Dealer-Installed GPS Tracker Leads To Kidnapper's Arrest in Maryland 271
New submitter FarnsworthG writes A news story about the capture of a kidnapper mentioned that he was caught because a car dealer had secretly installed a GPS device on his car. Apparently this is becoming common for "buy-here-pay-here" dealers. The devices are sold by Spireon, among many others. Raises interesting privacy questions. FarnsworthG also points to this Jalopnik article condemning the practice, when it's done without disclosure. The kidnapping itself, of Philadelphia nursing assistant Carlesha Freeland-Gaither, was captured by a surveillance camera.
For some values of secretly (Score:5, Informative)
I think this is a pretty shady practice, don't get me wrong, but it's not quite as "secretly" as the summary made it out to be.
Re:For some values of secretly (Score:5, Insightful)
Disclosure takes it out of the shade IMHO.
Re:For some values of secretly (Score:5, Informative)
Re:For some values of secretly (Score:4, Interesting)
They will eventually, when the state and insurance companies mandate the trackers.
Re: (Score:3)
That will be right after the state mandates an implanted chip for all people. (Also known as "It will never happen". Take off your tinfoil hat)
FTFY (Score:3)
It's already offered as an option for those who are willing to sacrifice their privacy for access to preferential pricing.
Rates go down when insurance companies can reduce risk. The ability to monitor things like driving speeds can do that.
Mandatory compliance is probably a decade or so away.
Who would mandate this compliance? The state can not as it would be considered unreasonable search as has been shown in a few recent court cases. Some insurance companies may but there will always be at least one who will not. There will always be a customer base who prioritize privacy over rates and there will always be at least one company to serve that client base.
Re: (Score:2)
No, that is a lie. Rates never go down, profits go up. Insurance companies are only slightly behind used car salesmen and politicians in the practice of lying.
Re: (Score:2)
So in practice, it's voluntary to the rich and mandatory to everyone else.
I have to admit, Republicans sure got to work fast.
Re: (Score:2)
That depends on the rate difference between being tracked and not tracked. If it is $20/month one does not need to be rich to afford it. If it is $200/month that would be a different story.
Re: (Score:2)
Who would mandate this compliance? The state can not as it would be considered unreasonable search as has been shown in a few recent court cases.
Prior to 9/11, all court cases suggested that it would be illegal for government agents to conduct invasive searches on everyone who wants to travel. (Security screening before was done by non-government agents, was only a minimal search, and a more extensive search could only be conducted by law enforcement if there was a good reason, i.e. probable cause). The government's interpretation of "unreasonable search" is thus in flux, and "think of the kidnapped children" might be enough to overcome the Constit
Re: (Score:2)
Prior to 9/11, all court cases suggested that it would be illegal for government agents to conduct invasive searches on everyone who wants to travel.
Completely untrue. There has always been screenings when getting on an aircraft. After 9/11 the screenings just got more intense. Sorry but customs has been doing cavity searches for a long time.
I wouldn't discount some way for the government to "strongly encourage" all private companies to do this.
"Strongly encourage" is very far from "mandate". There will be many companies who will make points with the consumers by "going against this draconian government policy". There would never be a law to this effect and any politician who ever supported it would be out of office next term.
That's like saying "there will always be an airline which offers service without a required search" since some people would prefer privacy.
That is a very different situa
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, cost savings in an oligopoly are always passed promptly along to the customers. That is a real thing that economic theory or practice says happens.
Insurance is an area where death spirals are common as the least risky leave the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There will always be at least one company who will service those who do not want trackers.
Re: (Score:2)
Come now, at least with the NSA you know they never said they'd never spy on anyone. How could they have possibly said that considering it's entire purpose is to spy. Supposedly they are not to conduct operations domestically but lately that has become somewhat of a grey area. The majority of Americans care little for real freedom, they want to be safe and real freedom is very dangerous.
Re: (Score:2)
They will eventually, when the state and insurance companies mandate the trackers.
No need to mandate, telematics is already here. Ford: We can use GPS to track your car movements [cnbc.com].
