Slashdot Mirror


Senator Goes After 'Brazen' OnStar Privacy Shift

coondoggie writes "U.S. Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) sent a letter to the Federal Trade Commission to get the agency to investigate recent changes navigation and emergency services company OnStar made to its privacy practices. Schumer said, 'By tracking drivers even after they’ve cancelled their service, OnStar is attempting one of the most brazen invasions of privacy in recent memory. I urge OnStar to abandon this policy and for FTC to immediately launch a full investigation to determine whether the company’s actions constitute an unfair trade practice.'"

185 comments

  1. What car does the senator drive? by Fluffeh · · Score: 1

    I wonder if this is one of those "Oh, shit, not in my backyard!" type of reflex actions. Perhaps the Senator actually has one of those disabled services?

    Whatever the cause for the Senator's huff and puff, at least it is good huffing and puffing.

    --
    Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
    1. Re:What car does the senator drive? by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Don't worry, some kind soul representing GM/OnStar will explain it all to him. He'll take a nice long vacation in the Bahamas with his secretary and never press the issue again.

      --
      Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
    2. Re:What car does the senator drive? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The funny thing is they *PROBABLY* had gotten away with it. "We are offering a free service to all customers and previous ones at no extra charge".

      It is amazing what people will give away when then think they are getting something in exchange...

    3. Re:What car does the senator drive? by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 5, Insightful

      He'll take a nice long vacation in the Bahamas with his secretary and never press the issue again.

      You accuse someone you most likely know little about of committing future crimes and cheating on his wife of 30 years with no evidence whatsoever. If you would not want the government to do the same to you, maybe you could find it in your character to walk back those accusations.

    4. Re:What car does the senator drive? by artor3 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Schumer is one of the few good senators who regularly goes after corporations when they abuse us lower lifeforms. Not that I think he's necessarily more moral than his colleagues, he's just in a position where it's easy for him to act on that sense of morality. When you routinely win your elections by 30+ point margins, you don't need to worry so much about pissing off potential corporate donors.

    5. Re:What car does the senator drive? by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If you would not want the government to do the same to you, maybe you could find it in your character to walk back those accusations.

      Yeah, because if the time ever comes when members of the government might want to publicly smear a private citizen they will certain back off once they check his record and see that he's always been extremely respectful of those elected to office.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    6. Re:What car does the senator drive? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wish he were using AT&T too.

    7. Re:What car does the senator drive? by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 1

      You missed my point. I restated the golden rule: treat others as you would have them treat you. It's not about getting something out of it (preferential treatment by the government), it's about doing the right thing.

    8. Re:What car does the senator drive? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      He'll take a nice long vacation in the Bahamas with his secretary and never press the issue again.

      You accuse someone you most likely know little about of committing future crimes and cheating on his wife of 30 years with no evidence whatsoever. If you would not want the government to do the same to you, maybe you could find it in your character to walk back those accusations.

      You're right.

      This is Chuck Shumer we're talking about - put up a camera and he'd outrun Usain Bolt to put his face in front of it.

      Chuckie wouldn't run off with his secretary, but he would sell YOUR soul for some free air time....

    9. Re:What car does the senator drive? by The+Grim+Reefer2 · · Score: 2

      You missed my point. I restated the golden rule: treat others as you would have them treat you. It's not about getting something out of it (preferential treatment by the government), it's about doing the right thing.

      Apparently it's been a while since you last visited Slashdot.

    10. Re:What car does the senator drive? by jackbird · · Score: 1

      True, Chuck does a lot of good work. Shame about his hate for model rocketry.

    11. Re:What car does the senator drive? by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      You missed my point. I restated the golden rule: treat others as you would have them treat you. It's not about getting something out of it (preferential treatment by the government), it's about doing the right thing.

      So, how do you reconcile your response with the ages-old Q/A, "How can you tell when a politician is lying?" "His lips are moving." ???

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    12. Re:What car does the senator drive? by Luckyo · · Score: 0

      You don't. Politicians are scum, and not because I'm being an ass, but because you simply don't get to go high in politics if you're not scum - you will be undercut and taken down by other scum who want the same job as you.

      The saying referenced by grandparent is good for personal interaction. In personal life, a politician can be a really nice person. But when it comes to professional behavior, especially in politics, it has no place.

    13. Re:What car does the senator drive? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I want to be tied up, gagged with a rubber ducky and bludgeoned by a 12" kielbasa while simultaneously having my nipples stimulated by a mild electric current.

      I've learned my lesson. You try to do the right thing by sharing your version of sexual ecstasy with one reluctant transgendered Eskimo and you're labeled a sex criminal for life.

    14. Re:What car does the senator drive? by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 3, Interesting

      As a scientist, I try not to make judgements except as indicated by evidence.

      However, human beings have evolved to notice patterns and make inferences.

      It doesn't matter whether a pattern holds true in all cases, it only matters whether it's more *likely* to be true as it influences my next decision.

      Thus it may not be true that all crows are black, but this is not the important point. What matters is whether the *next* crow I see will be black, given all the crows that I have seen so far. I'll take that bet, because the likelihood is there.

      I leave it as an exercise for the reader to determine whether an average politician being motivated by their own interests is the better bet.

      (Hint: set it up as a game-theoretic problem, given that almost all elections are won by the candidate that spends the most money [which is empirically true]. Alternately, look at the voting history of the politician in question and see if you can determine the % which were in the public interest.)

    15. Re:What car does the senator drive? by Amouth · · Score: 1

      and how long must you turn the other cheek? at what point do you stop and point out the errors of others?

      --
      '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
    16. Re:What car does the senator drive? by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You missed my point. I restated the golden rule: treat others as you would have them treat you. It's not about getting something out of it (preferential treatment by the government), it's about doing the right thing.

      When the senator voluntarily joined a group with a long and storied history of abusing the golden rule not only did he invalidate any claim to it, he practically asked to end up on the wrong end of it.

      In particular, his past issues regarding personal privacy of political opponents suggests the criticism is not baseless. You may not like the hyperbole used to express that skepticism, but that's your problem. A pol who would take that personally would be to thin skinned to ever get elected in the first place.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    17. Re:What car does the senator drive? by GrumpySteen · · Score: 1

      http://characters.wikia.com/wiki/Crow_T._Robot

      Hah! You lose. Pay up, sucker!

    18. Re:What car does the senator drive? by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 2

      I leave it as an exercise for the reader to determine whether an average politician being motivated by their own interests is the better bet.

      It's possible to be skeptical of a politician's motive without accusing him of crimes and infidelity to his wife. If you want patterns, the story of politicians reflects the general population: the majority are law abiding and faithful to their spouses. Neither patterns or evidence support the (tongue in cheek) claims of the original poster.

      What motivates me in this thread is avoiding the destructive, lazy and incorrect "government is populated exclusively by immoral criminal scum" cop out. It fixes nothing, and guarantees those who actually attempt to *do* something useful will be beaten down along with real sociopaths. This is a restatement of another fine saying: don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

    19. Re:What car does the senator drive? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah because THIS politican isn't corrupt and paid for. Right. THIS one for sure.
      And just because 99% of the people he hangs out with have screwed us over in the past is no reason to judge this guy that way. RIGHT.

      Look. if you don't like the image the company you keep projects... You should hang out with better people.

    20. Re:What car does the senator drive? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Similar in fashion to the way Chuck Grassley went after Pentagon waste. It was easy for him to do for the simple fact Iowa has few if any companies who regularly feed at the trough of the military.

    21. Re:What car does the senator drive? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And just because 99% of the people he hangs out with have screwed us over in the past is no reason to judge this guy that way. RIGHT.

      Nethemas implied the Senator would take a personal bribe and have an affair with his secretary. That is an ad hominem attack that has no basis in fact. Nethemas could have suggested the Senator would suddenly have his campaign coffers replenished or his opponent may show up in a series of unfavorable television advertisements. That behavior would be very characteristic for a politician. It's all about it explaining in the right way.

    22. Re:What car does the senator drive? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This same line of thought applies to one rising in the ranks of corporate America. Managers, administrators have to be no less of a politician to get and keep a job with power and influence nowadays. Whether it's a U.S. Senator or CEO, makes not a damn bit of difference.

