More Big Brother fun. GM's new Onstar could shut your car's engine off remotely.

[shance]

GM Logo Big Brother may be about to get just a bit bigger.

General Motors just announced a new and improved version of its OnStar telematics system that could be used to shut your car’s engine off (or at least, cut back the power) remotely.

Touted as a "safety" feature (of course), the upgraded version of OnStar would give external authorities (law enforcement - and, of course, GM) the ability to send out a signal keyed to the car’s on board computer, which in turn would ease off the gas - no matter how hard you’re putting foot down. GPS-equipped cars already can be located in real time at any time, whether moving or stationary.

The "enhanced" version of OnStar would, however, be the first use of satellite technology to physically control the vehicle/supersede the driver.

The system goes live in 2009, when GM will begin offering it on more than 1.7 million new cars and trucks. Chevrolet will lead the way - with up to 60 percent of ‘09 models fitted with "enhanced" OnStar.

So what’s wrong with the idea? Is it cabin-in-the-woods paranoia to be concerned about what, after all, could be a valuable tool for law enforcement?

The answer depends to a great extent on how much you trust the government.

(snip)

Come 2009, it will be technically feasible to make speeding impossible. A modern car is controlled by computers; the computers are now tied into GPS systems such as OnStar - which have the ability to send and receive electronic transmissions, including instructions that tell the computer how to run the car. "Smart" speed limit signs can now be fitted with transmitters; when a car with "enhanced" OnStar comes into range, the transmitter tells the car’s computer what the maximum allowable speed shall be - and ye shall drive no faster.

Welcome to the future.

"Technology should not just entertain us or make us more comfortable," croons NHTSA Administrator Nicole R. Nason. "It should make us safer." Of course. And what could be safer than making speeding an impossibility? If you haven’t heard this argument voiced openly, just wait. It’s coming as sure as Lindsay Lohan’s next DWI. The safety nags have been patiently waiting for years for technology to catch up to their agenda.

Courtesy of GM, that day has arrived.

Our friends in the insurance and safety lobbies will soon be urging that this "optional" technology become a mandatory feature on every new car. Speeding is illegal - right? Who is going to argue in favor of allowing the automakers to continue building and selling cars capable of being driven 30, 40, 50 mph faster than the highest lawfully allowable maximum?

What about the children, after all?

And if that’s not alarming enough, consider the likely follow-up. Once all new cars are fitted with in-car speed nannies, the glassy eye of government will very likely turn its gaze upon older cars - especially older pre-computer cars, which can’t be electronically controlled because there is no on-board electronic controller. The old car hobby is already (justly) alarmed by recent changes in antique/classic car licensing and registration laws - which are making it harder and more expensive to keep an older car on the road.

In Virginia, for example, changes to the laws governing antique vehicle registration now empower police to conduct what amount to "road-side safety checks." If the cop decides your antique vehicle doesn’t meet this or that jot or tittle of the law, he can seize your plates on the spot and have your antique vehicle towed to the impound lot - notwithstanding that most cops don’t have any specific knowledge of what is/isn’t "right" about decades-old vehicles.

Now the authorities have a new tool in their kit. A cudgel by which they cannot only beat speeders into submission - but which could very well be used to take older cars off the road forever. Consider yourself warned.

And remember to say "thanks, GM."

who needs such unecessary power to see others as citizen guinea pigs to be played with anyway?

http://www.motorists.org/blog/speed-limits/will-gm-be-driving-your-next-new-car/

[robinlynne]

1. Then why the hell cacn't we have plug-in electric. They obviously have the time to

play around with new features...

[MNDemNY]

3. How does that promote the sale of oil???????

[MiniMe]

4. Because electric doesn't involve spying on you

I'm sure this is a "National Security Issue" and that it is classified as "State Secrets"

In other words, I could tell you, but then I would have to kill you. :hi:

[robinlynne]

20. made me laugh. (quite a difficult task today.)

[MNDemNY]

2. I could see lots of "stalled" cars on their way to the polls.

[shance]

9. Great points. Even though they've rigged our elections with technology as well.

Need to have citizen counted paper ballot elections.

Technology needs to be erased from the equation because it allows corrupt tabulations.

[angstlessk]

5. Late on your car payments are ya? no driving for you dude till you bring

your account up to date??

[shance]

6. You know thats part of this deal. All about C.O.N.T.R.O.L.

over everyone and every aspect of their lives.

[FiveGoodMen]

11. And why isn't EVERYONE screaming about this in the Land of the Free?

I can't believe how fucking comatose this nation's citizens are!

