enough traction to shift weight onto the fronts. That would be fixed by a dynamic brake bias adjuster thingy, you can get them, they're automatic, they're hydraulic, they just work. I'll probably get one when I upgrade my brakes, which is on The List. :P If I stomp full on the pedal, it's because I WANT to lock my wheels, because I have a damn good reason to do so. If I just want to stop fast I'll brake the way I always do, squeeze on rapidly but smoothly to allow weight shift, then sit on the limit. Limit braking is a skill that rapidly becomes automatic, and once you're used to doing it yourself, Yet Another Bloody Automatic System frigging with my rigging is just a pain.

When they first did performance tests of ABS, they discovered that experienced drivers stopped faster without than with, whereas inexperienced ones stopped faster with. Once the experienced drivers got used to the ABS and learned to just lean on the pedal and trust to Al Gorithm, they were OK, but I see no reason to reduce my level of control and relearn a different technique when there's no real advantage.

Re:Not only that

[plague3106]

That's about the stupidest thing i ever heard. Locking your brakes won't help stop you.. pumping them will, which is exactly what ABS does. That said, the BEST way to stop in snowy conditions is to let your car coast to a stop, if possible. Braking can cause your car to skid out of control.

And yes, I do almost live in Canada.

Re:Not only that

[plague3106]

Which is yet another reason why car insurance should not be mandatory.

So, how exactly do I get my car fixed when some idiot in a VW smashes into my car because she changed lanes without looking? I'm just SOL, and need to fix the car myself?

Re:Not only that

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

If you want or think you need insurance, you should get it for yourself. If others are willing to take the risk of going without it, they should be allowed.

Re:Not only that

[Mr. Mindless]

If you live in a no-fault state, yes. Which is why that's the most assinine system out there for MVA crashes.

The at-fault driver should pay for damages, whether it's a VW or a BMW.

And don't bag on my TDI....

Re:Not only that

[Dare nMc]

too bad, no mod points today, would have moded your post funney, definitely entertaining.

Locking your brakes won't help stop you...BEST way to stop in snowy conditions is to let your car coast to a stop

Actually pretty much every study I have ever seen shows locked tire stops as the shortest on almost all surfaces, and almost all tires (not usually by much.) The only exceptions would be where the loss of control causes you to enter a lower traction surface.
ABS was never meant to decrease stopping distance, it helps maintain control, so a driver can steer, and recover. It also keeps you from flat spotting your tires so their not ruined by a lockup.

Having done a number of autocross races, etc. I know that most ABS systems really hurt my performance when I am in this performance driving mode. However I also know that mode is not a instinct, so when I am relaxed and driving normally, when cutoff/etc I, like most people, just slam the brakes to the floor, and hold on. So ABS is great for that.

Re:Not only that

[Mr. Slippery]

If others are willing to take the risk of going without it, they should be allowed.

Pardon, but you seem to have a radically mistaken notion of the purpose of motor vehicle insurance. You aren't complelled to buy it for your protection. You're compelled to buy it to protect me, the guy you might crash into.

Driving on the public streets is inherently risky to other persons. It's quite sensible that we don't let people do things that put non-consenting others at risk without requiring insurance or a bond.

Re:Not only that

[Dare nMc]

the 383cid engine is mechanical or electromechanical in every part.

a old diesiel and would be even better. You still need spark, and the ability to build energy in a coil to deliver it. If something shorted out your battery (for example) you would be shutdown. So a strong EMP could still disable that car, while moving (in theory).

Re:Not only that

[nharmon]

Sorry but static friction beats sliding friction. Once your wheels are locked you have less friction between them and the road. Your maximum braking power is on the verge of locking but still rolling. This is far past the point where ABS chimes in.

Re:Not only that

[BlackSnake112]

"... The primary rule that I drive by is that there's only one driver. I don't care if it's me, someone else, or the car itself, but if it's me, then no way in hell will I put up with the car trying to guess what I meant. Modern electronics can go f**k themselves until they get to the point that I really *can* put on the cruise control and hop in the back seat for a nap."

You want cruise control and an auto pilot.

Re:Not only that

[Dare nMc]

Sorry but static friction beats sliding friction.

correct, sorry I wasn't clear I was comparing locked tire to ABS, except wet surfaces where ABS wins, locked tire/static friction on dry is close enough to not differ significantly from ABS, both would lose to expert driver maintaining near lockup without ABS. Locked up tire on gravel/slush/uneven surfaces (pot holes, RR crossings, etc) is where ABS (currently) loses, some times by alott.

Re:Not only that

[Znork]

"The word unprofitable there is the key though."

You misunderstand the point of insurance. If every insurance customer was profitable, there would be no point in getting any insurance; you'd be better off simply saving the money yourself. Some insurers attempt to get closer to that point to increase profitability and/or to assign a cost to risky behaviour, but once you have perfect prediction of the cost of a customer you have no customers anymore.

The point of insurance is distributed risk. Everyone saving money enough to cover the costs of all their risks would mean a huge pile of unused money. By instead distributing the risk, some customers will be unprofitable, but the total pile will be much much smaller, and still leave a tidy sum over for the managers of the pile.

Re:Not only that

[ardin,mcallister]

actually, as long as your foot's on the gas, your battery being completely dead doesnt matter. the alternator will keep the car moving. granted, an EMP would probably take out the alt too, that doesnt matter. in a NORMAL world, as long as the battery is connected (charged, or dead, matters not), your car will continue to run until you take the foot off the gas. problem is, once the foot leaves the gas, you're screwed

Re:Not only that

[XPisthenewNT]

It is possible to stop a tiny bit faster by threshold braking (not locking the wheels on a car without ABS). It is very, very difficult, even when you are focusing on nothing other than stopping the car as quickly as possible.

If I'm in a panic situation I'd rather slam the brake and let the car do a very good job of braking, then focus all my brain power on driving to avoid a collision.

Re:Not only that

[Anonymous Coward]

However ... current and future "clunker" laws will take care of those "older" vehicles...

Re:Not only that

[AllergicToMilk]

On surfaces where material can build up in front of locked wheels, sand gravel and some snowy conditions, it has been proven that locking the wheels results in shorter stopping distances. ABS is primarily effective on wet surfaces and in panic stopping conditions. However, ABS is generally not as good as a skilled driver who knows how to modulate the brake pedal.

Re:Not only that

[SeattleGameboy]

I am sorry, but what you are spewing is a lot of BS.

The tires have the most gripping power just BEFORE it starts to slide. Once it slides you do not have enough traction to do anything let alone stop. Which is why in car races, when the wheels lock up, they tend to go straight into a wall.

No driver, experienced or not can keep the tires at its maximum grip like ABS can. ABS system applies brakes multiples time within a second - no human can reproduce that.

Only situation where ABS is detrimental is on loose surfaces like gravel and heavy snow where the wheel lock up tend to push the material forward which aids in stopping.

I have no idea what ABS test you are talking about and an actual reference would help. There are plenty of tests the vindicate ABS.

Re:Not only that

[Anonymous Coward]

FYI: ABS is designed for Control under heavy braking not faster breaking.

Four-wheel ABS prevents all wheels from skidding, it allows you to steer the vehicle and still maintain braking. This is harder to test for than simply distance on a wet/dry road. If you want to look into this setup high speed breaking test around a corner and/or lane changes while you break.

See: http://www.kunhadi.org/main/?q=node/73 for more info.

PS: VSA systems do much the same thing to assist in normal driving.

Re:Not only that

[LordVader717]

It is very, very difficult

And even that's an understatement. An experienced driver might be able to adjust his braking about once or twice a second, whereas ABS keeps doing it about 50 times a second. It simply isn't possible for a human to brake as hard as an ABS without locking the tyres.

And unless you're a stunt driver, it's unlikely you've ever had adequate experience with threshold braking to be reliable in an emergency.
And many accidents have actually been caused because people have been reluctant to slam the brake down because they've never done it (makes sense - it totally fucks up your tires, unless you do have ABS).
With ABS, you can teach full braking to every new driver, and then they won't be scared to slam the brake when they're made to.

Re:Not only that

[zippthorne]

If you stomp HARD on a car equipped with ABS brakes, the brakes will still lock. ABS only works if you apply constant, even pressure to the brake pedal. This is one of the difficulties that "experienced" drivers have with ABS brakes: pumping can actually lock them. I don't know that this is considered a feature but you probably would based on your post.

Re:Not only that

[Grishnakh]

Enter the classic car.

Sure, the 1971 Plymouth RoadRunner my friend drives gets only about 10 miles to the gallon on a good day, the 383cid engine is mechanical or electromechanical in every part.

And if you want a newer car with good mileage, you can get just about any 90s or 00s vehicle and just keep it going, since AFAIK no car, yet, has this type of remote-disabling ability.

Heck, you could get an old 80s Honda CRX HF and get 60 mpg.

Re:Not only that

[LordVader717]

You're only obliged to have liability insurance, and the reason for that is because of the huge amount of damage you can do with a motor vehicle. If they don't have insurance and not a penny in their pocket, where do you expect to get the money from when they smash your car?

Re:Not only that

[AndersOSU]

Please link to your studies.

While you're right that ABS usually only modestly decreases stopping distance on most surfaces, saying that locked wheels stop faster than turning wheels flies in the face of basic physics. Recall from high school physics that there are 2 different coefficients of friction for any surface in contact, they are the static and dynamic coefficients of friction. The static coefficient is always higher. When the wheel is spinning you use the static coefficient, when it is sliding you use the dynamic. Stopping distance at speeds greater than ~10mph will always be shorter with a turning wheel than a locked wheel.

Re:Not only that

[LordVader717]

I used to think like you and then I heard of an old guy bragging about double-clutching an old truck. The I thought "this is what's retarded", so now I'm glad to use anything that helps with driving.
ABS hasn't got anything to do with predicting you're intentions, it just stops you from skidding.

BTW, if you talk to anyone in automotive R&D, you'll hear that regulations are so severe about things that might, just possibly change the way a car reacts to a user, that it's dang near impossible to do any innovation where it's long overdue, and that's the reason why we're stuck with a very unintuitive mechanical control system.

Re:Not only that

[operagost]

I know that 100% of the cars and light trucks sold in the USA in 1989 had onboard computers. Is that the case where you live?

Re:Not only that

[deacon]

That engine does not have valve seats, because it has cast iron heads. So the issue will be that the cast iron in valve seat area will erode. Also, electronic ignition became standard on that car in 1972, so your 1971 example might have it. Nice try otherwise, though. And of course vacuum based cruise control was available long before 1972.

Re:Not only that

[srmalloy]

The issue is also not parallel because of the difference in the way that health care is applied. Devices like the OnStar engine-kill feature and LoJack are always going to be of limited benefit to automobile insurers, because it doesn't make a bit of difference how effective they are in keeping the thieves from driving the stolen vehicle if they've already stripped it to pieces and shopped them to a dozen different parts resellers. With health insurance, you're always going to have your body right there generating health-care costs. So while 'recovery assistance' devices like this may get you discounts from your insurer, without something like an RFID beacon that your car has to locate within the vehicle before it will start or continue running, there won't be any huge benefit from a disablement device -- and even then, the security is only as good as how difficult it is to remove or patch around.