If your vehicle has GPS and a cell modem (i.e. a nav system with apps, services, etc) then you have to assume the manufacturer is already doing this type of tracking. Ford's CEO just pulled a Biden here and admitted publicly what they're all doing. I know my non-Ford vehicle has a telematics unit and is probably reporting all my speed and location data to the manufacturer (including when I exceed the speed limit
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
These dealers do it, because they are in the vehicle rental business, which is WAY more profitable than the vehicle sales business. Because they "sell" the car to someone they know is most likely not going to be able to make the payments, and they can repossess the car and keep all the so-called "equity" that the purchaser has built up, and just sell it again to the next one up. Lather Rinse Repeat.
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't that how con men marketed houses in The Jungle?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
"Buy here, pay here" are for high risk customers usually. I wouldn't be surprised if the repo rate is significantly higher and if multiple sales of the same vehicle are part of the business model. I also wouldn't be surprised if their financing terms are a "Lease to buy" type thing just to keep ownership of the vehicle in their hands as much as possible.
Re: (Score:2)
the headline should be "Dealer-Installed GPS Tracker Leads To Kidnapper's Arrest, Car Repossession in Maryland"
Re: (Score:2)
I think this is a pretty shady practice, don't get me wrong, but it's not quite as "secretly" as the summary made it out to be.
Why is it shady? The dealer is agreeing to loan you money and trust you with the collateral, on the basis that you accept this device be installed and remain functioning.
They only bother with it for risky borrowers ... in other words, without it, he'd have a much higher interest rate or else not be able to buy the car at all. In which case Al Sharpton would show up with a bullhorn ....
Re: (Score:2)
How would the dealer know? Hire a car for a day and transfer it to that. Keep it running on a battery during the transfer.
Re: (Score:2)
It depends on whether it is, "Here is the GPS consent form, saying we will track you til you pay the care off" or "Here, sign this 82 pages of forms and you can drive off now" where people miss clause 18.f.ii
Now, people should read what they sign. But the way people react when I read waivers, etc, you'd think I'm the only one.
Summary is hogwash (Score:5, Informative)
In the article is the statement:
"McDougall said the customer is required to sign a form acknowledging there's a GPS unit in their vehicle. If the car buyer tries to remove it, the dealer is alerted."
Thus it seems likely maybe the perp was informed about the tracking device.
Now the task is to find a hole deep and dark enough for this vile predator.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I've never gotten any of the good ones. I've been picked for juries twice (once a grand jury) and it's always been boring slam-dunk cases. A civil suit and an embezzler.
Re: (Score:2)
In the article is the statement:
"McDougall said the customer is required to sign a form acknowledging there's a GPS unit in their vehicle. If the car buyer tries to remove it, the dealer is alerted."
Thus it seems likely maybe the perp was informed about the tracking device.
It depends on how prominent the disclosure was. Was it in 8 point font in the middle of paragraph 37 on page 7 of the 12 pages the buyer had to sign? Or was it in 14 point font on its own form that dealt with nothing but the presence of a tracking device? Unfortunately saying the buyer signed an "acknowledgement" doesn't prove the device's presence was known, and courts interpret these things in how a "reasonable" person would find it. Also, the way that was written could mean the device's installation
Re: (Score:2)
Looking at the Article, I see that with "Imports City" the customer is required to sign a form acknowledging there's a GPS unit in their vehicle. The article does *not* say that he got his car from them, or even any other dealership in Raleigh NC although that is implied. He kidnapped a random person and drove her to a hideout two hours away? Sheesh.
Re: (Score:2)
well... but I doubt it was in the contract that the dealer would share the gps information with whoever.
It doesn't need to be in the contract.
If the police have video of your dumb ass dragging a chick into your car by her hair they can probably don't need a warrant. They only need a warrant for searches a hypothetical "reasonable man" would describe as "unreasonable," and reasonable men tend to frown on dragging chicks around by their hair.
Re:Summary is hogwash (Score:5, Insightful)
They only need a warrant for searches a hypothetical "reasonable man" would describe as "unreasonable," and reasonable men tend to frown on dragging chicks around by their hair.
