Slashdot Mirror


LoJack To Release Tracking Devices For Consumers, Insurance, and Auto Makers

Lucas123 writes "Next year, LoJack plans to come out with a telematics system that will allow parents to track their children's cars, auto makers to record vehicle diagnostics and insurance companies to review driving habits as the basis of rate quotes. LoJack said the wireless tracking systems will likely come in several forms, including a OBD II plug-in dongle as well as a factory installable model. The company said it has no plans to sell any information collected through a cloud service connected to the devices, but to only share it with stakeholders — either vehicle owners or businesses that have been given the OK to collect and use the data. Additional features will include the ability for parents to set up geo fences to restrict where their children can drive before alerts can sent as well as the ability to restrict and texting while the vehicle is being operated."

144 comments

  1. Hahaha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The company said it has no plans to sell any information collected through a cloud service connected to the devices

    And you'd be an idiot to think they won't silently change this in an EULA update.

    1. Re:Hahaha by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "And you'd be an idiot to think they won't silently change this in an EULA update."

      You'd be an idiot to agree to this at all. But you make a good point:

      This pervasive surveillance did not come about by accident. It came about by consumers (and others) agreeing to a little bit here, and a little bit there, because "it will never be used THAT way..." And of course, eventually it IS used exactly that way.

      Consumers -- and citizens in general -- MUST get it through their heads that if they give away to somebody the ability to do something, including things that have the potential to steal away their privacy, eventually it will be used in just that way. History is full of such lessons.

      Just don't give it to them in the first place! The potential good is far outweighed by the potential harm. As Lyndon Johnson (not one of my favorite people) said about this kind of thing: "You do not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered, but in the light of the wrongs it would do and the harms it would cause if improperly administered."

      This is true, not just of legislation, but of technology too. There are some ways it should not be used. If you let it, the consequences will be bad. It's that simple.

    2. Re:Hahaha by Mitreya · · Score: 2

      The company said it has no plans to sell any information collected through a cloud service connected to the devices

      And you'd be an idiot to think they won't silently change this in an EULA update.

      They don't have to!
      There currently are "no plans", mostly because they first need to collect the data before they can properly price it.

      It would also be able to restrict talking or texting on a smartphone while a vehicle is in operation.

      Ok, that is just creepy. How about extending that to forced ads?
      "Watch this commercial and you can talk on your phone for the next two days while you are driving"

    3. Re:Hahaha by amiga3D · · Score: 2

      Soon enough we'll have a government mandate for this anyway. Think of how safe we'll be from the terrorists.

    4. Re:Hahaha by GIL_Dude · · Score: 4, Interesting

      If it was designed properly, they would not HAVE any information to sell (or leak when hacked). If, for example, I bought such a device for my kid's car, I would expect that the information it sends (including any unique identifier like a serial number in the equipment) is sent encrypted by my public key to the cloud service along with an unencrypted number representing ME (so that it can route to me in their system). I would have an application on my computer, tablet, etc. into which I could put my private key / certificate. It would download the encrypted information and decrypt it locally. Anything less - nope! No sale. If they are able to do alerts and geo fencing - it is clear that they get the information on location unecrypted and can access it. I would not want to get such a system...

    5. Re:Hahaha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't doubt your attribution of the quote, but for a guy who had a foul mouth that rivaled mine (i.e. really fucking bad), I'm kind of surprised how insightful and true his statement was/is.

    6. Re:Hahaha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Being here in Texas, Lyndon Johnson saying such a thing is quite incredible, knowing how corrupted he was.

    7. Re:Hahaha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As Lyndon Johnson (not one of my favorite people) said about this kind of thing: "You do not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered, but in the light of the wrongs it would do and the harms it would cause if improperly administered."

      Amazing how little even contemporary lawmakers remember their own history. Like, oh, that PATRIOT ACT shmuck, when he admitted in public that it wasn't such a great idea after all. Ultimate admittance of complete failure to do your job properly.

      And, well, basically every other law people got up in arms about. ACTA and its tribbles, but even DMCA is now being increasingly abused, as has been predicted from the start. Except perhaps the part where the abuse comes from fully automated spambots run by big media and their contractors. So we didn't expect the scale, but we did expect abuse, and oh boy did we get it. Where "we" includes the whole world. But that's not the point. The point is that the lawmakers didn't do their homework. And they really don't have any excuse.

    8. Re:Hahaha by tibit · · Score: 1

      Especially if such ability is merely a software update away. That's really what people don't get. You get a cellphone, it's one remote and silent software update away from being turned into a snooping device that constantly records the audio and GPS location data, and periodically uploads it to a server somewhere. That's assuming that such functionality isn't present in the software from Day 1.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    9. Re:Hahaha by tibit · · Score: 1

      You do realize, I hope, that, like, half of the words you have used in your post wouldn't even be understood by the people this will be marketed to? Yeah, sure as heck I'd like it to be designed the way you describe. Care for starting a Kickstarter campaign for such a product? Because I'm up. LoJack is a seriously shady outfit, as far as I'm concerned they'll be selling the data to guys who want to stalk teenage girls.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    10. Re:Hahaha by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      If it was designed properly, they would not HAVE any information to sell (or leak when hacked).

      Well then how the hell are they going to sell your info then. Sheesh! you are the product. Now get out there and buy shit.

      If it can be collected, it will. And if it can be monetized, well duh!

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    11. Re:Hahaha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't get it. It could be done using per-account encryption and the consumer wouldn't have to know anything about it. All the hard stuff could be hidden. This is all just a software problem. It can be done more privacy-enhancing - but they *choose not to*

    12. Re:Hahaha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah it's like the new Samsung TVs.

      Yes there is a camera watching your living room 24/7.

      But don't worry, our robust privacy policy* will protect you from all of the ways it could be abused.

      *Policy subject to any change at any time.

    13. Re:Hahaha by citizenr · · Score: 1

      USA is a stakeholder.

      --
      Who logs in to gdm? Not I, said the duck.
    14. Re:Hahaha by citizenr · · Score: 1

      erm, NSA, damn brain.

      NSA is a stakeholder.

      --
      Who logs in to gdm? Not I, said the duck.
    15. Re:Hahaha by citizenr · · Score: 1

      Forget software. Apple put M7, hardware dedicated to tracking when phone is sleeping or turned of. They dont want to lose track of you when battery is too low.