Re:Not only that

[senileoldfart]

Some years back I purchased a used bottom-of-the-line Ford Taurus with ABS brakes. Just a week or so later it snowed. On the way to work, a pickup with a long trailer blew through the stop sign on my left and cut right in front of me. There was no time for fancy footwork. I hit the brakes, and braced myself for the crash. Instead, the car came to a straight line stop almost as if on dry pavement. All I suffered was a glare from the asshole as though I had tried to spoil his day. I learned to drive in Anchorage AK, so I know a little about snow. In another incident, I am doing thirty-five downtown in the left lane of a one way when a deer(!!) jumps out from between parked cars perhaps 20 feet ahead of me. I jump on the brakes, and the car comes to a controlled stop a couple of feet shy of the deer that incidentally gives me that same glare. Needless to say, I'm thoroughly sold on ABS brakes.

Re:Not only that

[Anonymous Coward]

Locking your brakes won't help stop you..

Someone has to counteract the smart people up there... Thanks for volunteering!

Re:Not only that

[MacJedi]

You know, there's no law that requires you to own a car... ;)

Re:Not only that

[plague3106]

You don't get it; its a risk for me. Following your model, if someone hits me, MY insurance will go up, because my insurance has to pay because the other person doesn't have insurance. How is that right? Someone else not having insurance is a risk TO ME.

Re:Not only that

[mollymoo]

If I just want to stop fast I'll brake the way I always do, squeeze on rapidly but smoothly to allow weight shift, then sit on the limit. Limit braking is a skill that rapidly becomes automatic, and once you're used to doing it yourself, Yet Another Bloody Automatic System frigging with my rigging is just a pain.

I find it's automatic on the track or a quiet country road, but every time I've had to do an emergency stop I've either briefly locked up or, if the car had ABS, felt the tell-tale thump from the brake pedal as it kicked in. ABS frequently annoys me (braking on bad surfaces is a particular bugbear), but when a kid steps out in front of me on a dark, wet evening in December I know the ABS is going to reliably stop me locking up, while my efforts to find the edge of the friction circle as I swerve and brake probably wouldn't work out some of the time. You may be good, but can you avoid locking up in an emergency 10 times out of 10? 100 times out of 100?

Re:Not only that

[cecil_turtle]

I am sorry, but what you are spewing is a lot of BS. So are you.

Once it slides you do not have enough traction to do anything let alone stop. I assure you that you will stop with locked up tires. In fact you normally have quite a lot of traction even locked up, though you're correct that it is less than at threshold, and of course you lose steering control if it's in the front. But to say that a sliding tire doesn't have enough traction to do anything is completely wrong.

No driver, experienced or not can keep the tires at its maximum grip like ABS can. ABS system applies brakes multiples time within a second - no human can reproduce that. Wrong wrong wrong. Think of it this way - ABS releases the brakes multiple times per second. Once ABS activates, often too aggressively for what would otherwise be a temporary lockup even without ABS, it is engaged for a couple of seconds even if not needed (this varies with different ABS systems, but most have a minimum application time which is typically overkill). Remember two things: 1) ABS doesn't need a wheel to be fully locked before it will activate; a sufficient difference in wheel speed will do, and 2) while ABS "pumps" the brakes faster than any human can, it is slower to figure out if it even needs to be doing that - this is probably one of the most misunderstood things about ABS. Also ABS doesn't achieve threshold braking, it's purpose is to provide steering control in a panic situation. A reasonably experienced driver can absolutely out-brake ABS, and a reasonably trained driver also knows not to brake hard and steer at the same time. ABS is for inexperienced drivers who are likely to panic and don't understand the dynamics of vehicle control, which is certainly the majority.

Only situation where ABS is detrimental is on loose surfaces like gravel and heavy snow where the wheel lock up tend to push the material forward which aids in stopping. Yes, it has to be a material that is loose enough to build up in front of the tire but heavy/sticky enough to still provide additional stopping power. I find that the only time ABS is actually helpful is on snow/ice where finding the threshold is too flaky, so I just let ABS do it's job. 99.9% of the rest of the time I'd be better off without it.

Re:Not only that

[cecil_turtle]

An experienced driver might be able to adjust his braking about once or twice a second, whereas ABS keeps doing it about 50 times a second. No, ABS pumps the brakes 50 times per second, but it doesn't "adjust [its] braking" 50 times per second. This is a common misunderstanding. Once ABS activates it stays on for some pre-determined minimum amount of time, whether it needs to or not. It also frequently activates more often than it really needs to. This is why it's easier than you think for an experienced driver to out-brake ABS. Also, the purpose of ABS isn't to achieve threshold braking, it's to provide for steering control in a panic situation. And if you need to steer you're better off not braking; ABS doesn't change the laws of physics. This is why experienced drivers prefer not having ABS. See the post below yours for more explanation now that I've repeated myself.

And unless you're a stunt driver, it's unlikely you've ever had adequate experience with threshold braking to be reliable in an emergency. You don't have to be a stunt driver, anybody with any track/autocross experience has decent experience with threshold braking. It is unfortunate, though, that in the US it's extremely easy to get a driver's license - the required driving experience is minimal and the practical test is a joke. We'd be much better served if all drivers were required to have some performance driving training so they have some familiarity with hard braking/steering.

Re:Not only that

[fractoid]

Actually pretty much every study I have ever seen shows locked tire stops as the shortest on almost all surfaces, and almost all tires (not usually by much.) I'd be interested in seeing some of these studies. The result sounds reasonable, if you consider two things: 1) At higher speeds, locking a wheel leads to the contact surface melting, which then dramatically lowers your grip as well as flat-spotting your tyre (which ABS prevents, as you say, so it has an edge there, but braking studies usually don't test high-speed braking), and 2) ABS actually doesn't stop your tyres sliding, it just stops them from *locking*. So under ABS braking the tyre will be sliding more than gripping, even though it's still turning, hence the similarities (at speeds low enough to not actually soften/melt the contact patch).

Interestingly, limit braking is ingrained in me now to the point where if I get cut off, I'll find myself automatically doing it. Usually my conscious brain doesn't catch up until I'm already stationary, and I'm left thinking "wtf... wow that worked out well". I guess it's just because I often drive hard for fun, not just at autocross events. ;) Well, that and always driving the same car (6.5 years and counting) lets you learn the car by reflex.

Re:Not only that

[fractoid]

When the wheel is spinning you use the static coefficient, when it is sliding you use the dynamic. Please recall Dynamics 102, Lecture 14: The Real World Is More Complex Than That.

Medium complexity: When the wheel's rim is (near-)stationary relative to the ground, at the contact patch, then you use the static coefficient of friction. When it's moving relative to the ground REGARDLESS of whether the wheel is rotating, you use the dynamic one. Under ABS, the wheel is still rotating but it's doing so slower than it needs to to be rolling, hence ABS braking comes under dynamic friction.

More complexity: The tyre is not a rigid object, and as such there's no sharp transition from static to dynamic friction. That's why empirically (which is the only measure that matters), for maximum traction, you want a small degree (a few %) of slip. That's why racing cars drift by a few degrees while cornering, and why in low- to mid-range drag racing you want a (very small) amount of wheelspin. (Obviously I'm not talking about top fuel where they do a burnout to lay fresh, hot rubber and heat the tyres. That changes the rules.)

Re:Not only that

[fractoid]

That's funny, because I used to have a hell of a time getting my car into second when coming up fast to corners (the gearbox is fairly heavy duty) until I heard an old Japanese guy (OK, ok, it was Keiichi Tsuchiya ;) discussing double-clutching. Now my car goes into second gear from third as smooth as anything and my synchros love me for it. It depends on what you're trying to achieve - excellent car control at high speeds and during hard maneuvering, or commuting with a minimum of effort. I want the first, so I'm sticking with my car ('89 Toyota Supra, Aussie spec). If I wanted the second I'd get a new, automatic Camry.

As for ABS, I'm not fond of it (89 was the last year that Supras were manufactured without it), but I could live with it. Modern ABS is actually pretty good. Emergency brake assist is completely different and probably the thing I loathe most about new cars. I'm curious what these severe regulations are, because "It looks like you're trying to use the break pedal, would you like to perform an automatic emergency stop?" most certainly changes the way the car reacts, not to mention flicking the hazard lights on for you in an oh-so-friendly way as the car nosedives after you lightly tap the brakes, which really helps distract you when you're trying to merge on the freeway for the first time in a rental car and you don't know where the hazard light switch is yet.

Re:Not only that

[AndersOSU]

Your right that the world isn't quite that simple, but it is not true that you want the wheel spinning a few rad/s slower than it would need to be to remain in rolling contact. The reason is that the instant the wheel goes from rolling to sliding the braking at the brakes becomes irrelevant - locked, only just slower than rolling contact, or spinning in reverse, no traction is no traction. When this occurs, you have the stopping distance (almost) equal to dead weight sliding on rubber skids.

The reason ABS is a good thing is that it allows the brakes to do their job.

The same is true in reverse (acceleration). If you are drag racing on a frozen lake, it doesn't matter how many horses are under the hood, all that matters is how much power you can translate to forward motion. An Lada with tire studs will beat a Ferrari with racing slicks, because all that power means nothing if your wheels are spinning.

Re:Not only that

[causality]

And many accidents have actually been caused because people have been reluctant to slam the brake down because they've never done it (makes sense - it totally fucks up your tires, unless you do have ABS).

Sorry, but one minor thing. Accidents are not caused by reluctance to slam the brakes or any other problem with braking. Accidents other than single-car collisions are generally caused by one of two things: following too closely or failure to yield. If the skill used during braking matters, it's because one of these two has already happened and now you are talking mitigation.

With ABS, you can teach full braking to every new driver, and then they won't be scared to slam the brake when they're made to.

Scared? If you're afraid of the ball, you shouldn't be playing the game, especially when mistakes (such as panic reactions, overcompensation, etc) can kill. This is properly fixed by further training until the driver feels confident about being able to handle a vehicle on the road, including how to properly handle emergency situations, evasive maneuvers, etc. If you don't wait until you're faced with a life-and-death situation to consider for the first time how it should be handled, then you won't hesitate to do what is necessary without losing control. I love technology, but I grow weary of the way we always seem to use a technical solution for non-technical problems.

Re:Not only that

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

If someone sets fire to your house, your insurance will go up. Insurance isn't fair or reasonable in most cases. Why does every driver have to buy something that is ordinarily optional for every other item in their life? Are there no risks in life outside of driving?

Re:Not only that

[plague3106]

This is about risk; its MUCH more likely that someone would crash into me than someone would set fire to my house. The safety of my house doesn't depend on someone needing to exercise care. In fact, someone mus deliberately go out of their way to harm it. Driving is a whole different story. Its something I need to do (as well as others) and accidents are much more likely to happen.

Some crashed into me just because they didn't look to their side to see if the lane was clear; simply carelessness. Setting fire to my house; that requires some planning and deliberate action.

