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"

[Dunbal]

OnStar will release information about a vehicle only for marketing research

Automated email from the Onstar Market-Track Service

Dear On Star customer,

      Our automated system noticed that your vehicle was parked on the 3500 block of AnyStreet and SomeAvenue. Our marketing info shows that this area of town is populated by the gay community. Please click on the following links if you would like to:

      See a list of gay bars in your area.
      Subscribe to Gay Porn weekly.
      Meet gay men near you.
      Browse our OnStar Market site for other gay related items.

      Thank you for choosing On Star! We value you as a customer.

      This is an automatic message, please do not reply.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[alan_dershowitz]

All you did was restate the slippery slope fallacy? Where is the actual evidence that anyone is pushing to make this mandatory? Just because the government has eventually mandated some recommendations doesn't mean they will eventually mandate all recommendations.

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"

[DogsBollocks]

Tinfoil hat on the antenna.

Onstar uses the cellular network, so stop the cellphone signal from getting to the electronics and they can't turn off the car.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[R2.0]

"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."

Sure about that? Because such a feature is most easily enabled in software. For instance, the OnStar module sends a signal over the CANBus to the engine computer, telling it to go into the preprogrammed "stop, thief" mode. Now, what is there to "physically disable"? You can't simply "cut the connection" between OnStar and the ECM - it's only 2 wires (or 4?) and it carries all sorts of data. Sure, one could set a bit in the ECM that says "STOP_THIEF=disabled", but that bit is set via - wait for it - the CANBus. So the OnStar module could easily have a "suspected superbadguy" mode, where first the signal is sent to reset the bit - DESPITE the Owner's wishes - and then the "stop, thief" mode is activated.

Yes, it is possible to program hard protocols, or physical disconnects, and TFA is a candidate for a tin foil hat, but saying "it just can't happen" is naive at best.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[AK Marc]

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.

That is not the case with OnStar. Unless you break it yourself, it is always on. Even if you don't subscribe, the functionality is left on and operational. That way, you can just give them a call and they'll turn it on and bill you, no need to take it in to a dealership to take your money from you.

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.

That's an item that someone pays extra for to have their vehicle be able to be tracked. It isn't an included feature on many (most?) of the cars of one of the largest car makers on the planet. It's installed on very few cars by people that chose to have it installed.

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.

You do know that GM may make OnStar, but OnStar is available on non-GM vehicles, right? How about the privacy policy on those? What if the law enforcement agencies like this and it becomes a "safety" requirement in the case of kidnappings and such and must be installed on all cars? Hey, they mandated airbags that killed infants in the name of safety, so why not this?

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[alan_dershowitz]

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.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[TooMuchToDo]

You can physically seperate the OnStar module from the CANbus system to prevent this action from being taken. Once unable to communicate to the CANbus, non-drive/owner-initiated actions are mitigated. Keep in mind, you don't get to use any OnStar services afterwards once this is done.

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.

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"

[Larry Lightbulb]

So Google are going to buy OnStar?

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"

[tacocat]

OK, just to clear up a few things because I can. Why, because I work there.

• It does not apply the brakes, it whacks the engines software modules (in a non-destructive, non-damaging way) to basically screw up the fuel/air/combustion mix rendering your 200 HP engine weak.
• You really can't get the local police to call in to OnStar to screw with these cars. They have been trying to do that for a decade and there is not ONE incident where they have successfully gotten OnStar to interfer with a vehicle without the permission and knowledge of the owner. So STFU about that one you paranoid aluminum jock strap wearing dweebs.
• Hacking OnStar is going to be about as easy has hacking SSH using a public private key authentication system. Good luck. There are so many hurdles go get through for a single car you would be far better off hacking it with a large rock.
• Normally I am pretty damn critical about big brother. But in this case I have to argue that they have a lot of the paranoid issues covered. The new changes in privacy are such that it's pretty difficult to figure out anything about a given vehicle. You have to really know the system, design, protocols, and transmission methods to get anything out of it. There are maybe 4 people who might be able to do that.

