Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Privacy Government The Courts United States News

Roadside Assistance System Used for Eavesdropping 445

Posted by michael from the tap-tap-tapping dept.
pegr writes "El Reg has a story about how a US appeals court has 'put the brakes on an FBI surveillance technique that turns an automobile driver's on-board vehicle navigation system into a covert eavesdropping device, after finding that the spying effectively disables the system's emergency and roadside assistance features.' Seems the right to get the service you pay for trumps the 'right' of the FBI to spy on you, using your own vehicle's systems!"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Roadside Assistance System Used for Eavesdropping More

Roadside Assistance System Used for Eavesdropping

Comments Filter:

  • Surprised?? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Creepy Crawler ( 680178 ) on Thursday November 20, 2003 @01:01PM (#7520852)
    OnSpy, how can we help you?

    • Re:Surprised?? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by racermd ( 314140 )
      I purchased a 2001 Chevrolet Silverado in May of that year and I *intentionally* chose NOT to add the OnStar "feature" for this very reason. It was offered as standard equipment on all the newest models, but the early 2001's didn't have it standard (from about Mar/Apr onwards, I think).

      At the time, the dealer I was working with thought I was paranoid. Just a few short years later, I turn out to be the sane one...

      • Re:Surprised?? (Score:5, Funny)

        by the_mad_poster ( 640772 ) <shattoc@adelphia.com> on Thursday November 20, 2003 @02:49PM (#7522021) Homepage Journal

        Often, the only difference between being a paranoid whackjob and a prophet is whether or not you were popular in the first place.

    • Re:Surprised?? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by SatanicPuppy ( 611928 )
      I always kind of assumed they did stuff like this. The capability is there, and its all controlled from their end. Seems logical.

      I'm not a major privacy fiend, but I'd never use this sort of service.
    • Hah, where's your tin foil hat now!

    • Lo-Jack (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Chris Burke ( 6130 ) on Thursday November 20, 2003 @03:19PM (#7522347) Homepage
      When I bought a car recently, the finance guy tried to sell me Lo-Jack, which if you don't know is a microwave transmitter that the police can remotely enable and then pick up the signal from their squad car, ostensibly to retrieve your car when it gets stolen.

      The relevent part is when he said "... and since it's only turned on when you report your car stolen, it isn't Big Brother-ish like On-Star and the others".

      A microwave transmitter in my car that is directly controlled and monitored by the police. And that's not Big Brotherish. Riiiight.

      That the guy seemed genuinely startled when I pointed out this obvious problem tells me that we've already lost.

  • Funny FBI (Score:5, Interesting)

    by dolo666 ( 195584 ) * on Thursday November 20, 2003 @01:02PM (#7520854) Journal
    What's most disturbing is that they only passed this because it prevented the saftey features from working, and not because it was infringing on rights of privacy. Crap, if they have a bug order anyway, can't they just bug the car?

    I mean, the cops are listening... so... uh... what's the point of having roadside assistance? If the car breaks down, the FBI or whoever was listening could repsond!

    I remember CSIS was slammed some years ago for agents listening in on random phone calls to Canadian citizens, and gossiping about what was going on with other agents, in a kind of Real-Radio type gagfest.

    It's a good sign from the states that they are stopping this stuff, but I don't have much faith in that being followed by every cop out there. If they want to know what you're up to, trust me... they will.
    • >>>What's most disturbing is that they only passed this because it prevented the saftey features from working, and not because it was infringing on rights of privacy. Crap, if they have a bug order anyway, can't they just bug the car?

      It's not soo much even that. It's the fact that they're interfering with a commercial service that "donates to campaigns". The big bad corporate body didnt want bad press about their systems, so have Mr. bought_off_senator stop FBI.

      • RTFA (Score:2)

        by siskbc ( 598067 )
        It's not soo much even that. It's the fact that they're interfering with a commercial service that "donates to campaigns". The big bad corporate body didnt want bad press about their systems, so have Mr. bought_off_senator stop FBI.

        Try reading the article first. It was stopped through the legal system, congress had nothing to do with it and federal judges are appointed.

        Your paranoid conspiracy theory is compelling, it just happens not to be grounded in any facts in this case.

    • If the car breaks down, the FBI or whoever was listening could repsond!

      Actually, in the majority opinion, they addressed that: "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."
      • grandparent poster wrote:
        If the car breaks down, the FBI or whoever was listening could repsond!

