PDA

View Full Version : Why not On-Star?



Ed02
03-12-04, 08:37 AM
Well this question has been buggin' me ever since I saw the On-Star system installed in a pickup truck at the Chevy dealer. Why isn't it available on the Vette? You would think that since it's available on 58 GM products, you would be able to get it on one of their premier cars. I was thinking that it might just be a technical nightmare with all the other integrated systems there already, or maybe they feel that there are to many casual drivers out there who wouldn't buy it to warrant the engineering. I would think it would be a good option if for nothing else than the GPS tracking for theft recovery. Any thoughts?

Regards, Ed

01TriBlack
03-12-04, 09:20 AM
I've wondered the same thing, Ed. OnStar is great: We've got it on our Denali and have used it - very well worth the $16.95/month, in my view. I'll be interested to see why others feel it's not available on a 'vette.

korvettekarl
03-12-04, 11:31 AM
Yes, OnStar is great but beware, here in Las Vegas, we just had a bunch of politicians indicted on corruption charges based on conversations picked up by the feds using OnStar in the County Commisioner's GM OnStar equipped car. The feds did get a wire tap warrant, but who knew they could just listen in without any warning. Just word of advice.

DkBG
03-12-04, 12:05 PM
If I activate the onstar in my vehicle , can someone listen in if I keep it turned off until I need it ? As to why it's not available on Vettes , I've noticed alot of GM options are available on other cars long befor the Vette gets them . My 93 Buick wagon had a electrochomatic mirror which still wasn't even an option on my 2000 Vette . There doesn't seem to be any logic to it all . Cliff

KOPBET
03-12-04, 12:34 PM
If I activate the onstar in my vehicle , can someone listen in if I keep it turned off until I need it ? ...
Read this: http://www.onstar.com/us_english/jsp/gl_terms_privacy.jsp?page=gl_privacy.jsp

rsimoes
03-12-04, 12:47 PM
The C6 will have OnStar and GPS Navigation.

koolaid117
03-12-04, 12:48 PM
Methinks Big Brother is watching. . .:eek

cavettefan
03-12-04, 01:00 PM
OnStar Personal Calling is an analog cellular service. The reason for going with analog is that it has maximum coverage in the U.S. The downside is that the conversation is not encrypted as it is with digital cellular. However, don't think that any digital cellular conversation is "secure". If Big Brother really wants to find out what you are saying and has a court order, your digital cellular conversations are going to be cracked.

AZMike
03-12-04, 03:44 PM
I personally don't like the idea of OnStar. You're just one court order away from being tracked and listened to. Here in in the Phoenix area, photo radar is being used to supplement city incomes (except for Tempe, where they actually warn you it's being used so it has the stated effect of slowing traffic down). They all state that they're trying to slow traffic down, but the vans and light cameras are usually hidden from view (I just got nailed by one last week - while keeping up with traffic).

I'm sure it's just a matter of time before law enforcement figures out that they can use OnStar's GPS capabilites to determine if you've been speeding at all during a given time period (think of the additional revenue this would provide cities!) I'm not sure about the legal aspects, but I can imagine a law enforcement agency getting permission to track me and then showing up at my door (or sending me a letter) saying "Dear AZMike, it has been determined that you were criminally speeding in the middle of nowhere last Tuesday. Please turn yourself in to the nearest jail."

I think I'll stick with my atlas and cell phone for now!

[/paranoid rant]

cavettefan
03-12-04, 04:17 PM
AZMike, if you want to stay completely "under the radar" so to speak, you willl need to turn your cell phone off. How do you think that O.J. was tracked to the point where there was the televised low-speed chase? Regarding using the GPS facility in OnStar to calculate your speed - I rather doubt it. First, the resolution of the OnStar GPS (+/- 10 meters) does not permit an accurate calculation (reasonable doubt). Additionally, even if you could get past the resolution problem, how would the police know who to charge for the remote speeding violation? Just because the car is registered to you doesn't mean that you were the driver at that precise instant in time.

