# OnStar tracking and selling info about you



## EcoCruzer (Mar 4, 2011)

That's a good article. I too would like to disconnect OnStar without having to take the car apart or destroying the system completely.


----------



## plowman33 (Jul 20, 2011)

Every article out there talking about this says that if you call them and tell them you don't want your service monitored, they will shut it off. No need to go cutting wires.


----------



## Big Tom (Mar 8, 2011)

plowman33 said:


> if you call them and tell them you don't want your service monitored, they will shut it off. No need to go cutting wires.


Want to buy a bridge?


----------



## feh (May 29, 2011)

Big Tom said:


> Want to buy a bridge?


That's my concern also - how do we know they wouldn't still collect information?


----------



## plowman33 (Jul 20, 2011)

feh said:


> That's my concern also - how do we know they wouldn't still collect information?


How do you know they won't sneak into your garage at night and re-attach the wires? 

If you tell them to stop services, and they don't, they are liable for a lawsuit. That's how you know they'll do it.


----------



## Abrunet85 (Jul 29, 2011)

I do not have OnStar on my Cruze and the exact moment the code on my dash came up for change oil soon, my phone buzzed letting me know I had an email. I checked and it was an email from my dealership stating that according to their records that I should be due for an oil change.


----------



## Aeroscout977 (Nov 25, 2010)

Big Tom said:


> Want to buy a bridge?


Or swamp land? ;P


----------



## tehcor (Mar 30, 2011)

Abrunet85 said:


> I do not have OnStar on my Cruze and the exact moment the code on my dash came up for change oil soon, my phone buzzed letting me know I had an email. I checked and it was an email from my dealership stating that according to their records that I should be due for an oil change.


How do you not have OnStar? Isn't is standard or did you just remove it? Anyways OnStar taps right into the ECU. I would love to remove it and get a rear view mirror I can actually see out of.


----------



## Abrunet85 (Jul 29, 2011)

tehcor said:


> How do you not have OnStar? Isn't is standard or did you just remove it? Anyways OnStar taps right into the ECU. I would love to remove it and get a rear view mirror I can actually see out of.



I don't have OnStar on mine. I have the base model LS, my fiancé doesn't have OnStar either and she has a LT model. 

So even without "OnStar" they are collecting data from my vehicle.


----------



## Dayhoff35 (Sep 7, 2011)

i just pulled my fuse, can you guys do the same?


----------



## LucyCruze (Jul 1, 2011)

Abrunet85 said:


> I don't have OnStar on mine. I have the base model LS, my fiancé doesn't have OnStar either and she has a LT model.
> 
> So even without "OnStar" they are collecting data from my vehicle.


You have OnStar. Or at least you had the 6-month trial at one time, so that means the equipment's all still there.

From the Chevrolet website:



> It comes as no surprise when you think of all the safety features packed into Cruze. There are 10 standard air bags(18) to help protect heads, chests and knees, and it's designed with a high-strength steel safety cage and roof-crush resistance that outperforms the requirements. *Even better, every Cruze comes protected and connected by OnStar(11) with Directions & Connections® Plan — including Automatic Crash Response — standard for the first six months.*


----------



## 70AARCUDA (Nov 14, 2010)

...and you guys called me *paranoid* (ha,ha)...actually, I'm just *informed*.


----------



## plowman33 (Jul 20, 2011)

70AARCUDA said:


> ...and you guys called me *paranoid* (ha,ha)...actually, I'm just *informed*.





70AARCUDA said:


> OnStar™ = BIG BROTHER





70AARCUDA said:


> ...read your Cruze Owners Manual (Customer Information, page 13-15), the car already also has a *Event Data Recorder* (EDR) built-in, but I'll bet your salesperson never mentioned it to you. And, YOU have no control over its contents. Insurance companys and Calfornia CARB and California Highway Patrol want un-monitored access to that information...especially, *if/when* you're in an accident...they want it so that you CANNOT refuse their accessing it in any way.





70AARCUDA said:


> ...I paid for the vehicle, and I did NOT have the "option" to refuse the inclusion of _either_ the *OnStar*™ or the *Event Data Recorder *(EDR).





70AARCUDA said:


> ...their co$ts are foisted upon the buyers without consent or acceptance, and neither are EPA mandated--yet!


No, I'd still call you paranoid. All of that stuff sounds like conspiracy theories. 

