No, he hasn't. He jumped on the bandwagon in February of 2007 because there was already a deal in place to release non-DRMed music on iTunes (for a higher fee, of course).
Bullshit. He opposed the hardcore DRM the labels wanted from day 1. But back before the iTunes Music Store opened, Jobs did not have the power he has now. So he had to accept some DRM - but he negotiated to make it more liberal than the labels would have liked. He saw it as a necessary evil to get the market started. Now that was so successful, he has a lot more sway to ask for even less restriction from the labels.
Enough with your revisionist history. Or rather, making shit up as you go along.
Apple has at least as (if not more ) interest than Microsoft in keeping the DRM on iTunes for most of the tracks.
So, why did Jobs publicly rail against DRM, and removed it from the iTunes store when given permission by the one major label that agreed?
In fact, Jobs' stand against DRM is probably the reason that Yahoo (and others) are now saying the same thing. Apple was the first major company to take a public stand against DRM. I think that other companies are just following that lead. Without that, Yaho and others would still be trying to enable the record labels' DRM fantasies.
Only through words of mouth and coverage by media will people learn, and ditch the record labels for the better services. Most of them are bound by contract to the labels for a certain time or number of releases. It's not that they don't know to switch, but that they can't.
Uhhh, what? Most music consumers are bound by contract to a certain vendor? Wow. I just buy from wherever I like. I never heard of anybody signing a contract that says they can only buy their CDs or downloads from a particular place.
when in fact you can have the unit disabled by OnStar thereby rendering is non-functional.
But the question is - what happens if (when) the government makes these units mandatory, and makes it illegal to disable them? I think everyone here is aware that they can be disabled today, but what about the future?
The other point of ignorance is that this features slams on the brakes. That's just dumb.
That is dumb. Who said that? I read most of this story's comments, and didn't see a single post claiming it would do that.
These are not social issues.
The part about disabling the unit is a social issue. It's not going to be an engineer who decides whether to make these systems mandatory, it will be a politician.
But there continues to be a backlash against this information in terms of, "Of course you would say that, you work for them."
Again, misrepresenting what I said, and what you said. When I said that your word was not worth any more because you worked for them - you were not providing any more technical information, nor addressing those points. You were making an illogical claim that because abuse has not happened before, it won't happen in the future - and you were calling people paranoid dweebs just for having concerns over the security and safety of the system.
If you are that worried about it, get rid of your cell phone.
That's your answer to government abuses of power? You seem to be missing the point - it's not about how easy it is technically to do the surveillance - it's about the government abusing the contract made with the citizens. How does not using a phone remedy the abuse of power?
Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"
on
Stalling Cars Via OnStar
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
No. As ordinary people, mechanics, whomever you chose, what "killing the engine" means. Every one of them will tell you the engine is shut off.
You'd be wrong on this. Most people, if their engine lost most of its power, would say that "The engine died", even if the engine is still running.
They won't say that it's in a idle state with no throttle with power brakes and steering still functional. When someone says "remotely shuts down vehicles", the clear implication is that the vehicle is being turned off. It is not.
Again, no. If you car won't move forward when throttle is applied, it has been shut down. What use is a car that doesn't move when commanded to?
The clear follow-on to that, and a major objection, would be that such an action would be massively unsafe. That's what the submitter is implying all throughout her blog post, saying things like "would you be your life" on this, etc.
But it is massively unsafe to remove power, even if the other systems are running. So I'm not sure what your point is.
Which is why "if officers see the car in motion and judge it can be stopped safely, they can tell OnStar operators".
That's the whole point.
But what guarantee do we have that this will be the only time it is used? What's the guarantee there isn't a glitch in the system causing to happen without police supervision?What's the guarantee that the police, if in visual range, will judge the safety of stopping at that point correctly?
Now if you believe it will be used in contravention of the ways they're explicitly and specifically saying it will be used, that's another story entirely. But that should also mean we should have heard a lot of other examples of OnStar abuse, since it's been around for a while, except we haven't.
No, that's a non-sequiter. There's nothing to stop it happening in the future, even if it hasn't happened in the past. We also don't know if past OnStar abuse has happened but been covered up. Your statement is not logical. Recently, some banks lost a whole ton of private customer information. That had not happened in the past. By your logic, the banks shouldn't have lost vast amounts of personal information, because they hadn't previously. But it happened.
