OnStar Will Sell User Data

 

If you have an OnStar system in your vehicle you may want to disconnect it pretty soon. OnStar will begin selling user data!!!! And cancelling your service won't stop the data collection, you have to actually deactivate the data connection.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2011/09/onstar-pr...

No surprised at all.

Interesting. I thought they have been selling these data for years. Just hope they don't push in advertisements.

The era of Orwell's "1984" is upon us.

There is a "bigger" story concerning the ability of OnStar to remain connected to "home" even-though the service has supposedly been turned off.

First, thanks GadgetGuy2008 for providing a link to the article. I have been hearing of this for a couple of weeks, but never got around to checking it out.

The "BIG" issue is that many of the devices we buy today are linked to "home" and can be controlled from "home". What this means is that the operation of these devices can be changed form "home", at any time, without the consent of the user.

As one example, please see my post: "Amazon Erases Orwell Books From Kindle". http://srynas.blogspot.com/2009/07/amazon-erases-orwell-book...

Another article on TechDirt reviews Sony removing functionality from its Playstation. So you thought you bought a product that could do X, but then Sony removed that X capability without user consent.

"Sony's Neverending War Against The Freedom To Tinker And Innovate" at: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110224/23195013251/sonys-...

The LA Times article neglects to mention that OnStar will ALWAYS know where you are even when unsubscribed. That will have lots of legal ramifications. As one quickie, someone steals your car and you call OnStar. OnStar may well say that they can't tell you were the car is because you did not pay the subscription fee!

The readers of this forum may also be interested in the fact that there is a move to require all cars to have a GPS device installed for purposes of taxing you based on the miles driven. So one could advocate that OnStar is also being installed on GM cars for that very purpose. Of course no one will ever admit that.

Here is a quick reference that I do not know much about, just supports other articles that I have read.

"Congress passes mileage tax" from "Headlines from Utopia".

The article wrote: "Motorists will be required to have a GPS system installed in their vehicles to monitor and record miles driven. Newer vehicles will include the system as a standard item, while older cars must have it put in by the end of the year. ... “The device the government wants to install on vehicles does more than record miles,” said Cliff Young of the Privacy Awareness Institute. “It can also override on-board GPS systems, block cell phone signals, and tap into national databases containing information on individual drivers. It’s an electronic Trojan horse.”"

Welcome to "1984".

--
Garmin Nuvi650 - Morehead City, NC

I already have that tracking device in my vehicle.

Its a system by sagequest and it tracks the company vehicles we drive. It knows our location, time stopped, time moving, where we are parked, etc, etc.

Steve R. wrote:

"Congress passes mileage tax" from "Headlines from Utopia".

The article wrote: "Motorists will be required to have a GPS system installed in their vehicles to monitor and record miles driven. Newer vehicles will include the system as a standard item, while older cars must have it put in by the end of the year. ... “The device the government wants to install on vehicles does more than record miles,” said Cliff Young of the Privacy Awareness Institute. “It can also override on-board GPS systems, block cell phone signals, and tap into national databases containing information on individual drivers. It’s an electronic Trojan horse.”"

Welcome to "1984".

--
Nuvi 2460LMT.

TRACKING

Congress should have one of those tracking devies to keep track of there were about and to see who is working or not. Just my thoughts.

--
3790LMT; 2595LMT; 3590LMT, 60LMTHD

The sky is falling!

Really, so what is new?

Data has been gathered on U.S. citizens since the first census in 1790. And through the years they added more questions, but now there are less.

As long as it's "anonymous" data, what's the harm? If no names, credit card numbers, email addresses or street addresses are given out, how can that affect you?

Data on your shopping is collected whether you pay by Credit Card or Cash. Stores use this to spot trends, such as what items are bought together. This helps the store place some items close together for customer convenience. What's wrong with that?

