No Doubt, I continue to wonder why you find it necessary to respond to my posts with both visual and textual references to paranoia. I suppose it is too much for me to expect that we can have an honest and respectful discussion re our disagreement on this issue? Oh well, for my part, I choose not to take the low road. If you like and want your Onstar service, please keep it and enjoy it as is your right to do so.
As I indicated in an earlier post, I have worked in Washington D.C. for a few decades and I believe that I have a pretty good handle on how things really work in our government and a variety of federal agencies. I have worked as both uniform and civilian military including Army CID, and for various agencies under the Treasury Department. I have friends who work at NSA, and I have a clearer understanding than most, what they do. When I stated that 9/11 is a major watershed in this country's history, and its effects upon our future. I was expressing a fairly well informed decision based upon personal experience. And yes, of course I am aware of the presence of event data recorders in our cars.
Now, once again, and for the final time, did you ever take the time to read the digitalcorvettes thread I originally referenced? Hmmm, no mention of that in your responses. Just a brief summary of a few of its pages:
Page 2: Name and contact information (including phone and fax numbers) of a pro racer in Australia who did receive a speeding ticket as a consequence of the Onstar unit in his Holden (GM subsidiary in Australia) street car. This is currently legal in that country, so Onstar clearly has capabilities in this area. Similar legislation is supposedly under consideration in Canada.
Page 3: Individual who activated Onstar and upon initiating activation was told by Onstar his exact location and current rate of speed.
Page 9: Individual whose wife was an Onstar employee - she told him that he has no idea of just how much can be done with this system.
Quote from IBM executive re potential for hacking into systems such as Onstar.
In the interest of not expending additional bandwidth, I will not go on with these cites, it is a thread that nearly 14,000 people found interesting enough to read. I might also add, that there is growing interest in the Cadillac buyer community over Onstar.
Bottom line is if you want and like your Onstar, please continue using it. I do not wish to have this intrusive technology in my property and have chosen to act upon my decision. I have provided those who share my concerns with an easy and reversible way to remove Onstar capability from their vehicles. I have tried to conduct this exchange in a respectful and informative manner despite some of the responses received.
There is nothing further that I can add to this discussion that will not just repeat previous information provided, thus wasting bandwidth. I hope everyone will continue to enjoy the use of their Z's and will make the decision that is most appropriate for them - I did.
This will be my last post on this issue. It's a beautiful day and I am gonna take my Z for a ride!
__________________
'08 Atomic Orange Z06 with 3 LZ Sienna Wrap Interior, Nav, and Chromies. M2W, Halltech Killer Bee, Air Charger, 180 degree thermo, Body Colored Spoiler, More Mods coming
It appears that the story you heard is a myth. OnStar does not collect or maintain continuous vehicle location, speed or other information. To obtain a vehicle’s location, OnStar technology requires a data connection with the vehicle, which is established through an open cellular line. We do not know the speed of a vehicle even when connected to the vehicle. Additionally, we do not share account information with third parties without the subscriber's knowledge or permission.
Please feel free to reply to this email if you have any other questions, call us at 1.888.4.ONSTAR (1.888.466.7827) or press your blue button.
Sincerely,
Krista
OnStar Information Specialist
Quote:
she told him that he has no idea of just how much can be done with this system.
Oh please! That is mere rumor, speculation and hearsay from a third party. It is NOT PROOF and thus hardly admissible as evidence.
Quote:
I suppose it is too much for me to expect that we can have an honest and respectful discussion re our disagreement on this issue?
We are having an honest and respectful discussion. I have not see anyone resort to name calling or making accusations against anyone, personally. I have not called you a liar. I am simply stating and offering evidence that helps show such claims to be false, regardless of who is making them. However, if you want to run and hide and bury your head in the sand so as not to DEBATE and DISCUSS the topic any further then as you said, feel free.
Me? I have shown a COURT RULING and a letter from OnStar in support of my statements. I do not rely on the statements made by others on Internet forums, which are again filled with hearsay, rumor, speculation, conjecture and paranoia, in support of what I say.
There is NO PROOF whatsoever that ANY of the claims made on that or this forum in regards to location tracking and surreptitious listening is feasible and ongoing with the OnStar system. Again, even the little evidence I have presented here directly countradicts that suspicion. And it is just that: suspicion.
Although OnStar utilizes a cellular network, we are NOT talking about a portable cellular phone with GPS. In that case, yes it is feasible and yes it is done. I know about Location based GPS tracking. Go to a AccuTracking and anyone can locate and monitor a cell phone....but not OnStar.
No they weren't. That's OnStar will not call you unless your airbag deploys for example.