There seems to be a lot of Oh My God!! It's Big Brother!! going on around on this one. But seeing as I'm one of the system engineers who has worked on this stuff for most of OnStars life... Get over yourself and go worry about something more problematic like DMCA...

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[tacocat]

You can also call OnStar and ask that you have your unit disabled. Just as effective but it does more to retain your vehicles resale value. Once disabled, it won't work until you call back into OnStar and ask for them to reactivate the unit.

As for removing the GPS antenna, that was dumb. The only thing the GPS it tied into is the OnStar unit and once that's disabled, there's nothing else to do.

It just leaves a more passive means of removing the functionality of OnStar without wrapping foil around your head.

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"

[tacocat]

Once disabled over the air, there is no fucking way to enable it over the air. None. Not going to happen. You can hold a gun to GM's head and you still can't get the unit enabled over the air once it's been disabled by OnStar.

No Fucking Way.

Why?

You can't connect to the vehicle in any fashion no matter how strong your Kung Fu is.

The ONLY way to get the vehicle and unit back in action is to call OnStar from within the vehicle, using the OnStar unit, to force a call back to Onstar. No way to get a call into the vehicle. Ever.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[daveschroeder]

Y'know, I never did see any of those studies about the proven effects of the third brake light. Could you point one or two out to me? And... at the time they were mandated, they were a novelty. Are they still as effective as they were initially?

Here ya go...

- The lamps were most effective in the early years. In 1987, CHMSL reduced rear impact crashes by 8.5 percent (confidence bounds 6.1 to 10.9 percent).

- Effectiveness declined in 1988 and 1989, but then leveled off. During 1989-95, CHMSL reduced rear impact crashes by 4.3 percent (confidence bounds 2.9 to 5.8 percent). This is the long-term effectiveness of the lamps.

- The effectiveness of CHMSL in light trucks is about the same as in passenger cars.

- At the long-term effectiveness level of 4.3 percent, when all cars and light trucks on the road have CHMSL, the lamps will prevent 92,000-137,000 police-reported crashes, 58,000-70,000 nonfatal injuries, and $655,000,000 (in 1994 dollars) in property damage per year.

- The annual consumer cost of CHMSL in cars and light trucks sold in the United States is close to $206,000,000 (in 1994 dollars).

- Even though the effectiveness of CHMSL has declined from its initial levels, the lamps are and will continue to be highly cost-effective safety devices.

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"

[bobschneider8]

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.

Are you sure about that? I just bought a new BMW about 10 days ago. Today I pressed the BMW Assist button, to see if it was working. The nice lady who answered said that I wasn't enrolled in the service, and they couldn't sign me up until I went to the dealer and signed a subscription form. This conversation took place over hardware that, if you're right, was physically disabled because I never signed the subscription form.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[tacocat]

That is not the case with OnStar. Unless you break it yourself, it is always on. Even if you don't subscribe, the functionality is left on and operational. That way, you can just give them a call and they'll turn it on and bill you, no need to take it in to a dealership to take your money from you.

Not quite there... It's on when you purchase the vehicle. But if you call and request that it be disabled then it is physically disabled and cannot be remotely enabled.

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"

[Anonamused Cow-herd]

i'm yet to see a single video of a cop using a taser on someone who didn't deserve it.

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!

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[SEWilco]

And a friendly female voice announces "You are being kidnapped. Please remain calm."

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[Reaperducer]

Actually, the moral of the story is that health-conscious doesn't always mean smart.

Asbestos isn't radioactive. It doesn't magically give you cancer from looking at it on the street or even touching it a few times.

Unless your friend planned to spend the next few years living under a tarp on top of the pile of asbestos in the street he had nothing to worry about. Your friend should read a book before he assumes he's smarter than everyone else and that the world is going to kill him but it's not his fault.

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"

[KKlaus]

The video of that ID-less kid refusing to leave the library at UCLA was pretty bad. And those WERE definitely cops. Really the problem with the taser is nothing to do with its lethality, it's simply that some cops haven't been trained that the taser is not a good method of difusing a situation and preventing a scene. In fact, because it hurts like a bitch and tends to make people scream, it's good at doing pretty much the opposite.