AZMike
03-12-04, 04:39 PM
Just because the car is registered to you doesn't mean that you were the driver at that precise instant in time.
Funny you should mention that. As we speak, at least two cities in AZ (Scottsdale and Phoenix, I believe) are trying to change the law to make the OWNER of the car resposible for any photo radar tickets. This will mean that they will only need to take a single picture of the licence plate. They are also trying to get rid of the requirement that you actually acknowledge the ticket or be served in person for a conviction. :mad

As far as the cell phone goes, I tend to turn mine off when I'm in compromising positions speed wise anyway as it tends to get awefully hot in the center console - this just kills the battery. I'm also usually in the middle of nowhere in this case so I don't have a need for it anyway.

Not to be paraniod, but I'm just getting really tired of the underhanded tactics the local governments here are using to generate more revenue. I mean really - Why not go a step further and equip all cars with devices that automatically debit your cheking account and revoke your licence when you break a traffic law?:eyerole

DkBG
03-12-04, 06:21 PM
So Kopbet , do you feel that article is saying that Onstar personal can turn my equipment on , no matter what buttons I push to turn it off ? Cliff

Pac-man
03-12-04, 07:20 PM
I will never get Onstar. They listen in all the time, can't tell you how I know, but I know. Even if no one listened or tracked you, why would you want it anyway, just to say that you have the latest and greatest. To me it's money for nothing, we've done fine this long without it. I will never pay for a sat. nav. either.

redvett
03-12-04, 07:43 PM
I have had Onstar on 2 of my vehicles since 2001 and both of my 2004s also and i wouldnt be without it. I dont have a guilty past or present so i dont worry about it. Some of you must be doing things illegal or you wouldnt worry about it.

cavettefan
03-12-04, 09:50 PM
I have to agree with redvett; I have OnStar on my 2003 Denali and it is a great security blanket - if you get in an accident that triggers the air bags, OnStar immediately calls the emergency services dispatch center with the location of your vehicle. Having been in an accident where the air bags deployed, you are in a bit of a state of shock, and the brain is not exactly firing on all cylinders. If it is a bad accident, you may be unconscious and not able to call for help. If Big Brother really wants to bug your conversations, it will happen regardless of whether OnStar is installed in your car or not.

Last Ride
03-12-04, 09:58 PM
Maybe it's just me, but doesn't it seem a little arrogant for people to think "Big Borther" would have the least bit of care in what "common folk" have to say to one another? Relax! As long as you don't say, "Bin Laden," or "Catcher in the Rye," or "Cinnamon," you are safe. Oh no, here they come again.....

KANE
03-12-04, 10:12 PM
I have often thought cars are only a step away from Big Brother citing us for speeding from the conveinience of OBD.

Transponders from street networks tell the car what speed you should be travling. Your car rats you out to the police via analog cell phone. Great. A computer determines what is unlawful behavior. Sounds like a trap- build a car that can legally incriminate its owner.

Using the law maliciously in order to generate revenue in lieu of using it to protect and serve is an abomination. That violates every freedom we fought 226 years ago for! Its not tea this time- its the encroachment of leftist ideology that looks for new ways in which to tax and spend.
I would worry that controling our cars would be too easy for a terrorist or clandestine hacker. Hmmm... point....hack....ACCIDENT!

KOPBET
03-12-04, 11:01 PM
So Kopbet , do you feel that article is saying that Onstar personal can turn my equipment on , no matter what buttons I push to turn it off ? Cliff
I don't know for sure. But I look at it like this. If OnStar can send a signal to unlock doors, honk the horn, flash the lights and can track a stolen car, just exactly what ARE you doing when you push that off button? What would keep OnStart from sending a signal to "wake it up"?

I believe that the only way to be sure that they cannot listen in is to manually disable the microphone(s), if you can locate it(them).

