OnStar Begins Spying On Customers’ GPS Location For Profit

[Xello]

The technology I mention is to assist the driver to avoid accidents, not to drive the car for them. So as long as one is driving defensively (as they should) then safety isn't compromised if a system gets corrupted or shut down any more than it is without such a system. If its working as it should then it can help alert to some moron running a red light that you might not be able to detect and react to on your own.

Technology will always be misused. As systems get compromised, fixes are applied and so on and so on. It'll never stop. Does'nt mean we need to be afraid, just aware and vigilant.

[HumanWiki]

The technology I mention is to assist the driver to avoid accidents, not to drive the car for them. So as long as one is driving defensively (as they should) then safety isn't compromised if a system gets corrupted or shut down any more than it is without such a system.

That's not what I was getting at really. There are systems out there right now that can automatically apply the brakes for you if it detects an imminent collision. Those are the kinds of systems I'm talking about being remotely compromised and leading to real harm. I don't trust mfgs to put adequate levels of safety in to systems to prevent outside tampering. If there is any sort of wireless communication system that will accept an outside signal as an initiation, then there is room for system compromise. I see it all the time. You want to see some real harm? Imagine a flowing expressway (fat chance here) where all cars at at speed, 65MPH+ and someone decides to jack a couple cars at choice spots and remotely engage said safety systems and locks the brakes fully.

Our own OnStar system can be remotely enabled and have the car put in to an emergency mode to slow it down if so required/requested.

I don't have an issue with an internal only system that needs physical access to entry. I do have issue with the wireless ones because they're not that hard to hack. Hell, people have already done with existing cars. Just because the technology is obscure, doesn't make it safe. I personally can compromise a WiFi network by way of their WEP key (if they're ignorant enough to still actually use WEP as an encryption solution) or use a MITM attack if I can snag an allowed MAC address.. Even there, the built-in prevention systems don't provide for enough protection against someone desiring to gain access... But, that's WiFi networks and not someone's car, so the risk of physical personal injury is lower.

I love technology, but there are still systems that I want under my control and mine only because I know how they can be compromised and how easy it is to do so. A machine isn't going to have an emotional construct from which to decide if a requested action is good or bad, it's just going to do exactly as it's told. At least a human mostly has a moral center and if not that, then a sense of self preservation.

[Xello]

I'm not sure I'm following your train of thought. It sounds like your saying that all traffic control/vehicle safety systems should operate independantly to avoid being corrupted by someone with bad intentions. So we shouldn't have linked traffic control devices? Really you could apply the same logic to the energy grid. Wouldnt it be better if we all just had our own home generators? There are pluses and minuses for everything and those must be weighed together.

Using your highway analogy, imagine a flowing expressway where all cars are connected via a network and are travelling at speeds 65MPH+ and someone decides to jack a couple cars and remotely engage said safety systems and locks the brakes fully. All other networked vehicles in the area would be able to detect and respond to the sudden loss of speed of the affected vehicles the same way as if those vehicles had crashed into a median. Chaos avoided. I don't see the problem.

[HumanWiki]

I'm not sure I'm following your train of thought. It sounds like your saying that all traffic control/vehicle safety systems should operate independantly to avoid being corrupted by someone with bad intentions. So we shouldn't have linked traffic control devices? Really you could apply the same logic to the energy grid. Wouldnt it be better if we all just had our own home generators? There are pluses and minuses for everything and those must be weighed together.

Using your highway analogy, imagine a flowing expressway where all cars are connected via a network and are travelling at speeds 65MPH+ and someone decides to jack a couple cars and remotely engage said safety systems and locks the brakes fully. All other networked vehicles in the area would be able to detect and respond to the sudden loss of speed of the affected vehicles the same way as if those vehicles had crashed into a median. Chaos avoided. I don't see the problem.

We're just going to have to agree to disagree then..

[clark grizwald]

I think in our lifetime we will see someone to introduce a bill requiring auto manufacturers to install a device that warns individuals when they are exceeding the limit of the highway they a are on in all autos. They will introduce the bill as a safety measure of course, then it will be used to corroborate the radar read of the officer. He will simply walk up to the car and below your vin will be a bar code and he will scan it with a handheld scanner and it will tell him your last speed warning and GPS location. Something like that is coming. Be very Afraid, LOL

I like the onstar slow down idea, it is I think a good idea to stop criminals, however, I see the potential for it to be used to monitor our speeds and provide error tight proof of violating the speed limit. Those records could be obtained in a court case and if a fatality was involved they probably would be requested for sure.

That would just open the door in Divorce cases to prove somebody wasnt where they were supose to be, LOL.

where was this when i needed it?!

[huggerorange73]

More political rants eh.........

[Lawdog]

Got some good debate going here, HEHE

[priz23]

These guys are too smart for me.

[Toasty]

Using your highway analogy, imagine a flowing expressway where all cars are connected via a network and are travelling at speeds 65MPH+ and someone decides to jack a couple cars and remotely engage said safety systems and locks the brakes fully. All other networked vehicles in the area would be able to detect and respond to the sudden loss of speed of the affected vehicles the same way as if those vehicles had crashed into a median. Chaos avoided. I don't see the problem.

The biggest flaw that I see in this example? who's to say just how long it will be before this technology would be implemented in ALL vehicles on the road?

I see both points, though really. Having an interconnected vehicle will indeed open up a possible entry point for a hacker, etc, and it is unlikely that vehicle manufacturers will have the technology in place to prevent this. It may not be a large possibility of intrusion, but there's a chance there that wasn't there before, without the interconnectedness.