Just travel down any major highway and your vehicle is counted and your speed is recorded. Government uses the data to determine if the road needs to be widened, etc. Yes, I know law enforcement can use the speed data to determine where to place radar. But, they can do that by setting up radar to see how many "customers" they get in certain areas and go from there. The data collected by the sensors in the road just makes it quicker. Please don't get started on the "Quota" baloney. Very few Police Departments actually use a Quota system.

I could go on and on about data collection, but you can't get away from it. So as long as your personal info is not divulged, what is the real harm?

I just hope that after you disconnect your Onstar, that you aren't driving down some lonely road and have a serious accident that is serious enough that you cannot use your cell phone. And the next vehicle that drives by is 4 hours later. BECAUSE - that is exactly why I have Onstar. They can track me all they want, because I don't care, as long as it's anonymous and that they are there when I need them.

--
Metricman Nuvi 3597 GTM-60 Traffic Receiver Williamsburg, VA

BTW

I got an email about Onstar's privicy policy changes a couple of weeks ago. So, Onstar was upfront about it and didn't hide anything.

One thing nice about Onstar. I had forgotten about a recall notice on my Canyon. It had to do with a clip that holds in the solenoid that keeps the shifter in Park, unless you step on the brake pedal (remember all the grief that Ford went through about vehicles just dropping out of Park into Drive?). Well my monthly "Status" email reminded me about that. The clips are cracking and falling out, which will prevent the driver from being able to shift out of Park. Thereby, stranding the vehicle! I took it by the dealer, and the clip has been replaced.

--
Metricman Nuvi 3597 GTM-60 Traffic Receiver Williamsburg, VA

OnStar

metricman wrote:

Really, so what is new?

Data has been gathered on U.S. citizens since the first census in 1790. And through the years they added more questions, but now there are less.

As long as it's "anonymous" data, what's the harm? If no names, credit card numbers, email addresses or street addresses are given out, how can that affect you?

Data on your shopping is collected whether you pay by Credit Card or Cash. Stores use this to spot trends, such as what items are bought together. This helps the store place some items close together for customer convenience. What's wrong with that?

Just travel down any major highway and your vehicle is counted and your speed is recorded. Government uses the data to determine if the road needs to be widened, etc. Yes, I know law enforcement can use the speed data to determine where to place radar. But, they can do that by setting up radar to see how many "customers" they get in certain areas and go from there. The data collected by the sensors in the road just makes it quicker. Please don't get started on the "Quota" baloney. Very few Police Departments actually use a Quota system.

I could go on and on about data collection, but you can't get away from it. So as long as your personal info is not divulged, what is the real harm?

I just hope that after you disconnect your Onstar, that you aren't driving down some lonely road and have a serious accident that is serious enough that you cannot use your cell phone. And the next vehicle that drives by is 4 hours later. BECAUSE - that is exactly why I have Onstar. They can track me all they want, because I don't care, as long as it's anonymous and that they are there when I need them.

I agree with you 100 percent. The items scan at the cash register keep tracks what every individuals are buying. So this is not new. We are being watched by the government every time we buy or take a trip and don't even know about it.

--
3790LMT; 2595LMT; 3590LMT, 60LMTHD

What kind of data are they

What kind of data are they selling, I have Onstar.

Go to Onstar

Steve620 wrote:

What kind of data are they selling, I have Onstar.

Rather than getting second hand info that may be inaccurate - go to Onstar and read the Privacy Agreement.

--
Metricman Nuvi 3597 GTM-60 Traffic Receiver Williamsburg, VA

Big Brother Really IS Watching.....

Steve620 wrote:

What kind of data are they selling, I have Onstar.

Onstar is actually not being very upfront with exactly what data they are gathering--so far all I've seen them say is that they can gather your speed, location, seat-belt status and "other practices."

http://news.yahoo.com/apnewsbreak-senator-says-onstar-invade...

NP

--
In times of profound change, the learners will inherit the earth while the "learned" find themselves beautifully equipped to deal with a world that no longer exists...

But it's *not* anonymous at all.

metricman wrote:

Really, so what is new?

As long as it's "anonymous" data, what's the harm? If no names, credit card numbers, email addresses or street addresses are given out, how can that affect you?

