OnStar Considered Harmful 480
Frisky070802 writes "A few weeks ago Slashdot ran an article on the privacy issues in EzPass. Some of the comments referred to other things Big Brother could do with GPS in cars, and now the New York Times has run a column on what else your car is saying about you (free registration req'd). From the article: 'Aviel D. Rubin, the technical director of the Information Security Institute at Johns Hopkins University, said that every new technology with the potential to invade privacy was introduced with pledges that it would be used responsibly.
But over time, he said, the desire of law enforcement and business to use the data overtook the early promises. "The only way to get real privacy," he said, "is not to collect the information in the first place."'"
"Real privacy"? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:"Real privacy"? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:"Real privacy"? (Score:5, Funny)
Then again, they can tell you the number for 911 and connect you for just 75 cents more...
You might laugh... (Score:4, Funny)
Her - "Oh, I never give my address out over the 'phone, you just don't know do you?"
Me - "Erm, you do know that we need to send someone to your house to fit the dish?"
Her - "Yes, but I won't give out my address on the phone"
I hung up on her.
Re:"Real privacy"? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:"Real privacy"? (Score:5, Interesting)
Eh I dunno. Personally, I'm kind of in the middle on the issue. On one hand, I don't really care if the gov't is aware of where I'm driving. (It's not like they don't have me by the balls without that information.) On the other, due process is VERY important to me. Worse, the data they could gather is very out of context. If I'm suspected of a crime, and they don't have a process to find information like this, they could find circumstantial evidence that I was guilty of the crime, as opposed to searching for stronger legitimate evidence that may point at somebody else.
So yeah, I want to be found if my airbag goes off, but I don't want somebody correlating my trip to Lake Oswego with a murder I wasn't involved with. Get a search warrant before looking at my data.
I think there's a middle ground here. Unfortunately, it'll require that the government be more disciplined, and the citizens will have to ditch the attitude that the gov't is out to get them.
Re:"Real privacy"? (Score:2, Insightful)
Given more power the gumnt will abuse their power more and citizens who have the attitude that the gumnt is out to catch them will be proven correct.
Re:"Real privacy"? (Score:5, Insightful)
Two things that will happen shortly after hell freezes over.
Seriously, I expect my elected officials to abuse any and all surveillance methods available to them. They do so already (ie echelon, et al.), why is this any different?
Re:"Real privacy"? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:"Real privacy"? (Score:3, Insightful)
Hmm mixed feelings on that one too. I *don't* want YOU speeding. I don't want to drive in fear that some maniac is going to come plowing around the corner. I want you to fear speeding, as opposed to fearing being caught by a random patrol.
At the same time, GPS won't tell the cops the context. It won't tell them that a hostile man
Re:"Real privacy"? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:"Real privacy"? (Score:5, Insightful)
Roads like that in many other countries don't even have speed limits.
Those two statements do not mesh well. The sometimes no-speedlimit Autobahn in Germany is possible because the standards to get a license are higher. Lower the limit on who can drive (and how they are trained) and you (we in the US) must accept lower limits on driving speeds.
Re:"Real privacy"? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't know about you, but I am tired of being held hostage by the words "If it could save just one life, it would be worth it."
Well, no, actually, it wouldn't. The idea of freedom, as it exists (however tenuously) in the United States, came about as a result of those willing to die for that freedom. I consider that principle one of the more noble and valuable in human history, and choose to reflect that in my own life, even if it affects my personal safety.
