Slashdot Mirror
Stalling Cars Via OnStar
Lauren Weinstein writes to tell us that GM will be installing OnStar systems on almost 1.7 million 2009-model cars that will allow law enforcement (or anyone who cracks the system) to remotely shut down vehicles. Here is the AP's writeup, which like most MSM coverage doesn't mention any privacy implications.
...the implication being that it just slams on the brakes or kills the engine or both.
From TFA:
OnStar would call police and tell them a stolen car's whereabouts.
Then, if officers see the car in motion and judge it can be stopped safely, they can tell OnStar operators, who will send the car a signal via cell phone to slow it to a halt.
"This technology will basically remove the control of the horsepower from the thief," Huber said. "Everything else in the vehicle works. The steering works. The brakes work."
GM is still exploring the possibility of having the car give a recorded verbal warning before it stops moving. A voice would tell the driver through the radio speakers that police will stop the car, Huber said, and the car's emergency flashers would go on.
"If the thief does nothing else it will coast to a stop. But they can drive off to the side of the road," Huber said.
And from TFR (where "R" stands for "rant"):
The claim is that owners will have to give permission first for this capability to be enabled. Bull. I don't care what OnStar's privacy policy says, if the technical capability for this function is present, OnStar will have no practical choice but to comply when faced with a law enforcement demand or court order, whether or not owner "permission" was ever granted.
It is completely technically feasible for this system to need to be enabled in order for it to work. For example, with BMW Assist, BMW's OnStat-like service, equipment is physically disabled in the car if the user does not subscribe to a service.
This argument appears predicated on the belief that even if a customer doesn't voluntarily and willingly "opt in", that it can still somehow be used by police or hackers. I'm sorry, but that's simply not how it works.
Further, OnStar can currently be used to unlock vehicles. Why isn't that an "irresistible target for hackers"?
It's impossible to hack OnStar? Would you bet your life on that?
Um, no, because I wouldn't have to, nor would anyone else who opts in to the service?
And how long will it be before such systems are mandated, one might wonder?
Ah, my old friend, the slippery slope. Long time, no see!
This is no different than Lojack, which can also, in theory, be "activated" when a user chooses to have the service, in the same way this could be.
And if you don't believe GM's clearly stated privacy policies, which state, in short, that "OnStar will release information about a vehicle only for marketing research, to protect the rights, property, of safety of any person, in exigent circumstances, to prevent misuse of their service, when legally required to do so or when subject to a valid court order, or in various other circumstances", then you probably shouldn't buy a GM vehicle.
Good thing buying GM vehicles isn't mandatory, and GM isn't a government agency, huh?
(And of course -- and I didn't look at this at first -- because there is editorializing about how the "MSM" doesn't mention privacy implications, I'm not surprised to see it's posted by kdawson.)
Now along with hardened thugs, we'll have half of the /. community hijacking cars!
Well, back to rejecting software patent applications.
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.
I remember being told 'that will never take place, we are a passive monitoring service' early on when i asked about 'can you shut my car down remtotely'.
Next step is discounts on car insurance if you have one. Then you get penalized by higher rates, then it just becomes required by law, ' for your protection' of course.
Anyone remember how the seat belt laws did the same thing? "They are for your safety".. " cant build a car without one".. "you gotta wear one or you violate the law"..."well, we can only charge you if we stop you for something else nad notice it".. Now they have roadblocks..
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Yuppies?? Welcome, strange traveller from 1987
Its all well and good complaining that our government/corporate masters are tightening their control over their lives - but they couldn't do that without the cooperation of the masses.
There is no point directing your anger at opportunistic invasions of privacy. Direct your anger at the sheeple happily gambolling into the slaughterhouse. They are the ones that provide said opportunities.
If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
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.
... 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."
Pulling the "INFO" fuse in my GMC Sierra renders OnStar entirely inert. The fuse is located in the underhood fuse box. I have had this fuse removed since I purchased the truck 3 years ago and have found no ill effects from its removal. Having reasonable knowledge of network security, I've never liked the idea of my truck being connected to a network.
Removing this fuse should work on 2000-2007 Chevy/GMC pickups and full size SUVs (built on the "GMT 800" platform). I believe the procedure is similar for all other GM vehicles.
What has *science* done?!? -- Dr. Weird (ATHF)
... the AP's writeup, which like most MSM coverage doesn't mention any privacy implications.
Privacy? With OnStar?
They can already:
- Locate the vehicle and
- Bug the conversations in it.
Seems to me adding the ability to halt the car has no privacy implications because there IS no privacy with OnStar (or a similar system) installed.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
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.
Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
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?
Our old friend daveschroeder, a completely unbiased source studying 'intelligence' at the American Military University, is there to tell us not to be afraid of our government.
He implies that this system will be under the owner's control, and that police will only activate the system when they can see the car, and know it can stop safely. Because the police always operate in such a safe and sane manner. And our government has never taken voluntary safety devices like seat belts or air bags and made them mandatory. And the government has never, ever lied to us.
Thanks again, dave! Without you, we wouldn't know what to be scared of (terrists) and what not to be scared of (the status quo).
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
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...
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.
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.
Fight Spammers!
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.
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.
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.
Relax I just want some peanuts.
Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.