Slashdot Mirror


OnStar Terms and Conditions Update Raises Privacy Concerns

PainMeds writes "An article by author Jonathan Zdziarski reveals that OnStar has recently updated their terms and conditions to allow the company to sell customer GPS coordinates, vehicle speed, and other information to third party marketers and analytics companies, where it could be used for a number of nefarious purposes. He says, 'To add insult to a slap in the face, the company insists they will continue collecting and selling this personal information even after you cancel your service, unless you specifically shut down the data connection to the vehicle after canceling. ... It sounds as though OnStar is poising part of their analytics department to be purchased by a large data warehousing company, such as a Google, or perhaps even an Apple. Do you trust such companies with unfettered access to the entire GPS history of your vehicle?"

27 of 185 comments (clear)

  1. And? by EdIII · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Do you trust such companies with unfettered access to the entire GPS history of your vehicle?

    Of course I don't. I don't own a vehicle that has the ability to be shut off remotely either, because I don't trust a company or the systems with something that important. I would not trust the electric company with my refrigerator either. The very fact the control exists with a 3rd party is unacceptable.

    If you are worried about being tracked, OnStar is the least of your concerns. It applies to a single source of data that is not always with you.

    Anybody that really cares about this should wonder what data is being collected with your smart phones, etc. Verizon can track you better than OnStar ever could.

    All of your devices with their own dedicated data connections also track you far better. Sprint HotSpot? Those things can track you just like a cell phone too.

    The only thing surprising about this is that OnStar tried slipping it into the TOS, except just selling the data anyways with some legal sleight of hand.

    1. Re:And? by inviolet · · Score: 3, Informative

      It gets worse.

      On at least one occasion, OnStar allowed police to secretly listen in to a car's cabin in order to gather evidence for a drug conviction. Start here.

      --
      FATMOUSE + YOU = FATMOUSE
  2. Privacy Concerns?! by morari · · Score: 2

    OnStar is just now raising privacy concerns?

    --
    "He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
    1. Re:Privacy Concerns?! by alcourt · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Last time I shopped for a car, I told the dealer that disabling the interface so it couldn't be activated remotely was a deal breaker. Manager came over and on a demo car showed how in two minutes they could remove the antenna and attach a cosmetic cover where the antenna used to be. That was about four years ago. Even then, it was known that the service was being activated to monitor position without permission of the owner.

      --
      "I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend unto the death your right to say it." -- Voltaire
    2. Re:Privacy Concerns?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I went into a GM dealer and asked about this. You can no longer pull the antenna (it's integrated into some non-removable component), nor can you disable the onstar computer, as it is tightly integrated into the drive train computer.

  3. Re:Oh please... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Yeah.....Hell, I bet they'll make a fortune selling the information to your car insurance's marketing department so that they'll know how to target you to sell you more insurance and raise your premium.

  4. Disconnecting ? by nurb432 · · Score: 2

    Can you even disconnect it from your car if it comes built in, without paying someone at the least ( or rendering parts of your car non operational at worst )?

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    1. Re:Disconnecting ? by alcourt · · Score: 2

      Depends on the model. At least some models (Saturn before they were killed for example), there is an external antenna. While it may not be obvious, without significant tools, the antenna can be readily removed. The portion in the dash I was told was the dedicated fuse/circuit breaker. The reason to go to the dealer was to get the cosmetic cover to go over where the antenna was.

      --
      "I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend unto the death your right to say it." -- Voltaire
    2. Re:Disconnecting ? by 517714 · · Score: 2

      I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't let you do that.

      --
      The US government have made it clear that we have no inalienable rights; any we do not defend vigorously will be taken.
  5. Open Source Project by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Has anyone hacked their car to spoof OnStar packets and send them assloads of chaff? I don't see anywhere in the contract where it says you can't send them any GPS coordinates you want. Success will be measured by the number of OnStar-equipped vehicles shown to be commuting across the Atlantic Ocean on a regular basis. Why yes, I believe my vehicle is currently somewhere in Afghanistan. The bloke said he had lots of important packages he needed to deliver. He seems like a nice guy and always returns it when he's done doing whatever he does with it. Even rolls back the odometer for me. Why do you ask?

  6. Re:Hmm... by TheGothicGuardian · · Score: 5, Informative

    Time to get a screwdriver and cut out the cancer that OnStar has become.

    I believe you can just pull a dedicated fuse, actually.

  7. The intent is clear by macraig · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The fact that OnStar took pains to alter their ToS in this specific fashion means that they're clearly thinking about it and perhaps even planning to do it. The INTENT is clearly stated, and intent is all that matters. Since OnStar intends to make such a thing legally and technically feasible, they can't be trusted NOT to do it.

    1. Re:The intent is clear by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 2

      I guess I didn't make myself clear:

      The key to my comment is the quote that OnStar might sell the division to Google or Apple.

      I think it's too much of a money maker for OnStar to sell to Google or Apple. They will keep it as a service and rake in the cash-ola.

