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.

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

  1. icon
    btr1701 (profile), 25 Oct 2009 @ 9:14am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Remote turnoff for cars

    > > 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)...

    > 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.

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Insider Shop - Show Your Support!

Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads


Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.