        Most of the time the conversations are recorded to tape and reviewed later for any "good stuff". As a matter of fact, when warrants are issued, many times they include a restriction that requires the law enforcement agency specifically to ignore any conversation involving parties not mentioned in the warrant, etc.

        • Re:FBI Roadside Assistance (Score:5, Funny)

          by Ralph Wiggam ( 22354 ) * on Thursday November 20, 2003 @02:37PM (#7521844) Homepage
          In the movie Casino, the mobsters have thier wives call each other and talk about shopping for 2 minutes. After the FBI turns off the recorder because it's not relevant, then the mobsters start talking. That movie teaches us so many useful things. Like always have the hole dug first. You don't want to sit out in the desert digging a hole. Someone could come by, and then you have to dig another hole. Life lessons.

          -B

    • Re:Funny FBI (Score:2, Interesting)

      by InfiniteWisdom ( 530090 )
      What's most disturbing is that they only passed this because it prevented the saftey features from working, and not because it was infringing on rights of privacy. Crap, if they have a bug order anyway, can't they just bug the car?

      IANAL, but my guess is the laywer handling the case saw an easy way to win, and decided to stick with that rather than making complex arguments about rght to privacy and stuff. It doesn't imply that they would not have won otherwise.

    • Re:Funny FBI (Score:3, Informative)

      by HardCase ( 14757 )
      What's most disturbing is that they only passed this because it prevented the saftey features from working, and not because it was infringing on rights of privacy. Crap, if they have a bug order anyway, can't they just bug the car?

      How is it infringing on their "right" to privacy if the FBI had obtained a warrant to listen in on the service? For starters, there is no "right to privacy". The Bill of Rights enumerates a number of rights that, taken in summary, give what amounts to a "right" of privacy, b

      • Re:Funny FBI (Score:5, Informative)

        by goofballs ( 585077 ) on Thursday November 20, 2003 @01:32PM (#7521133)

        -How is it infringing on their "right" to privacy if the FBI had obtained a warrant to listen in on the service? For starters, there is no "right to privacy".).

        yes, there IS a "right to privacy". the supreme court has interpreted the constitution as such, many times over the years.

        -The Bill of Rights enumerates a number of rights that, taken in summary, give what amounts to a "right" of privacy, but no specific right to privacy itself. ).

        Amendment IX- The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

        in other words, just because they don't spell it out certain rights, it doesn't mean you don't have them.

      • Re:Funny FBI (Score:3, Informative)

        by JayBlalock ( 635935 )
        For starters, there is no "right to privacy". The Bill of Rights enumerates a number of rights that, taken in summary, give what amounts to a "right" of privacy, but no specific right to privacy itself.

        Stop listening to Scalia, and go reread the 9th Amendment. In fact, I'll go on cut and paste it, as it's very short and clear: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Any questions?

        • Re:Funny FBI (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Hatta ( 162192 )
          Has the 9th amendment actually ever been used for anything? It seems to me an open and shut case that any prohibition against an adult consuming the substances of his choice would be unconstitutional. If only the founding fathers had the forsight to include an 11th ammendment, "what happens between consenting adults, remains between consenting adults."

      • Re:Funny FBI (Score:3, Informative)

        by SillySlashdotName ( 466702 )
        For starters, there is no "right to privacy". The Bill of Rights enumerates a number of rights that, taken in summary, give what amounts to a "right" of privacy, but no specific right to privacy itself.

        For starters, the "right to privacy" DOESN'T HAVE TO BE SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED(see Amendment IX).

        In addition, any rights or requirements NOT SPECIFICALLY GRANTED THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT are specifically retained by the states and the individual (see Amendment X).

        Really, the only difference between
      • ...there is no "right to privacy".

        True. The phrase "right to privacy" does not occur in the Constitution (which includes the amendments.) Neither does "freedom of the press". Furthermore, there is NO phrasing to suggest freedom of broadcasting, or freedom of film, or of videotape, or DVD. ANY of these could be censored by the government without falling afoul of a literal reading of the Constitution.

        Come on, do you honestly believe that the Constitution is intended to permit the Government to take part in
        • Neither does "freedom of the press".

          Perhaps not consecutively, but implied consecutively by conjunction in Amendment I.

          Amendment I: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the

          freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

          Right to privacy is not a phrase used, but it does talk about "right of the people to be secure in thei

    • Re:Funny FBI (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Syberghost ( 10557 )
      What's most disturbing is that they only passed this because it prevented the saftey features from working, and not because it was infringing on rights of privacy.

