Printable View
You guys have to watch this, and then take my poll!
To me this is a tad scary! I dont like the possibilities. Where this sort of technology can go is just...shall we say that it has serious Orwellian overtones!
Breaking News | Latest News | Current News - FOXNews.com
i had my truck stolen one time and i wish i had some way to stop them in thier tracks.the truck was old but what was inside was worth more than the truck. i was lucky they got cought at the gas pumpthree miles away.lucky it was the cops and not me.
Where's the "Maybe" response option??
I have mixed feelings about the technology. I'm not vehemently opposed to it as I'm sure some are. I have a differing opinion about the loss of civil liberties and personal freedom than many do. I ascribe to the old saying: "People who have nothing to hide hide nothing".
However, even though my opinion differs than many, I share the same concerns. I could give a rip if "the law" even stopped and randomly searched my car, my home or me; BUT....unfortunately such powers foster abuse of said powers ("absolute power corrupts absolutely"). Getting stopped by "the man" doesn't scare me because I think I'll get busted for something (OK, yeah, there was a time in my life when it did:w), it would concern me now if as a completely innocent person powers similar to this could be abused by a person in a position of authority to, well, abuse me.
Chris L
The technology is neat,I'll give you that, and the benefits could be great, assuming your dealing with a benign government! Not an assumption I am willing to make!
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.
I see it a bit differently.Quote:
Originally Posted by Russel Baldridge
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 $110 for a burnt out tail-light that i had no idea of and wasn't previously warned about, this tells me the judgement calls that are being made aren't so good. i'm not saying that i don't appreciate police officers, but everyone that i have come across in my area is on a power trip and looking for a reason to bust me. if anyone here had ever met me you would realize why i get mad about it. i am very easy going, have never been in a fight, i don't speed or drive drunk EVER, and yet it is presumed that i am doing something wrong because i am younger. i don't live in Toronto where police get shot at all the time, i live ina small town where murder is almost non-existent and crime is low. (sorry for the rant, if there are any police officers in here please don't offended)
all the guys i know that went to be cops were the worst partiers who drove drunk all the time. it will be abused in my opinion. sorry for the pessimism.
What does this technology cost the consumer? Will the big 3 need a several billion dollar bailout to implement it? Adding cost to US made cars that no one can afford or wants right now is ludicrous.
Actually they don't need that technology. They have another system where the chase vehicle deploys a drone that rolls under the car they are chasing and it generates an electronic pulse that fries all the electronics in the car and it just stops working. Not quite ready for prime time but very close.
oh so close... think about the repair bills ... as it is replacing the computer will cost 300 to 900$ without onstar ... what will happen when we need the government control computer replaced?Quote:
Originally Posted by wescap34
as for the greater good of society... the less the government does the greater good we will all have!
I've seen it in action on national geographic. It is was a very neat way to stop a car.Quote:
Originally Posted by thebigspendur
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.
um, how many old car you driving around there Bruno? most cars since the late 1980's have been computer controlled , electronic ignition setups.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruno
i have a few but then I'm anti-establishment!
Quote:
Originally Posted by syslight
I could see it happening.
Exactly.Quote:
Originally Posted by JMS
The government only has the right to regulate your use on the roads. when you are on private property the government has no right whatsoever to control your vehicles use, without the express consent of the property owner.
This gives remote control to whomever manages to hack the system, it could be the government controlling your car, or possibly not. Think about that for a bit, electronic linked ability to shut down any car through a computer network, and you all though e-mail worms were bad.
It seems like a big selling point of this technology is it can only be activated by the owner (once it’s stolen) to Onstar, but what if the vehicles’ owner is the one breaking the law? Does that mean that local law enforcement contacts Onstar and they shut it down? – sounds like they just lost that marketing aspect…
It wont be a marketing gimmick, it will be legislated for your own good, just like seatbelts, airbags and cameras at intersections, it will help you to stay honest! Why wouldnt you want it, dont you wish to be safe? They are only trying to help!;)Quote:
Originally Posted by RareBreed
BTW They couldve done away with chases a long time ago, if only they would learn to use their radios rather than adrenaline!
