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.'"
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!
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.)
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
When funny is the obvious choice.
...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.
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.
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!
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.