Why not On-Star?

[Ed02]

Well this question has been buggin' me ever since I saw the On-Star system installed in a pickup truck at the Chevy dealer. Why isn't it available on the Vette? You would think that since it's available on 58 GM products, you would be able to get it on one of their premier cars. I was thinking that it might just be a technical nightmare with all the other integrated systems there already, or maybe they feel that there are to many casual drivers out there who wouldn't buy it to warrant the engineering. I would think it would be a good option if for nothing else than the GPS tracking for theft recovery. Any thoughts?

Regards, Ed

 

[01TriBlack]

I've wondered the same thing, Ed. OnStar is great: We've got it on our Denali and have used it - very well worth the $16.95/month, in my view. I'll be interested to see why others feel it's not available on a 'vette.

 

[korvettekarl]

Yes, OnStar is great but beware, here in Las Vegas, we just had a bunch of politicians indicted on corruption charges based on conversations picked up by the feds using OnStar in the County Commisioner's GM OnStar equipped car. The feds did get a wire tap warrant, but who knew they could just listen in without any warning. Just word of advice.

 

[DkBG]

If I activate the onstar in my vehicle , can someone listen in if I keep it turned off until I need it ? As to why it's not available on Vettes , I've noticed alot of GM options are available on other cars long befor the Vette gets them . My 93 Buick wagon had a electrochomatic mirror which still wasn't even an option on my 2000 Vette . There doesn't seem to be any logic to it all . Cliff

 

[KOPBET]

If I activate the onstar in my vehicle , can someone listen in if I keep it turned off until I need it ? ...

Read this: http://www.onstar.com/us_english/jsp/gl_terms_privacy.jsp?page=gl_privacy.jsp

 

[rsimoes]

The C6 will have OnStar and GPS Navigation.

 

[koolaid117]

Methinks Big Brother is watching. . .:eek

 

[cavettefan]

OnStar Personal Calling is an analog cellular service. The reason for going with analog is that it has maximum coverage in the U.S. The downside is that the conversation is not encrypted as it is with digital cellular. However, don't think that any digital cellular conversation is "secure". If Big Brother really wants to find out what you are saying and has a court order, your digital cellular conversations are going to be cracked.

 

[AZMike]

I personally don't like the idea of OnStar. You're just one court order away from being tracked and listened to. Here in in the Phoenix area, photo radar is being used to supplement city incomes (except for Tempe, where they actually warn you it's being used so it has the stated effect of slowing traffic down). They all state that they're trying to slow traffic down, but the vans and light cameras are usually hidden from view (I just got nailed by one last week - while keeping up with traffic).

I'm sure it's just a matter of time before law enforcement figures out that they can use OnStar's GPS capabilites to determine if you've been speeding at all during a given time period (think of the additional revenue this would provide cities!) I'm not sure about the legal aspects, but I can imagine a law enforcement agency getting permission to track me and then showing up at my door (or sending me a letter) saying "Dear AZMike, it has been determined that you were criminally speeding in the middle of nowhere last Tuesday. Please turn yourself in to the nearest jail."

I think I'll stick with my atlas and cell phone for now!

[/paranoid rant]

 

[cavettefan]

AZMike, if you want to stay completely "under the radar" so to speak, you willl need to turn your cell phone off. How do you think that O.J. was tracked to the point where there was the televised low-speed chase? Regarding using the GPS facility in OnStar to calculate your speed - I rather doubt it. First, the resolution of the OnStar GPS (+/- 10 meters) does not permit an accurate calculation (reasonable doubt). Additionally, even if you could get past the resolution problem, how would the police know who to charge for the remote speeding violation? Just because the car is registered to you doesn't mean that you were the driver at that precise instant in time.

 

[AZMike]

Just because the car is registered to you doesn't mean that you were the driver at that precise instant in time.

Funny you should mention that. As we speak, at least two cities in AZ (Scottsdale and Phoenix, I believe) are trying to change the law to make the OWNER of the car resposible for any photo radar tickets. This will mean that they will only need to take a single picture of the licence plate. They are also trying to get rid of the requirement that you actually acknowledge the ticket or be served in person for a conviction. ad

As far as the cell phone goes, I tend to turn mine off when I'm in compromising positions speed wise anyway as it tends to get awefully hot in the center console - this just kills the battery. I'm also usually in the middle of nowhere in this case so I don't have a need for it anyway.

