Does that Onstar stuff that the automakers install now creep you out?

[Skidmore]

I'm sincerely creeped out by the fact that buying a car means that no matter where I would go in that car, I could be tracked. Also, the whole idea that someone somewhere could call up my car once a month to see if it needs repair is beyond intrusive.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

1. So Disable It. Big Deal. Most Cellphones Have Trackers Too.

But you can disable them as well.

[Bitter Cup]

28. Actually it may be a Big Deal

because it's quickly leading to technology that 1) you may not be able to disable. 2) To tracking that many people are ignorant of. 3) The illusion that being tracked is all about BENEFIT to you...huge PR push.

Those 3 factors make this a bit more than some minor movement that's casually dismissed.

Is it a problem today? Maybe not. Then again just like NSA phone tapping we just don't know what's going on or how far it's gone...and most people probably won't be real comfortable with where it ends up.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

30. Nah. Not A Big Deal At All. Just Turn It Off. See? That Was Easy.

[DemoTex]

33. Flip that switch. All ON-OFF switches are subject to Truth-in-Labeling.

Right? Right?

[Freedom_Aflaim]

40. You can always disable it

Absolute worst case is that you wrap the antenna in tinfoil.

Would be pretty tough to design a technology that could overcome that.

(btw Im not joking, even though most references to tinfoil usually are!)

[Oreo]

2. It's worse than that...

The OnStar device can enable a microphone and record your conversations while you're in the car.
I think there have already been lawsuits about it.

Big surprise they use fear to sell their product just like the Bush Regime.

http://www.onstarprivacy.com/

http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/columns/2001/04/newshole6.html

[napi21]

3. So, as the above poster said, don't subscribe to it!

It requires you to subscribe and pay a monthly fee. If you don't want it, just ignore it! I happen to think is some circumstances, it's a good thing. If someone is stranded on the highway somewhere and their car has failed, I sure can see them being very grateful for having this contact! What if you were in an area where you are unfamiliar, as in being on vacation? You'd have no idea who or where to call.

It's not a mandatory thing. It's there for your convenience if you want it. If you don't, just ignore it.

[lindisfarne]

7. Do we know that without a subscription, it won't transmit info? Wouldn't

you have to completely remove any transmitter(s) to be certain?

[POAS]

11. The device is in your car whether you subscribe or not

What you subscribe to is the ability to use services associated with the onstar device.

The manufacturer has access to the device and the information that they decide to get that is stored in the cars computer at any time they choose. Subscription or not.

[TheDebbieDee]

17. "It requires you to subscribe and pay a monthly fee." ..........

I don't think so. I may be wrong but someone with a nefarious purpose and enough cash can track your movements in the car even if YOU don't pay for the On-Star service.

In fact, a couple of years ago, I recall reading something about victims of domestic abuse being tracked by their abusers through their GM cars if it was equipped with On-Star, even if they weren't subscribers. (The abusers would report the car as stolen and On-Star would tell the the where-abouts of the car.)

I think I'll go Google for that article.....

[lectrobyte]

22. The FBI case is the one I remember, someone describes it below.

[lindisfarne]

27. For example, BushCo might be "someone with a nefarious purpose

and enough cash". :yoiks:

[treestar]

47. I thought the point was maybe more generalized

Just that it is creepy that it can be done now, and of course the police are going to want to have it on every car, so they can catch criminals and the FBI will want it on every car so they can catch terrorists, and like the databases given to the NSA - just shows that technology is getting to where the potential for Big Brother to become a reality is there.

[POAS]

4. They can also tell if you've operated

your vehicle in a manner that would void your warranty.(ie excessive speed)

[boobooday]

5. And they warn you if you are not eating healthy

Sensors can tell them when you go for that Double Whopper . . .

[treestar]

13. I wonder if they ever have to pay off - who doesn't speed sometime?

Sounds like a great racket. :hippie:

[ShaneGR]

6. You don't HAVE to have it...

Just have it disabled. It can be easilly removed. As for the service itself. I love it. Antime I need help because I've been in a crash, I'm lost, I've witnessed a crash, I've locked my keys in the car, or even if someone has STOLEN my car... I'm fine. I like the comfort of that. And it's on-star, not the federal government.

[lindisfarne]

9. Major corporation or gov't. I'm not sure which is worse these days.

Or whether they're different.

[ShaneGR]

14. I wouldn't even classify On-Star as a "Major Corporation."

It's just a company that offers a device for car owners. It's just a service, like triple-A car service is.

[MercutioATC]

19. Actually, On-Star is a subsidiary of GM.

...so it is kinda a major corporation...

