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

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

[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: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?

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: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: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.