Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Transportation Technology

Electromagnetic Pulse Gun To Help In Police Chases 471

Posted by timothy
from the hand-your-keys-to-big-brother dept.
adeelarshad82 writes "In an attempt to put an end to dangerous, high-speed police chases, scientists at Eureka Aerospace have developed an electromagnetic pulse gun called the High Power Electromagnetic System, or HPEMS. It develops a high-intensity directed pulse of electricity designed to disable a car's microprocessor system, shutting down all of its systems. Right now the prototype seen in a video fills an entire lab, but they have plans to shrink its size to hand-held proportions. Some form of this is already featured in OnStar-equipped vehicles though the electromagnetic signal used to disable the vehicle is beamed via satellite, and doesn't cripple the in-car computer, but rather puts it into a mode that allows police to easily catch and then stop the fleeing criminal."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Electromagnetic Pulse Gun To Help In Police Chases

Comments Filter:
  • by Tumbleweed (3706) * on Friday January 22, 2010 @07:18PM (#30865442)

    You bet - I'll be able to disable cop cars chasing me.

    I mean, _criminals_ will. Ahem.

    • by mrmeval (662166)

      One three rear mounted 4" black powder cannon, electrically fire, filled with chain, glass, dirty needles and crack vials will work nicely. You can use an Arduino to run the trunk opening and canon lift.

      Front mounted? 6" X 3

  • Before deployment (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Vinegar Joe (998110) on Friday January 22, 2010 @07:19PM (#30865446)

    I wonder if they'll test it on Pacemakers.

    • by fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) on Friday January 22, 2010 @07:27PM (#30865520) Journal
      In the lab? Perhaps. In the field? Definitely.

      Perhaps the deaths will even get a pseudo diagnosis along the same lines as "excited delirium"...
    • by John Hasler (414242) on Friday January 22, 2010 @07:29PM (#30865536) Homepage

      Sure, but not intentionally. They'll also "test" it on parked vehicles, tv sets, computers, iPods, traffic light controllers, and anything else that happens to get into the "beam" as the cops treat it as a precise magic car-killer that affects only cars and only the ones they aim at.

      Eventually there will be an "underground" business in installing filters and shielding. It will become illegal to possess ferrite beads without a license.

    • by wizardforce (1005805) on Friday January 22, 2010 @07:35PM (#30865598) Journal

      Good point. The electrical leads used in a typical pacemaker may very well be vulnerable to such a pulse. If the EMP is powerful enough to fry the microprocessor in a car I'd bet that it is also powerful enough to at least temporarily disrupt the function of someone's pacemaker.

      • by v1 (525388)

        I wonder what it looks like on the display if a pacemaker crashes?

        blue screen of death?

        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          by camperdave (969942)
          I wonder what it looks like on the display if a pacemaker crashes?

          What kind of pacemaker has a display? Are you some sort of Teletubby or something?
          • Re:Before deployment (Score:4, Informative)

            by aukset (889860) on Friday January 22, 2010 @09:31PM (#30866364) Journal

            Its called an ECG or EKG and it involves 3 to 4 stickers placed on the limbs, attached to wires that lead to a monitor, that measure the positive electical potential of the heart as it depolarizes to cause myocardial contraction. Pacemakers have a very distrinct "rhythm" on a heart monitor that is recognizable compared to any other heart rhythm. What it would look like in the case of an EMP disruption of pacemaker activity will depend on the reason for the insertion of the pacemaker.Most likely you would get a junctional or ventricular rhythm (bradycardic QRS with disassociated P waves at 20-60 QRS per minute). Except in the case of extremely fit athletes, a ventricular rate of less than 60 is very bad news for circulatory perfusion.

  • I can't wait... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by roc97007 (608802) on Friday January 22, 2010 @07:21PM (#30865460) Journal

    ...until the criminals get hold of this. And they will. It would be too useful not to.

    I wonder if it works on helicopters also?

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by scubamage (727538)
      Or aeroplanes! Or scopes! Or security systems! Or police vehicles! Or traffic signals! Oh the limitless fun an aspiring criminal could have!
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by nacturation (646836) *

      The criminals have had almost seven years to try: http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/05/07/1559238 [slashdot.org]

    • by TubeSteak (669689)

      ...until the criminals get hold of this. And they will. It would be too useful not to.

      I wonder if it works on helicopters also?

      Maybe.
      Since a lot of police helicopters are (Vietnam era) Army surplus, there isn't much in the way of electronics to kill. You'd undoubtedly be able to knock out their fancy doo-dads, but the actual helo itself is mostly mechanical and hydralic systems.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by fotbr (855184)

        If you kill the helicopter's radios, that is almost as good. No radios = no communications. No communications = no flying in some types of airspace. No communications = no ability to tell ground units where you are. They might have a spotlight, unless the pulse kills that too. But if you kill communications, you seriously degrade the mission capability of a police helicopter.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by indiechild (541156)

      Criminals have no qualms about using force, why would they resort to a weapon like this? There's already effective car stoppers out there like .50 caliber rifles and medium machineguns, both of which would be easier to acquire than a weapon like this.

