OnStar Begins Spying On Customers’ GPS Location For Profit

[TechMan]

http://www.zdziarski.com/blog/?p=1270

Blogger gets new Terms and Conditions email from OnStar and actually takes the time to read them.  He finds that in the new T&C, OnStar states that it will be able to sell you personal GPS location information, speed, safety belt usage and other information to third parties, including law enforcement.  The blogger also notes that if you just cancel the service, OnStar can continue collecting and selling the above information and the only way to stop OnStar from doing this is to shut down the data connection.

Mash the above link for further information.

[Jamie B]

Damn fine print.....

[41magsnub]

Doesn't really affect me since my "new" rig is a 1999, but dang....  guess when I eventually go looking for a new car it definitely won't have onstar in it!

[Fly320s]

Doesn't really affect me since my "new" rig is a 1999, but dang....  guess when I eventually go looking for a new car it definitely won't have onstar in it!

Or any other GPS, map display, interactive screens, etc. Cars are getting to be like airliners... everything is tracked, downloaded, and recorded.

[TechMan]

Or any other GPS, map display, interactive screens, etc. Cars are getting to be like airliners... everything is tracked, downloaded, and recorded.

Yep.....Just like the Event Data Recorders that are being installed in cars.  I wonder have people had issues (e.g. Loss of insurance, legal troubles, etc.) from the EDR being reviewed after a crash?

http://media.mgnetwork.com/blackbox/

[MechAg94]

Yep.....Just like the Event Data Recorders that are being installed in cars.  I wonder have people had issues (e.g. Loss of insurance, legal troubles, etc.) from the EDR being reviewed after a crash?

http://media.mgnetwork.com/blackbox/

After a crash, reviewing that info doesn't bother me (at least as it pertains to the crash).  IMO, it is like cameras in police cars.  If you are in the right, it helps you prove it.  Also, in that instance, there is a reason to review it.  However, I don't like the idea of being tracked on a continuous and active basis.  A "black box" like in airplanes should not have days and days of data.

[Fly320s]

After a crash, reviewing that info doesn't bother me (at least as it pertains to the crash).  IMO, it is like cameras in police cars.  If you are in the right, it helps you prove it.  Also, in that instance, there is a reason to review it. 

However, I don't like the idea of being tracked on a continuous and active basis. 

But how do you feel about that information being used to prove your guilt?  Whether it is to raise your insurance rate or for legal prosecution, should that information be protected?  Should a warrant be required for the police to access it?

[BlueStarLizzard]

But how do you feel about that information being used to prove your guilt?  Whether it is to raise your insurance rate or for legal prosecution, should that information be protected?  Should a warrant be required for the police to access it?

Or just the daily annoyance of add campaigns following you around.

[MechAg94]

I was trying to refer to the "black box" mentioned above.  No, I don't have a problem with that information being used in the event of an accident.  I don't like the idea of it being used on a continuous basis or for normal traffic enforcement.  Texas does not allow cameras or automated systems for criminal traffic enforcement.  I think that would apply here, but I wouldn't want traffic cops to be able to drive up and download the data.  Now, you might be able to use it in your defense.  

Isn't is the libertarian idea that you leave people alone as long as they keep to themselves, but hold them liable when their actions affect others?  It seems to me that a car accident affects others.  

I keep picturing someone saying "He pulled out in front of me and caused this wreck".  "Yeah, but you were going 120 MPH."  I have heard too many people tells stories about all the car wrecks they have been in that were the other guy's fault. 

[HankB]

. . . Texas does not allow cameras or automated systems for criminal traffic enforcement . . .

There are red-light cameras in the Austin area . . . perhaps these are technically for "civil" traffic enforcement, rather than criminal? 

[Jamisjockey]

There are red-light cameras in the Austin area . . . perhaps these are technically for "civil" traffic enforcement, rather than criminal? 

That is exactly how the cities with them got around the law.  Houston just took thiers down (again). Baytown took thiers down, AFAIK.  League City and Sugarland still have thiers.

[BlueStarLizzard]

I don't see how anyone can argue with a black box type system in vehicles.

I imagine that insurance companies would have a love/hate type relationship with them.

