If you get questioned and you are innocent you lose 5 minutes of your time.
You should never, under any circumstances, talk to the police; this is why. Summarized: there is no such thing as an innocent person to a cop, only criminals who haven't turned themselves in yet.
If the police doesn't question a suspicious person they risk letting a criminal off the hook.
Untrue: First off, 'suspicious' is subjective; judging from personal experience, a teenager with long hair and a guitar case is considered 'suspicious,' even if he has done nothing illegal.
Secondly, unless a person has been reported for or is in the process of committing a crime, they are not criminals. Traveling in any fashion, whilst looking a certain way, is not a crime. Google 'DWB' to see my point.
Policemen are not mindreaders, they can't decide for sure who is guilty just by looking at them.
Exactly; it is not their duty to judge who is guilty and who is not, because they are not judges. Oh, and FYI, no one can decide who's guilty by cursory glance. Expecting anyone to be able to do so shows a great amount of ignorance regarding the legal system, as well as human nature in general.
Expecting them to only stop criminals is unreasonable.
No it's not, that's their JOB. Just like determining whether the accused is guilty or not is the JOB of judges and juries. See previous point regarding ignorance of the legal system.
You see, those few minutes you spent answering some questions helped the police and made your neighbourhood a safer place. Being infuriated over that is just selfish.
No; what's selfish is expecting the police to make you feel all warm and fuzzy by harassing every person in an x block radius and violating their civil rights, because according to you, everyone in your neighborhood (except you, of course), is a potential threat. Newsflash: You ain't that important, and your stuff ain't that great.
Yes this is one of the more discouraging parts of our Gov't. If something doesn't pass the first time just try it again in a few years when no one is looking.
Indeed
The obvious solution? NEVER STOP LOOKING.
They can't pass legislation behind our backs (and, by extension, stick knives in them) if we refuse to turn around.
I guess, considering the inevitability of GPS-guided, self-driving cars (would that be "autoautomobiles?"), now would be the time to start demanding that the Congress Critters pass legislation barring the tracking of private citizen's movements without express consent, and an option to opt-out up front.
loathe as I am to give that kind of power to the govt there is a part of me that would love to see an inflexible, if-you-break-driving-laws-you-WILL-be-caught scenario. Goodness knows there are enough dangerous drivers out there who get away with it because of how hard it is to catch them all.
Perhaps, but I submit that more education, stricter licensing requirements, and a de-sanitization of media would do far more without the added expense or possibility of abuse (here's where I go OT):
Education and Licensing: There should be a federally mandated, minimum year-long class in the style of vocational schooling (split classroom/lab time) that focuses on teaching people how to drive. In addition to having to take such a class prior to acquiring a license, I also feel most current licensees should be required to take the class the next time they're up for renewal (with an option to test out)
Also... why the hell are we passing out licenses to kill to 16-year olds who don't seem to be able to detach from their cell phone screens? I mean, c'mon, I can't be only one who thinks like that!
De-Sanitization: Ever notice how you never see a bloody accident scene, or god forbid an actual corpse, in media? Kinda creates an illusion that no one ever gets killed in automobiles, doesn't it? Of course, as intelligent, learned adults we know that's not the way things really work, but I sometimes wonder... what if I were a young person, still developing, who spends a good portion of my time immersed in a digital world where death = a Facebook tribute page, no one ever dies in the news, cars can roll 50 times end-over-end suffering minimal damage, and physical interaction between objects is impossible. Under those circumstances, I might be inclined to think that operating a 3,000 lb death machine ain't no big deal.
So, back to the topic at hand, one can see how driver education and media de-sanitization could easily handle the issue of poor driving habits, without having to spend untold amounts of Treasure filling our skies with Watchers.
'If there's a silver lining to the cloud that was over us from April through over the summer it is the fact that we've been getting phone-raped by customers... as never before,' Coviello says, 'and they want to know in detail what the fuck happened, how we fucked up so badly, how the fuck we're going to fix it, and why the fuck they should still be our 'customers'."
In a war of attrition, he who has the largest force *after* force multipliers and natural resources are taken into account, wins. Destruction is NOT mutually assured, unless you are talking about 100% equal forces.
