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

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: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"

[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"

[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: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.