[MNDemNY]

7. Actually many auto lenders already use such a devise!

[shance]

10. Do they really?

n/t

[MNDemNY]

13. Yes, some "east credit" places use a devise that

you must enter a code to start the car. the code changes each month, no payment, no code.

[angstlessk]

17. damn never heard tell of that...smart dealers dumb purchasers, but I guess if you gotta

sorta like rent to own, if you miss one payment they are at your doorstep to take back the merchandise or collect a payment.

[MNDemNY]

19. Excactly! they pay 3000 for a car worth 1000 at 30%. Great deal.

[MercutioATC]

25. Yes, it's called LoJack....been around for a long time.

www.lojack.com

[DeSwiss]

43. Check out:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4188/is_20060613/ai_n16478542">No pay? New car won't go

[mondo joe]

50. If you're not making payments, it's not your car.

Ever hear of Repo?

[Kingshakabobo]

78. It will be interesting to see how this plays out in the eventual court cases.

I used to work in auto finance. There are some very specific consumer protection laws that prevent dealers/finance companies from interfering with your ownership rights UNTIL the vehicle is actually repossessed. Keep in mind, the banks don't have any ownership in your vehicle just because they loaned you money to purchase it - they have a "security interest" that has to be exercised using certain specific legal procedures. I will say that the article linked above references leased vehicles - that's a whole other ball of wax.

We used to keep a set of keys or key codes to the vehicles, for repossession purposes, until someone sued somebody over that procedure. Heck, I knew of a finance company that would "pre-repossess" the car before the first payment just as a warning. Times change.

All it will take is some poor mother trying to get her asthmatic kid to the doctor's office, while her car is disabled, to file a complaint and lawsuit. Consumers do have, or used to have, the benefit of the doubt when it came to dealers and car finance companies - sometimes the legislation passed makes absolutely no common sense but it's there to protect people from the big bad dealers and finance companies. It wouldn't take much of an imagination to visualize the argument a consumer's lawyer could make about installing a device that has the sole purpose of interfering with the consumer's ownership/property rights prior to legal/formal repossession. And, no, signing off on or agreeing to certain things at closing doesn't always make them legal.


Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying this will DEFIANTLY be outlawed or restrained in all or any states but it's a possibility. With the pro business gang that have been packing the courts who knows how far the pendulum will swing back toward the finance companies.


I'm currently watching Barney Frank, who I happen to admire greatly, and some of the absurd ideas he has regarding compensation to mortgage brokers. Some of the ideas he's putting up will, in the end, hurt ALL consumers of mortgage products. It doesn't make sense and it's not well thought out, but there it is.

[tanyev]

8. If it works as well as any of the GM cars I ever owned, I'm not too worried.

[shance]

12. Oh then no worries Tanya. As long as you play by their rules and kiss their ass your fine.

n/t

[tanyev]

14. I'm saying that every GM car I ever owned was a piece of crap.

And my name is not Tanya.

[sharp_stick]

35. LOL

I had to read your post a couple of times, thanks for the laugh.

[kineneb]

45. FORD=Found On Road Dead, GM=?

General Mismanagement?
Generic Misery?

(I got it.)

[Clark2008]

63. First on Race Day

Never had a day's worth of trouble from my Ford's.

Can't say the same for Hubby's Beemer, however.

So there.

[Clark2008]

15. Isn't this like satellite radio? The car may come equipped with

it, but you have to pay for the service?

Just don't pay for the damn service. Pretty simple.

[SammyWinstonJack]

34. Party pooper!

:evilgrin:

[CT_Progressive]

16. Only one Flaw: You have to Buy a GM.

Oops.

Anyway, there will be a hack to this system .000000000000000001 seconds after its released.
Hackers love to crack authoritarian shit.

[theboss]

62. How is authoritarian if you pay for it?

I don't have onstar because I have a cell phone and Triple A and it just seems excessive. But, I fail to see why I would hack something I am paying for.

I mean, I wouldn't hack my satellite radio.

[supernova]

18. So, they're gonna give up passing out speeding tickets?

Because since they can control your car, they can slow you down if you're speeding. Result: no need for speeding tickets.

[MindPilot]

22. Yep and there is not a municipality in the country

that will give up that revenue stream.

I can see the police chief of Dummwalla, Anystate suing GM for messing up their speed trap.

[Dont_Bogart_the_Pretzel]

77. If they can slow your car down, then

can't they just make you go faster.. "but officer, I swear I wasn't speeding!"

[Sequoia]

21. You'll have to pry my old car from my stiff frozen hands.

Or whatever it was that Charles Heston said about his gun to Michale Mooore.

