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.
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."
On a more serious note, not all tracking systems are inherently bad. There's an interesting story about a teenager whose parents installed a GPS tracking system into his car. Now he's going to court as the GPS record shows he wasn't speeding, unlike the police officer who wrote him a ticket.
Pulling the "INFO" fuse in my GMC Sierra renders OnStar entirely inert. The fuse is located in the underhood fuse box. I have had this fuse removed since I purchased the truck 3 years ago and have found no ill effects from its removal. Having reasonable knowledge of network security, I've never liked the idea of my truck being connected to a network.
Removing this fuse should work on 2000-2007 Chevy/GMC pickups and full size SUVs (built on the "GMT 800" platform). I believe the procedure is similar for all other GM vehicles.
What has *science* done?!? -- Dr. Weird (ATHF)
... the AP's writeup, which like most MSM coverage doesn't mention any privacy implications.
Privacy? With OnStar?
They can already:
- Locate the vehicle and
- Bug the conversations in it.
Seems to me adding the ability to halt the car has no privacy implications because there IS no privacy with OnStar (or a similar system) installed.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Huh?? People rocket around at a mile a minute in fragile little tin roller skates. When two roller skates run into each other, the contents tend to get badly shaken up. Without seat belts, you're far more likely to be ejected or impact the steering column with your face. 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.
br>That said, OnStar shouldn't be in a position to disable a stolen vehicle while its rolling because they cannot assess the potential for injury to others. There's no reason they can't simply disable a stolen vehicle while its stationary and pass on its location to the police.
So what happens 10 years from now when everyone has it in their vehicle and some hacker figures out a way to stall all the cars in LA? Imagine someone being able to control all the vehicles in the USA(or maybe the world!). This would be a very useful tool for terrorists. I promise I won't be running out to buy a car with OnStar!
Assuming that a terrorist is able to stop all the cars in the USA in one nice swoop, does the vehicle automatically re-enable after 30 seconds? What kind of limitations are there on the OnStar's ability to control the vehicle after it has been disabled? Does the care auto re-enable after so much time and can't be disabled again until it's 'reset' locally?
I can't even begin to imagine all of the bad things that can go wrong with this setup. This is yet another reason why the futuristic shows that show everthing 'connected' is bad for us.
You know what, after I posted I remembered actually hearing about police wanting something like this to be mandated. I did a little googling and:
UK Police call for remote button to stop cars. So, if you are in the UK at least, no it would not be a slippery slope; they have already asked for this power to be added to all cars once it is safe. Interestingly, some politicians expressed interest in this being used as a way to prevent speeders by forcibly reducing your car's maximum speed around school zones or in bad weather.
I've performed this procedure for a friend (also remove the entire GPS antenna). I can dig up pics of the entire operation if interested.
Our old friend daveschroeder, a completely unbiased source studying 'intelligence' at the American Military University, is there to tell us not to be afraid of our government.
He implies that this system will be under the owner's control, and that police will only activate the system when they can see the car, and know it can stop safely. Because the police always operate in such a safe and sane manner. And our government has never taken voluntary safety devices like seat belts or air bags and made them mandatory. And the government has never, ever lied to us.
Thanks again, dave! Without you, we wouldn't know what to be scared of (terrists) and what not to be scared of (the status quo).
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
LoJack, which has a very good track record in stolen car recovery, is better designed from a privacy standpoint. LoJack hides a box somewhere in the car. It normally doesn't transmit anything. The box just listens to a subcarrier on broadcast stations for a signal that tells the LoJack boxes to turn on. When the box turns on, it starts sending out a signal, which suitably equipped police cars can pick up and home in on by radio direction finding.
It's reasonably easy to monitor LoJack for abuse. The broadcast control signal can be listened to by anybody, and the signal from a LoJack box isn't a much of a secret either. When it's triggered, every police car with LoJack gear in range lights up, so there's considerable visibility of its use. Southern California has about 500 LoJack activations a month. LAPD has their helicopters equipped with LoJack receivers, so stealing a LoJack-equipped car is likely to result in being spotlighted from the air within minutes.
You thought the John Kerry kid deserved it? If that situation isn't enough, you should really watch more SPIKE TV or Court TV -- with Sheriff John Bunnell, or whatever his name is. I saw a show entitled something like "COPS - TAZED AND CONFUSED" where they showed consecutive clips of cops using tazers in hilarious situations.
In one, here was the situation -- cop is following a pickup (somewhere in the rural western US). He follows the guy into a store parking lot, then puts on his flashers. Mind you, he has no information that this guy is shady in any way shape or form (though he was black) -- or Sheriff John certainly would have informed us, as he always does. So the guy I don't think even notices the cop at first, and starts to open his door. The cop draws his tazer and starts yelling at him like crazy, so much that I could barely make out what he was saying. He starts telling the guy how to step away from the truck and lie down face down on the ground. Again -- this guy did nothing wrong that the cop knew!
So the guy has his hands up (as ordered), and is ordered to get on the ground face down. So he starts putting his hands down to get down on the ground (as a somewhat fatter individual). The cop flips out (from like 20 feet away) and screams to continue putting his hands in the air, although he only moved them down like 6 inches as he was trying to go to his knees. The guy is scared by the scream, and puts his hands up, but kinda jumps up from his half-kneel, then starts trying to go back down. But he forgets not to lock his arms straight above his head. Cue announcer: "this officer had no choice but to subdue the suspect. Next time he thinks about not following a cop's orders, he'll remember THAT 50,000 volts!"
Turns out, the guy had some warrant for trespassing or something 6 months prior, but the cop clearly didn't know that until he ran his ID. I couldn't believe it -- and this is the "valor" that they show on national TV! Imagine the "normal" usages!
-----[0_o]-----
We are not amused.
GM has its problems. I'll never own another GM product. I think their biggest issue is that they do not learn from their mistakes. If the design engineers screw up and produce a product that fails repeatedly, they never hear about it. There's no feedback mechanisim between the service departments and the engineering team. This is the primary difference between them and their Japanese competitors.
All of that aside, this step crosses the line. What they have implemented here is a means to remotely take control of the car from the driver. Think about that for a minute. They've decided that an "override" function should exist which would superceed the judgement and will of the pilot of the vehicle. This is the same kind of reasoning that caused the Airbus A320 crash at the Habsheim air show in 1988. The computer overrode the pilots attempts to climb and crashed the aircraft, killing many.
If I ever own a vehicle with such technology installed, the first thing I'll do before driving it will be to completely disable it.
--
This space for rent
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.
Didn't that already happen? I mean what part of the Bill of Rights isn't habitually violated, other than the quartering of soldiers in our houses. Is there anything couldn't possibly be rationalized by the Interstate Commerce Clause? I sure haven't heard it. Our government has been increasing its power geometrically for some decades, and it's showing no signs of stopping, but rather of accelerating. I'm sure the Founders wouldn't recognize the country they created, because it no longer exists. In fact, one could argue it hasn't existed since the 1860's.
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.