GM Truck Club
THE PREMIER CHEVY TRUCK & SUV FORUM
Founded in 2004 ~ We're the #1 Chevy Truck & SUV Forum.
Silverado & Sierra | Tahoe & Yukon | Suburban & Yukon XL | SUV & CROSSOVER

Onstar Remote Start

Discussion in 'Chevy Truck Talk & GM News' started by DRuben, Jul 22, 2012.

  1. RFoster130

    RFoster130 New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    Messages:
    33
    Likes Received:
    0
    I've got small kids and it's nice to strt it and let it cool off as I'm walking across the mall. Beats putting them in it when's it's 140 degrees.
    #21
  2. aloxdaddy99

    aloxdaddy99 New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2010
    Messages:
    1,720
    Likes Received:
    2
    What exactly does using Onstar get you? The only time it would be of use is if you came out right after your car/truck was stolen. Than you may be able to get your ride back with little to no damage. If your car is stolen at night I would bet a large number of them would be wrecked or stripped by the time you realize it is missing. So what did Onstar do for you?
    The only useful thing to me for Onstar is for the wife's ride. If she gets into accident at night while she is coming home from work. The road usually has few cars at that time of night. I don't need there turn by turn I could get a GPS. I don't need remote unlock I have a key and a backup.
    #22
  3. SurrealOne

    SurrealOne Former Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2011
    Messages:
    10,778
    Likes Received:
    13
    I still don't trust them with my data ... so I don't give it to them. It's hard to get data from a unit that's not only absent from the truck, but run through a metal shredding machine. :)


    $2000.00 for a nav? Sure, if you compare it to factory I suppose. However, an aftermarket, in-dash Nav with bluetooth, steering controls, and all the bells/whistles runs nowhere near $2000.00. At $300.00/yr for the upgraded Onstar my in-dash nav, wiring for it, and alarm with remote start pay for themselves in three years, after which it's pure win for me.

    I can start my car from up to a mile away ... and lock/unlock it ... and check temperature in the cab ... and a host of other fun things I don't even bother with. That's with the fob ... there's also an app for it but I don't use it because sometimes I leave my phone in the console safe ... and that'd be bad. Also my Nav is Garmin's turn-by-turn, which I like far and above anything else I've used.

    So, OnStar yields no features I want ... and snoops into my privacy, which I don't want. Useless gimmick, to me. If I were married maybe I'd find value in it akin to what Alox mentioned ... but I'm not so I don't.

    Surreal

    P.S. I was not one of those who said it costs too much. However, in terms of return on investment ... based on use of aftermarket upgrades instead of paying way too much for the factory nav ... I agree that OnStar costs too much.
    Last edited: Jul 23, 2012
    #23
  4. the phantom

    the phantom New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2012
    Messages:
    1,153
    Likes Received:
    2
    I would almost pay to not have it in my vehicle. I have no use for the phone(Ive got a smartphone that can bluetooth to my radio) Ive got navigation in my phone with turn by turn instruction, If someone steals my truck my Insurance will cover it wether they find it or not. And I dont need the possibility of anyone listening in to my conversations in the cab of my truck irregardless if I am doing anything wrong or not. I know someone in particular that had a few drinks and decided to drive home. I know..I know he should not have been drinking and driving. Well anyway he had the trial period still on his new vehicle and he had swerved to miss a deer on his way home and ended up hitting a curb pretty hard. He got out to inspect to see if he had any damage to his vehicle and at that same time onstar was trying to get a hold of him due to a shock sensor apparently alerting them of a possible crash. Well he never responded because he was outside of his vehicle and low and behold he was cuffed and stuffed for a .06 bac and got DWAI. I dont think he has onstar anymore.
    #24
  5. PantheraUncia