      Oh, come on. A court-approved surveillance warrant doesn't infringe your right of privacy any more than a court-ordered arrest warrant infringes your rights of liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

      We're not talking about the FBI running around tapping people's phones willy-nilly. Safety was the legitimate concern here.

  • you know you're being tailed (Score:4, Funny)

    by Frymaster ( 171343 ) on Thursday November 20, 2003 @01:02PM (#7520857) Homepage Journal
    when the guys who show up to fix your flat tire are wearing dark sunglasses.

  • "Although the bottom line is that the surveillance order was rejected, the real effect of it is that this kind of monitoring is permissible as long it does not interfere with the service."

    So how long until there is a federal law or regulation requiring these services to be able to work effectively even when the FBI is tapping in?

    • they will require that two cell connections be installed. One is the main and the other is the "backup" just incase one fails due to various reasons.

      It will be passed as a safety measure for consumers and a backdoor for the feds.

      Of course the systems will be mandated to be put into all cars. Remember people we NEED GPS locaters on our cell phones because what happens if you are hurt... I would prefer that I get to make the descision of whether or not something is enabled the government isn't here to pr
      • Of course the systems will be mandated to be put into all cars. Remember people we NEED GPS locaters on our cell phones because what happens if you are hurt... I would prefer that I get to make the descision of whether or not something is enabled the government isn't here to protect me, I'm a big boy now.

        On my cell phone (one of the Verizon Kyocera models) I can disable the sending of the GPS cordinates for all non-911 calls. Or so the user manual says. I'm not (yet) so paranoid that I think it's sending

        • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

          by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
          Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • More like insightful or interesting to me... Or a better mod would be +5 Scary.

  • Where to start? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Shakrai ( 717556 ) * on Thursday November 20, 2003 @01:02PM (#7520859) Journal

    I could say something about being paranoid and not owning a car that comes with these systems (I really don't have a use for the roadside assistance anyway -- that's what my cell phone is for), but if the FBI really wants to bug your car, they are going to be able to do so. This just makes it easier for them. I guess as far as the civil liberties go I guess I'm alright with it as long as they had to get a warrant in the first place to do this. The scary thought is the idea of a private corporation or individual using this to spy on you.... don't ever dump/piss off that cute chick you met last night who works at the OnStar call-center :)

    Interestingly enough, it seems that it was overturned because it stopped the system from providing the service that was sold to the customer (emergency notification when the button was pressed/airbags deployed in an accident). I wonder if the Feds will mandate that future versions of this system have the capability to spy on the customer and still work as provided?

    You'd think the FBI would have been smarter then this. What would have happened if the suspect had a flat tire and tried to use his roadside assistance? Gig might have been up pretty quickly. I suspect some techie didn't do his homework....

    • I wonder if the Feds will mandate that future versions of this system have the capability to spy on the customer and still work as provided?

      The deal's already been made. The FBI agrees to buy a new fleet of Suburbans and in exchange they get OnSpy redesigned to allow for snooping and concurrent emergency functionality.

      • The deal's already been made. The FBI agrees to buy a new fleet of Suburbans and in exchange they get OnSpy redesigned to allow for snooping and concurrent emergency functionality.

        Umm, not to be cynical but what's your source for this? According to the article the system in question most likely wasn't even OnStar anyway.

    • I wonder if the Feds will mandate that future versions of this system have the capability to spy on the customer and still work as provided?

      They can't. Or at least, they can't just yet. 1994's CALEA did just that for telephone systems, but, as was pointed out in the majority opinion, current law doesn't allow the FBI to mandate it.

      What would have happened if the suspect had a flat tire and tried to use his roadside assistance? Gig might have been up pretty quickly.

      Declan McCullagh posted an article [com.com] ab

    • Where to end? Right here. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by erikdotla ( 609033 ) on Thursday November 20, 2003 @01:20PM (#7521027)
      Sure they could bug your car anyway, but you could sweep for bugs (if you were a criminal, anyway).

      The difference is that they're turning something that is a harmless, useful commercial service and remotely exploiting it for monitoring.

      Then again, I suppose a long-range camera exploits "harmless photons" for the same purpose, which is why it would have been allowed, and the safety issues are the only reason the court rules against the FBI.

