GM putting OnStar in all new vehicles?

wizardPC · 01-25-2005, 10:37 AM

http://news.com.com/Web+surfers+crac...l?tag=nefd.top

Gee, that's just what we need. Every GM vehicle's movements tracked by a global corporation....is it just me or does this sound like a James Bond villian?

mpattonm · 01-25-2005, 10:48 AM

Big bro's watching you.

Peoples · 01-25-2005, 10:51 AM

sounds more to me like a last attempt to not go bankrupt. theyre lossing all of their market to hyundai and kia. and their outdated line of suvs isnt going to be replaced til late 2006 early 2007

wizardPC · 01-25-2005, 11:40 AM

I think I have almost decided to never buy a car newer than about 1988 because of this and other "improvements" made since then.

BadAttitude · 01-25-2005, 11:51 AM

@wizardPC: On most new GM vehicles, you can just pull a fuse to disable the OnStar. That, or disconnect the antenna. That's what the 19 year old crack heads that are stealing all the Escalade trucks are doing. From what I understand, it takes about 30 seconds for them to disable OnStar so they can't be tracked. Great theft deterrent.

Though off-topic a tad, I think it works exactly the opposite if you ask me. Any other high-end auto, a thief should be aware there may be Lo-Jack, etc installed. But most of the people with that have been sold OnStar as a "feature" for theft deterrance now believe that's all they need. So, as a thief, the crack-heads can be pretty comfortable that once they've disabled OnStar (trivial) there's not going to be a Lo-Jack leading the local constabulary to their garage.

Just my nickel's worth.. YMMV.
BadAttitude

VanMan69 · 01-25-2005, 12:20 PM

Quote: Originally Posted by Peoples

sounds more to me like a last attempt to not go bankrupt. theyre lossing all of their market to hyundai and kia. and their outdated line of suvs isnt going to be replaced til late 2006 early 2007

Yeah... they're just plummetting into bankrupcy...

...after all, you can't run a company on billions in government contracts and subsidies alone.

VanMan69 · 01-25-2005, 12:44 PM

Quote: Originally Posted by wizardPC

http://news.com.com/Web+surfers+crac...l?tag=nefd.top

Gee, that's just what we need. Every GM vehicle's movements tracked by a global corporation....is it just me or does this sound like a James Bond villian?

Not just movement... don't forget:

OnStar can be used as a wiretap

The important point in this article, I think:
"The problem (the court had) with the surveillance was not based on privacy grounds at all," Sobel said. "It was more interfering with the contractual relationship between the service provider and the customer, to the point that the service was being interrupted. If the surveillance was done in a way that was seamless and undetectable, the court would have no problem with it."

It's use as wiretap was ruled illegal solely because during the operation of the tap, the OnStar emergency contact system becomes unusable to the vehicle operator (where you push the button and talk to the OnStar center). If they can find a way to tap without disabling the system... it's fine.

Regardless of whether its remote activation is legal or not, I'd rather not have a car with a built-in wiretap (and of course the remote tracking, remote locking, remote ignition disabling, etc.).

VanMan69 · 01-25-2005, 12:49 PM

BTW... driver-identifiable tracking (by GPS or RFID "FasTrak" etc) also has another fun use:

DMV Chief Backs Tax by Mile

VanMan69 · 01-25-2005, 12:57 PM

"This is the last time you will ever have to feel alone on our nation's roadways."

Quote: Originally Posted by mpattonm

Big bro's watching you.

No joke.

BadAttitude · 01-25-2005, 12:59 PM

It's not paranoia if they're really out to get you.

~ BadAttitude

wizardPC · 01-25-2005, 02:03 PM

Quote: Originally Posted by VanMan69

BTW... driver-identifiable tracking (by GPS or RFID "FasTrak" etc) also has another fun use:

DMV Chief Backs Tax by Mile

I think you just found reason #8764

Quattro · 01-25-2005, 02:13 PM

The reasons keep piling up.

Chairboy · 01-25-2005, 02:17 PM

I bought a Suburban w/ OnStar for my wife. Now I know that when she's driving with our two kids, if they go off a road or get in a wreck, ambulances and help will be called immediately, even if she's unconscious. That's worth it to me.

BTW, removing the antenna isn't enough to 'snip' an Onstar equipped car. Unless they're out in the wilderness, they can still get a signal. Also, I don't think Onstar has a discrete fuse on our car. It's not indestructible, but it's better then nothing.

Finally, the police already have their own GPS trackers they can attach to any car. It'd be sorta unrealistic for them to hope that the criminals would stay with GM cars, they'd stick with their own stuff so they don't have to mess around with a bunch of systems.

kozmo · 01-25-2005, 02:20 PM

You should all write a conspiracy theory newsletter you crack me up...if it was up to me I would have it on every car I drive if I get in a wreck I don't wanna have to figure out where I am I want someone else to take care of that.

VanMan69 · 01-25-2005, 02:31 PM

Quote: Originally Posted by Chairboy

Finally, the police already have their own GPS trackers they can attach to any car. It'd be sorta unrealistic for them to hope that the criminals would stay with GM cars, they'd stick with their own stuff so they don't have to mess around with a bunch of systems.

Perhaps, but their little GPS tags don't wiretap, control your doors and ignition, or allow tracking for tax purposes. And they've actually got to put a bit of effort into it, not just dial you up. Continuous tracking records can also be used for other things besides basic law enforcement (which, after all, is always 100% completely justified and without malice, right?).

Remember, someone had to be the first to install airbags in a car. Now they've all got it. Not to mention the fact that GM covers a lot of vehicles. And everyone's working on their own gimmick. Toyota is developing systems that read driver stress levels by analyzing voice patterns and makes environmental adjustments accordingly. And someone else is developing a system that monitors driver attentiveness through camera analysis of eye movements. It would not be difficult to integrate all of these systems into one at some point.

As far as "messing with other systems", which is easier, sending a cop to put a bug on a car, then having to monitor that bug, or calling up GM and saying "Yo, can I get the records for driver X for the last month?".

Don't mind me, though.