Re:"Real privacy"? (Score:3)
Speeding doesn't hurt anything - people who are incompetent and/or don't understand that their car has limits hurt things. Speed limit exist because they're the simplest solution to speeding - tax those who do it. I've gotten several
Re:"Real privacy"? (Score:3, Interesting)
Firstly, I've got a 2003 honda civic. In my area they've got boxes on the side of the road that tell you your speed. I've tested it and as far as I can tell my speedometer is spot on. The box says I'm going 40 and my speedometer is right on 40. However, my GPS (Garmin Legend) is always over by about 7mph. Also, I'm not sure how it calculates my max speed, but last time I checked it said something lik
Re:"Real privacy"? (Score:5, Insightful)
On the contrary, this attitude should never get weaker, but stronger. Everyone knows the quote "Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutly", and this is true with regards to the gov't as well. As citizens, we cannot afford to give the gov't any more power then they are required to have in order to do thei job we hired them to do. When they start taking power just to do a job they think they should do to be re-elected, then they have too much power.
Want to hear the good news? (Score:5, Informative)
You read that right - they can open the phone connection on your in-dash phone and listen to everything said and done in the vehicle. In theory they should announce themselves, but don't kid yourself.
Think you are being entirely too cool taking your secretary out in your new Mercedes Benz for a ride in the country and a romp in the back seat? Not only do they know where you picked her up, where you went, where you stopped in the country to tap a little ass, they can listen in on the juicy parts.
If you think they are not already doing it, think again. Watch the movie Enemy of the State and remember it is about 5 years old. That's about 28 in computer years.
Really?? (Score:3, Insightful)
The usual. (Score:5, Insightful)
OnStar is a good system, and can even save your life in the event of an accident.
Or, the government can use it to track you down and assassinate you because of your contributions to
Which one of these two situations are you more likely to be in?
Re:The usual. (Score:3, Insightful)
Option A is very likely to happen to a great many people, I'd wager a deal of people posting here have been in some car accident or other.
Option B is an extremist depiction of the government. A more realistic Option B would be 'To monitor whether you go to any Al Franken book signings'.
To the current administration, any opposing political views are wrong and support the terrorists.
Re:The usual. (Score:2)
Re:The usual. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:The usual. (Score:2)
Re:The usual. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The usual. (Score:5, Interesting)
Cool! (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm all for that, and so should you be. I drive obeying all posted signs and speed limits. Were it not for the fact that I live in a provice with socialized insurance on my car, I'd be paying about 3-4 grand per year to insure my car (worth about 1500$ CDN), rather than the 720$/year I pay now. Plus, since I have no accidents on record, I get a discount of 1% per each year of no accidents (6 years since I got my licence accident free).
The thing is, I'm a male in my low 20s. Most insurance companies traditionally track what they'd charge based on the age and gender, which (thanks to other drivers my gender and age being retards) would put me in a very shitty spot. Anything that lets insurance companies rape bad drivers while leaving better drivers with lowered rates and protection in case of stupid drivers is fine by me!
Re:Cool! (Score:2)
If I say I'm female, 22, and single, it drops to $2200. Male, married, and 22, $2800. In Ontario, car insurance is done by private companies which are allowed to discriminate based on age and sex. Since t
Re:Cool! (Score:3, Insightful)
Besides all of this is there realy a good reason to require insurance to drive it's realy an artificial industry i
Re:Cool! (Score:5, Insightful)
The difference is rationalization.
Most people believe that they are "better than average" drivers, even if they have no evidence to support that belief. That's just human nature.
Re:Cool! (Score:5, Funny)
The difference is rationalization.
No, the difference is obviously how wet they start out, whether they go through the spin cycle, and what temperature they dry at. If the drivers are soaking wet, you put them through the spin cycle, and you dry them at a high temperature, drivers get all bent out of shape and shrink.
Your best bet with drivers, like with all sensitive items, is to drip-dry them.
Re:Cool! (Score:3, Insightful)
Setting aside your exceedingly poor taste in word choices, just what exactly do you think insurance is for? It's to pay for expenses associated with accidents.
And how do they pay these expenses? With premiums from everyone. As insured people, we pool our money with the expectation that if we are involved in an accident the pool will cover our expenses. We expect that the persons managing this pool will take good care of it, and dole it out when necessary, and only when necess
It's obviously different for you. (Score:5, Interesting)
There's no way you can drive your car without insurance, as everyone has it. If you do decide to drive an unregistered car, it's immediate jail time. The insurance is no fault; if there's an accident, you pay your deductible, and they cut a cheque for the rest. This also makes for the interesting situation where it may be cheaper to swerve into a pedestrian that it would be to let yourself be hit by a car that's out of control, because the no-fault stuff covers any liability in that case.