    23. Re:What car does the senator drive? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I leave it as an exercise for the reader to determine whether an average politician being motivated by their own interests is the better bet.

      Depends on the party or their ideology. I find that, in general, the further to the left a person is, the less self-centered are their motivations. It makes sense as the left emphasizes collective action and cooperation. When you get all the way to the Libertarian side it's pretty much every man for himself and "I don't give a shit if a tornado leveled your whole county, I'm not in support of government helping you out."

    24. Re:What car does the senator drive? by similar_name · · Score: 1

      While pattern recognition is important it also useful to know patterns are not a rule. Is there a face on Mars? Does my toast/potato chip look like a saint/president?. The real questions is 'Do you support this action or not?'

    25. Re:What car does the senator drive? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aside from being based on very thin evidence (noticing patterns produced by whom? the media? politicians that have much to gain from tearing down each other?), you argument is also an excellent argument in favour of racism :-). Just sub politician for black, gay or woman and read your comment again. Congratulations, you're a bigot.

      Also if you're a scientist you should be careful on your correlation/causation with the fundraising point. Two factors in that regard: people tend to donate more to better and more charismatic candidates, a strong fund raising effort is evidence of strong grassroots support, and people like to bet on the winner (especially those with special interests). PURE money doesn't win you a seat - just ask our friend from Ebay and HP, Meg Whitman.

    26. Re:What car does the senator drive? by Digit+Machine · · Score: 1

      Previous poster probably works for OnStar and knows exactly where the congressman has been.

    27. Re:What car does the senator drive? by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      I think they nailed it perfectly in The Hunt For Red October: "I'm a politician, which means I'm a cheat and a liar, and when i'm not kissing babies I'm stealing their lollipops" pretty much sums it up. Smile pretty for the camera while backstabbing and cashing big fat checks off screen.

      Citizens United only gave them the ability to take the bribes right out in the open with zero risk, which is probably advantageous what with a member of SCOTUS is looking a little shady when it comes to business dealings outside the court.

      . Personally I think congress should be treated like jury duty, as that is the only way i can think of to keep career liars out of the positions. I doubt even term limits would do a bit of good as they'd just cash the big checks for a lesser time than they can do now.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    28. Re:What car does the senator drive? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, he didn't miss it. He's doing unto others, what they've done unto him. Government's been screwing, raping and pillaging US citizens (the real ones, not the fake corporate shills pretending to be citizens - who have none of the responsibilities, but take all the benefits they can) for decades.

      It's time we gave something back!!!

    29. Re:What car does the senator drive? by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      However, human beings have evolved to notice patterns and make inferences.

      It doesn't matter whether a pattern holds true in all cases, it only matters whether it's more *likely* to be true as it influences my next decision.

      Hence, stereotypes....and why, despite many people hating them or disputing them....simply need to face the facts that many if not most of them are based somewhat in fact. They didn't come from no-where....

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    30. Re:What car does the senator drive? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I concur: in this case we shoud kill it, with fire!

    31. Re:What car does the senator drive? by suutar · · Score: 1

      yeah, but that'd take amendments at this point and they'd never make it through.

  2. Good for the economy by houstonbofh · · Score: 2

    There is a booming industry in removing the GPS and other OnStar components fro GM vehicles. Sure, most of it is for less than legal reasons, but still... More jobs!

    1. Re:Good for the economy by inject_hotmail.com · · Score: 2

      There is a booming industry in removing the GPS and other OnStar components fro GM vehicles. Sure, most of it is for less than legal reasons, but still... More jobs!

      Read what you posted again. Tell me one illegal reason to remove a leaky location tracking device.

      The only reason I can think of is: I don't want anyone to know where I am/track me without my knowledge.

      There is nothing illegal about that.

    2. Re:Good for the economy by skine · · Score: 1

      You're misunderstanding GP.

      He isn't saying that people are removing GPS and other OnStar components illegally; rather, he's saying that they're removing the components because they wish to do illegal things.

      For example, one might wish "part ways" with his "former colleague" by "taking a trip" to the Pine Barrens, for which he may wish some privacy.

    3. Re:Good for the economy by inject_hotmail.com · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I understood perfectly, but thank you for explaining for those that may not see.

      Consider this: the reason to want privacy may consist of illegal activities, but wanting privacy is not illegal in the slightest, and should never -ever- be construed as such.

    4. Re:Good for the economy by fnj · · Score: 0

      Dude, most people could care less if some database contains information on where their car has gone (and potentially when it has gone there). I certainly don't care in my case. Murderers, thieves, and such, on the other hand, have a very damn good reason to care. It's simple enough.

      And no, I don't claim everyone who removes tracking equipment is engaged in illegal activity, and I don't question their motives. I just think as a point of interesting speculation (and it is impossible to prove) that most who do so are so engaged.

    5. Re:Good for the economy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The removal is not unlawful, the reason (that I'm in possession of stolen property) is. Plain English. I understand the point you're trying to make, but you should have picked someone who was actually failing to make that distinction.

    6. Re:Good for the economy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps the reason itself isn't illegal but the motive may be, for example, if it isn't your car.

    7. Re:Good for the economy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is a booming industry in removing the GPS and other OnStar components fro GM vehicles. Sure, most of it is for less than legal reasons, but still... More jobs!

      Read what you posted again. Tell me one illegal reason to remove a leaky location tracking device.

      The only reason I can think of is: I don't want anyone to know where I am/track me without my knowledge.

      There is nothing illegal about that.

      It was a tongue in cheek comment about the number of people who steal expensive electronic equipment or other valuables out of your car if they can.

    8. Re:Good for the economy by jonbryce · · Score: 1

      It is illegal if you don't own the vehicle in question. SatNav theft from vehicles is a bit of a problem in some areas of the country.

    9. Re:Good for the economy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tell me one illegal reason to remove a leaky location tracking device

      So I can sell yours. If that wasn't illegal enough, I'll use the proceeds to buy crack.

    10. Re:Good for the economy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stolen car. Illegal reason to remove a tracking device.

    11. Re:Good for the economy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whoosh!

      He's talking about theft. Denizens of the night who break into GM vehicles, steal OnStar components and sell them to a fence.

    12. Re:Good for the economy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because the car is stolen and the GPS could track it. I think that what he's getting at.

    13. Re:Good for the economy by xclr8r · · Score: 1

      He is stating that the reasons that are motivating the removal are illegal (i.e. drug/people trafficking, black market weapons trade.. etc.). He is not stating that removing the device or wanting to remove the device is illegal.

      --
      Beware of those who profit off the docile and persecute the unbelievers.
    14. Re:Good for the economy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is a booming industry in removing the GPS and other OnStar components fro GM vehicles. Sure, most of it is for less than legal reasons, but still... More jobs!

      Read what you posted again. Tell me one illegal reason to remove a leaky location tracking device.

      The only reason I can think of is: I don't want anyone to know where I am/track me without my knowledge.

      There is nothing illegal about that.

      I suspect he was indicating that many OnStar devices are removed
      by people who have stolen the car, and don't want it tracked for that reason.

    15. Re:Good for the economy by houstonbofh · · Score: 1

      Actually, no. I was talking about the gang bangers who do not want to be tracked. But I like your thought as well. :)

    16. Re:Good for the economy by houstonbofh · · Score: 1

      This was my thought... But I love the others from the slashdot audience. Stolen car, and stolen radio are two I would not have thought of.

    17. Re:Good for the economy by inject_hotmail.com · · Score: 1

      I know it has been said over, and over, and over again. For whatever reason (actually, I know the reason), people seem to think that anyone that asserts their rights must be on the shady side of the law. If you had any idea how hard the men and women of the U.S. had to fight for the rights you are pissing all over, you'd smarten the fuck up.

      You have no clue. Let's say I'm part of that database, and I'm a political opponent. Now, anywhere I go will be suspect. Anyone in proximity will be suspect. You don't even realize the genius move that Google made by requiring Gmail be invite only for the first few years. Google now has a database that shows everyone's inner circle. A full and complete social web. Your lack of imagination is dwarfed only by your lack of interest in holding your rights.