I just hope that after you disconnect your Onstar, that you aren't driving down some lonely road and have a serious accident that is serious enough that you cannot use your cell phone. And the next vehicle that drives by is 4 hours later. BECAUSE - that is exactly why I have Onstar. They can track me all they want, because I don't care, as long as it's anonymous and that they are there when I need them.

But it's *not* anonymous at all.

But It's Not Just the Data

metricman wrote:

Really, so what is new?

Data has been gathered on U.S. citizens since the first census in 1790. And through the years they added more questions, but now there are less.

As long as it's "anonymous" data, what's the harm? If no names, credit card numbers, email addresses or street addresses are given out, how can that affect you?

You are correct that data collection has ever greater "resolution". Virtually everything we do is recorded. I will also agree that too many people go berserk over the concept of privacy. There is no privacy.

I actually think it is unfortunate that the Census Bureau collects less data. Anyway I digress.

To me the critical issue that is being overlooked is that these devices can be controlled by others. What that means is that you really have minimal control. Just imagine your car coming to a stop on a busy freeway because someone at OnStar accidentally pressed a wrong button. Or you get a speeding ticket in the mail because your GPS turned you in. The list of potential examples is endless.

--
Garmin Nuvi650 - Morehead City, NC

Where?

Steevo wrote:

But it's *not* anonymous at all.

Where did you read that? Hopefully, not from a newspaper article written to sell papers.

--
Metricman Nuvi 3597 GTM-60 Traffic Receiver Williamsburg, VA

You are assuming the worst

Steve R. wrote:

You are correct that data collection has ever greater "resolution". Virtually everything we do is recorded. I will also agree that too many people go berserk over the concept of privacy. There is no privacy.

I actually think it is unfortunate that the Census Bureau collects less data. Anyway I digress.

To me the critical issue that is being overlooked is that these devices can be controlled by others. What that means is that you really have minimal control. Just imagine your car coming to a stop on a busy freeway because someone at OnStar accidentally pressed a wrong button. Or you get a speeding ticket in the mail because your GPS turned you in. The list of potential examples is endless.

The vehicle slowly loses power with Onstar, so that the driver has time to pull over. Not as bad as an engine freezing up from loss of oil.

Personal GPSs do not "transmitt" data like the ones on trucks do and they don't contain a camera to prove who was driving. If it somehow becomes an FCC requirement, then the price will go up, and sales will go down, as will the desirability.

But, I do agree with you that there is great potential for info to be abused by the Government or others.

Sometimes data gathered helps expose who is at fault. For instance - how many people know that their car may contain a chip that stores data much like a flight recorder does? Police and Insurance companies have retreived this data to help resolve who was at fault in accidents. Too many people lie these days instead of admitting that they made a mistake. The automakers installed this device for warranty disputes and now others are using warrants to obtain the data.

We can't get away from it in today's Tech society, but we have to be vigilant to make sure that it is not abused.

--
Metricman Nuvi 3597 GTM-60 Traffic Receiver Williamsburg, VA

Transmission is not Necessay for Control

metricman wrote:

Personal GPSs do not "transmitt" data like the ones on trucks do and they don't contain a camera to prove who was driving. If it somehow becomes an FCC requirement, then the price will go up, and sales will go down, as will the desirability.

It is not necessary for the device to transmit data. It can be controlled by a company like OnStar simply by transmitting a code to the device. Think TV set, you change channels and volume with a remote control.

As you pointed out, if accidentally turned off, your car may slowly come to a stop, but how long and bothersome will it be to get it re-started? I can just imagine going wading through the automated response system then waiting for customer service representative, then being told: "I don't understand your problem, you don't have an account with us." Click.

--
Garmin Nuvi650 - Morehead City, NC

The question is whether this

The question is whether this will teach something to the GPS producers & what they might do with data from the vast number of GPS's in use, or if that's not possible now, what changes in design will support that.

On Star is a subscription service, so far using a GPS is not.

