Reply With Quote
watching tv, memorizing my genus and species for the family Colubridae, blogging on spurstalk, breathing
watching tv, memorizing my genus and species for the family Colubridae, blogging on spurstalk, breathing
Uh, it's too late. They already can read a liscence plate from space.
Really? this is news to me, u got a link
Jim was dissapointed with Onstar when he found out he couldn't actually see you in the shower.
Well, I had seen an article that claimed resolution of .25 cm. I think that's enough to read a plate.
Yeah right. Don't forget to wipe yourself off after mookie2001 smokes your pole.
I mean seriously...what are they possibly going to learn from spending ga-jillions of dollars on ways to track your ass to Marble Slab....so they can send you a reminder letter of the promise you made to what you thought was just thin air to lose 10lbs?
I'm not sure what information they would get from you that's not already available somewhere to make anyone freak out about it....unless you're up to no good. And if that's the case, too damn bad...
User..the FBI has already been caught eavesdropping on peoples conversations with onstar equipped cars....The fact that Big Brother can do it is not debatable...
Pretty Scary Stuff eh?
I mean seriously...what are they possibly going to learn from spending ga-jillions of dollars on ways to track your ass to Marble Slab....so they can send you a reminder letter of the promise you made to what you thought was just thin air to lose 10lbs?
I'm not sure what information they would get from you that's not already available somewhere to make anyone freak out about it....unless you're up to no good. And if that's the case, too damn bad...
Um...I wonder if they know how much I REALLY spend at Target
I feel so.....violated!
Interesting.User..the FBI has already been caught eavesdropping on peoples conversations with onstar equipped cars....The fact that Big Brother can do it is not debatable...
Pretty Scary Stuff eh?
But in this case, the system worked and the practice was stopped, if only for peripheral reasons.
They caught them doing it and stopped them. I think it's pretty fair that they were stopped. It happens allthe time that law enforcement's abilities are curtailed do to a persons rights.User..the FBI has already been caught eavesdropping on peoples conversations with onstar equipped cars....The fact that Big Brother can do it is not debatable...
Pretty Scary Stuff eh?
Court to FBI: No spying on in-car computers
Published: November 19, 2003, 12:07 PM PST
By Declan McCullagh
Staff Writer, CNET News.com
TrackBack Print E-mail TalkBack
The FBI and other police agencies may not eavesdrop on conversations inside automobiles equipped with OnStar or similar dashboard computing systems, a federal appeals court ruled.
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals said Tuesday that the FBI is not legally en led to remotely activate the system and secretly use it to snoop on passengers, because doing so would render it inoperable during an emergency.
In a split 2-1 rulingthe majority wrote that "the company could not assist the FBI without disabling the system in the monitored car" and said a district judge was wrong to have granted the FBI its request for surrep ious monitoring.
The court did not reveal which brand of remote-assistance product was being used but did say it involved "luxury cars" and, in a footnote, mentioned Cadillac, which sells General Motors' OnStar technology in all current models. After learning that the unnamed system could be remotely activated to eavesdrop on conversations after a car was reported stolen, the FBI realized it would be useful for "bugging" a vehicle, Judges Marsha Berzon and John Noonan said.
When FBI agents remotely activated the system and were listening in, passengers in the vehicle could not tell that their conversations were being monitored. After "vehicle recovery mode" was disabled, the court said, passengers were notified by the radio displaying an alert and, if the radio was not on, the system beeping.
David Sobel, general counsel at the Electronic Privacy Information Center, called the court's decision "a pyrrhic victory" for privacy.
"The problem (the court had) with the surveillance was not based on privacy grounds at all," Sobel said. "It was more interfering with the contractual relationship between the service provider and the customer, to the point that the service was being interrupted. If the surveillance was done in a way that was seamless and undetectable, the court would have no problem with it."
Under current law, the court said, companies may only be ordered to comply with wiretaps when the order would cause a "minimum of interference." After the system's spy capabilities were activated, "pressing the emergency button and activation of the car's airbags, instead of automatically contacting the company, would simply emit a tone over the already open phone line," the majority said, concluding that a wiretap would create substantial interference.
"The FBI, however well-intentioned, is not in the business of providing emergency road services and might well have better things to do when listening in than respond with such services to the electronic signal sent over the line," the majority said.
In a dissent, Judge Richard Tallman argued that a wiretap would not create unnecessary interference with emergency service and noted that "there is no evidence that any service disruption actually occurred. The record does not indicate that the subjects of the surveillance tried to use the system while the FBI was listening. One cannot disrupt a service unless and until it is being utilized.
"The record indicates that the only method of executing the intercept order in this case involved activating the car's microphone and transferring the car's cellular telephone link to the FBI. This conduct might have amounted to a service disruption, had the subjects of the surveillance attempted to use the system, but there is no evidence that they did."
The majority did point out that the FBI cannot order the system to be changed so that the emergency functions would work during surveillance. Congress ordered telephone companies to do just that in the 1994 Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, but current law does not "require that the company redesign its system to facilitate surveillance by law enforcement."
General Motors did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Wednesday. Its OnStar privacy policy says: "OnStar may disclose personal information if required to do so by law on (sic) in the good faith belief that such disclosure is reasonably necessary to comply with the legal process...OnStar cannot accept any responsibility for accidental or inadvertent disclosure, unauthorized access or for other disclosure as required by law or described in this policy."
The decision is binding only in California, Oregon, Nevada, Washington, Hawaii, and other states that fall within the 9th Circuit's jurisdiction. No other appeals court appears to have ruled on the matter.
So then its not too far fetched after all.
glad they stopped.
I never said that the government COULDN'T monitor you. I just doubt that it is some vast conspiracy to monitor everyone.
the conspiracy is that
obtain tools, technology, legislation to monitor everybody
because "criminals" fall in that group
And you think something that might facilitate catching potentially (or proven) violent criminals is a bad thing?
not when everyone is already a suspect
You have to balance peoples rights with the interests of society. I don't think tracking everyone is good, but to have the ability to do so legally is not.
You're either with OnStar* or you're with the terrorists...
Do you honestly believe the government has the capability to track everyone?
Anybody remember the trouble they were having going through all the intercepted communications prior to September 11th?
Can you say paranoid?
OnStar*
because I love my children.
we already went over that
yes.
You're either with OnStar* or you're with the terrorists...
Paranoid & presumptous that the government really thinks you're significant enough to waste valuable resources to even bother. Or is that only when there is a Republican president and a fierce natural disaster strikes that they all of a sudden don't give a damn about the little people anymore?
yall are lame that same "they are not watching me" "I've got nothing to hide" bull doesnt even make any sense
thats like saying segregation was ok because youre white
(now make the- I'm comparing segregation to OnStar* argument)
if they have the power, they CAN do it
would you want Evan Marriot to have the power to do tombstones on you whenever he wanted?
what if he lives in Boston and you live in San Diego?
what if youre stone cold steve austin?
it doesnt matter.
its the fact that he can
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