So you can argue about whether that guy at the recent John Kerry rally deserved to be tased, but either way the police involved should have known that the route of a quick and professional resolution to the incident was probably more along the lines of carrying him out, rather than giving him 20000 volts. And by they way of course, they WERE definitely cops. Browse youtube more often or something.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[Sentri]

-"Police spokeswoman Tammy Ewin initially said no pepper spray was used on protesters, but Sgt. Clint Winkler, a supervisor on duty, told The Associated Press he tried to use pepper spray on one woman who would not leave, but it hit her glasses. She was then subdued with a Taser, Winkler said."

- "Winkler said campus police tried to quell the march, and at one point protesters grabbed the camera of a freelance media photographer and broke it. City police tried to help and said some protesters fought the effort to break up the march.

- "That's when they were told, due to the violence, that this was no longer a lawful protest," Winkler said. "They were told to disperse, peacefully disperse, and failed to do so we started down the sidewalk _ officers in front, K-9's behind us, and started pushing the crowd down the sidewalk.""

- ""The response was way over the top," Meieran said. "Why in the (expletive) were they using Tasers on these nonviolent protesters in the first place? I heard no dispersal order. What they're saying is total (expletive).""

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0821-01.htm

- "I was taken to the ground by a police officer during that time
      I was pepper sprayed the officer picked up my glasses sprayed my face
      with the pepper spray. Once I got to the ground I was then tasered in
      the thigh for what felt like an eternity. It was the most excruciating
      pain I have ever felt. I felt like I was burning. My hand reached
      down to feel what was on my leg and I felt an electrical shock running
      through my entire body. I could not stop myself from screaming. It was
      horrifying. I could not believe that after I had already been sprayed
      and on the ground they would then proceed to taser me."

http://pittsburgh.indymedia.org/news/2005/08/20117.php

"McNeilly said the officers' use of pepper spray and Tasers
at the protest was justified because protestors had turned
from peaceful conduct to active resistance that became an assault on officers.

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_374322.html

Hmmm, I'm not saying I support the use of a TASER in this case, but it's not exactly a clear cut case of police brutality. A peaceful protest turned violent and she was at the front of the line, wrong place and wrong time?

Hmm, a little more digging gets this:
"And a breakdown of events (from a local man posting on Digg, corroborated by the news):

1. A man, Edris Robinson, strikes a cameraman covering the event (later charged with assault)
2. The cameraman runs to get police
3. Robinson runs to the crowd
4. Police find Robinson, try to apprehend him
5. His girlfriend, Deanna Caliguiri, tries to pull him away (later plead guilty to disorderly conduct and resisting arrest)
6. The cops use pepper spray on Deanna, she continues to resist
7. The cops warn Deanna a few times that they will taser her
8. The cops taser her"

That site also states some of the action happens offscreen on the youtube video
http://ronpaul.meetup.com/342/boards/view/viewthread?thread=3559981

Make your own conclusions I suppose

Oh wait, another oped piece here with a longer youtube video tha pushes "tasers are bad":
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/9/19/14057/0584
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qVdH1G0KQt4 (again whatever happens that makes the cops taser the girl happens offscreen, but the video goes for 10 minutes)

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[KKlaus]

The problem is people don't understand that the taser is actually a really crappy method of restoring order or difusing a public disturbance. Getting tased makes people go crazy, and go "Ouch" really loudly. But, it's not scary in the same way a big stick is, so they aren't motivated in the same way to be quiet. So the cops tase them again, and then again (and maybe again) until they are finally quiet. Meanwhile we've had a pretty long period of the person being tased screaming and yelling for the cops to stop.

Whatever you think about tasers, I think we can all agree that at the very least non-lethal does not in any way imply non-painful. For non-violent confrontations, it's frequently in everyone's best interest to just keep it in its holster and try something else.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[ConceptJunkie]

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.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[dangitman]

No. As ordinary people, mechanics, whomever you chose, what "killing the engine" means. Every one of them will tell you the engine is shut off.