SGI's also pretty reasonable for an insurance company. I bike all summer, and some guy decided to open his door into me (despite my shouting and his looking back at me). I ended up being fine, but he managed to destroy everything in my pocket (GSM phone, Palm pilot, pen). I got a cheque for $400 after a week and 1 report to SGI.
I like insurance on something like a car. Nowhere else do you typically involve yourself with devices that can easily cause so much personal or property damage. Insurance means you have a small, controlled expense in the event of an accident. That's really the goal of insurance -- everyone pays a small amount so that those who need it aren't fucked. If I hit a 70,000$ BMW, I pay my deductible and walk away fine mostly fine: I will pay more for registration and have points on my licence if I'm at fault, but I won't have to sell everything I own and declare bankruptcy!
Yea, you can argue that you'd be better off sticking that money in a bank account and accumulating interest on it, but insurance is always there with no build up period, plus it requires no discipline on your part beside paying for it -- there's no temptation to run out and buy a new car or home theatre with the money. In that sense, insurance is already escrow.
Saying that auto insurance is an artificial industry is like saying that medical insurance is an artificial industry. The only people who say that are those who haven't yet used it, or incredibly naive people. Everyone wins with these kinds of social agreements -- go take an economics course, and you'll understand why
Re:Cool! (Score:2)
Re:Cool! (Score:2)
In the US (or most of it, at least), insurance (from private companies) is required to drive. This is supposed to prevent you from getting into an accident and not having insurance to cover the damage and injuries to the other person and their vehicle.
Re:The usual. (Score:2, Insightful)
Or, how about insurance companies looking at where you drive? You drive into the city? You may live in zipcode X, but your car spends most of the time in zipcode Y which is a higher crime area. Up goes your insurance.
Re:The usual. (Score:3, Insightful)
While you are making payments, it's not really your car, and if you stop making payments, they *can* and *will* reposess it. They don't need OnStar to lock you out of your car - they will simply come for it and take it away.
Re:The usual. (Score:5, Interesting)
OnStar commercials remind me of the crime prevention system commercial in the Minority Report. The idea that FBI can tap in and listen to the conversation in your or any car without anybody realizing anything is idiotic.
Now, from the article:
A three-judge panel in San Francisco rejected the request, but not on privacy grounds; the panel said the wiretap would interfere with the operation of the safety services.
Yes, this is true.
OnStar has said that its equipment was not involved in that case.
I don't think so. I got an impression that it was exactly OnStar technology that was involved in that case from this CNet article [com.com], saying the following:
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.
Now back to NYT article:
As for law enforcement, the company said it released location data about customers only under a court order. "We have no choice but to be responsive to court orders," Ms. Lama said.
Then do not track more information, and not for any longer than it is necessary for you to provide emergency and related services. Also, do not under any circumstances let FBI listen in to people's conversations in their cars via your remotely activated microphone. But that's probably not in your business plan, or PR statement.
Not OnStar (Score:2)
Minor quibble. Same technology, but not the same company. It was Tele Aid (from ATX, used by Mercedes Benz), not OnStar, that was involved in this case. This is covered by Kevin Poulsen in this SecurityFocus article [securityfocus.com].
Re:The usual. (Score:5, Insightful)
Even so, I still don't trust this. Naturally, governmental organisations are more or less exempt from these rules, not so much by the letter of the law as in the way it is enforced. The law does not allow law enforcment to use the data without a search warrant... which means that they cannot use it to gather evidence that is admissible in court, for example to give me speeding tickets. But, it can still be used to gather interesting data. As another reader pointed out, the police might use OnStar records to check on every person in the vicinity when a homicide has taken place. Not admissible in court, but it may still expose you to some interest from the police, perhaps even arrest.