Actually, police, to most people and for the most part, do have exactly that track record. That's, you know, their job.
In bizarro world. In reality, police corruption is widespread, and the police endanger the public's safety constantly.
You just apparently choose to take examples of corruption and abuse, and assume that is the norm, when it is the exception.
I never said it was the norm. But it's far too common. It's not an insignificant problem as you seem to be making it out. It's actually unreasonably common.
That's no excuse to completely write off a technological solution to a problem just because it can be hacked or abused. OnStar can currently unlock doors on every OnStar equipped vehicle. Seems like that's a pretty ripe target, and so by the logic trotted about here, that should already have been hacked to shreds.
That's an entirely different issue. Theft is an annoyance, but it's not the same as putting the public at risk. We have to apply much higher standards, and ask if the benefit outweighs the risks. The benefits seem rather dubious to me, so it doesn't seem worth the risk.
And once again you misrepresent the argument. Nobody is saying it must be "hacked to shreds" - just that there is a chance that it could be. And it happening even once is a pretty serious matter when people's lives are at stake.
I have an idea: let's all be luddites, and dismiss any technological solution to any problem, whether the government is using it or not, because it might be able to be hacked or abused. That's a ridiculous view of the s
Ok, you're right. Just because I happen to know how the system operates and I'm trying to set the record straight
But how does knowing engineering aspects of the project make you any more or less correct than anybody else about the social aspects? It doesn't matter how much you know about the system - that has nothing to do with whether it gets abused or not. Engineers have never been able to stop people from abusing the products of engineering, and this is a huge blindspot that engineers tend to have.
But in this case I'm just trying to identify areas where people have a lot of ignorance about what is actually going on with the system.
Your post didn't do anything of the sort. I didn't see anybody claiming that the system just slams the brakes on. You are claiming ignorance without any evidence. You weren't replying to anybody who made any such misconceptions, so this ignorance is just a mythical strawman. You might have a point if people were going around saying "OH MY GOD, IT SLAMS ON BRAKES AND READS BRAINWAVES!!!!!!", but nobody has said anything like that, so I'm not sure why you make such things up.
As for your other comments, they don't actually set anything straight. They just demonstrate blind faith - you say that it has never been used without authorization before, and you say it's hard to crack. But that's meaningless - it might be used without authorization any time in the future, and it may be hacked at any time in the future, even if it is difficult. Humans have done some very difficult things before. And why would you have to "crack" the system if you were an employee? Couldn't a disgruntled employee simply do it directly?
Anyway, you accuse people of ignorance and being paranoid, just because they raise some valid concerns. That's pretty sad. If the system is so foolproof, wouldn't you be happy to see it questioned? What have you got to fear? Dismissing any concerns as crazy seems like a way to deflect scrutiny. but isn't this the kind of thing that should be heavily scrutinized?
One of the people who have worked in the engineering side of the company? Marketing types? Or someone who starts with the assumption that the OnStar unit can read your brain waves.
I don't recall anybody claiming that OnStar could read your brainwaves. Anyway, none of the above are very good options. Better options are independent observers, particularly those who are aware of the social and legal consequences of technology. As I mentioned before, engineers generally have very poor abilities in this area, and tend to think that things will just work as planned or designed. In reality, there are often unintended consequences that are not foreseen by engineers. Otherwise we wouldn't have things like spam, would we?
that means the engine is still running. Also, it does NOT kill the engine.
Yes, it does. It says it "removes the horsepower." It doesn't matter if the engine is still running - if it can't deliver power, then it has been effectively killed. The entire purpose of an engine is to deliver power.
I also didn't deny it's stopping the car, anywher
Yes you did, it's in the title of your post.
What I said was it doesn't "remotely shut down the vehicle, the implication being that it just slams on the brakes or kills the engine or both."
Did anyone say that it does "slam on the brakes"?
It stops the car in a very controlled manner, and it's fairly complex how it functions. It is de-throttling the vehicle;
In other words, it remotely shuts down the vehicle. No matter how "complex" or "gradual" or "controlled" it is - it is remotely shutting down the car. So why did you say in your title that it doesn't remotely shut down the car?
of course it effectively "stops the car", but in a controlled way,
A controlled way? So, does it know if the car needs power based on circumstances that others have mentioned (on ice or snow, in the middle of a turn) and keep the power on, or does it still shut the power down anyway?