      Year after year, your rights are being eroded, and when they are gone, you will be a prisoner. -You- will not even notice, and for that reason I am sorry for you.

    18. Re:Good for the economy by inject_hotmail.com · · Score: 1

      The removal is not unlawful, the reason (that I'm in possession of stolen property) is. Plain English. I understand the point you're trying to make, but you should have picked someone who was actually failing to make that distinction.

      WRONG! GP completely failed. Holy fuck, you and every other goddamn anti-privacy/rights mouthpiece on this board is WRONG!

      The REASON for removing the tracking system is "I DON'T WANT TO BE TRACKED". Your "reason" is irrelevant. Until you get that through your well insulated concrete filled skull, you'll lay on your stomach with your ass in the air waiting for the long pole of the law to slide its barbed truncheon in nice and slow while you beg for more.

      (If you are not anti-privacy/rights, ignore the 'you' parts...those parts only apply to them)

    19. Re:Good for the economy by inject_hotmail.com · · Score: 1

      Read my post in parallel to this one...motive is irrelevant.

    20. Re:Good for the economy by inject_hotmail.com · · Score: 1

      Heh...that'd funny. Stealing a cellular-connected GPS device. No one said a criminal would be intelligent.

    21. Re:Good for the economy by inject_hotmail.com · · Score: 1

      That's not the booming industry to which the GP was referring. I think what you described would be a niche market.

    22. Re:Good for the economy by inject_hotmail.com · · Score: 1

      So you can sell my what? Car? No way are you going to sell a stolen car. And if you would try, both you and the buyer and asking for whatever you get. And yes, crack is a wise investment. Actually, can I buy some stock in that from you?

    23. Re:Good for the economy by inject_hotmail.com · · Score: 1

      Stolen car isn't the reason, "I don't want to be tracked" is still the reason. "I stole a car" made you not want to be tracked, but that is the same under the law as "I don't want to be part of a database". God, doesn't anyone understand logic around here?

    24. Re:Good for the economy by inject_hotmail.com · · Score: 1

      Not whoosh...He's talking about people that don't want to be billed or tracked. Any thief that steals a car with a built-in tracking device is sub-retarded. Anyone knows it can be activated at any minute, and...what...show up to your fence with a loaded car? Whatever. I'm done arguing with people.

    25. Re:Good for the economy by inject_hotmail.com · · Score: 1

      I don't care what anyone's motive is. Everyone has a right to privacy...and having to enforce that right proves disrespect on the part of GM/OnStar. That should be the end of the discussion.

    26. Re:Good for the economy by inject_hotmail.com · · Score: 1

      I doubt it. If I'm a thief, I'm going to stay away from GPS-tracked cars. There are far easier targets, with far less heat attached. But that is irrelevant.

  3. More brazen than the government? by erroneus · · Score: 1

    I know it's stating the obvious, but is it more brazen than planting a device without your knowledge and NOT calling it an invasion of privacy?

    1. Re:More brazen than the government? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, the American schizophrenic attitude to government.

      Expect nothing of your government, and you get the government you expect.

    2. Re:More brazen than the government? by reboot246 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I wish old Chuckie was as outraged about the GPS tracking as he is about this.

      It's good to see somebody willing to check into it, but I doubt much will be done. After all, it is "Government Motors" doing it.

    3. Re:More brazen than the government? by Cwix · · Score: 1

      No, its OnStar you ass.

      Place the blame where it belongs.

      --
      You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
    4. Re:More brazen than the government? by TWX · · Score: 1

      Funny, you make it sound like the Federal Government is one big monolithic entity that always works with single mindedness...

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    5. Re:More brazen than the government? by grahamd0 · · Score: 3, Informative

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

      First sentence: "OnStar Corporation is a subsidiary of General Motors Which is owned 27% by the U.S. government and 12% by the Canadian government."

      You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.

      Indeed.

    6. Re:More brazen than the government? by hedwards · · Score: 1

      You mean the schizophrenic attitude of the voters, right? It's not like they get mixed messages from the voters.

    7. Re:More brazen than the government? by Kozz · · Score: 2

      Interesting. The percentage was added to the wikipedia article TODAY. Where do those numbers come from? Thought you might want to know.

      --
      I only post comments when someone on the internet is wrong.
    8. Re:More brazen than the government? by Cwix · · Score: 1

      I retract my statement, I did not know that onstar belonged to GM.

      --
      You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
    9. Re:More brazen than the government? by hedwards · · Score: 1

      Right and for better or for worse, those are non-voting shares so the US Government has about as much say in what goes on at GM as I do as a random member of the public. I take it you don't recall the uproar when it was suggested that some of the corporations getting bailed out should be required to fire their executives as a condition of acceptance.

    10. Re:More brazen than the government? by grahamd0 · · Score: 1

      The previous poster had claimed that the poster he was replying to was an ass for placing the blame on GM. I was highlighting that OnStar *is* GM.

      I object to the socializing private losses with public money, but that wasn't the point of my post.

    11. Re:More brazen than the government? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's almost as if voters consist of more than one mindset. Hell, it's not even the same people voting every time. It's not a matter of them getting mixed messages as much as it is the playing to different voters and rallying the idiots^H^H^H^H^H^H base of each party.

    12. Re:More brazen than the government? by gonzonista · · Score: 1

      OnStar base are belong to us!

      --
      If absolute power corrupts absolutely, what does this say about renewable power?
    13. Re:More brazen than the government? by Cwix · · Score: 1

      Yea, whatever.

      --
      You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
    14. Re:More brazen than the government? by 517714 · · Score: 1

      Works?

      --
      The US government have made it clear that we have no inalienable rights; any we do not defend vigorously will be taken.
    15. Re:More brazen than the government? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, the government is just a cover for a big monolithic entity that always works with single mindedness...

    16. Re:More brazen than the government? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Christ, you're the biggest moron on Slashdot today.

    17. Re:More brazen than the government? by stephanruby · · Score: 1

      You don't know the history of OnStar.

      Not only OnStar turns on the onboard Microphone without your knowledge for months at a time so that the FBI can listen in, but it also disables its emergency channel so that no one answers your call for help and no one comes to your rescue when the FBI is listening in (or is recording) in your car.

      Thankfully, they lost a big civil lawsuit over this.

      This is the main reason the cars with old OnStar technology (with only one channel of communication instead of two) can still be listened in, but can no longer receive the service and therefore can not pay a subscription fee to OnStar anymore. The judge felt that disabling an emergency service that people were still paying for every month was just unacceptable.

    18. Re:More brazen than the government? by jimbolauski · · Score: 1

      Right and for better or for worse, those are non-voting shares so the US Government has about as much say in what goes on at GM as I do as a random member of the public. I take it you don't recall the uproar when it was suggested that some of the corporations getting bailed out should be required to fire their executives as a condition of acceptance.

      I have two words Chevy Volt. GM execs knew it would flop mostly because electric cars are n+1 cars yet their decision to produce it was influenced by an outside source.

      --
      Knowledge = Power
      P= W/t
      t=Money
      Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
  4. Re:Just jealous the gov't didn't think of it first by 0123456 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    That god damn road they built, they did it just to spite me.

    The odd thing is the left like to talk about how wonderful the government is because it builds roads, but then they complain that people drive cars rather than use trains, and demand that said people should be forced out of their cars to combat 'Global Climate Warming Change'.

  5. Re:Just jealous the gov't didn't think of it first by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

    Nonsense. The Left has been complaining about roads being built for decades.

  6. Re:Just jealous the gov't didn't think of it first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    bah. The government owns half of GM. It was probably their idea to start with, figuring that people might be more likely to accept it if it wasn't coming being done directly by the government.

  7. Re:Just jealous the gov't didn't think of it first by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 2

    Yes, because one AC == The Left, roads are useful == roads are the best at everything, reducing car use == forcing people out of cars, Climate Change == scam for scientists to line their pocket with money.

    Did I miss any wild exaggerations, strawmen and other fabrications that you managed to sneak in your single sentence?

    --
    Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
  8. Sure he did... by PrimeNumber · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Because two North American governments are major share holders of this company, I am sure that tracking operations will immediately cease, because we all know governments hate doing shit like that.