Yes, our car has OnStar. Yes they are collecting data about your vehicle. Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing is debatable, but it's not inherently suspicious. If you don't want a car that tracks your data, drive something from the 60's.


----------



## Aeroscout977 (Nov 25, 2010)

plowman33 said:


> No, I'd still call you paranoid. All of that stuff sounds like conspiracy theories.
> 
> Yes, our car has OnStar. Yes they are collecting data about your vehicle. Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing is debatable, but it's not inherently suspicious. If you don't want a car that tracks your data, drive something from the 60's.


Or us as consumers can demand that cars with this not be sold? The buyers should *drive* what new technology comes to us as users. Not the government. Everyone in the industry is watching which way this will go. The problem is large government oversight.


----------



## 70AARCUDA (Nov 14, 2010)

...there are those who are _*cautious*_ and there are those who are _*naïve*._


----------



## plowman33 (Jul 20, 2011)

JDM-USDM Love said:


> Or us as consumers can demand that cars with this not be sold? The buyers should *drive* what new technology comes to us as users. Not the government. Everyone in the industry is watching which way this will go. The problem is large government oversight.


I like having OnStar on my car. I am not demanding that this technology not be put into the vehicles. Consumers demand things by who they choose to give their money to. So, like I said, if you don't like cars having OnStar, don't buy a car with OnStar. 

And FYI, I have had no interaction with "the government" because of my vehicle purchase. If "Big Brother" has come knocking on your door because of data they've gathered from your OnStar, then I suppose you have every right in the world to be paranoid.


----------



## plowman33 (Jul 20, 2011)

70AARCUDA said:


> ...there are those who are _*cautious*_ and there are those who are _*naïve*._


And just like the movie "A Beautiful Mind", there are those who are actually involved in a government consipracy, and then there are people who think they are and have actually just gone crazy.


----------



## MikeW (Nov 29, 2010)

Just as a side note, I do find it a little amusing people that are seemingly bothered by the fact that OnStar may gather information from their cars are using the internet.


----------



## plowman33 (Jul 20, 2011)

MikeW said:


> Just as a side note, I do find it a little amusing people that are seemingly bothered by the fact that OnStar may gather information from their cars are using the internet.


:sigh:


----------



## Aeroscout977 (Nov 25, 2010)

plowman33 said:


> And just like the movie "A Beautiful Mind", there are those who are actually involved in a government consipracy, and then there are people who think they are and have actually just gone crazy.


You need to do some research into OBD III and the reasons for it's push to be applied then you might have a different attitude towards the subject. Do you have any experience in the automotive world beyond the user level?




plowman33 said:


> I like having OnStar on my car. I am not demanding that this technology not be put into the vehicles. Consumers demand things by who they choose to give their money to. So, like I said, if you don't like cars having OnStar, don't buy a car with OnStar.
> 
> And FYI, I have had no interaction with "the government" because of my vehicle purchase. If "Big Brother" has come knocking on your door because of data they've gathered from your OnStar, then I suppose you have every right in the world to be paranoid.


See above OBD III will go from a dealer level experience to a government controlled one. And you are correct I will not purchase a car with Onstar. I made sure my 07 Pontiac didn't have it and of course Honda does not use a system similar to it.


----------



## plowman33 (Jul 20, 2011)

JDM-USDM Love said:


> You need to do some research into OBD III and the reasons for it's push to be applied then you might have a different attitude towards the subject. Do you have any experience in the automotive world beyond the user level?


No, but I do have 11 years experience working for the government, including 4 years for NSA. So I can tell you firsthand that the government has much better things to do with their time than to analyze traffic data from random drivers. Our driving habits are not that important or interesting.


----------



## plowman33 (Jul 20, 2011)

JDM-USDM Love said:


> And you are correct I will not purchase a car with Onstar. I made sure my 07 Pontiac didn't have it and of course Honda does not use a system similar to it.


Ok, sorry, I just assumed that a Moderator on a Chevy Cruze forum would actually own a Chevy Cruze.


----------



## Aeroscout977 (Nov 25, 2010)

plowman33 said:


> No, but I do have 11 years experience working for the government, including 4 years for NSA. So I can tell you firsthand that the government has much better things to do with their time than to analyze traffic data from random drivers. Our driving habits are not that important or interesting.