Not to be paraniod, but I'm just getting really tired of the underhanded tactics the local governments here are using to generate more revenue. I mean really - Why not go a step further and equip all cars with devices that automatically debit your cheking account and revoke your licence when you break a traffic law?:eyerole

 

[DkBG]

So Kopbet , do you feel that article is saying that Onstar personal can turn my equipment on , no matter what buttons I push to turn it off ? Cliff

 

[Pac-man]

onstar

I will never get Onstar. They listen in all the time, can't tell you how I know, but I know. Even if no one listened or tracked you, why would you want it anyway, just to say that you have the latest and greatest. To me it's money for nothing, we've done fine this long without it. I will never pay for a sat. nav. either.

 

[redvett]

I have had Onstar on 2 of my vehicles since 2001 and both of my 2004s also and i wouldnt be without it. I dont have a guilty past or present so i dont worry about it. Some of you must be doing things illegal or you wouldnt worry about it.

 

[cavettefan]

I have to agree with redvett; I have OnStar on my 2003 Denali and it is a great security blanket - if you get in an accident that triggers the air bags, OnStar immediately calls the emergency services dispatch center with the location of your vehicle. Having been in an accident where the air bags deployed, you are in a bit of a state of shock, and the brain is not exactly firing on all cylinders. If it is a bad accident, you may be unconscious and not able to call for help. If Big Brother really wants to bug your conversations, it will happen regardless of whether OnStar is installed in your car or not.

 

[Last Ride]

Maybe it's just me, but doesn't it seem a little arrogant for people to think "Big Borther" would have the least bit of care in what "common folk" have to say to one another? Relax! As long as you don't say, "Bin Laden," or "Catcher in the Rye," or "Cinnamon," you are safe. Oh no, here they come again.....

 

[KANE]

OBD IV- the EVIL empire

I have often thought cars are only a step away from Big Brother citing us for speeding from the conveinience of OBD.

Transponders from street networks tell the car what speed you should be travling. Your car rats you out to the police via analog cell phone. Great. A computer determines what is unlawful behavior. Sounds like a trap- build a car that can legally incriminate its owner.

Using the law maliciously in order to generate revenue in lieu of using it to protect and serve is an abomination. That violates every freedom we fought 226 years ago for! Its not tea this time- its the encroachment of leftist ideology that looks for new ways in which to tax and spend.
I would worry that controling our cars would be too easy for a terrorist or clandestine hacker. Hmmm... point....hack....ACCIDENT!

 

[KOPBET]

So Kopbet , do you feel that article is saying that Onstar personal can turn my equipment on , no matter what buttons I push to turn it off ? Cliff

I don't know for sure. But I look at it like this. If OnStar can send a signal to unlock doors, honk the horn, flash the lights and can track a stolen car, just exactly what ARE you doing when you push that off button? What would keep OnStart from sending a signal to "wake it up"?

I believe that the only way to be sure that they cannot listen in is to manually disable the microphone(s), if you can locate it(them).

 

[Pac-man]

redvett, whether we are criminals or not is irrelevant. To even mention something like that is an insult and ridiculous. I work on principle. The principle of the matter is that I will not allow anyone to listen to my private conversations, be it with my wife, my children or anyone else. Would you consent to a search of your home since you have nothing to hide? I won't, but that's your rational. It's a little deeper than that. I'm not even exclusively talking about the govt. listening in, how about the Onstar operator/monitor who has nothing better to do. I like my privacy, thats all. Most people in this country just go along with everything and never stop to think what is actually going on. Sort of like herding sheep. As long as you feel secure with Onstar that's all that matters. Good luck with it.

 

[cavettefan]

Not to stoke the paranoia factor too much, but since one of our posters used a term that is sure to trip text scanning software (guess which term it was...), this whole thread may now be appearing on some analysts screen for further review. And if there is any follow-up scrutiny, the first you will know about it will be when the SWAT team knocks down your door....

P.S.: If this scenario plays out, it will not be courtesy of OnStar....