About 25 years ago I was issued soft body armour; this would have been a couple of years after I joined the police force. I started wearing it, but then summer came, and I was sweating and decided not to wear it anymore. For the next 7 years in uniform I never wore it. I can't count how many times in my head, I thought about being involved in a shoot out, and getting shot in the chest. How embarrased I would be, if I was lucky enough to live, to have to explain to my family why I didn't wear the body armour.

Now fast forward to two years ago. I'm back in uniform on a new police force, and they issue body armour. I don't know if it is policy to have to wear the body armour, but all uniform officers, excluding some of the older Commissioned Officers' wear it. I wear the armour now; maybe it won't stop many of the higher caliber of bullerts etc. out there, but it is insurance meant to possibly save my life.

Onstar isn't perfect, but it is insurance that may save your life, if you are in an accident, and become unconscious. I wouldn't want to be stupid again, and not use a safety feature that may save my life, or recover my stolen vehicle before it becomes trashed.

 

Dang... you may be right!

Both are good flicks and the same problem applies to both futuristic settings.

 

I said clearly in my post that a system of automatic notification after airbag deployment was something I did not mind, but want to see it regulated by the PEOPLE, not the government or the company. There's your crash-assistance.

As for your vehicle being stolen... Dude, that is what insurance is for. It's a piece of steel, and there are thousands more like it out there. If they want it that bad, they can have it IMO. If you really want to protect it, BUY a lojack or similar package that YOU can control.

Do you use "The Club"? You can buy one of them for less than a couple months subscription to OnStar, and it has been proven to be an exceptional theft deterrent. See my point?

I'm not saying not to protect yourself, I'm just saying be careful what you endorse to do so.

 

He is right.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0106697/quotes

 

Don't like OnStar? I have a solution....






















Buy a Ford or Chrysler

 

Why does everyone think Onstar is constantly tracking people???

Read here.
http://www.onstar.com/us_english/jsp...s/sva_faqs.jsp

If you don't like the service, don't renew.

 

Why do you think anybody said onstar is constantly tracking you? Can you quote someone who did?

It doesn't have to constantly track anything. It already reports any strange accelerations (in any direction) to the operators. And this includes sanctioned racing events (like auto x) as well as illegal activities (like doing donuts in a field you don't own) and even simple panic maneuvers. These reports have already been used as legal evidence against the owner/operator of the hardware that reported him.

From there, the onboard computer in your car (which is more powerful than the PC you used 10 years ago, so, you know, capable of high speed networking and mapping) is only a few lines of code from sending a report everytime you break the speed limit. And that report can be funneled straight to law enforcement with a stroke of the pen from the legislative branch.

As for the sheer volume of data, we have these things called computers now. And if fining people automatically by computer / cell phone relay can be made profitable, i'm pretty sure someone will pay for the initial costs. After all, we already have red light cameras and speed cameras anyway, which are pretty expensive. Guess what, i'm pretty sure a couple phone lines and some new servers at the police station are going to be cheaper than installing speed cameras.

 

You were pretty close in saying how it tracks you. You are saying how it is only a few lines away from tracking you, ignoring the large legal battle that would follow.

But again, read the link. OnStar doesn't work at all if you don't have a subscription. They respect your privacy. Also, do you know for a fact that OnStar knows how fast you are traveling? Does it have more integration than the crash sensors and GPS?

If you want to go and say that OnStar is only a few lines of code away from being a big brother tool to write tickets, well you TV is only a few lines away of knowing everything you watch. Your computer is only a few lines away from reporting all the pirated material that is on your computer. Imagine if phone companies recorded your calls and people you speak to and give that to police to make sure you aren't calling drug dealers!!!



The data can be made available, but you need court orders to do all of this.

Bottom line, OnStar doesn't work if you don't have a subscription.

 

You answered your own question, Plague. The GPS is how they know how fast you're going. Ever used a TomTom or any of the other portable automotive GPS units? They can tell you how fast you're going, and they're pretty accurate. I've messed around with a friend's TomTom when getting around in a town I was unfamiliar with, and its speed readout was right in line with what was on my dash.