You are, by the 4th amendment, to be COMPLETELY free of unreasonable searches. Any searches must be deemed reasonable through the issuance of a warrant for the search, by a judge.
That being said, if a cop comes to you and goes 'Dude, I need the location of X's car, he just kidnapped a woman, here's the footage', there's nothing stopping the dealer from handing the information over voluntarily without requiring a warrant.
Re: (Score:3)
COMPLETELY free of unreasonable searches implies that you are not completely free of reasonable searches. That's why the cop can frisk you if he smells weed.
And why a business would be very smart to agree to a search in these circumstances.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not reasonable for government thugs to harass you for having drugs in the first place. So no, that doesn't count.
Re: (Score:2)
Why not?
Under the Constitution states have the power to regulate anything within their borders that isn't expressly forbidden them by one of the Amendments. 10th Amendment. If they choose to ban possession of weed, then possession of weed is a crime, and their police officers are supposed to enforce the law.
I'm not arguing that anti-drug laws are a particularly good idea, but they are legally valid.
Re: (Score:2)
So? (Score:5, Insightful)
And if we allowed the police to search our homes, cars, and persons on a daily basis, a whole lot more criminals would be caught. I'm glad a scumbag was caught before something worse happened, but let's not pretend that one positive outcome justifies personal tracking, stops-and-frisks, and other countless increases in violations of unreasonable search and seizure in our society.
Re:So? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm a big 4th Amendment guy but I find it hard to see where anything the police did here can be criticized.
Surely any judge would issue a warrant in a millisecond after seeing that horrific video.
Re: (Score:2)
Scary thing you said one: The video should no bearing on the issuance of a warrant. As a rule, warrants should be issued on how reasonable a search it is, and likely to turn up evidence. Not, how horrifying the crime is.
Scary thing you said two: You think a warrant would be necessary. The data is not the suspects, but the car company's. And the car company has no rights to privacy vis-a-vis that data to protect. S
Re: (Score:2)
Scary thing you said one: The video should no bearing on the issuance of a warrant. As a rule, warrants should be issued on how reasonable a search it is, and likely to turn up evidence. Not, how horrifying the crime is.
Oh, I don't know. The seriousness of the potential crime -- for which the police have genuine probable cause to suspect has occurred -- probably should have some bearing on the warrant that is issued. There is a balancing of interests here, which you actually have buried in your own comment. "How reasonable", in your words, likely includes "how horrifying" as one of its elements--you just saw an opportunity to try to score a cheap rhetorical point.
Unless, of course, you believe that a judge should awar
Re: So? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The police have always been able to ask for whatever they want.
And apparently the government can also ask companies to give it all of your information so they can conduct mass surveillance. In an era where you're necessarily going to be handing over tons of data to third parties, this attitude is unworkable in any free country.
Meh, I can't bring myself to care (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Without freedom, we are nothing, even if we had money. I don't care how 'prosperous' a certain country is; if it's not free, then it's worthless to me.
Re: (Score:2)
So the early 19th-century Cherokee, with absolutely no government to restrict any of their freedoms, were better off then the Georgians?
If you don't accept that some restrictions on your freedom are necessary for your government to function you;ll end up in the same situation they did: completely at the mercy of another government that does restrict some freedoms. It's a very tricky balance.
Re: (Score:2)
So the early 19th-century Cherokee, with absolutely no government to restrict any of their freedoms, were better off then the Georgians?
Wow, nice straw man. Consider the context of the discussion.
It's a very tricky balance.
Here's a "balance" for you: The government should follow the constitution. The end.
Re: (Score:2)
In case it's not obvious, I was saying that a country with a bad economy but a great amount of freedom is better than a country with a good economy but with few freedoms. I'm not sure how you interpreted that as supporting anarchy, or whatever.
Re: (Score:2)
So the early 19th-century Cherokee, with absolutely no government to restrict any of their freedoms, were better off then the Georgians?
Wow, nice straw man. Consider the context of the discussion.
You said "Without freedom, we are nothing, even if we had money. I don't care how 'prosperous' a certain country is; if it's not free, then it's worthless to me."