You'd be wrong on this. Most people, if their engine lost most of its power, would say that "The engine died", even if the engine is still running.

They won't say that it's in a idle state with no throttle with power brakes and steering still functional. When someone says "remotely shuts down vehicles", the clear implication is that the vehicle is being turned off. It is not.

Again, no. If you car won't move forward when throttle is applied, it has been shut down. What use is a car that doesn't move when commanded to?

The clear follow-on to that, and a major objection, would be that such an action would be massively unsafe. That's what the submitter is implying all throughout her blog post, saying things like "would you be your life" on this, etc.

But it is massively unsafe to remove power, even if the other systems are running. So I'm not sure what your point is.

Which is why "if officers see the car in motion and judge it can be stopped safely, they can tell OnStar operators". That's the whole point.

But what guarantee do we have that this will be the only time it is used? What's the guarantee there isn't a glitch in the system causing to happen without police supervision?What's the guarantee that the police, if in visual range, will judge the safety of stopping at that point correctly?

Now if you believe it will be used in contravention of the ways they're explicitly and specifically saying it will be used, that's another story entirely. But that should also mean we should have heard a lot of other examples of OnStar abuse, since it's been around for a while, except we haven't.

No, that's a non-sequiter. There's nothing to stop it happening in the future, even if it hasn't happened in the past. We also don't know if past OnStar abuse has happened but been covered up. Your statement is not logical. Recently, some banks lost a whole ton of private customer information. That had not happened in the past. By your logic, the banks shouldn't have lost vast amounts of personal information, because they hadn't previously. But it happened.

Actually, police, to most people and for the most part, do have exactly that track record. That's, you know, their job.

In bizarro world. In reality, police corruption is widespread, and the police endanger the public's safety constantly.

You just apparently choose to take examples of corruption and abuse, and assume that is the norm, when it is the exception.

I never said it was the norm. But it's far too common. It's not an insignificant problem as you seem to be making it out. It's actually unreasonably common.

That's no excuse to completely write off a technological solution to a problem just because it can be hacked or abused. OnStar can currently unlock doors on every OnStar equipped vehicle. Seems like that's a pretty ripe target, and so by the logic trotted about here, that should already have been hacked to shreds.

That's an entirely different issue. Theft is an annoyance, but it's not the same as putting the public at risk. We have to apply much higher standards, and ask if the benefit outweighs the risks. The benefits seem rather dubious to me, so it doesn't seem worth the risk.

And once again you misrepresent the argument. Nobody is saying it must be "hacked to shreds" - just that there is a chance that it could be. And it happening even once is a pretty serious matter when people's lives are at stake.

I have an idea: let's all be luddites, and dismiss any technological solution to any problem, whether the government is using it or not, because it might be able to be hacked or abused. That's a ridiculous view of the s

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"

[Anonymous Coward]

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...

I'm sorry, this is slashdot.

Could you please use a more familiar metaphor?

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[monsted]

They're not killing the engine, just the drivers ability to control the throttle. Basically, they're just cutting the accelerator pedal wire.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[pnewhook]

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.

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.

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.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[pnewhook]

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.

No it wouldn't because there is a check and balance in the system. The cops don't shutdown the vehicle - OnStar does. If the information provided doesn't match or they don't provide all the information required then the shutdown doesn't happen. With a properly setup check and balance the possibility of abuse drops to near zero.

And I'm not sure of the situation that you're describing, but it's not the same.

Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"

[zen-theorist]

i dont get your drift here, but thanks for the sex tips!

Great...

[CaptainPatent]

Now along with hardened thugs, we'll have half of the /. community hijacking cars!

California History

[Anonymous Coward]

We had a state rep here in CA named Mike Honda who proposed mandating a similar system for all cars here in CA 7 or 8 years ago. The privacy implications are horrendous. The idea never took root but he was rewarded by being elected to the US House.

Now I know I can bank on the stupidity of the american people - we are embracing the invasion of our privacy as a service.

all hope is lost.

Re:California History

[mh1997]

Now I know I can bank on the stupidity of the american people - we are embracing the invasion of our privacy as a service.