Our gripes have nothing to do with national security. I think there's been a misunderstanding? At least myself I'm not worried about government kicking my in doors. It's the EPA, NHTSA, and state DMV agencies. I think there's been a disconnect. lol


----------



## Aeroscout977 (Nov 25, 2010)

plowman33 said:


> Ok, sorry, I just assumed that a Moderator on a Chevy Cruze forum would actually own a Chevy Cruze.


It's not a requirement to own a Cruze to be a member. But you could always PM and admin and express your concern. That's your right as a member.


----------



## 70AARCUDA (Nov 14, 2010)

MikeW said:


> Just as a side note, I do find it a little amusing people that are seemingly bothered by the fact that OnStar may gather information from their cars are using the *internet*.


...in French: _touche'_


----------



## plowman33 (Jul 20, 2011)

JDM-USDM Love said:


> Our gripes have nothing to do with national security. I think there's been a misunderstanding? At least myself I'm not worried about government kicking my in doors. It's the EPA, NHTSA, and state DMV agencies. I think there's been a disconnect. lol


Yeah, I don't have a lot of contact with those agencies either... I don't see how OnStar data is going to change anything they do for the worse. I guess I just assumed you guys were worried about something more because of the Big Brother being mentioned, (I know it wasn't you), and the overall tone of impending doom.



JDM-USDM Love said:


> It's not a requirement to own a Cruze to be a member. But you could always PM and admin and express your concern. That's your right as a member.


Oh, it's no big deal. I just thought it was odd...


----------



## Aeroscout977 (Nov 25, 2010)

plowman33 said:


> Yeah, I don't have a lot of contact with those agencies either... I don't see how OnStar data is going to change anything they do for the worse. I guess I just assumed you guys were worried about something more because of the Big Brother being mentioned, (I know it wasn't you), and the overall tone of impending doom.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, it's no big deal. I just thought it was odd...


Yeah it all depends on just how far they decide to take it. Imagine you're cat goes bad about 6 months prior to your state emissions test. Normally you would have time to save up and replace it according to your personal financial position. With OBD III your car's emissions standard being 1.5X out of factory specs will alert both the dealer and local agency's. If compliance doesn't happen within (X) amount of time then your car can be disabled remotely. There are many other avenues in which they are thinking of taking OBD III (basically OnStar but tied into state/federal agencies).


----------



## NBrehm (Jun 27, 2011)

EDR have been around for years and are in an awful lot of new cars. Police can actual download them and find out what you were doing if you say, were involved in an accident. I guess ONSTAR collecting info on me doesn't really bother me because pretty much every thing you do now a days gets tracked in some way. If they want to know I go to Dunkin Donuts every morning or pester me because it is oil change time I don't really care. I can see the annoyance but facebook steals more from you every day. **** who knows someone may monitor this very website and collect info on you.


----------



## StoneCrab (Sep 14, 2011)

I like OnStar and the services they provide. I have no concern about them tracking my location and speed. I value the service and safety features they provide by knowing where I am if I'm in a crash and how fast I may have been going. I like being able to call them for directions or upload a route from my cell to the OnStar nav screen in the DIC. 

The information OnStar can access is less personally identifiable than what Google collects from my Android cell, or what Apple collects from an iPhone. Also less personally identifiable than what my credit card company collects about me. 

Roll with it guys, the value from these services is much greater than the small risk to privacy.


----------



## NBrehm (Jun 27, 2011)

^ Well said


----------



## scaredpoet (Nov 29, 2010)

JDM-USDM Love said:


> Or us as consumers can demand that cars with this not be sold?


Sure! You do that by voting with your wallet. As long as people continue to buy cars with this feature built in, it sends a message to the manufacturer that people WANT to buy the car with those features; or at the very least that it doesn't annoy them enough to stay away.



> The buyers should *drive* what new technology comes to us as users. Not the government.



The government has not mandated the installation of OnStar in passenger cars.



> You need to do some research into OBD III and the reasons for it's push to be applied then you might have a different attitude towards the subject.


I've done some research on the topic. Y'know, it's kinda funny: there's not a single government website or citable source that I can find that shows any legislation, proposed or passed, that describes OBD-III. I looked for a technical spec or a schematic... if it's a standard, there's GOTTA be a published spec for it, right? But I couldn't find that either. There are a lot of websites that say things like "THE GOVERNMENT WANTS TO SPY ON YOU WITH OBD III OMG!" and talk about it being discussed - speculatively - in California. They describe this orwellian type of mechanism for "suspicionless" inspection of cars that are supposed to be programmed to openly broadcast their error codes in the clear to anyone who wants to tune in, but THEY don't offer any links to actual legislation either. Not even a docket number, not even a bill number. Not in any US government proposal. Nor any official california guideline either.