[lindisfarne]

25. Yes, that's what I thought. Subsidiaries contribute to the huge size and

power of international conglomerates, don't they?

[rman]

24. It's a service that can be abused.

What guarantee is there that On-star won't turn over client information to the NSA?

[lectrobyte]

20. Even if you don't subscribe, they can still access it, unless you

have done something like modify the car to cut power to on star.

[Kutjara]

8. Yep, and it's going to get worse.

OnStar is the carrot that's getting people used to being spied-upon in their cars. In a few more years, we'll be hit with the full force of the stick. Among the initiatives currently being developed are:

- Engine immobiliser technology linked to law enforcement systems. The police will be able to tap your license plate into their in-car terminal and shut your car down remotely. Systems like these are already available from private car security companies.
- Black Boxes for cars. Video, motion sensors, traffic light sensors and other technologies which can be accessed by law enforcement and insurance companies after an accident to apportion blame among those involved.
- Speed limiters. Wireless technologies which will force your car to remain within the speed limit by throttling down the engine, applying the brakes, etc.
- In-car breathylizers/drug detectors that will not allow the car to be started if the driver is under the influence. Presumably, it would be easy to configure the technology to report drug use to law enforcement.

These are a few of the technologies that will be with us before much longer. If you thought your car nagging you about your seatbelt was as bad as things can get, get ready for a whole other world of pain.

[lindisfarne]

12. Aren't the black boxes already being used, at least to some degree? n/t

[Kutjara]

16. I think some commercial vehicles use them.

Long-haul trucks, public transportation, etc. I haven't heard anything about them being installed in private cars yet, but I could be wrong.

[lindisfarne]

23. No, in cars. Information about the speed a car was going, etc can

be obtained on some cars, in case of accidents. I think it records info. from just a short amount of time but that's what "black boxes" do, too.

[dysfunctional press]

26. i'm all for black boxes in cars.

the info is great for insurance purposes in an accident.
and if i had kids that could drive- i'd DEFINITELY get some type of monitoring device, including onboard cameras showing outside AND inside the car.

what's wrong with reporting illegal drug/alcohol use to police? especially if someone is trying to DUI...?

[-..__...]

29. If you want to make it personal decision, then by all means go for it.

But, please let the rest of us decide what is proper or desireable monitoring of our own vehicles.

If you have teen drivers that you think you have to monitor...

http://www.familysafemedia.com/carchip_-_car_chip.html

http://www.familysafemedia.com/parents_with_teen_drivers.html

[dysfunctional press]

31. it should definitely be by choice-

but you should also get a huge break on your insurance if you have one.

and no, as i clearly stated, i DON'T have teen drivers to monitor...
but i would also say that if anybody thinks that "their" teen driver doesn't have to be monitored- they're only fooling themselves, and endangering everyone else.

[Clark2008]

35. You can get a monitoring device to stick on a car

that you monitor through your computer - employers use them on company vehicles all the time.

You don't have to subscribe to a service. You're the only one with access and know one else but you knows where the car is being driven.

Much cheaper than On Star.

Kids can get cell phones and AAA for emergencies (even though cell phones can be tracked, too).

[dysfunctional press]

36. as the technology becomes less expensive and more accessible-

i'm all for using it to the fullest extent possible, in regard to making driving safer for EVERYONE.

for instance- you mention cell phones...when i was a teen driver, cell phones didn't even exist- but as they became more prevalent, they became accepted, and even considered a safety "necessity".
i can only hope that black boxes and video cameras in cars will soon be seen as just as much a necessity.

[-..__...]

37. Sorry...

I did read the part about you're not having any teen drivers.

I used the word "you" when I had meant to post "anyone".

[Kutjara]

32. Sounds a bit too close to the...

'if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about' argument for my liking. I suppose it comes down to the amount of trust you are willing to place in the government and insurance companies. For me, that's not much. While black boxes and in-car drug tests may be 'sold' to the public as safety devices, it is likely that the information they collect will be used in ways not expected or desired by the public.

It's not beyond the bounds of possibility that breathylizer info would be passed to insurers who could use the info to determine health insurance premiums for their customers. Black box info could similarly be passed to auto insurers for the same purposes (this would be particularly useful if it recorded all activities by the car and driver, not just accident related info). And who needs expensive photo radar equipment if your own personal black box tells the cops to send you a ticket every time you creep over the speed limit?

Also, forcing people to take breathylizer tests everytime they want to use their car looks pretty close to a violation of the 5th Amendment. As I typically say to those who use the 'if you're not doing anything wrong...' line, 'If I'm not doing anything wrong, you have no business spying on me.'

