Are you "On" to OnStar?

[HelioPrime]

OnStar is the system used in GM company cars and SUV's that allows drivers to call for help, unlock doors, locate a stolen car, and soon, prevent that theft.

GM models in 2009 will come equiped with a possible upgrade that allows reported cars to have their OnStar sytems slow the stolen car, and even speak through the radio to warn the theif to stop because police are watching.

OnStar stops crime

So I wondered if people see this system as a good idea or a violation of personal privacy? Under the 2009 upgrade the police have the power to affect your car via remote. Not only that but the system reports your location regularly to GM, as well as giving them the ability to unlock your doors with just a worried phone call to them.

If such a system were required standard on all GM cars and SUV's would anyone not buy GM just over that?

[ruksak]

They can hear what you say without your knowledge. As the FBI has already figured out.



Rick Porrello's - AmericanMafia.com - Steve Miller - Inside Vegas

But, what happens when the "trained, knowledgeable, live Advisors" are agents for federal law enforcement agencies, and you think conversations in your new Cadillac or Hummer are confidential, especially when they involve the bribing of public officials? If you're so inclined, you could inadvertently end up a plea bargaining felon heading for time in a federal penitentiary.

[gallo]

Quote by: HelioPrime Not only that but the system reports your location regularly...

And if you have a cell phone, it reports your location constantly when it is on. Why worry about your car when you have already bought into the system by owning a cell phone?

[ruksak]

Quote by: gallo And if you have a cell phone, it reports your location constantly when it is on. Why worry about your car when you have already bought into the system by owning a cell phone?

Its the fact that they can hear you with Onstar. Or call the cops if your air bag deploys. Which could be a compromising position to say the least.

[triad]

I think this is paranoia kicking in guys - no one is going to listen to your conversations.

Unless you are a member of the mafia or have Bin Laden in your name, they're not going to bother listening to our boring convos.


This reminds me of when people were worried the government tapped their phones because of the warfare act - and it was the soccer moms that thought they were being targeted for suspect terrorist groups.. ??


:rolleyes:

[ruksak]

Quote by: triad I think this is paranoia kicking in guys - no one is going to listen to your conversations. Unless you are a member of the mafia or have Bin Laden in your name, they're not going to bother listening to our boring convos. This reminds me of when people were worried the government tapped their phones because of the warfare act - and it was the soccer moms that thought they were being targeted for suspect terrorist groups.. ?? :rolleyes:

Theres sufficient cause for alarm here. It starts with stopping organized crime and terrorism, and will undoubtedly evolve into minor drug busts and the like.

Example; The police get word of a local man that may be growing pot. "Hey he drives an Escalade". Simple remedy to clear the mystery. Get a warrant and listen to what he talks about.

[triad]

Quote by: ruksak Theres sufficient cause for alarm here. It starts with stopping organized crime and terrorism, and will undoubtedly evolve into minor drug busts and the like. Example; The police get word of a local man that may be growing pot. "Hey he drives an Escalade". Simple remedy to clear the mystery. Get a warrant and listen to what he talks about.

In order to get a warrant they will still need a reason; they can't search your house just because they think you might be growing pot. When their proof is they tapped into your On-Star, you can sue them more than enough to cover your bail.

[ruksak]

Quote by: triad In order to get a warrant they will still need a reason; they can't search your house just because they think you might be growing pot. When their proof is they tapped into your On-Star, you can sue them more than enough to cover your bail.

Probable cause can be twisted, and has been, in many different ways. From showing that you purchased shop lights (cultivation paraphernalia) or even witness statements.

Something as simple as a "tip" can get your property searched.

[Praxius]

Quite honestly, I don't see a point in a cell phone, nor with some stupid nanny program for when you get lost.

Remember the good old days when it was like the wild west and you have to wait until you got to a payphone or a LAN phone to communicate with someone?

Remember not having to worry about asking for directions and just enjoying the ride?

Remember using your brain and remembering not to lock your keys in your car?

People are just so damn dependant of these things now a days, I'm more worried about driving on the roads then ever before. It's not because of worry that someone would be listening to me, or knowing where I am all the time.... I avoid that anyways, so it's not a issue for me.

It's all these idiots who go out and buy systems like this for their big SUV's and their fancy cars.

It wasn't bad enough you got these 5'2 little people sitting in their compensation SUV, talking on their cells phones while they're driving, and following their OnStar or GPS systems on where to go, because they don't know how to read the roads, let alone have the concentration for it.