      Other than revealing that the FBI actively pursues these kinds of tactics, which most of us already knew (perhaps not to this extent), this article only discusses one rare exception to that policy and laws which govern it.
  • i wonder what 'surveillance techniques' they havent put the brakes on......but then again, paranoia runs in my family....

    xao
    • Well, there is this one other tool that the FBI has to detect if you are lying or not, but it only works on people with pacemakers. However, if you actually are lying... well, you can imagine the consequences. Grandpa will be truthfully protected at the bottom of the stairs.

  • Score one for little brother... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Space cowboy ( 13680 ) on Thursday November 20, 2003 @01:03PM (#7520866) Journal
    ... but I wonder how long it'll take before any system like this will have to have 2 channels, one for the security "people", and one for you...

    Simon

    • Re:Score one for little brother... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Tackhead ( 54550 ) on Thursday November 20, 2003 @01:40PM (#7521209)
      > .. but I wonder how long it'll take before any system like this will have to have 2 channels, one for the security "people", and one for you...

      I'm surprised it wasn't designed in from the first round, but I'm a cynical motherfucker.

      Given advances in technology, it raises an interesting question. Why not just install it by default? Given the advantages it would give law enforcement in tracking vehicle theft (and vehicle theft is often a precursor to everything from simple burglary to drug trafficking and yes, terrorism), why not have the government sponsor the Big Three into supplying a LilbroJack as part of the standard model? Big fat pork contracts for the steel belt, sold as "improving safety by eliminating auto theft" to the voter, and the cash-strapped State governments would likely be onboard anyways to save on highway patrol funding. (ie.. Congress wouldn't have to threaten to withhold highway construction $$$)

      As I see it, every car that rolls off the assembly line should get at least one, and preferably two, bugs built into it. 99% of the time the primary bug is off. 1% of the time the car is stolen, and the primary but is turned on when the civilian reports the car as stolen. (And 0.1% of the time, pursuant to the needs of law enforcement, the secondary bug only, is turned on for the sheer hell of it, but that's the price you pay for eliminating Grand Theft Auto across the country, with the exception of your PC/console gaming room :)

      The existence of the secondary bug should be withheld from the public for as long as practical. Not sure how to easily integrate a Big Secret(tm) such as the secondary bug into an insecure manufacturing process like vehicle design and assembly, mind you. I'm sure people with a Need To Know have good ideas on solving that problem.

      Both bugs could also hold a passive RFID chip containing the VIN(primary) and the VIN encrypted with the public half of an Uber Law Enforcement key (secondary) on it. Remove the primary bug, you've removed the VIN, you've automatically marked the car as stolen. Th33f = pwn3d! (And of course, if you so much as breathe the wrong way on the secondary bug, both bugs trip. Law enforcement can tell, by looking at which "VIN" (either VIN or VIN+UberKey) was transmitted at phone-home time, which bug was fscked with. Officer Friendly at your local precinct can track your stolen car with the primary bug, but only Law Enforcement of high enough rank to have access to the private half of the UberKey, however, could do anything with transmissions from the secondary bug.

      Back to reality for a bit. It'd be a bit of a kludge, but I bet a dirt-simple variation of the primary/secondary bug trick (albeit one not locked to the VIN, not directly accessible to law enforcement, sans crypto, and ultimately based on security through obscurity, namely the vehicle owner's skill in hiding the second bug) could even be designed and sold as a consumer aftermarket add-on to a commercial system like LoJack.

  • I just don't want it to be an easy thing for them to do. If they can spy on you in your car by flipping a switch, how many more taps are they going to have? Make it difficult because it's supposed to be difficult! (Patriot Act not withstanding...)
    • So you want a wiretap version of security through obscurity? Guess what, they will find a way if they need to.

      Contrary to what the tinfoil hat types say, the FBI and police do NOT wiretap without a court order. It's a waste of their time and resources. If they find anything with an illegal wiretap, they can't use it and would face loosing their jobs and criminal proceedings. I personally know FBI agents, they wouldn't even think about it.

      Now, if they do have the court order, technical issues will not
      • Sorry, you're wrong, and I don't just mean in a J. Edgar Hoover way. Illegal wiretaps are common. The Feds are just as capable as anyone else. In fact, they're more capable. Do you know who to call in the phone company to get a tap established? I don't. The FBI does. And to state that they do NOT do it is foolish because only one exception kills your point. (Had you said "rarely", I would have agreed with you.)
    • You didn't read the article, did you?


