Big Brother - stopping a moving vehicle by remote control
Discussion
OK, so in the USA only ... at the moment. But this has been mooted on this side of the Pond too, so watch out for it appearing as a feature in Chevys, Vauxhalls, Opals and Saabs RSN.
Streaky
Posting in Risks Digest 24.85 Lauren Weinstein said:
Ready to turn over the keys of your vehicle to the cops, or that clever hacker in the next lane? How about that creepy guy following you on a lonely country road?
GM apparently plans to perhaps make this all possible. It's been announced that they'll be equipping nearly two million of their 2009 model vehicles (that have OnStar installed), with the capability to be remotely shut down to idle via OnStar commands at the request of law enforcement.
The claim is that owners will have to give permission first for this capability to be enabled. Bull. I don't care what OnStar's privacy policy says, if the technical capability for this function is present, OnStar will have no practical choice but to comply when faced with a law enforcement demand or court order, whether or not owner "permission" was ever granted.
This new capability will also create an irresistible challenge to the hacker community -- and perhaps criminal organizations -- to try find ways into the OnStar system for triggering this fun -- one way or another. It's impossible to hack OnStar? Would you bet your life on that?
Unfortunately, this is yet another laudable idea that's being "driven" into the marketplace before all of the negative ramifications have been thought through or fully understood. And how long will it be before such systems are mandated, one might wonder?
OnStar has long been the subject of various privacy concerns. This new capability appears to be the most serious privacy-related issue for OnStar to date.
Should make for good TV the first time they try it in front of the news 'copters.GM apparently plans to perhaps make this all possible. It's been announced that they'll be equipping nearly two million of their 2009 model vehicles (that have OnStar installed), with the capability to be remotely shut down to idle via OnStar commands at the request of law enforcement.
The claim is that owners will have to give permission first for this capability to be enabled. Bull. I don't care what OnStar's privacy policy says, if the technical capability for this function is present, OnStar will have no practical choice but to comply when faced with a law enforcement demand or court order, whether or not owner "permission" was ever granted.
This new capability will also create an irresistible challenge to the hacker community -- and perhaps criminal organizations -- to try find ways into the OnStar system for triggering this fun -- one way or another. It's impossible to hack OnStar? Would you bet your life on that?
Unfortunately, this is yet another laudable idea that's being "driven" into the marketplace before all of the negative ramifications have been thought through or fully understood. And how long will it be before such systems are mandated, one might wonder?
OnStar has long been the subject of various privacy concerns. This new capability appears to be the most serious privacy-related issue for OnStar to date.
Streaky
It'll be used in car-jacking. Group with a laptop in the back of a big Suburban...spot target car, get plates, hack system, instruct target car to stop. Pull up alongside, heavies drag driver out, new driver sits in car, techy guy releases OnStar protocols, drive off.
Lo-and-behold, your nice flash 'vette or whatever has just been taken from under your nose...
Lo-and-behold, your nice flash 'vette or whatever has just been taken from under your nose...
Guam said:
This is going to be funny I gather (having been doing some research since my hacker encounter) that satellites are extremely easy to hack if you have the right hardware as no one envisaged the need for security of any magnitude onboard 
All you need is a long enough ladder - they never lock the doors.;-> Russ
Brother Mycroft said:
Good for residuals on cars that don't have the device... they will be worth a premium.
Well folks, I've said it before and I say it again:The motor industry has no business to be putting this sort of stuff into our cars that we buy from them with our money (or what's left of it after the government has done its thieving) and interfering with our freedom, and if they pursue this they do not deserve to remain in business.
It certainly reduces the likelihood of me buying a new car. I'd see them go bankrupt first.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
TripleS said:
It certainly reduces the likelihood of me buying a new car. I'd see them go bankrupt first.
If they (mfrs) all do it, then you're left with running (increasingly-ageing) classics. No bad thing...for a while...However, for your average person, they're not even going to THINK about the consequences (both long-term tie-in to the mfr, and 'big brother') - in the first instance they'll probably sell before it's out of warranty, and in the second they're probably blind to it...
I will immediately set-up a manufacturing company producing RF cages for ECUs.
Job done...
Oh, FYI, all you need to do this is copper foil... make a plactic cover that has at least 2cm. covering all cables in and cover the box [glue] in copper foil don't forget to extend the tails along the tails for that 2cm.
