Comment by politician
14 years ago
If OnStar is collecting data after you cancel service, I would think that they've made themselves liable to "duty to rescue" if they observe you getting into a wreck.
If they aren't doing this -- that is, if they are observing and ignoring wrecks -- then I hope that someone starts a class action.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_rescue
"In the United States, as of 2009 ten states had laws on the books requiring that people at least notify law enforcement of and/or seek aid for strangers in peril..."
Be careful with using Wikipedia for law. If you follow to the original source[1], the "duty to rescue" law exists in most states as a duty to report rape and murder, not a duty to report car crashes. And the penalty in some states is as low as $100.
Second, even if the law were as you said it was, a class action would only be appropriate among people who have actually been in wrecks after the most recent change in terms and conditions --- people who have not crashed have suffered no harm from the alleged policy.
The short version is that Wikipedia is notoriously bad about law because it is largely written by non-lawyers; often it describes the law as Wiki editors _want_ it to be, rather than how it _is_.
[1] Usefully condensed here: http://volokh.com/2009/11/03/duty-to-rescuereport-statutes/
Of course, you're right and IANAL. Indeed, the quote I chose to include was from the "special circumstances" section, it may only apply to 10 states, and there are special requirements. Also, you are correct that a class would only include victims of wrecks whose OnStar systems were cancelled but active (and possibly any other people affected by the wreck -- e.g. the people in the other car).
Nevertheless, it seems unethical for OnStar to profit off human suffering when they are in a position to assist -- I suspect their crash statistics are among the most profitable data they collect.
it is largely written by non-lawyers; often it describes the law as Wiki editors _want_ it to be, rather than how it _is_
True, but lawyers do that too at times.
You might want to tell that to the DoJ.
They seems to have no issue broadly interpreting laws.
you're right about the duty to rescue, however having been involved with OnStar's systems sometime ago I will tell you what they will say. "While we still collect data on your driving habits, information is not monitored it is collected and stored and analyzed later. We are not currently equipped to monitor the millions of vehicles that are currently equipped OnStar that are not subscribers." But I'm sure everyone on this forum knows it would not take much modification to have accidents set off an alarm in their monitoring system. This way only when an accident happens would you be notified. But the liability reasons I'm sure they will not want to open up that can of worms.
"Yes, your Honor. My eyelids were open and my eyeballs were receiving light reflected off the victim, but my pre-frontal cortex was not paying attention to the input at the time. Therefore, you must find me not guilty."
IANAL, IANAD, but the "collecting data without analyzing data" argument still seems pretty flimsy.