    PantheraUncia New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2011
    Messages:
    1,032
    Likes Received:
    1
    Its not that onstar is $200 (well, its not worth that to me). But it is no ones business where I am driving and to perform an illegal search of what ever data my vehicle is generating. I can use a private GPS to determine where I am at, the kenwood ones are actually pretty nice. and if I really am worried about someone driving off with my truck, I can spend the $200 on a private GPS tracking system mounted someone on the truck were I can track my truck when I need to, not when big brother thinks they need to.
    #25
  6. RFoster130

    RFoster130 New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    Messages:
    33
    Likes Received:
    0
    I didn't say any of you had to agree with me. I don't care if you like it or not. I said I was just giving my opinion on why I choose to use it.
    #26
  7. RayVoy

    RayVoy Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2012
    Messages:
    2,122
    Likes Received:
    5
    Hmmmm, a lot of paranoid people on this thread.

    Most of the things we appear to be worrying about are illegal, NO ONE can legally listen to your conversation, inside the truck, or inside your home. It's a cell phone; do we worry about people, or machines, listening to us by accessing the cell phone on our hip?
    #27
  8. the phantom

    the phantom New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2012
    Messages:
    1,153
    Likes Received:
    2
    And I believe thats all we were doing was giving our opinion, If we all agreed here then this would be a pretty boring place. Enough said.
    #28
  9. the phantom

    the phantom New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2012
    Messages:
    1,153
    Likes Received:
    2
    Since it is illegal does not mean that it is not done. Anytime something is transmitted wirelessly it can and will be listened to. I know this for a fact because I have listened to people on cell phones and cordless phones with a scanner my stepfather built about 5 years ago. Caught an ex-girlfriend cheating on me with this scanner. she was sitting in her house talking on her cordless phone. LOL Illegal..?? Probably.. Maybe she should have been paranoid.:sign0020: All computer searches are logged for various reasons and I do them in my own home. Paranoid of a machine?? Maybe a little depending on what im searching. :lol:Laws never stop the government from doing anything they want to do. Anyone would be niave to think this doesnt happen because it is illegal.
    #29
  10. SurrealOne

    SurrealOne Former Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2011
    Messages:
    10,778
    Likes Received:
    13
    I work in the computer security field and as the saying goes, a little bit of healthy paranoia goes a long, long way. The time to worry about what is/isn't done with data that pertains to you is BEFORE something is done with it -- as it's too late to do after the fact. As for illegal, OnStar's data logging is NOT illegal and here's there current privacy policy: https://www.onstar.com/web/portal/privacy

    Some fun tidbits from it:
    ----------
    "The information we may get from your car includes:

    • information about your car's operation, including such things as diagnostic trouble codes, oil life remaining, tire pressure, fuel economy and odometer readings;
    • information about collisions involving your car, the direction from which your car was hit, which air bags have deployed, and safety belt usage;
    • information about your use of the car and its features, such as whether you have paired a mobile device with your car) ;
    • information about when your car's ignition is turned on or off and when your fuel is refilled; and
    • in the limited circumstances listed below, the location and approximate GPS (global positioning satellite) speed of your car:
      • when there is a request for service made from inside your car (for example when you request driving directions);
      • when there is an airbag deployment or automatic crash response (so we can inform emergency service providers);
      • when there is a request for Stolen Vehicle Assistance (to assist law enforcement in the recovery of your car);
      • when needed to protect the safety of you or others (for example, to locate a missing person);
      • when needed by us or our suppliers for our quality, research or troubleshooting purposes; or
      • as may be required by law.
    If you use Hands-Free Calling minutes, we may obtain certain Customer Proprietary Network Information (CPNI) such as call detail records, the number of minutes purchased, the date minutes were purchased, the number of remaining minutes, and their expiration date. We do not share CPNI information specific to you with third parties for their marketing purposes."
    ----------

    Why do they care when you refilled? Can they use your tire pressure against you if it was low and there was an accident? Can your insurance provider deny a claim if OnStar says your saftey belt was not in use yet you claim it was used (despite the belief that computers are never wrong ... they often are)? Can the GPS speed of your vehicle be used to deny a claim? Who decides when the GPS speed of your vehicle should be used to protect you or the safety of others? Who decides when the GPS speed of your vehicle is needed by OnStar or its suppliers for 'research'? Do you want OnStar to have your call detail records?

