What exactly are you trying to say?

That the EU practices big brother politics all the time.

Obviously this would be horrible if it were to happen, but the article makes it sound like some Eurocrats were just spit balling. It's not like this is really about to happen.

This is already happening. It's just a matter of market share.
http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/07/17/onstar-halts-stolen-car-after-40-mile-trek-from-west-dundee-to-englewood/

Onstar was caught a few years back tracking drivers who were not subscribers. It's a safe bet they could still stop a car of a non-subscriber, too... I bet it could all be done "legally" with a secret warrant from a secret judge of a secret court based on secret evidence provided by the secret police, just like everything else in this country now. I wonder what percentage of cars come with Onstar pre-installed?

@Tolstoy, wow that's pretty scary.

As science conquers over religion so technology will trample all over human rights

A question for our freedom loving American cousins. How is the police stopping a car via remote worse than the traditional American methods of bursting the car's tyres with a stinger, or ramming the rear side with a cop car?

god, octavious, don't you understand? this is about FREEDOM!

I don't know how the link is supposed to be scary. OnStar exists just for things like that. This is paranoid even by your standards, Tolstoy. The car was only shut down because it was stolen and involved in a high speed chase. Nothing bad happened here.

As for secret courts, secret evidence, and secret police, to the extent analogues to those things even exist, they are used in situations far more serious than a stolen car. The problem with the NSA surveillance and other programs is that they create the POTENTIAL for a dystopian police state. One does not exist now and lunatics like you discredit reasonable opposition to the actual violations of civil liberties committed by the government. Go back to your kooky sovereign citizen websites with claims like that.

Octavious - I don't have a problem with the feature if it's used to safely prevent a high-speed chase. It will save lives, resources, damage, insurance, etc etc.

What many people are concerned about, as Invictus said, is the "potential" of manipulation. I'm not so much concerned about a dystopian government as I am about the criminal and terrorist potential that these have.

Consider this - a rogue country launches a cyber attack on the US. One of the things they've managed to hack into and control is On-star. They shut down a million cars, completely paralyzing the entire Interstate highway system and shutting down commerce across the nation. If it happened during a major storm, it could be even worse....say, before a hurricane hits. Delaying evacuations even 12 hours could be the difference between life and death.

@ goldfinger

It's a possibility, but there are countless more tempting targets than On-star, many of which far easier to attack. Why steal an apple from the supermarket when there are dozens on the tree outside?

"How is the police stopping a car via remote worse than the traditional American methods of bursting the car's tyres with a stinger, or ramming the rear side with a cop car?"

If that's all they were going to do with that power, I wouldn't have a problem with it. But it's not going to stop at stolen cars. Next it'll be people with unpaid traffic fines ("it's cheaper than having an officer boot the vehicle, we need to save money somehow!"). Then it'll be people with unpaid child support or back taxes. At some point, Onstar will be taken out of the loop and the kill switches will be right in the police cars. It wouldn't be long until we're all guilty of something meriting a vehicle disablement; it'll just be a matter of offending the wrong somebody somehow. I can certainly see the man with the misfortune of dating Officer Psychopath's ex-wife will find his car suddenly out of power while he's cruising along on the freeway at 70MPH.

"As for secret courts, secret evidence, and secret police, to the extent analogues to those things even exist, they are used in situations far more serious than a stolen car."

You don't know that. You have no idea, unless you've been the recipient of some high level federal appointment lately we're not aware of. These things are all transacted in secret, after all. All we know is that the government claims these powers are only used for good and never abused. You've chosen to believe that without questioning it and despite widespread evidence to the contrary. I have not.

"You don't know that. You have no idea, unless you've been the recipient of some high level federal appointment lately we're not aware of. These things are all transacted in secret, after all. All we know is that the government claims these powers are only used for good and never abused. You've chosen to believe that without questioning it and despite widespread evidence to the contrary. I have not."

This is an example of paranoia without peer. Stolen car cases not go through Star Chamber.

@Tolstoy

I don't know how things work in the U.S. but over here when the police want to stop all but hardened criminals they turn on their lights and the car pulls over. There is no reason at all to use On-star except in extreme circumstances.

To be clear, if there was some government-mandated shut-off that has to be installed in all cars I'd be against it. But that's not what Tolstoy is really talking about. He's got some swivel-eyed idea that OnStar (a bauble people choose to get in the car they buy) already is that kill switch, and that somehow this inexorably leads to individual police officers being able to arbitrarily shut off your engine on the highway. That's lunacy.

I think I can guess how Tolstoy feels about fluoridation...

Except OnStar is tracking more cars than are just subscribers, so it's not just a bauble people choose to get in the car they buy.

tracking =/= shut-off

The continued tracking of people without subscriptions to OnStar but who still have the hardware is a concern, assuming it's true and, if true, is more than just a result of bureaucratic backlog. But it's a separate concern.

"He's got some swivel-eyed idea that OnStar (a bauble people choose to get in the car they buy) already is that kill switch"

It's not something people *choose* to get in their car. It comes pre-installed on all GM vehicles, at the very least. Even if people aren't subscribing to the service, apparently OnStar still has the ability to communicate with their equipment installed in the vehicle, which can indeed be used as a kill switch.