That "article" you're referring to MAY have been a post on this forum that was posted by someone who claimed a friend was contacted by OnStar because he was speeding, in excess of 120 mph at the time.
It was proven to be then as well because they CAN NOT monitor or determine an OnStar equipped vehicles speed, even if YOU call them first.
And yes, I know the car is capable of having its own phone number, as does mine. However, OnStar will NEVER call that number unless it is an emergency and they are notified of it by the OnStar system. Again, as in an airbag deployment whereby the VEHICLE INITIATES the call.
Your instrument panel can light up like a Christmas tree and OnStar won't know about it, nor will they call you. They won't know until, and unless, you have enabled OnStar vehicle diagnostics, whereby they will simply email you a disgnostic report once a month.
Your WHEELS CAN FALL OFF and they WILL NOT call you! Unless your airbag deploys, again at which time the VEHICLE calls OnStar.
You're referring to the Event Data Recorder (EDR). There is one in your vehicle whether you have OnStar or not. Most modern vehicles have an EDR, GM or otherwise. They record the last 5 seconds of data: including vehicle speed, throttle and brake position, airbag deployment parameters, etc. This data can then be legally retrieved for use in a crash investigation only by a court order or with the owners consent.
GM, Ford, Toyota and most other manufacturers have been using these devices in their cars for years.
And for those who want to remove or disable them, think again. There is no way to completely disable or remove them without also disabling other safety features in a way that would be in violation of federal law. Then you WILL have something to be paranoid about.
Remember, BIG BROTHER is watching.
So if that's true, why would GM put the disclaimer in the on star manual? There certainly must be some info in addition to the black box that made some on star lawyer get itchy.
Considering that No Doubt considers all of the posters at the other forum to be either paranoid, and/or mindless parrots mimicing untruths from unknown third parties, and additionally considers my nearly 3 decades of experience in Washington D.C. with these types of activities as of minimal value, I felt it necessary to respond with the following. Please note that the text in red was highlighted by me for purposes of emphasis.
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals said Tuesday that the FBI is not legally entitled to remotely activate the system and secretly use it to snoop on passengers, because doing so would render it inoperable during an emergency.
In a split 2-1 rulingthe majority wrote that "the company could not assist the FBI without disabling the system in the monitored car" and said a district judge was wrong to have granted the FBI its request for surreptitious monitoring.
The court did not reveal which brand of remote-assistance product was being used but did say it involved "luxury cars" and, in a footnote, mentioned Cadillac, which sells General Motors' OnStar technology in all current models. After learning that the unnamed system could be remotely activated to eavesdrop on conversations after a car was reported stolen, the FBI realized it would be useful for "bugging" a vehicle, Judges Marsha Berzon and John Noonan said.
When FBI agents remotely activated the system and were listening in, passengers in the vehicle could not tell that their conversations were being monitored. After "vehicle recovery mode" was disabled, the court said, passengers were notified by the radio displaying an alert and, if the radio was not on, the system beeping.
David Sobel, general counsel at the Electronic Privacy Information Center, called the court's decision "a pyrrhic victory" for privacy.
"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."
Under current law, the court said, companies may only be ordered to comply with wiretaps when the order would cause a "minimum of interference." After the system's spy capabilities were activated, "pressing the emergency button and activation of the car's airbags, instead of automatically contacting the company, would simply emit a tone over the already open phone line," the majority said, concluding that a wiretap would create substantial interference.
"The FBI, however well-intentioned, is not in the business of providing emergency road services and might well have better things to do when listening in than respond with such services to the electronic signal sent over the line," the majority said.
In a dissent, Judge Richard Tallman argued that a wiretap would not create unnecessary interference with emergency service and noted that "there is no evidence that any service disruption actually occurred. The record does not indicate that the subjects of the surveillance tried to use the system while the FBI was listening. One cannot disrupt a service unless and until it is being utilized.
"The record indicates that the only method of executing the intercept order in this case involved activating the car's microphone and transferring the car's cellular telephone link to the FBI. This conduct might have amounted to a service disruption, had the subjects of the surveillance attempted to use the system, but there is no evidence that they did."
The majority did point out that the FBI cannot order the system to be changed so that the emergency functions would work during surveillance. Congress ordered telephone companies to do just that in the 1994 Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, but current law does not "require that the company redesign its system to facilitate surveillance by law enforcement."
General Motors did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Wednesday. Its OnStar privacy policy says: "OnStar may disclose personal information if required to do so by law on (sic) in the good faith belief that such disclosure is reasonably necessary to comply with the legal process...OnStar cannot accept any responsibility for accidental or inadvertent disclosure, unauthorized access or for other disclosure as required by law or described in this policy."
