Remote car de-activation + Repo Men et al + technology getting ahead of the law.

So, a few days ago, I watched an onStar ad about how "if your car is stolen, call us and we'll safely deactivate it" --> video shows a police cruiser following a stolen car with onStar saying that the "car is deactivated now" (not verbatim) and the car pulls over.

I immediately thought "Wow, that's nice but at the same time really scary. We aren't ready for this." Eagle Eye? Live Free or Die Hard? Add a million other movies where the bad guys use good-intentioned technology against people in terrible ways...

Numb-skulls can also use it:
http://www.comcast.net/articles/news...abotaged.Cars/

Quote:

---

Texan accused of disabling 100 cars over Internet
By JEFF CARLTON, AP

DALLAS — A man fired from a Texas auto dealership used an Internet service to remotely disable ignitions and set off car horns of more than 100 vehicles sold at his old workplace, police said Wednesday.
Austin police arrested Omar Ramos-Lopez, 20, on Wednesday, charging him with felony breach of computer security.
Ramos-Lopez used a former colleague's password to deactivate starters and set off car horns, police said. Several car owners said they had to call tow trucks and were left stranded at work or home.
"He caused these customers, now victims, to miss work," Austin police spokeswoman Veneza Aguinaga said. "They didn't get paid. They had to get tow trucks. They didn't know what was going on with their vehicles."
Ramos-Lopez was in the Travis County Jail on Wednesday with bond set at $3,000. The Associated Press could not find a working phone number for his family.
The Texas Auto Center dealership in Austin installs GPS devices that can prevent cars from starting. The system is used to repossess cars when buyers are overdue on payments, said Jeremy Norton, a controller at the dealership where Ramos-Lopez worked. Car horns can be activated when repo agents go to collect vehicles and believe the owners are hiding them.
"We are taking extra measures to make sure this never happens again," Norton said.
Starting in mid-February, dealership employees noticed unusual changes to their business records. Someone was going into the system and changing customers' names, such as having dead rapper Tupac Shakur buying a 2009 vehicle, Norton said.
Soon, customers began calling saying their cars wouldn't start, or that their horns were going off incessantly, forcing them to disengage the battery. Norton said the dealership originally thought the cars had mechanical problems.
Then employees noticed someone had ordered $130,000 in parts and equipment from the company that makes the GPS devices.
Police said they were able to trace the sabotage to Ramos-Lopez's computer, leading to his arrest.
Norton said Ramos-Lopez didn't seem unusually upset about being fired.
"I think he thought what he was doing was a harmless prank," Norton said. "He didn't see the ramifications of it."

---

I noticed that in this case it's not even a case of "stolen car technology", but more like a "car repossession technology" -- that's even more troubling, especially after I saw the interview that Jon Stewart made on the Daily Show recently with one of the main actors in the film. He said it was a sort of "dystopia" possible alternate reality of the near-future.

This brings to mind another issue-- about how the law still isn't catching up technology. I understand the motivation behind onStar's remote car deactivation. It's well-intentioned even though I think it's a flawed and very dangerous feature to add. But using this simply because someone doesn't pay for their car lease? That's simply going over the line.

It's possibly very dangerous; corporations taking control of your car to create a dangerous road situation just to make absolutely sure they can find their vehicle? Aren't there actual laws for vehicle repossession that doesn't involve forcing a car to stop? The dealership is in effect subverting the law and taking it into its own hands. I think it should be made illegal, but lawmakers are still concerned with the issues of the 90s.

In this case I believe the headline should read "greed-based immoral technological system gets hijacked by a low-level employee looking for some laughs".

Aggie, I thought you were a proponent of Freee Market Enterprise, and smaller government intervention? No?

Yes, but that doesn't make me automatically a proponent of allowing a corporation to subvert fundamental rights of people. :-)

Aaaah, the old Privacy trump card! Properly played, wouldn't it mean that those who bought the onStar just invited their own problems, and gave away their trump card in exchange for the bells and whistles (aka hook line and sinker) card?

SHIT my reply vanished. I think it got timed out..

I'll try again but much shorter this time.

The onStar case and the case where the car stops if the person does not pay are two different cases. In the case of the car stopping if the person does not pay, it should be legislated to become illegal. In the onStar case, this is different because it's a public safety issue, as stolen cars cause accidents. It should not be automatically green-lighted by the law, though.

The two pitfalls with the onStar case is unauthorized access/glitches/viruses that may cause accidents, injuries, or fatalities, and also that customers should have the right to choose whether they want this feature.

Unauthorized access/glitches/viruses: given the government's track record, it's not wise to say that the government should have complete oversight on onStar's system and processes. OnStar should be held accountable (in a court of law) financially for any deaths, accidents, or injuries (including those of the carjacker), and even potentially criminally accountable. That's where the government steps in -- if there is a fatal flaw found (before or after a horrible accident) in the system, those responsible should go to jail. I do not believe there should be pre-legislation without concrete facts, but I think the government should try to protect any whistle-blowers financially and legally.

Feature opt-out: OnStar might not allow an opt-out, but the government should force onStar to allow customers to choose based on the theory that onStar and a customer have unequal bargaining positions/power in any contract they engage in.