      They have to get a warrant, meaning that they have to establish probable cause to a judge. Then they have to serve the warrant to the service provider. Then they have to arrange to handle the data in a secure manner.


      Something easier? Sure, they could just get a warrant and slap a bug on the car.


      -h-

      • They don't have to leave their seats to use onspy. Besides, the warrent requirement is a complete non issue. With roving wiretaps the FBI can ask for a warrent in their favorite jurisdiction and it follows you everywhere. And under the patriot act, they don't even have to be investigating a crime, but only have guess that maybe they might hear something that could be relevant to a terrorism investigation. So what does this mean? It means that the fbi could readily get a warrent on your iranian doctor frien

  • vehicle tracking systems (Score:3, Interesting)

    by TWX ( 665546 ) on Thursday November 20, 2003 @01:04PM (#7520875)
    Thing is, it might be fun to mess with people who are attempting to use such a system against you. Record the audio from movies where people are conspiring, and play it back when the car is driving. Shield the GPS receiver so that it doesn't receive properly, stuff like that.

    Or, just learn how to be relatively self-sufficient on the road, so that they have a much harder time using things against you...

  • Even closer to home. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by orthogonal ( 588627 ) on Thursday November 20, 2003 @01:08PM (#7520912) Journal
    What about installation of a trojan to turn on and transmit audio from your PC's microphone, or pictures from the web cam?

    I'll bet this is already part of the FBI's arsenal.

    Prudence dictates disconnecting that microphone when not in use. And hardware based (less easily suborned) monitoring of outbound network traffic.

    (The accomplished tin-foil hat wearer will suggest that a disconnected microphone will just mean a free-standing bug being installed, and he'd be right. But why connect the mic and make it easy for you to be spied upon?)

  • Press Release of the Future (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Accord MT ( 542922 ) on Thursday November 20, 2003 @01:09PM (#7520925)
    LOS ANGELES, Nov 1, 2033 -- Due to the overwhelming success of historic actions such as the PATRIOT act and the DMCA, this morning the United Corporations of America announced they will be launching SafeCam, their latest security-related legislative product.

    Also known in the UCA as "consumers who look and act different", TERRORISTS have become a major threat to the consumer's way of life. The fact that he or she could be buying products from a real TERRORIST should send shivers down the spine of any good white God-fearing American consumer. There has been no way to effectively keep these TERRORISTS out of the marketplace, until now.

    SafeCam is a nanochip-sized machine which locates consumer homes and positions itself in key strategic positions. The product records video and audio data of the consumer and his or her family, scanning their food, office, computer, medical records, and general lifestyle attributes. It automatically bills the consumer and sends everything it finds to a central server to be analyzed and, if necessary, be sent to the Department of Consumer Protection. If it uncovers evidence that a consumer might be a TERRORIST, it will alert the local Law Enforcement corporation using the tried-and-tested "Guilty Until Proven Innocent" algorithm so successfully employed by previous UCA legislative products. Evidence can include non-Christian religious material, photographs of middle-eastern-looking people, and any product with questionable foreign origin.

    In the past, consumers have reacted positively to similar legislative products. Since non-TERRORISTS have nothing to hide, they do not mind 24-hour monitoring and reporting, and are now accustomed to the level of security the UCA provides.

    The UCA reports they plan to initially deploy ten SafeCam devices for every one consumer into the air supply later this month. Of course, consumers may choose to block these devices from entering their homes and businesses, but this blocking will be used against them as evidence, because who else but a TERRORIST would be afraid of Big Brother?

    About the United Corporations of America

    The UCA is the world leader in consumer protection legislative products. Representing corporations throughout the world, the UCA's mission is to provide a safe environment for all consumers to enjoy working, spending, and enriching member corporations.

    This document is hereby released to the public domain. You may (and are encouraged to) reproduce, republish, read, modify, and/or archive it without limitation.
    • LOS ANGELES, Nov 1, 2033
      You think it's going to take 30 years? Probably happen alot faster than that.
    • With micro-sized remotely-operated vehicles not much larger than a one-person coffee maker, and CCD devices less than an inch diagonally, this won't take 30 years.

      Image-recognition systems have been tested. Sure, they failed in virtually every test, but since when does that stop anyone deploying?

      It would be viable today to build a prototype of the system you describe. In fact, since DARPA published source-code for controlling ROVs, it would be viable for anyone to build a prototype. All you need is a wi

    • in Jeff Noon's "Nymphomation." But the blurbflies mostly served to whisper advertisements into consumers' ears.