Fred

Big Brother

No doubt the ruling class will specifically exempt themselves.

rthibodaux wrote:

Congress should have one of those tracking devies to keep track of there were about and to see who is working or not. Just my thoughts.

This should a be very interesting thread

All the kooks and paranoid folks should be here soon.

For those that no longer pay for Onstar services and feel they want to cut power to their Onstar unit, DON'T do it.

Call Onstar and opt out of data collection. OnStar says former customers can stop the two-way transmission, then no driving data of customers will be shared or sold. So they claim, which still makes people want to disable their Onstar.
Since OnStar is required to locate the car to comply with legal requirements, including valid court orders showing probable cause in criminal investigations. OnStar may use gathered information to protect the rights, property, or safety of even you or others.

Since many of the cars digital systems and sensors run through Onstar, pulling it's fuse will throw all kinds of systems error codes up.
However
If you leave the Onstar module in tact and let it do it's thing, then instead disconnect it's antenna the data flow will stop, no need to remove the rooftop antenna that will cause leaks.

To do this look for the OnStar antenna it's the black box on the top of the windshield on the passenger's side. To remove it, grab it firmly and slide the box to the right. It will unsnap and open, if you don't find the module on the windshield look right underneath your radio. Unplug the two electrical quick disconnect wires and data flow is now disabled.

The best bet is to never order a car with Onstar and avoid all this crap in the first place.

BUT

The real problem is not Onstar, it's the BLACK BOX!

http://dvice.com/archives/2011/05/feds-to-require.php

--
Using Android Based GPS.The above post and my sig reflects my own opinions, expressed for the purpose of informing or inspiring, not commanding. Naturally, you are free to reject or embrace whatever you read.

There are some safety checks

Steve R. wrote:

It is not necessary for the device to transmit data. It can be controlled by a company like OnStar simply by transmitting a code to the device. Think TV set, you change channels and volume with a remote control.

As you pointed out, if accidentally turned off, your car may slowly come to a stop, but how long and bothersome will it be to get it re-started? I can just imagine going wading through the automated response system then waiting for customer service representative, then being told: "I don't understand your problem, you don't have an account with us." Click.

There is a video out there somewhere that shows a dashcam of a CA Hwy Patrol car following a stolen GM SUV. The person at Onstar "Flashed" the lights to verify that they had the correct vehicle, before doing a controlled shutdown.

What you propose happening (wrong vehicle being shutdown) has an extremely slim chance of happening. All the data about your vehicle is stored in the system as it comes off the assembly line. When you sign up at the dealer, by contacting Onstar through the Onstar device, the employee at the Onstar site attaches your name/account to that data package. They know what vehicle you are calling from and their computer does all the connections in their Database. It's pretty fool proof. Haven't heard of a wrong vehicle being shutdown yet. I think your chances of having a tire blow out are much, much greater.

This data package (from assy. plant) is kinda nice for the Parts and Service folks at the dealer. You take your car in for service. They scan the barcode on the dash, through the windshield. In case you have never seen it - from the outside, on the drivers side look in the lower right corner of the windshield. You will see a very long alpha-numeric string with a barcode. That is the Vehicle Identification Number (VIN).

Once that is on the service ticket (in dealership computer), the mechanic can go to the Parts counter and just point to a part in a parts diagram on a screen and the dealers computer connects to GM's computer and it coughs up the correct part number 99.99% of the time.

Back to Onstar - So you disconnect your Onstar. Your vehicle gets Car-jacked with your child in the back seat. Police ask you if it has Onstar. You reply "Yes, but it's disconnected". How will you feel then?

--
Metricman Nuvi 3597 GTM-60 Traffic Receiver Williamsburg, VA

Be careful what you unplug!

BobDee wrote:

If you leave the Onstar module in tact and let it do it's thing, then instead disconnect it's antenna the data flow will stop, no need to remove the rooftop antenna that will cause leaks.