"and that somehow this inexorably leads to individual police officers being able to arbitrarily shut off your engine on the highway."

Give it time. When they first required that all cell phones have GPS trackers, they said it would only be used to rescue people who were lost and help route fire trucks. But today cell phones location data is one of the most commonly used of law enforcement tools.

At any rate, if I'm really so crazy, it should be fairly easy to point us all to several powers of government that have never been expanded and abused.

"It's not something people *choose* to get in their car. It comes pre-installed on all GM vehicles, at the very least."

So don't buy GM. This isn't 1960 where they had an 80% market share or whatever it was. What happened to you supporting the free market?


"Even if people aren't subscribing to the service, apparently OnStar still has the ability to communicate with their equipment installed in the vehicle, which can indeed be used as a kill switch."

No one's given any proof of that. The one link about all this was an active subscriber.


"Give it time. When they first required that all cell phones have GPS trackers, they said it would only be used to rescue people who were lost and help route fire trucks. But today cell phones location data is one of the most commonly used of law enforcement tools."

Police need warrants to get that info. What's so wrong with law enforcement using an available tool to combat crime, so long as they abide by the Constitution? Surely you want the police to catch criminals? And at any rate, it isn't the GPS, but rather data from which cell phone towers calls and other things bounced off that is how they get people most of the time.


"At any rate, if I'm really so crazy, it should be fairly easy to point us all to several powers of government that have never been expanded and abused."

Congress hasn't tried to make titles of nobility, all the states have a republican form of government, and our military has never even considered staging a coup despite decades (centuries?) of answering to an incompetent political class. More seriously, you're changing topics entirely. Just because abuse has happened in other areas does not mean that you're right on this car shut-off thing.

@Octavious:

"How is the police stopping a car via remote worse than the traditional American methods of bursting the car's tyres with a stinger, or ramming the rear side with a cop car?"

Because bursting the tires or ramming the car is a lot more work. The problem with "Big Brother" scenarios is not so much the surveillance of one person, because that's always been possible given enough effort. The problem is the *comprehensiveness* of it; Big Brother is onto *everyone*. These technological solutions make it easier to have comprehensive surveillance, which is what we really need to Fear.

"So don't buy GM. This isn't 1960 where they had an 80% market share or whatever it was. What happened to you supporting the free market?"

I won't. But the fact that GM already equips their cars with them is just an arrow in the rhetorical quiver when the government starts pressuring the rest to equip their cars with the same capability: "What's the big deal? GM already does it, why can't you?"

"Police need warrants to get that info."

Only if they want to use the data in a court of law. And anyhoo, getting a warrant is not much of an obstacle at all any more, if it ever was at all. One of the latest NSA revelations is that the NSA would provide this data to police - but only if the police promised to pretend that they 'discovered' it by some other means.

"And at any rate, it isn't the GPS, but rather data from which cell phone towers calls and other things bounced off that is how they get people most of the time."

Triangulation is only (relatively) accurate have three towers within range. In poor cell coverage areas, this usually isn't the case. And even when you do have three towers in range, the location is not going to be anywhere near as precise as GPS coordinates that the phone records and transmits due to signal obstructions and other problems.

"What's so wrong with law enforcement using an available tool to combat crime, so long as they abide by the Constitution? Surely you want the police to catch criminals?"

Americans are the most criminalized people on earth. We're all guilty of one crime or another, although most don't even realize it. I've seen enough people whose lives were ruined (or ended) by the police in the name of "fighting crime" to conclude that the state, and not criminals, is the greater threat to life, liberty, and property for the average American.

"Congress hasn't tried to make titles of nobility"

I chose my words carefully: "expanded and abused". The government has never had an interest in making titles of nobility, just as they've had no interest in quartering troops in peoples' houses.

"all the states have a republican form of government"

This is not a power of government, and anyway is so poorly defined as to be meaningless.

"our military has never even considered staging a coup despite decades (centuries?) of answering to an incompetent political class."

Again, not a power of government. This would simply be one arm of the state acting against others. And there was certainly plenty of talk of the military seizing power during and shortly after the Revolution (one of several reasons many of the founders didn't want a standing army).

"Only if they want to use the data in a court of law."

What else are they gonna use it for?


I'm not going to waste my time unpacking your paranoia. Again, swivel-eyed loons like you discredit real work to preserve liberty. Ranting about Big Gubmint turning your car off makes people more likely to dismiss credible instances of government misconduct as more sky-is-falling nonsense.

"What else are they gonna use it for?"

As a future member of the political class, your lack of imagination is (sadly) encouraging.

And just out of curiosity, what is the most "credible instance of government misconduct" in progress today in your opinion? You seem to be so eager to leap to the defense of the state on *every* matter, I'm wondering what - if anything - you think it is doing wrong (and getting away with).

the UK just banned smoking in cars where children are present, do you really think the telegraph readers need the EU to trample their freedoms? They've already got Westminster for that...