http://www.palmbeachpost.com/localnews/content/south/epaper/2008/03/19/0319mischief.html

Unfortunately, Kevin is closer to the truth. Re-up rates for OnStar are very low, with most customers not seeing any worth in the system.
Toyota was very smart, in that their market research indicated only very high net worth individuals would want (and use) an OnStar system. Hence, their version (LexusLink) is only available on the high end Lexi and always as an option. They have a higher take and re-up rate vs. OnStar, but not enough to keep it going.

Rumor has it LexusLink won’t be in the ‘09 and beyond Lexi, due to mediocre return on investment.

The key problem with OnStar systems is the subscription funding model. 99% of the objections about OnStar is the monthly payment. “Why isn’t it just bundled in with the price of the car?” “Why not just have crash notification only?”

That would require OnStar to then have to invest the funds received from the car sale to generate enough dividends and interest to pay all the operators at OnStar HQ. For a long time. This is an area where Rick Wagoner shines. He did the math and….that dog won’t hunt.

I’m actually somewhat hopeful regarding this type of monitoring. Widespread information / knowledge about vehicle behavior and speed may make for more sensible laws (and enforcement) in the future.

On the other hand, if this monitoring is to be used against people, the data needs to be protected against malicious editing. And before anyone accuses me of being an X-Files conspiracy wacko, consider this:

Where there’s potentially tens of thousand$$$ in liability at stake (or a jail term), there will be HUGE incentives to edit/wipe a car’s black box data. (Or, perhaps, wirelessly edit the data of other cars at the accident scene).

Unfortunately, I have as much faith in GM doing adequate data protection as I do in 70’s GM diesels…

1. You can disable it. The point that most people don’t know how doesn’t really diminish this. If Big Brother got outta hand, guys would be offering this service at every street corner. That very fact works against the government, just like the right to have an unregistered fire arm. The true value of the 2nd Amendment is that any potential oppressor knows he will never be safe.

2. GM is not the government. People are signing up by choice.

3. If Onstar acted inappropriately they could get sued easier than the Feds. That is a good check on inappropriate use.

4. If the government gets a proper search warrant, then no appropriate liberty was lost. All Onstar did was save them resources. Crossing the line would involve the feds searching the Onstar database for everyone who was close to a scene of a crime. That could get ugly. But, if they did that, less people would sign up, and more people would disconnect.

IMO, the pro privacy folks would better serve the cause by demanding built in safe guards (easy on off switch, memory clearance device, etc.) or laws to prevent misuse (5th amendment ties, illegal search rules, etc.)

Oh c’mon. I don’t like the Bush admin, and I appreciate a bit of rhetorical flourish, but really, how likely is it that you or I would be labeled a terrorist and sent to Gitmo?

I’m a motorist, and 93% of the other people out there on the roads with me are inatentive at best. Please monitor me and when one of the idiots crashes into me, please call an ambulance for me.

“Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”

“I suspect that the Founders would be gravely disappointed in some of the thoughts expressed on this thread.”

I suspect they wouldn’t. These are good arguments against the patriot act, but not such good arguments against an entirely voluntary system (you don’t have to buy a GM car) which has as it’s cheif purpose, notifying emergency services when needed, or simply unlocking your doors for you. (agree completely the redeigned door locks solve the problem)

What essential liberty is being given up? The liberty to cause accidents and then flee?

Benjamin Franklin (anybody remember him?) had a few succinct words to offer along those lines:

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

I suspect that the Founders would be gravely disappointed in some of the thoughts expressed on this thread.

And if it save you or a loved one’s life?…

This news item from the National District Attorneys Association website dates back from 2003 shows that they have since gone a step further, and also report incidents that don’t involve airbag deployments:

911 Operators To Get Immediate Crash Data from OnStar

Since 1999, GM vehicles have provided prosecutors and law enforcement officers with an increasing wealth of crash data through electronic data recorders (EDRs) and sensing & diagnostic modules in airbags (SDMs). Now, GM and OnStar are going a step further by notifying 911 operators of the SDM data moments after the crash.

Beginning this year, OnStar plans to add Advanced Automatic Crash Notification (AACN) systems to 400,000 OnStar-equipped 2004 models. Currently, OnStar receives about 500 air bag deployment notifications per month. When an airbag is deployed, OnStar contacts 911 with the location of the vehicle. Now with AACN, OnStar will relay notifications if a car is involved in a moderate to severe front, rear or side-impact crash, regardless if whether the airbag deploys or not. In addition, OnStar will relay direction of impact and impact force.

For drivers and passengers, this means prompt relay of location and severity of the wreck to emergency and medical personnel. For law enforcement officers, crash reconstructionists and prosecutors, this means documented evidence of crucial facts. In most investigations, SDM data is usually obtained after a court order and hauling the wreck to a dealership. Now, the information will be relayed by OnStar to 911 dispatchers instantly creating a public record through 911 recordings and flagging for investigators the need to later obtain OnStar business records.