That's not the kind of thing you say if you're gonna agree to any restriction on freedom.
If you were unclear that's one thing, but the following sentence actually does not clarify things very much:
It's a very tricky balance.
Here's a "balance" for you: The government should follow the constitution. The end.
Great idea in theory.
In practice nobody agrees on what the damn thing means. Seriously, a very large proportion of the US population is absolutely convin
Re: (Score:2)
That's not the kind of thing you say if you're gonna agree to any restriction on freedom.
No, that's just normal human language, where you don't necessarily qualify everything you say, because it's not necessary.
In practice nobody agrees on what the damn thing means.
In practice, it's mostly just people ignoring what it says/what it intended for convenience. Example: Authoritarians ignoring the spirit of the fourth amendment (among other things) so they can have their mass surveillance.
It's not really a problem, because they're just as wrong as if they said that 1 + 1 = 3.
Re: (Score:2)
I tend to think of those two as going hand in hand. Declining wages and shrinking workers rights have led to less empowered and less engaged citizens. That let's government get away with creating a police state.
It's actually been more like 35 years of declining wages. I trace it back to the election of the 40th president. He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named-and-May-He-Suffer-In-Hell. Even i
Buy The Damn Car (Score:3)
This guy DID NOT own the car.
He was making payments on it with a "Buy Here, Pay Here" lender --- these people finance high risk loans no one else will do and have restrictive terms as a result.
There was so offense against anyone's rights here.
He had horrific credit so had to do "Buy Here, Pay Here" --- which is better than "having to hoof it".
If you want full property
Re: (Score:3)
One scummy company can't put you beyond the ability to get a car loan.
To be in "Buy here, Pay here" territory, you have to have an absolutely abysmal credit score in the 400s by seriously not honoring your debts with many places over a decent period of time.
Someone just doesn't magically get a 400-499 credit score. And one co
Re: (Score:2)
There is also the little fact that this type of success must be exceedingly rare, otherwise it would not have made the news.
Re: (Score:2)
One life saved means it's worth it.
This attitude is incompatible with freedom. There would be no restrictions upon the government if we were to take your stupid garbage seriously. There's a reason we're supposed to be (we aren't) "the land of the free and the home of the brave"; freedom is more important than safety, and free and brave people don't sacrifice fundamental liberties for safety. I would oppose the TSA even if it was effective. Same with DUI checkpoints, protest permits, the NSA's mass surveillance, and all the other unconstituti
Re: (Score:2)
No. Most decidedly not. Not even "many lives saved" is the joker that trumps all. Example: Banning fast food would safe countless lives. Yet do you think that would be compatible with the idea of freedom? And privacy? Look up occasionally, what the governments in the past used that data for and what the US government is going to use it for. Hint: In order to establish a totalitarian state, you have to identify and neutralize a number of specific people first.
Re: (Score:2)
What does any of that have to do with the story here? The tracking device wasn't added by the police or even at the behest of the police, but by the buy-here-pay-here dealer, operating a business of the same respectability as payday lending and rent-to-own stores, who expect their customers to default. This wasn't done for cops but for repo men.
By all means complain about a violation of privacy, but it isn't by the state. Rather this is the result of a financial system that promotes, aggravates, and prof
And if pigs had wings they could fly (Score:2)
North Korea is our Future (Score:5, Insightful)
Just think of all of the crimes we can prevent or solve, if we place the entire American population in prison camps, with 24/7 monitoring, restricted movement, restricted access to information, and public displays of punitive punishment.
Why is this not being done? Won't someone please think of the children?
North Korea has show the world the way to the future, with our increasing plutocratic societies in the west with decreasing human rights.
Re: (Score:2)
The GOP will not want to pay for that as they will have to have higher taxes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Simple solution: Do a national nuclear suicide. No more crime after that. Surely, that must make it worth it?
Fascism also reduces some sorts of crimes (Score:3)
That does not make it a good idea. That this makes the news just shows how exceedingly rare such a "success" is. With sane laws, a practice like this would send the dealer to prison for a few years.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I have no issue with doing this openly. I object to the secrecy.