    1. Re:Sure he did... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OnStar Corporation is a subsidiary of General Motors Which is owned 27% by the U.S. government and 12% by the Canadian government

      yup 12% == majority share

    2. Re:Sure he did... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      He said major, not majority. Yes a 12% stake in a company the size of GM is consider major.

    3. Re:Sure he did... by Khyber · · Score: 1

      Majority shares are controlling votes.

      Of which 12% is most CERTAINLY a controlling vote.

      Perhaps you should learn a bit about shares and stocks.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    4. Re:Sure he did... by gonzonista · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you should. The combination of the two totals less 39%. This is less than the 50%+1 required to have controlling interest. That is not to say that the two governments don't have a strong influence. They certainly do. However, if the other shareholders are in alignment, the governments do not have a controlling vote.

      --
      If absolute power corrupts absolutely, what does this say about renewable power?
    5. Re:Sure he did... by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "This is less than the 50%+1 required to have controlling interest."

      Do you even have a clue how many shareholders there are for GM/OnStar?

      Again, go do research.

      Or run a company such as mine, which has more shareholders.

      Government can just get a few more rules and laws passed to make those votes go their way.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    6. Re:Sure he did... by gonzonista · · Score: 1

      Actually, I do. There are millions. However, I'm being a bit picky about your wording because it is not always the case where an owner with 12% has a controlling interest. I speak from experience,too. A startup I was with fought off a hostile takeover with an entity that held 30% of the company by waging a proxy war to get minority shareholders on our side. We won the vote by a very slim margin. Keep that in mind in case you are ever unfortunate enough to be in that sort of situation.

      --
      If absolute power corrupts absolutely, what does this say about renewable power?
    7. Re:Sure he did... by Khyber · · Score: 1

      I'll never be in that situation. I control the future of the food supply with my new zero-light horticulture tech. Fuck with me, starve to death.

      Even Monsanto poses ZERO threat to me, now.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  9. Someone has not been paying their lobboying dues ! by obarthelemy · · Score: 1

    I love the outraged reactions of senators out for a cheap shot against a non-campaign-contributor, after having been so silent on so many more egregious cases.

    RICO should apply ^^

    --
    The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
  10. Fleet Vehicles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My 2005 Impala has no OnStar, but only because it was a fleet vehicle. If you buy a GM vehicle (and I wouldn't buy one made after 2005), find a fleet vehicle and it won't have OnStar installed, but at least in my case, all the other features you might want.

    1. Re:Fleet Vehicles by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 1

      find a fleet vehicle and it won't have OnStar installed, but at least in my case, all the other features you might want.

      Like 60,000 miles driven by someone who knew it wasn't their car?

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    2. Re:Fleet Vehicles by cloudmaster · · Score: 1

      60K miles is low. :) Last time I bought a cop car, I got one with 154K miles - and the lowest at the auction was like 85K miles. But cop cars are awesome because of the scheduled maintenance; there's no way I'd get any other fleet car.

    3. Re:Fleet Vehicles by inject_hotmail.com · · Score: 1

      Off topic, but...why is 2005 your cutoff? (Electronic throttle?) Just curious...my cutoff seems to be 1996...

    4. Re:Fleet Vehicles by inject_hotmail.com · · Score: 1

      find a fleet vehicle and it won't have OnStar installed, but at least in my case, all the other features you might want.

      Like 60,000 miles driven by someone who knew it wasn't their car?

      Hah...so true...but to tell you the truth, people aren't -that- reckless. As long as the maintenance is kept up-to-date, mid- and full-sized GMs usually last quite a while (I've owned 5, 3 of which easily went over 310,000km)

    5. Re:Fleet Vehicles by inject_hotmail.com · · Score: 1

      60K miles is low. :) Last time I bought a cop car, I got one with 154K miles - and the lowest at the auction was like 85K miles. But cop cars are awesome because of the scheduled maintenance; there's no way I'd get any other fleet car.

      +1...acutally, +2 (I've owned 2 cop cars). Both purchased at 200,000km. Cop cars have so many important longevity upgrades (thick suspension, aircraft hoses (green!), and are very well maintained. I sent one to pasture at 320,000km due to nasty rust in the trunk, and a VERY intermittent brake issue (happened twice)...the other is still going strong at 313,000km...almost no rust...solid car. I will scour the earth for another once this one is done.

    6. Re:Fleet Vehicles by cloudmaster · · Score: 1

      In terms of the Caprice 9C1 (since you mention the green silicone hoses), Goodyear makes a hose set for the essentially identical Impala SS under the name "Super Hi-Miler" which have a similar lifetime. The silicone hoses will last forever, but do not like any kind of contact with anything. The blue Goodyears will still outlast the car, but are more resistant to abrasion, and you can use regular hose clamps (but I still prefer to use the lined stainless clamps which don't cut into the hose).

      On the newer Crown Vics, watch for frame rust-through in the bends behind the front tires. A huge chunk of those stupid things will look fine with under 100K miles, but are taken out of service because of rust on the frame. :)

    7. Re:Fleet Vehicles by inject_hotmail.com · · Score: 1

      I don't think the Goodyear hoses are the same quality...but I could be mistaken...I believe they are the infamous blue colour, right? Anyway, the green hoses have never caused me any issues, which is actually nice to experience considering that almost every consumer product is designed to fail. And about the clamps...yeah, they tend to make the hoses squish their their slits.

      I'm not into Crown Vics at all, though I give them a bit of respect. It's too bad they rust so quickly...but I suppose it doesn't really matter, there's a bazillion of them around...

    8. Re:Fleet Vehicles by cloudmaster · · Score: 1

      I've had the Goodyears on my Caprice wagon (the wagons got all the good stuff from the cop cars except for the coolers) for almost 10 years now - they still look brand new inside and out (I flushed the system last year, which is why I looked inside the hoses). I loved my 9C1 as well, but it experienced a major drivetrain failure which was my fault. That "Restore" junk should not be put into an engine which works. :/

      For other cars... I also currently have an '04 Grand Marquis (the wife's car). I have no idea why people compare the Caprice and the Marquis. They're about the same size, and I like the Marquis in its own way -but there's no comparison between it and the Caprices. Parked next to the Caprice and Marquis is a '95 BMW 740i (my daily driver - oddly, it's got the lowest current trade-in value, despite having a new price in 1995 which exceeds what I paid for my house). In terms of performance, the BMW and Caprice are extremely similar, but the German car has a way nicer interior. :) The Marquis, well, is just a big car. It's a turd off the line, it doesn't corner all that well (even with the new 18s and Michelins), it gets ok mileage, and it's fairly cheap to maintain. I'm really looking forward to a few years down the road when the new Chevy 9C1 starts getting rotated out of fleets again; the Fords just don't do it for me, but I'd be ok with a cop car running an LS-based V8. :)

    9. Re:Fleet Vehicles by inject_hotmail.com · · Score: 1

      I've had the Goodyears on my Caprice wagon (the wagons got all the good stuff from the cop cars except for the coolers) for almost 10 years now - they still look brand new inside and out (I flushed the system last year, which is why I looked inside the hoses). I loved my 9C1 as well, but it experienced a major drivetrain failure which was my fault. That "Restore" junk should not be put into an engine which works. :/

      For other cars... I also currently have an '04 Grand Marquis (the wife's car). I have no idea why people compare the Caprice and the Marquis. They're about the same size, and I like the Marquis in its own way -but there's no comparison between it and the Caprices. Parked next to the Caprice and Marquis is a '95 BMW 740i (my daily driver - oddly, it's got the lowest current trade-in value, despite having a new price in 1995 which exceeds what I paid for my house). In terms of performance, the BMW and Caprice are extremely similar, but the German car has a way nicer interior. :) The Marquis, well, is just a big car. It's a turd off the line, it doesn't corner all that well (even with the new 18s and Michelins), it gets ok mileage, and it's fairly cheap to maintain. I'm really looking forward to a few years down the road when the new Chevy 9C1 starts getting rotated out of fleets again; the Fords just don't do it for me, but I'd be ok with a cop car running an LS-based V8. :)

      Hmmmm, alright...maybe the GoodYear hoses are pretty decent. 10 years without cracking is pretty nice. That's a LOT of heat cycles. I've never used "restore" before...that sorta stuff seems too gimmicky for me. If your compression is too low, it's time to rebuild or replace...there's no easy fix for things like that, as far as I'm concerned. There's always a decent motor somewhere...