      --
      Who logs in to gdm? Not I, said the duck.
    16. Re:Hahaha by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      We need to have a legal framework for EULAs that boils them down to a few simple bullet points so that ordinary people can reasonably be expected to read and understand them. Things like:

      - We own everything you create with the service or upload
      - We will sell your private data to anyone willing to pay
      - We never delete anything
      - Anything we sell you is infected with DRM and we will try to stop you reselling it or exercising your fair use rights

      Kind of like app permissions.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    17. Re:Hahaha by BVis · · Score: 1

      - but there's no *compelling business case* to do so

      FTFY. Let's say engineering wanted to include this feature. They'd go to the business and say "We can offer our customers additional peace of mind and also protect ourselves from harm in the event of a data breach if we store all this information encrypted." The business would answer with "Does that translate to additional sales?" Unfortunately, given the general technical cluelessness of the average consumer, they aren't likely to buy on something they can't see or understand.

      So, engineering isn't authorized to commit the resources to securing the data. Nothing to see here, move along.

      --
      Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
    18. Re:Hahaha by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      I'm far more scared of idiots texting while driving than I am of terrorists. In fact, terrorists don't worry me at all.

    19. Re:Hahaha by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      "We need to have a legal framework for EULAs that boils them down to a few simple bullet points so that ordinary people can reasonably be expected to read and understand them. Things like:"

      The thing about EULAs is that companies can change them... in fact some of them want you to believe that they have the (legal) right to change them at any time, regardless of what it said when you bought said product. (IANAL but but in general: no.)

      The whole concept of a EULA is to protect the company, not you. If they wanted you to be protected, they'd just sell it to you rather than "license" it.

  2. I don't get it. by teebob21 · · Score: 2

    Why is this news? Is it just the consumer commoditization of what businesses have been doing for years? Vehicles + GPS + Web Interface = Big Brother? Whoopee.

    I've been supporting deployments of vehicle GPS, geofences, and automatic alerts for years. Maybe that why this article is so underwhelming.

    Also, it reads like an advertisement.

    --
    khasim (12/9/06): In a blind taste test, more people preferred Coke over the Pepsi that I had previously pissed in.
    1. Re:I don't get it. by aardvarkjoe · · Score: 3, Funny

      Also, it reads like an advertisement.

      Not true. Advertisers typically proofread their text for blatant mistakes before publishing it.

      --

      How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
    2. Re:I don't get it. by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 2
      It does read like an advertisement, but it is one that, as a parent, I want to read.

      I fully want this in the cars my kids drive in a few years. I recall very well my driving habits when I was 16, and they were terrible.

      If my kids don't want this, they can buy their own cars and pay their own insurance. If they want to drive my cars... well... :)

      Welcome to Daddy, "a.k.a. Big Brother". :)

    3. Re:I don't get it. by bob_super · · Score: 2

      My boss tracking where I go with company-provided assets makes sense.

      Everybody's every move being tracked in the name of lower premiums or children safety is downright scary.

    4. Re:I don't get it. by Travis+Mansbridge · · Score: 1

      You plan to prevent your child's reckless behavior through constant monitoring? Teaching them good judgment, and then allowing them to practice that judgment on their own seems like the more important lesson. Then again, I don't have kids.

    5. Re:I don't get it. by teebob21 · · Score: 1

      It does read like an advertisement, but it is one that, as a parent, I want to read.

      Oh, I agree...I should have put some more positive spin on that assessment. I have nothing against vehicle owners installing GPS in said vehicles being used by others. It's paid the bills for me in the past.

      Hell, I even let them Big Brother on my car. Progressive Insurance customer here: I gladly signed up for Snapshot when it was available (and drove like a little old lady) for 45 days. Saved a permanent 14% on my annual premium without permanent monitoring.

      Is this news because it's LoJack, a household name dating back to my childhood, rather than Wireless Matrix/GPS Insight/Trimble/the 47 other players in this space?

      --
      khasim (12/9/06): In a blind taste test, more people preferred Coke over the Pepsi that I had previously pissed in.
    6. Re:I don't get it. by noh8rz10 · · Score: 2

      there's no need to track your childrens' cars, as the summary says. children shouldn't have cars, they're too young. case closed.

    7. Re:I don't get it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Soon someone will sell a service to rent cars to kids who have GPS devices, and deliver them to the address they specify. Ditch the GPS! Our cars are reliable and cheap! Just park at your friends house and we'll pick you up!

    8. Re:I don't get it. by kheldan · · Score: 1, Informative

      Since nobody can discipline their children these days without being accused of child abuse and being jailed/having them taken away from you, kids do whatever the fuck they want and parents can't do much about it other than monitor them obsessively like this.

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    9. Re:I don't get it. by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 1

      Then again, I don't have kids.

      I'm shocked. I was sure you were a parenting expert with 6 kids, up until that last sentence.

    10. Re:I don't get it. by mythosaz · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I've taught my daughter to be responsible.

      ...that doesn't mean I shouldn't be notified if she's had a lapse in that responsibility.

      Kids should break a few rules. That's part of growing up. Getting alerted on it and going all batshit crazy about it are two different things. I'll respond appropriately when my kid sneaks her first beer or stays out past curfew or pretends her friends parents are home when she stays the night somewhere. Now that I'm an old man, I know I didn't get nearly as much past my parents as I thought I did. :)

    11. Re:I don't get it. by bob_super · · Score: 1

      Well, since we let our electronics teach our children, we might as well let the electronics teach the limits too.

      This way the kids will be used to it, when it's the state's turn to provide them with ankle toys...

    12. Re:I don't get it. by penix1 · · Score: 1

      If my kids don't want this, they can buy their own cars and pay their own insurance. If they want to drive my cars... well... :)

      you do know there is no way to distinguish who is driving your car right? You do realize this data will be sold to the highest bidder right? You do know that your driving habits will also be recorded and sold as well right? You do know that anything and everything on the internet is insecure and inherently dangerous to personal data right? You do know that the next step is to have law enforcement send you citations in the mail when it records you went through that stop sign without coming to a full stop or went 2 miles over the posted speed limit right?

      And you are still fine with that?!?!?!