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    2. Re:The intent is clear by the+CIA+mind-control · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Still, at least OnStar is undertaking this for good, clean, capitalistic profit motives, and not for any conceivable usage in oppression and repression. There is no chance that the government would ever consider abusing these kind of commercial access arrangements to work around any theoretical constitutional limitations on tracking the citizens we own. There is nothing to fear.

    3. Re:The intent is clear by cayenne8 · · Score: 2
      Sad things is, no many GM cars, OnStar is not optional....

      I was a little surprised, I was looking into new corvettes the other day...and when I asked about getting one without OS on it....they said it wasn't an option?!?!

      So, if I get one, first thing I'm gonna do, is research how to undo the fucker and toss all those electronics in the garbage...

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    4. Re:The intent is clear by Inigo+Montoya · · Score: 2

      So, if I get one, first thing I'm gonna do, is research how to undo the fucker and toss all those electronics in the garbage...

      Then they will get you with some DMCA violation next for reverse engineering how it's hooked up, and you can be sure they will try to make it encrypted and non-circumventable (at least in the USA)

    5. Re:The intent is clear by cayenne8 · · Score: 2

      Then they will get you with some DMCA violation next for reverse engineering how it's hooked up, and you can be sure they will try to make it encrypted and non-circumventable (at least in the USA)

      I'm not sure how they'll encrypt a physical wire you can cut and a physical unit you can toss out of the car.

      In any case...I think with this one, you might be covered by the existing laws that do allow you to modify your own car...there are laws saying the auto manufacturers can't void your entire warranty just because you added on an after market exhaust system, etc. So, I'd think removing something unwanted would be ok, unless the gov mandates it, like a catalytic converter...?

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  8. Duh by benjamindees · · Score: 2

    Of course this is the reason that the US gov't required GM to make OnStar standard equipment as part of the auto industry bailouts. Anyone who didn't see this coming deserves to be tagged and tracked like the sheeple they are.

    --
    "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
  9. It's already being done by dwreid · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I just received a notice from State Farm Insurance that if I allow them to collect OnStar data I "MIGHT" get a discount on my insurance. Uhhh... yeah... I'll be sure to do that. (NOT) I'm fairly certain that this is only the tip of the iceberg. How long before the car automatically calls the police when you exceed the speed limit?

    1. Re:It's already being done by Required+Snark · · Score: 2
      The obvious next step is that you cannot have car insurance without some kind of automatic data collection. It won't be the law that requires this, but the corporations that now own you. An you can just change insurance plans if you don't like it, but either you will not be able to find an alternative, or the replacement will be horribly expensive and useless. (Just see how health insurance works for and example.) And without car insurance you can't drive in many states.

      You want to see how far this can go? In California you now have to give health insurance companies direct access to your bank account or they will cancel your policy. No credit card payments allowed.

      http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-lazarus-20110920,0,2211923.column

      It wasn't doomsday. It was just an example of a major corporation turning the screws on a customer to get what it wanted.

      In this case, what it wanted was access to Kreuzhage's checking account, rather than her credit card account.

      Anthem announced a few months ago that it planned to stop allowing members to automatically pay their bills by credit card. For those still wanting to use plastic, they could call a service rep each month and give their card number over the phone, although this would entail a $15 "convenience fee."

      ...

      Sure, you can still pay by credit card. But you have to remember to call in every month to do so. If you forget, your coverage can disappear.

      Kreuzhage, for one, has learned her lesson. She's forked over the checking account number that Anthem wanted all along and now approaches her health insurance with a renewed sense of humility.

      "If this is how they treat me when things are perfect, when I file no claims, how are they going to treat me if I ever have a serious medical problem?" Kreuzhage asked.

      And big companies never make billing mistakes. Even in those rare occasions when they do, it's always fixed right away. So, for example, if due to a billing error they clean out your account and you miss insurance payments or mortgage payments they'll fix everything like it never happened. And I have some major bridges in New York and San Francisco that I can sell you real cheap.

      --
      Why is Snark Required?
  10. Re:Oh please... by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I used to work in the IT end of the insurance industry, and believe me, data is their bread and butter. Insurance companies would love to have something like this.

    I also have to agree with the other posters: as we have seen in recent years with TOS from Facebook, Google and others, if it's in there, they're probably going to do it. They don't hire lawyers to put that stuff in there for no reason... it isn't worded in such a way that it would really cover their asses for any liability, if they DON'T do it. So then... why else is it there?

    Third, "anonymized" data, as we know very well by now, does not guarantee privacy. Especially location data. If you know where somebody lives, it should be easy to follow their movements with that data, anonymized or not.

    And finally: after all these years, I get to say "I told you so" to the people who got OnStar. After all, it's not as though this wasn't foreseen by a lot of people.

  11. Re:who wants this information? by sunderland56 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    My real question in all of this is, Who is asking for this information?

    Google would like to know where the traffic jams are. Stores would like to know who drives by and does not stop. Your insurance company would like to know how fast you are driving. The police would like to know who was driving away from the bar at closing time. And your wife's divorce lawyer would like to know where you were late Tuesday night.

  12. Re:who wants this information? by l0kl1n · · Score: 2

    His viewpoint is basically "if you're not breaking the law, what do you have to worry about?"

