OnStar... actually useful.
10-21-2009, 05:52 AM
#21
Moderator
Originally Posted by nearwater4me,Oct 21 2009, 09:05 AM
Vehicle disabling features and vehicle slow down features are only activated upon request of the law enforcement.
Of course that doesn't mean the system is fail-proof from hackers or viruses.
Of course that doesn't mean the system is fail-proof from hackers or viruses.
10-21-2009, 06:26 AM
#22
Originally Posted by s.hasan546,Oct 21 2009, 05:04 AM
Congress already did it with anti-lock brakes, stability control, and airbags? are you kidding? How is any of that BAD things? for the general public it seems like thats all pretty goddamn useful. Oh and if you dont like any of that stuff you have aftermarket for a reason. you can always yank out most of what they put in or disable it.
1. notify police/ambulance in the event of accident
2. shut down in the event of high speed chase or theft
3. curtail speeding and other reckless behavior because your insurance company will be notified of your driving patterns (saving lives and injuries)
4. lower insurance premiums for good drivers
5. help fuel economy by avoiding jackrabbit starts and other fuel saving measures by penalizing aggressive drivers (addl tax revenue)
6. shut car down if erratic driving is noted (drunk driving, etc.)
7. sequence cars better by controlling speed on certain highways and roads (this will lead to cars being driven by a combination of GPS and car sensors eventually)
I could go on and on. The benefits are outstanding with a well-developed system as noted above arguably as good or better than ABS, stability control, airbags, etc. However, the downsides are BIG BROTHER and all that is associated with it.
Save this post for 15 year from now.
10-21-2009, 06:34 AM
#23
Site Moderator
Originally Posted by QUIKAG,Oct 21 2009, 10:26 AM
I am not a conspiracy theorist in the least, but I am also realistic. When Congress can sell the majority of the public that a monitoring device be put into a car to do the following things:
1. notify police/ambulance in the event of accident
2. shut down in the event of high speed chase or theft
3. curtail speeding and other reckless behavior because your insurance company will be notified of your driving patterns (saving lives and injuries)
4. lower insurance premiums for good drivers
5. help fuel economy by avoiding jackrabbit starts and other fuel saving measures by penalizing aggressive drivers (addl tax revenue)
6. shut car down if erratic driving is noted (drunk driving, etc.)
7. sequence cars better by controlling speed on certain highways and roads (this will lead to cars being driven by a combination of GPS and car sensors eventually)
I could go on and on. The benefits are outstanding with a well-developed system as noted above arguably as good or better than ABS, stability control, airbags, etc. However, the downsides are BIG BROTHER and all that is associated with it.
Save this post for 15 year from now.
1. notify police/ambulance in the event of accident
2. shut down in the event of high speed chase or theft
3. curtail speeding and other reckless behavior because your insurance company will be notified of your driving patterns (saving lives and injuries)
4. lower insurance premiums for good drivers
5. help fuel economy by avoiding jackrabbit starts and other fuel saving measures by penalizing aggressive drivers (addl tax revenue)
6. shut car down if erratic driving is noted (drunk driving, etc.)
7. sequence cars better by controlling speed on certain highways and roads (this will lead to cars being driven by a combination of GPS and car sensors eventually)
I could go on and on. The benefits are outstanding with a well-developed system as noted above arguably as good or better than ABS, stability control, airbags, etc. However, the downsides are BIG BROTHER and all that is associated with it.
Save this post for 15 year from now.
The OnGuard system had a feature to monitor the distance driven of the car to ensure you were driving within the limitations of the insurance agreement, you could also ask for records how fast and what times the car was driven, this was 10+ years ago. OnGuard doesn't exist anymore, but I'm sure a lot of the technology was incorporated into OnStar.
10-21-2009, 07:51 AM
#24
Former Moderator
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by QUIKAG,Oct 21 2009, 06:26 AM
I am not a conspiracy theorist in the least, but I am also realistic. When Congress can sell the majority of the public that a monitoring device be put into a car to do the following things:
1. notify police/ambulance in the event of accident
2. shut down in the event of high speed chase or theft
3. curtail speeding and other reckless behavior because your insurance company will be notified of your driving patterns (saving lives and injuries)
4. lower insurance premiums for good drivers
5. help fuel economy by avoiding jackrabbit starts and other fuel saving measures by penalizing aggressive drivers (addl tax revenue)
6. shut car down if erratic driving is noted (drunk driving, etc.)
7. sequence cars better by controlling speed on certain highways and roads (this will lead to cars being driven by a combination of GPS and car sensors eventually)
I could go on and on. The benefits are outstanding with a well-developed system as noted above arguably as good or better than ABS, stability control, airbags, etc. However, the downsides are BIG BROTHER and all that is associated with it.
Save this post for 15 year from now.
1. notify police/ambulance in the event of accident
2. shut down in the event of high speed chase or theft
3. curtail speeding and other reckless behavior because your insurance company will be notified of your driving patterns (saving lives and injuries)
4. lower insurance premiums for good drivers
5. help fuel economy by avoiding jackrabbit starts and other fuel saving measures by penalizing aggressive drivers (addl tax revenue)
6. shut car down if erratic driving is noted (drunk driving, etc.)
7. sequence cars better by controlling speed on certain highways and roads (this will lead to cars being driven by a combination of GPS and car sensors eventually)
I could go on and on. The benefits are outstanding with a well-developed system as noted above arguably as good or better than ABS, stability control, airbags, etc. However, the downsides are BIG BROTHER and all that is associated with it.
Save this post for 15 year from now.
