LoJack Vs GPS

[patric]

LoJack is an auto-theft tracking system from the early '80's that operates like the "bumper beepers" in spy movies, sending out chirps on TV channel 7 that can be picked up on specially-equipped police cars.

GPS anti-theft systems (like OnStar) made LoJack essentially obsolete by providing more features to the car owner, and LoJack was about gone until they started allowing car dealers and car stereo shops to install them.

I about fell over backwards when I saw this blast from the past advertised as "new" when the manufacturer announced they wanted to donate a couple of receivers to the Tulsa Police Department.

The article.

From what I interpret, LoJack would provide the receiver and the city would pay to install the four antennas on each police unit.

[Wilbur]

quote:Originally posted by patric

LoJack is an auto-theft tracking system from the early '80's that operates like the "bumper beepers" in spy movies, sending out chirps on TV channel 7 that can be picked up on specially-equipped police cars.

GPS anti-theft systems (like OnStar) made LoJack essentially obsolete by providing more features to the car owner, and LoJack was about gone until they started allowing car dealers and car stereo shops to install them.

I about fell over backwards when I saw this blast from the past advertised as "new" when the manufacturer announced they wanted to donate a couple of receivers to the Tulsa Police Department.

The article.

From what I interpret, LoJack would provide the receiver and the city would pay to install the four antennas on each police unit.

Not many makes of cars have On-Star type systems and LoJack will find more then just stolen cars.

[patric]

quote:Originally posted by inteller

I wouldn't even WANT BigBrotherOnStar.  

If your worried about Big Brother, LoJack transmits your position 24/7 to any agency with a receiver.  "Activating" it only increases the number of pings per minute.

[Wilbur]

If you're worried about 'big brother' you better ditch your cell phone before you worry about On-Star or LoJack.  Your cell phone always knows where you are, whether you are talking on the phone or not.

[Townsend]

What do you people do that so many people are tracking you?

[sauerkraut]

quote:Originally posted by inteller

you have to keep in mind that not all cars have Onstar.....and hell, I wouldn't even WANT BigBrotherOnStar.  If you have a classic car or a non GM product, this is the way to go.  I did not interpret that TPD had to pay to have the antennas installed (that sucks).  I just heard that LoJack was donaing 21 recievers.

Yup, OnStar can be used against the car owner so it cuts both ways. They have systems that can kill or dis-able a stolen car. The car just dies out and the crook can't get it started. New cars now-a-daze have a "black box" in them such as what aircraft have and those boxes can be used against the driver, or to find who's at fault in a accident. The question about who owns the info recorded inside those black boxes is not settled yet. In some states police cannot take the black boxes after a accident and in other states police can have access and use that info against the driver in court.[B)]

[Wilbur]

quote:Originally posted by sauerkraut

quote:Originally posted by inteller

you have to keep in mind that not all cars have Onstar.....and hell, I wouldn't even WANT BigBrotherOnStar.  If you have a classic car or a non GM product, this is the way to go.  I did not interpret that TPD had to pay to have the antennas installed (that sucks).  I just heard that LoJack was donaing 21 recievers.

Yup, OnStar can be used against the car owner so it cuts both ways. They have systems that can kill or dis-able a stolen car. The car just dies out and the crook can't get it started. New cars now-a-daze have a "black box" in them such as what aircraft have and those boxes can be used against the driver, or to find who's at fault in a accident. The question about who owns the info recorded inside those black boxes is not settled yet. In some states police cannot take the black boxes after a accident and in other states police can have access and use that info against the driver in court.[B)]

The info on the black boxes can be downloaded at the scene of a collision without a warrant.  If the car is impounded by police, the info on the black box can be downloaded with a warrant.  As to who 'owns' the data, that is a civil matter, not a criminal matter.  That black box also is in control of your safety systems, so you need to have that box in there doing its work.

What type of info that is available on the black box is different for each car maker.  Not all makes of cars have black boxes that have info for download.  They still have the box, it just doesn't record anything.

[patric]

quote:Originally posted by Wilbur

The info on the black boxes can be downloaded at the scene of a collision without a warrant.  If the car is impounded by police, the info on the black box can be downloaded with a warrant.  As to who 'owns' the data, that is a civil matter, not a criminal matter.

OBDII (On-Board Diagnostics) data is really no different than data you might find on a laptop sitting in a vehicle, so the legality of seizing that data without warrant is still debatable.
IMHO the owner of a vehicle has more claim to ownership of data on a computer in his vehicle than does the government.


OnStar isnt the only GPS-based antitheft device.
There are a multitude of passive GPS devices that report your position by cell phone to a laptop or home computer.  They are often used to track fleet vehicles, teenage drivers by nervous parents, and jealous partners.

Another big disadvantage of LoJack is that the police have to be able and willing to use the tracking system, and once the tracked vehicle is out of their range, game over, whereas Global Positioning Satellite is, well, global.

Even if Tulsa went ahead with outfitting enough LoJack vehicles to cover the whole city, thieves would defeat the system by making a beeline to Bixby or Sperry.

[Wilbur]

quote:Originally posted by patric

quote:Originally posted by Wilbur

The info on the black boxes can be downloaded at the scene of a collision without a warrant.  If the car is impounded by police, the info on the black box can be downloaded with a warrant.  As to who 'owns' the data, that is a civil matter, not a criminal matter.