Re: (Score:2)
Fascism is not a crime at all. Even for the Nuernburg trials, they had to break fundamental legal principles and invent crimes in order to be able to "convict" the Nazi elite. Fascism is a form of government, including a legal system and whoever controls the legal system gets to define what is a crime and what not.
Fascism is deeply unethical though, that is what you might have been thinking of. But one look at the modern US legal system should convince anybody that the law does not have any necessary relati
What's "buy-here-pay-here" ? (Score:2)
For those of us who don't know, or those of us who aren't in the states if this is a USA thing, what's a "buy-here-pay-here" dealer?
How is it different from any other dealer?
Re: (Score:3)
For those of us who don't know, or those of us who aren't in the states if this is a USA thing, what's a "buy-here-pay-here" dealer?
How is it different from any other dealer?
They specialize in selling cars to people who can't really afford them. Their customers are considered high risk and can't get credit elsewhere, so they charge high interest rates. When said people fall behind on their payments, they repossess the cars and sell them again to someone else. It's not uncommon for a dealer to sell the same used car 5 or 6 times. It's a fairly dodgy business model [latimes.com].
People are stupid. (Score:5, Informative)
The suspect knew the vehicle was being tracked as he signed a document stating that fact. He just forgot that fact when he kidnapped someone.
I used to work for a company that tracked vehicle fleets. Every driver knew his truck was tracked yet a driver was convicted of murder when his truck was logged near the site where the ex-girlfriend was last seen and near where her body was found. Another vehicle, different client, was noticed stopped far from it's route in a bad neighborhood. The police were sent and the driver was found selling product out of the back of the vehicle.
People are stupid.
PS. I have no problem with installing the tracker with the knowledge of the purchaser.
Re:People are stupid. (Score:4, Insightful)
TFA said the car belonged to his girlfriend
That doesn't matter. The purchaser agreed to have the GPS in the car.
Re: (Score:3)
I guess you didn't read the summary:
A news story about the capture of a kidnapper mentioned that he was caught because a car dealer had secretly installed a GPS device on his car.
or the article;
Law enforcement officials say a woman who was kidnapped off the streets in Philadelphia was ultimately rescued with the help of a GPS tracking device that had been installed on the suspect's car.
Carlesha Freeland-Gaither, 22, was rescued three days after being kidnapped when authorities spotted a used-car dealer's name on a traffic camera photo of the suspect's car.
very well.
There is further evidence from this article [cbsnews.com];
Surveillance video released Monday by Philadelphia police shows a man driving down a street, parking his car and walking a short distance out of the camera's view, back towards the direction from which he came. He's then seen apparently chasing a woman across the street before grabbing her and forcing her down the block and into the car.
It was the suspect's car that was involved in the crime and being tracked not the victim's.
It will create Sith Lords. (Score:2)
But the point is, I see a whole generation of potential Sith Lords emerging, all getting their crack in hardware by building a scanner to find the tracker installed by the Jabba-the-Car-hut dealerships.
Truth in reporting (Score:2)
It was NOT secretly installed (Score:2)
It is a common technique among used car dealers who are selling to someone with bad or poor credit. It is intended to aid in recovery and repossession. The purchaser is aware it is installed. And, it is removed when the vehicle is paid off.
The device our company made and sold ( when I worked for them) could be activated with a court order. Activation was not in the hands of the car dealership because of the privacy implications.
you don't really own things anymore (Score:2)
You license them until the vendor decides you don't anymore.
I work at a small dealer and yes its common (Score:5, Informative)
Many times the customer is not told at all. It's still a grey area if this is legal since the car is property of the dealer. Once the car is paid off the device (and monthly service charge) is disabled. If the customer is told, it's not made clear what the device is used for. There will be a line in the sales contract saying - your vehicle may include an anti-theft device - That's all. What's not said is the anti-theft device only benefits the dealer, and will be used so the repoman can come pick up your car.