Also, it is only to be used when police have the vehicle in sight and are in direct communication with OnStar; that's its purpose.
But how do you know it won't be abused? It's not like the police have a wonderful track record of honesty, integrity and concern for public safety. It's not impossible for this to be hacked, either. So, what guarantee do you have that it will always be used properly and carefully?
t's only done when it is within visual contact of police,
Provided the police are honest and caring, and provided it is not hacked into, or abused by an OnStar employee with a grudge. That's a big caveat, way too big to simply dismiss.
What are your thoughts on those issues? How will we be able to stop police abuse of this system, when we've never been able to prevent police abuse of any other system?
But why don't people have the right to be dumb or self destructive?
It's not a matter of being self-destructive. If not wearing a seatbelt only affected the non-seatbelt-wearer, then that would be fine. But an unrestrained person in an accident becomes a projectile, and can kill and injure other people when they get thrown.
They have been trying to do that for a decade and there is not ONE incident where they have successfully gotten OnStar to interfer with a vehicle without the permission and knowledge of the owner. So STFU about that one you paranoid aluminum jock strap wearing dweebs.
So, because it has never happened before, it could never happen in the future? What an incredibly lame and weak argument. I think you acknowledge the weakness of your argument when you resort to name-calling of anyone who disagrees. Yeah, anyone who might have some concern about this system is a paranoid dweeb... whatever.
But seeing as I'm one of the system engineers who has worked on this stuff for most of OnStars life...
Yes, seeing as you have a vested interest in the project, we should not rely on your words and arguments. It makes you less credible than an independent observer who is not involved with the project.
...the implication being that it just slams on the brakes or kills the engine or both.
Then you quote this as refutation:
"This technology will basically remove the control of the horsepower from the thief,"
Which says it does shut off the engine. I mean, it's in your own quote, and you still try to deny it's stopping the car? Did you even read your own source?
When you frame your argument like this you run a higher risk of making alcohol illegal than getting pot legalized.
That's absolutely hilarious. Sorry, that's not going to happen. There will never be a greater chance of making alcohol illegal than having pot legalized.
You'd be better off with a freedom argument.
Again, pretty funny. In the mind of modern America, "Freedom" is pretty much equal to terrorism. Or at least to long-haired hippy socialists.
Those arguments aren't going to convince anyone. You need to appeal to greed. If Americans thought that legalizing pot would make them a big pile of money, then it would be supported.
Oh, yes, because a person thinking that the project won't accomplish anything useful MUST be hell-bent on keeping the poor people in their place.
Then give a rational reason why you would think that. It's difficult to think of any other than callousness or arrogance. Of course it will achieve some things. Will it save the world, no? But claiming it will achieve NOTHING is beyond absurd and implies you have an ulterior motive.
The others will use them as a lid to stop the chickens eating the corn in the pot. Only a geek could come up with such an impractical use of resources for the developing world.
The machines have a built-in charger. Or are you not capable of reading?
A kind of "let them eat cake" solution for the developing world poor.
You'd probably think about it differently if you were actually poor yourself. Do you actually believe that poor people shouldn't be exposed to technology or given opportunities to learn about it?
Yet the spread of the internet in South Africa is fuelling the spread of lies and misinformation about the fatal disease, its aetiology and possible treatments
Communism will be an "extreme democracy" the day fascism will be a "benevolent dictatorship".
Isn't that day today? And yesterday, and the day before? "Benevolent Dictatorships" are exactly how fascism thrives. Keeping the trains running on time, building freeways, holding the Superbowl - that kind of thing. Without the bread and circuses, the fascists wouldn't remain in power so easily.
Because thus far we've only had Apple's word for it that the labels are preventing them from doing XYZ.
Nonsense. Apple have actually put up DRM-free tracks from the label that agreed to it. Obviously, Apple are willing to put up DRM-free tracks. The problem is that most labels won't do it. We also have Universal stating that they split with iTunes for video because of insufficient DRM.
Amazon having more DRM free content than Apple indicates that Apple wasn't trying as hard as they made it seem.