Farfetched? Our country has seen many illegal phone taps and even searches of peoples' houses, not to gather evidence for a court case, but to gather clues in order to further certain crime investigations. Mind you, the people being investigated were suspect, but with such tenous ties to the case that no court would and has issued search warrants. It became quite the political scandal, but in our fine tradition of sweeping internal governmental affairs under the rug, nothing ever came of the inquiry.
Yes, you would do well to mistrust your government.
Re:The usual. (Score:2)
All new GM cars come with the OnStar service that aids in dialing 911 when the airbags are deployed. However, they act like the system is disabled after 6 months (or whatever the time period is) if you don't pay for an OnStar subscription.
After this time period, do they really disable this feature? Do they also quit tracking you (e.g. the privacy issue)? Or are both of these issues up to the OnStar god to decide?
Re:The usual. (Score:2)
Re:in my case (Score:3, Funny)
Onstar and the Beagle (Score:5, Funny)
Onstar: "Onstar operator here. I see that your airbags have deployed do you need assitance?"
Beagle 2: "Uh, no, everythings fine here."
Onstar: " We are concerend that you have fallen in a crator, can you confirm?"
Beagle 2 : " Look can I get some privacy here! I am in the crator taking a wicked piss. You would to if you had to travel that far without a potty break! I'll be in contact when I am done."
See mystery solved and an example of when to much privacy causes confussion.
Re:Onstar and the Beagle (Score:2)
Is that also an example of y'all's &%!#ed up British spelling(/grammar)?
Google link (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Google link(OT, but... (Score:4, Insightful)
It seems like it's relevant to ask in a privacy related thread, so please share with us all of you who don't register for the nytimes.com silliness, why do you avoid this formality? The cost seems very slight for some of the best journalism (IMHO), especially compared to salon.com which makes you watch click-through ads.
This may sound like flamebait, but take a moment to think about the complaints about the registration vs. the information that the ny times provides, then if you still think i'm a jerk for asking, mod me down.
I'll bite (Score:5, Interesting)
"The only way to get real privacy," he said, "is not to collect the information in the first place."'"
That, my friend, is the bottom line of the article summary, and also the bottom line for many of us. Some fights are worth fighting for purely on their merits, and privacy is one of them. Pragmatism has nothing to do with it. I just enjoy my privacy, so do thousands of others here on Slashdot, and it's nice to remind everyone else of that.
The more people sign up for the NYT online, the more acceptable it is for companies to do it. Thanks, but no thanks.
ohh the fucking irony.... (Score:5, Funny)
From the New York Times' mandatory registration page: "We'll keep your information private. The following fields are required. NYTimes.com respects your privacy, so we will never share any personal information without your consent."
What's on the front page tomorrow, an in-depth report on the pot and the kettle?
Privacy is meaningless... (Score:5, Interesting)
Mr car (Score:4, Funny)
Ben
No, really.. my car DOES wear a tinfoil hat (Score:2)
- Rob Cockerham (if I were him, that is)
Real Privacy (Score:2, Insightful)
cost/benefit analysis (Score:5, Insightful)
In this case, we have:
(risk of being spied OnStar)*(loss of privacy) +
(risk of being stranded)*(result of being stranded) +
(added price of OnStar and service)
(<,=,>?)
(risk of being spied on with a cell phone)*(loss of privacy) +
(risk of being stranded w/ cell phone)*(result of being stranded) +
(added price of cell phone and service)
If you've already got a cell phone, and you always have it with you, that side of the question is pretty small.
My little formula ignores the gee-whiz-me-too value of having a built-in car phone and other trivial factors.
Re:cost/benefit analysis (Score:2)
Tracking you and recording phone conversations it's a problem in both.
But you can't turn onstar off, and with it (or others) crackers may record everything you say on the car and you wouldn't even notice any noise/display/battery drops, and worse, some cracker can drive you outside the road and make it look as an accident.