      --
      This is a sig. This is only a sig. Had this been an actual sig you would have been informed where to tune for more sigs.
    13. Re:I don't get it. by DdJ · · Score: 1

      Everybody's every move being tracked in the name of lower premiums or children safety is downright scary.

      What's worse: safe, conservative drivers opting in to this in order to prove that they're safe and get lower rates, or forcing safe drivers to subsidize the insurance of reckless drivers because the insurer has no way to distinguish between the two?

      (I think the answer depends on other factors, like privacy controls, consumer protection, and system security.)

    14. Re:I don't get it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would have hated my parents if they tried to track me like this. Speaking as someone who has only recently gotten out from 'under their wing', them installing this would have confirmed that they didn't trust me which meant I would have no longer trusted them. In return, I would have lied and misbehaved more often because that's what was expected of me. Had I deviated from some set path for a valid concern, the tracking would only show I deviated and not the why. I would get in trouble and they would assume my valid and correct explanation would be a lie since they're expecting me to lie because they were bad kids. Since I'm going to get in trouble anyway no matter what I do, I might as well have the extra fun and deviate for other reasons.

      Treat me with respect and high expectations and I'll meet those expectation and be worth of that respect almost all of the time. Treat me like a criminal with no expectations and that's what I'll become. And why not? Criminal acts are more fun in the short term and you already assume I'm doing them.

      ~A kid's prescriptive. You adults lose perspective too quickly. PLEASE STOP BEING CONTROL FREAKS especially when you complain that the government is doing it. If you're going to do it of course they're going to do it.

      How to hack it: Drive to library to study. Park and shutdown car. Unplug, then restart car and drive somewhere else. If the device can detect it was unplugged (or parents are snooping on mileage), have a friend pick me up or walk/hitch hike (which is now considerably more dangerous than me driving there without permission). I'll find a way. I always do (like when I got around your boot-up BIOS password or when I download porn while doing homework on the computer in full view of the kitchen, etc...).

    15. Re:I don't get it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then again, I don't have kids.

      Saying that was a bad mistake. You invited the more illogical parents (who also believe that anyone who disagrees with them isn't a parent) to dismiss everything you said simply because of that.

    16. Re:I don't get it. by Travis+Mansbridge · · Score: 1

      It's an honest admission to wrap up an honest question, I'm glad to get parents reactions whatever they are. When I was growing up, monitoring your child's location at all times might be considered an invasion of privacy, but judging from most of these responses times have changed.

    17. Re:I don't get it. by timeOday · · Score: 1
      My beef here is the "cloud" aspect. I would only accept a device that I upload to my own computer at my own convenience.

      I really hate how the "push" aspect of connectedness has developed... see also the WWW, Digital Video Recorders, and the new generation of game consoles. I guess I was naiive about the Internet to think this window on the world would be one-way.

    18. Re:I don't get it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would have lied and misbehaved more often because that's what was expected of me.

      Proving you were an immature jackass who needed to be monitored. When someone doesn't trust you, that's their problem. If they're tracking you, do what you normally do or else it becomes *your* problem too.

      I download porn while doing homework on the computer in full view of the kitchen

      That's disgusting. The kitchen table is where your parents have sex. Have some respect.

    19. Re:I don't get it. by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      Everybody's every move being tracked in the name of lower premiums

      is impossible because everyone can't get lower premiums. What will happen is some select people who opt in early get lower premiums, then eventually the tracking becomes part of any new policy without a discount. Some people will try to fight it, but with all the tracking stuff already being set up, "reasonable expectation" of privacy will be skewed for future courts.

    20. Re:I don't get it. by SlithyMagister · · Score: 1

      A major function of adolescence is forging a life apart from the parents' control.

      Parents can facilitate this by gradually relinquishing control in response to trustworthy behaviour on the part of the teen.
      The progression results in self-disciplining young adults who are independent, yet respect authority

      Parents can thwart the burgeoning independence of their adolescent children by attempting to control and monitor their offspring's behaviour, even when the adolescent has shown no tendency toward suspicious behaviour. Treating ANYONE in a suspicious manner tends to foster the behaviour expected.
      This progression results in young adults who resent authority, and have sub-standard life skills.

      "Just because you can" is never a valid reason for doing something.

    21. Re:I don't get it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's easy to see who the parenting experts are; they are the ones who are smart enough to not have kids.

    22. Re:I don't get it. by bob_super · · Score: 1

      I fully expect some insurers to only insure people who accept to be tracked. Their prices will be lower, because they'll be able to avoid paying more often (more careful drivers and/or arguments that you exceeded the limit by 2mph). Other companies respecting your privacy will likely have to raise premiums to offset this, lose customers, and up adopting it also to stay in business.

      5 years from now (if that long), it will be near-impossible to insure a car without being tracked 24/7.
      I fully expect politicians to find it normal.

      What a nice utopia we're building for our children...

    23. Re:I don't get it. by tibit · · Score: 1

      How the heck does monitoring help? If they do stupid shit and get into a wreck, it's too fucking late, monitoring or not. Monitoring your kid is useless.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    24. Re:I don't get it. by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      Actually, you made me think... cross this new product with the tech from a few days ago about the system that can identify you by your typing and mousing... I'd say everyone's driving style is pretty unique. A version of the lo-jack that could identify who was driving the vehicle and then set custom limits with alerts based on that would be pretty useful.

      Still a huge potential for abuse, but there are uses too....

    25. Re:I don't get it. by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      Everybody's every move being tracked in the name of lower premiums or children safety is downright scary.

      What's worse: safe, conservative drivers opting in to this in order to prove that they're safe and get lower rates, or forcing safe drivers to subsidize the insurance of reckless drivers because the insurer has no way to distinguish between the two?

      (I think the answer depends on other factors, like privacy controls, consumer protection, and system security.)

      Of course, the insurer has great ways to distinguish between the two, so this is a false dichotomy. The entire business of the insurer is being able to distinguish between good risk and bad risk -- since insurance is an ongoing thing, insurance claims, vehicle types, age/gender, time since last claim, etc. are great indicators. On the flip side, being able to do driving proviling on a mass scale could be extremely useful for identifying good/bad driving practices and figuring out how well the various parts of different cars actually perform.

    26. Re:I don't get it. by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      A major function of adolescence is forging a life apart from the parents' control.

      That is true, to a point... it is also a nice theory, but when it hits the real world (today, vs. another time in history), you have to modify it to fit the times.