[rox63]

23. When I bought my last car, they tried to sell me OnStar

But I wanted no part of it. If I need help while I'm traveling, that's what the cell phone is for. I don't want anyone tracking where I'm driving.

[shance]

26. Well, unfortunately they can track you on your cell phone as well.

Its probably time for every American to have a "come to Jesus" about all this technology and how it is actually creating more of a prison in ways than freedom.

The rich seem to love we are all teched up.

I'm not so sure its so terrific .

Don't get me wrong, it certainly has its advantages.

But is it worth all the other drawbacks?

[flashl]

39. There was a case recently where ...

a car crash black box's records was used to prosecute the owner of the car.

[MindPilot]

40. Got a link to that article?

Most people are not even aware their car may have a black box, let alone that the data contained therein may be used as evidence against them.

[flashl]

52. Car Black Box

This is an older story:

Car's Black Box Evidence Ruled Admissible

[MindPilot]

55. Thanks!! n/t

[Kingshakabobo]

82. We have a friend that was killed in a car crash. Last i heard, the police were...

.....checking black boxes as part of the investigation. Also, they are checking cell records to see who, if anybody, was on the phone. Not saying it's a bad thing in this instance - just interesting.

[TreasonousBastard]

24. More paranoia-- you can turn OnStar off, and...

if someone steals my car, slowing it down remotely could come in handy.

It's an option, ferchrissakes, not something they're forcing on us.

[shance]

28. hahahahaha..........that's funny TB.

Sure you can.

I guess you haven't read about the cell phones still being tracked after its turned off. Even can be tagged some say without even having the battery in it.

Wouldn't be so trusting in big brother technology I don't think.

[shance]

29. Great opportunity to bring back bicycles and horse drawn carriages.

That's my thought.

;)

[ChazII]

74. With our luck

the horses would be implanted with a chip similar to the ones family pets now have. :D

[Pawel K]

30. Do you have anything to back this up?

Tracking someone through a cell phone is extremely difficult. Tracking someone with a cellphone which is off is impossible. Some people are here watch way too many movies.

[xynthee]

36. CNet article: FBI taps cell phone mic as eavesdropping tool

My husband implied I was crazy when I told him about this.

CNET News.com http://www.news.com/
FBI taps cell phone mic as eavesdropping tool

By Declan McCullagh
http://www.news.com/FBI-taps-cell-phone-mic-as-eavesdropping-tool/2100-1029_3-6140191.html

Story last modified Mon Dec 04 06:56:51 PST 2006

some snips:

The FBI appears to have begun using a novel form of electronic surveillance in criminal investigations: remotely activating a mobile phone's microphone and using it to eavesdrop on nearby conversations.

The technique is called a "roving bug," and was approved by top U.S. Department of Justice officials for use against members of a New York organized crime family who were wary of conventional surveillance techniques such as tailing a suspect or wiretapping him.

----

The surveillance technique came to light in an opinion published this week by U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan. He ruled that the "roving bug" was legal because federal wiretapping law is broad enough to permit eavesdropping even of conversations that take place near a suspect's cell phone.

Kaplan's opinion said that the eavesdropping technique "functioned whether the phone was powered on or off." Some handsets can't be fully powered down without removing the battery; for instance, some Nokia models will wake up when turned off if an alarm is set.

----

[Pawel K]

41. That article clearly states this had to be implanted on the phone first

you can not do this with any old phone off the shelf. If you did people would be able to detect such a thing.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

83. Actually the article says, "mobile providers can "remotely install a piece of software"...

The U.S. Commerce Department's security office warns that "a cellular telephone can be turned into a microphone and transmitter for the purpose of listening to conversations in the vicinity of the phone." An article in the Financial Times last year said mobile providers can "remotely install a piece of software on to any handset, without the owner's knowledge, which will activate the microphone even when its owner is not making a call."

Nextel and Samsung handsets and the Motorola Razr are especially vulnerable to software downloads that activate their microphones, said James Atkinson, a counter-surveillance consultant who has worked closely with government agencies. "They can be remotely accessed and made to transmit room audio all the time," he said. "You can do that without having physical access to the phone."

[OnyxCollie]

84. Isn't that how Bobby Cutts, Jr. was caught?

He was the policeman from Canton, OH who killed his pregnant wife, wrapped her in a rug, and buried her in the woods.

[Pawel K]

27. You think this has to do with a police state? Come on now.

If you are so worried about it don't subscribe to onStar, whats the problem? I don't understand why so many of you waste so much time on this pointless crap when there are so many other important issues out there right now that need to be addressed.

[shance]

31. Oh not at all Pawel. I trust the Bush Administration and GM implicitly.

They would never to anything to illegally grab more control and power over the citizens.

