|
|
Post by Swimmy on Nov 15, 2009 22:06:19 GMT -5
Perhaps I'm just paranoid. But this was always a fear I had when onstar first came into being. Oh the abuses this system is too vulnerable to.
|
|
|
|
Post by dgriffin on Nov 15, 2009 23:26:59 GMT -5
I presume one doesn't need to pay for the OnStar feature to have the function where an avenging angel can pull up behind you and kill your engine.
|
|
|
|
Post by bobbbiez on Nov 15, 2009 23:31:42 GMT -5
 Swimmy, am I missing something here?  How could this be bad if it can prevent chasing a stolen car through city streets and on busy highways? 
|
|
|
|
Post by Swimmy on Nov 15, 2009 23:38:40 GMT -5
It always starts out that way. But what happens when an abusive husband realizes his wife has finally worked up the courage to flee from him? All he has to do is call onstar to report her vehicle missing. And I've been involved in family law long enough to know that it takes forever to straighten out the facts. Whomever gets to the police first, or the courts, often prevails until trial. What about a husband who is divorcing his wife? It is so easy to get a preliminary order of protection, and then it would not take much for a false claim to have him arrested. Those are just a couple of the examples. With obama declaring anyone, including vets, threats to national security, it would not take much to use onstar to track innocent naysayers and have them arrested on trumped up political charges. Sure, this already happened/happens in communist countries, but onstar makes it easier for a country that has known nothing but democracy since its inception.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ralph on Nov 16, 2009 2:51:11 GMT -5
What happens when Mr. Jones in this economy misses a payment on his vehicle?
Does the loan company/bank just decide to have his engine shut off?
Outstanding parking tickets?
Expired inspection?
While I believe it's a great system, some if this stuff could go to far if we allowed it to.
And we have seen the political power of "we" in the last few decades haven't we.
|
|
|
|
Post by Swimmy on Nov 16, 2009 7:00:41 GMT -5
Yes, Ralph. And it will be done in the name of safety. So no one will challenge it or question it.
|
|
|
|
Post by chris on Nov 16, 2009 7:45:45 GMT -5
You guys got it right. Big Brother is always looking for ways to control us. Even those chips they want to implant into citizens in the name of safety.......not. Some may start out that way but there is always evil and greed lurking behind to take control. Then one day it will turn mandatory and we will all be little walking government robots. Look whats happened since 911........all in the name of safety.
|
|
|
|
Post by bobbbiez on Nov 16, 2009 11:37:06 GMT -5
I guess it boils down to this in almost everything, "you're damn if you do and damn if you don't." There will always be the other side of the story but do we ignore trying things to improve our safety because of "maybes?" In this case I vote for it. I feel it is a great protection for the public in so many other ways then just stopping a speeding vehicle. 
|
|
Swimmy, am I missing something here? 