[dysfunctional press]

38. driving is a privilege, NOT a right.

as long as someone is going to operate a potentially deadly object on the public roads- the public has a right and a responsibility to insure it's safety, by making use of the best available technology.

if people don't want to deal with it- driving isn't a requirement either...there's always the choice of bicycles, public transit, and walking, to name a few.

[Kutjara]

41. But it's not the 'public' that's ensuring anything.

It's the organs of State and private companies that are seeking to monitor drivers, for reasons that may have nothing at all to do with safety and everything to do with profit and social control. Over the past four decades (and particularly during the past 5.5 years), we've seen a widening gulf between the 'public' and the government. As I wrote previously, it all depends on whether you believe these organs have your best interests at heart. Personally, I don't.

Governments are increasingly treating the people they govern as potential criminals, who require constant supervision or they'll do something 'wrong.' This is, for me, an unacceptable shift in the balance of the social contract between the government and the governed. Those who are not suspected of wrongdoing should be treated as if they have done nothing wrong, not subjected to ever more intense scrutiny because 'they must have done something.' It's like the apocryphal story of the father who would smack his kids every day, 'because they probably deserved it.'

As those of us with teenagers will attest, if you treat your kids like criminals, they'll do their damnedest to prove you right. If you treat them like good people and balance discipline with trust, they'll prove you right that way too. The same goes for society as a whole.

There will always be criminals and there will always be bad drivers, but throwing the entire country into a virtual prison to root out the relatively small number of bad eggs is no more acceptable in a free society than monitoring 300 million peoples' phonecalls to catch a handful of terrorists.

[dysfunctional press]

42. if there's a profit in keeping drunks off the road-

they're more than welcome to it as far as i'm concerned.

[lindisfarne]

43. Does this mean *Co is OK to wiretap cell phones when people are

driving (in your opinion)? You're right - driving is a privilege - but what of your rights are you willing to give up while driving? I think "we the people" have the right to determine whether the rights we are giving up are even relevant to "safety of the roads". A black box that keeps track of where I've been, or with a transmitter that allows the FBI to listen in on me, isn't something I'm willing to accept.

(you said: "as long as someone is going to operate a potentially deadly object on the public roads- the public has a right and a responsibility to insure it's safety, by making use of the best available technology.")

I'd love it if automatically gave speeding tickets every time a car went more than 2 mph over the speed limit, or didn't use their turn signal to signal a turn or switching lanes (and "at the last minute" doesn't count) or doesn't come to a full stop at a stop sign or stop light, or cuts someone else off (including a biker or moving into a cross walk before a pedestrian has fully clear your lane or either adjacent lane) ... a lot of states would have a whole lot of money.

[dysfunctional press]

51. ultimately, people will only be as safe as they're forced to be.

and eventually, it probably will be public safety that's used to make the kinds of leaps you describe.

in illinois, they have "I-Pass" for electronic toll collection on the tollroads, so that you can bypass the toll-booths- you don't HAVE to get one of the transponders- but if you don't, and pay cash- the toll is now TWICE as much(it didn't go down for I-Pass users, but up for non-users). the transponders can also obviously tell how long it took you to drive from one collection point to the next...BUT- the state has promised NOT to use the info to generate speeding tickets.

but they will...eventually.

the technology is there, and as much as most of us don't like the idea- it CAN be used to make the roads safer...wouldn't you rather arrive someplace 10 minutes later than not at all...?

[treestar]

45. It's the right of anyone who knows how to drive and whose record

does not include any license-suspending activity (under law).

Sorry, I just hate that "privilege" language - it implies that even if you pass the driving test and are within the laws, some government functionary can withdraw or refuse to turn over the "privilege."

[lindisfarne]

46. In many states, the drivers manual states "Driving is a privilege - not a

right". Not that that should mean we give up all our other rights to drive.

[treestar]

48. I don't know what they mean by that; but I've heard it a lot and

no one seems to know what it really means - what point are they making when they say that? It seems to me that in the USA there is no "privilege" granted but a "right" that may have to be earned or maintained. Whoever uses that language is usually defending a restriction, but they don't need that term. They could defend the restriction on its own grounds rather than claiming that the state has some ability to prohibit all driving without the consent of the people.

[lindisfarne]

50. For example, some of the laws regarding drunk driving rely on

the fact that driving is a privilege, not a right. What you can expect as a pedestrian is different from what you can expect as a driver. For example, a lot of states have "implied consent" laws; in AZ, for example:
Arizona has an Implied Consent Law. This means that if you elect to drive a vehicle in this state, you consent to give your blood or breath sample to law enforcement authorities if they have reasonable cause to believe you might be driving while under the influence of alcohol.