I think it indicates that Universal did it to spite Apple. Your explanation is not plausible - as Apple has done more than anybody to push the labels towards removing DRM. What do you propose they do, pay the labels to offer their tracks DRM-free on iTunes?
Do you seriously believe that the labels would be offering their tracks DRM-free to Amazon if it weren't for Apple's influence?
This is Amazon. Why would they do that? They make plenty of money selling stuff, and have an excellent reputation. Why would they want to tarnish their reputation by distributing malware - which would have no significant benefits, and plenty of drawbacks?
Slashdot Mirror
Is that anything like the difficult third album?
Bullshit. He opposed the hardcore DRM the labels wanted from day 1. But back before the iTunes Music Store opened, Jobs did not have the power he has now. So he had to accept some DRM - but he negotiated to make it more liberal than the labels would have liked. He saw it as a necessary evil to get the market started. Now that was so successful, he has a lot more sway to ask for even less restriction from the labels.
Enough with your revisionist history. Or rather, making shit up as you go along.
Spades usually have flat ends. It's shovels that tend to have a point.
So, why did Jobs publicly rail against DRM, and removed it from the iTunes store when given permission by the one major label that agreed?
In fact, Jobs' stand against DRM is probably the reason that Yahoo (and others) are now saying the same thing. Apple was the first major company to take a public stand against DRM. I think that other companies are just following that lead. Without that, Yaho and others would still be trying to enable the record labels' DRM fantasies.
Uhhh, what? Most music consumers are bound by contract to a certain vendor? Wow. I just buy from wherever I like. I never heard of anybody signing a contract that says they can only buy their CDs or downloads from a particular place.
But the question is - what happens if (when) the government makes these units mandatory, and makes it illegal to disable them? I think everyone here is aware that they can be disabled today, but what about the future?
The other point of ignorance is that this features slams on the brakes. That's just dumb.That is dumb. Who said that? I read most of this story's comments, and didn't see a single post claiming it would do that.
These are not social issues.The part about disabling the unit is a social issue. It's not going to be an engineer who decides whether to make these systems mandatory, it will be a politician.
But there continues to be a backlash against this information in terms of, "Of course you would say that, you work for them."Again, misrepresenting what I said, and what you said. When I said that your word was not worth any more because you worked for them - you were not providing any more technical information, nor addressing those points. You were making an illogical claim that because abuse has not happened before, it won't happen in the future - and you were calling people paranoid dweebs just for having concerns over the security and safety of the system.
That's your answer to government abuses of power? You seem to be missing the point - it's not about how easy it is technically to do the surveillance - it's about the government abusing the contract made with the citizens. How does not using a phone remedy the abuse of power?
No. As ordinary people, mechanics, whomever you chose, what "killing the engine" means. Every one of them will tell you the engine is shut off.
You'd be wrong on this. Most people, if their engine lost most of its power, would say that "The engine died", even if the engine is still running.
They won't say that it's in a idle state with no throttle with power brakes and steering still functional. When someone says "remotely shuts down vehicles", the clear implication is that the vehicle is being turned off. It is not.
Again, no. If you car won't move forward when throttle is applied, it has been shut down. What use is a car that doesn't move when commanded to?
The clear follow-on to that, and a major objection, would be that such an action would be massively unsafe. That's what the submitter is implying all throughout her blog post, saying things like "would you be your life" on this, etc.
But it is massively unsafe to remove power, even if the other systems are running. So I'm not sure what your point is.
Which is why "if officers see the car in motion and judge it can be stopped safely, they can tell OnStar operators". That's the whole point.
But what guarantee do we have that this will be the only time it is used? What's the guarantee there isn't a glitch in the system causing to happen without police supervision?What's the guarantee that the police, if in visual range, will judge the safety of stopping at that point correctly?
Now if you believe it will be used in contravention of the ways they're explicitly and specifically saying it will be used, that's another story entirely. But that should also mean we should have heard a lot of other examples of OnStar abuse, since it's been around for a while, except we haven't.
No, that's a non-sequiter. There's nothing to stop it happening in the future, even if it hasn't happened in the past. We also don't know if past OnStar abuse has happened but been covered up. Your statement is not logical. Recently, some banks lost a whole ton of private customer information. That had not happened in the past. By your logic, the banks shouldn't have lost vast amounts of personal information, because they hadn't previously. But it happened.