      I too have quite the affinity towards my 9C1s. I keep trying to convince myself to get something new...or at least something else...but I just can't. I'm not surprised your saying that the Caprice performs like a BMW...these Chevys are stout.

      I don't know that the new 9C1s are going to make you as happy. They just aren't a full-sized car. I think the new new ones are going to be RWD...but it's still not the same...they are a mid-sized car with a weird trunk, and less than no room in the engine compartment. LS engines are decent...the computers are fast, and compensate quickly to current conditions...the engines put out a lotta horsies...but they just aren't the same. Sensors and servos for everything...including your "gas" pedal". The interior in low and mid range cars are too hard (I don't know about high-end cars, haven't been in any in a while). Way too much to go wrong. In fact, I say we're going the wrong way in automotive technology. We need less stuff. Ask anyone with a new car how much it costs to service, and how much replacement parts go for. It's not funny. Stick with your older vehicles...you'll SAVE as much as you paid for your first house over the course of your life if you do.

    10. Re:Fleet Vehicles by cloudmaster · · Score: 1

      Well, in my defense, I had just used some Restore on my '80 Caprice (running the oil-burning 307 which originally came in my wife's Chevelle). It shockingly actually made an improvement, so I sold the car right away. :) Then I thought "well, if it helped that POS, maybe it'll do something for this car too"... It did "something". :/

      I might be willing to trade off a little bit of interior space for the insane power potential those LS engines have. I'm putting 523HP out at the flywheel in my simple carb'd truck, while people are putting that and more to the street with LS engines that sound stock and get decent mileage. Those things are neat. But yeah, the parts aren't cheap. Not that my 16 year old BMW is cheap to maintain, either. New catalytic converters? $1300 *per side* just for the parts. Ooof.

    11. Re:Fleet Vehicles by inject_hotmail.com · · Score: 1

      I think the engineering of a 70's motor is a bit different than that of a 90's, 2000's motor. Clearances and tolerances are going to be pushing envelopes to get every possible mile out of a gallon, right...so it's more difficult to limp along, or pour in a quick fix.

      Maybe the brand new LS motors out of a Camaro or Truck can put out 500+...but there's no way I can see that out of any other vehicle...not without a cam, intake, headers, and of course a proper tune. Mind you, I think they have variable valve timing as it is...something I haven't been into at all...so I know that has a huge effect on low end efficiency with high end performance. I look at that stuff as one more thing to eff up. I can handle putting a few extra bucks in the tank (I get 25mpg on the highway out of my performer -- 440 at the wheel...I -may- have had 28mpg with the old engine -- 275 at the wheel, so that's not a monstrous difference)

    12. Re:Fleet Vehicles by cloudmaster · · Score: 1

      Well, the power in the LT1 is mostly due to the reverse-flow cooling which allowed higher compression ratios because the heads stay cooler, and the roller cam allowing more aggressive lobe profiles. The actual components vary only slightly from the Gen I small block introduced in 1957; the external accessory holes and mounts are actually identical, and the pistons+ rings are identical (well, ignoring that the piston grooves in an LT1 are some crazy metric dimension; the ring gap, piston pin, and piston skirt treatments are identical).

      The LS, OTOH, is a ground-up redesign. The variable valve timing thing is new within the last year on a couple of models, but those are not the higher power variants - any you find in a junkyard or crate would be the same cam hooked to a timing chain as in every Chevy V8. The LSx actually has fewer things to break than the GenI and GenII, as there's no distributor drive (it uses a toothed wheel to provide a timing signal to an external controller) and no mechanical fuel pump provisions. And the main caps are all 6-bolts / the blocks are stronger (an aluminum LS block is actually as strong as an iron Gen I/II). There's a lot of guys running carb'd intakes on those things, and then just an ignition box (which just about everyone serious runs anyway). The big deal in these things is the heads. They went to 4 bolts per cylinder instead of 5, but they're arranged better. The shape of the intake runner is way improved (where most of the power's coming from). And most are using beehive springs now, which taper at the top to reduce the amount of weight being thrown around at the end of the pushrod. Technology is cool.

      All that said, I think I'll be doing another LT1 in the Chevelle, controlled with Megasquirt this time so I can do variable turbocharged boost and flex fuel capability. The LS motors just need too many tweaks to bolt into older cars. :/

  11. Re:Just jealous the gov't didn't think of it first by blueg3 · · Score: 1

    Only where half = 27%. Also, OnStar predates the government owning a large share of GM.

  12. OTOH by Fnord666 · · Score: 1

    On the other hand maybe they can sell the data to the GPS companies and we can finally get some updated maps. There are roads around my area that had major routing changes three years ago that are still wrong on my Garmin.

    --
    'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
    1. Re:OTOH by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 1

      I literally live a block away from Garmin's headquarters and I can see their building from my front yard. The intersection in the opposite direction doesn't show up as well as many of the residential roads in the area. And, these were all built 25 years ago. Garmin licenses that information from a 3rd party from what I understand.

      --
      I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
    2. Re:OTOH by cloudmaster · · Score: 1

      This is the main reason I like Telenav / Sprint Navigation on my cell phone. The maps are periodically updated, and I don't have to get a windows computer, a cable that didn't come with the unit, and a yearly upgrade that costs 3/4 of the price of just buying a new unit to begin with. A Garmin recalculates a little faster, but my phone's not brand new and I don't make that many wrong turns anyway. :)

    3. Re:OTOH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you do know you can get garmin on your smartphone right ? garmin mobile xt is running fine on both my wifes samsung innovate and on my nokia n8.

    4. Re:OTOH by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      I have never understood this given that the federal TIGER and a number of state data sets are free for any and all to use. The federal one seems to be about 10 years out of date but the state ones are updated more frequently. I have gone all over Minnesota with maps I made from the data provided by MNDOT and the MN DNR and they have been wonderfully accurate and include very minor roads and other features, but yet the map set that came with my new handheld GPS is missing streets in my neighborhood (it was all built about 50 years ago) and seems to be off by about 100 meters. The GPS coordinates are correct as when I capture a GPS track and overlay it with the MNDOT or DNR data it is within the margin of error (a few feet).

      --
      Time to offend someone
    5. Re:OTOH by Sique · · Score: 1

      You can use the OpenStreetMap data on your garmin, which are quite up-to-date (e.g. the road that was moved and upgraded to four lanes in my neighbourhood showed up about the time of the opening in OSM).

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
  13. It is not me! by used2win32 · · Score: 0
    If you cancel the OnStar service and later sell your car, they are tracking a vehicle you no longer own or drive and are gathering data that is not applicable to you.

    Nice.

    Now that is useless data.

    --
    Procrastination; I'll think of a sig tomorrow.
    1. Re:It is not me! by inject_hotmail.com · · Score: 1

      If you cancel the OnStar service and later sell your car, they are tracking a vehicle you no longer own or drive and are gathering data that is not applicable to you.

      Nice.

      Now that is useless data.

      So you think that any interested party won't have access to a VIN/Owner Name and address database?

      Go back to sleep.

  14. Re:Just jealous the gov't didn't think of it first by hedwards · · Score: 1

    Not really, we've been complaining about the over reliance upon cars. You do realize that buses and bikes can and are used on roads, right? And that it's mostly when people decide to live many miles away from their work and drive by themselves that we start having problem.

    But, then again, I bet it's easier to just bash a fictitious view than to actually deal with reality. I'm sure that there are a few oddballs that believe it, but they're hardly the majority of liberals.

  15. Senator Charles Schumer is correct by gurps_npc · · Score: 4, Insightful
    If you cancel a service, they have zero rights to any information about you.

    On-star has no more rights to the location of ex-customers than Texaco does.

    Citizens should not be required to rip out the electronics to prevent a previous business partner from illegally spying on them.