      If my child is killed in a car accident because they were doing something stupid, then they didn't learn anything, now did they?

      Yes, they need some freedom and the ability to make some decisions, but they also are minors until they are 18 and they live under my roof, thus there are rules to be followed.

      If my 16 year old wants to move out, get a job, pay their own bills, then they don't have to listen to me one bit. But frankly they should, because I've been there and done that.

      Since teenagers tend to think they have it all figured out, they don't like to listen, it isn't nearly as much fun as goofing off and doing whatever they want.

      My kids will be able to drive, so they will have some independence. But they must also respect authority, which in this case, is me. I have rules, I expect them to be followed.

      Do they always? No, but there are punishments for that (losing the TV, video games, etc.).

    27. Re:I don't get it. by geekoid · · Score: 1

      "Since nobody can discipline their children these days"
      false
      " without being accused of child abuse"
      false
      "and being jailed/having them taken away from you"
      false
      " kids do whatever the fuck they want"
      false
      "parents can't do much about it "
      false

      STFU and never be a parent because you are stupid.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    28. Re:I don't get it. by geekoid · · Score: 1

      I can't think of anytime in history where knowing where you children* are would be considers an invasion of privacy.
      It just was practical to do on this level.

      *children within the age you are still legally liable for.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    29. Re:I don't get it. by geekoid · · Score: 1

      wild speculation and pointless questions to get to a slippery slope fallacy, well done.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    30. Re:I don't get it. by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1
      You mean, as opposed to the teenagers cell phone which is 24x7 connected to the cloud? :)

      The idea that we can be really private is over, unless you really want to ditch the web.

    31. Re:I don't get it. by tibit · · Score: 1

      where I go with company-provided assets makes sense

      It's not anybody's business where I elope with my secretary, thank you very much.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    32. Re:I don't get it. by tibit · · Score: 1

      Given that everywhere I ago almost everyone drives at least a couple miles above the speed limit, and that there are places I've been to where it's routine to drive 10-20mph over the limit, I think the arguments you cite are entirely reasonable.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    33. Re:I don't get it. by tibit · · Score: 1

      By reasonable I mean fuck yes I'd expect to argue as hell if they were hung up about me driving over the speed limit. I don't want to fucking get killed, mmkay?

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    34. Re:I don't get it. by bob_super · · Score: 1

      If she's "company-provided" for eloping, the local pimp may want to break your boss's legs.
      it's hard out here for a pimp, when even companies intrude on their turf... he needs money for the rent.

    35. Re:I don't get it. by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Kids should break a few rules. That's part of growing up. Getting alerted on it and going all batshit crazy about it are two different things. I'll respond appropriately when my kid sneaks her first beer or stays out past curfew or pretends her friends parents are home when she stays the night somewhere. Now that I'm an old man, I know I didn't get nearly as much past my parents as I thought I did. :)

      +1 But unfortunately this system is designed for those who go batshit crazy.

      Admittedly the nerd in me like tracking my own car, not just location and speed but a whole bunch of engine statistics including fuel usage, intake pressure, boost pressure, G forces and more. To this effect I already have a bluetooth OBDII dongle and a el cheap-o Android tablet with Torque installed in the glove box. If I wanted to track the car remotely I guess I could use a slightly less el cheap-o tablet or phone with 3G capabilities.

      However I would emphatically not trust another company to do the same thing end to end.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    36. Re:I don't get it. by mjwx · · Score: 1

      My boss tracking where I go with company-provided assets makes sense.

      Commercial systems already exist to do this, with far better fleet management than LoJack.

      But these are aimed at fleets, LoJack seem to be aiming this at consumers.

      Everybody's every move being tracked in the name of lower premiums

      Glad I live in one of those evil nations that regulates the insurance industry and makes this downright illegal.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    37. Re:I don't get it. by kheldan · · Score: 0

      I'm surprised you have enough functioning brain cells to operate a computer well enough to even post comments here. If you're a parent then I will lose all hope for the next generation because you sound like a child yourself, or is that just damage from the drug addiction talking?

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    38. Re:I don't get it. by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      Not if that convenience is going to breed a surveillance society of willing cattle, thank you very much. If you cant' trust your daughter to do some driving at 16, you did a shitty job of parenting..

    39. Re:I don't get it. by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      Great, so they never learn how to moderate their impulses/practice judgment skills, or anything else required of a truly adult human. Your kids will add to the burgeoning population of adult age children who need a surveillance state in order to function at a subsistence level.

      So what happens when enough of you soccer-mom style safety-manic 'parents' lobby the state to mandate this? Then I'M forced into it too. Fuck you?

    40. Re:I don't get it. by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      Yeah why not, lets delay adulthood for another decade while we're at it.. so what? 30 is the new 18? 40? 50?

    41. Re:I don't get it. by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      Well at least you're getting closer to the crux of the issue. However, mindless beatings won't help either. Perhaps you should vote accordingly and help get these tyrants out of office.

    42. Re:I don't get it. by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      Actually those things are getting damn close enough to 100% true to call them such. Doubly true for fathers.

    43. Re:I don't get it. by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      or you mean you're just trying to justify your irrational fear for your kids safety...This is what most parents are doing when they demand this or that freedom concession from society. They're as fucking useless as parents as dr phil is for relationship advice.

    44. Re:I don't get it. by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      Well somehow we managed for many thousands of years, and children grew up a lot sooner too. Some people are talking about pushing 'adolescence' (itself a recently made up term) into the mid 20s. I mean really, how is that going to make things better? It won't. I'll just encourage even less maturity and stagnation in the population. What it will do is encourage more group dependence which jives with certain freedom unfriendly ideologies.. I'll pass. Go move to N. Korea if you want that much surveillance in your kids lives.

    45. Re:I don't get it. by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      Yet again here's another one completely ignoring the most likely future. Right now, for you, it wasn't mandatory. If enough people like you take the bait, it will become mandatory. Surely I don't have to explain this. Once it is mandatory, your rate will go back up to the previous (inflation adjusted) rate, and the monitor less plans will be outrageously expensive, or omitted altogether. Then we're all fucked by the soccer mom society.

