Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Privacy Your Rights Online

OnStar Nav. System Used to Track Bank Robbers 64

Posted by michael from the remote-control dept.
andrew writes "Looks like companies and/or authorities really do use car navigation systems to track us despite their indignant denials."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

OnStar Nav. System Used to Track Bank Robbers More

OnStar Nav. System Used to Track Bank Robbers

Comments Filter:

  • Ok. Let's take a breather here (Score:4, Insightful)

    by DmitriA ( 199545 ) on Friday September 27, 2002 @11:30AM (#4344829)
    There is no abuse here - the car was stolen and I assume the owner gave them the permission to use the GPS technology in the car to track it, Or at the very least, even if they didn't ask him for an explicit permission - I guarantee you he doesn't object to it one bit now

    • No no NO (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward
      It's a slippery slope. First you only use it to catch criminals and everyone applauds.

      Then you use it to find kidnappers and everyone applauds.

      Next thing you know, the government is mandating all cars to carry tracking systems and logging each time you stop in at 7-11 to take a shit.

      If you agree to the first step, you've already agreed to the last step.

      • Re:No no NO (Score:2, Insightful)

        by neocon ( 580579 )
        Umm, hello? The owner of the stolen car payed good money for On*Star so that he could track his car if it was stolen.

        It was stolen, he tracked it. The people who stole it were caught.

        What's your complaint exactly?

      • Re:No no NO (Score:3, Insightful)

        by amorico ( 40859 )
        I disagree completely. The person who owned the car consented to have the tracking system and when the car was stolen Onstar fulfilled its obligation to track the car and notify the authorities of its whereabouts.

        Despite the fact that John Ashcroft is our attorney general, the police still require search warrants. No amount of technology can change our basic right to freedom from unreasonable search and seizure.

        Sure, the system can be abused but no one has given an example where that has taken place. All you say is that they CAN use it to track your "activities" at 7-11. I can follow you around all day and it's perfectly legal. If the government wanted to do it they would have to get a judge to approve it.

        The point of all this is that there is no bright line between tracking a stolen car and tracking you. You offer no analysis of how the jump will be made from kidnappers to joe schmoe. Please see my sig below.

        -a
        • There's nothing wrong with you following me around all day, because it would take all of your time to do it, and there's no possible way for it to be worth your time. On the other hand, if you worked for a corporation or government that had tracking devices everywhere to track thousands/millions at reasonable cost, then the threat to privacy rears it's ugly head. Privacy is not an all or nothing thing--you don't have it or not have it, your privacy is equal to the cost required to extract information about you.

          • Re:No no NO (Score:2, Informative)

            by neocon ( 580579 )
            None of which has anything to do with the case being discussed. The owner of the car paid to have an On*Star system put in so that he could track his car if it were stolen. It was stolen. He tracked it. None of this has anything to do with `government [having] tracking devices everywhere' or anything of the sort.
            • You're right, I was just dismissing this tired old "I could follow you around" example. It's a crappy example, and shouldn't be used even if you are arguing the right side.

              If this were a case of criminals being tracked down in their own car, with a hidden tracking device, this would be very different.

      • Re:No no NO (Score:3, Insightful)

        by mjstrom ( 244211 )
        Yeah. Uhm. I can see the problem here. A technology that is in part designed to track stolen cars is used to track a stolen car. So naturally, we can expand that argument to cover the government caring about your bowel movements.

        There are technologies that are worth worring about (car rental companies using GPS to attempt to enforce speed limits) and then there ones that are used appropriately (as in this case). I do care about issues like this, I value my privacy. But comments like this do not help the cause - they hurt it by making us all look silly.

      • 7-11 to take a shit

        7-11's have public washrooms?

    • Re:Ok. Let's take a breather here (Score:4, Insightful)

      by NiceGeek ( 126629 ) on Friday September 27, 2002 @11:38AM (#4344889)
      I agree, I'm as paranoid and cynical as the next slashdotter but griping about this seems a little extreme. It was a stolen car for crying out loud....and the point of the OnStar system IS to track your car. So, if you don't want bank robbers to be tracked in your stolen car...then don't get the OnStar system installed. :)
  • They use navigation systems to track bank robbers...