Re:Not only that

[fractoid]

The reason is that the instant the wheel goes from rolling to sliding the braking at the brakes becomes irrelevant - locked, only just slower than rolling contact, or spinning in reverse, no traction is no traction. When this occurs, you have the stopping distance (almost) equal to dead weight sliding on rubber skids. Yes and no. In your classical dynamics model, yes, you're right. But the fact that tyres are made of rubber and not titanium means that the rubber is actually deformed around and across the contact patch. I can't remember the link (some performance driving pro-tips page) but the gist of it was that, due to this, you want the wheel spinning maybe 5% slower than it would be if it were rolling with no braking at your current speed, for maximum braking. It's not much, but it's enough that you can hear the beginnings of tyre squeal. There is no 'instant' that the wheel goes from rolling to sliding, it's a gradual transition with maximum braking somewhere in the middle of that transition.

You'll notice that on wet roads (and even more so on ice), it's much easier to have the wheels lock without warning. This is because the coefficient of friction is so much smaller compared to the stiffness of the tyre rubber, meaning the system acts more like the classical dynamics system you describe.

Re:Not only that

[Ihlosi]

Why does every driver have to buy something that is ordinarily optional for every other item in their life?

How many other common (i.e. pretty much daily) activities can you name where it is as easy to cause enormous damage to others' health and property and you don't even have to be grossly negligent (or even negligent at all) to do so ?

(The list is very short. A two-ton hunk of metal travelling at 80 mph is pretty much one of the most destructive objects available to civilians)

Are there no risks in life outside of driving?

Compared to the probability of being damaged in a car accident and the likely amount of the damages, everything else is pretty much a minor risk.

Nobody is forcing you to own a car

[bigtrike]

What do you expect when the most communist aspect of the US is the road system. It's federally subsidized with tens of billions of tax dollars each year and almost all of your freedoms are null and void "for the good of the whole" and it does nothing but encourage wealth redistribution through inefficient consumption.

Opt out. Don't drive.

Where's the API?

[John_Booty]

"Here is the AP's writeup"

Damn. Did anybody else read that as "API writeup?"

I was ready to start coding since they were nice enough to document it and everything. Or so I thought for a blessed moment. :)

Oh so you do not think they will?

[cicho]

You don't tink they will mandate it? And why would they not? Have you ever, ever seen a government (any government) back down, ease regulations like these, forego a capability they once had? Have you ever seen a government decide they will no longer wiretap its citizens, for example, even though they can? Have you seen a government decide NOT to use that newly invented crowd control weapon? Ever?

The only time it happens, it seems to me, is when a country goes from an authoritarian rule to democracy (or what passes for one). When a tyrant gets deposed, the new government, formed of people who used to be in (underground) opposition, may begin with a shiny nice constitution, liberty for all and all that. After that, all a government does is ask for more and more power. You don't have to look far to see it happen.

Re:Oh so you do not think they will?

[timmarhy]

yes, it's just your government that's all fucked up.

Re:Oh so you do not think they will?

[cicho]

Mine surely is, but it is nowhere near taking the cake, yet. Maybe the difference is in the availability and price of certain technologies. We don't have OnStar-equipped vehicles yet, or tasers.

cruising for a bruising

[westlake]

but what if your just cruising and don't feel like stopping for said officer?

Then, O.J., the real fun begins.

Re:cruising for a bruising

[p0ss]

It's gonna make for some damn dull episodes of "worlds craziest police chases"!

Once again daveschroeder slings the propaganda

[spun]

Our old friend daveschroeder, a completely unbiased source studying 'intelligence' at the American Military University, is there to tell us not to be afraid of our government.

He implies that this system will be under the owner's control, and that police will only activate the system when they can see the car, and know it can stop safely. Because the police always operate in such a safe and sane manner. And our government has never taken voluntary safety devices like seat belts or air bags and made them mandatory. And the government has never, ever lied to us.

Thanks again, dave! Without you, we wouldn't know what to be scared of (terrists) and what not to be scared of (the status quo).

Re:Once again daveschroeder slings the propaganda

[daveschroeder]

Yes, spun; my fully-disclosed identity and educational background must completely invalidate any points I have made, as well as my own opinions!

However, a completely anonymous slashdot poster using an ad hominem attack is definitely "+5, Interesting".

I don't quite understand how making shoulder belts and air bags, both of which are proven to be life-saving devices (on the whole) mandatory is related to the police operating in a "safe and sane" matter. The humor is that police not operating in a "safe an sane" manner is most often brought up in the context of high speed chases...

I also note the many places in this post where I say the government never, ever lies.

I suppose that your implied assertion that all elements of government must always be distrusted and always be assumed to be lying (or have ulterior motives, usually evil) is the correct point of view, though?

And wow, yeah, I sure talk about "terrists" a lot, using the imaginary threat to incite fear in the sheeple! Oh, wait...I'm just a person who knows there is often more than one side to a story or more than one solution to a problem, unlike yourself.

If you want to dispute what I'm saying, why don't you take the actual issues, instead of personally attacking me, or bringing up what is blindingly obvious on my personal web site or CV every time I post something you disagree with to slashdot?

Re:Once again daveschroeder slings the propaganda

[spun]

Let me spell it out. People, including me, are worried about letting the government have the power to shut down our cars. We think it may become mandatory, and we think that, like many other government programs in the past (Tuskegee, COINTELPRO, and countless others) it will be abused, and innocent people will be harmed. The government has a history of expanding its powers, making voluntary things mandatory, and screwing over innocents. Why should this be any different?

The problem isn't (hopefully) people like you. It's the sociopaths and psychopaths that get into positions like yours, and even more influential positions in government. We both know they exist, and I at least know there isn't enough oversight to keep them all in line. I've seen my friends beaten by police for handing out free food to homeless people. I've come close to getting beaten myself for the same thing. Is that an indictment against everyone in government? No, but it is an example.

The reason I speak out anytime you do is that you only speak out when the message is "trust the status quo." I don't, and I don't think others should, either. When you say, "trust the status quo," I am going to point out that you have a vested interest in defending the status quo. That is relevant to the discussion.

MADD's new tool

[Nonillion]

I can guarantee you this has the potential to not only be misused just by law enforcement, but as a political agenda by MADD to force the installation of 'ON STAR' to fight the 'carnage on the highways'. ON STAR has 'some' advantages (stopping high speed chases, car jacking, drunk driving), but there are greatly out weighed by it's disadvantages.

Unconstitutional!

[madsheep]

LOL.. what a tag this story has -- "unconstituational." Last time I checked the constitution didn't outlaw knowingly purchasing a vehicle with an additional feature that you pay for that has capabilities to disable your car if law enforcement gets involved. Then again I haven't read it over in a while, I could be wrong.

Re:Unconstitutional!

[WillAffleckUW]

My copy says that we are free from unwarranted search and seizure and unreasonable searches.

Last time I checked you needed a warrant to get me to pop my trunk - this does it for them.

It's the trend...

[WebHostingGuy]

You buy something from a corporation and after you own it; you take it home; they still control it. See, for example, iPhone.

The Next OnStar commercial...

[kpainter]

shows a picture of a thug sitting handcuffed in the back of a police car and he says sarcastically "Thanks OnStar!"

First EDRs (black boxes), now this...

[bjdevil66]

Does GM expect to survive as a business like this? I already wasn't going to ever buy a GM because of the EDRs, but this is icing on the cake. Stop pandering to insurance companies and the government, and think of the people actually buying your cars - the consumers.

How is this different than a GM vehicle without ..

[kpainter]

...Onstar? They pretty much stall at will too.

very easy to fix

[llZENll]

just do this http://regmedia.co.uk/2005/02/28/tinfoil_car.jpg to your car

Obligatory ???

[lorenlal]

1. Idle car
2. remove passengers
3. de-idle car
4. destroy antenna
5. take to chop-shop
6. profit...

Wait... I didn't need a ???

OH NOES!

How is that any different from a lockpick?

[pavon]

This is no different from any other type of search. If they stop and search your car without a warrant or probable cause then that is unconstitutional. If they stop and search your car, after you call them and tell them it is stolen, that is not unconstitutional.

I would never install something like this on my car, and I will be the first one to protest if the government every makes it mandatory. But there are no constitutional issues with giving people the choice to install remote-entry or anti-theft devices, and there are already checks and balances in place to deal with police abuses.

Re:How is that any different from a lockpick?

[WillAffleckUW]

If they stop and search your car, after you call them and tell them it is stolen, that is not unconstitutional.

How do they know it's you?

I can see some teen doing this to his parents, narcing them out cause a government commercial told him to. Because they wouldn't let him play GTA: Emerald City.

LoJack does it better.

[Animats]

LoJack, which has a very good track record in stolen car recovery, is better designed from a privacy standpoint. LoJack hides a box somewhere in the car. It normally doesn't transmit anything. The box just listens to a subcarrier on broadcast stations for a signal that tells the LoJack boxes to turn on. When the box turns on, it starts sending out a signal, which suitably equipped police cars can pick up and home in on by radio direction finding.

It's reasonably easy to monitor LoJack for abuse. The broadcast control signal can be listened to by anybody, and the signal from a LoJack box isn't a much of a secret either. When it's triggered, every police car with LoJack gear in range lights up, so there's considerable visibility of its use. Southern California has about 500 LoJack activations a month. LAPD has their helicopters equipped with LoJack receivers, so stealing a LoJack-equipped car is likely to result in being spotlighted from the air within minutes.

Re:LoJack does it better.

[Anonymous Coward]

How long before the crooks begin using 'compatible' scanners and/or jammers?
How long until this system is used in kidnappings, robberies or terrorism?
How long until it gets abused by 'the authorities'?
What comes next? a chip in YOU so any cop can make YOU stop in your tracks?

Cheers.

Re:LoJack does it better.

[hibji]

how hard would it be to stage a denial of service attack on lojack? That is, would it be possible to activate the lojack system without the proper authorization?

Re:LoJack does it better.

[L0rdJedi]

But OnStar's primary use isn't for stolen car recovery. OnStar is for getting directions, unlocking your car because you locked the keys inside, or for getting help if you're stranded or in an accident. LoJack does none of those things.

Yes, it does

[Chris Burke]

...the implication being that it just slams on the brakes or kills the engine or both.

Uh... I see how that's a possible implication, but it's not one I assumed applied, simply because that wouldn't just be alarming but rather stark-raving bat-shit loco.

What the article describes is "remotely shutting down vehicles". They're just doing it in a relatively sane way, slowing the car gradually by disengaging the transmission rather than locking the brakes or something idiotic that would just be begging for lawsuits both against On-Star and any police department that used this feature and inevitably caused a horrible accident. Instead, it's merely a quiet request for lawsuits since it is still going to inevitably lead to an accident, it just won't be in the first day the system is used.


This argument appears predicated on the belief that even if a customer doesn't voluntarily and willingly "opt in", that it can still somehow be used by police or hackers. I'm sorry, but that's simply not how it works.

Okay, but if you -do- opt in then it can be used by police or hackers. I would never do such a thing, but since they don't ever discuss any of the possibilities that are why I would never opt in, there are going to be people who do opt-in without realizing what all that means. Acting like everything's okay because people can choose is wrong if people can't make informed choices.

