FBI now wiretaps your car, at no extra charge
12-29-2003, 11:44 PM
#1
Three Wheelin'
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: LA, Calif., USA
Posts: 1,887
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FBI now wiretaps your car, at no extra charge
Found this at Slashdot.org which referenced the nytimes.com article which I will post below.
It's pretty sad these days when the govenrnment tries to get away with infringing on people's liberties.
Court Leaves the Door Open For Safety System Wiretaps
By ADAM LIPTAK
Published: December 21, 2003
People with sophisticated safety and communications systems in their
cars may be getting an unwanted feature. An appeals court decision
last month revealed that the government may be able to convert some
of the systems into roaming in-car wiretaps.
The decision, by a divided three-judge panel of the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, arose from
a criminal investigation in Nevada. An unidentified company
challenged a series of court orders requiring it to create a roving
bug for the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The appeals court
overturned the orders, but its reasoning suggested that the issue
will recur.
The technology involved, used by OnStar, ATX and others, combines a
global positioning satellite transmitter with a cellular telephone.
Drivers can use the services to seek information and emergency help.
Most of the court file in the Nevada case is sealed, and the
appellate decision did not discuss the nature of the investigation
or specify the brand of the system in question. But the court's
description of the system's features is consistent with one offered
by ATX, which provides telematics services for cars from BMW, Ford,
Jaguar and Mercedes-Benz, among others.
The device discussed in the decision allows drivers to punch one of
three buttons: for emergencies, general information and roadside
assistance. The phone has a speaker and microphone, and it turns out
that the microphone may be activated surreptitiously, allowing
government agents to listen in on conversations in the car.
Geri Lama, a spokeswoman for OnStar, said that her company was not
involved in the case and that OnStar's setup was not capable of what
she called "stealth listening."
"Any time we call into the vehicle, it rings," she said, adding that
if a car is stolen, OnStar can retrieve data about its location but
cannot eavesdrop on the people inside.
OnStar, a General Motors subsidiary, is the leading provider of
telematics services, not only for G.M. vehicles but also models from
Acura, Audi, Isuzu, Lexus, Subaru and Volkswagen.
Neither Bennee B. Jones, the Dallas lawyer who represented the
company in the case, nor Gary A. Wallace, an ATX spokesman,
responded to telephone and e-mail messages seeking comment. ATX is
based in Irving, Tex., near Dallas. Natalie Collins, a spokeswoman
for the United States attorney in Las Vegas, declined to comment.
The appeals court decision, rendered after the wiretapping had
concluded, ruled that the lower-court judge should not have allowed
it. But the appellate ruling was narrow, based on the fact that
safety features of the system in question had to be disabled to
permit the government to listen in.
The majority had no objection in principle to converting the device
into a bug; a dissenter would have allowed the eavesdropping even at
the expense of safety. The government indicated that it would ask
either the three-judge panel or a larger panel of the appeals court
to reconsider the decision that disallowed the Nevada wiretap.
Privacy advocates on both sides of the political spectrum said the
decision raised troubling questions about in-car communications
devices. "If the facts were just a little bit different, law
enforcement would have won this case," said Chris Hoofnagle of the
Electronic Information Privacy Center, a civil liberties group.
Bob Barr, a former congressman from Georgia and a former federal
prosecutor, agreed. "People ought to boycott such systems," he
said.
In the Nevada investigation, the company had to disable two of the
three buttons - for general information and for roadside help - to
allow the eavesdropping.
The third button, for emergencies, continued to work, in a way. But
pressing the button would not have contacted the company. Instead,
the device would have emitted a tone over an open line monitored
solely by federal agents, assuming they were listening at the time.
"The F.B.I., however well intentioned, is not in the business of
providing emergency road services," Judge Marsha S. Berzon wrote for
the majority. In dissent, Judge Richard C. Tallman said the
government should have been allowed to use "an important
investigative tool."
Mr. Hoofnagle said that other courts might rule differently and that
the companies providing such services might face financial and
political pressure to alter their technology to allow eavesdropping.
"It's more likely than not that manufacturers of these devices will
build in a back-door facility for wiretapping," Mr. Hoofnagle said.
He added that it was cheaper to comply with court orders than to
challenge them.
Mr. Barr said market pressure from consumers who are not eager to
facilitate wiretapping would not be enough. "I hate to say this as a
conservative," he said, "but the only way we can guard against
misuse is through federal legislation."
It's pretty sad these days when the govenrnment tries to get away with infringing on people's liberties.
Court Leaves the Door Open For Safety System Wiretaps
By ADAM LIPTAK
Published: December 21, 2003
People with sophisticated safety and communications systems in their
cars may be getting an unwanted feature. An appeals court decision
last month revealed that the government may be able to convert some
of the systems into roaming in-car wiretaps.
The decision, by a divided three-judge panel of the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, arose from
a criminal investigation in Nevada. An unidentified company
challenged a series of court orders requiring it to create a roving
bug for the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The appeals court
overturned the orders, but its reasoning suggested that the issue
will recur.
The technology involved, used by OnStar, ATX and others, combines a
global positioning satellite transmitter with a cellular telephone.
Drivers can use the services to seek information and emergency help.
Most of the court file in the Nevada case is sealed, and the
appellate decision did not discuss the nature of the investigation
or specify the brand of the system in question. But the court's
description of the system's features is consistent with one offered
by ATX, which provides telematics services for cars from BMW, Ford,
Jaguar and Mercedes-Benz, among others.
The device discussed in the decision allows drivers to punch one of
three buttons: for emergencies, general information and roadside
assistance. The phone has a speaker and microphone, and it turns out
that the microphone may be activated surreptitiously, allowing
government agents to listen in on conversations in the car.