A DIY 'UP YOURS' for about a fiver.
Job done...
Oh, FYI, all you need to do this is copper foil... make a plactic cover that has at least 2cm. covering all cables in and cover the box [glue] in copper foil don't forget to extend the tails along the tails for that 2cm.
A DIY 'UP YOURS' for about a fiver.
Edited by Brother Mycroft on Friday 12th October 16:52
Brother Mycroft said:
I will immediately set-up a manufacturing company producing RF cages for ECUs.
Job done...
Oh, FYI, all you need to do this is copper foil... make a plactic cover that has at least 2cm. covering all cables in and cover the box [glue] in copper foil don't forget to extend the tails along the tails for that 2cm.
A DIY 'UP YOURS' for about a fiver.
The possible problem with that is, the vehicle body (if of conductive material) will act as the aerial and a received signal will propagate along the earth connections into the ECU (or other box) and can be detected therein.Job done...
Oh, FYI, all you need to do this is copper foil... make a plactic cover that has at least 2cm. covering all cables in and cover the box [glue] in copper foil don't forget to extend the tails along the tails for that 2cm.
A DIY 'UP YOURS' for about a fiver.
Edited by Brother Mycroft on Friday 12th October 16:52
But the most likely route will be legislation making blocking of the signal a capital (well, whatever) offence.
Streaky
streaky said:
Brother Mycroft said:
I will immediately set-up a manufacturing company producing RF cages for ECUs.
Job done...
Oh, FYI, all you need to do this is copper foil... make a plactic cover that has at least 2cm. covering all cables in and cover the box [glue] in copper foil don't forget to extend the tails along the tails for that 2cm.
A DIY 'UP YOURS' for about a fiver.
The possible problem with that is, the vehicle body (if of conductive material) will act as the aerial and a received signal will propagate along the earth connections into the ECU (or other box) and can be detected therein.Job done...
Oh, FYI, all you need to do this is copper foil... make a plactic cover that has at least 2cm. covering all cables in and cover the box [glue] in copper foil don't forget to extend the tails along the tails for that 2cm.
A DIY 'UP YOURS' for about a fiver.
Edited by Brother Mycroft on Friday 12th October 16:52
But the most likely route will be legislation making blocking of the signal a capital (well, whatever) offence.
Streaky
Best wishes all,
Dave.
I understand peoples concerns about the security of such devices, but if the manufacturers can demonstrate that they are secure, and the terms of operation are strictly laid out and adhered to, then I think it's a great idea.
Over the last 10 years or so, vehicle manufacturers have made it increasingly difficult for a car thief to simply break into a car and steal it. Remember the horrendous premiums on Cosworths? They were mainly down to the fact that a thief could just pop the door lock out with a screwdriver, break the steering lock with a piece of scaffolding tube, hotwire the ignition and drive it away. This whole process could take less than a minute for the more skilled thieves.
Nowadays, even the most basic cars are coming out of the factory with alarms, immobilisers, chipped keys, tracking devices etc. This is fantastic when it comes to preventing the more traditional car thieves, but it also means that the more determined thieves have moved their game on a bit.
Todays scrotes need the keys for the car, and many of them will do whatever it takes to get them. Hook-and-cane burglaries have increased vastly (reaching through the letterbox with a cane to get the keys), car-jackings are becoming more common, and there are plenty of organised outfits who will simply smash their way into a house and threaten the occupant in order to get the keys.
Now, if these people are willing to go to these lengths to obtain a car, you can bet that they're organised enough to pick a good one in the first place, and to already have a buyer sorted out.
A combination of a tracking device and remote shut-down of the engine would mean that retrieving the vehicle would be simple and easily done before the thieves get to their buyer. If the thieves knew that the car they were casing was fitted with such a device, they'd know it was a pointless exercise stealing it, and so they'd move on to someone else.
I've more than enough experience of pursuits to know that these idiots will do anything to get away when followed by the Police. An early shut-down of a fleeing vehicle would see a very quick end to a pursuit, and hopefully a reduction in the number of events like the one we saw the other week when a fleeing vehicle went the wrong way down the motorway and 4 people died.