Not just in cars, 3 weeks ago I recieved a change in policy letter from Verizon for my cell phone. It said if I do nothing, they will be able to improve my service by tracking my location and selling that info to 3rd parties. If I wanted to opt out and risk not helping to improve the Verizon cell phone network, then I had to call a number.

How many people receive the same kind of letters everyday and either don't read them or fall for the increased service at the expense of privacy crap.

Re:California History

[Doogie5526]

I called the number and they said I had some "special circumstance" and had to do something else to opt out (write a letter or call some call center during a designated time). It's not even easy to opt out =(

Re:California History

[forand]

You mean by paying them the early termination fee? Yeah that will show them I will give them 175 USD and they will cower in terror.

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

[Dzimas]

*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.

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.)

Re:Slippery Slope

[KKlaus]

You really don't see the difference? First off, in a bottom line utilitarian sort of sense, the things you listed don't injure nearly enough people for society to get in a fuss about it. Contrast that with the huge number of people that get killed and injured in auto accidents, and I think it may be obvious why society cares about one and not the other. But a better reason is that some risks just seem more reasonable than others. Yes, people get hurt climbing large rocks, but at least it's enjoyable enough that it seems like an OK trade. Sky diving is also a lot safer than you (apparently) think.

But the difference to me is that letting people make obviously bad, harmful decisions is not somehow a virtue. We all know that no one needs a nanny state that can't abide by the thought of anyone getting a scraped knee, but seriously, where is the sense in allowing stupid people to throw away their lives for nothing? We know that it's a much better idea to wear a belt - its not inconvenient or uncomfortable, and its much, much safer. So tell me, where is the good in ignoring that?

And by the way, its not like there aren't regulations surrounding sky diving, because people DID decide that some risks were reasonable and some were not. If you're asking why it hasn't been banned, well, neither has driving. WE JUST REQUIRE PEOPLE TO PUT ON A BELT.

Re:Duh!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm going to go ahead and point my finger at the yuppies...

Yuppies?? Welcome, strange traveller from 1987

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.

Forget thieves, think teenagers!

[PIPBoy3000]

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.

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:Forget thieves, think teenagers!

[tempest69]

That's why you use the GPS function first. Plus they arent stranded, just slow as sin..

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?

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.

"INFO" Fuse

[ChangeOnInstall]

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.

Re:"INFO" Fuse

[nomadic]

Pulling the "INFO" fuse in my GMC Sierra renders OnStar entirely inert.

Did your Sierra sing "Daisy, Daisy" as you did it?

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.

Re:"INFO" Fuse

[Sponge Bath]

I've never liked the idea of my truck being connected to a network.

I read something similar on Commander Adama's automotive tips blog.

Re:"INFO" Fuse

[oliphaunt]

Dear ChangeOnInstall,

This letter is to inform you that your post #20918375 may violate Section 1201 of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act. Please delete your post, go out into your garage, replace the fuse, and weld your hood shut to prevent any repeat occurances.

We reserve the right to sue you for damages or put you in jail if you ever tell anyone about this letter.

Thanks for being a GM OnStar customer!

Privacy? With OnStar?

[Ungrounded Lightning]

... 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.

Hack it even better

[jameskojiro]

Wire up a switch to the fuse and put the switch next to the big blue button, that way if you are in need of using it, you don't have crawl upside down out of you rolled over SUV, drag yourself across the ground using the bloody stumps of what used to be your legs, pry the hood open with teeth and replace the fuse you removed and then crawl back into the cab to call for help.

Put a switch there that way you can go on a heist and the cops will think "hey we can just shut him down " and then "flick" notta problemo.

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?

Wonderful...

[cyberjock1980]

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.

2007:computer virus halts information superhighway

[circletimessquare]

2017:computer virus halts actual highway

I BLAME O.J.

[quonsar]

Damn that White Bronco!

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

[stilwebm]

Enter the classic car.

Sure, the 1971 Plymouth RoadRunner my friend drives gets only about 10 miles to the gallon on a good day, the 383cid engine is mechanical or electromechanical in every part. The only transistors in this carburetor fed monster are in the factory AM/FM radio. Don't waste time installing a remote kill system on a car in which cruise control consists of placing an object (optional) under the gas pedal and mashing it down.