    People who say this always seem to forget that, one day, there might be laws that are well worth breaking; that in order to keep your humanity, you will have to break.

    Just to rifle through the last few months of news: what if you were Libyan under Gaddafi or Egyptian under Mubarak? I would be glad, were I in that situation, not to have a fucking device in my car reporting my whereabouts in a governmentally accessible manner.

    I think the whole idea of protecting rights is to do so for the future, not necessarily for the present.

  13. Legislation to counter this by Sooner+Boomer · · Score: 2

    From http://wnd.ha-hosting.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=346997

    "Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., and Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, have introduced the truly patriotic Geolocation Privacy and Surveillance Act, supported by the ACLU, that "requires the government to show probable cause and get a warrant before acquiring the geolocational information of a U.S. person."

    This would apply, among other forms of such tracking, to cell phones. It would also require telecommunications companies (including providers of cell phones) to get our consent to collect data from locations where we use them. Where do we go with cell phones in our ears? These companies, without telling us, already convey this location information to the FBI without our knowing we're being tracked as we talk. "

    --
    Chaos maximizes locally around me.
  14. No way by xenobyte · · Score: 2

    Do you trust such companies with unfettered access to the entire GPS history of your vehicle?

    No, I trust nobody with something like that.

    Not only are they making profit from something deeply private, but the data can easily be abused in a number of ways. It might be that you happened to be in an area where something bad happened, and right away you're a suspect just because you were in the area. You stand out because someone can document that you were there. They're not documenting that you did something wrong but the very thing that you were there, makes you a suspect.in particular compared to others who were also there but whose location wasn't documented.

    We already see a similar issue with DNA profiles. The initial (quick) profile only uses a handful markers and they're not all that unique. A typical crime scene sample will yield dozens of partial matches, also due to it like being slightly contaminated which lowers the match probability. You then have to seek out all the partial matches and review them, probably interview them and perhaps detain one or two. And you still have the very likely possibility that the perpetrator isn't in the register at all.

    After a few weeks the full profile is available and you'll most likely either have the perpetrator or realize that you don't. Now, having spent weeks in jail, suspected of some evil crime, you might get completely exonerated and probably financially compensated, but you'll carry that branding of 'criminal' forever, and that can never be removed. Usually there's nothing to suspect you other than the DNA matching, but DNA is such a strong piece of evidence that it in itself usually is enough to get you thrown in jail.

    --
    "For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
  15. Re:Oh please... by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I used to work for a company that makes and is marketing a GPS tracking system exactly for this purpose. It includes their proprietary GPS tracking device and firmware, and server side software to store the data and do preliminary analysis (but the insurance companies mostly just care about the raw data and will do their own processing). And the insurance companies are very interested in buying data on where and how you drive. So this is pretty much a sure bet. I have to say that I wasn't very comfortable working for a company making 'big brother' devices.

    Another use for this kind of data is for road charging programs for the government. Governments get a lot of their money for upkeep of the roadways from fuel taxes. But as fuel economy goes up, the relative tax revenue for miles driven (which translates to wear and tear on the roads) goes down. So many governments are looking to charging for road use. i.e. pay for the amount of miles/kilometers driven, based on the type of road (expressway, interstate/motorway, two lane blacktop, city cores, etc), time of day (peak/off peak hours), and type of vehicle. Something like Onstar technology fits in nicely with this too.

    --
    -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
  16. Fitting by 2names · · Score: 3, Interesting

    My uncle has a country place
    That no one knows about.
    He says it used to be a farm,
    Before the Motor Law.
    And on Sundays I elude the Eyes,
    And hop the Turbine Freight
    To far outside the Wire,
    Where my white-haired uncle waits.

    Jump to the ground
    As the Turbo slows to cross the Borderline.
    Run like the wind,
    As excitement shivers up and down my spine.
    Down in his barn,
    My uncle preserved for me an old machine,
    For fifty-odd years.
    To keep it as new has been his dearest dream.

    I strip away the old debris
    That hides a shining car.
    A brilliant red Barchetta
    From a better, vanished time.
    I fire up the willing engine,
    Responding with a roar.
    Tires spitting gravel,
    I commit my weekly crime...

    Wind-
    In my hair-
    Shifting and drifting-
    Mechanical music-
    Adrenalin surge...

    Well-weathered leather,
    Hot metal and oil,
    The scented country air.
    Sunlight on chrome,
    The blur of the landscape,
    Every nerve aware.

    Suddenly ahead of me,
    Across the mountainside,
    A gleaming alloy air-car
    Shoots towards me, two lanes wide.
    I spin around with shrieking tires,
    To run the deadly race,
    Go screaming through the valley
    As another joins the chase.

    Drive like the wind,
    Straining the limits of machine and man.
    Laughing out loud
    With fear and hope, I've got a desperate plan.
    At the one-lane bridge
    I leave the giants stranded at the riverside.
    Race back to the farm, to dream with my uncle at the fireside

    - Rush, Red Barchetta, Moving Pictures

    --
    "I'm just here to regulate funkiness."