Whether or not the police immediately respond is not the point. All the post-steal data should be in a GM data-bank, if the data collection is not stopped by the thief. Are you saying that every stolen car's location is known to GM, yet not available, either immediately or some point, to law enforcement? Whether or not the thief is caught, the data should show some important info.

Either the thieves know how to stop data collection, or GM has it post-crime.

First JLR/ now KIA....Where's is GM fix....GM bills itself as a tech company too. When you have a flaw in your software you fix it.

I'm not sure any of us know exactly what data elements are collected by OnStar and when. We also do not know exactly what data they may access at a point in time, versus record and warehouse over time.

They help locate stolen vehicle only for active subscribers with Stolen Vehicle Assistance. They may also attempt to locate a vehicle without a subscription when there is a warrant or court order to do so. So it is possible, however, they do not know the stolen/recovered status of a vehicle unless they have contact with law enforcement. You can tell them your vehicle is stolen, but until law enforcement confirms, they won't do anything. When they do, they only provide data and assistance to law enforcement.

Is it possible OnStar knows where all the stolen GM cars are? Maybe, but probably not. Thieves who play for keeps will disable tracking. GM isn't about to undermine their subscription model by giving this data out or assisting owners of stolen vehicles if they do have it. Pay to play.

The main rub seems to be the impact on individuals insurance premiums by using gm collected data. I would think the insurance companies would also have a significant interest in the data available from stolen cars that they paid out claims for. Whether or not the owner subscribed to On-Star or not, if the data is available regarding a stolen car, it seems strange the insurance companies would pay for data collected on a car, yet not that interested in paying for data on stolen cars that they had insured. Maybe they have, but I would think they would push for greater use of that data in some form to mitigate claim losses. Just a thought.

Yeah, they offer discounts to "connected safe drivers" while raising rates on everyone across the board so as not to appear biased. Thus, those of us who prefer our driving experience to be frequently above 0.25g won't be partaking. That kinda stuff is normal every day business for them. <taps forehead>

So be like I imagine many on this forum are already doing, and don't carry the sports car on the same policy as the dailies. If you daily yours, then may you enjoy my envy and join me without the discount. :burnrubber:

I was talking about claim losses on stolen cars specifically, after they have been stolen, not on the owners driving data. If any data would determine where the stolen cars go, overseas, chop shops, etc., gm could supply that to them, if they had collected any such data after the car was stolen, whether or not the owner had subscribed to On-Star.

What makes you think it hasn't ? (translation: I agree with you).

In the end it doesn't matter, because the only thing that matters to the underwriters (who make the rules) is raising premium revenues to cover the cost of the rising theft losses. And it's being played on both sides. And if they beat margin by playing the regulators, then winner winner chicken dinner.

Another way to say what I'm saying is: Pretend you're the insurance company. Do you want to play bad cop and piss off a few spirited drivers and then become target of a class action lawsuit because you bought dirty data from GM? Or do you want to wear the white had and raise rates on everyone across the board while asking the state regulators to help you lean on GM and law enforcement to reduce theft -- while following it immediately with discounts to those who plug in a dongle and run the app, again all the while selling improved road safety and lower cost to voting constituents to the regulators? Which one will win you more customers, win the adoration of state regulators, while enjoying record margins? This ladies and germs, is your insurance industry hard at work.

:happy0180:

As more and more Camaro's are attempted and broken into or stolen, you can be assured insurance rates will increase for all Camaro owners. Just one more reason pressure has to applied to GM to fix these vulnerabilities like Kia/ JLR did on their vehicles.

I don't give Microsoft a pass for security lapses, and GM shouldn't get a pass for theirs.

They Almost got my Ram 3500 Limited!
 

While being focused on my Camaro ZLE being stolen, it has not occurred to me that my RAM 3500 Limited MegaCab Banks powered dually was at risk as well. at 4:14 am yesterday morning, thieves tried to steal my truck!! Luckily, the SiriusXM system was alerted and shut everything down.

Why can we not have this kind of system for our Camaros?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1pGJ1UKD2I

First, I've seen some of your videos, and I JUST saw that video today. I really, really hate thieves, man, but really happy they weren't able to run off with your Ram. Still, it is INSANE that you found bullet casings near your vehicle after they rummaged through all of your stuff. If you haven't already, you should definitely get a killswitch on your ZL1.

And no one else here should, either. Corporations like GM, Ford, and Stellantis DEFINITELY need to be held accountable for vulnerabilities in their software just like the rest.

Full disclosure: Both of the Red Hot 6th Gens you see in the article belong (and belonged) to me, and while GM could at least patch their firmware, I'm also interested in how difficult it would be to implement a similar solution that ZLElvira is referring to with SiriusXM on his Ram truck. I wasn't aware that Stellantis and SirusXM had some sort of theft deterrence embedded in the infotainment system. Could you explain this a little more?

First, GM IS held accountable for their software. But in this case it meets all relative FMVSS requirements and as someone mentioned GM can’t be held accountable for where you park or the scumbags hunting your car down for a joy ride. If it’s that bad GMs accountability will simply be sales. And the only “data” we’ve seen is an article on thefts in LA. GM has insights to not just customer concerns, but they have connections into the insurance world as well. I remember when we were working on the aluminum Z06 frame, it was he insurance industry that told us it would be un insureable due to repair costs. We actually had to show and instruct the insurance companies it actually could be repaired. From an overall numbers POV, Camaro should be and is no different than many other cars and the data I posted earlier shows GM VERY high in pick ups thefts. Some are older per the data, but Camaro is small potatoes to what thefts GM customers are experiencing. I’d like to see the theft data for the US if anyone has it. An article on LA is just interesting and good at getting everyone angry. Relative to other cars, Camaro may not even be in the radar. Just here.

Second, from what I can tell, SeriusXM Guardian is basically OnStar. It’s a connected vehicle system but ads window breakage and inclinometer and alerts you via your phone if that happens. Can’t find anything that it prevents key creation. But like all the concerns here about OnStar tracking? SeriusXM Guardian does that too. Read the fine print in what they do or don’t do with the data.

https://www.siriusxmcvs.com/safety-security/

First, GM IS held accountable for their software. True , That's why they need to fix it. There is no exceptions, period !

But in this case it meets all relative FMVSS requirements and as someone mentioned GM can’t be held accountable for where you park or the scumbags hunting your car down for a joy ride. IMOP not true.

OBDII - Security Attention for Automotive
Author
Cuong Nguyen January 16, 2023
Associate General Manager HCL Tech
"As connectivity in vehicles is increasing, related parties (e.g., regulators and car makers) need to pay attention to every source of connection, as they could potentially open a multitude of remote attacks on vehicles [1, 2]. Since an OBDII system is necessary for vehicle health, passenger safety and sustainability, it is critical for manufacturers to ensure the security of this system."

This has largely been overlooked. Hence Jaguar Land Rover , KIA have acted responsible to address their OBDII systems. GM has to be called out in a lawsuit, on Onstar and stops sharing driver data with brokers amid backlash data selling.

Eventually, this same issue will be resolved no doubt, perhaps this way too.

porsche had to stop selling the caymans and boxsters in the EU because they don't meet the new anti-hacking standards.

Hyundai and KIA was a completely different situation. They simply didn’t have the hardware to prevent thefts. Had zip to do with software. They sold cars without an ignition mobilizer in the key. Remeber the old chip GM had in the key years ago? Basically that. Hey cheaper out.

Also, Europe has some pretty strict rules on theft prevention. I don’t recall the test but you basically had to be able to stall an experienced thief for something like 2 minutes. Don’t recall if it was an insurance require or ECU. But we had to do extra stuff to export.