      You want to put a gps in your car and track it? Fine, I don't care, but do it on your own. Don't give the insurance companies any more excuses.. ..and if you have kids, don't track them with it. They will have to live without your monitoring someday. Might as well let them take it in stages. If you don't trust your kids to drive without it, fix that issue instead of covering it over with technology.

    46. Re:I don't get it. by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      slippery slopes are not always fallacies, and judging by what's happened already in recent history, it's a very likely possibility.

    47. Re:I don't get it. by BVis · · Score: 1

      If my child is killed in a car accident because they were doing something stupid, then they didn't learn anything, now did they?

      Children (especially teenagers) do stupid things. I certainly did my share. Doing stupid shit is part of growing up, and, unfortunately, sometimes the stupid shit prevents your growing up.

      Since teenagers tend to think they have it all figured out, they don't like to listen, it isn't nearly as much fun as goofing off and doing whatever they want.

      That's a failure of parenting. Parenting is hard, which is why so many have adopted zero-privacy zero-tolerance attitudes towards their children. At some point you have to trust that your kids have been raised well enough to know right from wrong, to know the colossally stupid from the merely irresponsible. Cracking down on them when they've done nothing to warrant it only undermines your authority as a parent and as an example to be followed. Sure, set rules, and enforce punishments when the rules are broken (and *be consistent*, IMHO that's the key), but don't assume that your kid is going to misbehave without any evidence.

      But they must also respect authority, which in this case, is me. I have rules, I expect them to be followed.

      No, they really don't *have* to. You have to earn their respect, and that starts slightly after they're walking. If they don't respect you, they won't listen to you, and you can't watch them 24/7.

      but they also are minors until they are 18 and they live under my roof, thus there are rules to be followed.

      Has any teenager ever listened to that? If they have, has it made any impact on their behavior? It just re-enforces the arbitrary authoritarianism that you appear to espouse. The more you tighten your grip, the more they'll find ways to wiggle out of it.

      Don't get me wrong. I'm not opposing strict rules for teenagers to try to help keep them out of trouble. I'm actually pretty strict with my kids (granted, they're not teenagers yet, but learning that there are consequences for breaking rules early on makes your life easier when they start thinking for themselves and questioning your wisdom, which even the most well-behaved teenager does) but I try hard not to be arbitrary. I try to emphasize the reasoning behind the punishment as much as I can ("Do you know why you're in time out? No? Here's why. Do you understand?") If you're afraid that your kid will die in a car accident, do your best to make sure they have the right tools and skills to keep them out of a bad situation. For example, paying for driver's education if it's available, getting the safest car you can afford for them to drive, emphasize driving defensively, etc. If you're afraid of your kid getting pregnant/getting someone else pregnant, do your level best to present the risks and consequences in a non-condescending way, and offer them all the free birth control they want.

      In a perfect world, none of this would be necessary and teenagers would always listen to their parents. We're not in one of those, and IMHO we probably shouldn't be.

      --
      Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
    48. Re:I don't get it. by mjwalshe · · Score: 1

      So change the legal driving age to 18

    49. Re:I don't get it. by mjwalshe · · Score: 1

      well there woudl be an entire department in every insurance company that analyzed the data to try and get out of paying out on a claim.

    50. Re:I don't get it. by mythosaz · · Score: 1

      If you cant' trust your daughter to do some driving at 16, you did a shitty job of parenting..

      So much angst...

      My daughter is on the cusp of driving. And assuming there aren't any major behavioral changes between now and then, she'll get the privilege of driving.

      ....but if technology allows me to be notified if her car goes into Mexico, I'll continue to assume a trust-but-verify stance with my children.

      They go to bed on time -- but that doesn't mean I don't peek in their bedrooms from time to time.

    51. Re:I don't get it. by noh8rz10 · · Score: 1

      Men's 50 is like women's 35.

    52. Re:I don't get it. by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Then again, I don't have kids.

      That's obvious from the first part of your comment.

      Mine are grown.

    53. Re:I don't get it. by Travis+Mansbridge · · Score: 1

      Wow, you're the third person who's managed to figure out something I stated quite plainly in the OP. Congratulations. Must one be a parent to question their constant supervision of children? I'm mostly concerned about geo-locational privacy rights for any given person. If there's an exception in the parent/child relationship that warrants such extreme monitoring I'm up for discussing it, but saying I "just don't get it" because I'm not a parent isn't really a valid argument.

    54. Re:I don't get it. by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      If there's an exception in the parent/child relationship that warrants such extreme monitoring I'm up for discussing it, but saying I "just don't get it" because I'm not a parent isn't really a valid argument.

      But that's just it, you aren't qualified to discuss it, you don't have kids so you don't understand, you can't understand, you lack the experience and perspective to understand.

      If/when you have kids, then you'll understand, you'll look back on this, as all of us parents do to our pre-parent times, smack yourself on the forehead, and say "what was I thinking?".

    55. Re:I don't get it. by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Someone mod him informative, please (and mod me offtopic).

    56. Re:I don't get it. by mjwx · · Score: 1

      well there woudl be an entire department in every insurance company that analyzed the data to try and get out of paying out on a claim.

      Not where I live.

      It would be illegal for an insurance company to use that data to adjust the claim. They have to follow the law in determining who is at fault.

      Then again I live in one of those backwards nations who regulated insurers instead of letting insurers write laws.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    57. Re:I don't get it. by mjwalshe · · Score: 1

      if you believe that i have a bridge to sell you

  3. Pretty soon you won't own your car... by Dahamma · · Score: 1

    you'll just "license" it from the insurance companies and gas stations...

    1. Re:Pretty soon you won't own your car... by alvinrod · · Score: 1

      Funny you say that, but there was a story from a week or so back that just about amounts to that.

    2. Re:Pretty soon you won't own your car... by Dahamma · · Score: 1

      Wow. No amount of cynicism can make that shit up...

  4. Don't forget the NSA. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If there is data about you that is getting collected, the spooks are also going to get a copy.

    1. Re:Don't forget the NSA. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The NSA one plugs into your rear access port.

  5. Fuck off by Meditato · · Score: 2, Informative

    I co-founded a company that does this, and we have a number of competitors in the same space. Tons of people and companies do this.

    Do we get free Slashdot advertising too? No? Stop posting this shit and start posting news.

    1. Re:Fuck off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Waaah. LoJack is a company people have heard of. Your podunk company can go fuck off.