If OnStar can start your car and unlock your doors (Score:5, Funny)
Re:If OnStar can start your car and unlock your do (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't post this with the intention of saying how "great" OnStar is - infact I am wearing my tinfoil hat right now - but simply to illustrate what the system is capable of.
Re:If OnStar can start your car and unlock your do (Score:3, Funny)
Re:If OnStar can start your car and unlock your do (Score:3, Informative)
Re:If OnStar can start your car and unlock your do (Score:3, Insightful)
And if somebody is thinking about insurance premium cuts if you install the tracking device: as soon as it becomes standards, there will be no premium for inst
Re:If OnStar can start your car and unlock your do (Score:2)
Discovery ran a piece on these repo guys. All hollywooded up, but these were real down and dirty guys with tow trucks sneaking into driveways at night and towing cars. Hot stuff. So Onstar doesn't actually add a new threat in that arena.
PS. If you are having a baby, maybe you should continue those payments one more month until she delivers.
Re:If OnStar can start your car and unlock your do (Score:2)
Needless to say, I will never buy Subaru again. Still, it would have been worse if the car had actually locked me out.
Text of article, for the extra-paranoid (Score:4, Informative)
Anyone heard of NetworkCar? (Score:4, Funny)
I've heard the commercials on the radio, and they spend about 20 seconds describing the technology, then the other 40 seconds are spent on a female voice reading what at first sound like legal disclaimers. But then she says something like "Network Car may not be used to track your husband, find out how lost he got on the way to the grocery store, and then call him to make fun of him." Pretty funny stuff, actually.
Duh... (Score:2, Redundant)
Re:Duh... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Duh... (Score:4, Funny)
Everyone on Slashdot gets laid.
don't forget slashdot hashing (Score:2, Insightful)
Persistance of information in a changing society (Score:5, Informative)
I think that's a general rule with information that's often not taken very seriously.
When I look at my (non-US) government and a large number (not all) of organisations that I give personal information to, I generally trust them. Within certain bounds, it's not very likely that most people will abuse the trust that you put in them. They ask for information because they think it might be useful for what they're doing for you, and that's initially its primary use. There are obviously some exceptions with marketing motivations -- I don't trust spammers with my email address and never gave them permission to use it. Partly that's where privacy policies and legislation should come in where possible.
The problem, though, is that times change, organisations change, the people running them change, societial views change, and ethics change. Data that you've given to an organisation, on the other hand, doesn't change on its own. It stays right there to be interpreted and used in whichever ways the current powers see fit.
Consider how many organisations and governments have changed over the last 50 years. Then consider that most of the information collected 50 years ago is probably still on record. Just because you trusted the people heading an organisation or a committee or a council or a government at a particular time does not mean that those people won't change later on.
Information collected today will almost certainly be on record 50 years from now. In fact, it's likely that much more of it will remain on record than from the past 50 years until now, because digital information is so easy and cheap to manage and manipulate compared with paper.
For the same reasons when I was a membership secretary for a small-medium organisation I felt an ethical obligation to destroy at least the digital membership records of former members a year after they left, unless there was a good reason to keep them. I wasn't going to do anything deceptive with them, but I couldn't guarantee who would be on the committee in five or ten years' time. This isn't the norm with most organisations, though.
Realistically I do trust the majority of people and organisations when they tell me that they wouldn't abuse information that I give them. It means a lot more to me though if they'll commit to destroying it after they no longer need it.
I don't know if this is a problem that can easily be fixed. Realistically information about people is what the world runs on -- it's a fuzzy boundary and matter of opinion that determines how much is too much or what constitutes misuse. If it suits you then you could get all paranoid and not give out any personal information to anyone, but that's not an option for most people and in some situations it's not legal for arguably reasonable reasons.
Re:Persistance of information in a changing societ (Score:2, Informative)
I'm not sure how enforcable this is, but the legislation is there.