For a war of attrition, the United States is almost unbeatable. Our force multiplying technology plus our natural resources means that in any given war of attrition, we could beat the rest of the planet combined.
I'm certain the British Empire was thinking the same thing, circa 1760.
Precisely why we should not be involved in that region.
Our current situation of constantly being embroiled in Mid-East warfare is a direct result of our unbending support of Israel (as long as we're being honest with ourselves).
Perfect example of why General Washington (and Ron Paul, much to the chagrin of, for lack of a more descriptive term, morons) was an isolationist.
Congratulations, you've just provided a definition for War of Attrition; so long as both sides of the conflict maintain that mentality, mutually assured destruction is all but guaranteed.
A better plan would be to avoid stirring the hornets' nest in the first place.
...that the reduction in civilian casualties and destruction of property means that the drone attack comports better than most other methods with the principle of discrimination.
relabel every corpse created as a "terrorist" or "enemy combatant," and bang! Less "civilian" casualties.
Winning the hearts and minds, one bullshit semantic after the next; the sad part? it fucking works.
I don't personally have any knowledge that would allow me to understand the records.
Perhaps not, but what you do have is access to a massive, global repository of information, replete with search functions; Of course, if you're of the type who's too lazy to Google "cholecystectomy", you're probably not taking home copies of your medical records, either.
Most folks probably don't know how to secure them properly.
Yea, filing cabinets are pretty hard to come by these days, huh?
Sure people do have the right to see those records, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they should be encouraged to take them home with them. Of course make it clear that they can look or take copies if they like, but encouraging it seems like a poor idea.
Right, because if we encouraged people to be more involved in keep track of their own health and related records, doctors and hospitals would lose that edge they currently possess that allows them to charge exorbitant rates for routine procedures, prescribe boutique drugs that cost an arm and a leg to patients who don't really need them, and generally control not only people's perception of health, but the paperwork that actually details it... and who wants to live in that world?
I, personally, have never been of the type who would shy away from taking responsibility for myself, but YMMV.
Wonderful; now that they failed to pass this draconian legislation openly, the Congress Critters and their deep-pocketed media puppet-masters will attempt to secretly stuff it into a different, "must-pass" bill, as was done with the indefinite detention clause of the NDAA.
Keeping the Republic these days requires never-ending vigilance.
if ron paul had his way, companies would effectively own their employees (to an even greater extent than they already do) and punish them more severely with no chance of the employees being able to do anything reactionary to it.
Please expound on that premise, replete with valid sourcing, or be thoroughly shunned.
By entering into this contest, you agree that all research and/or invention submitted becomes the intellectual property of Google, and that any and all profits made from the sale of said research/invention, past present and future, will be paid directly to Google.
I guess that our definition of "easy" is different. Most OnStar boxes that I have seen reside behind truck/cargo area panels. These require a decent amount of effort to remove or even destroy to rip out. Once you have access to the box then you can just pull out the antenna or cut the modem wire.
However, this does NOT disable the GPS tracking ability.
Much easier to just remove the relays which power the On-Star/GPS devices, which are often housed on an easily accessed panel under the hood or dashboard. Instructions for disabling the aforementioned systems are prolific on the 'nets, or you could just ask your friendly neighborhood auto tech to disable them for you.
Fortunately, we don't (yet, hopefully) live in a world where the secret government places hidden trackers/disablers in every car sold in the country.
Easy to me would be a portable and concelable jammer of cell and GPS signals.
Except that you might as well stick a big "I'M BREAKING THE LAW" flag in the window. Cell jammers are illegal and highly noticeable ('hey, why is there a dead spot surrounding that Tahoe over there?'); disabling non-safety systems on a car is not.
Your personal attribution of the deepening cost vs benefit ratio somewhat applies. If you examine the cause of that "deepening" wouldn't it be all of the technological factors that previously discussed?
To some degree, yes, just as the economic flux of the past 40 years has played its part in driving costs up and keeping wages flat.
OnStar is a GM brand. I'm told the Toyota/Lexus Enform/Safety-Connect system is run by OnStar. (on verizon's network.)
Duly noted.