I don't race on the street and they can monitor me all they want.
I'd also be in for "speed limit + 20mph" electronic governors.
When our kids get their licenses, you bet I'm going to have the car monitored for unsafe behavior.
Maybe that'll increase demand for building sanctioned racing venues.
10-21-2009, 08:18 AM
#25
Originally Posted by Chris S,Oct 21 2009, 04:16 AM
I'd spend more time worrying about what you're going to do w/ your lottery winnings, b/c winning the lottery is more likely based on past experience w/ OnStar.
10-21-2009, 04:26 PM
#26
Originally Posted by nearwater4me,Oct 21 2009, 08:05 AM
I understand your concern.
However, there's no such functionality implemented into the system.
You guys should remember that OnStar functions are controlled by CDMA network.
That's air-time and it means $$ for OnStar.
They are NOT going to monitor your vehicle status the whole time by spending precious cellular traffic(=$$).
Vehicle disabling features and vehicle slow down features are only activated upon request of the law enforcement.
Of course that doesn't mean the system is fail-proof from hackers or viruses.
I don't know how secure their system is but I know how the module works, and I can assure you that it's not as bad as you guys think.
Dan
However, there's no such functionality implemented into the system.
You guys should remember that OnStar functions are controlled by CDMA network.
That's air-time and it means $$ for OnStar.
They are NOT going to monitor your vehicle status the whole time by spending precious cellular traffic(=$$).
Vehicle disabling features and vehicle slow down features are only activated upon request of the law enforcement.
Of course that doesn't mean the system is fail-proof from hackers or viruses.
I don't know how secure their system is but I know how the module works, and I can assure you that it's not as bad as you guys think.
Dan
Originally Posted by CKit,Oct 21 2009, 10:51 AM
I would be all for it.
I don't race on the street and they can monitor me all they want.
...
When our kids get their licenses, you bet I'm going to have the car monitored for unsafe behavior.
I don't race on the street and they can monitor me all they want.
...
When our kids get their licenses, you bet I'm going to have the car monitored for unsafe behavior.
10-21-2009, 04:49 PM
#28
Former Moderator
Thread Starter
As an aside, smoking bans in public places have resulted in significant health benefits to many innocent bystanders. You could say that it encroaches on the personal freedom of smokers, but I think that when others potentially get hurt as casualties... whose rights do you protect?
10-21-2009, 05:58 PM
#29
Ckit your example is analogous to the discussion and a good analogy at that. I personally abhor smoking. I hate that every time that I go to a bar, I can count on leaving the bar smelling like a bag full of assholes.
However, I do think that it is bullshit that the government can force an establishment to deny people the right to smoke on their private property, and I think that your analogy may be just as suitable as an analogy to serve the point of those who disagree with you.
Your argument is entirely deductive and only holds water IF the claim that there is a significant health problem as you say there is. I am not suggesting that smoking is not unhealthy, rather I am suggesting that I think it is hard to claim that the very limited exposure that a bystander will endure, while using a restaurant or bar as frequent as people normally do, will really pose any considerable health risks.
Furthermore, I too expect the government to step in in certain situations, I just respectfully disagree that the smoking scenario is one of those situations.
To support your position, I think that any rational person (hell, even Glenn Beck if he was being honest with himself) will acknowledge that there are many many situations where we are all completely happy to have the government intervene in our lives. There are many instances where we completely accept the notion of making certain freedoms conditional. The way I see it, owning a car is a matter that should largely be of no interest of the government. Driving a car, however, is something that is almost always under the control of the government, and for good cause. Like you said, there comes a point where the freedoms of some interfere with the freedoms of others and in some instances the government needs to step in.
Also, it is probably significant to point out the difference between a law enacted at a local or state level as opposed to one which comes from the federal government, just in case any is taking our words out of context.
However, I do think that it is bullshit that the government can force an establishment to deny people the right to smoke on their private property, and I think that your analogy may be just as suitable as an analogy to serve the point of those who disagree with you.
Your argument is entirely deductive and only holds water IF the claim that there is a significant health problem as you say there is. I am not suggesting that smoking is not unhealthy, rather I am suggesting that I think it is hard to claim that the very limited exposure that a bystander will endure, while using a restaurant or bar as frequent as people normally do, will really pose any considerable health risks.
Furthermore, I too expect the government to step in in certain situations, I just respectfully disagree that the smoking scenario is one of those situations.
To support your position, I think that any rational person (hell, even Glenn Beck if he was being honest with himself) will acknowledge that there are many many situations where we are all completely happy to have the government intervene in our lives. There are many instances where we completely accept the notion of making certain freedoms conditional. The way I see it, owning a car is a matter that should largely be of no interest of the government. Driving a car, however, is something that is almost always under the control of the government, and for good cause. Like you said, there comes a point where the freedoms of some interfere with the freedoms of others and in some instances the government needs to step in.
Also, it is probably significant to point out the difference between a law enacted at a local or state level as opposed to one which comes from the federal government, just in case any is taking our words out of context.
10-21-2009, 07:51 PM
#30
[QUOTE=CKit,Oct 21 2009, 07:46 PM]In some respect, the government should "govern."
It's not the same thing as parenting.
There is a point where being reckless cuts into the freedoms of others, at that point the government has a responsibility to their citizens.
If all cars in the US were limited to 100mph on public roads, why would you have a problem with that?
It's not the same thing as parenting.
There is a point where being reckless cuts into the freedoms of others, at that point the government has a responsibility to their citizens.
If all cars in the US were limited to 100mph on public roads, why would you have a problem with that?