Pac-man
03-13-04, 03:09 AM
redvett, whether we are criminals or not is irrelevant. To even mention something like that is an insult and ridiculous. I work on principle. The principle of the matter is that I will not allow anyone to listen to my private conversations, be it with my wife, my children or anyone else. Would you consent to a search of your home since you have nothing to hide? I won't, but that's your rational. It's a little deeper than that. I'm not even exclusively talking about the govt. listening in, how about the Onstar operator/monitor who has nothing better to do. I like my privacy, thats all. Most people in this country just go along with everything and never stop to think what is actually going on. Sort of like herding sheep. As long as you feel secure with Onstar that's all that matters. Good luck with it.

cavettefan
03-13-04, 03:58 AM
Not to stoke the paranoia factor too much, but since one of our posters used a term that is sure to trip text scanning software (guess which term it was...), this whole thread may now be appearing on some analysts screen for further review. And if there is any follow-up scrutiny, the first you will know about it will be when the SWAT team knocks down your door....

P.S.: If this scenario plays out, it will not be courtesy of OnStar....

DkBG
03-13-04, 08:49 AM
Well , right now the antenna is on the workbench in my garage . Has been for about six months . I'll bet that disables it . What do you think? Cliff

cavettefan
03-13-04, 02:04 PM
I wouldn't bet that removal of the antenna disables OnStar. It will certainly reduce the transmission quality and range. But, disable? Don't think so. (Remember, there is a big long cable that connects the OnStar control unit to the antenna....) Try unscrewing the antenna on your cellular phone and see if you can still receive and place calls.

redvett
03-13-04, 02:36 PM
Pac-man,
First of all those Onstar operators have plenty to do and could care less what we are doing. 2nd. Thay cannot contact us unless we push the button or have an accident. The signal has to be acvitated by the vehicle SDM or driver. If your worried about someone listening to you you better get rid of your cellphones & cordless phones. Anyone can listen in on them if they want.
I worked (retired) for GM on this project was back in 1992-3 on Onstar and know how it works. The system cannot be listened into since GM doesnt want to be liable.

DkBG
03-13-04, 06:54 PM
Hey Cavettefan , you were right . I tried it without the antenna and it worked just fine . Cliff

schmaltzr
03-13-04, 10:12 PM
Having been in software development for 25 years I can tell you that I got laughed at and my wife and I had quite good arguments when I refused to give people my Social Security Number to give blood 10 years ago. Think me paranoid, but our rights for privacy are diminishing by the minute. Just study the Homeland Protection act and you might think twice about the gooberment having your privacy as a priority.

AZMike
03-15-04, 12:10 PM
It's definately not that I'm breaking the law here - I just don't like putting myself into a position that can be abused by law enforcement or the government.

Technically, keeping up with traffic while going a few miles above the posted limit is breaking the letter fo the law. However, it's an abuse of our rights to ignore the spirit of the law and ticket dozens of drivers every minute for doing so. By driving significantly slower than traffic, you're creating a safety hazard that is just as bad as speeding. However, law enforecment around here has no problems handing out photo-radar tickets to block after block of cars that are coming from a traffic light.

True, the government could care less what I do on a day to day basis (except those 4 days a year when tax payments are due). But, if you look closeley, our rights are constatly being eroded away. If you accept one thing, another will come along. Remember, before the patriot act, wire taps were hard to get - now judges can give them out like candy on Holloween. 20 years ago, something like photo radar would have been tossed out in court - now it's the norm. The latest erosion is the attempt here to ticket the OWNER of the car for moving violations - regardless of who was driving. If that takes effect, what happens if my car is stolen and used to commit a major crime - am I now responsible?

Before you think I'm being unreasonable, remember that we live in a world where you can sue because your coffe is to hot. Also, take close look at the next vending machine you see - the yellow stickers will give you a good laugh.