      Another literary reference that comes to mind is the saboteurs in Kurt Vonnegut's "Player Piano." Everyone was always suspected of being a saboteur. In the finale there is chaos--people destroying machines everywhere. One guy exclusively destroyed traffic lights. Technology can certainly enslave as easily as it can liberate.

      Seriously, though, this kind of intrusive surveillance does justify

  • What precident? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by shakamojo ( 518620 )
    Don't get me wrong, I think this is a victory for privacy and liberty (albeit a small one), but isn't this setting a precident that's kind of scary? I mean as long as they don't interfere with the service it's ok? Granted, I'm sure that by the time the FBI is taking out warrants to listen in on your conversations you've probably already got worse things to worry about than this, but with everything becoming more interactive, how far away are we from losing what little is left of our privacy? Scary...
    • Unfortunately, this ruling spells out a technical error on behalf of the Feds, not a violation of privacy or liberty. As soon as they can figure out a way to do it and still leave you with the service you payed for, they can do it.

      Of course, they can always put their own tracker/microphone gizmo on your car. (And you can find it and put it on Granny's car instead...)
      • As soon as they can figure out a way to do it and still leave you with the service you payed for, they can do it.

        It seems we all are so confident that they CAN'T activate and tap into OnStar today. This whole story smells like disinformation to me, distributed to make the bad guys confident enough to speak frankly in their Caddies. "Yo, Joey, dey can't listen in on our business... it says so in USA Today. They couldn't print it if it wasn't so."

        People are so gullible it turns my stomach.

  • Paranoia paranoia everybody's comming to get me... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by MoneyT ( 548795 ) on Thursday November 20, 2003 @01:09PM (#7520930) Journal
    Ok, to start, you will notice that first in order for this surveilence to be activated, they need a cout order. IOW they need a warrant. That makes this surveilence no different than a wire tap or sitting outside your house with a mic aimed at your window. If they hae the warrant, they can monitor.

    Second, this seems overly paranoid on the safety issue, given that if the FBI is listening in, I'm sure they would be able to hear the person they're tapping scream "Holy FUCK!" before he hits the semi truck. And I highly doubt the FBI is just gonna sit on their ass wondering why they aren't getting any more sound.

  • Talk about collecting useful data! (Score:5, Funny)

    by TPS Report ( 632684 ) on Thursday November 20, 2003 @01:09PM (#7520933) Homepage
    Scene: Interrogation room, deep under FBI headquarters.

    AGENT: We know you did it. We have proof.
    YOU: You've got nothing!
    AGENT: [to other agent] Bob, play the tape.


    YOUR VOICE: I'd like the double cheeseburger meal, supersized with no pickles
    MCDONALDS DRIVE THROUGH: What kind of drink?
    YOUR VOICE: A large Coke please

    AGENT: Damnit. Fast forward the tape a bit.
  • OnStar changes it's service to allow eavesdropping without a service disruption, they'll be helpful agents listening to your every word as you drive across the country.

    Call me a Luddite, but I'm not happy with that idea.

  • Great, now that everyone knows it's possible, how long until we start to see plans for building your own box to enable this "feature" in other people's vehicles?

  • Figures... (Score:3, Funny)

    by MoeMoe ( 659154 ) on Thursday November 20, 2003 @01:21PM (#7521038)
    And this is the exact reason I got a Garmin StreetPilot III... that and my tin-foil hat ofcourse...
  • After reading this I'm starting a tin-foil car cover company!
  • I will modify vehicles such that the on-board microphones and the GPS antenna are tied to two devices - a switch, and an airbag deployment system. Unless I hit the switch, the microphones and on-board GPS are disabled. The switch is superceded only when the airbag deployment is detected, and at that time the microphones and GPS are effectively reactivated.

    Considering that GM was planning to put OnStar on every vehicle eventually [pcworld.com] I think my business could only grow in the future.
  • How about a blinking dash light that indicates the system is active?

  • Not all telematics system supports this. (Score:5, Informative)

    by LqdSlpStrm ( 464344 ) on Thursday November 20, 2003 @01:35PM (#7521167) Journal
    Have been developing systems like this for years.

    A few telematics systems lets you silently call upp the vehicle and eavesdrop using the handsfree functionality, but most don't. Some of the protocols supports it, while the vehicle implementation of it does not.