• Idiots on the cell as they are walking to their SUV in the parking lot...
• Gets to the SUV and realizes they locked their keys in the vehicle due to not paying attention and being on the cell phone.
• They call up OnStar on the cell phone and explain the situation that they wern't paying attention and require their doors to be unlocked.
• Doors are unlocked.
• They get into the SUV and continue to talk on the cell.
• They then program at the same time the GPS system to tell them the shortest route back to home.
• So while they're talking on their cell phone and driving, they also have their GPS talking to them and telling them to turn left and turn right.
• One could imagine the level of actual concentration this driver has at this point in time.
• The GPS wasn't updated to show that there has been construction on a road that the drive is instructed to turn down, and drives the SUV into a 7' deep ditch and smashed the snot out of it.
• Then their friend is screaming on the cell asking what happened and if they're alright.
• Then OnStar comes on and asks if they are alright and if they need their doors unlocked.
• Then OnStar sends the police to arrest your sorry ass because of 1st degree negligent driving.

And don't tell me this situation or something similar doesn't happen, because if you personally have not heard a news report or something to that extent about an accident involving GPS's, Cell phones or OnStar, then you're not watching your news enough.

Speaking of traking people and privacy issues, this is from a recorded court case listed on the Government of Canada's web site:

Commissioner's Findings - PIPEDA Case Summary #351: Use of personal information collected by Global Positioning System considered (November 9, 2006)

The effects of technology on employee privacy were at the centre of a number of complaints before the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada. In her deliberations, the Assistant Privacy Commissioner spelled out the acceptable purposes for the use of Global Positioning Systems (GPS), and cautioned organizations about “function creep” and the negative cumulative effects of various forms of technology on privacy. Several employees of a telecommunications company complained to the Office when they learned that their employer was installing GPS in their work vehicles. They believed that the company was improperly collecting their personal information, namely their daily movements while on the job. The employees contended that their employer had not obtained their consent to the collection of this information, and that the company had failed to identify the reasons for the collection or state why the information was needed, how it would be used, and how long it would be retained. The Assistant Commissioner accepted most of the company’s purposes for collecting and using personal information gathered by GPS and found that implied consent was present for these purposes. Her primary concern rested with using such data in managing employees. The company agreed to develop and communicate a policy on the utilization of such data in this context, and committed to training its managers on the appropriate use of GPS. The Assistant Commissioner was pleased with this outcome and considered the complaints resolved.

So long as you agree to the tracking and all that, you got nothing to complain about.

But for me, I'm more concerned about idiots just not paying attention on the roads with all this useless junk.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: triad In order to get a warrant they will still need a reason; they can't search your house just because they think you might be growing pot. When their proof is they tapped into your On-Star, you can sue them more than enough to cover your bail.

Under the Patriot Act they can get around the need for a warrant.

[ruksak]

Great points all, Praxius. Technology is seriously inhibiting human evolution. Our society wants to pad every corner, alleviate the need for memory and replace natural resistance to viruses with modern medicine.

After a few thousand more years, we won't need legs. Just an advanced and sizabley larger ass to sit on.

[Thanatos]

A cell phone can be turned off and its battery can be removed. Can OnStar be turned off? I've never driven in a vehicle with it. If there is a way to set it to completely off then I'd have no problems with it.

[ruksak]

Quote by: Chancellor Under the Patriot Act they can get around the need for a warrant.

"Warrants? We don't don't need no stinking warrants!!"

[triad]

Quote by: ruksak Probable cause can be twisted, and has been, in many different ways. From showing that you purchased shop lights (cultivation paraphernalia) or even witness statements. Something as simple as a "tip" can get your property searched.

I disagree; one tip can not get your property searched. If you watch a lot of CSI - yeah, one tip can get your house searched. In real life, it is a little bit more difficult than that. It has been realized the violations of privacy that has happened in the past is not acceptable; On-star, GM, and the government will know this issue will rise.

U.S. Cell-Phone Tracking Clipped

"When the government seeks to turn a mobile telephone into a means for contemporaneously tracking the movements of its user, the delicately balanced compromise that Congress has forged between effective law enforcement and individual privacy requires a showing of probable cause,"

Your privacy is a little bit more protected than you people seem to believe. Again - paranoia. On-Star will not be unlike your mobile phone, governments can not use a service you pay for against you without probable reason - as in, it is more likely you are guilty than are not. One tip doesn't give you probable guilt, they will require more than a crimestoppers caller to listen in to your vehicle.

"This is a true victory for privacy in the digital age, where nearly any mobile communications device you use might be converted into a tracking device," Bankston said in a statement. "Judges are starting to realize that when it comes to surveillance issues, the DOJ has been pulling the wool over their eyes for far too long."

GM would have a hard time selling a product that nobody would want in fear of being busted for not paying their parking tickets.:rolleyes:


You are right, investigations have violated privacy very easily before, but now that it is being recognised as a problem by citizens, it won't be so easy anymore.

It is unclear if those orders are limited to tracking fugitives or if they are also being used in ordinary criminal investigations. Both judges concluded that Congress needed clarify the laws regarding cell phone tracking.

If a bill gets passed saying police enforcement can use your On-Star against you at will - say goodbye to On-Star.


