Are you "On" to OnStar?

[ruksak]

Quote by: Tivodan Do you even read your own posted links? The 9th Circuit disallowed the use of OnStar for spying in this case.

Wrong. They overturned the decision to grant the warrant. My only point of posting that was to show how it is being used by law enforcement.

In a 2-1 decision, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the decision of U.S. District Judge Lloyd George of Las Vegas, who allowed the FBI to use the roving "bugging devices" in vehicles to gain information about criminal activity.

Try harder to comprehend, and less to be a smartass.

Quote by: Tivodan Calling the police because your airbag deploys puts you in a compromising position? What is compromising about being involved in a life-threatening accident?

Say you're drunk and you're moving your car into the garage and you ram it into the back of your garage. Not hardly a life threatening or even remotely serious accident. By no choice of your own, the police are on their way. There are X number of variable scenarios one could concoct to show why this would be a compromising position.


Again, you miss your mark.

Quote by: Tivodan Why would it be a violation of privacy so long as no one is forced to buy such a car?

Because when people buy a product like this, they do not do so wishing to be listened in on by the government. Are you thinking when you post here, or are you just trying, with little effort, to argue?

Quote by: tivodan Umm, why? Also, have fun driving only cars made before 1982...

Its one car company, and the OnStar isn't even standard here in 2007. So explain why your above post makes any sense?

[Praxius]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready The U.S. is not, and never was a "democracy". We were a Constitutionally Limited, Democratic Representative Republic. We are now a corporatist, mercantilist highbred playing a balance between fascist and communist traits of government.

Well if that's the case, come to Canada:

Canada is a constitutional monarchy with Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada, as head of state;[19][20] the monarch of Canada also serves as head of state of fifteen other Commonwealth countries, putting Canada in a personal union relationship with those other states. The country is a parliamentary democracy with a federal system of parliamentary government and strong democratic traditions. Canada's constitution consists of written text and unwritten traditions and conventions.[21] The Constitution Act, 1867 (formerly the British North America Act) established governance based on Parliamentary precedent "similar in principle to that of the United Kingdom" and divided powers between the federal and provincial governments. The Constitution Act, 1982 added a Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees basic rights and freedoms for Canadians that generally cannot be overridden by legislation of any level of government in Canada. However, a "notwithstanding clause", allows the federal parliament and the provincial legislatures to override certain sections of the Charter temporarily, for a period of five years.

Canada - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So when people keep telling you that both Canada and the US are very similar, now you know.

The neat thing in how our country is made up, heading to other crown countries like the UK and Australia is much easier then trying to get into the US.

Come to the Land of the Free! We got plenty of space and with more of a population, esspecially people who want freedom in the US, we could be the new world power, as they say..... be afraid, be very afraid.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: ruksak Wrong. They overturned the decision to grant the warrant. My only point of posting that was to show how it is being used by law enforcement.

Yes, and by overturning the decision to grant the warrant, they disallowed the use of OnStar in this manner - are you really going to play semantics?

Say you're drunk and you're moving your car into the garage and you ram it into the back of your garage. Not hardly a life threatening or even remotely serious accident. By no choice of your own, the police are on their way. There are X number of variable scenarios one could concoct to show why this would be a compromising position.

Haven't you watched the commercials? All the person would need to do is wait for OnStar to beep in and say "Are you alright? Your airbag deployed" and then say "yeah, I just bumped the garage with my car, no problem"... No police call. They don't come automatically unless there is no response.

Because when people buy a product like this, they do not do so wishing to be listened in on by the government. Are you thinking when you post here, or are you just trying, with little effort, to argue?

And according to the 9th Circuit, they won't be.

But the bigger issue is a "violation" of privacy. Perhaps I was overestimating Americans when I assumed that anyone with the intelligence to buy such a device has at least a rudimentary understanding of the fact that they are buying a wireless communications device and wireless communications can be intercepted. Certainly anyone paranoid enough to worry about such things (ala Osborn) would know this. Anyone voluntarily purchasing OnStar is not, therefore, being "violated".

And speaking of Os,

Its one car company, and the OnStar isn't even standard here in 2007. So explain why your above post makes any sense?

Because I wasn't saying that about OnStar. Let me repost the entire nested quote so that you can read it again (for the first time).

Quote by: tivodan1116 Quote by: Osborn F. Enready I won't own a vehicle with OnStar, nor would I own another computer controlled vehicle, unless it was hand-built by me. Umm, why? Also, have fun driving only cars made before 1982...

I added some emphasis for you.:rolleyes:

[HelioPrime]

Quote by: triad Or what is your end opinion? Should we just say no to on-star?

I think the feeling on this is we live in a society where privacy is protected by a document that the government violates due to paranoia and fear.

Depends on how important you place privacy and the protection of that document. Some would die before seeing privacy thrown out the window in favor of universal protection.

Example: the violation of privacy to protect people from terrorism:
"Many think it not only inevitable but entirely proper that liberty give way to security in times of national crisis--that, at the extremes of military exigency, inter arma silent leges. Whatever the general merits of the view that war silences law or modulates its voice, that view has no place in the interpretation and application of a Constitution designed precisely to confront war and, in a manner that accords with democratic principles, to accommodate it." - Antonin Scalia

Boils down to if you support the ideals the nation was founded on or not.