    2. Re:Fuck off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hadn't heard of these yahoos before. I went and interviewed at a now-defunct company in yurp that built this as well as more fleet oriented tracking and management some, oh, five years ago. So this isn't new, and it's certainly slashvertisement.

    3. Re:Fuck off by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      Seriously, I hope your company goes out of business along with your competition. It's people like you, looking to make quick bucks off creating this loss of freedom, and, effectively, property ownership, that are bringing about the surveillance society, one 'risk management assessment' at a time. It's like DRM for behavior. You, the insurance companies, and the state can all burn in the fiery pits of the hell you're building for the rest of us. Take that soccer mom safety mania you help breed in the population and shove it up your ass.

    4. Re:Fuck off by Meditato · · Score: 1

      At no point is surveillance involuntary on the parts of our clients, or their clients. Also, our main clients are not insurance companies, and this is generally true of most of the telematics industry. And with the exception of insurance on utility vehicles, there are still ethical, legal, and practical limits to deploying for all the clients of a whole insurance company.

      This LoJack thing is advertisement. Relax.

  6. What's It Called? by Anne_Nonymous · · Score: 2

    >> LoJack To Release Tracking Devices For Consumers, Insurance, and Auto Makers

    What's it called, a "cell phone"?

    1. Re:What's It Called? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why don't we have the NSA do this with tax dollars already? It is the logical next step anyways.

  7. I have something better that's free to use! by RocketRabbit · · Score: 0

    APRS is an amateur radio technology that uses AX.25 to report the position of objects, the weather, send and receive emails and messages, communicate with satellites, and so forth. Coverage is pretty good inside the USA and Canada, with other nations adding capability and more users every year. Devices range from tiny thumb-sized trackers to handheld transceivers and larger radios which implement messaging and location reporting.

    Of course you have to be a ham to use this technology, but once you are, there is no monthly fee nor is there a commercial service to rely upon, as all the infrastructure is provided by other amateurs for free. So get out there, get your license, and join the party!

    1. Re:I have something better that's free to use! by noh8rz10 · · Score: 1

      does HAM stand for something, like an acronym? I've always wondered that.

    2. Re:I have something better that's free to use! by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      It's a meat product made from pig.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    3. Re:I have something better that's free to use! by Deadstick · · Score: 1

      First off, it's not HAM but ham, definitely not an acronym. Its provenance has been debated for years...the most common explanation is that it's derived from the word "amateur" spoken in one of various accents.

      At any rate, it means the possessor of a license to operate a radio transmitter under the rules of the Amateur Radio Service, as regulated by the FCC and its counterparts in other countries.

    4. Re:I have something better that's free to use! by noh8rz10 · · Score: 1

      but what is pig radio? that makes no sense
       

    5. Re:I have something better that's free to use! by noh8rz10 · · Score: 1

      I think it's probably an acronym. Home Amateur Multicast radio.

    6. Re:I have something better that's free to use! by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      Maybe it's how pigs communicate. Or this: https://www.facebook.com/pigradio

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    7. Re:I have something better that's free to use! by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      It sends bacon to you via radio waves..... Mmmmm smokey radio bacon.....

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    8. Re:I have something better that's free to use! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An amateur radio op was talking to another op when he probably said "I am an amateur radio operator" (or similar) when another op listening to the conversation was hit with a bit of static or other. All he (they) heard was "I h (qrn) am (qrn) operator" nuff said.

  8. Multiple errors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Please edit the last sentence. "Additional features will include the ability for parents to set up geo fences to restrict where their children can drive before alerts can sent as well as the ability to restrict and texting while the vehicle is being operated."

  9. And the following year by lightknight · · Score: 1

    And the following year, manufacturers plan to come out with a device which takes the place of a child's eye, which will allow fretful parents to know about all the sodomizing and whoring that their teenage sons and daughters are up to. In lurid, decadent details.

    --
    I am John Hurt.
    1. Re:And the following year by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Already on it.

  10. What happend to OnStar? by bobbied · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Now I'm not sure how this is different from "On Star" but it sure seems to be *exactly* the same kind of thing they've been doing for a decade. Tie some cell phone to a computer and a GPS receiver attached to the communications buss in the car and there is a load of things you can do. Problem with LoJack is that if they are forced to go though the ODB-2 connector, they will have limited access to your car to do what they've done in the past that brought them to almost a household name. You might be able to shut down an engine through the OBD-2 connector, but that's likely going to require manufacturer specific software and possibly custom hardware to make happen.

    Where I get why a manufacturer might want to offer a system like this, I really don't see a huge market for it. OnStar never really took off as a money maker even on the GM cars it was offered with. The effort to push OnStar as an after market add in to your car option has been less than stellar. Keeping up with your teens as they drive around is NOT hard using their smart phone, and you need to add the "don't text when moving" app anyway so load a tracking app too.

    Now I don't have a kid who is trying to hide things from me in the first place, so she's not out turning off her phone or unloading the tracking app. She's a really cautious driver (actually too cautious at times) so I don't worry that she's out racing my car, but if I did, there are inexpensive ODB-2 recorders out there which are readily available and cheap, plus the sector of taking the keys away, at least while they live under my roof and drive my cars. Your mileage may vary, but I think LoJack is gona loose their shirt on this one.

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    1. Re:What happend to OnStar? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      loose/lose, how many years do you have to live before you figure that one out.

    2. Re:What happend to OnStar? by Capt+James+McCarthy · · Score: 1

      Now I don't have a kid who is trying to hide things from me in the first place, so she's not out turning off her phone or unloading the tracking app. She's a really cautious driver (actually too cautious at times) so I don't worry that she's out racing my car, but if I did, there are inexpensive ODB-2 recorders out there which are readily available and cheap, plus the sector of taking the keys away, at least while they live under my roof and drive my cars. Your mileage may vary, but I think LoJack is gona loose their shirt on this one.

      It makes me a little sad that I will be able to tell my grandchildren how much fun it was to be a teenager at one time.

      How do you teach personal responsibility when you are always being watched and judged?

      --
      There are no loopholes. It's either legal or it's not.
  11. I'm going to have to build.. by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 3, Funny

    I'm going to have to build an OBD ii dongle to site between the dongle and the car, projecting and image of a perfect driver. It'll sell like hotcakes.

    --
    I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    1. Re:I'm going to have to build.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not if your post is an example of quality control.