Further, OnStar can currently be used to unlock vehicles. Why isn't that an "irresistible target for hackers"?

Who says it isn't? Of course that requires you or your buddies to be physically near the car in order to get anything out of it. If you're just out to ruin somebody's day, you can disable their car remotely and read about your success on the evening news.

But in all seriousness, the possibilities of hackers doesn't bother me as much as abuse by police and OnStar itself.

Um, no, because I wouldn't have to [bet my life on OnStar being impossible to hack], nor would anyone else who opts in to the service?

Of course you would if you opt in! Suddenly disengaging your engine could cause all kinds of problems and accidents. Suddenly slowing on an interstate with no brake lights so you get rear-ended by the guy tailgating behind you is one way. Or on the on-ramp. In snow or ice coasting is very dangerous as it causes a loss of traction, and if you were in the middle of a turn then the results could be very bad as the best way to come out of a slide in snow -- using the engine -- has been denied to you, and the next best option -- ABS brakes -- are only going to send you in a straight line into who knows what.

Honestly, think a little bit about what it would mean if this happened randomly while you were driving. If your driving conditions are so ideal that it never even occurred to you that the sudden loss of engine power could cause accidents, well, congratulations on your unique experience but it doesn't apply to the rest of us.

This is no different than Lojack, which can also, in theory, be "activated" when a user chooses to have the service, in the same way this could be.

Heh, amusing anecdote about the financier at the dealership I bought my car from. He was trying to get me to sign up for LoJack, and after describing how it's a microwave transmitter that the police can enable remotely to find your car wherever it is, even in an underground garage, he then said how since it is "only turned on when you report your car stolen" that it isn't as "Big Brother-ish as OnStar".

Let that sink in. A remote tracker that the police can turn on whenever they want to find my car wherever it is isn't Big Brother-ish. I guess I'm supposed to just assume that the police would never want to turn on the transmitter unless I reported my car stolen. Take it on faith. But if I was so naive that I always trusted the Powers That Be to never do anything they weren't supposed to and always

Re:Yes, it does

[arminw]

......the sudden loss of engine power ......

It doesn't have to be sudden. In a computer controlled engine they can mess with mixture, timing etc. in such a way that the engine produces gradually less and less power over any number of minutes and finally stops. This would give a driver plenty of time to find a safe stopping place, such as the next freeway exit.

Home of the Free...

[Boojumbunn]

Ok folks, there is no need to go off into paranoia land. Yes, this is the home of the free where personal choice matters. I own a chevy, I pay for onstar, I want my service. Those are my choices on where I am spending my money. I want this option and I'm willing to pay a premium for it. If you don't want this, guess what, you don't have to have it. Even on a brand spanking new chevy you can pay someone to remove the Onstar gear. It's your car, you can do anything you want with it. If you want a new stereo, you can get it, if you want new rims, pay for them, if you dont' want onstar then by a different car or have it removed, it's your choice. Certainly I can understand preventing the government from mandating such devices, but they should be allowed for those people who want them.. and I'm one who wants it. If I get in an accident, I want someone to send an ambulence right away. I like getting monthly e-mails on how my car is doing. I like being able to quickly get in touch with someone if I'm in trouble. Yes, this means that a measure that can locate a thief CAN be used to locate me.. currently an officer would need a warrent for that information, but there is no technical reason why it can't be done. You know what? I'm ok with that. If I know the cops are after me I have LOTS of choices for transportation that are not tracked. Which comes to my main point. This is a company offering a service.. and it's one you need to pay for. This is not the government instituting this policy. If I want to have my car tracked, have my dog tracked, or even have my own body lojacked that should be just as much my right as NOT having these things. Right now it's a market choice.. and thats how it should be. Boojum the brown bunny

Re:Home of the Free...

[JustNiz]

So you're telling me Onstar isn't even optional? So when you buy a new GM car, you are obliged to pay for Onstar in the price of the car then pay again to have it removed?
Wow.
I guess thats just another reason I'll never buy a GM-brand car.

Re:Home of the Free...

[Boojumbunn]

And I will back your right to buy a car that doesn't have OnStar. Currently, some Chevrolet's don't have OnStar, though the article indicates that they will be expanding which lines have them.. probably due to demand. Those cars that due come with it you have to pay extra to have it removed.. same as you would a radio you didn't want or if you didn't want electronic door locks or if you didn't want a rear seat. Thats the joy of standardized features that lower the manufacturing costs of the car. You only build a few different ways. However it is certainly not a government/constitutional issue. This is a marketplace issue. Will enough people pay for a car with OnStar to support the company that makes/uses it. So far it would seem so since OnStar is a major selling point for a lot of people.

The pitfalls of monopolistic, subscription based..

[Anachragnome]

"Why you going so slow!? Step on it, man! They're gaining on us!"

"Whoa, dude!...........I think the cops just bricked my iCar!"

Doesn't matter

[pavon]

It is still no different than any other situation. If *right now* someone calls and reports my car stolen, and the police happen to see me driving it they will pull me over, and will have every right to do so because they have legitimate probable cause. Falsely accusing someone is still a crime, and ratting on people is not facilitated by this device whatsoever.

This system is actually slightly less prone to abuse because the owner has to provide (minimal) verification their identity when they call up On-Star to report their car stolen (or have the door unlocked or anything else).

Re:Doesn't matter

[WillAffleckUW]

you mean like DWB?

Yeah, that's legit.

tin foil hack

[p51d007]

Since On-Star uses an ANTENNA mounted on TOP of the car, couldn't the thief just take some tin-foil and cover up the antenna, thus disabling communication between the car and the satellite?

Re:tin foil hack

[mikael]

If you couldn't, the car would be useless in an electrical storm (lightning, hail, sleet, water).

Re:tin foil hack

[Blublu]

That would only [i]enhance[/i] the signal! Haven't you ever used a radio?

Re:tin foil hack

[VagaStorm]

Wouldent it be more effective to simply cut it off?

Re:tin foil hack

[The_Wilschon]

Tin foil hats: Not just for humans anymore!

Re:tin foil hack

[no1nose]

Maybe they will alter the design of OnStar. Instead of receiving a signal to shut the car down, your car will need to check-in with OnStar every 15 minutes to keep running.

If you cut the antenna off, or are being perused by the cops, you won't receive authorization to continue receiving horsepower from the engine. There might be other issues with this new design, but I am sure the government will consider this a justifiable cost to keep us safe.

Re:tin foil hack

[Ihlosi]

Instead of receiving a signal to shut the car down, your car will need to check-in with OnStar every 15 minutes to keep running.

Great. Then your car will stop in the middle of nowhere, and you won't even have cellphone service to call for help. Hilarious.

Re:tin foil hack

[no1nose]

I am sure the government is willing to let you sit in the middle of the Mojave desert for a bit if it means they will have a better chance of stopping crime.

Vehicle Aesthetics?

[h4ck7h3p14n37]

So does this mean that GM is going to be drilling holes in all of their new vehicles to install the GPS receiver? That even if you don't want OnStar, and maybe even go so far as to physically disable it, you'll still have an ugly receiver mounted on your car?

I suppose I should be happy that GM stopped making Firebirds?

Could be worse, they could have RFID in your

[WillAffleckUW]

sperm and eggs.

Now, that's an invasion of privacy.

[OT] cell phone tracking was Re:California History

[Anonymous Coward]

Not just in cars, 3 weeks ago I recieved a change in policy letter from Verizon for my cell phone. It said if I do nothing, they will be able to improve my service by tracking my location and selling that info to 3rd parties. If I wanted to opt out and risk not helping to improve the Verizon cell phone network, then I had to call a number. There's a pretty good chance my wife discarded that notice before I ever had a chance to see it. You don't happen to have the number or other information, do you?

Privacy Concerns???

[S.Cohen]

There are no fucking privacy concerns. This is a great idea to stop deadly high speed chases and help catch criminals. Any idiot who worries that much about their "privacy" obviously has something illegal to hide.

In Soviet America

[Anonymous Coward]

Why why would registering with any party or voting for someone who claims an interest in freedom but favors social controls matter?

In Soviet America politics affects YOU.

Prove otherwise

[KudyardRipling]

It's only a matter of time before this becomes necessary to insure or register a vehicle. Inspection procedures will be amended to check if such has been rendered inoperative (like emission control equipment). For those who think of making their own inspection stickers with a high end color laser/inkjet printer and graphics software have another thing coming. In New Jersey, one can lose a driver license longer than DWI (1 - 3 years) - NJSA 39:8-18. More and more states are using holograms or barcodes based on hashed data on their vehicle-affixed documents.

Why should anyone be concerned? After all, powered personal mobility, perhaps the highest expression of individual liberty, is a privilege. Soon, a simple majority of the USA population will have come from overseas. As such, they are less likely to challenge authority, for they are here for the money and not for the values. Most of these did not hold a driver's license overseas and so they continue to take public transit or become a nuisance on the roads (i.e. slow-moving sub-compact import? Pass and look who's in the driver's seat--D[riving]W[hile]A[sian]!).

What do you call an attorney who puts his loyalty to liberty above his profession? Disbarred.

Re:Prove otherwise

[Damarkus13]

Even if it were illegal to disable and routinely checked, couldn't you just wrap the reciever in copper mesh (or tinfoil if you prefer) and ground it to the frame. Just remove the mesh prior to inspection and replace afterwards. Or, if it is directly connected to the radio antenna, simply unplug it.

There while always be a work-around for those who put their mind to it.

Re:Prove otherwise

[shmlco]

Obviously, circumvention will get you an even higher fine. Once someone figures out that no data is coming from your vehicle...

Re:Prove otherwise

[KudyardRipling]

I appreciate your stance. In our present world where the government views all within its jurisdiction with the presumption of guilt (a.k.a. homeland security), the goal for all systems design is first and foremost security (You reserve the right to laugh as you please). This means hacker proofing everything.

What if this becomes part of a continually checking system? It would be the sort of thing like software phoning home. If the onboard computer does not make contact with the shut-down server after so many seconds, it will record a tampering incident in non user-clearable NOVRAM. This can be transmitted to one's Motor Vehicle Bureau and surprise! a ticket in the mail! "We know that you tampered with your vehicle's computer. It told us so!" This will be a bitch to disprove because motor vehicle jurisprudence reverses the burden of proof. Why? 'Tis because (everyone chime in now) DR1V1NG 1S A PR1V1L3G3!

This is not only time they wanted this.

[Neanderthal Ninny]

I remember that someone filed a patent of this idea already: http://www.freshpatents.com/Throttle-cable-disconnection-apparatus-and-method-dt20060427ptan20060086199.php And how much uproar it got from /. since it an cracker (doing evil) or a hacker (just to prove a point) can attempt to break into this system to disable your car in a dangerous location and the cracker will do evil to you or have the hacker show that it can be done. OnStar system is a great tool but I don't even mind that it can track my stolen car if it is stolen and all of these things that I like are passive devices but disabling the car is active and it is dangerous since, like all devices, can be misued.

Re:Privacy? With OnStar?