If you are stopped, and the officer requests that you take a breath, blood or urine test, or some combination of the three tests, you must cooperate or you will lose your Arizona driver's license (or Arizona driving privileges if your driver’s license is from another state) for a period of twelve months for a first time refuser. If you have, within the past five years, previously refused to take a breath, blood or urine test, then your Arizona driver's license or privilege to drive will be suspended for two years."

In Michigan, if a person under the age for legal possession of alcohol is found with alcohol, their drivers license can be suspended, even if they're not driving at the time.

Pedestrians, in contrast, cannot be forced to take a breathalyzer test (although you can be cited for public drunkenness in most places).
========
What exactly "privilege" means depends on the state but across the board, a "privilege" is more easily revoked by government than a "right" is.

[dysfunctional press]

53. a State DOES have the right to prohibit all driving- on state owned roads.

they usually don't need the consent of the people- the constitution/laws of whichever state usually allow for it in certain instances.

[dysfunctional press]

52. your driving rights CAN be withdrawn.

it's only a RIGHT on your own property. i don't know what state you live in- but if they have something like "The Rules Of the Road" here in Illinois, you might want to take a look at it:

http://www.cyberdriveillinois.com/publications/rules_of_the_road/rr_chap06.html

they refer to it as "driving privileges" all over the place.

[AlCzervik]

10. i don't worry about it because i'm too cheap to get that or the

navigation thingy. A speed manual, cloth seats and a decent stereo system---thats all, the only extra i pay is for more airbags.

[Skidmore]

15. I am too. I'll drive our old cars until they die.

And I'll buy another old car. BTW, I don't have a cell phone either. I'm a Luddite in some ways.

[hobbit709]

18. If it transmits,, it's got to have an antenna

A pice of wire with an alligator clip at each end will fix that-one clip on the antenna, one on ground-no problem.

[-..__...]

21. Consider this...

"Tracking a driver's location at all times is scary enough, but a recent court case reveals that there's even more to worry about. According to California court documents, the FBI recorded the conversations of a suspected Las Vegas mobster for several months in 2001 by surreptitiously turning his car's OnStar-like communications device to "listen" mode. This device, which allows drivers to contact emergency personnel in the case of a crisis, contains a GPS locator system, a microphone and a speaker. Under the authority of the Homeland Security Act, the federal agents ordered the unnamed communications company to turn the device into a bug by remotely switching on the microphone and rerouting the signal to an FBI listening post. This, combined with the system's GPS device, allowed the FBI to hear everything said in the car and track the suspect's movements at all times, all without his knowledge.

California's Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals determined this tactic to be illegal—but not because the judges worried about privacy violations. Instead, they determined that rerouting the signal interfered with the ability to get emergency assistance. Because the distress signal would reach the FBI listening post and not emergency dispatchers, rerouting the signal short-circuited a safety system the drivers counted on.

Yet even this verdict is unlikely to forstall privacy violations using OnStar-like communications devices. The FBI could easily work around this constraint if they haven't done so already by splitting the signal, says Chris Hoofnagle, a lawyer at the Electronic Privacy Information Center. In this manner, FBI investigators could eavesdrop on the conversation and the emergency dispatchers could simultaneously receive a call for help. This type of wiretap, which does not require a court order under the homeland security act, is possible on any vehicle equipped with an OnStar-like device: an estimated three million cars around the country. Without another court case, there's no way to know just how many of these cars the FBI currently tracks".


Full article...
http://www.bu.edu/sjmag/scimag2005/features/blackbox.htm

[Clark2008]

34. I just bought a new car and it doesn't have OnStar

:shrug:

[Freedom_Aflaim]

39. Not really

As far as a monitoring technology, its pretty crude. Just a GPS with a cell modem.

Its not as if some central control has an active online tracking of all onstar vehicles. In order to track it, they must dial you up over cell.

Easy to disable, pull the fuse or unplug the antenna.

[Yollam]

44. I prefer bare-bones cars without electric gizmos that break...

...only to need repair. I'd hate to be in a car sinking in a lake with power windows...

[treestar]

49. IA! My last car had power windows that broke

And it occurred to me that rolling windows up and down is not that hard!

[REP]

54. Most GMs Have Had Black Boxes Since The '80s

I'm pretty sure my '86 6000LE had one; I know my '97 Grand Am did and my '98 Grand Prix does (it also has a limiter).