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.

7 of 737 comments (clear)

  1. Forget thieves, think teenagers! by PIPBoy3000 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  2. "INFO" Fuse by ChangeOnInstall · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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)
  3. Privacy? With OnStar? by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ... 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
  4. Re:Slippery Slope by Dzimas · · Score: 5, Interesting
    *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*


    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.

  5. Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles" by alan_dershowitz · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  6. Once again daveschroeder slings the propaganda by spun · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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
  7. LoJack does it better. by Animats · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.