PCA Forums

used to be safe in your car

http://news.com.com/2100-1029_3-5109435 ... g=nefd_top

Wow that is just scary. Those OnStar systems have always made me a little bit nervous. I mean they can be great for many things but it seems like OnStar has a little too much control over you car to me.

Ummm.... we're shopping around for a new GM vehicle with OnStar... now I'm having second thoughts. If they have that capablility, I wonder how often the bored a-holes at the surveillance office sit around and listen to people without them knowing it?

Here's the part that REALLY scares me in that article:

"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."

Great, so the court doesn't see this as a privacy issue?

You know, considering this administration rode into office on the promise of "less government" the government sure is up my ass more than I feel comfortable about.

They want to listen to me arguing with my wife in the car, they want to know what's in my computer, they want to tell me what I can and can't do with my music collection and videos, they want to know what I'm downloading, and stick wireless tags on everything I own.

This is getting VERY Orwellian....

well... you have to sign a contract for that onstar crap... so if its not in the contract that they can do that then take them to court for breech of contract.

Originally posted by Pugsley
well... you have to sign a contract for that onstar crap... so if its not in the contract that they can do that then take them to court for breech of contract.

A co-worker has on-star in her car, but she doesn't use it or sign the contract. It was part of the lease, she got like 30 days free and after that never signed up. I wonder if they can still listen to her? I mean we were in the car on lunch one day and I pushed the button, there were some beeps and then an operator came on lol

she told em she hit the button by mistake but it amazed me that it was still "active" even though she wasn't using it.

yes, the court was not really concerned about the privacy issue - as a practical matter, if the contract sez they will cooperate with law enforcement......feds can get a warrant without a whole lot of trouble....cell phones have GPS chips which are only activated...hehe... when you dial 911......

the beat goes on.....

at least the us supreme court ruled last year that thermal imaging of your house from the outside is no-no

Onstar is ridiculous. Talk about commiestar. Earlier this year, there was a high speed chase, after a carjacker nabbed a mercedes SUV with some kids in the backseat. They turned on the onstar, and were able to listen to the guy, and track their car with the satellite receiver. all that shit. I'd rather have the car stolen then have it. I'd definitely find a way to disable the system, if I could. Everything has to have a CPU somewhere!

Larry

I would be careful about drawing conclusions about what the government can and cannot do based on Mr. Sobel's reading of the court decision. Mr. Sobel has an axe to grind - if people aren't concerned about electronic privacy, his organization is out of a job.

Read the court decision myself to determine what it really says and means. Also, sometimes lower federal courts make decisions that are not in line with the constitution. That is why there is a United States Supreme Court.

I find it pretty surprising that a court could determine that you don't have a legitimate expectation of privacy in your car. I suppose it could turn on whether on star data is transmitted unencrypted and you "know" this is so when you sign up. I wonder what the law is on cel phones.....

It's not so much the court decision that bothers me so much, but the fact that the system is designed to allow the monitors to listen to you WITHOUT your knowledge.

I don't have any problem with the tracking feature - that's the same as having Lo-Jack installed.

But I don't want anyone listening to what I say UNLESS I press the fuking button.

I read the court's decision.

In sum, the FBI, after going to a federal judge and getting the proper orders for a wiretap, got other court orders directing the service provider to cooperate and assist them in doing the eavesdropping.

The service provider, presumably on-star, refused and sought to have the order directing them to cooperate set aside. They won in the Ninth Circuit on the ground, as Sobel describes, that the eavesdropping would cripple the system.

The decision does describe the system as having the capability to eavesdrop on communication inside the car if the service provider sets the system to do so. There is no description in the decision of any contractual or other constraints that might stop the service provider from doing this, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

So the normal rules for govt. wiretaps apply here... they can't do it without a court order.

As for the service provider, they apparently do have the capability to listen in. Whether they can under the user agreement or are prohibited from doing so by some other law or regulation is not answered by the court decision.

VERY, VERY Orwellian..........