Actually, police, to most people and for the most part, do have exactly that track record. That's, you know, their job.
In bizarro world. In reality, police corruption is widespread, and the police endanger the public's safety constantly.
You just apparently choose to take examples of corruption and abuse, and assume that is the norm, when it is the exception.
I never said it was the norm. But it's far too common. It's not an insignificant problem as you seem to be making it out. It's actually unreasonably common.
That's no excuse to completely write off a technological solution to a problem just because it can be hacked or abused. OnStar can currently unlock doors on every OnStar equipped vehicle. Seems like that's a pretty ripe target, and so by the logic trotted about here, that should already have been hacked to shreds.
That's an entirely different issue. Theft is an annoyance, but it's not the same as putting the public at risk. We have to apply much higher standards, and ask if the benefit outweighs the risks. The benefits seem rather dubious to me, so it doesn't seem worth the risk.
And once again you misrepresent the argument. Nobody is saying it must be "hacked to shreds" - just that there is a chance that it could be. And it happening even once is a pretty serious matter when people's lives are at stake.
I have an idea: let's all be luddites, and dismiss any technological solution to any problem, whether the government is using it or not, because it might be able to be hacked or abused. That's a ridiculous view of the s
But how does knowing engineering aspects of the project make you any more or less correct than anybody else about the social aspects? It doesn't matter how much you know about the system - that has nothing to do with whether it gets abused or not. Engineers have never been able to stop people from abusing the products of engineering, and this is a huge blindspot that engineers tend to have.
But in this case I'm just trying to identify areas where people have a lot of ignorance about what is actually going on with the system.Your post didn't do anything of the sort. I didn't see anybody claiming that the system just slams the brakes on. You are claiming ignorance without any evidence. You weren't replying to anybody who made any such misconceptions, so this ignorance is just a mythical strawman. You might have a point if people were going around saying "OH MY GOD, IT SLAMS ON BRAKES AND READS BRAINWAVES!!!!!!", but nobody has said anything like that, so I'm not sure why you make such things up.
As for your other comments, they don't actually set anything straight. They just demonstrate blind faith - you say that it has never been used without authorization before, and you say it's hard to crack. But that's meaningless - it might be used without authorization any time in the future, and it may be hacked at any time in the future, even if it is difficult. Humans have done some very difficult things before. And why would you have to "crack" the system if you were an employee? Couldn't a disgruntled employee simply do it directly?Anyway, you accuse people of ignorance and being paranoid, just because they raise some valid concerns. That's pretty sad. If the system is so foolproof, wouldn't you be happy to see it questioned? What have you got to fear? Dismissing any concerns as crazy seems like a way to deflect scrutiny. but isn't this the kind of thing that should be heavily scrutinized?
One of the people who have worked in the engineering side of the company? Marketing types? Or someone who starts with the assumption that the OnStar unit can read your brain waves.I don't recall anybody claiming that OnStar could read your brainwaves. Anyway, none of the above are very good options. Better options are independent observers, particularly those who are aware of the social and legal consequences of technology. As I mentioned before, engineers generally have very poor abilities in this area, and tend to think that things will just work as planned or designed. In reality, there are often unintended consequences that are not foreseen by engineers. Otherwise we wouldn't have things like spam, would we?
Al Gore.
Yes, it does. It says it "removes the horsepower." It doesn't matter if the engine is still running - if it can't deliver power, then it has been effectively killed. The entire purpose of an engine is to deliver power.
I also didn't deny it's stopping the car, anywherYes you did, it's in the title of your post.
What I said was it doesn't "remotely shut down the vehicle, the implication being that it just slams on the brakes or kills the engine or both."Did anyone say that it does "slam on the brakes"?
It stops the car in a very controlled manner, and it's fairly complex how it functions. It is de-throttling the vehicle;In other words, it remotely shuts down the vehicle. No matter how "complex" or "gradual" or "controlled" it is - it is remotely shutting down the car. So why did you say in your title that it doesn't remotely shut down the car?
of course it effectively "stops the car", but in a controlled way,A controlled way? So, does it know if the car needs power based on circumstances that others have mentioned (on ice or snow, in the middle of a turn) and keep the power on, or does it still shut the power down anyway?