If you're comfortable with the capabilities and potential issues of something like On-Star, then by all means, get it. I, for one, will pass for the time being.

01TriBlack
03-15-04, 04:10 PM
I will never get Onstar. They listen in all the time, can't tell you how I know, but I know. Even if no one listened or tracked you, why would you want it anyway, just to say that you have the latest and greatest. To me it's money for nothing, we've done fine this long without it. I will never pay for a sat. nav. either.I've used them twice for keys locked in our Denali.... yes, twice. Sheesh, you'd think I would have learned after the first time. And I use the personal calling feature all the time. Like someone else said, it's a great safety blanket as well. I couldn't really give two hoots if "they" listened to me - in fact, listen away! You don't have to sign up for it, either, if you don't want it.... no harm, no foul.

tankman
03-17-04, 10:42 PM
Going back to an earlier post with the accuracy of GPS. It was said +/- 10 meters. In 2000 military grade signal was approved to be used for the public, so they can tell where you are to +/- 3 feet. The military used this to keep exact tabs on their machines on the battlefield. Onstar has the ability to even turn off your vehicle as you drive and lock the doors trapping you inside if you cant manually unlock the door. THis is really handy if you have your car stolen, but in the hands of the teenage hacker, or a malfunction..........terrible!!

olVetteGuy
03-19-04, 04:43 PM
Donít listen to Pacman, RedVette. Some are into publicly reprimanding CAC members for expressing their viewpoints. He thinks he speaks for everyone. Itís only a symptom of paranoia.

redvett
03-19-04, 06:24 PM
I am not reprimanding anyone just stating the pure facts.

olVetteGuy
03-20-04, 12:29 PM
I am not reprimanding anyone just stating the pure facts.
I know, my message was meant the other way around...

cavettefan
03-20-04, 01:14 PM
Even with an enhanced accuracy of a GPS signal (which is a good thing if you are in an accident and are unconscious and the OnStar service center has to automatically dispatch Emergency Services personnel), there is still the matter of who was driving the car at the higher speed. Not withstanding some cities attempts to use speeding as a revenue generator, the U.S. Constitution still (at least at the present time) requires specificity in who gets charged - it is part of that due process requirement....

tproth
04-12-04, 03:21 PM
Well this question has been buggin' me ever since I saw the On-Star system installed in a pickup truck at the Chevy dealer. Why isn't it available on the Vette? You would think that since it's available on 58 GM products, you would be able to get it on one of their premier cars. I was thinking that it might just be a technical nightmare with all the other integrated systems there already, or maybe they feel that there are to many casual drivers out there who wouldn't buy it to warrant the engineering. I would think it would be a good option if for nothing else than the GPS tracking for theft recovery. Any thoughts?

Regards, EdEd
A friend of mine works for Onstar & he says that it was a weight consideration at the time. They obviously must have that under control for it to be available now.
Tom

Ed02
04-13-04, 11:27 AM
Ed
A friend of mine works for Onstar & he says that it was a weight consideration at the time. They obviously must have that under control for it to be available now.
Tom
Tom,
Thanks for the info. I never thought of the weight factor, but that makes sense. I guess the engineers take weight into account on everything thats put in this car.
Ed

Lee74C3
04-13-04, 12:36 PM
Holy Hell!

This thread started with a simple question on why Onstar was not offered on Corvette!

The whole simple truth is simple. There has been no aesthetically antenna or antenna location developed for Corvette (forthcoming C6's excluded). It was decided to wait until the C6 instead of developing an antenna for the C5 and modifying the electrical architecture.

You know back in about 1970 I worked in a GM Dealership. At that time Olds offered a service reminder feature that popped a card out of a small box (like a garage door opener) under the steering column to remind you it was time for an oil change. One gal who was a customer made the allegation that this was a miniature camera taking crotch pictures of her. When she went to the dealership, the film was exchanged. Can you believe it? Maybe today this would happen with all of the perverts out there... but in 1970!