If you're going to boost a car thusly equiped, you'd be wise to remove or disable the thing FIRST. When manufacturers get wise and link the module into the anti-theft logic -- meaning the car won't work without it -- simply disable the radio/antenna.
For the record (and the benefit of my fellow paranoids), you can actually request this equipment be disabled for you by the dealer prior to purchase, or by the owner if they know where to look. Of course, this is a moot point for those who actually intend to pay for and use the service, but personally I would never subscribe to a service that can arbitrarily disable my vehicle without my permission... among other,privacy related issues.
Not being able to start your car because it cannot see T-Mobile's network (for example) would never be accepted by customers.
Yea... I remember saying something similar when GPS devices started becoming ubiquitous in cell phones... 'surely no one will accept a phone with a built in tracking device!'
Ignoring, for a moment, that most-if-not-all automotive computer systems are proprietary and thus will vary from manufacturer to manufacturer, I think it's more an issue of funding. If cars cost what computers do, this issue would have come to a head years ago.
Considering cost, it seems to me that hacking of automobile computer systems will, for now, be the exclusive domain of researcher organizations and vast criminal empires... to that end, imagine the havoc that could be wrought if, say, the Zeta's got a hold of one of ICE's Suburbans and managed to reverse engineer it's systems...
The reason this has not happened sooner is that remote start and auto-unlock are not the only features of OnStar. Key-fob/rfid cloning exists and is not prohibitively difficult. Remote engine kill makes initial get-away more difficult outside of a very small window of time. While vehicle tracking can find the vehicle after it has disappeared from the owners line of sight. Plus, exposes the chop shop location to the authorities.
Disagree; On-Star's remote capabilities are easily circumvented in most vehicles by removing the relay that powers the CMDA modem. Also taking into consideration that On-Star is a GM-specific product, and GM is not the sole auto maker in the world, the concept that their tracking capabilities are the main reason car theft is in decline is dubious at best.
Personally, I would more likely attribute the decline to a deepening cost vs benefit ratio; a lot of folks have no compunction about breaking a $300-400 computer/smartphone/whatever in the process of reverse engineering it, since worst come to worst, they can most likely replace the device in a paycheck or two; however, most hackers I know are a bit wary of taking on a automobile that A) costs as much or more than most people's annual salary, and B) also happens to be their only means of transportation.
I value privacy which is why I keep my machines free of malware, tracking cookies and things of that nature. Anybody that genuinely values their privacy has already gone to lengths to ensure that their machines aren't infected with malware.
Security =/= privacy; I keep my money in a (small, locally-owned) bank, not because I don't want anyone to know how much I have, but because it's a hell of a lot safer there than buried in mason jars in the yard (which, while insecure, would be much more private). Besides, how do you know you're not infected? If the malware producer has done their job right, you won't know until the jack-booted Stasi thugs are kicking in your door and hauling you off to GTMO indefinitely for aiding and abetting known criminals.
This is very much like leaving your car unlocked with an envelop marked incredibly important industrial secret and being surprised when somebody steals it. Sure they shouldn't have done it, but it's hardly reasonable to assume that nobody's going to steal something that's clearly valuable.
No, it's not; and even if it were a valid analogy, what does that have to do with the right to privacy, ipso facto, the right to be free from government intrusion without warrant?
*Sigh* Maybe it's because I'm likely one of a small handful of/.'ers who actually understand how cars work, but damn I hate nonsense car analogies!
Slashdot Mirror
If it's so safe, why do the police feel the need to be able to illegally search your person from 80 feet away?
If you get questioned and you are innocent you lose 5 minutes of your time.
You should never, under any circumstances, talk to the police; this is why. Summarized: there is no such thing as an innocent person to a cop, only criminals who haven't turned themselves in yet.
If the police doesn't question a suspicious person they risk letting a criminal off the hook.
Untrue: First off, 'suspicious' is subjective; judging from personal experience, a teenager with long hair and a guitar case is considered 'suspicious,' even if he has done nothing illegal.
Secondly, unless a person has been reported for or is in the process of committing a crime, they are not criminals. Traveling in any fashion, whilst looking a certain way, is not a crime. Google 'DWB' to see my point.