    2. Re:I'm going to have to build.. by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      There isn't a lint for Slashdot.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
  12. not trustworthy by fermion · · Score: 1
    Here is the thing with lojack. There is no real way to know it is working. I have it installed, and really it seems like a waste of moneyu as there is not feedback on functionality. I could waste another $100 dollars every year. Now, in one of my cars I can pay $300 a year for telematics, and this at least has some benifits. I can know it is working because at any time I can look up the car at anytime, and even unlock doors and such. It sounds like this is what Lojack is trying to do, but really, they are a bit late to the markett. Pretty much what they have done in the past is sell expensive insurance, and count on the fact that it mostly won't be used. I don't know if I would have any legal recourse if the system failed as I have not paid their yearly maintenance fee.

    In any case for consumers there a bunch of cheaper alternatives. For not very much you can get a smart phone app and a dongle for the ODB that will keep detailed track of driving patterns. If a parent were concerned about this stuff it is a simple matter of an iphone, something like Bluedriver, and turning on find my iPhone. This leverages stuff that is already paid for. Of course i think most parents know the value of giving kids increasing responsibility and freedom, and most I know aren't this intrusive.

    --
    "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    1. Re:not trustworthy by tibit · · Score: 1

      I've had a brush with LoJack-originated technology, and everything about it appeared super-shady. These days I use Orbicule Undercover. No subscription and you can verify the functionality anytime. Yes, it's not tied into the BIOS, but for your typical thief it'll be an effective countermeasure.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    2. Re:not trustworthy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I'm curious about their claim:

      Parents, through a Bluetooth connection in the vehicle, could restrict their teenage drivers from texting or talking on their smartphones while driving, according to Isaac.

      What part of the Bluetooth specification can block phone calls and texting at all, let alone while driving? What's to stop a kid from unpairing their phone from the car and using their own Bluetooth hands-free kit. Or just holding the phone in one hand while talking "hands-free" as I see plenty of them do (idiots).

  13. Yeah right by NetNinja · · Score: 1

    Bullshit! Bullshit! More Bullshit.

    Stake holders are greedy SOB's just like the rest of us. The moment an insurance company offers them millions if not billions to purchase that treasure trove of data there goes your insurance premiums.

    Just like Progressive who has that dongle you plug into your vehicle. If any dope out there has installed that in their car should lose your license.

    1. Re:Yeah right by game+kid · · Score: 1

      But it will save me hundreds on the car insurance rates that they'll (lo)jack up when this gets introduced!

      --
      You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
    2. Re:Yeah right by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      Not once it becomes mandated.. Then they up the price to the (inflation adjusted) original rate and charge crazy premiums for those who want privacy.

  14. Track who? by jamesl · · Score: 1

    LoJack to release tracking devices for consumers, insurance and auto makers.

    Who, besides the NSA, would want to track consumers, insurance and automakers? OK, the feds need to keep an eye on GM, but really.

    1. Re:Track who? by dadelbunts · · Score: 1

      Uh automakers already do that. Most modern cars come with a black box that records telemetry. Its really nothing too new.

    2. Re:Track who? by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      No they dont. The ECM may record the last few seconds but there is no special "black box" that spies on you.

      Granted my education on cars is limited to ECM and BCM hacking as well as CANBUS reverse engineering..... so I might be wrong, but I highly doubt it as I have NEVER found a blackbox in any car that I have worked on. granted it's only been about 22 different cars and models ranging from 2007 to 2013 and the data saved in the ECM is very limited. Just throttle position, brake pedal activation, and engine data at the time of airbag deployment. your GPS coordinates of the last 30 places you have been are no where to be found inside.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  15. Of course they won't by digitalPhant0m · · Score: 1

    The company said it has no plans to sell any information collected through a cloud service connected to the devices

    Well then, count me in.

  16. uh huh by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

    The company said it has no plans to sell any information collected through a cloud service connected to the devices

    Translation: "We have no plans but reserve the right to change our minds shortly after you instal our device."

  17. Re:F**** off by bobbied · · Score: 1

    You can cry into your Cheerios about this if you have too, but you've got to know that LoJack has name recondition in the anti theft market. I'm sorry if your business is a competitor to them now, but you've got to know the market and who the competition is. They think there is opportunity here, so don't get upset, they've just confirmed that there seems to be money to be made. Man up and get going.

    Hopefully you can distinguish your self from the competition and make a go of it, but somehow you will need to come up with something they don't have. Be it some unique features, cheaper purchase, lower operating cost, easier to install, or something that makes your product more desirable. So what if LoJack is getting free advertising on ShalsDot, it doesn't matter. They are going to out flank you on advertising and leverage their already considerable market share anyway, shalsdot is really just a sideshow on a two bit carnival ride. It's not like computer nerds are big automobile buffs or are out buying the systems you sell in large numbers.

    So get busy, get noticed and stop crying about competition and unfair advantages. Since we left grade school Life has not been fair. It takes hard work and risk of failure to get to success. Good luck.

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  18. obvious use... by markana · · Score: 1

    Expect every rental car to come with this factory-installed. Not only can the company track it's cars, but they can combine the customer's driving pattern with their profile and sell it. Frequent travellers/renters would be an obvious target, but everyone could be included if it's done cheaply enough. And in real-time, too.

  19. Still around? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I haven't heard about LoJack since the 1990s. I didn't know that LoJack is still around. Yeha, i'm showing my age. lol

  20. " including a OBD II" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Typical American. Why do you have such problems with 'a' and 'an'?
    It's "AN OBD II", for Christ's sake.

    Why do Americans have such a problem with prepositions as well? To, from, in, out, etc.etc. Just choose a random one and use that. 'than', 'then' and 'that' are all interchangeable too, apparently. You American idiots.

    1. Re:" including a OBD II" by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      Why do europeans have such problems with americans? It makes me wonder whether they're in even deeper propagandic sludge than americans are.

  21. Sorry pizza delivery guy.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I watched you stop for beer then take 12 trips around my subdivision. It's going to be free or I'm calling your boss.

  22. Already have that.... by Lumpy · · Score: 1

    It's called AT&T family tracking. I know right where all the phones are. and it costs a LOT less than the lojack junk.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    1. Re:Already have that.... by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      That's lovely.. Indoctrinating your kids into the radiant socialist future early eh? you know, so you can feel soccer mom safe (tm)?