Based on the paranoia, some of you guys should look under the steering column of the car you are driving.

Nobody listens in on OnStar.

Ed02
04-14-04, 09:08 AM
Holy Hell!

This thread started with a simple question on why Onstar was not offered on Corvette!

The whole simple truth is simple. There has been no aesthetically antenna or antenna location developed for Corvette (forthcoming C6's excluded). It was decided to wait until the C6 instead of developing an antenna for the C5 and modifying the electrical architecture.

You know back in about 1970 I worked in a GM Dealership. At that time Olds offered a service reminder feature that popped a card out of a small box (like a garage door opener) under the steering column to remind you it was time for an oil change. One gal who was a customer made the allegation that this was a miniature camera taking crotch pictures of her. When she went to the dealership, the film was exchanged. Can you believe it? Maybe today this would happen with all of the perverts out there... but in 1970!

Based on the paranoia, some of you guys should look under the steering column of the car you are driving.

Nobody listens in on OnStar.
LOL, I was thinking the same thing. If I had thought my simple question would have raised this much controversy I wouldn't have asked. But what the heck, it's fun reading!
Ed

Blade
04-14-04, 10:39 AM
Maybe GM is thinking a Corvette will never give you a problem so why the waste.

:D

BHP
04-15-04, 11:32 AM
The 'Vette is a sports car. Onstar, Nav, XM radio belong in a Caddy IMO. Big brother is now in your car with these systems if they want to track you.

yellowvetteboy03
04-24-04, 11:20 PM
The 'Vette is a sports car. Onstar, Nav, XM radio belong in a Caddy IMO. Big brother is now in your car with these systems if they want to track you.
Can the system be disabled if so how?

hAZcAT
05-14-04, 10:24 AM
I was reading where the feds wanted to use the onstar system to listen in, after that I don't want the system, I know they can listen in on my cell, and other phones. The goverment needs to be cut back it is too big and stepping on our rights.

cavettefan
05-14-04, 01:17 PM
Big Brother certainly doesn't need OnStar if they want to surveil you. Actually, OnStar probably has a lower quality of transmission compared to what is available to Big Brother these days.

But seriously, don't flatter yourself. Even post 9/11, unless you advertise your desire to be surveiled, your chances of getting watched by Big Brother are still quite low. On the other hand, OnStar is great if you are involved in an accident - emergency services are on their way before you can even think about it.

brewshill2003
05-14-04, 03:14 PM
I guess we could improve the unemployment problem if they hired enough people to listen in on every car equiped with Onstar. Lets get real here folks , to listen in on a private conversation requires a warrant. You have to have proable cause to get the warrant. Proable cause to believe a criminal act is being committed or about to be so. The last time I checked speeding was not a crime. Hence no warrant, no listening in. So relax no one is watching or listening to you, they do not have the people ,time or money to be bothered.

cavettefan
05-14-04, 05:28 PM
Actually, brewshill2003, there is a bit of a grey area regarding wireless conversations and evidence that can be introduced at trial. Back when cordless telephones were analog (and not scrambled) a drug dealer was conducting business using a cordless telephone. The constabulary recorded the deals and when they had enough, they moved on the dealer. At trial, the dealers' lawyer attempted to get the recorded conversations tossed. The judge ruled in favor of the government on the grounds that the dealer was broadcasting his conversation for anyone to hear.... Since the OnStar system is a non-encrypted analog system, there is a fairly strong argument that there is no need for a warrant to listen in on OnStar conversations.

Your comment about improving the unemployment picture could be a good idea - unless of course, they outsourced the monitoring offshore....

U.P. John
05-17-04, 11:02 AM
Can the system be disabled if so how?
Easy as pie...Don't pay for the subscription service. It's not free to use, you know. Costs anywhere from $250 or so up to about a grand, depending upon the plan you PURCHASE.

jason marks
05-21-04, 08:37 PM
They can keep onstar