[xyzer]

I have On Star in my current GM auto, and think its worth it. I purchased telephone minutes and can make calls through the OnStar operator. I'm confident whoever is driving the vehicle can easily obtain assistance on the road if needed! And, as has been mentioned, I think it deters car thieves from stealing the vehicle to know that it can be located by GPS and more easily recovered..It costs a few bucks but is worth it to me.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: xyzer I have On Star in my current GM auto, and think its worth it. I purchased telephone minutes and can make calls through the OnStar operator. I'm confident whoever is driving the vehicle can easily obtain assistance on the road if needed! And, as has been mentioned, I think it deters car thieves from stealing the vehicle to know that it can be located by GPS and more easily recovered..It costs a few bucks but is worth it to me.

And having such conveniences is worth having something the government can use against you?

[triad]

Quote by: Chancellor And having such conveniences is worth having something the government can use against you?

This is where I get lost here.


What is it I am doing that the government can use on-star against me?

They can go ahead and listen to me in my vehicle, either they're going to hear some awful singing (more like yelling) or they're going to hear me talking about whether or not I'm going to leave my sweater in the truck or bring it in the bar with me.


If you're a terrorist - don't buy on-star.

[ruksak]

Quote by: triad This is where I get lost here. What is it I am doing that the government can use on-star against me? They can go ahead and listen to me in my vehicle, either they're going to hear some awful singing (more like yelling) or they're going to hear me talking about whether or not I'm going to leave my sweater in the truck or bring it in the bar with me. If you're a terrorist - don't buy on-star.

They want your lucky charms........

[triad]

Quote by: ruksak They want your lucky charms........

Do I have to say it? Damn. Alright..


They yar all ways aftar me lucky charms.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: triad This is where I get lost here. What is it I am doing that the government can use on-star against me? They can go ahead and listen to me in my vehicle, either they're going to hear some awful singing (more like yelling) or they're going to hear me talking about whether or not I'm going to leave my sweater in the truck or bring it in the bar with me. If you're a terrorist - don't buy on-star.

What are you doing that the government can use On-Star against you? You're living in the United States of American after the passage of The Patriot Act.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: Chancellor And having such conveniences is worth having something the government can use against you?

How does OnStar give the government something they can use against you?

[triad]

Quote by: Chancellor What are you doing that the government can use On-Star against you? You're living in the United States of American after the passage of The Patriot Act.

Luckily, I live in Canada. Here our leaders aren't the reincarnation of Hitler and don't plan to use a feature in my veichle to send me off to guantanamo bay for saying I think 9/11 was an inside job to someone in the passenger seat.

What are you worried about? If they listen to you what are they going to hear?

I am saying the government can go ahead and listen all they want - but I know they are not going to because there is no point. I'm not a freakin' terrorist and I don't have anything to hide - if they can somehow use on-star to catch bad guys then I say DO IT.

On-Star won't have mics that can turn on when you are not aware of it, you'll know when someone is listening.

[Praxius]

I gotta disagree with that... unless you sign a contract where you allow them to do this, I'd oppose this idea.

But then again.... couldn't you just tape up or wrap up something around the microphone in the car so they couldn't hear you unless you want to talk to them?

Then all they would hear is bass and muffle, making it a waste of time for them to listen to you.

Oh wait.... then they could shut your car down and say that your onStar is damaged, please wait for a repair service provider to arrive to your location to repair the microphone. :rolleyes:

I'll just "choose" to not buy a car with such tech, since I don't need it to begin with. I never needed it before, I don't need it now.

[triad]

Quote by: Praxius I gotta disagree with that... unless you sign a contract where you allow them to do this, I'd oppose this idea. But then again.... couldn't you just tape up or wrap up something around the microphone in the car so they couldn't hear you unless you want to talk to them? Then all they would hear is bass and muffle.

Thats all a government can hear it's citizens say anyways.

That is what I am saying. I don't think anyone on this forum has something so siginificant to hide that On-Star will be what gets them caught. Regardless, if there is a serial killer on this forum, he can opt out of On-Star.

This is unusual people are genuinely worried that the government is going to somehow use On-Star "against them".

Scenario:

You're drunk - and just happen to be driving (which I dont endorse and it is a bad idea), but lets just say - hypothetically you're driving drunk.

You get lost, so you use your "On-Star", and the clerk notices you're slurring. She will not report you due to policies On-Star has with it's customers, I guarantee it.

However, if you're a mobster, don't do this:

LP: FBI [REMOTELY] taps cell phone [& GM Onstar] MIC as eavesdropping tool

Surreptitious activation of built-in microphones by the FBI has been done before. A 2003 lawsuit revealed that the FBI was able to surreptitiously turn on the built-in microphones in automotive systems like General Motors' OnStar to snoop on passengers' conversations. When FBI agents remotely activated the system and were listening in, passengers in the vehicle could not tell that their conversations were being monitored.