    In fact a good case can be made to legally require all corporations you cease doing business with to destroy all OLD records about you, with exceptions for records of transactions you engaged in. (see my blog entree from June for more information

    --
    excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
    1. Re:Senator Charles Schumer is correct by MachDelta · · Score: 1

      What's really going to fuck with your head is when you realize that OnStar is *always* on, weather or not you have (ever had) a subscription. Just hit the button twice for an operator.

    2. Re:Senator Charles Schumer is correct by inject_hotmail.com · · Score: 1

      What's really going to fuck with your head is when you realize that OnStar is *always* on, weather or not you have (ever had) a subscription. Just hit the button twice for an operator.

      Uhm...it's probably "always available" more than "always on". But I agree with you, it's likely that they've been collecting data all this time...it's only just now that they're us now.

    3. Re:Senator Charles Schumer is correct by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Citizens should not be required to rip out the electronics to prevent a previous business partner from illegally spying on them.

      Just pull the fuse. I verified, at least in 2005, that this really disabled the OnStar systems (it would be possible to install a fake fuse but they didn't).

      And they said I was paranoid for doing so...

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  16. Mixed feelings by The+Grim+Reefer2 · · Score: 1

    I own a 2003 GM vehicle and I know f that the previous owner upgraded the OnStar system when they changed over from analog to digital. I've often wondered about how this works and if they can still track the car. Even knowing they are, I'm not sure I really care. I guess on a theoretical level it's annoying, But I have too many other things to worry about to get worked up over this. Actually, I've wondered if there is some kind of liability for them if they are still tracking my car w/o their service. If I get in a wreck and even though I don't have their service, can they be held accountable if they are still tracking me and choose withhold assistance? Honestly I assumed that they wouldn't want to have this kind of liability.

    1. Re:Mixed feelings by inject_hotmail.com · · Score: 4, Interesting

      ...Even knowing they are, I'm not sure I really care. I guess on a theoretical level it's annoying, But I have too many other things to worry about to get worked up over this....

      Congratulations...you're apathy is deep enough to drown in. Not only that, but this is precisely why these companies a) do this, and b) get away with this.

    2. Re:Mixed feelings by jonbryce · · Score: 1

      No because
      1) Being stationary in a particular location for a long time doesn't always mean your vehicle is in trouble
      2) While they collect the information, they almost certainly don't monitor it in real time

      Anyway, you may not care about OneStar having the information, but what if a burglar hacks into the system and uses the information to find people who are out of state.

    3. Re:Mixed feelings by MrAngryForNoReason · · Score: 1

      but what if a burglar hacks into the system and uses the information to find people who are out of state.

      Sounds like a lot of trouble when you could just have a peek through the letterbox to see how much post has built up, or just wander past the house in the evening a couple of times to see if any lights are on.

    4. Re:Mixed feelings by omnichad · · Score: 1

      I'm fairly certain that OnStar is connected to the airbag deployment system and so on.

    5. Re:Mixed feelings by LVSlushdat · · Score: 1

      Perhaps when the "airbag-deploy" alert also gets sent? perhaps they would rather not know that if you're not a paying customer??
      Just a guess...

      --
      THANK YOU, Edward Snowden!! Americans owe you a debt of gratitude (whether they know it or not..)
    6. Re:Mixed feelings by The+Grim+Reefer2 · · Score: 1

      ...Even knowing they are, I'm not sure I really care. I guess on a theoretical level it's annoying, But I have too many other things to worry about to get worked up over this....

      Congratulations...you're apathy is deep enough to drown in. Not only that, but this is precisely why these companies a) do this, and b) get away with this.

      While on one hand I totally agree with you, I also don't really want to live in a uni-bomber style shack/lifestyle. Frankly you are either too young/naive and are sponging off of your parents or are talking out of your ass. There is no way in hell you can be a productive well adjusted member of society (not that I'm sure this is that great of a thing, but I digress)and truly be fighting all of the injustices in the world. OnStar knowing exactly where I am in my car is an annoyance at best, but is still pretty far down on my list of world problems right now. Hell, as ubiquitous as cell phones have become, how may companies/gov't agencies know exactly where you are currently?

    7. Re:Mixed feelings by inject_hotmail.com · · Score: 1

      I wish I could impart upon you the reality that exists beyond corporate sponsored media. "I want to enforce my right to privacy" does not equal "I am a terrorist" for god's sake! I am neither young or old. I am, also, far from the support of any other on this planet. Attempting to defame my character in an attempt to divert your argument proves your complete lack of intellectual articulation.

      You don't even understand that your lack of attention to such things is by design. Consider that...and if you realize that society is setup so that the lower and middle class is perpetually distracted by issues that don't effect them, you will only be at the beginning.

      Oh, and you sound just like every other ignorant lemming I try to offer insight to the actual workings of society. I'm not wasting another minute on you.

  17. That's a very interesting comment... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    OnStar is attempting one of the most brazen invasions of privacy in recent memory.

    Coming from someone who voted for the PATRIOT act...

    -jcr

    1. Re:That's a very interesting comment... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The government HATES competition.

  18. Re:Just jealous the gov't didn't think of it first by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

    Only a subset of them. I had a professor that argued that if we increase traffic (which hurts the environment) it will encourage more people to take public transport. So he's green by way of causing traffic jams. I tried to get him to explain when the payoff would come from making traffic worse and more people taking public transport, but he could never defend the idea any more than "It'll make them take public transport." I've been to southern CA, the traffic is bad, and public transport is still underused. Most people would consider me a radical environmentalist, and I'm all for roads (and traffic efficiency).

  19. Is this really a problem? by mikeiver1 · · Score: 1

    The car I drive has OnStar built in. After the first free year I simply unplugged the antenna for the GPS and the transmitter. Problem solved.

    1. Re:Is this really a problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey asshole, you are mentally deficient if you think more than 5% of the population has any idea how to disconnect anything in their car beyong their seatbelt, let alone an integrated system like a GPS radio. Give your head a shake, then pull it out of your ass.

    2. Re:Is this really a problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was the placebo antenna. There is another one transmitting you data as we speak.

    3. Re:Is this really a problem? by inject_hotmail.com · · Score: 1

      How thick are your glasses? Just curious, because you are pretty myopic there...

    4. Re:Is this really a problem? by KahabutDieDrake · · Score: 1

      Is it? Did you check? It's pretty likely there is more than one antenna, or that as a fall back, the system uses the car's skin as an antenna. It's not like that would even be abnormal in the industry. I don't mean to sound paranoid, because that isn't the reasoning here. Crash / systems redundancy is where I'm coming from. Onstar is worth exactly nothing if it fails because the antenna was destroyed in the crash, and they sure as hell know it.

  20. Re:Just jealous the gov't didn't think of it first by cloudmaster · · Score: 1

    The "January 2011 announcement to change their policy and continue to track customers" doesn't seem to predate the government investment, though. You know, just in case your tin foil hat fell off. ;)

  21. Amusing to the Max by SuperKendall · · Score: 2

    Right and for better or for worse, those are non-voting shares so the US Government has about as much say in what goes on at GM as I do as a random member of the public.

    HA HA HA HA HO HE HA HO HE HA HO HA HA HA HA!!!!

    As much say? I don't remember having the power to fire the CEO

    And I don't think that having the head of GM assigned to lead the government as an economic advisor on creating jobs(!) is exactly the kind of hands-off model you are proposing.

    Not to mention that as part of getting that money, GM had to move all creditors to the back of the line behind unions who lost not a cent of money.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Amusing to the Max by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      Reading fail! The economic adviser you're referring to is the head of GE (General Electric), not GM.

    2. Re:Amusing to the Max by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh if I only had 10 slashdot ID's with a mod point each!

  22. MOD PARENT OBNOXIOUS by inject_hotmail.com · · Score: 1

    Learn to do research first before opening your mouth.

    Maybe you'll land a job making $12K *DAILY* like me once you learn how to do that.

    Too bad money can't buy tact, eh? If it could though, you'd need to spend your $12K DAILY!OMFG on it.

    1. Re:MOD PARENT OBNOXIOUS by Khyber · · Score: 1

      Tact is for people without the balls to say what they think in a direct manner.

