Thread: Behold, the future...No thanks!!

I thought we covered this one once before.. but i did not see it in the search. the onstar system keeps me from buying another GM product and the technology has been available ever since onstar first came out. By the way any one notice that the government is about to buy the auto makers? just think have great this will be when they have it set so that your car is designed to only go up to the speed limit... and the police will be able to stop you from their car, maybe to "check your travel papers" at will. Oh happy day!

nope I'm not a conspiracy theorist just analyzing the trends

To me, it's like most of the gun control legislation.

The people that really need to be controlled by this kind of thing are most likely to be the ones that will find ways to get around it, leaving the rest of us with unnecessary control devices invading our privacy.

Though, I could see it being very useful in the event of a random idiot running from the cops, which may or may not justify the overall implementation.

Well, I have some interesting news for you guys. This system is not new and not "revolutionary". We have it on our car here in Modena. It didn't come from the manufacturer but from the insurance company. They offered us a discount on our insurance if we would have it installed and we opted to save the money. If the car is stolen, we send an SMS to the company that makes the device and the car is turned off where ever it is. Until I read this thread, I never even thought twice about it since it was installed. Yeah, I suppose when the dictatorship arrives I won't be able to flee in my car but the fact is, with the traffic here, I wouldn't be able to flee very far or fast anyway.

For those of you wondering how OnStar works (I think). OnStar talks to the car via satellite. The car talks to OnStar via cellular phone (used to be analog cellular phone which has been turned off for the most part. Bad news for older cars but that's a different story). The OnStar module always listens to the satellite when it can "see" it so it knows it's location and can receive commands when sent from OnStar. When the module needs to relay/report information to OnStar galatic headquarters it makes a cell phone call.

For example if you crash, the module detects that (most likely air bag deployment) over the OBD network in your car. It makes a cell phone call to OnStar and reports the event and location. If you happened to call OnStar (on your own phone) to ask for directions, they would send a command to your module via satellite telling it to report the car's current location. If you call through your OnStar system in the car then they already have the cell phone connection.

OBD I (On Board Diagnostics?) came out on cars about 1994. This is basically a network for the electronic control modules in your car to talk to each other and a diagnostics port. Engine control module, transmission control module, fans, sun roof, etc, etc. Just about everything now adays has a control module on one of the 2 or 3 networks in your car.
OBD II was required in cars about 1996? Expanded on OBD I with a much larger set of required diagnostic parameters.

The OnStar module is a node on the network much like the diagnostics port that your mechanic plugs a scan tool into to read trouble codes and engine/transmission/etc parameters.

The way this would work is that OnStar would send a command to the OnStar module in your car from the satellite telling it to send a command to the electronic control module for your engine. They wouldn't really need to know the location of the car to do this. They would just send it to/through the satellites covering your general region. The car would have to be able to "see" the satellite (wouldn't work inside a parking garage or maybe under heavy tree coverage or deep canyon or the likes).

I have much the same system with my Clifford alarm GPS module.

This is not new technology. The OnStar system (and any private GPS usage) has been around for a long time. What is new is that GM and OnStar have added an additional "shutdown" command to their existing electronic control modules.

Originally Posted by Russel Baldridge

To me, it's like most of the gun control legislation.

The people that really need to be controlled by this kind of thing are most likely to be the ones that will find ways to get around it, leaving the rest of us with unnecessary control devices invading our privacy.

I see it a bit differently.

Criminals will have guns, whether there is legislation or not.
Responsible gun owners will be responsible gun owners, whether there is legislation or not.
But the middle group of yoohoos who want to just have guns for whatever reason, but are not capable (in whatever way) of being responsible gun owners... these are the ones that will be denied guns under legislation.

Gun ownership (over here at least) requires
1) background check
2) theoretical exam
3) practical exam
4) membership of a shooting range or hunting license
5) having and using a gun safe to store guns and ammo

So the legislation is basically meant to weed out the idiots and people who cannot be trusted with guns. This is fair enough imo.

This car technology otoh has nothing to do with the car owner. Instead it is about the police being able to do whatever they want without your consent. This is yet another way in which the government controls what you can do, regardless of whether you are a responsible, law abiding citizen or not.

What "invasion of privacy" are we talking about? I am very confused? The constitution gurantees freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. I see no violation of the constitution in this technology. Further, the Federal Government is granted the express authority to regulate interstate commerce, which would necessarily include the regulation of highways, and the vehilces which travel on them. I see the mandated use of this technology all ready well within the existing powers of the Federal Government.

The police, and the government, do things all the time without people's consent. I have never once consented to being the subject of a traffic stop, but I comply becasue I am a law abiding citizen. I do not consent to pay taxes, but I do, because I am a law abiding citizen. When was the last time anyone of us agreed to get pulled over, or agreed to pay the fine imposed by such governmental action.

I see the benefit of this type of technology well overshadows the potential harm. If somehow my vehcile was stopped by this technology, what harm would come of it? I call the provider (on star in this case) and tell them to release my car. However, some nut that stole a vehcile is racing 90 miles an hour through a residential neighborhood, where children play outside all the time, and the police are able to bring that vehcile to a stop without utilized the PIT manuver, that's a great benefit.



Matt

as mentioned is some previous posts with great power comes abuse of great power. i really don't see the benefit other then it is another piece of technology to be put into cars that is not needed. in a perfect world this would be great, i can honestly say i have absolutely nothing to hide. but when i get pulled over by a police officer and fined $110 for a burnt out tail-light that i had no idea of and wasn't previously warned about, this tells me the judgement calls that are being made aren't so good. i'm not saying that i don't appreciate police officers, but everyone that i have come across in my area is on a power trip and looking for a reason to bust me. if anyone here had ever met me you would realize why i get mad about it. i am very easy going, have never been in a fight, i don't speed or drive drunk EVER, and yet it is presumed that i am doing something wrong because i am younger. i don't live in Toronto where police get shot at all the time, i live ina small town where murder is almost non-existent and crime is low. (sorry for the rant, if there are any police officers in here please don't offended)

all the guys i know that went to be cops were the worst partiers who drove drunk all the time. it will be abused in my opinion. sorry for the pessimism.

What does this technology cost the consumer? Will the big 3 need a several billion dollar bailout to implement it? Adding cost to US made cars that no one can afford or wants right now is ludicrous.

Actually they don't need that technology. They have another system where the chase vehicle deploys a drone that rolls under the car they are chasing and it generates an electronic pulse that fries all the electronics in the car and it just stops working. Not quite ready for prime time but very close.

Originally Posted by thebigspendur

Actually they don't need that technology. They have another system where the chase vehicle deploys a drone that rolls under the car they are chasing and it generates an electronic pulse that fries all the electronics in the car and it just stops working. Not quite ready for prime time but very close.

I've seen it in action on national geographic. It is was a very neat way to stop a car.
The onyl problem was that it only works on modern cars with electronic combustion triggering.
If the core systems are purely electric or mechanical, it doesn't work.