[tacocat]

I'm not familiar with anyone bugging a conversation or even how likely that is to even work with the Onstar units I work with. Can you prove it?

Re:[OT] cell phone tracking was Re:California Hist

[Anonymous Coward]

I also got one of these letters, but I'm at school and my parents discarded it. If you could post the number to call (or a scan of the letter), that would be phenomenal.

What about passengers?

[Anonymous Coward]

Should passengers be informed of your equipment if it has tracking, or audio recording, capabilities? After all, they didn't agree to the TOS.

What are you complaining about??

[www.sorehands.com]

If you are not a criminal, what would you have to worry about??? They say only the police will be able to have it activated, so what is to worry about?? A government approved system is always secure.

Re:What are you complaining about??

[FJGreer]

And you trust the American Government?

Re:What are you complaining about??

[nosfucious]

As pointed out many times before, it's not the honest cop you have to worry about.

Cop doesn't like the colour of your skin? Too bad, no car for you. Cop doesn't like your (lack of) religion, too bad, no car for you. Et cetera.

And that's if you're doing nothing wrong.

Re:What are you complaining about??

[TrentTheThief]

American? Only a fool would trust any government.

Actually it's your response that's misleading.

[i41Overlord]

Then, if officers see the car in motion and judge it can be stopped safely, they can tell OnStar operators, who will send the car a signal via cell phone to slow it to a halt. That sounds like remotely shutting down the vehicle to me. Nobody said anything at all about the brakes being automatically actuated- you threw that strawman in there because you have no other point.

Yet another reason not to buy American cars....

[moosesocks]

Seriously.... does the American auto industry have an f----ing death wish?

Their cars are expensive, inefficient, underpowered, and poorly-made compared to the competition. And now they spy on you....

Why can't Detroit wake up in time to save its sorry ass? I hate to say it, but I think there's a *very* real chance of seeing both GM and Ford going belly-up in my lifetime. Hopefully whatever comes along (if anything) to replace them will be a bit more innovative.

And please don't take this as flamebait, but when you've lost your edge and are hemorrhaging cash and customers, the *last* thing a company wants to do is to alienate their remaining customers even further.

Re:Yet another reason not to buy American cars....

[ScrappyLaptop]

...you do realize that most people wouldn't see this new feature as a bad thing, right? I mean, not one but two, count 'em, two authorities will tell them it is a good idea. If a powerful corporation and the all powerful government say that it's good, then the best thing most people think they can do is...whatever they are told to do. Not out of resignation. Not out of ignorance. By choice. Power by association is a very, very convincing tool...

Re:Yet another reason not to buy American cars....

[Anonymous Coward]

And please don't take this as flamebait,

But that's what it is- flamebait from a pigshit ignorant cocksucker with his head up his ass. But one look at your radio music list and we know what a tasteless moron you are. Seriously, the whole "Merikan carz am teh suxors" meme is out of style with everyone but fartsucking assmasters like you. Their real probkem is labor costs of all the lazy bolt tightening union fuckers who should be replaced by robots as soon as possible.

onstar eavesdropping on conversations

[shmlco]

Obviously you're driving in public, and as such should have no expectation of privacy.

Dumb and Self Distructive

[Burning1]

Because I'm liable for your dumb, self destructiveness.

I personally carry $300,000 in protection against bodily injury liability in the event of an accident.

If I am found at fault in a collision, I am responsible for all of your damages and medical bills. Your seatbelt can easily make the difference between a $200,000 stay in the hospital, and a $1,000,000 wrongful death verdict.

In my experience, most anti seatbelt and anti helmet people talk about personal responsibility up until the moment that they get hit. Then, it's someone else's job to pay for their facial reconstruction surgery, speech therapy, and years of physical therapy.

I ride motorcycles for fun, and I do it at speeds that would probably get me flamed. I understand risk, and I don't think life should be perfectly safe. I think that personal responsibility means either protecting one's self as best possible, or paying your own bills when your teeshirt, shorts and flip flops are dragged over the pavement at 80 miles per hour.

Re:Dumb and Self Distructive

[RogL]

I think you're missing the point...

Can you reconcile these 2 statements from your post:

Because I'm liable for your dumb, self destructiveness.

If I am found at fault in a collision, I am responsible for all of your damages and medical bills.

Sounds to me like you don't want to be liable for your own actions.

Why should someone else have their life restricted, to protect you from your mistakes?

Re:Dumb and Self Distructive

[jackbird]

because the dumb self-destructiveness he speaks of is the act of not wearing a seatbelt. And I'd say he's making a fair stab at taking liability for his actions; my car insurer at least doesn't publish rates above $300k liability.

Re:Dumb and Self Distructive

[Burning1]

First of all, a seatbelt isn't 'restricting your life.' Asking you to wear one isn't demanding that you give up an essential liberty, nor is it asking you to forgo your pursuit of happiness. Wearing your seatbelt is a small annoyance at best.

Second, it is unreasonable to expect other drivers not to make mistakes. If everyone was a good driver, I could safely fly down the freeway at 140 in traffic. The speed limit of 65 gives me traction and time to respond to other people's boneheaded moves. If you pay attention to the traffic laws, you start to notice that most of them are designed tolerate other people's ineptitude (including seat belt laws.)

Third, as a motorcyclist, I understand how easy it is for someone else to kill me without doing something especially stupid.

I realize that most driver's can't accurately gauge my speed or distance.
I realize that many people will miss me in their mirrors.
I understand that not everyone reacts correctly when I try to pass them.
I understand that people don't always use their blinkers.
I understand that many people lack collision avoidance skills.

I protect myself against other people's mistakes by understanding where they happen, and taking steps to avoid dangerous situations. I am aware of other people's inept driving and I always have a plan to deal with it. I don't simply drive down the road, expecting everyone else in the world to obey the law and drive carefully.

Here's my position: Major accidents are often made up of a large series of small mistakes by both drivers. Liability assigns the full blame of both parties to a single individual.

I don't have a choice whether or not the sun hits my eyes. You have actively made a choice to be less safe when you drive without your seatbelt.

If I intentionally run you down, I think I should be responsible for the full million dollars if you aren't wearing a belt. But I don't think I should be responsible for your suffering and $700,000 when I make a common human error and you intentionally chose to forgo an essential safety device for the sake of a small amount of personal comfort.

Early termination fee is waived in this case

[Anonymous Coward]

If a company changes their terms of service you have 30 days to agree to the change (by doing nothing) or you can notify them you do not agree and you can cancel your service without any early termination fees. At least that's the law in my state, YMMV.

Another dangerous program

[Scratch-O-Matic]

I've heard of another system that is far more sinister in its implications. It seems that many (most?) apartment complexes and hotels have installed door locks that can be opened by one key (called a "master") that is held by the property management. Of course, this "master key" is made readily available to law enforcement under certain circumstances.

Haven't read about this? The MSM doesn't want us to know about it.

Re:Another dangerous program

[geekoid]

This has been true for the entire history of the hotel business.

Re:Another dangerous program

[Scratch-O-Matic]

Ah, so that makes it OK? This master key business is a long, slippery slope my friend. I tell you right now, it's only a matter of time before the police are conducting random searches in hotels and apartments. All in the name of our "safety," of course.

If I was into hacking....

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd use it on the slimey little HR recruiting weasel at the company I've been working at...

There's nothing like being a contractor trying to get into a big company that the HR weasel only hires his friends (and rubs that fact in your face)...

I can't wait to see what happens to him and the company a year down the road when upper management realizes that none of the people working there know what they are doing and that they only got their jobs because of their slimey little buddy got them in.....

my warped take on this...

[m2bord]

I don't trust GM and I don't trust law enforcement with this tool. Today it's pro-law enforcement and later they could grant lien holders permission to disable a moving vehicle for violating any of the terms of the vehicle loan/lease agreement.

There are too many hands coming into our lives. GPS trackers, RFID, and countless other tools that are being used to slowly but surely keep us in check.

Re:my warped take on this...

[freedom_india]

Its already done.
On a leased car, if your payment does not go out to the bank on time, your car is automatically "bricked".
That is why leased cars come with OnStar: Not because the banks care about you [they like you dead after you stash 100,000 in your account], but because they can brick the car.
NYC outlaws it....

Misuse

[PPH]

At first glance, 'bricking' a stolen car or fleeing suspect seems like a good idea. But, like Tasers, the cops will misuse the technology and start disabling vehicles for minor offenses.

Did I run out of gas or forget to pay that two week old parking ticket?

Re:[OT] cell phone tracking was Re:California Hist

[Mr2001]

If it's the same one I received, the number to call is 800-333-9956.

OnStar?

[elchuppa]

OffStar.

Re:Privacy? With OnStar?

[Agripa]

The FBI has already used a court order to do this in at least one criminal case but Onstar responded with a suit that recently was ruled on in appeal:

"The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals said Tuesday that the FBI is not legally entitled to remotely activate the system and secretly use it to snoop on passengers, because doing so would render it inoperable during an emergency."

http://www.news.com/2100-1029_3-5109435.html

This only applies in California, Oregon, Nevada, Washington, Hawaii, and other states that fall within the 9th Circuit's jurisdiction so I presume the FBI can still do this in other areas. If the FBI can avoid interfering with the service itself when using it for interception then the order blocking this activity may not matter.

Then watch *these* cops taser *this* guy to death

[Eternal Vigilance]

I was going to mod in the thread, but had to post a response to this.

This is video of Georgia cops tasering a man to death.

The guy was having a problem with his epilepsy medication, so his wife called the cops for help. They proceeded to medicate him - first with billy clubs, then with tasers - repeatedly.

Because the wife also called the FBI afterwards, the local DA got pissy and softballed the case before the grand jury, which didn't even bother to watch this video before finding the police blameless.

The man's last words?

"Don't kill me."

Here's the link to the video

The link to the (minimal) media coverage

And the link to the discussion over at Digg

When you're the guy in this video, then you can whine about people "screeching about tasers being overused."



P.S. When one's POV is that everyone is a person "who would kill or maime them in the blink of an eye," then naturally one "wouldn't hesitate to tase someone who i thought was going to turn violent on me."

But that's not seeing the truth of each situation, that's being caught in one's own psychosis and fear.

(Since consciousness is self-similar, of course we'll see this same behavior at the level of the person (in this case the poster, it seems, and the police) as well as the level of the nation (for example, our war in Iraq) ).

We don't get to hurt or kill other people just because we're afraid.

And the solution isn't to keep hurting or killing people until we're not afraid. Since the fear is an internal condition, and one that blinds us to the external reality, no amount of external violence and killing will ever stop it.

The solution is to stop, admit that we're afraid, breathe, and then notice we're still OK. And that takes a lot more balls than just beating or shooting or tasering or bombing everything that scares us.

I'm OK with it.

[JustShootMe]

I'm OK with this. In fact, I wish my car had OnStar with this enabled.

If you are in a car and the police find that there is a reason to stop your car, 9 times out of 10 it is a very good reason. Currently many high speed chases are done with stolen cars, and many times those chases end up with a wrecked car and a trail of destruction stretching many miles. Maybe this wouldn't completely prevent it, but there is legitimate public safety argument in this kind of feature.