It may seem trivial at the time (Score:4, Insightful)
I think everyone that collects information starts out with the best intentions. But, sooner or later, any information resource that can be abused will be. So the more persistent information becomes the greater the abuses that will occur. I think there has to be a reaction at some point. Can't help thinking people will wake up one day and it will hit them how invasive information gathering has become and push back. Then I go to some public place and look around and realize...these people are fucking idiots.
UMMM..... helllo!? (Score:2, Interesting)
Why I drive a car from 1969 (Score:5, Interesting)
missing out (Score:2)
Not that any of that type of servitude qualifies the gathering of historical data as relates to location, exceeding the speedlimit, etc. Just a matter of time before insurance companies misuse that info, just like they do when profiling/redlining.
It's not the information itself, but who has it. (Score:5, Insightful)
Why? Because the information people have about you is power they have over you, and I don't trust anyone accept family with that information. I DO NOT trust the US goverment as much as I trust my parents or siblings and that's how it's supposed to be. I DO NOT trust sony to know what my buying preferences or toxic waste distributors like coca cola to know I don't like drinking their toxic waste. Infact, the very fact that most of us are scared shitless at the US goverment or corperations or buisnesses prying is proof enough that something's wrong and something needs to be done before a real civil war takes place and people begin shooting and dieing and nuking.
I'd be worried about the maintenance angle. (Score:3, Funny)
"What'd you pull me over for, Officer"
"Yer headlight's out"
"Not its not"
{smash, tinkle}
"Yes it is"
Here's the future of OnStar...
"Sir? This is OnStar. Your car has reached a recommended service interval. Would you like to book an appointment now?"
"No, thank you."
"OnStar, how may I help you?"
"My car will only do 5 miles an hour."
"That's correct sir. As a courtesy to OnStar members, GM offers their GOFAST, GM Online Failure Avoidance Safety Tracking System free of charge. For your safety and convenience, your car will continue to operate at this safe speed until the safety systems have been verified by a GM-ceritified engineer."
"I heard that, sir."
"OnStar, how may I help you?"
"The hood won't open"
"The system indicates that you are not at an authorized GM service center."
(somebody else can finish the story...)
Paranoia not completely unwarranted. (Score:4, Interesting)
The only company that makes a device (the Vetronix CDR system) to extract the data from it charges thousands of dollars for it--there's a secretive Yahoo group of "accident reconstructionists" that make their living extracting data from these devices and testifying for those willing to pay expert witnesses (e.g. insurance companies).
Those who don't value their privacy will say that people should be held accountable for their actions. Fair enough--but these data are open to interpretation, and only those with the cash will be able to pay one of these people to get the interpretation they want.
OnStar-enabled terrorism (Score:3, Interesting)
Paging Mr Irony... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Anything can be abused (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Anything can be abused (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Anything can be abused (Score:5, Insightful)
Does that include a license plate?
Re:Anything can be abused (Score:2)
Heh. Oregon recently considered using GPS devices to track how many miles a car was driven within the state, in order to fairly tax those who use the roads more or don't use them much at all. Didn't happen, but it could have.
Incidently, cell phones are trackable too.
Re:Anything can be abused (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Anything can be abused (Score:5, Informative)
I first learned of that for the NYT links here on slashdot, but it seems to be everywhere.
It'd be pretty interesting to see the stats on this "password" person.
Re:Anything can be abused (Score:5, Interesting)
If you don't believe me, recall the TIA project where the government wants to aggregate all avaliable data from public corporations about you.
Re:Anything can be abused (Score:2, Interesting)
Patriot II and friends are all there because bush now has free reign to do whatever he wants, because he can scare the sheep of the american people just by pointing and yelling "terrorist".
I'm glad I don't live there.
Re:Anything can be abused (Score:2)
Yes anything can be abused, but thats not the real problem. It's that *EVERYTHING IS BEING ABUSED.