      Guess what? You don't get anywhere in my field with tact, either.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    2. Re:MOD PARENT OBNOXIOUS by inject_hotmail.com · · Score: 1

      Tact is for people without the balls to say what they think in a direct manner.

      Guess what? You don't get anywhere in my field with tact, either.

      Wonderful, another asshole I have to deal with on this planet. What's your field? Pornography? The next time you believe someone is disrespecting you (which I imagine you are the type to blow a gasket when someone calls you on your bullshit), don't wonder why. Oh, hey sunshine, guess what...tactility is the ability to gracefully and precisely respond and control. Tact is just another way of saying self-controlled and respectful candor. Holy shit! Could that mean -polite- directness?!? Fuck...that might mean you'll have to reconsider your indignant attitude. Furthermore, although -you- may be devoid of empathy or any shred of emotional depth, most other people on the planet are not. Stop being an asshole to everyone, I bet it'll help some people not hate you.

      The above is NOT an example of tact. I thought I would level with you on your playing field first to get you going. Now that you see how being direct makes ME an asshole, you'll glimpse an understanding as to how people see you. Congratulations, you just felt a tiny bit of sentience. Please don't lose it. $12k a day doesn't make you human. Your heart does. Use it to share in everyone else's human experience.

    3. Re:MOD PARENT OBNOXIOUS by Khyber · · Score: 1

      Tact is passive-aggressiveness for people too scared to speak directly and clearly. Tact is the tool of the weak and dishonest.

      Oh and my field, zero-light horticulture - growing, breeding, and cultivating plants WITH ZERO LIGHT. Something you're not even educated enough to comprehend, same with the majority of other scientists out there that said it couldn't be done. I created the field. Most biologists are scratching their heads going "How the fuck did he do that?"

      Protip: Half of your 'science' is dead wrong.

      Oh, and I'll be an asshole to whom I please. It's not like you have any power to shut me up. I've been dead, twice, and I know what's on the other side. Be an asshole to someone that has the potential to control where your next meal comes from. I dare you.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    4. Re:MOD PARENT OBNOXIOUS by inject_hotmail.com · · Score: 1

      Alright, alright, now you are turning this into some sort of pissing match. Congratulations. You know more than me about X and I know more than you about Y.

      I'm not amazed at your delusional self-image of grandeur...it is, however, sad. You have zero aptitude for empathy...it's not an advantage. Moving along, if indeed you are telling the truth about creating zero-light horticulture, you must, in one respect, be intelligent. I searched for it on Google and Yahoo with zero results, so, I'm skeptical. In any event, I'll continue to be self-sufficient, and you continue to wipe your ass with everyone around you. I'm sure they thank you for the pleasure.

      End of conversation. No matter how flamboyant your elicitation, don't expect a response.

  23. Event Data Recorders by E.I.A · · Score: 1

    How many realize that EDRs are installed in nearly all vehicles: "As of 2003, there were at least 40 million vehicles equipped with the devices."[wikipedia] That has more than risen since. I don't say they are the same, but essentially, every new vehicle carries a blackbox which can potentially be accessed by "others" without necessarily enduring a collision. https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Event_data_recorder

    --
    Laws are like sausages. It's better not to see them being made. - Otto von Bismarck
    1. Re:Event Data Recorders by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      EDRs though at least for the moment require a physical connection (though there are ramblings of adding remote access in the upcoming standard) and at least one court case has affirmed that the contents of EDRs are the property of the owner and require a warrant to access. Also very few if any record GPS coordinates. There is cause to believe they could become as bad as or worse than On Star though. California has been trying to get a variety of scary features required in the next standard, including wireless access, apparently for several purposes, road use taxing, emissions ticketing, GPS history access, etc. There has even been talk of an engine kill command.

  24. why is this moderated insightfull? by publiclurker · · Score: 2

    When funny is the obvious choice.

    1. Re:why is this moderated insightfull? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because it is insightful. Do you know what that word means?

  25. Translation... by frank_adrian314159 · · Score: 1

    Nice service youse got there... It'd be a shame if anything bad should happen to it. It's a dangerous place, Detroit. Now, if I were you, and I'm just sayin' mind you, that a nice contribution to the folks that helped bail youse guys out might go a long way towards protectin' your service there.

    And, don't think I'm showing bias or false equivalency because I'm picking on the Democrat here - the Republicans would do the same thing, but end up with twice as big a payoff, because they're "better" politicians.

    In the final analysis, I hate being so cynical, but these bastards (even the ones most aligned with my political views) won't police themselves, so what choice do I have? (Well, other than voting, which I do, but...)

    --
    That is all.
  26. If Schumer is that concerned about privacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    how about repealing HIPAA? There couldn't be a bigger government boondoggle than this monstrosity of a law, none of which concerns itself with privacy. Yes yes it shrouds your medical information from Aunt Tillie and Uncle Jake as well as the neighbors down the street. But the governments droid will have unfettered access to your personal medical history. Plus it costs the healthcare system in this country untold fortunes as hospitals alone employ hoards of workers who do nothing more than enforce this law.

  27. Send them a bill! by Dr_Ish · · Score: 2

    The solution here is simple: Send OnStar a contract saying that you charge a fee of $10.00 per day for the information that they collect. Make the contract come into force after 30 days, if they do not respond to negotiate. Make sure the contract is sent registered mail to their registered agent in your state. Wait 30 days and send them a bill, again via registered mail. Wait a while longer and then file a claim in small claims court. I bet that would get their attention. My misses has OnStar on her car, which we do not use, so I will be doing this. Although IANAL, I am just a bastard!

    1. Re:Send them a bill! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Love the idea. Unfortunately, my futureless legal education (which is still ongoing) says that's foisting a contract, which is no dice.

      Can you imagine a world without lawyers? *Shudder*

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0u9JAt6gFqM

    2. Re:Send them a bill! by caitsith01 · · Score: 1

      Although IANAL, I am just a bastard!

      YANAL, indeed.

      You can't form a contract by simply sending someone a unilateral set of terms and relying on their silence to confirm their assent to it.

      --
      Read Pynchon.
    3. Re:Send them a bill! by Soralin · · Score: 1

      Unless it's a EULA of course:

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

      Both cases involved a shrink-wrapped license document provided by the online vendor of a computer system. The terms of the shrink-wrapped license were not provided at the time of purchase, but were rather included with the shipped product as a printed document. The license required the customer to return the product within a limited time frame if the license was not agreed to. In Brower, the Supreme Court of New York ruled that the terms of the shrink-wrapped license document were enforceable because the customer's assent was evident by its failure to return the merchandise within the 30 days specified by the document.

    4. Re:Send them a bill! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yet that's what onstar is doing here..

    5. Re:Send them a bill! by dkf · · Score: 1

      You can't form a contract by simply sending someone a unilateral set of terms and relying on their silence to confirm their assent to it.

      You can in some jurisdictions, but it does depend on the exact set of terms proposed. In particular, the person receiving the document can't be forced to take any action by such one-way contracts because they have not agreed to anything (so the contract terms would have to say "If you - the receiver - do A, then I will do B." so that the acceptance is still clearly signaled.) Remember, contracts are fundamentally agreements and you can't have an agreement without all parties actually agreeing.

      Not that I'm a lawyer, but I did work on a project that looked at the legality of SLAs so I have actually looked into this.

      --
      "Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
    6. Re:Send them a bill! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since that information is personally identifiable information (where you're at, at any given moment, inside of vehicle with xyz vin number is definitely identifiable), I'd say the cost per day just shot up to about $1000.00 - since it's going to have data points covering 24*60*60 (86400) seconds of the day that's 1.157 cents per data point, cheap at twice the price.

    7. Re:Send them a bill! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that wont work

    8. Re:Send them a bill! by DynamoJoe · · Score: 1

      It's a good idea but to send the bill you'd have to prove they gathered the information about you before you sent the bill. Unless you have access to the logs or can audit the hardware sufficiently to prove to six people (who weren't smart enough to get out of jury duty) that OnStar tracked you, your lawsuit will fail.

      --
      bah.
    9. Re:Send them a bill! by SleazyRidr · · Score: 1

      It works the same way a EULA does, you agreed to the contract when you decided to buy a Chevy. You can (and probably should) buy a car from another manufacturer.