Really, the "safest" way to have vehicles linked would likely have the cars only pulling in GPS/speed data, and the systems in the car doing the processing. Perhaps someone could hack and send fake speed data, but no actual commands, like "apply brakes" etc.

That being said, I think the idea of having a car sense other things around it, as is starting to trickle into the latest high end models will end up being fully flushed out before any interconnected types of systems come around... which will likely be a good number of years-- there has to be widespread adoption for it to matter.

[libertyforall1776]

I assume you mean this, but it's not *in* cars, nor would it need to be:



Yea, that's all we need, the computer trying to override the driver and then it does a Windows style BSOD system crash, but now with ads to make it more 'useful' and because GM is selling even more information than ever.


I imagine OnStar users will also start hearing cellular radio customized ads directly interrupting your audio because that will be in the NEXT OnStar Terms and Conditions that nobody will read.

Just look at the covered-up Google automated car crash -- this technology is not trustworthy, IMHO.

Google driverless car causes five-car crash | ZDNet

Google's Self-Driving Car Crashes | PCWorld

Speed warning in cars is already here and it doesnt require data tracking to be accomplished.

More likely though is a two-way GPS connection (which more than likely would be stored) so that vehicles can talk to each other and avoid collision. I for one, welcome that technology.

[libertyforall1776]

Yea, just wait for people to start hacking cars via cellular radio systems like OnStar with equipment similar to an enhanced Stingray:
FBI's 'Stingray' Cellphone Tracker Stirs a Fight Over Search Warrants, Fourth Amendment - WSJ.com

This exists already, like an IMSI Catcher, see:
FCC Concerned Over DefCon Mobile Hacking Talk | PCWorld Business Center

Video:
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DU8hg4FTm0g]Defcon 18 - Practical Cellphone Spying - Chris Paget - Part.mov - YouTube[/ame]

The above is why Apple added new alerts for non-encrypted cellular base stations in iOS 5. I wonder how OnStar's cellular radio deals with this situation?! Yet, it's widely accepted that the cryptoscheme in GSM can be broken...

I don't.. not if it's at all anything like what I see constantly in the tech realm... You think it's bad having your PC or Cell hijacked?

Just wait till communication and control systems like that start getting readily compromised..

My issue isn't with the technology.. It's with the people out there that can misuse it..

If I get my PC hacked.. Great, I lose some data, have to change passwords and maybe cancel some bank cards --- There's a real possibility that I could be killed or seriously injured if my car is equally compromised.

[Xello]

The biggest flaw that I see in this example? who's to say just how long it will be before this technology would be implemented in ALL vehicles on the road?

I see both points, though really. Having an interconnected vehicle will indeed open up a possible entry point for a hacker, etc, and it is unlikely that vehicle manufacturers will have the technology in place to prevent this. It may not be a large possibility of intrusion, but there's a chance there that wasn't there before, without the interconnectedness.

Really, the "safest" way to have vehicles linked would likely have the cars only pulling in GPS/speed data, and the systems in the car doing the processing. Perhaps someone could hack and send fake speed data, but no actual commands, like "apply brakes" etc.

That being said, I think the idea of having a car sense other things around it, as is starting to trickle into the latest high end models will end up being fully flushed out before any interconnected types of systems come around... which will likely be a good number of years-- there has to be widespread adoption for it to matter.

The point of this technology it that it is designed as motorist assist not auto pilot. Of course the more cars on the road with the technology the better it will work but if your car didn't have it you would just not get the benefits.

Most of the recent vehicle networking test are being done using a combination of GPS and encrypted Wi-Fi. This enables vehicles to only communicate directly with nearby vehicles, which in turn "talk" to other vehicles within their range and so on. So in rush hour traffic if a vehicle is slowing down on the highway 5 miles ahead, then the vehicles behind it would learn of the incident and instantly relay the data upstream, alerting their drivers of the upcoming slow down and offering route alternatives.

Like it or not cars are moving towards drive-by-wire technology. I have a hard time believing that auto manufacturers would not be concerned with safety and find ways to limit any hacking possibilities into their vehicles systems. I'm not arguing that it still couldn't be done by some determined individual but really what would be the odds of any one individual driver getting hacked? I would think the odds are greater that we'll die from a cinder block being tossed from an over pass.

For that matter, for those concerned that someone might hack into their cars system and apply the brakes, you should probably avoid flying on any new jumbo jets that use fly-by-wire technology. If it was so easy to hack these systems why wouldnt a terrorist just take his hacking tools on his next flight and bring down a plane that way?

[TonyNo]

Since drive-by-wire was mentioned, note that the Camaro gas pedal is this.

[jmart53]

FYI - In the face of a full-on revolt from users and pressure from Congress, Drudge Report and other media outlets, General Motors' OnStar service just announced it was reversing plans to keep tracking vehicles of its 6 million subscribers if they cancel the service. Now once it's off, it's off.
The changes unveiled two weeks ago would have kept a data connection with any OnStar-equipped GM vehicle active unless an ex-subscriber specifically asked for it to be shut off. OnStar said it wanted to keep the connection alive to offer new services and alert vehicle owners in case of emergency or recalls — but also said it reserved the right to share or sell anonymous data about the vehicles it tracked to outsiders, including government agencies and marketers.
Since then, OnStar's seen a burgeoning customer revolt, been forced to explain its changes repeatedly and faced criticism from at least three U.S. senators accusing the service of invading privacy. Even the U.S. Federal Trade Commission was asked to probe whether OnStar was violating federal privacy rules.
OnStar President Linda Marshall now says customers who cancel will have their data connection shut off; if OnStar wants to turn it back on, it will have to get the owner's permission. And OnStar will "honor customers' preferences about how data from that connection is treated" — which leaves room for the company to still share data, but only after getting permission from users