Generally when legislation is on the docket, there's a bill number associated with it and it's on the congressional record. There's also a posting of it somewhere for public comment. Failure to do this means that there will be lots of civil rights lawyers champing at the bit to handily strike the new reg down and make a name for themselves. And they will certainly win without even getting to the merits of the law.

There should also be an SAE or ISO specification on OBD III so that car makers know exactly what they're putting into the electronics. I can't find that either. And since the car companies kinda need to know, you can't really keep THAT top secret, either.

The requirement would end up looking something like this: 

http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-AIR/2005/December/Day-20/a23669.htm

That's the federal mandate enacted in 2008 for the requirement of the CAN-bus in passenger vehicles, one of the five protocols used in OBD-II.

So, can you point me to a link from an actual government website that shows us where OBD - Big Brother Edition is being proposed? Is there an ISO or SAE spec? I for one want to read the text of this myself, so I can make my OWN conclusion, rather than just blindly accept the conclusions someone else has made. That IS what you want us to do, right? Think for ourselves?


----------



## scaredpoet (Nov 29, 2010)

Oh, by the way: I did find a government statement on OBD III. In California.

It's here:

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) About On-Board Diagnostic II (OBD II) Systems

And here's what is says (emphasis mine):



> What is OBD III?
> 
> *First, there is no such thing*. There has been speculation about a new OBD program that would utilize remote transponders (like those currently used for automated bridges or toll roads) to send information indicating if any malfunctioning component is present in the vehicle in lieu of having the vehicle inspected at a Smog Check facility every one or two years. Many have referred to such a concept as OBD III. However, contrary to the rumors,* no such program has been adopted by ARB nor have any decisions been made by ARB to pursue such an approach in California.*


So... do you have anything that contradicts this? I'd certainly like to see it.


----------



## NBrehm (Jun 27, 2011)

Big Brother is always watching!


----------



## plowman33 (Jul 20, 2011)

scaredpoet said:


> So... do you have anything that contradicts this? I'd certainly like to see it.


Oh snap. Subscribed.


----------



## 70AARCUDA (Nov 14, 2010)

...*California* Air Resources Board (CARB) has been investigating OBD-III for _quite_ awhile:

• Jan-2000 http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/apr/past/96-332a.pdf

• Apr-2002 http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/obd02/fsor.pdf

• Aug-2003 http://www.arb.ca.gov/planning/sip/stfed03/revsect2.doc

• Mar-2009 http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/smogcheck/march09/transitioning_to_obd_only_im.pdf

...and, *EPA* is working it *now*--how's a May 2011 date for currency? (color and underscore _my_ emphasis):

_"*Standardized reference for OBDIII, Remote, Wireless, Continuous, etc"*_

• May-2011 http://www.epa.gov/air/caaac/mstrs/may2011/mow.pdf


----------



## CruzeLTZ-RS (Jul 23, 2011)

Yous worry way too much. GM already knows where I live and probably where I work. I hardly care if they track me on my way to work or wherever I go. When they can start my car and drive it off un-man'd to an unknown location, then I'll worry. There are far worse off places selling information about you and me.

If you don't want onstar, don't buy a car with it equipped. Get a '94 Grand Am.


----------



## Aeroscout977 (Nov 25, 2010)

I think people are commenting outside the scope that me and 70AARCUDA are arguing? I dont remember one of us saying anything about selling information or even spying. I believe that argument has been misconstrued by others whom assumed that's what we meant earlier in the thread. And like 70 pointed out in the links its been in the works for years. The first test of a broadcasting OBD system that I know of was as early as *1994*.

I think we need to get on the same page as to what we're debating here. Lol


Also sorry for any typos! im on my cell phone.


----------



## scaredpoet (Nov 29, 2010)

70AARCUDA said:


> ...*California* Air Resources Board (CARB) has been investigating OBD-III for _quite_ awhile:
> 
> • Jan-2000 http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/apr/past/96-332a.pdf
> 
> ...