Policemen are not mindreaders, they can't decide for sure who is guilty just by looking at them.
Exactly; it is not their duty to judge who is guilty and who is not, because they are not judges. Oh, and FYI, no one can decide who's guilty by cursory glance. Expecting anyone to be able to do so shows a great amount of ignorance regarding the legal system, as well as human nature in general.
Expecting them to only stop criminals is unreasonable.
No it's not, that's their JOB . Just like determining whether the accused is guilty or not is the JOB of judges and juries. See previous point regarding ignorance of the legal system.
You see, those few minutes you spent answering some questions helped the police and made your neighbourhood a safer place. Being infuriated over that is just selfish.
No; what's selfish is expecting the police to make you feel all warm and fuzzy by harassing every person in an x block radius and violating their civil rights, because according to you, everyone in your neighborhood (except you, of course), is a potential threat. Newsflash: You ain't that important, and your stuff ain't that great.
"0!735tTh3W0r7d5h0u7dT4skY0uT0R3c1t5"
Damn, sis. That is pretty 1337.
Props, yo.
Apple Applies for Patent on the Written Word; Cites iBook Author as 'Prior Art'.
Joke, or premonition? You decide.
We don't need no stinking badges!
Somebody had to say it.
Yes this is one of the more discouraging parts of our Gov't. If something doesn't pass the first time just try it again in a few years when no one is looking.
Indeed
The obvious solution? NEVER STOP LOOKING.
They can't pass legislation behind our backs (and, by extension, stick knives in them) if we refuse to turn around.
(And Gabe, if you read this, I can haz HL2e3/HL3 now plz?)
First rule of HL3: DON'T TALK ABOUT HL3!
It's just too damn depressing...
Sounds like a plan.
I guess, considering the inevitability of GPS-guided, self-driving cars (would that be "autoautomobiles?"), now would be the time to start demanding that the Congress Critters pass legislation barring the tracking of private citizen's movements without express consent, and an option to opt-out up front.
loathe as I am to give that kind of power to the govt there is a part of me that would love to see an inflexible, if-you-break-driving-laws-you-WILL-be-caught scenario. Goodness knows there are enough dangerous drivers out there who get away with it because of how hard it is to catch them all.
Perhaps, but I submit that more education, stricter licensing requirements, and a de-sanitization of media would do far more without the added expense or possibility of abuse (here's where I go OT):
Education and Licensing: There should be a federally mandated, minimum year-long class in the style of vocational schooling (split classroom/lab time) that focuses on teaching people how to drive. In addition to having to take such a class prior to acquiring a license, I also feel most current licensees should be required to take the class the next time they're up for renewal (with an option to test out)
Also... why the hell are we passing out licenses to kill to 16-year olds who don't seem to be able to detach from their cell phone screens? I mean, c'mon, I can't be only one who thinks like that!
De-Sanitization: Ever notice how you never see a bloody accident scene, or god forbid an actual corpse, in media? Kinda creates an illusion that no one ever gets killed in automobiles, doesn't it? Of course, as intelligent, learned adults we know that's not the way things really work, but I sometimes wonder... what if I were a young person, still developing, who spends a good portion of my time immersed in a digital world where death = a Facebook tribute page, no one ever dies in the news, cars can roll 50 times end-over-end suffering minimal damage, and physical interaction between objects is impossible. Under those circumstances, I might be inclined to think that operating a 3,000 lb death machine ain't no big deal.
So, back to the topic at hand, one can see how driver education and media de-sanitization could easily handle the issue of poor driving habits, without having to spend untold amounts of Treasure filling our skies with Watchers.
19 assholes with boxcutters may be able to kill 3000, but two guys sitting in a silo in Kansas can kill several million.
The British Empire couldn't nuke a city from orbit, but WE CAN.
Oh, well, that settles it... so long as we're the only nation on Earth with those capabilities. Which we are not.
In a war of attrition with the United States, once we finally had enough war to wear down our morality, ain't nobody gonna survive.
Thus proving my original premise of mutually assured destruction.
Glad you finally came around.