    2. Re:Already have that.... by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      No, the dog shock collars are for that. Far easier to get a Pavlovian response that way.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  23. No plans to sell any information? Huh? by GumphMaster · · Score: 2

    The company said it has no plans to sell any information collected through a cloud service connected to the devices, but to only share it with stakeholders

    They are not going to do this for the insurance companies out of the goodness of their hearts. So the stated business model is do precisely what they claim not to do, selling information gathered this way to "stakeholders."

    Governments, police forces and the NSA are stakeholders too (whether or not LoJack want them to be). How long before the location data is married to traffic light changes resulting in infringements issued on the basis that your car passed a red light: no camera deployments required and no defence. Or speed information and speeding infringements... Or proximity to an unrelated crime... Or the location of political opponents... Or journalists... Or whistleblowers... Ubiquitous tracking will be abused.

    --
    Patent litigation: A doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction... in which everyone seems willing to push the button
    1. Re:No plans to sell any information? Huh? by advocate_one · · Score: 1

      infringements issued on the basis that your car passed a red light: no camera deployments required and no defence.

      GPS isn't accurate enough for that... otherwise we wouldn't be going to the expense of building a wide area augmentation system to provide good enough GPS for Cat I autolanding...

      --
      Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
  24. Sounds like medical records: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It sounds just like medical records... everyone except you can view them and determine your future income for the next 50 yrs based on the data they can see but you can't.

  25. My ODB port is already in use, so ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    does the lojack come with an ODB port splitter?

  26. Re:F**** off by Meditato · · Score: 1

    "You can cry into your Cheerios"
    "so don't get upset"
    "Man up and get going."
    "stop crying about competition"

    Sorry kiddo, I remain unprovoked. But I do want to point out a few misconceptions you seem to be operating under.

    First of all, you seem to be under the mistaken impression that I am concerned about our competition. No, by pointing out that we have competitors, I'm saying that there were many such businesses before (and besides) LoJack. LoJack's technology and business model is nothing new, which begs the question of why LoJack (and only LoJack) is suddenly being mentioned. In any other world it would be called spam.

    Second, you are peddling the same old tired fallacy about capitalism, that optimal competition yields optimal results. In other words, "better product beats worse product, so make a better product and you'll beat them!". That's horseshit, and you know it. Such systems don't work because competitors can't agree to follow the rules of the framework in which they operate. Perfect example: a company manages to get free advertising on a very popular tech website that ostensibly has certain guidelines against advertising in posts.

    Third, we're well within our rights to complain about advertising in Slashdot submissions. We're following the guidelines, and others aren't.

    And...ah yes. The "life isn't fair" excuse. The excuse that the intellectually lazy (or personally invested, as case may be) use to rationalize the nonsensical aspects of modern society. Have fun when someone bends or breaks rules/guidelines to get an advantage on you, and don't come here to complain about it.

  27. Re:F**** off by geekoid · · Score: 1

    " LoJack has name recondition "
    So you question was answered.
    "Sorry kiddo, I remain unprovoked."
    You're response indicates otherwise.

    IT's not our fault you work for a no name copy of a recognized company.

    "that optimal competition yields optimal results. In other words, "better product beats worse product, so make a better product and you'll beat them!""
    No, that's not what optimal competition yields optimal results means at all.

    It's a story to an article about LoJack, not advertising.
    People talk about what companies are doing all the time without it being advertising.

    Are..are you simple?

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  28. Re:F**** off by bobbied · · Score: 1

    Then complain to SlashDot directly if it's worth it. I don't see that it is for you old man.

    Unfair thing happen all the time and LoJack entering into your market able to throw resources into marketing and catch enough attention of SlashDot posters to get a article accepted may or may not be one of them. So if you *really* believe that this article was a plant or SlashDot was somehow complicit in advertising your competition over you, get used to the idea of folks not following the rules. I can tell you that in my 25 years of working in various parts of the technology industry I've seen a lot of people who choose to not follow the rules and do horribly unethical and immoral things. Bad people and companies are everywhere, and although I'm committed to the ethical and moral high road myself, I recognize that not everybody out there does the same. If indeed this LoJack post was unethical, then you are just wasting your time on this posting.

    So you won't find me on SlashDot crying in my cheerios. I suggest you do the same, unless you really just needed to vent, in which case, you are welcome to sit on the couch and pontificate towards the ceiling in my office though slashdot anytime you like.

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  29. And that NetNanny better not work right either... by russotto · · Score: 1

    Any kid of mine would be expected to disconnect, disable, spoof, cloak, or otherwise render useless any such device. I'd be disappointed in a child who did not at least make a good try at doing so, and even more disappointed if they actually followed the restrictions.

  30. On-star by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Didn't on-star promise this a few years ago, and promptly change the EULA and track people who were no longer subscribers?

  31. VZW already on 2nd gen device by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It does read like an advertisement, but it is one that, as a parent, I want to read.

    I fully want this in the cars my kids drive in a few years. I recall very well my driving habits when I was 16, and they were terrible.

    If my kids don't want this, they can buy their own cars and pay their own insurance. If they want to drive my cars... well... :)

    Welcome to Daddy, "a.k.a. Big Brother". :)

    GM and Verizon Wireless are already on the second generation of their OBD II dongle that offers the services LoJack is promising.

    http://www.theverge.com/2013/1/7/3845570/delphi-verizon-car-connect-remotely-unlocks-cars Realtime location map, geofencing alerts, alerts when the vehicle exceeds a certain speed and what's probably equally handy - the app on your smartphone can double as an extra key fob in case they lock their keys inside.

  32. What the Problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All insurance companies here in South Africa, make it compulsory to have a tracking device in your car, I get a driving report every month, It sucks as car jackers takes less than 5 minutes to remove the device, so no benefit there.

     

  33. advertisement battle by AdrienCo · · Score: 1
  34. Where do you put it? by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

    LoJack To Release Tracking Devices For Consumers

    How do you stick it on 'em without them noticing?

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  35. What could possibly wrong? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Surely, there is no potential for abuse here. Say, by a crazed ex-girlfriend/boyfriend/husband/wife. Or the NSA... well, no, they probably already have things like this.

  36. So many choices... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let the stalking begin!