To do this look for the OnStar antenna it's the black box on the top of the windshield on the passenger's side. To remove it, grab it firmly and slide the box to the right. It will unsnap and open, if you don't find the module on the windshield look right underneath your radio. Unplug the two electrical quick disconnect wires and data flow is now disabled.

The best bet is to never order a car with Onstar and avoid all this crap in the first place.

BUT

The real problem is not Onstar, it's the BLACK BOX!

http://dvice.com/archives/2011/05/feds-to-require.php

My 2011 Canyon has Onstar and XM Satellite radio and they share the same antenna module on the roof. Make sure XM still works before you button it back up.

On the Black Box - don't drive like a wild man and the black box won't divulge any secrets wink

--
Metricman Nuvi 3597 GTM-60 Traffic Receiver Williamsburg, VA

Government Motors changes its tune

--
*Keith* MacBook Pro *wifi iPad(2012) w/BadElf GPS & iPhone6 + Navigon*

Now if only.....

kch50428 wrote:

http://media.gm.com/content/media/us/en/gm/news.detail.html/content/Pages/news/us/en/2011/Sep/0927_onstar

Now, if only Lightsquare would back off like that!

--
Metricman Nuvi 3597 GTM-60 Traffic Receiver Williamsburg, VA

Eh, they changed the key, but the tune is much the same--

GM agreed to back off on collecting data after someone's subscription has expired. They didn't back off selling data collected from customers.

Until you pop the fuses that power the box, or disconnect its antenna, that tells me they have the capability to collect the information.

I can also see someone suing GM because they were in an accident, after their OnStar subscription ended, and GM didn't come to their rescue -- when GM clearly had the capability to keep on monitoring, and responding.

That gives GM the ability to say, "The courts made us do it!" and go back to collecting information as long as the thing is powered on.

--
Nuvi 2460, 680, DATUM Tymserve 2100, Trimble Thunderbolt, Ham radio, Macintosh, Linux, Windows

reason

50 billion and one that I will never be willing to posses a government motors car.

--
___________________ Garmin 2455, 855, Oregon 550t

Citing the interests of children

metricman wrote:
Steve R. wrote:

It is not necessary for the device to transmit data. It can be controlled by a company like OnStar simply by transmitting a code to the device. Think TV set, you change channels and volume with a remote control.

As you pointed out, if accidentally turned off, your car may slowly come to a stop, but how long and bothersome will it be to get it re-started? I can just imagine going wading through the automated response system then waiting for customer service representative, then being told: "I don't understand your problem, you don't have an account with us." Click.

There is a video out there somewhere that shows a dashcam of a CA Hwy Patrol car following a stolen GM SUV. The person at Onstar "Flashed" the lights to verify that they had the correct vehicle, before doing a controlled shutdown.

What you propose happening (wrong vehicle being shutdown) has an extremely slim chance of happening. All the data about your vehicle is stored in the system as it comes off the assembly line. When you sign up at the dealer, by contacting Onstar through the Onstar device, the employee at the Onstar site attaches your name/account to that data package. They know what vehicle you are calling from and their computer does all the connections in their Database. It's pretty fool proof. Haven't heard of a wrong vehicle being shutdown yet. I think your chances of having a tire blow out are much, much greater.

This data package (from assy. plant) is kinda nice for the Parts and Service folks at the dealer. You take your car in for service. They scan the barcode on the dash, through the windshield. In case you have never seen it - from the outside, on the drivers side look in the lower right corner of the windshield. You will see a very long alpha-numeric string with a barcode. That is the Vehicle Identification Number (VIN).

Once that is on the service ticket (in dealership computer), the mechanic can go to the Parts counter and just point to a part in a parts diagram on a screen and the dealers computer connects to GM's computer and it coughs up the correct part number 99.99% of the time.

Back to Onstar - So you disconnect your Onstar. Your vehicle gets Car-jacked with your child in the back seat. Police ask you if it has Onstar. You reply "Yes, but it's disconnected". How will you feel then?