Also, it is only to be used when police have the vehicle in sight and are in direct communication with OnStar; that's its purpose.But how do you know it won't be abused? It's not like the police have a wonderful track record of honesty, integrity and concern for public safety. It's not impossible for this to be hacked, either. So, what guarantee do you have that it will always be used properly and carefully?
t's only done when it is within visual contact of police,Provided the police are honest and caring, and provided it is not hacked into, or abused by an OnStar employee with a grudge. That's a big caveat, way too big to simply dismiss.
What are your thoughts on those issues? How will we be able to stop police abuse of this system, when we've never been able to prevent police abuse of any other system?
It's not a matter of being self-destructive. If not wearing a seatbelt only affected the non-seatbelt-wearer, then that would be fine. But an unrestrained person in an accident becomes a projectile, and can kill and injure other people when they get thrown.
So, because it has never happened before, it could never happen in the future? What an incredibly lame and weak argument. I think you acknowledge the weakness of your argument when you resort to name-calling of anyone who disagrees. Yeah, anyone who might have some concern about this system is a paranoid dweeb... whatever.
But seeing as I'm one of the system engineers who has worked on this stuff for most of OnStars life...Yes, seeing as you have a vested interest in the project, we should not rely on your words and arguments. It makes you less credible than an independent observer who is not involved with the project.
Your post contradicts itself. You say:
...the implication being that it just slams on the brakes or kills the engine or both.Then you quote this as refutation:
"This technology will basically remove the control of the horsepower from the thief,"Which says it does shut off the engine. I mean, it's in your own quote, and you still try to deny it's stopping the car? Did you even read your own source?
That's absolutely hilarious. Sorry, that's not going to happen. There will never be a greater chance of making alcohol illegal than having pot legalized.
You'd be better off with a freedom argument.Again, pretty funny. In the mind of modern America, "Freedom" is pretty much equal to terrorism. Or at least to long-haired hippy socialists.
Those arguments aren't going to convince anyone. You need to appeal to greed. If Americans thought that legalizing pot would make them a big pile of money, then it would be supported.
Then give a rational reason why you would think that. It's difficult to think of any other than callousness or arrogance. Of course it will achieve some things. Will it save the world, no? But claiming it will achieve NOTHING is beyond absurd and implies you have an ulterior motive.
The machines have a built-in charger. Or are you not capable of reading?
A kind of "let them eat cake" solution for the developing world poor.You'd probably think about it differently if you were actually poor yourself. Do you actually believe that poor people shouldn't be exposed to technology or given opportunities to learn about it?
It could be worse. They could be using MySpace.
I yearn for the simpler days, when DOS came on floppy disks, rather than medical instruments.
WTF? Laws should be constant? So slavery never should have been abolished, I guess. They should not be open for discussion? Sounds like fascism to me.
It should be the exact opposite - laws should change to reflect the times, and they should be constantly discussed and questioned.
Isn't that day today? And yesterday, and the day before? "Benevolent Dictatorships" are exactly how fascism thrives. Keeping the trains running on time, building freeways, holding the Superbowl - that kind of thing. Without the bread and circuses, the fascists wouldn't remain in power so easily.
Well, yes. Citizens of New Zealand would be a very small segment of the US population.
An oboe and a pair of sandals.
Nonsense. Apple have actually put up DRM-free tracks from the label that agreed to it. Obviously, Apple are willing to put up DRM-free tracks. The problem is that most labels won't do it. We also have Universal stating that they split with iTunes for video because of insufficient DRM.
Amazon having more DRM free content than Apple indicates that Apple wasn't trying as hard as they made it seem.I think it indicates that Universal did it to spite Apple. Your explanation is not plausible - as Apple has done more than anybody to push the labels towards removing DRM. What do you propose they do, pay the labels to offer their tracks DRM-free on iTunes?
Do you seriously believe that the labels would be offering their tracks DRM-free to Amazon if it weren't for Apple's influence?
This is Amazon. Why would they do that? They make plenty of money selling stuff, and have an excellent reputation. Why would they want to tarnish their reputation by distributing malware - which would have no significant benefits, and plenty of drawbacks?