Conspiracy thread for the day: Onstar to stop speeding?

[Jeremy C]

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12170

The Nation's Pulse
Engine Turnoff
By Eric Peters
Published 10/16/2007 12:07:44 AM

Big Brother may be about to get just a bit bigger.

General Motors just announced a new and improved version of its OnStar telematics system that could be used to shut your car's engine off (or at least, cut back the power) remotely.

Touted as a "safety" feature (of course), the upgraded version of OnStar would give external authorities (law enforcement -- and, of course, GM) the ability to send out a signal keyed to the car's on board computer, which in turn would ease off the gas -- no matter how hard you're putting foot down. GPS-equipped cars already can be located in real time at any time, whether moving or stationary. The "enhanced" version of OnStar would, however, be the first use of satellite technology to physically control the vehicle and supersede the driver.

The system goes live in 2009, when GM will begin offering it on more than 1.7 million new cars and trucks. Chevrolet will lead the way -- with up to 60 percent of '09 models fitted with "enhanced" OnStar.

So what's wrong with the idea? Is it cabin-in-the-woods paranoia to be concerned about what, after all, could be a valuable tool for law enforcement?

The answer depends to a great extent on how much you trust the government.

Certainly, the use of "enhanced" OnStar to stop high-speed car chases and retrieve stolen cars is hard to argue with. But will that be all the technology is used for?

Consider this:

The insurance industry is at this very moment lobbying Congress to impose electronic speed governors on heavy trucks -- limiting them to no faster than 68 mph. Surprisingly, the trucking industry isn't completely opposed to the idea -- provided electronic speed limiters are also fitted to ordinary passenger vehicles, too. Fair's fair, right?

Now add a dash of "enhanced" OnStar to the brew.

Come 2009, it will be technically feasible to make speeding impossible. A modern car is controlled by computers; the computers are now tied into GPS systems such as OnStar -- which have the ability to send and receive electronic transmissions, including instructions that tell the computer how to run the car. "Smart" speed limit signs can now be fitted with transmitters; when a car with "enhanced" OnStar comes into range, the transmitter tells the car's computer what the maximum allowable speed shall be -- and ye shall drive no faster.

Welcome to the future.

"Technology should not just entertain us or make us more comfortable," croons NHTSA Administrator Nicole R. Nason. "It should make us safer." Of course. And what could be safer than making speeding an impossibility? If you haven't heard this argument voiced openly, just wait. It's coming as sure as Lindsay Lohan's next DWI. The safety nags have been patiently waiting for years for technology to catch up to their agenda.

Courtesy of GM, that day has arrived.

Our friends in the insurance and safety lobbies will soon be urging that this "optional" technology become a mandatory feature on every new car. Speeding is illegal, right? Who is going to argue in favor of allowing the automakers to continue building and selling cars capable of being driven 30, 40, 50 mph faster than the highest lawfully allowable maximum?

What about the children, after all?

And if that's not alarming enough, consider the likely follow-up. Once all new cars are fitted with in-car speed nannies, the glassy eye of government will very likely turn its gaze upon older cars -- especially older pre-computer cars, which can't be electronically controlled because there is no on-board electronic controller. The old car hobby is already (justly) alarmed by recent changes in antique/classic car licensing and registration laws -- which are making it harder and more expensive to keep an older car on the road.

In Virginia, for example, changes to the laws governing antique vehicle registration now empower police to conduct what amount to "roadside safety checks." If the cop decides your antique vehicle doesn't meet this or that jot or tittle of the law, he can seize your plates on the spot and have your antique vehicle towed to the impound lot -- notwithstanding that most cops don't have any specific knowledge of what is or isn't "right" about decades-old vehicles.

Now the authorities have a new tool in their kit. A cudgel by which they cannot only beat speeders into submission -- but which could very well be used to take older cars off the road forever. Consider yourself warned.

And remember to say "thanks, GM."


Eric Peters is an automotive columnist and author of Automotive Atrocities (MBI).

So who thinks Big Brother is going to ruin our ability to properly hoon on the roads?

[Jeff V.]

Lots of BS here. I'll seize on this one.

"And remember to say "thanks, GM."

No, not 'thanks GM'. GM is in the business of selling cars. They happen to sell a lot of fast cars. 240 hp Cobalts. 300 hp Impalas. 400 hp Escalades. A 500 hp Corvette, with a 650+ hp Corvette coming next year.

GM, contrary to popular belief, is not stupid. They are not going to purposely hamstring their ability to sell some of their most popular cars. I personally love the idea that they could locate my stolen car via OnStar, and that they could prevent it from being destroyed or used to hurt someone in a high speed chance if I (emphasis on I) call in to OnStar and report it stolen. But they're not going to say "Here's your 200 mph capable Corvette, but you won't ever be able to drive it more than 5mph over posted speed limits." Their sales would dive hard enough to give their executives nosebleeds.


Now the FEDS on the other hand....THEY will be the ones to fuck things up for us all, as they so often do. ESPECIALLY when they're lead by such open minded groups as the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS).