Now I just hope they don't ban lead substitute fuel additives before he replaces his valve seats...

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

[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

[nharmon]

Sorry but static friction beats sliding friction. Once your wheels are locked you have less friction between them and the road. Your maximum braking power is on the verge of locking but still rolling. This is far past the point where ABS chimes in.

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:Interesting,

[TooMuchToDo]

Build an interface to the CANbus system onboard, and you have a fair amount of control over the vehicle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controller_Area_Network

I've worked on controllers to interface to CANbus systems on Toyota hybrid vehicles, to increase the total range using an additional battery pack. It's amazing some of the things you can do once tied into CANbus.

cruising for a bruising

[westlake]

but what if your just cruising and don't feel like stopping for said officer?

Then, O.J., the real fun begins.

Once again daveschroeder slings the propaganda

[spun]

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).

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.

The Next OnStar commercial...

[kpainter]

shows a picture of a thug sitting handcuffed in the back of a police car and he says sarcastically "Thanks OnStar!"

LoJack does it better.

[Animats]

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.

Home of the Free...

[Boojumbunn]

Ok folks, there is no need to go off into paranoia land. Yes, this is the home of the free where personal choice matters. I own a chevy, I pay for onstar, I want my service. Those are my choices on where I am spending my money. I want this option and I'm willing to pay a premium for it. If you don't want this, guess what, you don't have to have it. Even on a brand spanking new chevy you can pay someone to remove the Onstar gear. It's your car, you can do anything you want with it. If you want a new stereo, you can get it, if you want new rims, pay for them, if you dont' want onstar then by a different car or have it removed, it's your choice. Certainly I can understand preventing the government from mandating such devices, but they should be allowed for those people who want them.. and I'm one who wants it. If I get in an accident, I want someone to send an ambulence right away. I like getting monthly e-mails on how my car is doing. I like being able to quickly get in touch with someone if I'm in trouble. Yes, this means that a measure that can locate a thief CAN be used to locate me.. currently an officer would need a warrent for that information, but there is no technical reason why it can't be done. You know what? I'm ok with that. If I know the cops are after me I have LOTS of choices for transportation that are not tracked. Which comes to my main point. This is a company offering a service.. and it's one you need to pay for. This is not the government instituting this policy. If I want to have my car tracked, have my dog tracked, or even have my own body lojacked that should be just as much my right as NOT having these things. Right now it's a market choice.. and thats how it should be. Boojum the brown bunny

Re:Oh so you do not think they will?

[timmarhy]

yes, it's just your government that's all fucked up.

What are you complaining about??

[www.sorehands.com]

If you are not a criminal, what would you have to worry about??? They say only the police will be able to have it activated, so what is to worry about?? A government approved system is always secure.

Yet another reason not to buy American cars....

[moosesocks]

Seriously.... does the American auto industry have an f----ing death wish?

Their cars are expensive, inefficient, underpowered, and poorly-made compared to the competition. And now they spy on you....

Why can't Detroit wake up in time to save its sorry ass? I hate to say it, but I think there's a *very* real chance of seeing both GM and Ford going belly-up in my lifetime. Hopefully whatever comes along (if anything) to replace them will be a bit more innovative.

And please don't take this as flamebait, but when you've lost your edge and are hemorrhaging cash and customers, the *last* thing a company wants to do is to alienate their remaining customers even further.

OnStar?

[elchuppa]

OffStar.

Re:Privacy? With OnStar?

[Agripa]

The FBI has already used a court order to do this in at least one criminal case but Onstar responded with a suit that recently was ruled on in appeal:

"The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals said Tuesday that the FBI is not legally entitled to remotely activate the system and secretly use it to snoop on passengers, because doing so would render it inoperable during an emergency."

http://www.news.com/2100-1029_3-5109435.html

This only applies in California, Oregon, Nevada, Washington, Hawaii, and other states that fall within the 9th Circuit's jurisdiction so I presume the FBI can still do this in other areas. If the FBI can avoid interfering with the service itself when using it for interception then the order blocking this activity may not matter.