    Personally, I'm glad to see them using On * to get that money back. I'd be really mad if someone got away with all that money when they could have been caught.

    We need to distinguish between tracking someone who is breaking the law and someone who isn't. If you are breaking the law, then you have no rights.

    • "If you are breaking the law, then you have no rights."
      Fine. then the next time you jaywalk, im going to cut your eyes out with a broken bottle. Glad youre ok with this.

    • Re:Correction (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Faldgan ( 13738 )
      The thing you don't realize is that everybody is a lawbreaker. Sure, most of the laws you break are pretty minor, and nobody seems to care. But this gives law enforcement the opportunity to track/monitor everybody, all the time. How often have you broken the speed limit, even by just one MPH? Or rolled through a stop sign. Sure, you slowed down, but you didn't come to a complete stop. I do it all the time! So do you.

      In this country, we (used to) value the ability to break the law and get away with it. Some of our laws still reflect this. (the legal process, innocent until proven guilty) But more and more, it's possible to catch people who break the law, and now we are feeling the effects of having our lawbreaking being no longer easy to get away with.

      We are not heading to '1984', nor to paradise. We are finding that the laws we created with the intent of people breaking them are becoming enforcable, and that the actual laws are too strict. "victimless crimes" are more enforcable than ever, and we (as a country) are finding that we don't like that.

      I think what we will see in the next 10-50 years is a relaxing of our laws, and much stricter enforcement, due to increased monitoring.

      • Re:Correction (Score:2, Insightful)

        by TheDawgLives ( 546565 )
        If the laws were meant to be broken, then why were they passed? If they are too strict, then they should be laxed.

        Who is to decide which laws were meant to be obeyed and which laws were meant to be broken? Should we each deside for ourselves? What if we disagree? And if laws can be broken without consequence, why do we have them?

        When you have a system where laws are enfoced by selective prosecution you can't complain when they selectively prosecute you for breaking a law. If you break a law, you are opening the possibility of prosecution. If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.

        • "If the laws were meant to be broken, then why were they passed? If they are too strict, then they should be laxed."
          OK, Dr. Seuss. *chuckle*

          Why were they passed? I have no idea. *I* didn't pass them. I've voted against them.
          I do agree with you that if they are too strict then they should be 'laxed' (sic).

          Who is to decide? The people, of course. That's the democratic way.
          We have a system where laws are enforced bye selective prosecution, and I have yet to be prosecuted for breaking a law that I am complaining about. What I *AM* complaining about is the fact that our system is based upon selective prosecution. The average person, doing average things, should NOT have to worry about the secret police knocking at their door at 2 in the morning, or getting arrested for doing the same thing that everybody does every day.
          I don't expect *you* could do the time for all the crimes you have commited, if they were to be prosecuted. Go ahead and try to take the moral high ground. The backlighting makes you an easy target.
          • The average person, doing average things, should NOT have to worry about the secret police knocking at their door at 2 in the morning, or getting arrested for doing the same thing that everybody does every day.

            I never liked the "everyone else is doing it" agument for one simple reason. If everyone else is doing it then they are equally as guilty, but that doesn't make you any less guilty. Until the people speak and their representitives change the laws, they are still the laws, and we are still subject to prosocution for not obeying them.

            Just because you can break the law once and not get cought, doesn't mean you should expect to get away with it every time. It is simplistic to say that because we don't get cought every time we break a law, then the law wasn't meant to be followed. All not getting cought proves is that there wasn't someone there to catch us.

            I personally dislike sellective prosocution because it can be missused to attack certain people or groups of people. The only way to stop selective prosocution is to either follow everyone and punish them as soon as they break a law or abolish all laws. Those sounds like even less appealing options.