    What a call center operator can always do, however, is silently track your car. It usually works by calling up the vehicle over Verizon's WIN4 net, transmit authentication codes and a request to track the car's progress. Every five-fifteen minutes thereafter, the car will call up and transmit a GPS log to the call center.

    Remote door unlock is often also a trivial matter.

    No, you cannot call up and hijack the vehicle from the ordinary phone network since all WIN4 subscriptions have an areacode of 500, rending them unreachable from any ordinary phone. Calling out to them is a long and tedious process. On top of this, every vehicle usually have a unique passcode generated when the car is built. A list of these passcodes are then sent directly to the call center who uses them to access the cars.

    No, you cannot reprogram the 800 number dialled by the vehicle in case of a crash or other event. The number is setup in the WIN4 network. No matter what number you are trying to get to from the handset, you will end up at the same DNIS.

    My $.05
    • Hmmm.

      I forgot to mention that the article's description of the eavesdropping blocking the line for emergency calls points to a incorrectly designed telematics system.

      What should happen is that any non-emergency call is aborted when a higher level event, such as an airbag deployment, occurs.

      This frees the line for emergency use.

  • It's their loss... (Score:3, Funny)

    by switcha ( 551514 ) on Thursday November 20, 2003 @01:53PM (#7521355)
    My 'car-a-oke' renditions of todays top hits are really not to be missed.

  • What about cell phones? (Score:3, Funny)

    by FuzzyDaddy ( 584528 ) on Thursday November 20, 2003 @01:56PM (#7521380) Journal
    How long before your cell phone is turned into a device to eavesdrop on you? Could this be possible by remotely programming existing cell phones, without needing hardware modifications?

    I'm going to start selling a little clip on to the cell phone to light up or beep when it detects that the phone is transmitting. I bet the paranoid would pay $50 for that. It wouldn't cost more than a few bucks to make, with a mini-circuits [mini-circuits.com] rf amplifier and mixer.

  • here in San Antonio... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    here in San Antonio, an SAPD special street/drug crimes unit has been known to call up the Transguide Operators (highway cameras for traffic and safety conditions) and ask them to train a camera on a suspect or two.

    supposedly this pissed off some city officials and the practiced has been "banned" - yeah, right.

  • OnStar (Score:5, Informative)

    by raelimperialaerosolk ( 528725 ) on Thursday November 20, 2003 @02:17PM (#7521609) Homepage
    My new vehicle came with a free year of onstar service. I've only used it once when I called and set up the service.

    I asked the dealership where the onstar equipment was, and they said it was buried deep in the dash somewhere, totally inaccessible. I had the vehicle home and 5 minutes later found it underneath the passenger rear seat. It's not labelled "ONSTAR UNIT", but it was pretty obvious. You pull the cover back and there is a nice motorola built case with two data cables going into it and a 3rd coax connection (for the antenna).

    The Onstar stats say they recover 500 vehicles a month. Thieves really are idiots. All you have to do is disconnect the onstar box, or, at the very least pull out the antenna cable.

    I was considering disconnecting the unit after my year was up, but then my wife's cousin who consults for onstar was telling me that they will perform 'public safety' services even if you don't have an active account. He said if you're even in a bad neighborhood, just hit the button and say "I don't feel safe", and they'll guide you out.

    Interestingly, the onstar documentation doesn't come right out and say it, but it implies that they can use the onstar system (with built in gps) for reasons other than helping you. I can envision a situation where one parent might 'kidnap' their own kid and the other parent could get a court to use the Onstar system to locate the vehicle (or something like that).

  • Bot only used for.... (Score:3, Funny)

    by _ph1ux_ ( 216706 ) on Thursday November 20, 2003 @02:21PM (#7521645)
    I call upon you, the American People to realize that this action is only used to gather intelligence on the Axels of Evil - these terrorists in our midsts. This only furthers our resolve to do whatever we must to protect your freedom.

  • Vindication (Score:5, Insightful)

    by nurb432 ( 527695 ) on Thursday November 20, 2003 @02:46PM (#7521972) Homepage Journal
    This what have i been telling you people all along.. but nooooo all i get is fucking 'tin foil hat' cracks..

    Everyone needs to wake up and look around at what is going on... get your heads out of the sand and fight for what freedom we have left.... before its too late ( if it isnt already )

Slashdot Top Deals

THEGODDESSOFTHENETHASTWISTINGFINGERSANDHERVOICEISLIKEAJAVELININTHENIGHTDUDE

Close