Like I said, I don't give a shit if the FBI is listening to me - THEY AINT' GOT SHIT ON ME, AIGHT - SO BACK THE *(@#* UP MOFO'N PO-PO.

[HelioPrime]

Quote by: tivodan1116 How does OnStar give the government something they can use against you?

Onstar allows communication with third party agents.

Say your a drug dealer and you make a call about locking yourself out of the car. The onstar agent overhears talking and calls the police.

They come and want to search your car, you deny them. So they go to a judge with the recorded conversation and get a warrent and return to your address and find drugs in the car.

Is this a breach of your privacy? This situation is just an example but what if onstar like systems were required on all cars?

[tivodan1116]

But the courts have ruled that OnStar isn't allowed to be used that way.

That's what I'm asking.

[Praxius]

Quote by: HelioPrime Onstar allows communication with third party agents. Say your a drug dealer and you make a call about locking yourself out of the car. The onstar agent overhears talking and calls the police. They come and want to search your car, you deny them. So they go to a judge with the recorded conversation and get a warrent and return to your address and find drugs in the car. Is this a breach of your privacy? This situation is just an example but what if onstar like systems were required on all cars?

It would be a breach of security...... isn't there a law where they can not use voice recordings of you without your permission in court as evidence?

At least I thought there was once apon a time.

But regardless, allowing them to do this in your cars for police purposes, is actually far worse then the UK's Big Brother system of security cameras in public.... this is security recordings where ever you go on the planet with your car.

Next it'll be your cell being able to be activated while you're not on it.

People complain about Canada being some kind of Nanny State..... what do you call this when your FBI can and very well might be listening to you anytime anywhere while you're in your vehicle. There's examples above already proving this to have been done, and without the customer's permission.

OnStar seems like one more corporate merc company for the government, who can gather intelligence and at the same time appear that they are there to help.

Starting to sound like 1984 now that I think about it further. Soon you won't have any freedom of speech, because you'll be paranoid on who's listening and what they will interperate from what you say.

[HelioPrime]

Quote by: Praxius Next it'll be your cell being able to be activated while you're not on it.

I could be mistaken but that already happens doesn't it?

And even if the courts have declared Onstar can't be used whats stopping the government for using it as part of fighting terrorism.

You could argue that law enforcement use it as well. Ever seen those crimminals located after they've fled. The police could use onstar to locate a car, as long as they don't use any recordings as evidence.

I have a friend who was a local campus fire responder, and had some lights as part of his job. He used to have fun illegally using them on the highway to pull people over then rush off leaving them in confusion.

Once while with him in the car he tried the pull over ploy only to have the other car just speed off faster. He followed and called the police on his cell to warn of a reckless driver. I guess the other driver wasn't dumb and called as well reporting a imitation cop. The officer on the phone suddenly asked if my friend was an officer, questions about a light and what he was doing. He hung up. They called back and he didn't answer.

Not panicing, we pulled off the highway and decided to just chill out behind a fast food place and wait out any patrols. Under 5 minutes later a cop comes in, and pulls alongside. He was caught by tracking his cell GPS location. Even without picking up the phone was activated to respond with its location.

Is that legal? He only got off easy with suspension of his job, and a heafty ticket. He tried to fight the ticket but they didn't care about the legality of cell phone tracing. Could he have taken it further? Perhaps, I'm not sure but he dropped it there.

Yah..long story...but Onstar is like a cell phone, whats stopping them from recording, listening, and tracking you, or even using it to disable a car. As long as it doesn't make a report how would you know?

[Chancellor]

Quote by: tivodan1116 How does OnStar give the government something they can use against you?

It gives access.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: triad Luckily, I live in Canada. Here our leaders aren't the reincarnation of Hitler and don't plan to use a feature in my veichle to send me off to guantanamo bay for saying I think 9/11 was an inside job to someone in the passenger seat. What are you worried about? If they listen to you what are they going to hear? I am saying the government can go ahead and listen all they want - but I know they are not going to because there is no point. I'm not a freakin' terrorist and I don't have anything to hide - if they can somehow use on-star to catch bad guys then I say DO IT. On-Star won't have mics that can turn on when you are not aware of it, you'll know when someone is listening.

Our federal government already has way too much power - far more than the founding fathers intended when they put forth the Constitution.

Let's say some rabid leftist gets into the White House and convinces Congress that Christians are a threat to national security (after all, the Christian Bible does suggest that Christians are not really citizens of any earthly nation, that this world is not their home, and that their allegiance is to God alone). Congress authorizes use of the Patriot Act against Christians. Christians who have OnStar in their cars can be heard doing things like talking to their passengers about Christ or, gasp, singing hymns.

Let's say some rabid right winger gets into the White House and convinces Congress that socialists are a threat to national security. Carry the scenario on the way I did above with the rabid leftist (keeping in mind that American history reveals there was a rabid right wing Senator that did something similar).

These are extreme examples but it all comes down to this: the government cannot be trusted. Depending on the perceived enemy of the day, the Patriot Act gave it the power to come after any such enemies without having to go through the constitutional gates (such gates as having probable cause and needing a warrant).