The decision is binding only in California, Oregon, Nevada, Washington, Hawaii, and other states that fall within the 9th Circuit's jurisdiction. No other appeals court appears to have ruled on the matter.
Oh, and before absolutely ending my comments re this subject, I should mention that two weeks after I purchased my car Onstar called me to as they put it "complete the activation process." I was driving my car at the time and was quite startled when this occurred. I NEVER called Onstar. During the brief call, they also tried to sell me 100 extra phone minutes for only $14,95. Now, I suppose sharing this with the forum makes me paranoid and by no means should you believe anything I wrote because after all, it is just an internet forum. Does anyone really believe that parroting a canned response from Onstar has intrinsic value? My turn to say
Once again, my apologies for feeling the need to respond again, this absolutely will end my comments on this thread.
There is no need for you to apologize, unless of course you are simply looking to gain sympathy and support from those who agree with your viewpoint.
Furthermore, I have NEVER once suggested that YOU PERSONALLY were ignorant. What you do for a living is of no concern to me. I don't know you or you me. You are using an appeal to an anonymous authority, in this case yourself as a basis for your argument. Moreover, unless you work for OnStar or have detailed inside information, you both can and are willing to share, then you’re appealing to a false authority as well. Perhaps I need remind you these are falsities of logic. Maybe you've been in D.C. too long.
Pretty soon we'll be having a debate as to what the definition of "is", is; In which case you would almost certainly lose, unless your name is Bill C.
Quote:
If the surveillance was done in a way that was seamless and undetectable, the court would have no problem with it.
IF, that's the problem. It does interfere with the systems normal use and thus...
Quote:
Under current law, the court said, companies may only be ordered to comply with wiretaps when the order would cause a "minimum of interference".
Quote:
current law does not "require that the company redesign its system to facilitate surveillance by law enforcement.
The only way for "vehicle recovery mode" to be activated is with permission of the owner. The vehicles owner must first contact law enforcement and report the vehicle stolen. The vehicles owner must also supply their PIN number to OnStar before OnStar will activate this mode. And then, only after OnStar has been duly notified by law enforcement and a request submitted to OnStar by the law enforcement agency that was contacted by the vehicles owner will "vehicle recovery mode" be activated.
The FBI can not call OnStar and have this mode activated without the owners explicit permission And THAT applies in ALL 50 states, not just the 9th District.
For those of you that don't believe OnStar will call you, I can tell you from personal experience that they CAN call you and CAN listen to you. I know because they called me one morning as soon as I started the car and pulled out of the driveway. I was like "who the hell is this? and what the hell do you want?". I decided at that moment to pull the plug.
Does that includes our forum posters that in a moment of weakness have strayed and crossed to the other side momentarily and subsequently came back with shame and remorse?
Does that includes our forum posters that in a moment of weakness have strayed and crossed to the other side momentarily and subsequently came back with shame and remorse?
All GM built diesel locomotives [EMD Electro Motive Division...recently sold ] have Event Data Recorders so sophisticated that they can almost tell if the engineer farts. Many have real time video installed too. The technology is there...especially if you're operating a 3 million dollar locomotive pulling a 100 million dollar train.
the courts have ruled that in order to track a GPS equipped cellular phone a court order is required
Here in Massachusetts, there was a murder and the suspect was found hours later in a swamp, located by LE tracking his cell phone. Could a court order be issued that quickly?
Yes, OnStar can call you on the cars phone, just like any cellular phone. It rings and to answer you press the phone button.
As to a warrant quickly? Certainly, law enforcement can obtain a telephonic warrant. They call a judge on the phone and request a warrant. Given probable cause it will be issued verbally, on the spot.
You know this would all be a moot point if GM would stop FORCING us to take it. I don't want OnStar, and I resent being required to take it. I have not used it one single time, nor would I. It duplicates what I already have in AAA. They've called me at least 5-6 times in the past year trying to get me to use it, and the offers in mail and the phone calls have being heavy with it about to expire.
Screw OnStar. I'll unplug it on anything I buy just on the principle I didn't want the damn thing to begin with and resent having to pay for it as part of the price of my car.
OnStar is going to get very confused when it sees my car setting off across the Atlantic ocean without being switched on and will be even more confused once it arrives in the UK!
I assume the black box on the windscreen is the receiver for the Sat Nav?
If someone really wanted to track you down I am sure that could also be used to identify where you are as could your cell phone.........I wonder if I will get a call from OnStar whilst driving on the German Autobahns?
__________________
Life is not a dress rehearsal........
OnStar will not call you unless your airbag deploys for example. 
Linear Mode