This New York Times article references the conviction of a Tahoe owner who was convicted of homicide as the result of a hit-and-run accident because Onstar notified police of the perpetrator’s location: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/29/technology/29car.html?ei=5007&en=2f5cd4f9ea97401e&ex=1388120400&partner=USERLAND&pagewanted=print&position=

While I am not exactly a proponent of vehicular manslaughter or hit-and-run accidents, the idea of paying money for a car that can and will be used against me in a court of law is not appealing.

I would never buy a vehicle that is equipped with this sort of equipment, and if forced to, I would go out of my way to disable it. At the very least, I don’t want a corporation collecting this data for marketing purposes and enhancing whatever profiles that they are already maintaining about us and our habits.

I have read court cases where a warrant was obtained to activate the mike and “bug” the car. The case which challenged this was overturned, only because it eliminated the ability of the user to use the Onstar system, not because of the bugging. It was a trespass upon the suspect’s property, as Onstar was disabled, but it was within the purview of the Search Warrant. This just needs a “backdoor” in the programming.

I also note that my current rental car has Onstar. For a rental fleet, the ability to remotely disable a car has uses that would not apply to law enforcement or have privacy implications. Since so many cars makers use fleets to absorb “excess capacity” (poor product planning), I would think that this would also be a HUGE reason for more of this sort of system.

The fact that a motivated person can easily disable a system such as this (disconnect antenna, short center to ground, fry transmitter) is not relevant in a world where the majority of folks know where the gas and key goes, and that’s it.

It has already happened, and is probably happening now.

Want to get really paranoid ? The FCC has allocated space in the microwave region for short range point to point “intelligent highway” systems. Two way comm is part of the design.

The “I’m not a terrorist, so monitor me all you want” argument is repeated, ad nauseum, everywhere. Guess what? It’s pretty easy to become a terrorist now. And once you do get called one, well, you’re a terrorist who wants to destroy America, so you don’t have any rights. Enjoy Guantanamo.

Anyways, back on topic, if I ever got a car with OnStar it would be gone the first day. Another step down the slippery slope.

Meanwhile the (non-monetary) value of my junkers is rising more quickly than hot magma through a lava tube. Kindly move over as I pass with the pedal right to the rusty metal.

For those who do have it in their vehicle and have privacy concerns, I agree w/ others who have said in the thread to disconnect the unit.

The police are investigating a crime. They ask OnStar where your car was on a certain date and time, to corroborate an alibi.”

If you need your alibi corroborated, then this is great. If you think you might need to make up some alibis that can’t be checked, don’t get On Star.

“…Or what if you’re in a crash and the other guy’s attorney would like to know how fast you were driving when you ran the red light?”

Yeah, it’s a real bummer when you can’t lie in court.

“Would OnStar surrender the information?”

If you understand when you purchase On Star that the info belongs to GM then you really have no expectation of privacy. If you think you might be involved in activities you don’t want the authorities to know about, don’t get On Star.

“OnStar is required to locate the car to comply with legal requirements, including valid court orders showing probable cause in criminal investigations.”

Don’t see a problem with this.

“And OnStar may use gathered information to “protect the rights, property, or safety of you or others.”

Or this.

“Imagine the following scenario. The FBI shows up at OnStar master command and tells them your car’s been stolen by a terrorist, who may be using it to commit a crime at this very moment. Contacting the owner is out of the question; the owner may also be a terrorist. What does OnStar do? They cooperate with the FBI and give them everything they’ve got on your car. No warrant needed and no notification to you. Hell, you may not even have the service enabled. ”

If the owner was in the car it’s hard to see why a warrant wouldn’t be required. If police have probable casue to think the owner is a terrorist and is in the car, then info given after a warrant is served doesn’t seem problematic. Even disabling the car would seem appropriate -with a warrant.

If a suspected terrorist is using my car, and the FBI has probable cause to get a warrant, why in the world would they need to notify me? Maybe I can’t be reached. And maybe I am a terrorist too. The FBI needs an okey dokey from one terrorist before getting info on another one?

“And the next step is even more insidious. Imagine GPS speed limiters which only allow you to go the speed limit based upon a map uploaded into your car’s navigation system. Now Sammy Hagar will only be driving 55 no matter how hard he stomps on the go pedal. This is the ultimate assault on pistonheads. The only place where driving will be fun will be on the track– if OnStar and/or the car’s manufacturer (e.g. the Japanese GT-R) let you.

I’m not one to accept slippery slope arguments easily. We don’t have satellite linked speed governance yet. Even if it happens, what important right have you lost? If you think the Constitution protects a right to break speed laws, you need to give it another read.