'If there's a silver lining to the cloud that was over us from April through over the summer it is the fact that we've been getting phone-raped by customers... as never before,' Coviello says, 'and they want to know in detail what the fuck happened, how we fucked up so badly, how the fuck we're going to fix it, and why the fuck they should still be our 'customers'."
In a war of attrition, he who has the largest force *after* force multipliers and natural resources are taken into account, wins. Destruction is NOT mutually assured, unless you are talking about 100% equal forces.
You must be right; after all, death rates in war are always 1:1, and it's not like 19 assholes with nothing more than boxcutters could kill over 3000 people.
For a war of attrition, the United States is almost unbeatable. Our force multiplying technology plus our natural resources means that in any given war of attrition, we could beat the rest of the planet combined.
I'm certain the British Empire was thinking the same thing, circa 1760.
How'd that work out for them?
Precisely why we should not be involved in that region.
Our current situation of constantly being embroiled in Mid-East warfare is a direct result of our unbending support of Israel (as long as we're being honest with ourselves).
Perfect example of why General Washington (and Ron Paul, much to the chagrin of, for lack of a more descriptive term, morons) was an isolationist.
Congratulations, you've just provided a definition for War of Attrition; so long as both sides of the conflict maintain that mentality, mutually assured destruction is all but guaranteed.
A better plan would be to avoid stirring the hornets' nest in the first place.
...that the reduction in civilian casualties and destruction of property means that the drone attack comports better than most other methods with the principle of discrimination.
relabel every corpse created as a "terrorist" or "enemy combatant," and bang! Less "civilian" casualties.
Winning the hearts and minds, one bullshit semantic after the next; the sad part? it fucking works.
What sheep we've become...
I don't personally have any knowledge that would allow me to understand the records.
Perhaps not, but what you do have is access to a massive, global repository of information, replete with search functions; Of course, if you're of the type who's too lazy to Google "cholecystectomy", you're probably not taking home copies of your medical records, either.
Most folks probably don't know how to secure them properly.
Yea, filing cabinets are pretty hard to come by these days, huh?
Sure people do have the right to see those records, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they should be encouraged to take them home with them. Of course make it clear that they can look or take copies if they like, but encouraging it seems like a poor idea.
Right, because if we encouraged people to be more involved in keep track of their own health and related records, doctors and hospitals would lose that edge they currently possess that allows them to charge exorbitant rates for routine procedures, prescribe boutique drugs that cost an arm and a leg to patients who don't really need them, and generally control not only people's perception of health, but the paperwork that actually details it... and who wants to live in that world?
I, personally, have never been of the type who would shy away from taking responsibility for myself, but YMMV.
Wonderful; now that they failed to pass this draconian legislation openly, the Congress Critters and their deep-pocketed media puppet-masters will attempt to secretly stuff it into a different, "must-pass" bill, as was done with the indefinite detention clause of the NDAA.
Keeping the Republic these days requires never-ending vigilance.
if ron paul had his way, companies would effectively own their employees (to an even greater extent than they already do) and punish them more severely with no chance of the employees being able to do anything reactionary to it.
Please expound on that premise, replete with valid sourcing, or be thoroughly shunned.
By entering into this contest, you agree that all research and/or invention submitted becomes the intellectual property of Google, and that any and all profits made from the sale of said research/invention, past present and future, will be paid directly to Google.
I guess that our definition of "easy" is different. Most OnStar boxes that I have seen reside behind truck/cargo area panels. These require a decent amount of effort to remove or even destroy to rip out. Once you have access to the box then you can just pull out the antenna or cut the modem wire.
However, this does NOT disable the GPS tracking ability.
Much easier to just remove the relays which power the On-Star/GPS devices, which are often housed on an easily accessed panel under the hood or dashboard. Instructions for disabling the aforementioned systems are prolific on the 'nets, or you could just ask your friendly neighborhood auto tech to disable them for you.
Fortunately, we don't (yet, hopefully) live in a world where the secret government places hidden trackers/disablers in every car sold in the country.
Easy to me would be a portable and concelable jammer of cell and GPS signals.
Except that you might as well stick a big "I'M BREAKING THE LAW" flag in the window. Cell jammers are illegal and highly noticeable ('hey, why is there a dead spot surrounding that Tahoe over there?'); disabling non-safety systems on a car is not.