<something wacky is going on here, there were some other posts I read elsewhere that also vanished>

See above, I re-posted with something similar.

It all goes back to either (a) internal corporate oversight, or (b) government regulatory standards.

I've lost all faith that the freee market folks can police their own products. See Toyota. I've lost all faith that our government regulatory agencies (or even the private ones) hold the freeee market folks to the highest standards. See NHTSA and the "independent" consumer agencies (insert acronyms).

I've lost most of my faith in consumers who want all the fancy highest tech gadgets, without questioning their privacy rights. Let alone wondering if the onStar that "can save their lives" might also be used against them, for tracking purposes. They think it's great in a rental car, or their own car, if it gets stolen. They think it's hot stuff to be located if they've had an accident. How cool, a remote operator can unlock my car?

It's not so great when they learn anyone with computer skillz can also find them, and manipulate their car? I may be a computer idiot, but I err on the side of paranoia. These people erred on the side of trust. Big mistake, caveat emptor.

You not only have to pay for Onstar, you have to seperately sign up for the remote disabling feature.
I'm not a fan of Onstar sale practices either. I got a few months of it free when I bought my Saturn, and I didn't renew it. The nonstop "RENEW NOW!" and "LIMITED TIME LOWER PRICE!" mailings I was expecting. I was not expecting Onstar to hijack my stereo system more than a month after the service expired to give me a 2 minute+ long speech about how important it was that I renewed as soon as possible, that I was unable to turn off, or even turn down. :down:

What the hell is wrong with the lease company (or maybe even the bank) stopping your car? Its not going to be used while driving, but when it is parked.

When you make repossession easier you bring the interest rates DOWN for everyone. Harder to repossess = more risk.

Quote:

---

It's well-intentioned even though I think it's a flawed and very dangerous feature to add. But using this simply because someone doesn't pay for their car lease? That's simply going over the line.

---

Why? If you don't make your payment you have zero right to the car. None. Zip. Zilch. Its not yours.

Ah, Lewkowski's unrelenting believe in the guiding hand of the market. Even in the face of evidence why it's actually not such a good idea at all to have such a system in your car at all.

The technology would have to be very rigorous to ensure that this is safe.

Remotely controlling a car, or forcing a car to stop while driving is unsafe and should be illegal. Remotely stopping the ignition could be safe but it depends upon the circumstances. What happens if the "kill switch" is flicked while you're driving? You can continue until you park but then can't restart the vehicle? What if you don't safely park the vehicle? A few weeks ago I stalled my car on a junction - not too dangerous as I immediately restarted the engine and drove out of the junction. If the car couldn't reignite because someone remotely had killed it then that could be very dangerous.

Safety has to come first and I just don't see remotely controlling/disabling cars to be safe

EDIT: An alternative example: there is a road near mine, near both the local shopping centre and the fire brigade, that has a a very strict no parking policy on it in the day time - it has to be kept clear for Emergency Access, with the fire brigade often going through it - as well as less regularly the police and cash collection services for the shops in the centre. At night time however parking is allowed for a variety of reasons but it is strictly forbidden in day time for safety reasons. What happens if someone (legally) parks there in the evening, but then goes to move the car and finds its been deactivated and they're now blocking the fire brigade? Stupid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hazir

Ah, Lewkowski's unrelenting believe in the guiding hand of the market. Even in the face of evidence why it's actually not such a good idea at all to have such a system in your car at all.

---

Well, conveniently it's only in GM vehicles, so I don't have to worry about it. I won't buy an Amerikan car. Hell, I wouldn't even buy a Japanese car that was built in a US plant (and yes, I did check before buying my new one). People should just refuse to buy vehicles that have it installed.

The Onstar service doesn't kill the car on the spot, it can disable the gas pedal in high speed pursuits, giving the car plenty of free roll time. REAL LIFE EXAMPLE.
And OnStar is expanding outside of the GM vechicles.

What about my 2 examples I made up OG?

Is there a kill switch to stop ignition? What if you stall so the ignition stops when the car is in a dangerous position? What if you are parking somewhere its OK to be only temporarily (a petrol pump could be another example).

I'd have no objection to the car being remotely limited to 70mph.

Onstar isn't used by leasing dealerships or banks to disable a car on a past due account. Onstar is a electronic safety feature. Onstar does have a stop ignition command, but its not heavily used since many thieves would likely trash a car that would no longer start. Onstar also has GPS tracking for stolen cars.

Remote disabling features like you're referring to are a whole different ball game. Although I've never heard of anyone having shitty enough luck to have their car disabled while they were driving so that a stall resulted in a dead car. Cars that are disabled in this manner are also quickly recovered by the bank, thats why they are disabled in the first place, quick retrieval. So your "can't park in X spot during Y hours" doesn't really matter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer

Onstar isn't used by leasing dealerships or banks to disable a car on a past due account. Onstar is a electronic safety feature. Onstar does have a stop ignition command, but its not heavily used since many thieves would likely trash a car that would no longer start. Onstar also has GPS tracking for stolen cars.

---

No one said this..