            • I think you are falling victim to a common fallacy, namely that there is something good or 'holy' about the law, just because it's a law. There is not.
              The law in this country is supposed to be the collective ideas of the citizens on right and wrong. Ideally, if something is illegal, it's because more than half the people think it's wrong. Also, ideally, everybody that broke the law would be caught every time.
              Example: There is a 2hour parking area near where I work. They have a $25 fine for violating this law. Is this what we really want? No. What we really want is to have parking available when people need to park for short periods of time to access things in the area. But that is *really* hard to enforce. So instead, we say "2 hour maximum". Even that is really hard to enforce. So we enforce it fairly infrequently, and only for gross violations. (4 hours or more, usually) but we make the fine much larger than we want, to make up for the fact that we don't catch very many violators. This has nearly the same effect as our ideal situation, where people would be punished for making the parking lot unavailable the intended users.

              Most people don't think that they are doing 'wrong' things, and most people have the same ideas about 'right' and 'wrong'. (It's ingrained from early childhood, not too much you can do about it now) The laws have been written to stop behavior when it crosses from 'right' to 'wrong', taking into account the fact that enforcement is below 100%. As enforcement becomes easier, and climbs to 100%, the laws are becoming more difficult to live with, since we are now enforcing more in the 'right' category.

              I dislike selective prosecution as well, for the same reasons, mostly. Very few people like selective prosecution, and the only optinion that they can give (without massive "What about the children?!?" bad feedback) is to enforce the laws more. Abolishing all laws would not (in my opinion) work well at all. I know that *I* would abuse the world if this happened. Enforcing all the laws, all the time sounds bad, but what if the laws were relaxed to the point that they don't bother most people, because they don't even want to break the law?
              Example: If you drive, you break the law, by rolling through stop signs, or speeding. Nobody thinks those things are bad, really. But they can *cause* bad things. Accidents. People getting hurt. I would be much happier with a traffic system where there were very few rules, but if you cause an accident, you are punished severly. Vehicle confiscated, perhaps. Jail time at the very least. But if you look both ways, and cross only when it's safe, you arn't breaking the law at every intersection, and if you drive 30MPH past the school, because you know there are no children around, it's OK. But if you mess up and kill one, you are in serious trouble.
              People don't care how fast other people drive. They don't. Otherwise, we'd be getting rid of NASCAR first thing. (which I think would be a damned fine thing, but that's for other reasons *grin*) What all these people care about is being safe, and not being endangered by other drivers.

              But to bring this back into the large perspective, the laws were built for lax enforcement (goal: stop accidents, action:punish a percentage of people who don't stop at marked intersections) and as our enforcement level is rising, in order to reduce the strain of living under the laws, we need to relax the rules.
              • In most German cities, public transit is on a pseudo honor system. The driver or conductor doesn't check your ticket, but occasionaly there are spot checks. If you ride the bus or train every day you might get asked for a ticket once a month or less, and the fine for riding without a ticket is more than the price of a monthly pass.

                That's similar to your statements about parking fines. It's there to make it not worth cheating. OTOH, many cities now look at fines as revenue source instead of revenue-neutral. Those parking attendants will write you up the minute your meter expires. I suppose the next efficiency improvement is parking meters that read your license plate and fine you as soon as your meter expires.
    • Well, typically we decide on whether you broke the law in a court. Until then you are a suspect, and do we really want to allow arbitrary tracking of people _suspected_ of breaking laws?

    • We need to distinguish between tracking someone who is breaking the law and someone who isn't.

      It needs to be pointed out that it was the stolen car that was actually being tracked, not the suspects. This distinction may seem minor, but it's very important.

      If you think that using technology to locate a stolen vehicle is a problem, then please explain why it's ok to use technology to notify police when a building is being broken into (a remote alarm).

      /Don

  • I mean really . . . (Score:5, Insightful)

    by amorico ( 40859 ) on Friday September 27, 2002 @11:34AM (#4344856)
    Five people are dead, the suspects may be apprehended, and the only thing that comes out of it is. "I always knew the feds were using luxry autombiles to track us. I just knew it." Did it ever occur to the rather focused poster that the reason they used OnStar is because the car was STOLEN and that's one of the things it's FOR.