In the dealer defense, buy here - pay here customers are the bottom of the credit barrel and no big name dealer would touch them. They will have 1 or more repossessions, maybe 5 or more accounts in collections, a bunch more of charged off accounts they just gave up on and maybe an eviction from their last apartment. So the dealer knows they don't like to pay for things they buy. There is only about a 50% chance they will actually pay off the car they are buying.
Re:Typical!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Informative? Seriously? It's not just "the left" that is concerned with privacy, and desiring privacy has nothing to do with wanting criminals to escape.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The left is not concerned with privacy. Neither are the neocons. I just want my due process rights, privacy, and money back, thanks. Any such devices like this would be removed from any car I buy, law be damned. I don't care. I will not be treated like cattle.
Re:Typical!! (Score:5, Informative)
...Any such devices like this would be removed from any car I buy...
Agreed! But the key work here is 'buy' - the implication being you buy it outright, and are the owner.
On the other hand, if you are financing through the dealer, the RO (registered owner) is the dealer, not you.
If you look at the Spireon tracking company's site, it states the purpose of the tracker:
"Like auto dealers, vehicle finance companies are turning to GPS vehicle tracking in order to offer loans to subprime buyers while minimizing their risk."
Re:Typical!! (Score:4, Insightful)
...Any such devices like this would be removed from any car I buy...
Agreed! But the key work here is 'buy' - the implication being you buy it outright, and are the owner.
On the other hand, if you are financing through the dealer, the RO (registered owner) is the dealer, not you.
Not quite true. The seller has a lean on the vehicle but you are the owner. If the dealer was still the legal one that could open them up for liability in the event of an accident, etc.
Re:Typical!! (Score:4, Informative)
Eh, this depends on whether your state subscribes to Title Theory or Lien Theory.
Correct! But either way the financing dealer could:
A. Attach the GPS to protect his/her property (Title)
B. Attach the GPS to secure his/her loan collateral (Lien)
(Here, I admit I haven't read through a car finance contract, but...) I imagine they could stipulate the GPS as part of the loan terms.
I'm sure it makes repo'ing easier.
Re: (Score:3)
If you are still making payments on a car, as the owner, you still have the right to modify the car however you wish. If you want to paint the car, fix it up
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Typical!! (Score:5, Informative)
If I didn't find something starting there, I'd pull the front kick-panels, the glove compartment liner, and the lower dash knee bolster on the driver's side, and look for things that don't seem right. Since there are only so many ways to tap into a wire quickly and cheaply, they'd probably use quickconnects of some kind and those would stand out relative to factory wiring. Behind the A-pillars, I'd check the wiring for the trunk light. Just about everything else is switched.
On a really modern vehicle it's even worse in some ways (for the person hiding an accessory) because just about everything, both switches and devices, runs back to the body control module, so one can't really tap off of any of that stuff and must go back to the fuse panel.
Re:Typical!! (Score:5, Interesting)
There are only so many places where always-on 12V power could be tapped into
Why always-on? The GPS devices only to squawk their location info periodically, and it's not likely to change if they vehicle is turned off. Usually though, you'll an obdii port splitter used, which means the unit is tucked under the dash somewhere on the drivers side.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. In most cases you don't need the GPS running when the car is off. This will let you know the last location the car stopped. The obvious exception is if the car is towed you won't know but you will know as soon as the car is started up again.
Re: (Score:2)
Easy fix there. Just add a cheap motion detector that activates the GPS. Car gets towed, sensor knows it, starts GPS, it transmits like usual until car stops moving for 20 minutes.
Re: (Score:2)
Easy fix there. Just add a cheap motion detector that activates the GPS. Car gets towed, sensor knows it, starts GPS, it transmits like usual until car stops moving for 20 minutes.
That doesn't fix the always on problem. If you're not getting power except when the car is running, a motion sensor set to activate when the car is being towed is useless.