I've also pursued cars that haven't been stolen, but are being driven illegally by the owner - they may have been drunk, drugged or simply dangerous. I even pusued a car which was being driven by a diabetic who was having a hypoglycemic attack. In situations like this, where the mental or physical state of the driver isn't known, it'd be vastly safer to just shut their car down, rather than pursuing them for mile after mile, or abandoning the pusuit for safety reasons and just letting them go on their way.
It's a very good idea, and one that I wouldn't hesitate to have fitted to my car, providing the manufacturers can give plenty of reassurance about it's security against hacking etc.
Over the last 10 years or so, vehicle manufacturers have made it increasingly difficult for a car thief to simply break into a car and steal it. Remember the horrendous premiums on Cosworths? They were mainly down to the fact that a thief could just pop the door lock out with a screwdriver, break the steering lock with a piece of scaffolding tube, hotwire the ignition and drive it away. This whole process could take less than a minute for the more skilled thieves.
Nowadays, even the most basic cars are coming out of the factory with alarms, immobilisers, chipped keys, tracking devices etc. This is fantastic when it comes to preventing the more traditional car thieves, but it also means that the more determined thieves have moved their game on a bit.
Todays scrotes need the keys for the car, and many of them will do whatever it takes to get them. Hook-and-cane burglaries have increased vastly (reaching through the letterbox with a cane to get the keys), car-jackings are becoming more common, and there are plenty of organised outfits who will simply smash their way into a house and threaten the occupant in order to get the keys.
Now, if these people are willing to go to these lengths to obtain a car, you can bet that they're organised enough to pick a good one in the first place, and to already have a buyer sorted out.
A combination of a tracking device and remote shut-down of the engine would mean that retrieving the vehicle would be simple and easily done before the thieves get to their buyer. If the thieves knew that the car they were casing was fitted with such a device, they'd know it was a pointless exercise stealing it, and so they'd move on to someone else.
I've more than enough experience of pursuits to know that these idiots will do anything to get away when followed by the Police. An early shut-down of a fleeing vehicle would see a very quick end to a pursuit, and hopefully a reduction in the number of events like the one we saw the other week when a fleeing vehicle went the wrong way down the motorway and 4 people died.
I've also pursued cars that haven't been stolen, but are being driven illegally by the owner - they may have been drunk, drugged or simply dangerous. I even pusued a car which was being driven by a diabetic who was having a hypoglycemic attack. In situations like this, where the mental or physical state of the driver isn't known, it'd be vastly safer to just shut their car down, rather than pursuing them for mile after mile, or abandoning the pusuit for safety reasons and just letting them go on their way.
It's a very good idea, and one that I wouldn't hesitate to have fitted to my car, providing the manufacturers can give plenty of reassurance about it's security against hacking etc.
R_U_LOCAL said:
It's a very good idea, and one that I wouldn't hesitate to have fitted to my car, providing the manufacturers can give plenty of reassurance about it's security against hacking etc.
If someone can build it someone can hack it, end of. Plus if you want one fitted to your car, go ahead; I do not and I would expect you to respect my right to make that decision.Einion Yrth said:
R_U_LOCAL said:
It's a very good idea, and one that I wouldn't hesitate to have fitted to my car, providing the manufacturers can give plenty of reassurance about it's security against hacking etc.
If someone can build it someone can hack it, end of. Plus if you want one fitted to your car, go ahead; I do not and I would expect you to respect my right to make that decision.As I said if the manufacturers could convince me it was secure and the guidelines for it's use were very clear, then I'd be happy to have it fitted.
Einion Yrth said:
R_U_LOCAL said:
It's a very good idea, and one that I wouldn't hesitate to have fitted to my car, providing the manufacturers can give plenty of reassurance about it's security against hacking etc.
If someone can build it someone can hack it, end of. Plus if you want one fitted to your car, go ahead; I do not and I would expect you to respect my right to make that decision.vonhosen said:
Einion Yrth said:
R_U_LOCAL said:
It's a very good idea, and one that I wouldn't hesitate to have fitted to my car, providing the manufacturers can give plenty of reassurance about it's security against hacking etc.
If someone can build it someone can hack it, end of. Plus if you want one fitted to your car, go ahead; I do not and I would expect you to respect my right to make that decision.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff