OnStar Used To Stop Carjacked Car
from the where-do-you-think-you're-going? dept
Way back in 2003, there was some discussion around the idea of having a "remote stop" feature on car telematics systems, in case a car gets stolen. There were some serious worries about how this could make things dangerous for other drivers on the road, but two years ago, OnStar enabled just such a service, and now we've heard about it being used on a carjacked car. OnStar "disabled the gas pedal," remotely, thus forcing the car to slow down, and allowing the cops to catch the carjacker (after he fell into a pool while running from the cops). While effective in helping to catch this guy, you still have to wonder about the safety of remotely stopping a car like that.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: carjacking, onstar, stopping cars, telematics
Companies: onstar
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Slippery what?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A: You sent a signal that disabled the car from starting after the car is first turned off
B: made sure that a cop involved in the situation, watching the car, chose the right time to either disable or re - enable the gas pedal so they can specify a time frame and location that's most safe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Warning, airbags will be deployed in 10 seconds. Pull over now. 10 - 9 - 8 ... -2 - 1" BAM!
Sounds like the perfect iPhone app. Add it to Viper.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
alternative
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
no problem
Again, stopping a car mid intersection or on a railroad crossing would CERTAINLY put the carjacker in danger (an ethical problem partially resolved by the sheer fact that said carjacker has already put themselves and everyone around them in danger by that point) and potentially cross traffic at the hypothetical intersection. Still, I have to think a stopped car has to be less dangerous than one operated by carjacker who is likely seeking to elude the police.
Abuses? I guess Obama will stop all the tea party cars before they get to D.C.? I just don't see how this is as bad as chilling free speech, city-wide surveillance, or tracking your car with GPS...
REALLY? Things like ACTA are on the horizon, illegal wiretaps have already happened, and THIS is the last straw? THIS is the slippery slope? (this last part was directed at people who I think are over-concerned with the "ripeness" for "abuse" this involves)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: no problem
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: no problem
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: no problem
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: no problem
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: no problem
The only downside is I guess potential abuse of the technology by an unintended/unauthorized use.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: no problem
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: no problem
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
...
now I'm probably giving people ideas, oh well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
you mean like how it's a DMCA violation to change your oil? wait until it's an ACTA violation to service cars without paying royalties to the manufacturer..
I wonder if when the RIAA was doing well they gave record stores a piece of THEIR revenue stream...
I HOPE I'm giving people ideas...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
When will the police try to utilize it in highspeed chases?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: When will the police try to utilize it in highspeed chases?
Hmmm. Wanna take another crack at that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: When will the police try to utilize it in highspeed chases?
Nope, it's called Innocent Until proven Guilty...so just because you are running from the cops...does not mean you will be convicted of running from the cops.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: When will the police try to utilize it in highspeed chases?
Thankfully they are allowed to stop those that are fleeing at unsafe speeds and through traffic without first proving they are fleeing, and they can arrest a person prior to proving guilt. So, I do not see the issue you try to claim.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: When will the police try to utilize it in highspeed chases?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: When will the police try to utilize it in highspeed chases?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
not dangerous
Cars do breakdown all the time, that isn't a new thing. This would just be equivalent to that.
It's not like they're slamming on the brakes.
-Perros-
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Danger? What danger?
Not really. Disabling the accelerator just means the vehicle would slowly decelerate and coast to a stop, that's all. Not much difference than, say, running out of fuel. It's not like doing so would cause the vehicle to suddenly come to a screeching halt right there and then.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Danger? What danger?
They are running from the law for a reason (guilty or not guilty as the courts will decide), they are not going to let a loss of acceleration keep them from getting away. If they do, then they deserve to be caught.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Danger? What danger?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Danger? What danger?
Now that I think of it, if you are in the middle of doing a fancy ass turn or driving on slick surfaces you can lose control and crash your car if you lost your accelerator.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Context
1. They wait until the suspect decides to stop/car runs out of gas and then the suspect bails out and flees on foot.
2. They try to lay stop-sticks in front of the car, which cause the tires to blow out. This definitely results in damage to the vehicle and potentially causes an accident if the suspect loses control of the vehicle or continues to drive with 4 flat tires.
3. They employ the PIT maneuver, where the police intentionally hit the rear quarter of the car with the front quarter of the police car, causing the fleeing vehicle to skid sideways and stop (potentially causing an accident, and definitely causing damage to the vehicle).
Compared to these options, simply disabling the accelerator so that the car rolls to a stop is a far more preferable option. Especially when you consider that OnStar has the ability to remotely lock/unlock your car. All they have to do is remotely lock the car and roll up the windows, then disable the accelerator. The car rolls to a stop and the suspect is trapped inside until the police tell OnStar to unlock the car.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I can't believe
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I would never purchase an Onstar equipped vehicle
I'm sure some folks just love it, I'm not a technophobe, I just don't like anyone having a live microphone in my car, let alone having remote control over it. The black box which can be accessed by a third party is another thing I'd never knowingly buy a car containing.
It would be neat that they could help recover the car if it was stolen, but the chances of that are more remote than the abuse of the system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hmm...
I don't think the potential intersection problem would ever occur given clear communication between police and the remote shut off. Police, I hope, would have the patience to wait for a good opportunity (i.e. just after an intersection and not directly before) to stop a vehicle in this manner.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How long...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The problem is that the dealers don't disclose all the possible "uses" of OnStar before selling it to people. I've asked owners with OnStar how they feel about the fact that their car could be remotely disabled as they're driving or that their private conversations could be monitored and they've told me that I'm crazy because OnStar can't do that. They swear it can only be used for "help" because the dealer told them so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Unexplained acceleration
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
seriously?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: seriously?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: seriously?
Err, no, many people do not "know full well" what they are getting. In fact, I've never met an OnStar owner who did.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Missing info
If you read the article, OnStar refused to disable the gas pedel until they recieved permission from the owner of the vehicle. Once the owner gave the OK, the police who were chasing the stolen Tahoe gave the order to disable when they knew it was safe to do so.
This particular case also happened at 3:00 AM, so there wasn't a whole lot going on in the streets anyways.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Missing info
I think that was pretty much assumed in this case since the car was carjacked, hence it wasn't repeated. Do you really think very many readers really thought the owner refused permission in this case?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Missing info
I'd be happer if the article said "Onstar first had to contact the owners and ask them to provide the 10-digit security code (set by and known only to the owner) that would allow them to disable the vehicle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If the car made a dead stop, this could be dangerous. But if the police are pursuing and know the car will be disabled, this is not a problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yeah... But that's still awesome.
awesome.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is a far safer option then anything else right now because to do the pit maneuver, throw down a spike strip or even waiting for the guy to run out of gas puts more lives in danger.
If you don't want your car to have this system, don't buy a car from GM with OnStar in it and you will be fine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stopping
> you still have to wonder about the safety of
> remotely stopping a car like that.
Can't be any less safe than chasing the car at high speed.
The car is gonna stop eventually, one way or another. Whether it's a gradual slowdown by a remotely activated trigger or a high speed impact with a car full of innocent motorists is the question.
However, I would have a problem with the government making such a device mandatory on all vehicles with their hands on the kill switch. The potential for abuse is wide-ranging.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
id say its a much safer way to stop a car than any other method currently used by law enforcement.
and no, id rather remote kill switches not be something mandated by the government thank you very much.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cars exist to service people, not aid officers
I'd rather live in a world of freedom with some abuse by criminals than live in a crime free world where cops are free to abuse the people.
And don't think for one minute that cops don't abuse their power all the time. If cops had a kill switch on every car, they'd use it all the time, nonstop, despite what their rules or regulations say. Just look at all the innocent shootings cops have done, overuse of pepper spray. While these incidents are the exception, let's not forget America is for the people, not law enforcement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Remote turnoff for cars
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Remote turnoff for cars
About entrapment: yeah, I've seen some TV episodes that looked kind of like that to me. The cops park the bait car in the target area with the windows down and the keys hinging in the ignition. Sometimes they even leave the engine running. That seems kind of like leaving a $20 bill laying on the sidewalk and waiting for someone to take it. Yes, it's still theft, but it seems to me the use of "bait" really marks it as a "trap" and thus qualifies it as "entrapment". Of course, whether entrapment should be allowed or not is a whole different question.
I've also noticed that they always seem to pick less affluent neighborhoods as their targets. They apparently don't want to be arresting the wrong kind of kids (i.e. affluent).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Remote turnoff for cars
> and waiting for someone to take it.
The difference is that if you find a $20 bill on the sidewalk, you *can* take it. It's not a crime to do so. There are no circumstances where it's okay to take a car merely because the owner forgot to lock it or left the keys in the ignition.
> Yes, it's still theft, but it seems to me the use of "bait" really
> marks it as a "trap" and thus qualifies it as "entrapment".
Nonsense. Legally, entrapment only occurs when law enforcement creates a situation which induces the defendant to do something illegal that they were not already predisposed to do. If you're jumping into cars that don't belong to you and driving off with them merely because the windows or down or the keys are visible, then you're already predisposed to being a car thief. Hence no entrapment.
> I've also noticed that they always seem to pick less affluent neighborhoods as their targets.
No shit. The affluent don't go around stealing other people's cars. That's how they get to be affluent and not incarcerated.
In reality, they don't pick neighborhoods based on affluence or lack thereof. They pick neighborhoods that already have a high rate of vehicle theft. You go where the bad guys are. In law enforcement that's what we call a clue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Remote turnoff for cars
Strange, I thought stealing money was illegal. How about bicycles on sidewalks? How about cars on sidewalks?
Now I know you claim to be some kind of fed, so could you please cite the federal law that would make stealing that money legal despite varying local laws? That could be handy to know. I even remember one case where an armored truck was in an accident and money was blowing around in the streets and the cops were warning people not to steal it, even if it made it to the sidewalk. So according to you, those cops were threatening to arrest people for something perfectly legal? Just goes to show, you should never leave home without a lawyer, I suppose.
Nonsense. Legally...
I wasn't speaking legally, which is why i said "it seems to me". But I can tell you that just because it's "legal" doesn't mean that it isn't also "nonsense". I was talking to an attorney the other day who was also of the opinion that many things that are allowed today would have been considered entrapment in the past, especially before the "war on drugs".
I still say that if you have to use "bait", then it's a "trap", despite any legal fiction nonsense to the contrary.
If you're jumping into cars that don't belong to you and driving off with them merely because the windows or down or the keys are visible, then you're already predisposed to being a car thief.
Because you say so, right? Oh, that's right, you're a cop, so of course.
Hey, I wonder how many little kids are "thieves". I bet you could even identify them in preschool. Just put put a group of them in a room with a nice, big plate of fresh cookies in the middle of it and tell them not to touch the cookies. Then leave the room and watch what happens from hidden cameras. It's never too early to identify those "predispositions", is it? I bet you could even start federal dossiers on the "thieves" found amongst them. You never know when that kind of information could useful in a future "terrorist" investigation.
No shit. The affluent don't go around stealing other people's cars. That's how they get to be affluent and not incarcerated.
There was an affluent kid right here in my own town that was arrested for car theft a while back. Seems that he took Daddy's expensive sports car out for a joy ride without permission, Daddy came home, didn't know that his own kid was the culprit, and called the cops who quickly stopped the car and arrested the kid. Of course, the charges were dropped and I don't think the kid even made it to a cell. (Rank has its privileges, as they say.) So, you're right, they don't get incarcerated.
In reality, they don't pick neighborhoods based on affluence or lack thereof. They pick neighborhoods that already have a high rate of vehicle theft. You go where the bad guys are.
You see very little crime with your eyes closed.
In law enforcement that's what we call a clue.
Some people call it "profiling".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Remote turnoff for cars
It is, but this isn't stealing. All states have laws regarding found money. Since money is fungible and it's very difficult for someone to prove ownership (as opposed to a bike or a car, which are unique items and have registrations and serial numbers and proofs of purchase), the law says that found money under a certain amount can be kept by the one who finds it. Over that amount and it must be turned in to the local police who will hold it for a prescribed period of time, during which the finder must publish a notice in the local paper and give an opportunity for someone to come forward and claim it (if they can prove it's theirs). If no one does, then the finder can keep that money as well. The amounts and details vary from state to state but that's generally how it works.
> Now I know you claim to be some kind of fed,
> so could you please cite the federal law that
> would make stealing that money legal despite
> varying local laws?
Since it's not stealing, your question is moot.
> I even remember one case where an armored truck
> was in an accident and money was blowing around
> in the streets and the cops were warning people
> not to steal it, even if it made it to the sidewalk.
In that case, the owner of money was readily identifiable, even though the money was blowing around loose. Not quite the same as found money, which would make the law regarding found money inapplicable.
> Just goes to show, you should never leave home
> without a lawyer, I suppose.
Indeed. A lawyer would be able to explain to you the difference in the two situations, just as I did above.
> > Nonsense. Legally...
> I wasn't speaking legally, which is why i said
> "it seems to me".
Well, since only the law matters to the rest of us, what "seems to you" is irrelevant to anyone but you. Pardon me for speaking about things that matter to society at large and not realizing this was all about you.
> I still say that if you have to use "bait",
> then it's a "trap", despite any legal fiction
> nonsense to the contrary.
If your bait only traps those who are breaking the law, then who cares? As long as no innocents get trapped, then it's fine with me. With a bait car, there's no chance an innocent person will get into someone else's car, start it up, and drive off with it. There's zero chance that anyone but a car thief will do such a thing.
> > In law enforcement that's what we call a clue.
> Some people call it "profiling".
Absolutely. You profile the various neighborhoods in your city to see which areas have the highest incident of vehicle theft and you leave your bait car there. That's where you're most likely to catch the knuckleheads who are stealing everyone else's cars. Only a moron would go leave the bait car in an area of town with no reported car thefts due to a sense of pie-in-the-sky "fairness". (And then probably wonder why he didn't catch any bad guys.) That would be a ridiculous waste of time and public resources.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Remote turnoff for cars
You might want to check yours, but the last time I looked at any of my dollar bills they all have serial numbers. What's more, during part of my military training I actually had to keep track of all my money, including serial numbers. So don't try to say that "nobody does that". They do.
It also sounds like you're saying it's only illegal to steal things that "have registrations and serial numbers and proofs of purchase". Wow. Really? That sure leaves a lot things free for the taking.
Since it's not stealing, your question is moot.
So, since you say it's not stealing, there's no reason to reason to cite the actual law that says so, huh? Kind of a self-fulfilling argument. Excuse me if I don't buy it.
In that case, the owner of money was readily identifiable, even though the money was blowing around loose. Not quite the same as found money, which would make the law regarding found money inapplicable.
Well, if you want to get technical, the money from the truck was intermixing with any other that may have already been in the street or on the sidewalk, so there would be no way to prove where any particular piece of money came from.
Well, since only the law matters to the rest of us,...
Who made you the spokesperson for "the rest of us"? Oh yeah, I forgot, you're super cop. You can do anything, including appoint yourself the spokesperson for everyone else. So if you say no one cares about discussing moral arguments or anything but the law, then so be it. Pfffft.
...what "seems to you" is irrelevant to anyone but you. Pardon me for speaking about things that matter to society at large and not realizing this was all about you.
And when you want my opinion, you'll give it to me, right?
You may not like it when someone expresses an opinion contrary to yours, but you know what? That's tough. What are you gonna do, arrest me? You see, we've got this little thing called the US Constitution and the very first amendment to it gives me the right to express an opinion whether you like it or not. Got that?
Absolutely. You profile the various neighborhoods in your city to see which areas have the highest incident of vehicle theft and you leave your bait car there. That's where you're most likely to catch the knuckleheads who are stealing everyone else's cars.
An then you go to the prisons and see what color of people are mostly there and target people of that color too, huh? That way "you're most likely to catch the knuckleheads who are stealing everyone else's cars." "Only a moron" would apply the same enforcement effort to all races "due to a sense of pie-in-the-sky fairness". "That would be a ridiculous waste of time and public resources."
Yeah, I see how that works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Remote turnoff for cars
> > to prove ownership (as opposed to a bike or a car, which
> > are unique items and have registrations and serial numbers
> > and proofs of purchase)...
> You might want to check yours, but the last time I looked at
> any of my dollar bills they all have serial numbers. What's more,
> during part of my military training I actually had to keep track
> of all my money, including serial numbers. So don't try to say
> that "nobody does that". They do.
If that's true and you actually keep track of the serial numbers of every bill that enters your possession (and I don't believe you do), then you're one of maybe three people out of 300+ million who does that and the other two are mentally ill obsessive-compulsives. Hardly a statistically significant number. The overwhelmingly vast majority of people never even look at the serial numbers on the bills in their wallet. Hence the law considers cash in general fungible.
> It also sounds like you're saying it's only illegal to steal things
> that "have registrations and serial numbers and proofs of
> purchase".
If that's what it sounds like to you, then you're not paying attention or you have a comprehension problem. I clearly said that taking a found $20 bill isn't stealing at all because all states have laws that say it's not stealing.
> > Since it's not stealing, your question is moot.
> So, since you say it's not stealing, there's no reason to reason
> to cite the actual law that says so, huh? Kind of a self-fulfilling
> argument. Excuse me if I don't buy it.
Since this is a matter of state law, there's no such thing as "the" law. There are 50 different variations on this particular type of law. But I'll be happy to cite one state's law as an example. From the state of Oregon:
OREGON REVISED STATUTES - Chapter 98 — Lost, Unordered and Unclaimed Property; Unlawfully Parked Vehicles
98.005 Rights and duties of finder of money or goods.
(1) If any person finds money or goods valued at $100 or more, and if the owner of the money or goods is unknown, such person, within 10 days after the date of the finding, shall give notice of the finding in writing to the county clerk of the county in which the money or goods was found. Within 20 days after the date of the finding, the finder of the money or goods shall cause to be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the county a notice of the finding once each week for two consecutive weeks. Each such notice shall state the general description of the money or goods found, the name and address of the finder and final date before which such goods may be claimed.
(2) If no person appears and establishes ownership of the money or goods prior to the expiration of three months after the date of the notice to the county clerk under subsection (1) of this section, the finder shall be the owner of the money or goods.
> > ...what "seems to you" is irrelevant to anyone but you.
> > Pardon me for speaking about things that matter to
> > society at large and not realizing this was all about you.
> And when you want my opinion, you'll give it to me, right?
Wow, you're one angry little man, aren'tcha?
And just so you know, you're opinion here is irrelevant. When it comes to the issue of stealing, only what the applicable law says is relevant.
> You may not like it when someone expresses an opinion
> contrary to yours, but you know what? That's tough. You
> see, we've got this little thing called the US Constitution
> and the very first amendment to it gives me the right to
> express an opinion whether you like it or not.
Again, opinions are irrelevant. You're not expressing an opinion contrary to mine. You're expressing an opinion contrary to the law. You're free to do so, of course, but insisting on doing so only makes you look idiotic. That's the great thing about that 1st Amendment you mentioned: it gives guys like you all the rope you need to verbally hang yourself.
> > Absolutely. You profile the various neighborhoods
> > in your city to see which areas have the highest incident
> > of vehicle theft and you leave your bait car there. That's
> > where you're most likely to catch the knuckleheads who
> > are stealing everyone else's cars.
> An then you go to the prisons and see what color of people
> are mostly there and target people of that color too, huh?
Wow. You're really pulling out all the stops here. A perfect example of a strawman argument emerges in full flower. You make up something I've done out of thin air, then condemn me for it.
Neat trick if you can find someone stupid enough to fall for it.
> "Only a moron" would apply the same enforcement effort
> to all races "due to a sense of pie-in-the-sky fairness".
Who said anything about race here? You're the only one who has brought up race in this discussion. That in and of itself is rather telling.
Nevertheless, I always get a good chuckle from guys like you. You would actually rather the police do nothing about a rash of vehicle thefts if they occur in certain neighborhoods because of the race of the residents who live there. In reality, all you're doing is penalizing the law-abiding citizens who live in those neighborhoods, leaving them open to be preyed upon by the lawless, all because of their race, and you'd go home feeling good about yourself for doing so. Who's the *real* racist here? Hint: it ain't me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
how is it different than a stalled car?
It could cause a person problems if someone hacks it and starts disabling cars for no reason, but not really a safty issues.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: how is it different than a stalled car?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I would assume that the police were using some judgement while watching the car they requested this for and could pick a good time and it would be safer than a high speed chase.
@ervserver That is the best idea yet. Or maybe full volume Enya.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Zombies
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Zombies
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I cant see danger...
What situation would you be in danger if you werent accelerating?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I am more worried about criminals
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
carjacking
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The real (ab)use of this technology
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
remote stop
IF the kit was available on the market FREE (plus fitting say $50) with a monthly subscription charge of $10 would you buy it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]