I thought we did too:shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by syslight
I'm against it. Yeah, it's a neat thing and I'm sure it would come in handy if the case arose, but I don't trust a company like GM to have that kind of power, nor do I trust any part of our government with it either. Yet another reason I bought a Dodge...
The only new car from GM I think I'd like to get my mitts on is a Camaro, and I would actively find ways to rid it of the OnStar components, whether it means shielding the satellite sending unit or removing it altogether. Besides the Camaro, I think I can stick with the oldies.
@Quick: OBD I actually came out far earlier than 94. Its first mandated use was in 87 by California, but the framework behind it actually came out in 75.:eek: You're right on OBD II though- mandated use was for model year 96 onward. The main difference between the two (if anyone is interested) is that ODB II has a standard system and a standard plug for diagnostics. Most OBD I systems work on a series of flashing light codes.
Hey Tim.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wildtim
You might want to tag this post for historical value.
For once we are in complete agreement. :)
Most cars (all?) made in the last 10 years are indeed controlled by electronics.Quote:
Originally Posted by syslight
But cars made before 1995 or so did not have this. And there are indeed a lot of those still driving around.
I've heard (but don't know for sure) that the US was a couple of years ahead of europe with integrated electronics.
I don't know about complete.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruno
I can also say with all candor that things like this is one of the reasons I am completely against any type of gun control. The people need any bit of power they can manage keep out of the scabby grasp of the government and the power to put that government down when it gets to old and flea ridden.
Please see my post:D Most cars in the US from model year 88 onward have these.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruno
Yet another reason muscle cars are the way to go! Nothing but raw engine power and a crazy behind the wheel:roflmao
I don't want to be the defeatist voice here, but the days have LONG since passed when citizens bore the same type of weaponry used by the government. In a true altercation, if there ever was one, the "arms" we bear would be woefully inadequate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wildtim
Chris L
Just one more hackable device on the planet. Let them put this tech in every vehicle from my car and motorcycle to grandma's hoveround scooter. I don't care because there will be a way to hack it. Remote wireless signal? Jam it. Chip set? Pull and replace it. God I love a challenge. :D
-Rob
It's a security feature that the owner has the right to refuse. I have to pull over for cops. It's the law. Trying to avoid it just makes things worse. Now there's the chance to make me comply before I kill somebody. What's wrong with that? Oh right. I don't get my high speed chance to get away.
X
If there would ever be a US revolution, it would be stomped on so hard you wouldn't know what hit you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris L
Even GWH would not stand a chance if the government got serious about making an example.
If the military is not on your side, you have 0% chance of success.
If the military IS on your side, you have no need of guns for the purpose of power over the government.
Not only do you not have the guns to match the army (which is in general a good thing impo) but unless I am mistaken, you cannot even make real plans or organize yourself with the intent to do so without earning yourself an 'all expenses paid' holiday in an undisclosed location.
From that perspective, the 2nd amendement is basically a hollow one.
I meant complete about this topic. My example of gun control was to illustrate the difference between gun control and this car thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wildtim
It would likely be part military vs part military. We have our national guards which are based in each state and outfitted just like everyone else. I think if it really and truly came down to it, the masses would at least have a fighting chance. Getting organized would take some work, but it wasn't exactly an overnight process in the revolution either.:shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruno
You apparently haven’t been shopping in the right places :DQuote:
if there ever was one, the "arms" we bear would be woefully inadequate.
Quote:
From that perspective, the 2nd amendement is basically a hollow one.