I'll let these documents speak for themselves. I'll grant you they talk about a theoretical OBD-III thing, basically saying "wouldn't it be great if we did this?" The first one is a feasibility study, and the word document, in particular are a solicitation of a buch of ideas to reduce smog emission in california. One even solicits and garners comments from Ford, Chrysler and other automakers, all of which basically say "no way do we want this! It's too hard to implement, too expensive, and our buyers will hate it."

Not one though, actually describes an OBD-III technical specification, nor is a decision made to implement. No different from the type of proposals state governments float all the time and then table. Given the _current_ (2011) statement by the ARB that nothing of the kind is planned for execution, I would conclude they made the right decision: that something like this would be too invasive and people wouldn't want it.

Great fodder for the tinfoil hat wearing types though.




> ...and, *EPA* is working it *now*--how's a May 2011 date for currency? (color and underscore _my_ emphasis):
> 
> _"*Standardized reference for OBDIII, Remote, Wireless, Continuous, etc"*_
> 
> • May-2011 http://www.epa.gov/air/caaac/mstrs/may2011/mow.pdf


This was a voluntary, temporary test program. There was nothing mandatory about it. Again, good for speculation.


----------



## plowman33 (Jul 20, 2011)

JDM-USDM Love said:


> I think people are commenting outside the scope that me and 70AARCUDA are arguing? I dont remember one of us saying anything about selling information or even spying. I believe that argument has been misconstrued by others whom assumed that's what we meant earlier in the thread. And like 70 pointed out in the links its been in the works for years. The first test of a broadcasting OBD system that I know of was as early as *1994*.
> 
> I think we need to get on the same page as to what we're debating here. Lol
> 
> ...


So the idea of OBDIII has been floating around for the last 17 years, and nothing has come of it. No technical specs, no adjustments to the law, no mandatory push dates or implementation timelines. I hope you haven't been fretting over this for 17 years straight now. 

After looking over the proposed implementation ideas in those documents, I like what they're trying to do. They are using advancements in technology to reduce vehicle pollution.


----------



## NBrehm (Jun 27, 2011)

JDM-USDM Love said:


> I dont remember one of us saying anything about selling information or even spying.


See OP thread title, not sure if anyone was referring to you guys directly but the thread title is about them selling info on you. But yeah, i agree that with all the info that gets bought and sold about you on a daily basis it isn't worth losing sleep over. Besides if/when OBD III comes on line someone will hack it and figure out how to tune it to hide all kinds of things just like they do with OBD II.


----------



## Aeroscout977 (Nov 25, 2010)

^ lol I forgot all about the OP I haven't seen him since the original post so thanks for pointing that out. 

And as far as the technical specs for OBD III it's nothing that isn't out already. The standardization protocol that happened with OBD II will remain the same. OBD III in essence is exactly what we see on cars today. I'm sure it'll use the same hexadecimal coding as OBDII. The only difference is satellite communication or other live broadcasting means will be a requirement. Which isn't hard to implement because the technology already exist in current cars. Most manufacturers have a communication system that ties into the rest of the modules on their vehicles. The technology is already on the new cars coming out. Their required use by law however is not.


----------



## Aeroscout977 (Nov 25, 2010)

This is from SEMA



> *WHAT IS OBD-III?*
> 
> A program to minimize the delay between detection of an emissions malfunction by the OBD-II system and repair of the vehicle
> 
> ...


----------



## feh (May 29, 2011)

JDM-USDM Love said:


> ^ lol I forgot all about the OP I haven't seen him since the original post so thanks for pointing that out.


I'm still here, reading all the responses.

My concern is OnStar selling info to 3rd parties. I don't trust them to not collect the data, even if I ask.


----------



## 70AARCUDA (Nov 14, 2010)

...first, they *collect* info without your consent.

...then, they *use* it without your consent.

...and, they *sell* it without your consent.

...didn't sign any "Consent to Release of Information" forms when we bought our GM vehicles.


----------



## plowman33 (Jul 20, 2011)

70AARCUDA said:


> ...first, they *collect* info without your consent.
> 
> ...then, they *use* it without your consent.
> 
> ...


You bought a car knowing it had OnStar. That's consent. And your consent to release information you signed with GM continues to it's third parties, like OnStar. Nobody snuck into your garage and hooked up OnStar without your knowledge.


----------



## feh (May 29, 2011)

plowman33 said:


> You bought a car knowing it had OnStar. That's consent. And your consent to release information you signed with GM continues to it's third parties, like OnStar. Nobody snuck into your garage and hooked up OnStar without your knowledge.