You know, I'd be a lot more bothered by all this information collecting stuff, if I didn't know how screwed up the information industry was. Seriously, can we really be that afraid when agencies of government can't even use their systems to communicate with each other? Big brother can't get off the ground because of stupidity, ineptitude, and lack of forsight on the part of system designers. I sleep easy at
Re:Anything can be abused (Score:4, Interesting)
Not only are you missing the point, but I believe that you are trying even harder to understand less than that which is obvious.
This "if you don't like it, don't use it" attitude that you and those like you exhibit, encourages companies and gov't agencies to further intrude upon our privacy.
If there is no penalty, and only an incentive for them to snoop, they will.
If preference in gov't contracts is given to those who snoop over those who don't and there is no consumer backlash, guess what happens? Everyone will be falling all over each other to outsnoop the competition.
A few years back when Smith and Wesson made a deal with the Clinton administration to gain immunity from civil lawsuits and preferential treatment in the awarding of government contracts by compromising the rights of gun buyers, do you know what happened?
EVERY concerned 2nd amendment group in the country turned on them. Boycotts are still in place against them because of what they did. That showed the rest of the gun makers that if you betray us, we'll remember.
You can bet dimes to dollars that Glock or Beretta doesn't sell out the way that S&W did.
Apply this to the right to privacy. If companies knew that it was PR suicide to snoop on their customers, no one would do it. If we would make the private sector penalties outweigh the public sector incentives, companies would put an end to this bullshit.
LK
Re:1975 - The year I consulted for Magnusson-Moss (Score:2, Insightful)
Parent is a complete bullshit troll. NOT ONE WORD HE SAYS CAN BE CONSIDERED RELIABLE.
Re:1975 - The year I consulted for Magnusson-Moss (Score:2, Insightful)
You might just be able to pull of the next Frank Abagnale, Jr.! [dreamworks.com]
No it's not - it's there whether you pay or not (Score:2, Informative)
Re:No it's not - it's there whether you pay or not (Score:2)
Re:FUD (yes, thank you for that dose) (Score:2)
Think about it. OnStar saves the lives of so many grannies on their way to bingo, or some diabetics who went into insulin shock, or... whatever. Then, using their typical logic, Congress decrees that, since it's helped some people, everyone now has to have it if they want a new car. They did it with on-board defib units in planes, they did it with GPS in cell phones, they even did it with closed-captioning
Re:FUD (yes, thank you for that dose) (Score:5, Insightful)
You get tracked driving to your terrorist buddy's place to buy some illegal weapons. Nothing the FBI couldn't see by tailing you.
btw what's wrong with defibs in planes? And frankly I *want* GPS in my phone when I call 911. I did that once for a fire in the middle of nowhere and it took a good few miles before I hit an exit and could tell the dispatcher where I was (this was in California where they don't believe in mile markers...) And once again when there was an "incident" when I couldn't stay on the line long enough to say where I was. The situation diffused itself, but it *really* would've helped to have gotten a cop there.
Closed captioning pisses me off, but just because I don't feel like I should have to pay for it...
Re:FUD (Score:2)
Paranoids are just realists (Score:2)
How many times has that been said throughout history, just before they come knocking on the door?
Slow encroachment and slow acceptance, are the 2 biggest dangers.
Re:Dont speak for me. (Score:3, Insightful)
Beacuse ifs none of their damned business where i go or what i purchase.
Me get a grip? No, you wake up.
Re:When will Slashdot stop with the sensationalism (Score:2)
Re:I don't see the problem (Score:3, Insightful)
And forget anything dealing with state, or above... just imagine what the "known to associate with" spins would look like once a few GPS coordinates are correlated. Think the commie witch hunt of the 50s was philosophically gross? It's nothing compared to what we could do with a system like this, today. And God Help You(tm) if you discovered, say, an intentio
Re:crippling it. (Score:3, Insightful)
Your personal safety is your personal responsibility. Big Brother / Big Nanny schemes are not necessary, nor are they as effective as personal vigilance.