Your personal attribution of the deepening cost vs benefit ratio somewhat applies. If you examine the cause of that "deepening" wouldn't it be all of the technological factors that previously discussed?
To some degree, yes, just as the economic flux of the past 40 years has played its part in driving costs up and keeping wages flat.
OnStar is a GM brand. I'm told the Toyota/Lexus Enform/Safety-Connect system is run by OnStar. (on verizon's network.)
Duly noted.
If you're going to boost a car thusly equiped, you'd be wise to remove or disable the thing FIRST. When manufacturers get wise and link the module into the anti-theft logic -- meaning the car won't work without it -- simply disable the radio/antenna.
For the record (and the benefit of my fellow paranoids), you can actually request this equipment be disabled for you by the dealer prior to purchase, or by the owner if they know where to look. Of course, this is a moot point for those who actually intend to pay for and use the service, but personally I would never subscribe to a service that can arbitrarily disable my vehicle without my permission... among other, privacy related issues.
Not being able to start your car because it cannot see T-Mobile's network (for example) would never be accepted by customers.
Yea... I remember saying something similar when GPS devices started becoming ubiquitous in cell phones... 'surely no one will accept a phone with a built in tracking device!'
Ah, the naivety of youth..
Ignoring, for a moment, that most-if-not-all automotive computer systems are proprietary and thus will vary from manufacturer to manufacturer, I think it's more an issue of funding. If cars cost what computers do, this issue would have come to a head years ago.
Considering cost, it seems to me that hacking of automobile computer systems will, for now, be the exclusive domain of researcher organizations and vast criminal empires... to that end, imagine the havoc that could be wrought if, say, the Zeta's got a hold of one of ICE's Suburbans and managed to reverse engineer it's systems...
Well, here is the same, but in our case if a theft ring wants your car they just show up with a .22 on your window...
You must not live in a right-to-carry state, if thieves are carjacking folks with pea-shooters...
'Round these parts, that's the fastest way to get your ass blown off by someone with a real gun.
The reason this has not happened sooner is that remote start and auto-unlock are not the only features of OnStar. Key-fob/rfid cloning exists and is not prohibitively difficult. Remote engine kill makes initial get-away more difficult outside of a very small window of time. While vehicle tracking can find the vehicle after it has disappeared from the owners line of sight. Plus, exposes the chop shop location to the authorities.
Disagree; On-Star's remote capabilities are easily circumvented in most vehicles by removing the relay that powers the CMDA modem. Also taking into consideration that On-Star is a GM-specific product, and GM is not the sole auto maker in the world, the concept that their tracking capabilities are the main reason car theft is in decline is dubious at best.
Personally, I would more likely attribute the decline to a deepening cost vs benefit ratio; a lot of folks have no compunction about breaking a $300-400 computer/smartphone/whatever in the process of reverse engineering it, since worst come to worst, they can most likely replace the device in a paycheck or two; however, most hackers I know are a bit wary of taking on a automobile that A) costs as much or more than most people's annual salary, and B) also happens to be their only means of transportation.
I value privacy which is why I keep my machines free of malware, tracking cookies and things of that nature. Anybody that genuinely values their privacy has already gone to lengths to ensure that their machines aren't infected with malware.
Security =/= privacy; I keep my money in a (small, locally-owned) bank, not because I don't want anyone to know how much I have, but because it's a hell of a lot safer there than buried in mason jars in the yard (which, while insecure, would be much more private). Besides, how do you know you're not infected? If the malware producer has done their job right, you won't know until the jack-booted Stasi thugs are kicking in your door and hauling you off to GTMO indefinitely for aiding and abetting known criminals.
This is very much like leaving your car unlocked with an envelop marked incredibly important industrial secret and being surprised when somebody steals it. Sure they shouldn't have done it, but it's hardly reasonable to assume that nobody's going to steal something that's clearly valuable.
No, it's not; and even if it were a valid analogy, what does that have to do with the right to privacy, ipso facto, the right to be free from government intrusion without warrant?
/.'ers who actually understand how cars work, but damn I hate nonsense car analogies!
*Sigh* Maybe it's because I'm likely one of a small handful of