You can also turn the locater off in most cell phones, so I imagine you will be able to do so with On-Star as well... maybe?

[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.

[ruksak]

Quote by: Triad I disagree; one tip can not get your property searched

FindLaw: U.S. Constitution: Fourth Amendment: Annotations pg. 2 of 6

Requirements for establishing probable cause through reliance on information received from an informant has divided the Court in several cases. Although involving a warrantless arrest, Draper v. United States 103 may be said to have begun the line of cases. A previously reliable, named informant reported to an officer that the defendant would arrive with narcotics on a particular train, and described the clothes he would be wearing and the bag he would be carrying; the informant, however, gave no basis for his information. FBI agents met the train, observed that the defendant fully answered the description, and arrested him. The Court held that the corroboration of part of the informer's tip established probable cause to support the arrest. A case involving a search warrant, Jones v. United States, 104 apparently utilized a test of considering the affidavit as a whole to see whether the tip plus the corroborating information provided a substantial basis for finding probable cause, but the affidavit also set forth the reliability of the informer and sufficient detail to indicate that the tip was based on the informant's personal observation. Aguilar v. Texas 105 held insufficient an affidavit which merely asserted that the police had ''reliable information from a credible person'' that narcotics were in a certain place, and held that when the affiant relies on an informant's tip he must present two types of evidence to the magistrate. First, the affidavit must indicate the informant's basis of knowledge--the circumstances from which the informant concluded that evidence was present or that crimes had been committed--and, second, the affiant must present information which would permit the magistrate to decide whether or not the informant was trustworthy. Then, in Spinelli v. United States, 106 the Court applied Aguilar in a situation in which the affidavit contained both an informant's tip and police information of a corroborating nature.

State v. Detroy

The Affidavit referred to a tip by way of a telephone call to Wong on or about November 24, 1997, from an anonymous informant

A "tip" only needs corroborating evidence to be suffice for a warrant. What constitutes as "corroborating evidence", is semantical. Often times, the prosecution is able to uphold a tip as sufficient, unless the case is reviewed by the supreme court.

[triad]

Quote by: ruksak FindLaw: U.S. Constitution: Fourth Amendment: Annotations pg. 2 of 6 State v. Detroy A "tip" only needs corroborating evidence to be suffice for a warrant. What constitutes as "corroborating evidence", is semantical. Often times, the prosecution is able to uphold a tip as sufficient, unless the case is reviewed by the supreme court.

Interesting, so police can tap into your On-Star because Joe Smith told them you're bad?

I don't see that flying for too long - you can opt out of it to begin with. Otherwise its a risk you're going to have to take if you can't read a map or are too stupid to take your keys out with you before you lock up.

Your example is from November of 1997, and is one case, I'd hope things have changed regarding that matter in your country sine then.

It is a criminal offense in my country (Canada), for a government agency to trace you through your own serivces without authorization. The only grey area there would be the internet - (Mafiaboy, we all remember him).

You americans are in a democracy, if you're worried your on-star will get you in the slammer, fight for your rights. Or don't buy on-star.

[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.

[triad]

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.

Ah, then I concede the point.

You're all screwed; soon you will not be able do as much as drive your kids to school without being arrested for talking about government conspiracies in your car. The government is going to listen to every single one of you, all day, all night.


Hardly.


It is very rare that what you are talking about will happen to you. If you do not want the terrorists, crack houses, serial killers - what ever else - to be brought down, then ban On-Star from existence.


Or, you can realize that it is a service, meant to help grandma find her way to the nearest Sobey's, or get her keys out of her locked escalade. I think you're blowing this way out of proportion and everyone needs to take a second to think about this - if On-Star saves 500 lives a year by eliminating high-speed chases (via disabling the horsepower with on-star), is your paranoia blinding you from the simplicity behind on-star? The government will always have a way to monitor you, but does the good behind on-star or other technologies like it not balance it out?

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


The funny part is - I would never pay to have it. I know my grandma would love it - and fortunately, she isn't wanted by police.

(that I know of)

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: HelioPrime So I wondered if people see this system as a good idea or a violation of personal privacy? Under the 2009 upgrade the police have the power to affect your car via remote. Not only that but the system reports your location regularly to GM, as well as giving them the ability to unlock your doors with just a worried phone call to them. If such a system were required standard on all GM cars and SUV's would anyone not buy GM just over that?

Why would it be a violation of privacy so long as no one is forced to buy such a car? That's like saying if I open my front door and drag a passing police officer inside he has violated my privacy...:rolleyes:

Quote by: ruksak They can hear what you say without your knowledge. As the FBI has already figured out. Rick Porrello's - AmericanMafia.com - Steve Miller - Inside Vegas

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

Quote by: ruksak Its the fact that they can hear you with Onstar. Or call the cops if your air bag deploys. Which could be a compromising position to say the least.

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

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...