Never, ever.

[Pawel K]

42. Yes. Bush, GM, and everyone else is out to get you

please tell me you don't own any guns, people like you scare me. A guy that was paranoid here in Albuquerque ended up killing 2 cops and 3 other innocent people because he thought people were out to get him.

[shance]

47. ROFL!! You're the scary one Pawel.

Keep drinking the koolaid - its all going to be just fine.

You are the type who falsely accuse, slander, frighten and insult anyone who dares to criticize this Administration or perhaps what is making you money?

Its individuals like you Pawel who harass, intimidate demean and criticize anyone who dares to ask questions or even more offensive to you, question YOU.

How dare you try to insinuate my questions and these facts are somehow paranoia.

That's the oldest trick in the book.

You are quite transparent with both your hostility and your agenda.

[Pawel K]

59. My agenda?

Please, do enlighten me as to what my agenda is.

And while you are at it explain to me how what OnStar is doing has anything to do with Bush? Is Bush making you go out and buy a GM and then subscribe to the OnStar service?

[barbtries]

32. if they can do all this

they can outfit cars to stop running into each other.

[Bluerthanblue]

33. this is out there already- there was a police incident recently

where the police shut down the engine on a car attempting to flee after being stopped and the driver shot by officers.

I know this happened because the person who saw the incident report on TV with me said "why didn't the cops just shut the car down in the FIRST place, rather than chasing him down, waiting for him to get out of the car and supposedly brandish a weapon, get shot, then get back in the car, only to find it had been disabled by the onstar system???"

I'll try and find a link to the story-

[shance]

46. Thank you for the information. I've wondered about this with the new Prius.

and its key system. I have wondered with its "key less" system if someone could stop the car with some type of remote access.

You know by the time it is being written about, its already been in use for a few years.

Look at weather modification. Its been used for decades back into the fifties, its been on the law books (because it is essentially supposed to be illegal and yet its being used substantially with our tax dollars via HAARP and other government initiatives) and the government has made it so taboo hardly anyone actually knows it exists and/or few understand what is being done with it.

[Bluerthanblue]

51. I can't find any link to

the news report we saw, but I'll ask my friend tonite, and see if he remembers more- like what state it happened in or what station aired it-

peace~

[gateley]

54. OT - I was just thinking about HAARP the other day and wondering, if they've

become so adept at controlling the weather, they couldn't generate rain to help the areas affected by drought and drench the CA fires.

Any thoughts?

[Neshanic]

37. Wait till Vista can be installed on your car. Hillarity ensues.

[supernova]

38. *SHUDDER*

:scared:

[kineneb]

48. aaaahhhh! run away!

"The box said Windows 98SE or better, so I loaded Linux."

[Blue_In_AK]

44. Onstar has always creeped me out

I'm glad we don't have it.

[mondo joe]

49. And the optional nature of OnStar makes no difference?

?

[krispos42]

60. I doubt it

The OnStar box in your GM vehicle is still turned on and can sent/receive information. I believe the emergency features still work, even without a subscription. If the airbags deploy, the car still screams for help to the call center.

I'm not positive about that, but I'm pretty sure.

[baldguy]

53. People will readily sell their soul over to corporations for a little convenience

Then turn around fight tooth & nail against the slightest requirement of responsibility on their part by the govt.

[bighart]

56. OMG some of you are just

plain old fashioned conspiracy nuts. Some of you calling right-wingers cool aid drinkers is like the pot calling the kettle black. Listen up: NOT EVERYTHING IS AN ATTEMPT TO CONTROL YOU OR YOUR LIFE/LIFESTYLE.

Driving the speed limit would reduce fuel consumption in the US drastically, there by limiting green house gas emissions and slowing global warming. It would also reduce the severity of accidents and injuries sustained because of them. As for a plug and go electric car, they are working on them but the truth is there is not enough interest in the American market for a car that would have to be plugged in daily to make it a very worthwhile research project.

In reality this is really not much more than an evolution of the On Star and Lo Jack technology, and if someone doesn't want it on their car, they don't have to buy GM.

Automotive technology is evolving quickly and many of the new features are beneficial. If you were driving in a mountainous area and went over the side becoming injured to the point you were unable to move or knocked out, wouldn't it be nice to know that the crash sensors in your car could notify someone of your location and dispatch rescue aid to you?

All this talk of they want to limit me in this way or that way is nothing more than an over-inflated ego.

Ok FLAME AWAY.

[CRF450]

61. Yeah, if I decide to buy me a Corvette and I cant get a little rush of speed

Then whats the fuckin point in getting a new sports car?? Little by little, our freedom is being raped from those of us who like to have fun.