Seriously, the "child kidnapped" argument? "It's for the children?" That rationalization could be used for anything.

it is about money

they sell data for profit... so, they should give you discount on service charges if you agree for them to sell the data collected from your vehicle.

...and Other Practices....

ORnonprophet wrote:

Onstar is actually not being very upfront with exactly what data they are gathering--so far all I've seen them say is that they can gather your speed, location, seat-belt status and "other practices."

http://news.yahoo.com/apnewsbreak-senator-says-onstar-invade...

What a catch-all phrase! And MetricMan, PuhLeeze tell me you are joking when you say "On the Black Box - don't drive like a wild man and the black box won't divulge any secrets". You must be OK with jack-booted police coming into your house on thier whim at any time to look around.

Today people are not just letting the government take away their liberties, they are giving them away. We don't have to. Says so right there in that pesky constitution.

But OnStar isn't government! That line is getting pretty fuzzy these days.

Please 'scuse the political commentary! This just burns me up.

Corportaism

grtlake wrote:

But OnStar isn't government! That line is getting pretty fuzzy these days.

Corporations (to a degree are assuming) governmental powers. Violate a term of service, and your device is "bricked". Due process, is dying as a legal concept.

The government (in many respects) is, of, and for the corporation. Not the citizens.

--
Garmin Nuvi650 - Morehead City, NC

They pretty quickly backed off didn't they?

kch50428 wrote:

http://media.gm.com/content/media/us/en/gm/news.detail.html/content/Pages/news/us/en/2011/Sep/0927_onstar

They pretty quickly backed off didn't they?

We don't want a "bugging device" put in our cars monitored by a company out of our control.

That's really messed up. I

That's really messed up. I am glad I don't have them

onstar

Never had a car with Onstar, but it sure sounds like big brother. Well, how many programs on the internet do the the same thing?

--
Dudlee

You Might As Well Get Over It

GadgetGuy2008 wrote:

If you have an OnStar system in your vehicle you may want to disconnect it pretty soon. OnStar will begin selling user data!!!! And cancelling your service won't stop the data collection, you have to actually deactivate the data connection.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2011/09/onstar-privacy-policy.html

Why do some people think there is such a thing a privacy left? Just because there is a constitutional principle guaranteeing it?

There is no such thing as privacy any more. If I chose to do so, for less than $500 I can access enough data bases and people with access to find out any and everything about a person, your full life history is available.

Let me emphasize in the strongest possible terms the only information about you that is not available is the information you have NEVER EVER disclosed to another person.

I keep my personal information as closely guarded as reasonable possible but I don't go crazy about it.

What most of the people that get so upset about the loss of privacy don't realize is that except for the chance of identity theft for the purpose of financial fraud, nobody gives a rats ass about your personal information or you. Data mining for marketing is harmless unless you are so addicted to shopping that you don't know how to say no to that "One time only special offer that will make you so irresistible the woman will be beating down your doors to be with you"

Then of course there is the possibility you have an enemy that is looking to make your life as uncomfortable as possible and you need to keep your data as concealed as possible.

You might as well get over it, your life is an open book to anyone with money and that cares enough to want your information.

Just Google "Project Echelon", it is only the tip of the iceberg!

--
"Ceterum autem censeo, Carthaginem esse delendam" “When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.”

Agreed - Very little privacy. No Constitutional Guarantee

Double Tap wrote:

...
Why do some people think there is such a thing a privacy left? Just because there is a constitutional principle guaranteeing it?
...

Wikipedia says:
"Concerning privacy laws of the United States, privacy is not guaranteed per se by the Constitution of the United States. The Supreme Court of the United States has found that other guarantees have "penumbras" that implicitly grant a right to privacy against government intrusion, for example in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965). In the United States, the right of freedom of speech granted in the First Amendment has limited the effects of lawsuits for breach of privacy. Privacy is regulated in the U.S. by the Privacy Act of 1974, and various state laws. Certain privacy rights have been established in the United States via legislation such as the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA),[31] the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act (GLB), and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)."