Is it hackable? Yeah, of course. But so is the public power grid. There is a certain level of risk that we all have to live with - it's just a part of life. Can it be abused by police? Yeah. But then so can a thousand other things that we live with as well. In my view the benefits to public safety far outweigh the privacy concerns.

Now if onstar could also hold the doors locked and start a fire in the engine compartment, I'd think we have a serious problem.

Re:I'm OK with it.

[geekoid]

"nd many times those chases end up with a wrecked car and a trail of destruction stretching many miles"

Very few times, actually.

"In my view the benefits to public safety far outweigh the privacy concerns."
Hey everyone ! Stalin posts on Slashdot! I knew that wasn't you in that glass case!

You sir, disgust me.

Re:I'm OK with it.

[JustShootMe]

Oh, come on. I disgust you? There are many more things to be disgusted by than this. Such as the *flagrant* attacks on civil liberty coming from this government. This isn't even an attack on civil liberty, it's just a feature that you can opt out of (even if by pulling the fuse to the onstar system) that may make it easier for police to recover your car in the event it's stolen and save a few innocent lives in the process.

Do *you* live in Los Angeles, where you put your life on the line every day from car thieves running down the 405 in stolen vehicles, cutting people off and knocking them out of the way, all the while police following from a safe distance because the road is just too congested to safely PIT them?

And the comparison to Stalin is just a modified invocation of Godwin's law.

I'm sorry to everyone else, it just really bugs me when people compare me to Stalin for having a reasonable opinion.

Re:I'm OK with it.

[Fantastic Lad]

it just really bugs me when people compare me to Stalin for having a reasonable opinion.

Excuse me? Do you mean to say that you are compared to Stalin with some frequency? Sheesh. I post all the time and nobody has ever pulled that one on me. What exactly are these opinions of yours?

-FL

Re:I'm OK with it.

[NotmyNick]

I'm sorry to everyone else, it just really bugs me when people compare me to Stalin for having a reasonable opinion.

If this is commonly a problem for you, maybe a little introspection is in order. ;~)

chet

[Anonymous Coward]

With the new technology, which OnStar President Chet Huber said GM will apply to the rest of its lineup in future years, OnStar would call police and tell them a stolen car's whereabouts. heh, Chet ;)

A PR problem, not a performance

[ObiWonKanblomi]

Their cars are expensive, inefficient, underpowered, and poorly-made compared to the competition.

That's not entirely true, especially on the quality portion. Take a look at the JD Power 2007 Brand Quality Ratings. Surprisingly, Lincoln did better than BMW, and Ford and GM are in the middle of the pack.

Interestingly enough, the words you spat out in the above quote seem to be some sort of weird side effect of some proto-viral marketing that came about in the early 90s.

Re:A PR problem, not a performance

[toddestan]

That's not too surprising to me, as BMW may make a fun car to drive, but it's also a finicky car that's going to need servicing a lot. Call me when Lincoln is beating Lexus and Acura.

Oh well

[Amazetbm]

I've never considered buying a GM car. I definitely won't consider buying one now.

One more reason to *NOT* buy GM

[laing]

GM has its problems. I'll never own another GM product. I think their biggest issue is that they do not learn from their mistakes. If the design engineers screw up and produce a product that fails repeatedly, they never hear about it. There's no feedback mechanisim between the service departments and the engineering team. This is the primary difference between them and their Japanese competitors.

All of that aside, this step crosses the line. What they have implemented here is a means to remotely take control of the car from the driver. Think about that for a minute. They've decided that an "override" function should exist which would superceed the judgement and will of the pilot of the vehicle. This is the same kind of reasoning that caused the Airbus A320 crash at the Habsheim air show in 1988. The computer overrode the pilots attempts to climb and crashed the aircraft, killing many.

If I ever own a vehicle with such technology installed, the first thing I'll do before driving it will be to completely disable it.

--
This space for rent

Re:One more reason to *NOT* buy GM

[tom's a-cold]

GM doesn't make money on cars. They make money on finance. The only remaining profit center in GM is GMAC. So why should they give a shit how their cars work?

This could revolutionize the Repo industry

[punterjoe]

Miss a car payment? On-Star can just 'brick' your car. "Where do you think YOU'RE going, deadbeat?" :P

OnStar: The Day the Earth Stood Still

[mrjacques]

Perhaps it's time for a TDTESS remake. Camaro Impala Nicto.

More American car myth

[geekoid]

American cars, by and large, will run forever.

I drive down the road and routinely see 15-20-35 year old American cars , seldom a foreign car that old.
they may be an eight when you by them, but years later they will still be an eight, while many foreign cars will be falling apart or ready for replacement.

This is not alienating there customers, many customers want this.
You could just not get on star you know?

belly up? maybe, but don't overlook the number of 'foreign' cars they build.

Re:More American car myth

[stewbacca]

I drive down the road and routinely see 15-20-35 year old American cars , seldom a foreign car that old. That's because someone tacky enough to buy an American car in the first place is more likely to drive that ugly rust bucket around for 15-20 years, whereas a nice Bimmer gets replaced every 5-10 years or so...mostly because I can...

Is 1988 all over again

[fishtoes2000]

The Code Alarm Intercept system could remotely shut down your engine (not idle it) when it was introduced back in 1988. If I recall correctly, we would only shut a vehicle down on police orders when they had a visual. I don't recall if we ever did that though. The system wasn't immensely popular due to the high cost (cell technology was relatively new and bulky) and accuracy (we were using LORAN technology since GPS was too pricey.)

this has the potential to kill someone.

[DragonTHC]

What if ONStar screws up and bricks your car while doing 75 on the freeway?
You die and potentially so do more people in the resulting crash.

This technology should deter people from buying these cars and GM will die off finally.

They make shit cars anyway.

I'll take a honda or subaru or mitsubishi any day of the week over anything made by GM.

Re:this has the potential to kill someone.

[JustShootMe]

I have a brand new Chevy Aveo. I really like it.

Of course, it's made by Daewoo, but it's the thought that counts.

Stopping cars for fun :)

[Anonymous Coward]

I will never buy a car with a cellular radio in it without first using said radio for spare parts.

Given its public knowledge our cell networks (esp GSM) are nowhere near being secure this raises some very valid questions about the risks posed to innocent people. While its possible to securely communicate over insecure channels history leads me to doubt very much the implementation will be vigorous enough to counter the almost primal urge the entire hacking community will have to be the first one to press that 'other' switch on the dash (next to the smoke screen and oil slick) which stalls most traffic around them at will.

In Cop Cars?

[Doc Ruby]

Will all cop cars have this crackable feature?

that's fine

[rastoboy29]

If you're so fucking stupid that you can't read a map and want a computer to tell you what to do, you deserve to have your car stolen out from under like this, whether by the cops or a criminal with a hack.

Re:Then watch *these* cops taser *this* guy to dea

[SecurityGuy]

This is quite possibly the best post I've ever read on this site.

Very, very well said.

yet to see a single video

[http]

(1) I am trying to imagine how it is that you haven't seen an undeserved tasering. Seeing as video repositories are all the rage these days, go look up a few. Keep in mind that constables will generally post videos showing themselves (and their profession) in a favourable light.

(2) I feel the urge to explicitly call you a twit, rather than imply it. You're a twit. The vast majority of police officers I have met in my life are happy in their work, and know that "suspect" is not the same as "perpetrator". But a small, non-zero number don't get it, and enjoy using force on the slightest pretext. The taser is only one tool at their disposal. Their co-workers (at least in this town) hate that they have to look after their own.

George Orwell missed something

[godless dave]

You know what Orwell left out of Nineteen Eighty-four? The part where the citizens willingly pay for Big Brother to spy on them.

Only when they can see the car?

[The Monster]

...that police will only activate the system when they can see the car, and know it can stop safely.

How does this work, exactly? Cops are pursuing a car, and they relay the license plate and description back to dispatcher, who checks registration dispatch for the VIN associated with that car, gives that to OnStar, who looks up the codes to kill the car, which they proceed to do.

But what if a criminal was clever enough to see another car that looks like the one he stole, and swaps out the license plates to confuse the cops? (Or he's really smart and made a fake license with the number of the similar car.) Now the cops don't really see the car they think they see, and the wrong car gets shut down, conveniently coasting to a stop at a railroad crossing.

I sure hope the protocol requires that they confirm via GPS that the car really is the one they think it is. TFA suggests that they don't really halt the car so much as (disengage the signal from the accelerator pedal) fade it down to idle, in which case the car would still move forward at maybe 10 mph on level ground, fast enough to avoid this worst-case scenario, but slow enough the cops could easily halt it simply by getting a vehicle in front of it and easing onto the brakes, if the suspect didn't just pull over and put it into park at that point.

So if the car is going uphill toward the tracks... Maybe instead of idle, the car could go into Valet Mode (limited to something like 20 mph, maximum distance 2 miles it can be driven before going to idle, because we saw Ferris Bueller's Day Off, and want this mode anyway for when we go to a fancy restaurant and leave the key with the car, but keep the security fob.)

Re:Then watch *these* cops taser *this* guy to dea

[bwen]

Having not been at the trial and not knowing all the specifics, I do take issue with some of what you are saying. "problem with epilepsy medication" does not begin to explain why he was initially violent and his wife called the cops. He may have been post-ictal (state of confusion and sometimes violent behavior following a seizure.) Having been struck and seeing other hospital personnel get hurt by epileptics after their seizures when they can't be reasoned with is a dangerous situation. Not knowing the full situation of what happened, I think it would be fair to say that the number of police called in was because he was resisting arrest - I mean he appeared to be fighting to the end. "The solution is to stop, admit that we're afraid..." it trite and shows that you have no first hand experience in these situations. "We don't get to hurt or kill other people just because we're afraid" - if someone is acting in a threatening manner then I am glad that police have a rarely lethal way of subduing the person. I would gladly like to watch you lecture police on your contemplation of how they should act in these situations.

Prediction

[Tablizer]

I predict that GM will claim hacking is unlikely until the day hackjackers[1] badly maim somebody and GM gets their ass sued off. Then it will be removed. That's the way it usually goes down with new technology.

[1] I also predict the coining of a new term.

Anyone remember Star Frontiers?

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone remember Star Frontiers? The RPG based in the future where cars were speed-limited by signals sent throughout major cities and your car could be hacked to circumvent this?

Today, my car wanted to go 130mph. Not saying it did or that I was there, but in a world with electronically prescribed limits, what can you do? If you think it's a crazy question, perhaps you should get out more...

New nickname

[Tablizer]

"OnStall"

Re:Then watch *these* cops taser *this* guy to dea

[durin]

I wish I could mod you 6, Insightful.

The obvious way to hack the system

[bdaehlie]

Call up OnStar from a pay phone, sound frantic:

You: "This is officer Jones of the XYZ police department in FooBar SomeState. We have a deadly chase going on, suspect has already hit and possibly killed two pedestrians. The vehicle plate # is 123XYZ. Can you disable this vehicle?

OnStar Operator: "What is the authorization code for police shutdown?"

You (even more frantic): "I don't know! You have to shut this vehicle down, people are getting hurt! More will die!"

