OnStar Reverses ToS Changes

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Posted by Unknown on Tuesday September 27, 2011 @08:10AM from the or-will-they dept.

First time accepted submitter BlackWind writes "It seems that even Government Motors is smart enough to figure out when they've gone too far. GM announced that the OnStar service will revert to their previous Terms of Service in the wake of the firestorm of criticism that their plan to sell GPS data created."

17 of 90 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Political theatre by Hatta · 2011-09-27 08:12 · Score: 2

I'd bet GM will be making an extra large contribution to Schumer's campaign this year. If Schumer was really serious about doing anything but shaking down GM, he would have introduced legislation prohibiting vehicle tracking. But that's not going to happen obviously.

--
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
1. Re:Political theatre by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-27 08:18 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  I'd bet GM will be making an extra large contribution to Schumer's campaign this year. If Schumer was really serious about doing anything but shaking down GM, he would have introduced legislation prohibiting vehicle tracking. But that's not going to happen obviously.
  Like that would get through with the way Republicans are right now. Rand Paul would hold it up arguing that the government is denying corporate freedoms by not allowing OnStar to forcefully ID chip every person that ever rides in a car with OnStar in it.
2. Re:Political theatre by flaming+error · 2011-09-27 08:43 · Score: 2
  
  Why slam republicans for hypothetically stopping something the democrats would never start?
  Analyze the situation. The problem is not the other political party, it's a government that puts itself and its campaign sponsors above its citizens.
3. Re:Political theatre by Pope · 2011-09-27 08:57 · Score: 2
  
  Blame an electoral system that has candidates out campaigning and having to raise money a year + out from the actual election date. Running a campaign that long takes boatloads of money.
  
  --
  It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
4. Re:Political theatre by ackthpt · 2011-09-27 09:06 · Score: 2
  
  I'd bet GM will be making an extra large contribution to Schumer's campaign this year. If Schumer was really serious about doing anything but shaking down GM, he would have introduced legislation prohibiting vehicle tracking. But that's not going to happen obviously.
  Nice to see the thinking at GM has survived since the 1980's when "If it sounds like a stupid idea, let's do it" seemed to be the company motto. I don't think there's a need for legislation as present laws, it present laws are properly observed and enforced.
  
  --
  
  A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
5. Re:Political theatre by Shotgun · 2011-09-27 09:31 · Score: 2
  
  If that pump was expected to handle the pollution. Yes.
  Did someone remove greed from the human psyche yesterday, and Slashdot simply refused to post a story about it? I think not. Therefore, a functioning government should be able to withstand assaults from both greedy corporate directors, entitlement recipients and labor unions.
  It's not a matter of someone poisoning the water. The water has been poisoned since Cain hit able over the head with a rock (substitute analogy from your favorite genesis story). If the government can't handle human greed, then it is patently broken. The modus operandi, pretending that it doesn't exist, is the downfall of both capitalistic and communistic governments.
  
  --
  Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
  Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
Will this stop them? by Hentes · 2011-09-27 08:15 · Score: 2

Removing it from the ToS does not necessarily means they won't sell the data.
I wondered as I sat on hold for 20 minutes... by JohnnyComeLately · 2011-09-27 08:19 · Score: 3, Interesting

Here is what I was about to post to the original article here....
Initially, I read the TOS very quickly, and didn't notice the rewrite specifics. Due to reading the actual TOS a second time, I called all the way from Europe to cancel the service on my car that sits idle (pardon the pun) in Southern California. When I get back, I plan to rip the RF device out of the car.
Insurance can't be trusted, and I know they'll be buying the data. Geo spatial analysis will make it insanely easy to un-anonimize the data, and as we've seen very recently, when a company is bought or sold, the new owners like to re-define the rules of engagement. Right now, insurance asks for all your medical data during a claim, what's to stop them from pooling, analyzing, and/or asking for this data pertaining to your driving? Nothing.
The interesting thing is the On-Star support person said three times, "The information is only released with your consent." I replied all three times, "That's what your old TOS said. With all due respect, I appreciate your efforts, however I have an exceptionally firm grasp of the English language, and it very specifically states the data can be sold at GM's discretion OR with my consent. Please cancel."
Hmmm...oh well... It's sorta funny they actually corrected course. Netflix obviously didn't learn this lesson or execute a course correction nearly as well.
1. Re:I wondered as I sat on hold for 20 minutes... by LS1+Brains · 2011-09-27 09:01 · Score: 2
  