Then watch *these* cops taser *this* guy to death

[Eternal Vigilance]

I was going to mod in the thread, but had to post a response to this.

This is video of Georgia cops tasering a man to death.

The guy was having a problem with his epilepsy medication, so his wife called the cops for help. They proceeded to medicate him - first with billy clubs, then with tasers - repeatedly.

Because the wife also called the FBI afterwards, the local DA got pissy and softballed the case before the grand jury, which didn't even bother to watch this video before finding the police blameless.

The man's last words?

"Don't kill me."

Here's the link to the video

The link to the (minimal) media coverage

And the link to the discussion over at Digg

When you're the guy in this video, then you can whine about people "screeching about tasers being overused."



P.S. When one's POV is that everyone is a person "who would kill or maime them in the blink of an eye," then naturally one "wouldn't hesitate to tase someone who i thought was going to turn violent on me."

But that's not seeing the truth of each situation, that's being caught in one's own psychosis and fear.

(Since consciousness is self-similar, of course we'll see this same behavior at the level of the person (in this case the poster, it seems, and the police) as well as the level of the nation (for example, our war in Iraq) ).

We don't get to hurt or kill other people just because we're afraid.

And the solution isn't to keep hurting or killing people until we're not afraid. Since the fear is an internal condition, and one that blinds us to the external reality, no amount of external violence and killing will ever stop it.

The solution is to stop, admit that we're afraid, breathe, and then notice we're still OK. And that takes a lot more balls than just beating or shooting or tasering or bombing everything that scares us.

A PR problem, not a performance

[ObiWonKanblomi]

Their cars are expensive, inefficient, underpowered, and poorly-made compared to the competition.

That's not entirely true, especially on the quality portion. Take a look at the JD Power 2007 Brand Quality Ratings. Surprisingly, Lincoln did better than BMW, and Ford and GM are in the middle of the pack.

Interestingly enough, the words you spat out in the above quote seem to be some sort of weird side effect of some proto-viral marketing that came about in the early 90s.

One more reason to *NOT* buy GM

[laing]

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

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.

In Cop Cars?

[Doc Ruby]

Will all cop cars have this crackable feature?

Re:tin foil hack

[VagaStorm]

Wouldent it be more effective to simply cut it off?

The obvious way to hack the system

[bdaehlie]

Call up OnStar from a pay phone, sound frantic:

You: "This is officer Jones of the XYZ police department in FooBar SomeState. We have a deadly chase going on, suspect has already hit and possibly killed two pedestrians. The vehicle plate # is 123XYZ. Can you disable this vehicle?

OnStar Operator: "What is the authorization code for police shutdown?"

You (even more frantic): "I don't know! You have to shut this vehicle down, people are getting hurt! More will die!"

===========

I bet the OnStar operator shuts down the vehicle against protocol. Anybody have reason to believe they wouldn't? I'm sure someone could come up with more convincing dialog too. Maybe have some other fake info in advance to sound convincing, like a badge number or cop jargon.

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).

Re:my warped take on this...

[freedom_india]

Its already done.
On a leased car, if your payment does not go out to the bank on time, your car is automatically "bricked".
That is why leased cars come with OnStar: Not because the banks care about you [they like you dead after you stash 100,000 in your account], but because they can brick the car.
NYC outlaws it....

OffStar

[ProfessionalCookie]

"OffStar"

I read that as...

[DigitalSorceress]

I read the topic title as "Stealing Cars Via OnStar".

Hmm, well, actually it can't be too long.

All your Cadillac are belong to us.

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

[The_Wilschon]

Tin foil hats: Not just for humans anymore!

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.

Re:tin foil hack

[Ihlosi]

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.

Great. Then your car will stop in the middle of nowhere, and you won't even have cellphone service to call for help. Hilarious.

Re:tin foil hack

[no1nose]

I am sure the government is willing to let you sit in the middle of the Mojave desert for a bit if it means they will have a better chance of stopping crime.