Neilsen ratings.

All you have to do is Google RIAA and you'll know that this is already happening, though the computer isn't necessarily reporting every time you download a song.

Patriot Act.

 

I never said you were always being tracked. In fact, i said exactly what i meant "So while everything you do isn't necessarily tracked..." Nice try for the strawman though.

For now.

Yes, the onstar webpage clearly states that they send information such as velocity, braking, direction of hit, etc. Also, since onstar is fully integrated into the ECM's data bus (and thus remote diagnostics) it knows everything your computer knows.

TV already knows what you watch. Or maybe you missed the big bruhahah a few years back when the janet jackson wardrobe malfunction was reported as the most TIVO'd moment ever in TV history. I'm sure my digital cable box is relaying what i watch too. Doesn't bother me, i can't be arrested for watching TV. hell, i wish they did make use of such information for ratings, maybe TV wouldn't suck so bad.

Not unless i install said code. Not worried about this at all. It is a good reason to be apprehensive of new OS's and other bundled media softare, and why i am careful about what i use.

you must have missed the patriot act. Police / feds can listen to you basically whenever they want. Warrants are easily bypassable technicalities.

I'll take the last word here.... YET

 

... just curious if any/all of the anti-OnStar people currently daily-drive cars that are pre 'black box'.......... ??

 

I know where my black box is, and i can get to it in seconds and i possess tools for disabling it. In the event i am incapacitated i guess i could lose, but some risks are unavoidable. Further, a warrant is necessary for law enforcement to interogate it.

On the other hand, all of the "i'm so glad i have onstar because i'm too stupid to not making locking my keys in the car a daily occurence" are sending the black box information straight to the police in the initial report. No warrant. No chance to destroy self incriminating property.

you're trying for a straw man too. You hope to paint all the onstar haters as tin foil hat wearers that avoid all technology. That is obviously preposterous (the straw man that is easily shredded), so then you hope to use this apparent contradiction (hate onstar / accept blck box logging) to make a point.

Your point is missing the mark though. While yes, self incriminating black boxes are viewed negatively by many of us, there is / was a legal fight involved in that at least, and still more legal maneuvering for anyone to see yours. OTOH, onstar fans are gladly giving their privacy away and incriminating themselves, which has promoted the widespread adoption of the technology. Which (as with air bags / black boxes) means only a matter of time until we all have to live with the onstar fan's short sightedness.

 

That was awful defensive... I was just looking for where the proverbial line is drawn.



FWIW, black boxes actually have been used as much (or probably more than) OnStar services have been against their drivers in court.... and you have NO CHOICE in buying a new car without a black box. I would assume there could also be legal trouble if OnStar information was improperly aquired in a case against you as well... as far as the warrent goes.


When you state you have things covered by being able to disable your black box after-the-fact, except in the case where you were incapacitated... I guess I perfer knowing I have extra, potentially life-saving protection in case I am incapacitated..... for myself, my wife, and my 2 year old daughter and my 1 year old son.

In my world, they take precidence over me worrying about the government using OnStar to do something to me.



Quite overblown here in that I doubt many people lock their keys in their cars on a daily basis... in the years I have had OnStar (MY2002 was my first), I have only had to use the remote unlock once. I am doubting that remote unlocking is a primary factor in people choice to subscribe to OnStar, but I like it as a nice add-on to the safety aspects of the service. It adds value to the subscription package, and it sure was nice the one time I did need it.



I don't see how it's a reach at all... the black box records more stats and more often than OnStar does........................................



If you are skilled enough to know where your black box is and disable it at will, why are you even worried? Just avoid OnStar vehicles altogether, or simply disable that as well.

 

Respectfully, I do not own a vehicle with a recording device in it.

I practice what I preach.

PP

PS - I'm daily-driving a 93 Mustang LX - it's in the lot today.

 

You were the one person I definately expected this answer from. And I can certainly respect that.


EDIT: I am not implying that I automatically assumed anyone else would be any different, only stating my assumptions for Proud based on past conversations.