They've changed their privacy policy. That's why the rash of threads on this topic.


----------



## Aeroscout977 (Nov 25, 2010)

plowman33 said:


> You bought a car knowing it had OnStar. That's consent. And your consent to release information you signed with GM continues to it's third parties, like OnStar. Nobody snuck into your garage and hooked up OnStar without your knowledge.


Not completely accurate. With many applications like this you have to agree to terms and conditions. Especially ones with a software interface. I'm not very familiar with how this all works. But it's along the lines of computer software and video games. Especially ones with access to the internet and account based ones which have your personal information. If the company is in good standing it will usually warn the user as to what their information will be used for. I'm sure someone else with more knowledge on licensing agreements etc. Could clarify better how it all works. The problem happens when the technology is forced on people (OBD III) Which as stated above is possibly in violation with our 4th Amendment Right. When I picked my GM vehicle I made sure it did not have OnStar. Standardizing a subscription based service that still tracks you/keeps the manufacture's eye on you if you don't wish for it, is wrong.


----------



## Andy2012ltz_rs (Aug 1, 2011)

For all the paranoid people out there, I found your next mod.


----------



## Aeroscout977 (Nov 25, 2010)

^ This mod will not help protect us from the government! OH LAWDY!


----------



## titanium (Aug 14, 2011)

feh said:


> My 6 month trial is going to end in 3 months, at which point I'll apparently need to physically modify the car if I don't want my GPS data sold:
> 
> OnStar Begins Spying On Customers’ GPS Location For Profit | Jonathan Zdziarski's Domain
> 
> ...


http://www.cruzetalk.com/forum/9-ch...ion-forum/3717-onstar-module-4.html#post49055


----------



## NBrehm (Jun 27, 2011)

"He rolled trough a stop sign boys! Thank god for OnStar, let's get em!"


----------



## Aeroscout977 (Nov 25, 2010)

@NBRehm lol even though I'm on the opposite side of the argument from you that's just hilarious. 

I wish those 1/4 mile threads could stay this civil


----------



## NBrehm (Jun 27, 2011)

JDM-USDM Love said:


> I wish those 1/4 mile threads could stay this civil


Lol, I'm SO not going there....

ANYWAY, I do agree with you that it is BS that they sell the info, but it is just common practice nowadays so i don't bother losing sleep over it.

Edit: I had to modify the picture....


----------



## Abrunet85 (Jul 29, 2011)

LucyCruze said:


> You have OnStar. Or at least you had the 6-month trial at one time, so that means the equipment's all still there.
> 
> From the Chevrolet website:



Neither my Cruze, a LS, or my fiance's Cruze, a LT, have OnStar on them. We never had any 6-month trial or anything like that. There are no buttons on the mirror at all.


----------



## Quazar (Apr 28, 2011)

plowman33 said:


> No, but I do have 11 years experience working for the government, including 4 years for NSA. So I can tell you firsthand that the government has much better things to do with their time than to analyze traffic data from random drivers. Our driving habits are not that important or interesting.


I know a guy with 30 years of experience working for the NSA. He cleans a building. :signs015:

On topic, I believe the main issue here is consumer desire and freedom. Consumers should have the right to what data is collected, they should have the right to deactivate a product in their car once they purchase it. If you like it and see no issue with it you can have it, for those who do not like it, they should have the option not to have it.

Its very sad that the mentality of some Americans has degraded to the point that they believe things are OK just because they like it or see no problem with it. Completely dismissing the concerns of those that don't want something. Individual freedom is just that, individual. Its not based on whether or not you like or "see" no issue with something being imposed on everyone. 

Everyone should be opposed to things like this for the simple fact that one day when you are one the other side of the argument the only thing that may help you win it is individual freedom still existing. Freedom is at least it is something that two red blooded Americans should be able to agree with. 

As Benjamin Franklin said, those who would sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither freedom nor security.


----------



## 70AARCUDA (Nov 14, 2010)

+1 *Quazar*!

...IMHO too many things today are *done* under the 'Military Initiative Axiom' of _"...it's better to ask for *Forgiveness*, than to have to ask for *Permission*..."_

...when *they* don't have to ask for _either_ *Permission* or *Forgiveness*, that's when we're really in trouble (ala' parts of "Patriot Act").