Re:Typical!! (Score:5, Interesting)
There are only so many places where always-on 12V power could be tapped into, and it wouldn't be that difficult for an electronics nerd to figure out what circuit the draw is on by doing a DC amperage test at the fuse panel(s), or to check the few places that could tap into the wiring harness before the fuse panel. If I didn't find something starting there, I'd pull the front kick-panels, the glove compartment liner, and the lower dash knee bolster on the driver's side, and look for things that don't seem right. Since there are only so many ways to tap into a wire quickly and cheaply, they'd probably use quickconnects of some kind and those would stand out relative to factory wiring. Behind the A-pillars, I'd check the wiring for the trunk light. Just about everything else is switched. On a really modern vehicle it's even worse in some ways (for the person hiding an accessory) because just about everything, both switches and devices, runs back to the body control module, so one can't really tap off of any of that stuff and must go back to the fuse panel.
So, tell me something, after you've disabled the smoke alarm and lit up your cigarette, how do you plan on leaving the smoke-filled bathroom to get back to your plane seat unnoticed?
Point here is just about anyone is smart enough to find a GPS tracking device and disable it. The hard part here is explaining to the company you signed a legal document with why you disabled it.
Of course, that would be after they repo their "malfunctioning unit" back.
Good luck.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Are you describing a situation where the car isn't paid for yet, or are you trying to tell me that if I pay in full for a new car, I still don't actually own it?
This topic was within the context of "rent to own" type purchases or contracts where someone would legitimately place a GPS device in your car, in which you were describing all of the ways to find and disable or destroy it.
If you're having to dig through a personally owned vehicle to search for unauthorized or unknown tracking devices, well I'd say you certainly have bigger issues than predatory lenders and fine print.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There are only so many places where always-on 12V power could be tapped into .........
On a really modern vehicle it's even worse in some ways (for the person hiding an accessory) because just about everything, both switches and devices, runs back to the body control module, so one can't really tap off of any of that stuff and must go back to the fuse panel.
Depends on the car. Some modern cars have a 12v ring main running round the car, and also a light signal cable, both visiting all devices. The signal cable tells the devices when to turn on and off. It saves running heavy cables alongside each other to the various rear lights, for example, and hence the total cost of wiring. So plenty of places to tap that 12v.
Re: (Score:2)
"Except how do you know such a device is installed on your car? Do you examine it everywhere, and compare what is there with photographs of a know-safe car? Or against the wiring diagrams from the manufacturer? Don't forget behind or inside of other things, like behind the glovebox?"
Or your wife/husband/'friend' might have installed one, some of them cost less than 50 bucks with a prepaid card on it they are even able to listen in on what's being said in the car.
http://www.aliexpress.com/whol... [aliexpress.com]
Re: (Score:2)
If you work on your own cars (and friend's cars), then an out of place device is pretty obvious. I can tell you the function of every part. If there was some mystery part, it would definitely get my attention. Trackers require visibility of the sky, and power.
If you want to know how weak GPS can be, play Ingress [google.com] for a while. My phone mounted up on the dash always has a good lock. The phone of a passenger holding it in their hand frequently loses it's GPS data, or it's not accurate enough to play.
Re: (Score:2)
The only thing that needs visibility is the antenna. Tap into the car radio antenna and the problem is solved.
The original point of privacy was made and while I agree with that point there is the point that you don't own the car until it is fully paid for. That and the fact that this guy had major credit problems, enough for the loan guarantor to suspect they would have to resort to repossession, they deemed it necessary to track the vehicle. Lastly, my bet is his contract for the loan stipulated that the c
Re:Typical!! (Score:5, Informative)
A car's radio antenna doesn't work at GPS frequencies. That's why cars with GPS always have a separate antenna for it.
Re: (Score:2)
I think that in today's environment you can safely assume that there is something in any car you buy that enables the loan company to find it. I believe it's a no-brainer. The temptation to do this has to be overwhelming for these people as it solves a huge problem for them. If you know it's there then you can find it. All GM vehicles for years have had OnStar which means the capability was built in. I think that it's wrong for them to install it without informing the buyer but absent a law preventing
Re: (Score:2)
The dealer owns the car. He's entitled to add stuff to it and not required to disclose that when you buy it.
Re: (Score:3)
That works against a crude audio bug which is transmitting continuously at a fairly consistent level.
It's likely to be much less effective against a location bug that transmits periodically in very short bursts and possibly only when significant movement is detected.