===========

I bet the OnStar operator shuts down the vehicle against protocol. Anybody have reason to believe they wouldn't? I'm sure someone could come up with more convincing dialog too. Maybe have some other fake info in advance to sound convincing, like a badge number or cop jargon.

Re:Then watch *these* cops taser *this* guy to dea

[RightSaidFred99]

Hey Genius - did you notice that he was subdued and held down _while_ he was tased? The video's a little grainy, but any dipshit can see those cops are dirt shit stupid and should be immediately fired, and the whole department should have had the ever loving shit sued out of them. That would force some retraining.

Kind of fucking pathetic that many cops can't restrain one man without holding him down and tasing him to death. I'm not all against the taser, either, actually - it has valid uses when the cop is in moderate but non life-threatening danger. That many cops weren't in danger from one unarmed man unless they're idiots, which of course they are.

Re:Privacy? With OnStar?

[Anonymous Coward]

What's to stop a country like north korea, china, african provinces, or india from bouncing a signal off the onstar satellite and knocking out all motor vehicles in say, the united states, in prelude to an invasion?

Just wondering.

GM reflects the sad state of USA

[freedom_india]

From the world's largest car maker to the lowliest financier creep...

GM reflects USA.
From the being the fearsome manufacturing power capable of churning out a Destroyer a week, to being relegated to a bunch of weasly MBAs and Lawyers waiting for a Fed rate cut...

From being the country which gave the Mustang to being a country which prides itself on ripping off the common man through trading in stocks.

From being a country which had a scientist and inventor as a Cabinet minister (Benjamin Franklin) to being saddled with a president who likes to read "Goat" to children and that too spelling "G-O-A-T" wrongly....

From being the country which gave E=MC^2 to the world to being a country which shows the
middle finger to even allies....

Sad Sad USA....How the mighty have fallen...

Re:GM reflects the sad state of USA

[Ihlosi]

From being the country which gave E=MC^2 to the world to being a country which shows the
middle finger to even allies....

Sorry ... Einstein moved to the USA long after he had received the Nobel prize for his work (and he received it long after he had published his research).

Also, the better analogy would be, IMHO:

From being the country which managed to pull off things like the Berlin airlift (for a country that was technically still an enemy and under occupation) to being a country which shows the middle finger to even allies....

Re:GM reflects the sad state of USA

[Hoi Polloi]

From being a country which had a scientist and inventor as a Cabinet minister (Benjamin Franklin) to being saddled with a president who likes to read "Goat" to children and that too spelling "G-O-A-T" wrongly....

I saw him reading that to the kids. "...goat, that's G-O-A-T-S-E, goat."

Re:GM reflects the sad state of USA

[Anonymous Coward]

He received the Nobel for his work on the photoelectric effect, not relativity.

Re:GM reflects the sad state of USA

[Ihlosi]

He received the Nobel for his work on the photoelectric effect, not relativity.

Nonetheless, the "miracle year" was 1905. Einstein moved to the US in 1932.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annus_Mirabilis_Papers

Re:Then watch *these* cops taser *this* guy to dea

[the grace of R'hllor]

He was not subdued, which is rather the point.

A person in a blind panic or rage is very hard to restrain, even by half a dozen people, and especially in cramped quarters. I've seen nutjobs who were still giving trouble right until they were strapped face-down in a gurney, and even then you'd better hope nothing breaks.

If you are too far gone to care about being hurt, the only way someone can stop you is by physically preventing your body from moving; shooting, tasering, breaking limbs or sedating. Sedatives can't be administered in many of these instances (and I don't even know if it's legal). That leaves the physical. Do not underestimate this.

That said, yes, they probably should have done it differently, and they do deserve to be charged with unintentional manslaughter (or whatever the charges are for being unintentionally guilty of a death).

Queue the inevitable ...

[Anonymous Coward]

DRM analogies.

Police threatend people who spoke up against taser

[smurfsurf]

And don't forget that in the library incident, a cop threatend to taser the people who merely spoke up against this unnecessary force.

in soviet russia

[airdrummer]

constitution rewritten as needed...

Wow.... Thank you very much

[Eternal Vigilance]

That means a lot to me. Far more than I could express here.

I often wonder whether the time I spend crafting responses like these is worth it. It really does take a lot of time, for me at least, to try to clearly express in words my feelings and my experience of being human. And I wonder whether I ever truly reach even one other person, since that's my real desire.

Even though it may not have seemed like much to you, your response let me know the last ten years of my life, learning to express myself and what I hope are truths for many of us, was worth it.

And that you might see the world the same way I do, which is with deep love and great hope, lets me know that the rest of my life - reaching out and together making that love and hope a reality for all of us - will be worth it too.

In a wonderfully appropriate and deeply personal way your comment to me is exactly the right way to say to you what your comment means to me.

"This is quite possibly the best post I've ever read on this site."

Thank you, and all the people who liked this post, very, very much.


- Bruce

Re:Wow.... Thank you very much

[tommy_traceroute]

As much as I have always despised the "me too!" posts on /. as being pointless and annoying, here I am.

Thank you, friend, for beautifully articulating what so many of us do not have the skill (or courage) to express.

Feature?

[stewbacca]

GM cars already have a hard enough time not breaking down on their own. Now they have OnStar to expediate that?

Well, at least you can trust the cops?

[Zephida]

Right?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/crime/article/0,,2187307,00.html
A long-serving police officer spent years selling confidential information to a private detective agency run by a couple of former colleagues, a court heard yesterday. John Matthews, 59, used the police national computer to check details of more than a hundred cars and people while he was at work and then tried to cover his tracks by pretending he was helping councils clear a backlog of abandoned vehicles.

So, lets just give the government and police forces more power! hah! Once the government cleans up it own back yard, then I'll let them near my car, DNA, and all the other personal information they want to store on a computer, but *promise* it won't be abused

Hmmm...

[dubiago]

...like most MSM coverage doesn't mention any privacy implications.

Yes, because privacy really is a right outlined in the Constitution of the United States...oh, wait...*flips through the Bill of Rights* Nope! Implications are largely subjective, so don't even start down that road :P

OffStar

[ProfessionalCookie]

"OffStar"

Hmmmmm.....

[IHC Navistar]

I guess Big Brother is a backseat driver.....

I read that as...

[DigitalSorceress]

I read the topic title as "Stealing Cars Via OnStar".

Hmm, well, actually it can't be too long.

All your Cadillac are belong to us.

Your argument is too simplistic

[pestie]

Tasers are statistically harmless...

Do you really want to live in a society where statisticians (or accountants, for that matter) alone get to decide what's acceptable?

given their use, they are far, far less dangerous than the means they replaced

In theory that's true, but that argument ignores the fact that the police are human. They're overworked, underpaid, and sick to hell of dealing with the dregs of society every day. Less-than-lethal weaponry, unfortunately, often leads to laziness. "Fuck it, this guy won't shut up, I'll just Taser his ass!" In some situations, yes, the police will avoid shooting someone dead because they had the option of the Taser instead. But in others, they might decide to Taser someone just because they mouthed off, or because it's easier than talking them out of some crazy situation, or having to get into a physical confrontation with them. When it becomes relatively risk-free for law enforcement to apply force, they're much more likely to do so, and increasingly often that's going to happen in cases where they really had no business using force to begin with.

This is the same problem we Americans have with war these days. With defense contractors delivering ultra-high-tech weaponry that makes killing people as easy as playing a video game, it makes it a whole lot easier for the American public to not give a shit about, say, an unjust war in Iraq. We need fewer troops to fight a war (thus, no need for a draft), and a larger percentage of them are out of harm's way. Coupled with promises that a war will be quick, cheap ("the invasion of Iraq will pay for itself!"), and easy, the American people just didn't think very hard about what it really meant to go to into Iraq. And now, despite "Mission Accomplished," we've been in Iraq longer than we were in World War II (with no end in sight!), more Americans have died in Iraq than died on 9/11, and only now are we starting to have second thoughts.

Added Tag

[Anonymous Coward]

PoliceState

Remote unlocking too...

[SCHecklerX]

Doesn't onstar already have the ability to unlock car doors remotely? That alone was scary to me before.

No More Police Chase Videos

[Hoi Polloi]

I guess this means the eventual end of "Worlds Most Exciting Police Chase Videos". Once they start stalling 10 seconds after fleeing a traffic stop they won't be as exciting anymore. Hundreds of LA news helicopter staff will be unemployed too.

Effectiveness?

[dmatos]

Okay, so this system would allow the cops to stop speeders, if that's the goal. They're never going to sell it to their customers if that's the case. The only way to sell it would be as a theft-prevention device. How is this any more effective than having that little fob on your keychain which tells the car it's okay to start? The car is basically looking for an electronic signal which states it's okay to keep working. Thieves can already bypass that system. You think they're not going to notice a big OnStar box in the car, and take steps to disable that as well?

There's already a comment in this discussion which states that OnStar (in one particular guy's vehicle) can be completely disabled by pulling a fuse. Sounds awfully tough.

Old News

[Hoi Polloi]

Bah, this is old news. My old Ford Pinto must've had a remote stall feature. Someone had clearly hacked it because they were able to cause my car to stall in the worst possible places (middle of busy squares, left lane of notoriously dangerous highways, etc). They kept it off until the next day, the swine. No mechanic was able to figure out how they were doing it. Then they figured out how to sabotage my throttle cable so that it stuck open at a traffic light and my engine started racing. They are crafty fellows those Pinto hackers.

Re:Old News

[Cro Magnon]

Bah, this is old news. My old Ford Pinto must've had a remote stall feature. Someone had clearly hacked it because they were able to cause my car to stall in the worst possible places (middle of busy squares, left lane of notoriously dangerous highways, etc).

Yeah, my Pontiac J(unk) 2000 had the same "feature".

Re:Old News

[mbstone]

That was the Ford TFI (Thin Film Integrated) circuit that was impossible to fix in the field (it even had proprietary screw heads) so you had to get towed to a Ford dealership from wherever your car broke down.

And as to GM, I could never understand why they made cars with headlights that couldn't be turned off by users. That was the first of many dealbreaking anti-features of GM cars (of which the OffStar is just the latest).

Does a dummy load still disable Onstar?

[Anonymous Coward]

I use a dummy load on the antenna input to my 2001 model Onstar to disable it. Can the antenna connector be reached on newer Onstars? How long before a vehicle requires periodic input from Onstar to continue running? And, if that is implemented, what happens when the cellphone networks update to a new method of digitally encoding the signals or shift frequencies? (You'd have to upgrade your Onstar to keep your vehicle running).

Time for the carburated? Custom engine management?

[dindi]

This is not right, I would never drive a vehicle like that.

With all the electronics in nowadays' vehicles I am more and more leaning into using an ignition/engine management system I can have full control of. Think carburated, but that barely passes the emission tests, but megasquirt is one system like that.

I understand that a lot of electronics are for your safety and your convenience, but they also put you in the hands of the dealer and with this latest little addition the cops/government,. or even the wrong people. How long until someone figures how to shut your vehicle down and use it to steal your car ?