    Asking these sorts of questions is not paranoid ... it's prudent, thoughtful planning -- something society (as a whole) seems to lack, these days. They are very fair questions and anyone interested in protecting his/her privacy SHOULD have read the OnStar privacy policy and decided if they want OnStar to have such data EVEN IF they are not OnStar subscribers. After all, OnStar collects this whether or not you are subscribed. Someone who removes OnStar from the equation has also removed concerns about such questions from the equation.
    Last edited: Jul 23, 2012
    #30
  11. tbplus10

    tbplus10 Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2007
    Messages:
    5,405
    Likes Received:
    25
    I'm not paranoid, I just dont trust anyone, especially our Goverment that has a bad habit of believing they can violate our rights and a simple "Oh were sorry" seems to make it all ok.
    My wife wants her OnStar so thats fine with me, on my truck I choose not to have it.
    #31
  12. RayVoy

    RayVoy Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2012
    Messages:
    2,122
    Likes Received:
    5
    When cell phones used analog circuits, the conversation could be picked up on a scanner. Today's cell phones (including the Onstar phone) and networks are digital, you won"t pick up a conversation on a scanner. Newer cordless phones are the same.

    I agree, the data that is logged is vehicle data. Onstar is using this service as an enhancement to their service portfolio. Their idea was to provide vehicle data "free" to you when you purchases some of their other services. The original intent was not to provide this data to any third party. From your post: "We do not share CPNI information specific to you with third parties for their marketing purposes." However, a year ago, Onstar decided to make this data available to 3rd parties. They decided to make the data available while you had Onstar service activated, and to continue to provide it after Onstar service was deactivated.

    Needless to say, this caused considerable uproar and Onstar decided the possible revenue from 3rd party sales would not match the loss of revenue from service disconnections.

    BTW, when you use Onstar for cell phone calls, the cost of having the phone number assigned to the vehicle is a cost that is billed to Onstar. The end-user (you and me) pays for the minutes used and not for the phone number. The longer Onstar keeps the phone number assigned to the car (after you have terminated your subscription), the more they pay, monthly, for phone service from the phone companies. A lot of front-end loading for data being sold to a 3rd party.


    That might just be the classic definition of paranoia, haha.


    Look guys, the paranoia I am talking about is the fear that someone can listen to the conversations, inside the truck cab, without an actual Onstar call being placed, or received. All I was implying, is that we do not have that fear with our pocket cell phone, why would we have that fear with a car cell phone.
    #32
  13. Sierraowner5.3

    Sierraowner5.3 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2011
    Messages:
    1,950
    Likes Received:
    4
    I activated the 3 month trial period on the 11, just to try it. I wont be renewing it. dont see the point, i have bluetooth for phone calls, and a garmin for directions.

    remote start? mine came with it, why pay onstar for something I already have.

    the vehicle data is easy to live without. nothing i cant check myself.

    Alex
    Last edited: Jul 24, 2012
    #33
  14. the phantom

    the phantom New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2012
    Messages:
    1,153
    Likes Received:
    2
    Some interesting reading about how secure the cell phones really are.