    10. Re:Send them a bill! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I bet you tomorrow's lunch money that somewhere in the purchase agreement of the car, there is some fine print that says they can continue to collect information without authorization (probably permitted by the Patriot act).

      Does somebody have a GM car that can verify that ?

      The end goal is a complete and deliberate usurpation of the "citizens" (Notice lowercase "c") rights as protected by the Constitution's 4th amendment.

      Feds Mandate Tracking Device Be Installed On All New Cars
      http://blog.alexanderhiggins.com/2011/05/24/feds-mandate-tracking-device-installed-cars-22935/

      I hereby label myself as a "Conspiracy Analyst"

    11. Re:Send them a bill! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I bet you tomorrow's lunch money that somewhere in the purchase agreement of the car, there is some fine print that says they can continue to collect information without authorization (probably permitted by the Patriot act).

      Does somebody have a GM car that can verify that ?

      Feds Mandate Tracking Device Be Installed On All New Cars
      http://blog.alexanderhiggins.com/2011/05/24/feds-mandate-tracking-device-installed-cars-22935/

    12. Re:Send them a bill! by caitsith01 · · Score: 1

      Unless it's a EULA of course:

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

      In that example, there are several positive steps taken - paying for the product in question, and then proceeding to install and use the product rather than return it.

      --
      Read Pynchon.
    13. Re:Send them a bill! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am honestly curious how that works out. Would you share the results with slashdot?

  28. I don't know what angers me more: by Krashed · · Score: 1

    People's cowardness, or their stupidity...

    Wow, they are tracking people after they cancel they cancel the service. I couldn't be more furious. This is an outrage! Say... I wonder if people are even aware they everything they do is being tracked by somebody else, uploaded through the air freely with an encryption that may or may not yet have been broken and if if not, is being stored "securely" until another party wants to buy the harmless "sanitized" data. Damn guppies, cell phones are bad enough but now people are driving in a machine that is constantly spewing everything you do and see for the whole world to know, that is if they haven't already uploaded it themselves to Facebook or tweeted it to a bunch or people who really don't care about what they are doing except that one lone friend who isn't a real friend at all, or a person for that matter. Just another machine aggregating data for whomever has the money for these harmless bits of ones and zeros.

    1. Re:I don't know what angers me more: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah! No one could ever harm you by violating your privacy! No one cares what you do, so why not let them install cameras everywhere in your house?

      Governmental corruption doesn't exist (if it doesn't happen to you, who cares?). Corporate corruption doesn't exist (if it doesn't happen to you, who cares?). Humans never make mistakes.

  29. Who would want these strings of: by Krashed · · Score: 1

    011000110110110001100101011101100110010101110010 01100111011010010111001001101100 anyways?

    An ex that wants to know what you've been up to, your grocery mega-mart so they can sell you want you don't know you need yet, that fellow on the phone with a funny accent (anyone smell vodka) who says he's from your credit card company and know's you're on vacation pumping gas in your pretty, new GM vehicle so he must be for real but is now asking your pin number so he can prove he's speaking to the right person, your dear old uncle Sam who just wants to check up on you, or your boss who swears that he saw you at the club but can't say anything because he shouldn't have been there either and while he now has proof of where you were, is driving the '12 model with newly activated service.
    But hey, I'm outraged that they are going to track me only when I discontinue service. They shouldn't have told me this because now it's gonna take a senator or three, several committees, and many hours of CSPAN to make me feel better that they are only tracking me always, and only with my knowledge and permission. Poor poor guppies.

  30. Forgot one word by Krashed · · Score: 1

    IMPLICIT permission. guppies.

  31. Thank God for HIPAA . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    . . . and fuck you and all the Teabaggers like you.

  32. Yep by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Climate Change == scam for scientists to line their pocket with money.

    It's not that for some scientists but there is a lot of money being made from what truly is a scam in every sense of the word.

    The sad thing is you can only see scams on one side, not the other too...

    Wake Up.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Yep by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 1

      Yep, damn climate scientists, living it up with all their hoes and their bling and their giant mansions and pimped out cars... yep, truly they're living the life of the rich and famous.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
  33. Ha, don't get between Chuck Schumer and by unassimilatible · · Score: 1

    a camera.

    And amusing to see him trying to scuttle what is likely the sole thing Government Motors is doing that is profitable. Throw in the UAW getting a big fat handout and CAFE standards, and Bailout 2.0 can't be far away.

    Oh well, at least they might stop tracking me in my new Corvette...

    --
    Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
  34. Mathematical proof by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 1

    Assertion 1: Elections are won by the candidate who spends the most money

    I can't prove this logically, only empirically. A PEW study of large number of elections found that over 90% were won by the candidate who spent the most money. Of the remaining 10%, the majority self-destructed by political scandal. The general rule holds very well: the candidate who spends the most money (and doesn't get caught in a scandal) will win the election. Lots of corroboration on the net, such as:

    http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/11/money-wins-white-house-and.html

    Assertion 2: A candidate who acts in his own interest rather than the interest of the general public is corrupt.

    By definition. (Note that sometimes an action is in both the general interest *and* the self-interest of a politician.)

    Now calculate the % likelihood that a politician is corrupt in our system.

    Any politician with a sense of ethics will be out-competed by one with a lower sense of ethics. The ideal candidate will be the one who can sell his integrity the fastest and to the most people. This is why politicians always seem to be in the pocket of large corporations.

    I say this not because I'm lazy, destructive and incorrect, but to shed light on the problem. With a model whose outcome we don't like, we can try to get a different outcome by changing the parameters or moving to a different model. We can work to make a system that doesn't have quite so much corruption.

    But it starts by admitting that "government is populated exclusively by immoral criminal scum", which is no secret and is independently arrived at by just about everyone.

    It's predicted by the math. It's real - get over it.

  35. Why do Americans put up with this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This type of invasion of privacy is nothing new in the United States. Perhaps the US should start implementing similar privacy laws as those in Europe? Unfortunately I can't see it ever happening.

  36. How far does this reach? by SeeSp0tRun · · Score: 1

    I just shot an email over to Toyota, to see what, if any, policies they have in place similar to that of OnStar. Their service, Entune, is available in almost all of their vehicles, from Toyota to Lexus, so I figured it may be applicable/helpful.

    Will post a followup for anyone interested.

    --
    Something witty.
  37. Hell has frozen over... by LVSlushdat · · Score: 1

    I NEVER thought I'd cheer at something Chiuckie Schumer was proposing, but here it is.. OnStar has jumped the shark on b.s. corporate policies with this one.. They need to be slapped silly for this kind of crap. I'd never be directly affected by OnStar as they seem to only be on Government Motors vehicles, and I'd NEVER buy a GM vehicle. In fact, I just did buy a new car, and it was from the one US automaker who *didn't* have its hand out to BigBrother for a bailout, namely Ford... Go Ford!!!

    --
    THANK YOU, Edward Snowden!! Americans owe you a debt of gratitude (whether they know it or not..)
  38. I don't understand....how this works... by matth · · Score: 1

    Doesn't OnStar use the cellular network to communicate information back to the "mother-ship"?

    I find it hard to believe GM is actually footing the bill for all of these cars when the end-user isn't paying the on-star fee.

    Can anyone explain how this is working?

  39. Spies Fucking Bitchy Little Girls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    U.S. Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) speaks hypocrisy with a forked tongue.
    His true agenda and religion is lockstep with bankster foreign and corporate agenda,
    such agenda has replaced the (D) and (R) of nearly most Senators and Representatives.

    An epic document depicting the struggle of middle class America against the multinational banksters and an update on the white devil slavemasters.
    “The Federal Reserve Plans To Identify “Key Bloggers” And Monitor Billions Of Conversations”

  40. OnStar, by the Atmos Corporation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You have reached your final destination.

  41. Two sides to a coin by jimnorcal · · Score: 1

    It occurs to me that if they continue to track your car .. that somehow they could be held accountable if something bad happens to you even if you're no longer paying for their services. If they continue to have any involvement with you after the fact, then if something happens and they don't help you out which results in damage or death, then they could potentially be held somehow liable for that if they fail to intervene in a timely fashion that could save you from such damage or death.