Geri Lama, a spokeswoman for OnStar, said that her company was not
involved in the case and that OnStar's setup was not capable of what
she called "stealth listening."
"Any time we call into the vehicle, it rings," she said, adding that
if a car is stolen, OnStar can retrieve data about its location but
cannot eavesdrop on the people inside.
OnStar, a General Motors subsidiary, is the leading provider of
telematics services, not only for G.M. vehicles but also models from
Acura, Audi, Isuzu, Lexus, Subaru and Volkswagen.
Neither Bennee B. Jones, the Dallas lawyer who represented the
company in the case, nor Gary A. Wallace, an ATX spokesman,
responded to telephone and e-mail messages seeking comment. ATX is
based in Irving, Tex., near Dallas. Natalie Collins, a spokeswoman
for the United States attorney in Las Vegas, declined to comment.
The appeals court decision, rendered after the wiretapping had
concluded, ruled that the lower-court judge should not have allowed
it. But the appellate ruling was narrow, based on the fact that
safety features of the system in question had to be disabled to
permit the government to listen in.
The majority had no objection in principle to converting the device
into a bug; a dissenter would have allowed the eavesdropping even at
the expense of safety. The government indicated that it would ask
either the three-judge panel or a larger panel of the appeals court
to reconsider the decision that disallowed the Nevada wiretap.
Privacy advocates on both sides of the political spectrum said the
decision raised troubling questions about in-car communications
devices. "If the facts were just a little bit different, law
enforcement would have won this case," said Chris Hoofnagle of the
Electronic Information Privacy Center, a civil liberties group.
Bob Barr, a former congressman from Georgia and a former federal
prosecutor, agreed. "People ought to boycott such systems," he
said.
In the Nevada investigation, the company had to disable two of the
three buttons - for general information and for roadside help - to
allow the eavesdropping.
The third button, for emergencies, continued to work, in a way. But
pressing the button would not have contacted the company. Instead,
the device would have emitted a tone over an open line monitored
solely by federal agents, assuming they were listening at the time.
"The F.B.I., however well intentioned, is not in the business of
providing emergency road services," Judge Marsha S. Berzon wrote for
the majority. In dissent, Judge Richard C. Tallman said the
government should have been allowed to use "an important
investigative tool."
Mr. Hoofnagle said that other courts might rule differently and that
the companies providing such services might face financial and
political pressure to alter their technology to allow eavesdropping.
"It's more likely than not that manufacturers of these devices will
build in a back-door facility for wiretapping," Mr. Hoofnagle said.
He added that it was cheaper to comply with court orders than to
challenge them.
Mr. Barr said market pressure from consumers who are not eager to
facilitate wiretapping would not be enough. "I hate to say this as a
conservative," he said, "but the only way we can guard against
misuse is through federal legislation."
12-30-2003, 12:16 AM
#3
Three Wheelin'
OBD-II??? Sometimes it can be too advanced....I've heard some nasty things that could be done from OBD-II systems to ruin your fun as well. Have the music system be the most advanced feature! 
12-30-2003, 12:27 AM
#4
Race Car
I've been in the wireless industry for 7 years, there have been rumors of that sort of thing since cellular went digital (prior to which, all you needed was a scanner) and On star has been the #1 candidate for this type of thing since before they sold their first unit. BTW, it's nothing but a speciallized cell phone, if you are in a place where you can't get 911 on the phone, Onstar won't work either.
Trending Topics
12-30-2003, 10:18 AM
#10
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Don't go blaming this one on Bush. Ever since I heard of OnStar, I've wondered about how it could be used in a manner not intended. A friend of mine was involved in some of the early stages of this technology and from what he's told me, nearly any car manufactured after 2000 can be easily retrofitted with the technology. The original idea was to help recover stolen cars, help stranded motorists, and be able to summon help from anywhere. With the advent of digital, we're just a short step from Big Brother following your every step. That's why I will continue to drive old cars as long as possible, not to mention not having a car payment each month is waay kewl.
12-30-2003, 11:22 AM
#11
Addict
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
I will bet the supreme court justices appointed by a democrat president said no to the wiretapping, while the justices appointed by a republican president said yes to the wiretapping, with maybe one swing.
At least thats the way the search and seizure, and fruit of poisonous tree decisions i had to read in law school were written
At least thats the way the search and seizure, and fruit of poisonous tree decisions i had to read in law school were written
12-30-2003, 11:35 AM
#12
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
It may come back to the original intent of the system in the car. It wasn't intended as a primary communication line, so they may have reasoned that it's ok to listen in on it.
12-30-2003, 11:40 AM
#13
Pro
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Woodstock,GA
Posts: 674
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's not so much Bush as it is Ashcroft. He wants to be Big Brother, literally. Look at his career. He would be good in war, but not in peace. The Patriot Act will become as hotly contested as Roe v Wade. Only it will be over partisan politics.
I do not believe my citizenship should be up in the air no matter what I do. The Patriot Act will allow the feds to strip you of your citizenship. (Even US born citizens like me.) That was a point my Nigerian coworker brought up. He is always nervous that a ticket or the like will cause him to loose his citizenship.
I do not believe my citizenship should be up in the air no matter what I do. The Patriot Act will allow the feds to strip you of your citizenship. (Even US born citizens like me.) That was a point my Nigerian coworker brought up. He is always nervous that a ticket or the like will cause him to loose his citizenship.
12-30-2003, 12:27 PM
#14
Drifting
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 2,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Legoland951
This is very consistent with Bush's (un)patriot act..... civil rights will be a thing of the past.
This is very consistent with Bush's (un)patriot act..... civil rights will be a thing of the past.