    I know that electronic surveillance is frightening but this was not a case of unwarranted electronic tracking. A horrible crime was committed, and technology, for once, did what it was DESIGNED to do and helped catch actual suspects. It would be very different if law enforcement tracked all the onstar vehicles to look for patterns of suspicious activity. There is a difference between the legitimate use of technology to fight crime and using technology to as the ultimate panopticon where we are constantly under surveillance.

    -a

    • Did it ever occur to the rather focused poster that the reason they used OnStar is because the car was STOLEN and that's one of the things it's FOR.

      ME: Officer, I'd like to report my car stolen.

      OFFICER: OK sir. I have to tell you that our rate of finding stolen cars really isn't very good.

      ME: But I know where it is.

      OFFICER: Really? Great! We'll get right on that. How do you know where it is?

      ME: I have OnStar.

      OFFICER: Ooh... Uh.. We can't really use that, so ah... we'll have to use our normal techniques, but I have to tell you that our success rate isn't very good...

    • Ditto that all the way. Another thief done in by the technological investment of a rightful owner. I love these stories about criminals who would normally 'slip through the cracks' getting their just desserts.

      I can't help but remember another Dumb Criminal story I once read. A guy's car was stolen, brand new, very expensive. A few days passed, and he gets a phone call at home. It's the thief, using the guy's number which he found in the glove box. Mr. Thief would like to know how to work the stereo. And apparently he lives very close by. The car's owner arranged a meeting, to give the thief a lesson. He then arranged for some 'guest teachers' from the local Police Department.

      Ain't justice sweet?
      • Similar:

        Our provincial drivers licenses have mag-strips in them that police can swipe to get information quickly.
        When they first came out, an officer was telling a bunch of kids how they work. Some guy walking by thought this sounded cool, and asked the officer to test it on his license. The officer did so, came out, handcuffed the guy and read him his rights.

        It appears that the guy had a warrant out for him in another city/province, but only thought that the license provided drivers info. Isn't it great when dumb criminals serve themselves on a silver platter?
    • technology, for once, did what it was DESIGNED to do and helped catch actual suspects. It would be very different if law enforcement tracked all the onstar vehicles to look for patterns of suspicious activity.

      All in good time, comrade. All in good time.

      Power corrupts.
      • Dude, really. Onstar is, in part, a tracking device. If you get in a bad accident where the airbags go off, the police are summoned immediately. If you call onstar and tell them you car was stolen, they track it and tell the police where it is. Onstar tracked car thieves at the request of the vehicle's owner. The police were used to apprehend the car thieves, whom also happened to be bank robbers and murderers.

        If you put a GPS in your car so you can see where you've gone, would you be violating you own rights? If someone took your vehicle for a short joyride with the GPS in there and then parked it where you left it, would you have violated their rights? Get a clue.

  • OnStar / LoJack (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Mandrake ( 3939 ) <mandrake@mandrake.net> on Friday September 27, 2002 @11:42AM (#4344926) Homepage Journal
    If my car is stolen (equipped with LoJack) and then used in a bank robbery as a getaway vehicle and the cops are looking for it because of my LoJack, that's perfectly acceptable for me. it wasn't their property they were in, they were chased down because of the anti-theft features of someone elses car (which is DESIGNED to catch someone who has stolen your car).

    On the flip side, even though I'm sure even though it wouldn't be considered acceptable, if the police knew I had lojack and I was on a high speed persuit and lost them, I'd half-expect them to find me because of my lojack anyways. I'm just glad that me speeding doesn't automatically alert them as I run through their zone. :)
    • >> I'm just glad that me speeding doesn't automatically alert them as I run through their zone.

      But the scary thing is what if they start to use it for that purpose? They have been saying they haven't been using it to track at all, which was not the case here. This may be a precendence for tracking even speeders.