But i think selling data to cops is over the line, especially as the ones getting the information are going to end up targeting those with onstar, possibly neglegting duties elsewhere, in addition to a massive invasion of privacy.

I would say the only exception would be if it could notify officers of erractic potential DUI types of drivers, as prevention in such cases really does save lives. But i'm not sure the tech exsists and could not be abused.

But too be honest, I am more concerned with the other potential buyers of this info. Like I said before, I do not need or want sales campaigns following me around. I can imagine some of the ways marketing types will use this and it does not amuse me. Culturely, I place a large amount of blame on the advertising industry for some very subversive BS and giving them personal data would just make it worse.

[bedlamite]

But i think selling data to cops anyone is over the line,

FTFY.

[Hawkmoon]

Yep.....Just like the Event Data Recorders that are being installed in cars.  I wonder have people had issues (e.g. Loss of insurance, legal troubles, etc.) from the EDR being reviewed after a crash?

http://media.mgnetwork.com/blackbox/

I can tell you for a fact that BMW owners who blew up their engines by over-revving them do NOT get new engines under warranty. My brother is a retired BMW service manager. Even ten years ago, the BMW computer stored maximum engine RPM for some length of time. If a car came in on the hook with a blown engine, the first thing the shop did was pull the computer and read it. Usually, it showed something like 1,000 RPM over the redline ... and, of course, the owner swote on stacks of Bibles that he never went over 65 MPH and the computer must be faulty as well as the engine.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

they are marketing onstar to non gm folks as aftermarket toy

[birdman]

I can tell you for a fact that BMW owners who blew up their engines by over-revving them do NOT get new engines under warranty. My brother is a retired BMW service manager. Even ten years ago, the BMW computer stored maximum engine RPM for some length of time. If a car came in on the hook with a blown engine, the first thing the shop did was pull the computer and read it. Usually, it showed something like 1,000 RPM over the redline ... and, of course, the owner swote on stacks of Bibles that he never went over 65 MPH and the computer must be faulty as well as the engine.

Additional interesting BMW story.  The e36 m3 euro version came with a 6-speed that could be retrofitted into a US version, along with the sweet sweet motor :), but in Europe....
However it was discovered the trans was a little TOO good...you could select any gear...pretty much at any speed.  Well, someone was attempting a quick downshift to 4th and hit 2nd...at about 140mph.
Needless to say, after hitting about 16500rpm, albeit only for a few hundred milliseconds, the engine internals gave up, and went to that Bavarian beer garten in the sky.  Owner has car towed to dealer, stating "he didn't know what went wrong"...a quick check of the OBD, and I believe the statement was "this isn't covered under warrantee...as the engine is not an F1 motor, so 16500rpm constitutes abuse :)"

On the topic at hand...glad I have a ford.

[coppertales]

One of the reasons I own Fords............................I don't need onstar listening in to my girlfriend getting off in the back seat.........onstar is a two way street you know.....chris3

[MechAg94]

One of the reasons I own Fords............................I don't need onstar listening in to my girlfriend getting off in the back seat.........onstar is a two way street you know.....chris3

Well maybe you should kick that other guy out of your vehicle.   

I am looking at Ford's trucks right now.  Our company is a supplier so I can see if their X-plan is any good.

[GigaBuist]

I would say the only exception would be if it could notify officers of erractic potential DUI types of drivers, as prevention in such cases really does save lives. But i'm not sure the tech exsists and could not be abused.

It's been used for that at least once, albeit nobody knew it was DUI at first.  Can't remember when or where exactly but two drunk guys were screwing around, kept hitting the OnStar button, not responding to the voice on the other end, so OnStar called the police.  They were busted for DUI.

[HankB]

It's been used for that at least once, albeit nobody knew it was DUI at first.  Can't remember when or where exactly but two drunk guys were screwing around, kept hitting the OnStar button, not responding to the voice on the other end, so OnStar called the police.  They were busted for DUI.

BOTH guys were busted? What, were both driving, or were these separate incidents?

[Fly320s]

BOTH guys were busted? What, were both driving, or were these separate incidents?

I'd guess the driving was busted for DUI and the passenger was arrested public intoxication. I've seen it before.