    When a cellular user dials a number on their keypad (be it a telephone number, a PIN, or a credit-card number), it is encrypted with CMEA in an attempt to protect the privacy of the user. CMEA is a symmetric cipher that uses a 64-bit key. A 64-bit key is usually considered to be fairly secure. However, flaws in the CMEA algorithm allow an attacker to predict portions of the key, reducing the effective key length to 24 or 32 bits, significantly shorter than the weak cryptography the US government allows for export. Herein lies the problem. A savvy computer user can break a 32-bit key on a typical home computer in a relatively short period of time.
    This is not a new problem. As early as 1992, other researchers, including crypto pioneer Whitfield Diffie, revealed major flaws in the system's voice privacy features. The researchers are blaming broad underlying problems in the design process for the introduction of these flaws.
    When the cellular industry was designing the privacy-enhancing features of the new digital cellular network, it received pressure from the National Security Agency to cripple the encryption capability of that network. The industry responded with an attempt to balance the NSA's concern over national security with consumers' desire for privacy by letting the cellular standards arm of the Telecommunications Industry Association design the architecture. It seemed like a reasonable compromise at the time.
    Unfortunately, the TIA created a poor algorithm, and thousands of digital cellular users are now using it. How much of this is due to direct government intervention is unclear, but David Banisar, attorney for the Electronic Privacy Information Center, is ready to place the blame squarely on the NSA. "This is another illustration of how US government efforts to control cryptography threaten the security and privacy of Americans."
    Cellular telephones, particularly the earlier analog models, have never been considered to be especially secure. In January, House Speaker Newt Gingrich learned this lesson the hard way, when a conference call he participated in was intercepted and leaked to the press.
    Like Gingrich's call, most of today's cellular traffic can still be easily intercepted with widely available radio scanners. The new digital system does offer a good deal of protection over the older analog system, especially from casual listeners, but it has now been made clear that a determined eavesdropper with the proper technical expertise and resources can intercept communications on the new system. The losers in this whole debacle are the cellular users. With the old analog system, many users knew that someone could eavesdrop on their conversations. Now, they've been sold on the new, "secure" digital phones, and are using them with a false sense of security. When users believe their conversation are private, they could potentially say something they would not say if they believed it was possible to be intercepted by a third party. It is precisely this scenario that makes poor encryption (which includes weak encryption) more dangerous than no encryption at all.
    #34
  15. RayVoy

    RayVoy Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2012
    Messages:
    2,122
    Likes Received:
    5
    Phantom, most of your data pertains to the old analog networks and the early digital networks.

    The new generation digital network uses 3 security checks to ensure the integrity of the call:

    - a subscriber authentication key

    - a generated ciphering key algorithm

    - and a PIN.

    On top of that:

    - the service provider maintains a data base of handset keys

    - a data base of subscriber keys

    - a data base of the handsets location

    Some of the keys and some of the algorithms are stored in the handset, some on the network and some at the service provider's network office.

    All three must be correct, without dups for the call to be made, or received, and all three must be correct for the call to continue. If there is any duplication from a 4th element (read hacker) the call will drop.

    On top of that, the keys and the authentication can be changed through out the call, especially as the handset moves from tower to tower.

    Yep, anything can be hacked, but, it ain't easy.
    #35
  16. the phantom

    the phantom New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2012
    Messages:
    1,153
    Likes Received:
    2
    I realize its not easy, and im not saying that its common practice to be done. My concerns lie more in the areas like Surreal had noted. such as using your vehicle information against you in the event of an accident or something similiar. Possibly even just simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time. It seems that technology is advancing so fast that its making our heads spin and there will be a time when we will no longer be able to either protect ourselves or defend ourselves because of this. The govt. will determine that when you are in your vehicle that is in/on public property that their is/will not be any right to privacy. Therefore requiring this information to be given if requested.. and so on and so on... Look at how the laws have changed in the past 10 years that show this type of trend. Its just hard to imagine 20 years from now when you look back 15 and have seen the change. Maybe Im just getting old.:lol:
    #36
  17. RayVoy

    RayVoy Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2012
    Messages:
    2,122
    Likes Received:
    5
    Not much privacy in a lot of urban centers now, a growing number of cities are monitoring sidewalks with cameras, will microphones be next?

    To the op, sorry, we seem to have gotten :sign0018: .
    #37
  18. SurrealOne

    SurrealOne Former Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2011
    Messages:
    10,778
    Likes Received:
    13
    If you want privacy you can always wear a burka...
    #38

Share This Page