OBDII (On-Board Diagnostics) data is really no different than data you might find on a laptop sitting in a vehicle, so the legality of seizing that data without warrant is still debatable.
IMHO the owner of a vehicle has more claim to ownership of data on a computer in his vehicle than does the government.

Because vehicles are so mobile (even after a crash, they can be hauled off) there is a vehicle exception to the search warrant requirement.  You still have to articulate the facts in order to be able to search without the warrant, just as if you suspected drugs.

[patric]

quote:Originally posted by Wilbur

Because vehicles are so mobile (even after a crash, they can be hauled off) there is a vehicle exception to the search warrant requirement.  You still have to articulate the facts in order to be able to search without the warrant, just as if you suspected drugs.

I could argue that a person doesnt surrender any company secrets, proprietary data or personal information contained within a laptop (or other computer) simply because they are transporting them by car.
Comparing an individuals computerized private records to contraband like drugs is simply inaccurate and invalid.  I may not have a reasonable expectation of privacy for anything in plain view inside my car, but intruding into a computer is a whole other matter.

[Wilbur]

quote:Originally posted by patric

quote:Originally posted by Wilbur

Because vehicles are so mobile (even after a crash, they can be hauled off) there is a vehicle exception to the search warrant requirement.  You still have to articulate the facts in order to be able to search without the warrant, just as if you suspected drugs.

I could argue that a person doesnt surrender any company secrets, proprietary data or personal information contained within a laptop (or other computer) simply because they are transporting them by car.
Comparing an individuals computerized private records to contraband like drugs is simply inaccurate and invalid.  I may not have a reasonable expectation of privacy for anything in plain view inside my car, but intruding into a computer is a whole other matter.

I can't search interior bags/compartments in a car for drugs unless I can articulate the facts as to why I believe the 'contraband' is there.  If I can articulate, because there is a vehicle exception to search warrants, I don't need a warrant to search the bags/compartments.  I just can't search for no reason (unless the owner/driver gives me permission).

The same goes with crash data.  If I can articulate why I believe there is 'contraband' on the crash data recorder, the vehicle exception allows me to get the data without a warrant, or, with the driver's/owner's permission.

There is no difference just because one is drugs and another is crash data.  It's all evidence in a crime.

[MH2010]

quote:Originally posted by patric

quote:Originally posted by Wilbur

Because vehicles are so mobile (even after a crash, they can be hauled off) there is a vehicle exception to the search warrant requirement.  You still have to articulate the facts in order to be able to search without the warrant, just as if you suspected drugs.

I could argue that a person doesnt surrender any company secrets, proprietary data or personal information contained within a laptop (or other computer) simply because they are transporting them by car.
Comparing an individuals computerized private records to contraband like drugs is simply inaccurate and invalid.  I may not have a reasonable expectation of privacy for anything in plain view inside my car, but intruding into a computer is a whole other matter.

Another issue in your argument is that the "black box" is part of the vehicle not a seperate laptop computer.

[RecycleMichael]

I like how the cops try and trick you into consent for a search.

They say, "do you have any drugs in the car?", then follow it with, "do you have any guns in the car?", then quickly add, "do you mind if I look?"

You get used to saying no, then give consent by saying no.

Very tricky.

[tnt091605]

quote:Originally posted by patric

quote:Originally posted by inteller

I wouldn't even WANT BigBrotherOnStar.  

If your worried about Big Brother, LoJack transmits your position 24/7 to any agency with a receiver.  "Activating" it only increases the number of pings per minute.

Again someone making a statement they do not know a thing about.  The signal is only broadcast after you file a police report and the vehicle information is entered into the National Crime Information Computer.

[patric]

quote:Originally posted by tnt091605

quote:Originally posted by patric

quote:Originally posted by inteller

I wouldn't even WANT BigBrotherOnStar.  

If your worried about Big Brother, LoJack transmits your position 24/7 to any agency with a receiver.  "Activating" it only increases the number of pings per minute.

Again someone making a statement they do not know a thing about.  The signal is only broadcast after you file a police report and the vehicle information is entered into the National Crime Information Computer.

I counter TNT's uninformed statement with a citation:

The 2.5 watt mobiles are allowed to transmit a digital signal for up to 200 ms (1/5 of a second) every 10 seconds - all the time, it appears. Once they've been reported stolen and are being "actively tracked," they can transmit a 200ms signal for the police once every second. Optionally, they can now add a 1800 ms uplink cycle when activated - (either "early warning" or reported stolen). They can transmit the 1800ms (1.8 seconds) signal every 5 minutes, with a maximum of six such messages in any 30-minute period. This 1800ms signal is long enough to ID the unit and to let the base know that it has, in fact, received the instruction to transmit its "I'm stolen" signal to police units. Previously, once a vehicle was reported stolen, all the LoJack base stations would transmit a 300-watt "turn yourself on" signal every 15 minutes for the first two hours, and then once an hour for 30 days, or until the vehicle was recovered, whichever occurred first. The 1800ms cycle for the mobiles lets the base stations know "I heard you, I'm turned on, you can shut up now." Apparently they want to reduce the base stations' transmissions as much a possible, to avoid interference with adjacent TV Channel 7.