Quote:

---

Remote disabling features like you're referring to are a whole different ball game. Although I've never heard of anyone having shitty enough luck to have their car disabled while they were driving so that a stall resulted in a dead car. Cars that are disabled in this manner are also quickly recovered by the bank, thats why they are disabled in the first place, quick retrieval. So your "can't park in X spot during Y hours" doesn't really matter.

---

It's still a safety issue. Matters not that they are quickly recovered by the bank (yeah, right, I forgot about the bank private armies)

What if you need to go to a hospital because someone is bleeding out in your car, and your car is remotely repossessed while you are heading to the hospital? Then they die, hooray.

What then, Ominous? What then?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by agamemnus

What if you need to go to a hospital because someone is bleeding out in your car, and your car is remotely repossessed while you are heading to the hospital? Then they die, hooray.

What then, Ominous? What then?

---

The bleeding party most likely would not have the cash to pay for their healthcare, so it's a foregone conclusion either way

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by agamemnus

What if you need to go to a hospital because someone is bleeding out in your car, and your car is remotely repossessed while you are heading to the hospital?

What then, Ominous? What then?

---

Then you call a fucking ambulance, like the other people who can't afford to own a car.
But I'm pretty sure I remember seeing laws spring up years ago when remote disabling first hit the market, making it illegal to disable a moving car without police intervention. Even with Onstar, it took the owner, the police, and 16 minutes for my example above to come to a conclusion.

Well, apparently that kind of law didn't quite go over to Texas.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by agamemnus

Well, apparently that kind of law didn't quite go over to Texas.

---

Before I call you a dumbass, let me ask you a question.
Are you trying to refer to the story you started this thread with, or do you have other evidence of cars being disabled while mobile?


Because in your linked story, even though the cars were disabled illegally, and someone was arrested, the only part disabled was the ignition switch. I don't see any mention of any cars being disabled while they were being driven.

dumbass

I said that KIND of law. You're always quick to judge, yet you're always making mistakes. I find this behavior a typical combination and annoying.

Quote:

---

or do you have other evidence of cars being disabled while mobile?

---

If there was a general law against disabling both starters and cars that are still running, which as demonstrated is dangerous in both cases, the news item as posted above wouldn't occur. I am not saying it has happened already; it might have, I don't know. However, for the future, the potential is ripe with accidents and deaths.

I don't like any wireless solutions for issues that are safety relevant. Wireless connections are easier to manipulate. Funny that none of you have thought about, what happens once this system get hacked, yet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by earthJoker

I don't like any wireless solutions for issues that are safety relevant. Wireless connections are easier to manipulate. Funny that none of you have thought about, what happens once this system get hacked, yet.

---

Actually that was my main concern.

[QUOTE=agamemnus;16013][QUOTE=Ominous Gamer;16012]Onstar isn't used by leasing dealerships or banks to disable a car on a past due account. Onstar is a electronic safety feature. Onstar does have a stop ignition command, but its not heavily used since many thieves would likely trash a car that would no longer start. Onstar also has GPS tracking for stolen cars.
/

Quote:

---

No one said this..


It's still a safety issue. Matters not that they are quickly recovered by the bank (yeah, right, I forgot about the bank private armies)

What if you need to go to a hospital because someone is bleeding out in your car, and your car is remotely repossessed while you are heading to the hospital? Then they die, hooray.

What then, Ominous? What then?

---

And what if the car is repossessed while the bleeding person is in your house... I mean come on seriously?

You stop your payments you cease to have the right to operate your vehicle. Hell it should be illegal not to return the car to the bank and cut out the middle men (repo guys). It should be considered theft not to turn over your vehicle once you stop making payments.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

You stop your payments you cease to have the right to operate your vehicle. Hell it should be illegal not to return the car to the bank and cut out the middle men (repo guys). It should be considered theft not to turn over your vehicle once you stop making payments.

---

Does this sentiment hold true for corporations as well as individuals?

[QUOTE=Lewkowski;16167][QUOTE=agamemnus;16013]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer

Onstar isn't used by leasing dealerships or banks to disable a car on a past due account. Onstar is a electronic safety feature. Onstar does have a stop ignition command, but its not heavily used since many thieves would likely trash a car that would no longer start. Onstar also has GPS tracking for stolen cars.
/

And what if the car is repossessed while the bleeding person is in your house... I mean come on seriously?

You stop your payments you cease to have the right to operate your vehicle. Hell it should be illegal not to return the car to the bank and cut out the middle men (repo guys). It should be considered theft not to turn over your vehicle once you stop making payments.

---

Well, I would never buy a car that I can't pay. And I would also not buy a car that has a system installed (even if that system was not activated) that makes it possible for hackers to control it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by earthJoker

I don't like any wireless solutions for issues that are safety relevant. Wireless connections are easier to manipulate. Funny that none of you have thought about, what happens once this system get hacked, yet.

---

Well, I did...

Quote:

---

Does this sentiment hold true for corporations as well as individuals?

---

Of course. If a business borrows money using a vehicle as collateral there will be a lien on the vehicle. If they stop making payments then they should return the vehicle.