Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Stalling Cars Via OnStar

Posted by kdawson on from the let-the-hacking-begin dept.

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.

3 of 737 comments (clear)

  1. Slippery Slope by nurb432 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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 ----
  2. Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles" by Shakrai · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

    --
    I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
    We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  3. Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles" by wizzat · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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.