  I bought a brand new Pontiac G8 GT a couple years back. Not only did I leave the dealer lot without activating OnStar (much to the dismay of the salesman), I removed the module from the car as soon as I got home. Very easy to do, simply unplugged the antenna and electrical harnesses, and unclipped it from the rear deck. No tools needed, no side effects, and the only "feature" I lost was bluetooth integration (which I don't use) and obviously the OnStar "features" which I didn't want. When I traded the car in, I popped the module back in the car. No harm, no foul. I suspect not all GM vehicles make it this easy - especially from an accessibility standpoint. IMHO it would be welcomed, though. I have heard some vehicles pass the CAN bus THROUGH the module, rather than adding it as another module ON the bus. In this case, you'd have to jumper the harness, but still easy enough for any /.'er to accomplish I imagine.
Come on. by American+AC+in+Paris · 2011-09-27 08:25 · Score: 5, Insightful

You know, you've got a perfectly good summary going on an important issue, and you go and make yourself look like a child by calling General Motors "Government Motors". Why? Do you honestly think it's clever, or particularly effective at getting your point across?

--
Obliteracy: Words with explosions
1. Re:Come on. by Monkey-Man2000 · 2011-09-27 08:53 · Score: 3
  
  I agree, only Drudge and rightwingers call GM Government Motors. I suppose at least they're advertising their right-wing bias with a metaphorical blink tag. Therefore, we can assume the story is a troll or otherwise partisan like RedState, DailyKos, etc... I suspect this is the kind of shit that pushed CmdrTaco to leave /. because it's become much more conspicuous recently and particularly since he left ...
  
  --
  This post was generated by a Cadre of Uber Monkeys for Monkey-Man2000 (603495).
2. Re:Come on. by wevets · 2011-09-27 08:56 · Score: 2
  
  Good point. The whole country ought to be real glad the government got involved in saving GM rather than letting it go into liquidation or be bought by the Chinese. In addition to saving a whole lot of jobs, it also helped hold an important industrial base in American hands. And on top of that, the taxpayers made money on the deal as GM recovers and pays off what the taxpayers chipped in to safe this company.
3. Re:Come on. by Toonol · 2011-09-27 09:13 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  A moniker that should stay with them.
  
  Yeah. "Government Motors" is clearly namecalling, and an insult... but sometimes insults are deserved, at least for a while. People need to remember that GM failed, and only exists because it leeched off tax dollars. Ford didn't. That gives me a hell of a lot more appreciation for Ford's management.
4. Re:Come on. by sithkhan · 2011-09-27 09:22 · Score: 2
  
  You may be correct on the Chinese fire sale. However, your assertion that the taxpayers of the United States are going to see all that money recouped is patently false at this time. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703916004576271382418887092.html http://www.autoblog.com/2011/04/21/report-fed-mulling-summer-sale-of-gm-stock-would-take-big-loss/ The stock owned by the government needed to be sold at $50/share to break even. But what's 11 billion dollars when you want to raise government spending by another 1.6 trillion? A rounding error, to be sure.
  
  --
  
  is it that bad seein a hot chick again? if i see a hot chick walkin down the hall i dont say "repost"
Only partial reversal? by sl3xd · 2011-09-27 08:38 · Score: 4, Interesting

From what I read in TFA, they only reverted the part where they continue to track you after you've canceled I saw nothing about them changing their minds about selling your data.

--
-- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
Re:Dear OnStar, by nedlohs · 2011-09-27 08:43 · Score: 2

Dear The People Who Are Watching Your Smug Privacy-Raping Asses,
Do you really think we care if you notice?
We'll introduce this again in a year or two and you'll notice again but there will be half as many complaints and we'll withdraw it. The time after that there will be even less complaints we will push it through.
Love,
Onstar.
P.S. Do you remember when you didn't need to get a pat down to board a plane? When you didn't have to give the government advance notice of your international travel plans? When corporations couldn't destroy your life with a "mistyped" SSN?
Re:smart idea by tripleevenfall · 2011-09-27 08:48 · Score: 4, Funny

Given that the vehicles being tracked are all GM vehicles, we should be able to parlay this data into the most intricate map of North American breakdown lanes ever produced.