----------



## plowman33 (Jul 20, 2011)

Quazar said:


> I know a guy with 30 years of experience working for the NSA. He cleans a building. :signs015:


And my experience is in the IT field, so I might know more about this than your janitor friend.



Quazar said:


> On topic, I believe the main issue here is consumer desire and freedom. Consumers should have the right to what data is collected, they should have the right to deactivate a product in their car once they purchase it. If you like it and see no issue with it you can have it, for those who do not like it, they should have the option not to have it.


You are confusing "rights" with "wants". Your rights as an American citizen do not directly translate over into the capitalist world. Chevy has the right to make money as they see fit, so long as they don't endanger people's lives or do anything illegal. The only real right you have as a consumer is to decide where to spend your money.



Quazar said:


> Its very sad that the mentality of some Americans has degraded to the point that they believe things are OK just because they like it or see no problem with it. Completely dismissing the concerns of those that don't want something. Individual freedom is just that, individual. Its not based on whether or not you like or "see" no issue with something being imposed on everyone.


If I like something and see no problem with it, then yes, it is OK by definition. My job as a consumer is not to make sure I'm only buying products that everyone likes. I'm buying products that I like. If you don't like that product, don't buy it. And nothing is ever being "imposed" on consumers, you always have the right to take your business elsewhere.



Quazar said:


> Everyone should be opposed to things like this for the simple fact that one day when you are one the other side of the argument the only thing that may help you win it is individual freedom still existing. Freedom is at least it is something that two red blooded Americans should be able to agree with.
> 
> As Benjamin Franklin said, those who would sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither freedom nor security.


I completely agree with you that freedom is a good thing. It sounds like you are quite patriotic, but like I said earlier, you are confusing your American rights with your consumer rights. The two aren't interchangable. Companies are here to make money, bottom line. That's how capitalism works. That's why your car doesn't have every single part inside it available as optional, because cars can't be made inexpensively that way. And I'm not going to pay more for my car so that you can choose exactly how much of the car you want. You can do just about anything you want with the products you buy. So feel free to rip all the wires out that you think are letting people spy on you. Just dont ask the manufacterer to fix it when your headlights don't turn on, and dont tell the vast majority of us who enjoy our product that we shouldn't be just because you aren't.


----------



## feh (May 29, 2011)

For those of you that can't get enough of this story:

Senator Goes After 'Brazen' OnStar Privacy Shift - Slashdot


----------



## gman19 (Apr 5, 2011)

feh said:


> For those of you that can't get enough of this story:
> 
> Senator Goes After 'Brazen' OnStar Privacy Shift - Slashdot


I heard about this one this morning in my way to work....I agree that a disconnected service should be just that....disconnected.

I also feel that anyone wishing to physically disconnect the equipment should be able to do so or have it done without voiding any warranty. Holding the warranty over my head is like holding me hostage...just my 0.02 worth.


----------



## NBrehm (Jun 27, 2011)

Problem solved


----------



## sprinj76 (Sep 23, 2011)

I have to say I'm shocked with the "it's happening in all aspect of our lives, might as well live with it" attitude some many people have. Apathy is not a solution, it's defeat.

I also don't trust a company collecting information about me. In fact I trust a company collecting information just a slight bit more than the federal government collecting information about me, lol. 

There are some rather serious privacy issues involved here and I think we as consumers should demand the right to have the *choice* of privacy.


----------



## gman19 (Apr 5, 2011)

sprinj76 said:


> .....Apathy is not a solution, it's defeat.
> 
> ......we as consumers should demand the right to have the *choice* of privacy.


Well said....:sigh:


----------



## SilverCruzer (Nov 30, 2010)

The deal is off.
OnStar - United States - News


----------



## Aeroscout977 (Nov 25, 2010)

Looks like the Supreme Court may have just ruled a huge arguing chip in our favor.Justices rule against police, say GPS surveillance requires search warrant - CNN.com



CNN said:


> Police erred by not obtaining an extended search warrant before attaching a tracking device to a drug suspect's car, the Supreme Court said in a unanimous ruling Monday.
> A majority of justices said that secretly placing the device and monitoring the man's movements for several weeks constituted a government "search," and therefore, the man's constitutional rights were violated.
> 
> Four other justices also concluded that the search was improper but said it was because the monthlong monitoring violated the suspect's expectation of privacy.
> ...


----------