Would it shock you guys to learn that remote vehicle shutdown is something that law enforcement has requested be a mandatory feature for the upcoming OBD3 spec?

[Duck Vader]

It would honestly ruin GM to have Onstar do this.

[Jeremy C]

[quote=""Gatecrasher""]Would it shock you guys to learn that remote vehicle shutdown is something that law enforcement has requested be a mandatory feature for the upcoming OBD3 spec?[/quote]

Not one bit. The gov't and it's subsidies would love nothing more to make it even easier to stop people. Remember, the gov't is in place to protect us from ourselves! God forbid we do anything "they" deem harmful. More and more I see things looking like the world from "V is for Vendetta."

[Hannibalzero]

Well, if this is going to happen, it will need to come through the Federal government. State and local governments want you to speed. They make way too much money off of tickets.

I don't see this being enforced for many years, however. Not until/unless all vehicles are required to be equipped with speed control, as you are afforded equal protection under the law. Theoretically, they shouldn't be able to mandate this feature from one company, but not the others.

[Chris95RT]

It won't happen anytime soon.

I've seen these debates for safety before, and the amount of arguing by both the OEMs and the government is just enormous.

You should have seen the debates that went on over EDR (Event Data Recorder) and what they were supposed to sample and how they were supposed to sample it.

Ahhhh

[Jeff V.]

More and more I see things looking like the world from "V is for Vendetta."

True. Sadly, we are lacking in super heroes. And giant robots

[Jeremy C]

[quote=""Gatecrasher""]True. Sadly, we are lacking in super heroes. And giant robots [/quote]

We need those, cute alien chicks, and the occasional time travelers to come right the wrongs of this planet.

[alienviking]

Mmmmm Natalie Portman... :d rool:

[Jeff V.]

Some gov't types in Europe have spoken about out right banning any car that can exceed 100 mph.

Things at home aren't quite that bad

(yet)

[Mumbo]

This is why I'm glad I won't ever buy a GM.

But in all seriousness, just having the "ability" to have the car controlled or shut down remotely is enough for me to be paranoid and not buy a car. I don't care if there is blatant legislation against the use of these systems by law enforcement. Because, as long as there is law enforcement, there will bee abuse of power, and cops getting away with it. I'd feel much safer if my Ford F150 just plain did not have the capability to he controlled remotely, like a Chevy Silverado.

And while we can't directly blame GM for this "threat", you honestly don't see any other auto maker touting a system like onstar like GM does. And the other automakers seem to be doing just fine, even without an onstar-like service.

[vegasidol]

First thought was, "I love my old(er) vehicle." until this:

And if that's not alarming enough, consider the likely follow-up. Once all new cars are fitted with in-car speed nannies, the glassy eye of government will very likely turn its gaze upon older cars -- especially older pre-computer cars, which can't be electronically controlled because there is no on-board electronic controller. The old car hobby is already (justly) alarmed by recent changes in antique/classic car licensing and registration laws -- which are making it harder and more expensive to keep an older car on the road.

Still the retrofitting of old/antique vehicle to accommodate a speed governor would be not only expensive but near impossible to regulate and enforce.

All of this is possible in the future, yet I'm not going conspiracy theory batty about it happening in the near future.

Heck, I just heard we'd have fully sexual capable 'life-like' robots by 2050.

[Jeremy C]

[quote=""vegasidol""]Heck, I just heard we'd have fully sexual capable 'life-like' robots by 2050. [/quote]

They were talking about that on the way in to work today. Saying that they expect humans to start marrying robots. I believe it will happen. What better way for someone who is socially inept to get what he wants/needs?

[Alan92rttt]

Why would you marry a robot? (ignoring the whole is an AI alive debate)(Then again if an AI were alive geeks would be screwed anyway )

[Jeremy C]

Those of us with real lives of some sort of social ability, no matter how lacking might never understand it, but what about those people that don't have that? The ones that never go out, the despondent or dejected? The ones that just don't fit into society? Those are the ones I would expect to see doing things like that.

Since you're an anime person, Alan, check out Chobits. It hits on that particular taboo spot on. If you want, I can burn it to disk for you.

[Zentelis]

I'm building a Natalie Portman android. Angelina Jolie is next on the production block. (She's for Kate)

[Jeff V.]

Why would you marry a robot?

There's some really sad individuals who would love (literally love) a programmed and predictable automaton. I'd guess there's a larger than normal concentration of those people in Japan.

[Mumbo]

[quote=""Alan92rttt""]Why would you marry a robot? (ignoring the whole is an AI alive debate)(Then again if an AI were alive geeks would be screwed anyway )[/quote]
Because you can program it to not cheat and always have dinner ready. Oh yeah, the robot woman can carry YOU across the threshold.

[alienviking]

[quote=""Zentelis""]I'm building a Natalie Portman android. Angelina Jolie is next on the production block. (She's for Kate) [/quote]

Back off! Natalie is mine! And make a Jennifer Love Hewitt one for my gf please!

[Alan92rttt]

I can understand a robot companion.


I can't understand the desire to marry one.