Slashdot Mirror
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.
...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.)
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..
---- Booth was a patriot ----
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.
If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
... 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."
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?
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.
The worst part of being athiest.... You don't have anyone to talk to during orgasm!
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.
"Only the small secrets need to be protected. The big ones are kept secret by public incredulity." - Marshall McLuhan