[bighart]

64. if you want the Corvette then this may be part of the deal.

If you don't like the deal don't buy the car, you are FREE to choose.

[CRF450]

67. It was just a little bit of sarcasm, in the performance car world of modifications...

All that crap can taken out pretty easy. I'm sure the new Camaro will come with it too as the older f-bodies (My 01 Trans Am) didn't have OnStar them at all.

[Trillo]

75. I don't have a problem with enforcing the speed limits,

though I think they should be faster on some rural freeways.

However, if someone else is going to have control over the driver, ostensibly to keep them from speeding, I'd like to also see it insured that cars can reach the speed limit on freeways during what is now known as gridlock. It only seems fair.

A number of years ago Audi had a problem with their engine control system, and the vehicle would "surge". I believe I remember garages getting damaged among other issues. It took a number of years and lawsuits for that technical problem to get fixed.

I wonder what it would be like to be the first one to experience an accident caused by the out-of-the-car driver? Likely, responsibility would not be voluntarily assumed. What if someone was killed? It seems there would be a strong tendency to blame the in-the-car drivers, until the problem became so big that it could no longer be covered up.

[Mad_Dem_X]

57. I will never get a car with Onstar

Too fuckin' scary.

[shance]

65. The question is, how will you know? Onstar could simply be marketed as another program

And if you say you don't want it, how will you still know its not there?

How big are these remote chips being implanted in cars?

I think it's a valid question.

[Kingshakabobo]

79. You don't need Onstar to be monitored.

The on-board computers already provide information to insurance companies, and the police, post accident. Throw in a cell phone and you are all set.

[Generator]

58. I have to say well duh

I mean if it can unlock your car, it makes sense it can lock it or spy or whatever. Too much control. I don't want machines or people in some building somewhere knowing that much about my life. I'll risk it with AAA.

Like that border fence-if it can lock them out-it can lock you in.

Common sense. Sometimes less is more. I mean doesn't anyone ever get sick of the beeping to put your seatbelt on? We rented a car and that damn thing would never stop "reminding" me as I was tending to helping the kids. (my husband was driving) JEEZ. Just let me die without all the beeping. Of course the kids thought it was funny! Something telling MOM what to do.

[RB TexLa]

66. Sure wouldn't want that to happen to a car thief, would we

:crazy:

[Ron Green]

68. Automobiles are so Twentieth-Century.

It's an obsolete technology, an obsolete mode. The quicker the death of the automobile, the better our chances of survival on this planet.

[KamaAina]

69. Oh, goodness. Think of the fun a hacker could have with this

Watch as all the GM cars on the L.A. freeways come to a screeching halt at the height of rush hour! :eyes:

[MindPilot]

81. And how, exactly, would that be noticed?

Most of the time the cars are already stopped.

[One_Life_To_Give]

70. Can it keep stupid people from driving?

Turn off my engine, control my speed, sure but steer out of the way of the kid yakking on the phone? The only benefit to this is next time LAPD decides to chase some vehical at 40mph in a 70 zone for hours on end. Somebody might get smart enough to realize they could put an end to it.

[kineneb]

71. Warning, Will Robinson: Nut loose behind wheel. nt.

[grace0418]

72. The tiny Chicago suburb where I work gets most of its income from speeding tickets.

At least that's my guess, based on how many cops I see pulling people over for going 6 miles over the speed limit. I highly doubt they'd want to give up that source of income. If they were actually concerned people driving at a safe speed, they would have squad cars posted along the side of the road instead of unmarked vehicles.

[tjwash]

73. Damn. Someone turned the batshit crazy way up in GD today.

Thanks for the laughs though. Some of the paranoid rantings on this thread are DUZY worthy.

[cuke]

76. I'll say. I really liked the bit about how in 2009, we'll have technology

to prevent speeding. We have it now. Put a brick under the gas pedal to restrict it's downward movement

Boom! Technology solves another problem. :-)

[tammywammy]

80. Indeed

:)

[Buns_of_Fire]

85. If "they" control speed, "they" can control acceleration...

If "they" can control acceleration, "they" can control braking.

And if "they" can control all of the above, "they" can damned well steer the frigging thing for me, too.*

Take me home, Kitt. *hic*

P.S. We of the Rancid Cow Hackers, LLC, wish to announce that we have hacked the OnStar computers. Watch for our game of "International Bumper Cars" to commence Sunday, November 11, 2007, at 11:11 Zulu. Much hilarity will ensue. :evilgrin:

* As well as controlling the horizontal, the vertical, softening the focus to a soft blur, or sharpening it to crystal clarity.