Gasp! Them’s is fightin words! ;)
On a serious note the 2nd amendment was put in place by our founding fathers for a reason. We had come from oppression, being ruled by a tyrant king who cared nothing about individual rights or liberties. The 2nd amendment is for our protection - the basic human right to defend ones’ self and loved ones – It is to protect us from (what could become) a corrupt and overpowering government. Did slaves have a means to defend themselves from slavemasters? Did German Jews have personal firearms to stand up against the Nazis?
In a toe to toe fight we couldnt do it. In a guerilla fight, drug out over years we could, all governments depend on the civilian masses for support, tax money, manufacturing, food etc. If denied our support we could do it, the hardest thing to overcome would be any foriegn aid the government might enlist, and as broke as they are where would they get the credit unless they tried to sell the country and its assets to that entity. FYI I was at a gunshow this weekend and despite the soaring prices the stuff was flying off the shelves! One vender had brought 60,000 rounds of .223(ar15/M16 ammo) to the show and only had 7,000 rounds left by noon! This was at a smaller event and not one of the larger.
Back on topic: I would love this technology if you could trust the corporations and the government. But my greater concern as has been mentioned before is the criminal class that could shut down your vehicle anywhere they choose for whatever reason.
I can see a protracted guerilla fight working in war torn and battled countries that have been fighting wars against each other that way for centuries because clearly that's being proven even today. However, assuming that the average American would grow tough as nails overnight and not give eating bugs, lizards, snakes and sleeping in dirt a second thought and I just don't see that happening. Sure some of us would "dig in", and we'd give it one helluva shot, but far and away, the vast majority of us, especially those living in major metropolitan areas (in a catastrophe scenario I like to call the big cities "Sitting Ducksville") would be toast, possibly even literally.Quote:
Originally Posted by nun2sharp
Ok ok, I know off topic, but Mark doesn't care!;)
Chris L
The upside is that "we the people" more or less control everything but the military. Assuming a united effort, it would be like a country wide strike. A lot of people in the big cities would be screwed, but they have one thing going for them- it wouldn't be in the government's interest to level any major city, both from a PR standpoint and infrastructure standpoint. Or maybe it's just wishful thinking and any resistance would be stomped immediately:gth
[quote=Quick Orange;295778]The upside is that "we the people" more or less control everything but the military. [quote]
But where does the government get the people that make up the military? We the people! Unless Americas morals have gone so far down the tube that the military could find enough troops to fire on their own people. Which may be possible(those that are yes men, seekers of privilege, and those that would sell themselves to insure a full belly, etc) But if the people are facing hard times,(political/economic) they might as well face it armed. The nothing to lose principlewould take effect. Only 7% of the population actively supported the first revolution. 1 person of determination outwieghs 9 others with feet of clay.
Sorry Mark for being:OT I know how you despise it!:rofl2:
HOLY CRAP!!! We agree!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by xman
head spinning,................. vision getting blurry................. going to pass out.................
m a t.............
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhailey
Now thats funny!!!!:rofl2:
[quote=nun2sharp;295794][quote=Quick Orange;295778]The upside is that "we the people" more or less control everything but the military.I would tend to agree, but never forget the Civil War. A lot of Americans died from American minie's.Quote:
But where does the government get the people that make up the military? We the people! Unless Americas morals have gone so far down the tube that the military could find enough troops to fire on their own people. Which may be possible(those that are yes men, seekers of privilege, and those that would sell themselves to insure a full belly, etc) But if the people are facing hard times,(political/economic) they might as well face it armed. The nothing to lose principlewould take effect. Only 7% of the population actively supported the first revolution. 1 person of determination outwieghs 9 others with feet of clay.
Sorry Mark for being:OT I know how you despise it!:rofl2:
[quote=Quick Orange;295803][quote=nun2sharp;295794]But the Civil War was predominantly toe to toe and not guerilla!";" Where there was guerilla warfare it did quite well until the end of the war when more Union troops could be used to saturate the guerilla strongholds. BTW anyone interested in this, western missouri was a great example of what we are discussing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quick Orange