Also with all the computers onboard, you hear horror stories of people being charged fortunes over a fried circuit board, that got wet.

As much I like technology I fear it when it takes control over my life. Just think how shitty your brakes become when your ignition is off, or how hard the steering gets. Now picture someone (or on-star) shutting your electronics when you are on your favourite mountain serpentine just before your favourite hairpin......

OK, I am paranoid. I even hated the idea of ABS until an idiot pulled out in front of me on a wet/slimy road (rain + leaves) and based on my previous experiences I was almost sure that a crash would happen. Then I felt the brake engaging and disengaging with every little slide so many times it was impossible to count. (probably even sense without the adrenaline rush of the "before crash" senses) Since then I respect the system (well for that I also needed to see one live on a car that has a good one).....

So I accept (or learn to accept) technology that saves your butt, makes your drive safer, but someone switching on and off stuff on your car from an office (or who knows where) just scares the hell out of me.

I would never put or want more electronics in a car than a 92-95 Japanese or German car. Think 95 BMW, 92 Nissan, or 95 Mazda. And I know most of the car people say that even that is overkill, and just throw all the stuff out.....

A new industry in the makings

[mopower70]

I see an exciting new opportunity in tools that allow automotive owners to take back control over the information being gathered by their cars for use against them. How about a hot-button that automatically erases the OBD memory in the event of a crash, or just because the driver wants to? Or disables in-coming override controls from OnStar?

Stupid people endangering or killing offspring?

[denzacar]

Dude... that is the first sound argument FOR this device being installed.

Re:Then watch *these* cops taser *this* guy to dea

[Anonymous Coward]

That looked like a classic lynching!

You terroroist!

[www.sorehands.com]

You must be a communist^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^hterrorist if you do not trust the government. The government is here to help you. Only a terrorist would doubt the government.

Re:Then watch *these* cops taser *this* guy to dea

[bwen]

As the the other poster said, he was not "subdued." As you call cops pathetic that they had trouble holding him down, I wonder what experience you have in restraining violent people. If he would have gotten loose and grabbed one of the officers guns, things could have ended up much differently. And if you think the cops are "dirt shit stupid" and the guy in custody is a reasonable man from what you see in a brief grainy video, then you sir are not a "Genius." A person that continues to fight and resist arrest presents a dangerous situation for everyone, hell, his wife called the police because of that. Maybe the police should call you as you seem to have some knowledge of how to take care of these matters.

stolen OnStar modules

[Anonymous Coward]

I predict a black market for stolen OnStar modules. It would be similar to stealing license plates, except the owner won't know his/her OnStar module has been switched until it's too late.

I also wonder how many professional car thieves know about faraday cages and whether or not a shipping container makes an effective one.

Did you hear that?

[2names]

That was the sound of a Police Black Helicopter flying over your head with the parent joke in tow.

Short the antenna

[codepunk]

No problem just short the antenna reducing the effective signal distance to about 2 inches..should take care of the job nicely..

Too Dangerous

[ajs318]

However the thing works, it's too damn dangerous.

If (a tiny subset of) the Good Guys can use it, then the Bad Guys can use it.

What will happen is that someone without malicious intention will discover how to turn off their own car. At first it'll only be used as a humorous party trick. Then, the same discovery will be made independently somewhere else (cf. the invention of the incandescent light bulb). But a trick is no good without an audience, and it will be shown off. At some point, the technique will reach the criminal fraternity. Not the "nice" criminal fraternity who do vaguely illegal things like grow a bit of weed, chase off a bunch of hunters, blow stuff up in out-of-the-way places or not pay for some of their toys; but the "nasty" criminals who do the really illegal stuff like people-smuggling, gun-running and terrorism and aren't afraid to maim and kill to get what they want. Some technically-bright but socially-dim kid will get out of their depth with a criminal gang and end up with an ultimatum: build a remote car-stopper for them, or else. The gadget will be cloned in third-world sweatshops {if not first-world sweatshops} before the day is out, and used for crime.

The exact same story has already happened before, and we never learned then.

Dangerous

[Traa]

I hope they are smart enough to figure out the dangers of stalling a car while it is in transit. Not just for the passengers (whoops, there goes the power breaks) but for those around (at the bottom of the hill) as well.

The right approach should be to wait till the car is parked, then prevent it from being started and send out the GPS coordinates so the police can come and pick it up.

Re:Dangerous

[freedom_india]

OnStar is not that dumb to stall cars in highway. They know the liability lawsuits alone would bankrupt them for 3 generations.
Like the movie Die Harder, they will prevent it from being started again once it stops.
Much like a Windows Update works until you reboot XP and trashes it...

Tasers

[pbaer]

Same thing with Tasers. Tasers are statistically harmless, and a hell of a lot less harmless than a number of other ways of subduing a suspect, including lethal means. Whether Tasers are overused is a different question altogether, but being tased is a much better alternative than being forcibly subdued by any number of other means.

Wrong, I would rather be beaten, maced or shot with rubber bullets than tasered as they leave evidience of police brutality. Tasers don't, cops use them whenever they feel like it because they don't leave evidence. For example:

"The Louisville Courier-Journal this year reported that Louisville metro police have Tasered some 70 mentally ill people in the last two years, zapped 15 people already in handcuffs, shot a 15-year-old in the penis, and even zonked a brain-damaged paraplegic who had fallen out of his wheelchair." (emphasis mine).

Now remembering how little evidience tasering leaves, think about how many more people may have been tasered.

Radio links and jamming

[uspsguy]

This whole system requires a two way radio link of some sort to function at all. How difficult is it to scramble the tiny GPS signals or to overload the on-star reciever with a low power transmitter located in your pocket?
If it can't talk or listen, it can't do much. From some of the horror stories I've heard, I'm thinking a GPS jammer is almost a requiremnt if you are going to rent a car.

Re:Then watch *these* cops taser *this* guy to dea

[Mordac]

Seeing that, and looking at most other taser abuses. You can see only one similarity.

They use the threat of tasering to coerce a response, they follow through with the taser till they're satisfied (not till the person is compliant.) This is torture, and not what the Taser was meant for, but in the US, thats what it is now.

Easy to defeat?

[cyberkine]

If the thief just removes the OnStar antenna bye-bye GPS tracking and cell phone service. What am I missing?

Brilliant

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

What part of cut the antenna cord to OnStar don't you guys think the thieves will be including in 4.2 of the 60 seconds?

MSM Loves Our Privacy Rights

[Anonymous Coward]

"which like most MSM coverage doesn't mention any privacy implications."

Um, where have you people been the past 6 years? I thought their relentless work in uncovering this Administration's evil domestic wiretapping program was fairly hip on privacy right concerns!

The old media's dead. Long live the old media!

Two words ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Electromagnetic Pulse.

anonymous-kwood

Re:Then watch *these* cops taser *this* guy to dea

[operagost]

The solution is to stop, admit that we're afraid, breathe, and then ^%98VBUG*+yguNO CARRIER

Re:Then watch *these* cops taser *this* guy to dea

[Anonymous Coward]

I was watching this wondering why the cops would treat a person like that, but then, a little bit into the video, I noticed something: he's black! Which of course means that what the cops did to him was okay.

There really are too many cocaine crazed negroes out there these days, and the cops have every right to use whatever force necessary to get the job done! ...But seriously, the cop that stunned him really should be tried for murder.

MOD PARENT UP

[Trogre]

Thank you, it's about time someone started rebutting crap like the GP spat out.

fascinating how many people took offense to this

[seanbruckman]

I agree with fractoid as well as the fellow who made the comment about sand/gravel sometimes causing ABS to make the car seem like it doesn't have any brakes at all (below somewhere).

The long and short of it is that if you feel like ABS has helped you/does help you, then it certainly does. This is because you don't have a natural driving ability or you drive a bloated cargo hauler/people mover like an H2.

However, if you are a person that has detected several occasions in cars with ABS that something was !@#ked up when you needed the car to perform and it wouldn't do it, then you are probably more like me. If you think that's B.S., then please relate to us your story of how you had to make a high speed slolam maneuver and the car didn't do the weight transfer you were expecting because you punched the brakes for a second to check your speed just before the first turn in and it stumbled on one or two pumps of the ABS. Oh, that never happened? Oh, then shut up.

Also if you don't realize what limit braking means or could even mean, then you need to back off people that say they don't like ABS. They are not wrong about their opinion of ABS, they are just a better driver than you. And yes, there are situations where ABS might help ANYONE, but i feel that for me the odds of that happening are somewhere in the realm of possibility as it would be for me to NOT wear my seatbelt on the off-the-wall f'ing chance that i'm flung from a vehicle to SAFETY! (always a riotous idea for me) Okay, i guess that's a bit much. But it's better than 50/50. =)

Just felt like i had to stand up for some of the people that clearly KNOW in the face of attack from a dozen brilliant-yet-ignorant-about-cars loudmouths.

Re:Then watch *these* cops taser *this* guy to dea

[RightSaidFred99]

I think you're missing something that seems obvious. They had him subdued. He was being held down by 3-4 cops while one of them jabbed the taser in his back or chest. He was subdued.

Just because someone is going all crazy ass nuts like that doesn't mean you get to torture them with a taser until they comply or...well, die. The fact is everyone involved in this should be fired, the department should be sued, and they should come up with reasonable policies and practices for forced restraint other than "durrr, let's taser him until he stops moving! (and breathing)!".

I do have knowledge of these matters. What do you think they do in a mental institution when someone goes batshit? They don't tase them, they do what's called a takedown and if necessary they use medication.

Re:Then watch *these* cops taser *this* guy to dea

[RightSaidFred99]

No, they deserve to be fired. The department deserves to pay a huge settlement. And this settlement will induce them to come up with a reasonable policy for how to restrain someone who is going berserk. The way they were doing it, they may as well have been pulling his fingernails or teeth out until he complied. It's like those assholes who actually wiped mace directly into the eyes of protesters at some rally a few years ago to get them to break their little stupid hippy circle.

Re:Then watch *these* cops taser *this* guy to dea

[RightSaidFred99]

Forgot to post: http://www.cnn.com/EARTH/9710/31/pepper.spray.update/ Not that I like dirty ass hippies much, but this is simply torture to get them to comply.

Absolutely worth it

[sreilly]

I have to add my thanks for your post. It was very well written and really made my day. It didn't change my mind (I already agree) but it was a great description of the state of fear in the US. I only hope that a lot more people read that post and any similar things you write. We need more voices to say what is happening and help bring the US back from this point.

Thanks for linking to that video. It'll be a long time before I trust the police in the US again.

Not feeilng gentlemanly today

[ClioCJS]

You're a fucking asshole. I hope you get innocently brutalized by a cop someday, whine about it online, and then have another asshole like yourself respond to it. That would be beautiful.

Duh!

[Anonymous Coward]

Not wearing your seatbelt greatly increases the risk of injury to others in a car accident.

When you get ejected through your windshield, you are no longer able to control the car and avoid secondary collisions.

Also, people not wearing a seatbelt can bounce around in their cars during an accident, injuring or killing other occupants of the car.

When you don't wear your seatbelt, you're jeopardizing my safety too. That's why.