No Such Thing As Privacy

Funny how when these "new" technologies come out we think how great they are and all the potential uses they may have.

Then we find out that the manufacturers or whoever are going to track your use and "sell" your data or how the government is going to use the info for whatever reason.

Dealership installed a "gps device" in my stepdaughter's car she just purchased. The dealership said they were installing it at no charge and if the car is stolen they can recover it (before it's paid off). A free service from the dealership. Actually it's going to be used in case for whatever reason the payments are not made they can find out where it is to repossess it.

Your phone calls, internet use, sites you visit, how long, how often you visit them are tracked. Your cell phone use, who you call, how long, depending on certain "words" are used, they will be logged and tracked. You cable company knows what you watch, how often, how long your tv is on, etc. Debit card purchases, credit card purchases, store specific cards, track what you purchase, how much and what quanitities.

Privacy? No such thing.

--
OK.....so where the heck am I?

No suprise there, companies

No suprise there, companies need to make money any way they can

So ?

jgermann wrote:
Double Tap wrote:

...
Why do some people think there is such a thing a privacy left? Just because there is a constitutional principle guaranteeing it?
...

Wikipedia says:
"Concerning privacy laws of the United States, privacy is not guaranteed per se by the Constitution of the United States. The Supreme Court of the United States has found that other guarantees have "penumbras" that implicitly grant a right to privacy against government intrusion, for example in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965). In the United States, the right of freedom of speech granted in the First Amendment has limited the effects of lawsuits for breach of privacy. Privacy is regulated in the U.S. by the Privacy Act of 1974, and various state laws. Certain privacy rights have been established in the United States via legislation such as the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA),[31] the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act (GLB), and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)."

What's your point ?

--
"Ceterum autem censeo, Carthaginem esse delendam" “When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.”

@Double Tap

jgermann wrote:

Wikipedia says:
"Concerning privacy laws of the United States, privacy is not guaranteed per se by the Constitution of the United States. The Supreme Court of the United States has found that other guarantees have "penumbras" that implicitly grant a right to privacy against government intrusion, for example in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965). In the United States, the right of freedom of speech granted in the First Amendment has limited the effects of lawsuits for breach of privacy. Privacy is regulated in the U.S. by the Privacy Act of 1974, and various state laws. Certain privacy rights have been established in the United States via legislation such as the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA),[31] the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act (GLB), and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)."

You asked what my point was. I did not want others to mis-read a statement you made facetiously.

Too often, I find that people make a claim that certain things they prize are guaranteed them by the Constitution or were intended by the Founding Fathers.

I wanted to clarify that the Constitution DOES NOT provide citizens with a right to privacy. Rather, the legislature has enacted some laws to protect privacy.

You are obviously not a lawyer

jgermann wrote:
jgermann wrote:

Wikipedia says:
"Concerning privacy laws of the United States, privacy is not guaranteed per se by the Constitution of the United States. The Supreme Court of the United States has found that other guarantees have "penumbras" that implicitly grant a right to privacy against government intrusion, for example in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965). In the United States, the right of freedom of speech granted in the First Amendment has limited the effects of lawsuits for breach of privacy. Privacy is regulated in the U.S. by the Privacy Act of 1974, and various state laws. Certain privacy rights have been established in the United States via legislation such as the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA),[31] the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act (GLB), and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)."

You asked what my point was. I did not want others to mis-read a statement you made facetiously.

Too often, I find that people make a claim that certain things they prize are guaranteed them by the Constitution or were intended by the Founding Fathers.

I wanted to clarify that the Constitution DOES NOT provide citizens with a right to privacy. Rather, the legislature has enacted some laws to protect privacy.

If you are quoting Wikipedia you are obviously not a lawyer, attorney, or a graduate of a law school in the USA.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Because of this amendment the Federal courts have ruled that persons have a right to privacy from the government intrusion. However if you read the Patriot Act and are aware of project Echelon, you would think that the constitution offers no protection from the government. This is precisely one of a few major things that is wrong with our society today. That and people that that have a fascistic bent, who want to impose their ideas on everyone else.