The only legitimate concern raised in this article is evesdropping on conversations. I assume On Star employees would quickly tire of most conversations, and I’d assume I have a reasonable expectation of privacy in my car so that law enforcement could only listen with a warrant.

Thank you for providing a great counterbalance to the article’s points regarding the usage and intent of the OnStar service

It’s a non-issue.
Either:
a) move to Mexico and buy a Nissan Tsuru or
b) use the car as it is supposed to be used – obeying the laws and driving in a civiized manner – saving the hooliganism for the Ducati, GSX-R, Sti, Evo, Cobras, Elans and 911’s of life, preferrably in a track.

Tough words from somebody with the username “crack head alley.”

I’m sure you’ve never broken the speed limit in your life, to boot.

If GM made doors that had to be locked with your key, as with all my Japanese cars, that wouldn’t be a problem.

You can lock yourself out of a Japanese car just as easily without a key. Ask AAA they can tell you a different story.

And anyway, I’m not so sure people much value OnStar, not enough to pay for it. I’m not sure I’ve ever heard a good number from GM, but I’m under the impression that most drop the subscription once they have to start paying for it. The CEO of ATX publicly claims that OnStar must be a money-losing operation.

I think it’s funny the OnStar mostly advertises as a door-unlocking service (really). If GM made doors that had to be locked with your key, as with all my Japanese cars, that wouldn’t be a problem. $19 a month every month is an awful lot to pay for insurance against a minor inconvenience that has happened to me twice in the past 20 years (once because the door mechanism broke).

Thank You

Our goal was to deploy a system that could electronically “babysit” the bulk of buyers of GM vehicles. Most couldn’t tell the difference between a dipstick and a broomstick, much less summon assistance when it really mattered.

Back in the day, dialing “911″ on a brick may have connected you to a dispatch center two states away. When the dispatcher would ask, “Where are you?”, most people whose bell has been rung in a crash couldn’t tell to save their life. And if you are unconscious….

When the “Check Engine Now” light comes on, it’s handy to have an electronic mechanic available to do a level one diagnostic on the spot. Let me know if the car is driveable or if it’s time for the tow truck. (Comments about the reliability of GM vehicles are not needed.)

As for “OnStar’s computer knows where you were, when you were there, and how fast you went. It knows if and when you applied the brakes, if and when the air bags deployed, and what speed you were going at the time. It knows if and when your car was serviced.” This data is held in the vehicle’s on-board memory. The command post DOES NOT monitor each and every OnStar equipped vehicle all the time. (Maybe the CIA/NSA/DHS/FEMA/InterPol does, but that’s another issue) OnStar HQ only knows your whereabouts when your OnStar car phones home…

As Lt.Col. Williams would remind us, if the Stazi/KGB/DHS/NSA etc. wants to put the finger on us, they will, OnStar or no. If they want to stop your car, they will, OnStar or no. BUT, if some lowlife perp fingers MY car for a joyride, I find it real handy if the blue suits can retrive it quickly before the losers can inflict (much) damage.

I’m proud of OnStar. There are hundreds of people alive who wouldn’t be if it weren’t for the system. Thousands of stolen cars didn’t get very far, and many car thieves are behind bars because of OnStar. Many a frightened young mother with a baby in the back seat has been comforted and reassured when OnStar sent a tow truck to fix their vehicle that had broken down in a bad part of a strange town at 1AM on a Sunday morning.
Just like an Emergency Locator Beacon on an airplane, OnStar is your electronic “Help Me” beacon.

Jonathan says, “The Constitution of the United States protects us from the heavy hand of government.” The Constitution does no such thing. The Constitution is just ink on paper. It is US, We The People, that put the teeth into the protections listed in the Constitution. If we collectively decide to give them up, then we get what we deserve.

You can buy cars without it. You can easily enough remove it. There is no presumption of guilt for removing it.

Privacy is virtually dead. I really don’t care so long as people who know me are not involved. If someone airs someone elses dirty laundry, then I am all for reaching into their bowel, grabbing a few intestines, and pulling them across a stage for the viewing pleasure of the public. An eye for an eye, you know.

If the government wants to randomly listen to my calls to search for terrorists, I really don’t care. It’s only when they then use that ability to affect me that I care. If they can’t find people who are trustworthy and disinterested enough for the job, then they should not do it. When one of them steps out of line, see punishment above. Okay, but really, 7 figure settlements should just be expected for government infractions on people’s privacy.

We have laws for inappropriate searches, and they need to be looked at from a modern perspective. I think now is a REALLY bad time to do that. Once we have a lull in the war on terror would be a more appropriate time.

As for car recording devices, perhaps we should look into classifying a persons own recorders as protected under the 5th amendment. I don’t know if it’s really workable, but something is going to need to give somewhere.