      On one hand, I'm glad the bank robbers were caught. On the other, I'm cautious of how they were tracked.
      • but I don't think that is relevant here.

        onstar IS to be used to track stolen vehicles. that is part of the appeal. in fact, that's the ONLY purpose to systems like LoJack. since it was used for the intended purpose, it is COMPLETELY acceptable to me that this worked out the way it did
        • Well, I can see that.

          I guess I'm concerned about whether it's used when the vehicle isn't stolen at all. I'd be surprised if their weren't a few voyeurs (sp?) with access to the system.
      • But the scary thing is what if they start to use it for that purpose? They have been saying they haven't been using it to track at all, which was not the case here. This may be a precendence for tracking even speeders.

        How daft are you people? THEY USE IT TO TRACK STOLEN CARS. THE BANK ROBBERS STOLE A CAR, AND THE CAR WAS TRACKED. Its not a difficult concept.

        On the other, I'm cautious of how they were tracked.

        They were in a stolen car being tracked by a stolen car locating device. Are you against recovering stolen vehicles?
  • They stole a car and the OnStar from it was used to track down the criminals and you're complaining? Haven't you heard of LoJack?

  • Can't have it both ways (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Timinithis ( 14891 ) on Friday September 27, 2002 @12:46PM (#4345449) Homepage
    Is the submitter of this really that far gone? Did he even read the article where is stated that the *stolen* get-away vehicle was equipped with OnStar? What does he think OnStar is for, finding the nearest latte shop? OnStar is a more feature enhanced LoJack..you know the little device that is placed somewhere in your car to help incase it's stolen.

    If you are such a privacy nut, then please, mark your vehicles with big stickers, "Not Equipped with Tracking Device" so those car-jackers and bankrobbers will take your car, and help the insurnace rates on my OnStar equipped vehicle go down even further.

    I just hope the bastards don't get off on some technicality about them being tracked with OnStar, an 'invasion of privacy'.
    • The constitution is not a "technicality"
    • Near as I can tell, there is no technicality. The fourth amendment prohibits unreasonable search and seizure. There are workarounds, like anything, but that's the general rule.

      Flamebait me if you will, but something to consider is that these people are still "suspects". It has not yet been made self evident that they are indeed the perpetrators, and as such, they should be considered innocent until proven guilty. As far as the stolen cars go, yes, definitely keep 'em on that (please read the article, people, there were two cars involved) - but if you can acquire evidence against them (even if it's just the plunderings from the bank), even better!

  • On* (Score:5, Interesting)

    by TheDarkRogue ( 245521 ) on Friday September 27, 2002 @01:34PM (#4345904)
    A friend of my family owns a car with one of these services in it. One time we were eating dinner at a very nice chinnese resturant in a not so nice part of town and the persons car got stolen. We used a phone and reported it to the police. We then called On* and informed them of the theft. We gave the phone to the police officer who arrived, who then called in the location of the car. The cops we talked to later told us the thief and his girlfriend were scared shitless when the 2 cop cars out of no where came and blocked him off. The Front drivers seat had to be Reupholstered after that. The car was also out of the possesion of the theif withing one halfhour after being reported. My friend definatly got his moneys worth for the Fee he has to pay for the onstar service.
  • Dear Dead-Persons' Families,

    We regret to inform you that because we didn't want to impose on the murderers of your loved-ones rights of privacy, they will run free.

    Have a nice day.

    Privacy is appropriate in most, but not all cases.
    Pardon the flamebait approach.
  • Keep whining.

    The owner of that Subaru is going to get their car back, the assclowns who shot up a bank and stole the car are going to the big gray bed and breakfast where they'll take it in the dumper for a few years ... it's all good.
  • Now the whole world knows that we're spying on On Star users by way of our friends at the CIA.
  • is that of "who will watch the watchers". I think its great that those guys were caught. i would be less pleased if my movements were tracked because I wrote a letter to the editor. That is not a question of technology, but sociology.
  • Visit the Onstar Official Site [onstar.com] and read question number 2 under the "Installation" section.

    I wonder how many times a question has to be asked before it'd end up in their FAQ...

Slashdot Top Deals

Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man -- who has no gills. -- Ambrose Bierce

Close