--
"Ceterum autem censeo, Carthaginem esse delendam" “When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.”

sad, but true

Double Tap wrote:

This is precisely one of a few major things that is wrong with our society today.

That, and the fact they believe everything they read on the 'net and otherwise...

--
nüvi 3790T | nüvi 775T | Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, will make violent revolution inevitable ~ JFK

Rights

Double Tap wrote:

If you are quoting Wikipedia you are obviously not a lawyer, attorney, or a graduate of a law school in the USA.

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Because of this amendment the Federal courts have ruled that persons have a right to privacy from the government intrusion. However if you read the Patriot Act and are aware of project Echelon, you would think that the constitution offers no protection from the government. This is precisely one of a few major things that is wrong with our society today. That and people that that have a fascistic bent, who want to impose their ideas on everyone else.

You are correct that I am not a lawyer. I have mentioned in other places that I am trained as an actuary.

I stand by my statement that the Constitution does not contain a right to privacy. Rather, as the article I provided states: "The Supreme Court of the United States has found that other guarantees have "penumbras" that implicitly grant a right to privacy against government intrusion."

These "shadows" found in other guarantees include the Fourth Amendment. But bear in mind that this amendment hinges upon the word "unreasonable" and so cases are often decided based on whether one had "a reasonable expectation to privacy". One test is whether or not one has "knowingly exposed" information to a third party - in this case, OnStar.

Once someone has bought a vehicle containing OnStar, I would submit that they have "knowingly exposed" themselves and have, thus, lost any expectation to be able to control the use of data collected.

The Courts have used these "shadows" or "penumbras" to infer a right to privacy (eg. Row v. Wade) in certain instances only. The courts themselves have not delineated any general right to privacy. In the case of the Fourth Amendment, evidence that has been gathered in a defendent's home without a warrant has been allowed because the warrantless search was not an "unreasonable" one due to the circumstances.

A recent case reported by thenewspaper.com deals with aspects of both a search of a vehicle and search of a home - both of which were allowed (follow the link to the court decision).

OnStar Location

Retired GM guy here, I worked at the GM Tech Center in Warren, MI and several other facilities in my 34 plus years. Almost from the beginning of OnStar, in the very fine print of any loan application you signed to purchase a GM vehicle with OnStar, it stated that GM and/or the provider of the loan could use the GPS functions of OnStar to locate a vehicle for purposes of recovery in instances of loan default. This can be done whether or not the vehicle's ignition is turned on. The personal data sale thing, still bugs me though.

Privacy is Old School

pkdmslf wrote:

Privacy? No such thing.

jgermann wrote:

I stand by my statement that the Constitution does not contain a right to privacy.

I agree that privacy is dead. Everything we do is recorded. What we need to do is re-characterize the whole privacy debate. What we need to do is to require that those who possess our data cannot sell/loan/share that information with anyone.

--
Garmin Nuvi650 - Morehead City, NC

good to know

good to know, so i will try to avoid ONSTAR car since I am not likely to pay for the service, and do not feel comfortable my data is sold for their profit.

Probably can't and ...

Steve R. wrote:

What we need to do is re-characterize the whole privacy debate. What we need to do is to require that those who possess our data cannot sell/loan/share that information with anyone.

Probably can't and still take advantage of features we want from services like Google.

Even though a company has said in its privacy agreement that they will not sell/share/loan data they have collected on you, I would think that the data could be subpoenaed in police investigations.

On surveillance cameras, there are no agreements pesented to me. I may have been at the bank at xx:yy AM and the gas station at xx:zz, for example. That is "data" about me that I get no opportunity to "vet".

I would like to see data kept as part of an "opt-in" agreement rather than the typical "opt-out".

OnStar Will Sell User Data

GM is building the Malibou in Korea.

verizon

looks like Verizon is joining the parade to sell user data.

not going to loan my car

not going to loan my car out....

surprise....

Surprise Surprise...