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"

[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"

[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"

[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"

[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"

[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"

[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"

[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"

[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"

[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"

[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"

[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"

[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"

[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"

[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"

[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"

[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"

[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"

[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"

[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"

[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"

[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"

[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.

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

[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

[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]

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

[gl12]

Then let's get the government out of healthcare, so you won't have to.

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

[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

[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

[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.)

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.

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...

[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.

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: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:"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.

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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: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: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.

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: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).

Remote unlocking too...

[SCHecklerX]

Doesn't onstar already have the ability to unlock car doors remotely? That alone was scary to me before.

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.