      Or they could just do a PIT manoeuvre or block them off to stop the target car.

  • Onstar? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Yalius (1024919) on Friday January 22, 2010 @07:21PM (#30865466)
    How the heck is this similar to the Onstar system? This uses a directed EMP to disrupt electronic engine control, Onstar uses a built-in remote kill switch. That's like saying shooting a lightbulb is the same as turning off the switch.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Either way it's suddenly dark!
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by donaggie03 (769758)

      How the heck is this similar to the Onstar system? This uses a directed EMP to disrupt electronic engine control, Onstar uses a built-in remote kill switch. That's like saying shooting a lightbulb is the same as turning off the switch.

      And you would be correct if your intent is to make the room dark. This system is like onstar in that both stop a vehicle remotely.

      • by mweather (1089505)

        This system is like onstar in that both stop a vehicle remotely.

        So Onstar is like .50 BMG?

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by shadow169 (203669)

        How the heck is this similar to the Onstar system? This uses a directed EMP to disrupt electronic engine control, Onstar uses a built-in remote kill switch. That's like saying shooting a lightbulb is the same as turning off the switch.

        And you would be correct if your intent is to make the room dark. This system is like onstar in that both stop a vehicle remotely.

        Except that this is Slashdot, "news for nerds", not "news for people who only want the high level concepts". I agree with the gp.

    • HOLY CRAP! (Score:5, Funny)

      by jeko (179919) on Friday January 22, 2010 @08:06PM (#30865850)
      You mean I don't have to spend 100 bucks on bulbs, ammo and spackle every month?!
  • OnStar not EMP (Score:5, Insightful)

    by bughunter (10093) <.ten.knilhtrae. .ta. .retnuhgub.> on Friday January 22, 2010 @07:25PM (#30865492) Journal

    Um. The electromagnetic signal that can be sent from a satellite to an OnStar-equipped vehicle is certainly not any form of an electromagnetic pulse. It's a radio signal encoded with a command telling a microprocessor to disable power to the ignition.

    Who writes this mess?

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by BikeHelmet (1437881)

      It's still dangerous, though. I'm surprised it's tolerated in a country where so many refuse to give up their guns, for fear the government will go mad with power.

      Can't give up your guns, but giving up mobility is fine?

      I wonder what'll happen when someone cracks it and starts broadcasting a signal to shut down all the GM cars?

      I'll stick with my 20 year old Toyota. As long as I stick gas in it, it continues to pur.

      • by Jeremi (14640) on Friday January 22, 2010 @08:50PM (#30866154) Homepage

        Can't give up your guns, but giving up mobility is fine?

        That suggests the obvious compromise solution.... install OnStar (tm) on all guns. That way anyone can have a gun, but the government can shut down any guns that are being misused. Plus your gun can ask you if you are okay.

        There, I solved that problem, on to the next one :^)

      • Re:OnStar not EMP (Score:5, Interesting)

        by fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) on Friday January 22, 2010 @09:28PM (#30866350) Journal
        It is interesting, and unfortunate; but it fits with other observations.

        First, of course, is the fact that public understanding of technology and new developments is pretty weak. "DRM", is just barely creeping into popular consciousness, now that it is ubiquitous(every joe user has an ipod, uses DVDs, has an HDMI connection somewhere, or whatever). It isn't a huge surprise that public understanding of exactly what Onstar is capable of is pretty low. As far as I know, none of them are exactly secret(and, even if they were, doing a simple "worst case inference" from what is known would not be difficult. Cellular modem + connection to ECU = guilty of being a remote kill switch until conclusively proven innocent).

        Second, and somewhat related, is the fact that very many people, even people who concern themselves with weapons and resisting the state and so forth, don't do much thinking about things that fall outside of the scope of traditional "weapons". For instance, back in the Clinton administration, when strong crypto was considered a munition, and "Clipper" was being actively advanced, the NRA (as best I've been able to determine from publicly available stuff) didn't so much as issue a press release about the matter. That is pretty myopic. Recognisably modern crypto/cryptoanalysis has been a weapon of war since WWII, and practically contemporary digital crypto was at least filtering out by the time Vietnam rolled around. The fact that encrypted communications were a valuable weapon should have been abundantly obvious to anybody by the 90's. And it isn't like Clinton and the NRA were best buddies in any case, and yet, when the Clinton administration rolled out Clipper, the crypto equivalent of a gun that refuses to fire if any state agent is within 50 yards, they didn't even put out a quick "We support the EFF on this one" note.

        Third is the fact that potentially dangerous private-sector actions often get a pass, even if they clearly make the population more vulnerable to government power. If the feds came out and said "All vehicles from this day forth shall have remote kill switches and tracking devices, under penalty of law" a fair few people would flip their shit. Since, however, GM voluntarily installed them and there are (for the moment) cars that don't include them, any criticism will reliably be met with the slashdot-libertarian 101 "Well, you voluntarily purchased the vehicle, what could the problem possibly be?" no matter what attempts are made to make the "Yes, I realize that each individual transaction is theoretically voluntary. However, the percentage of vehicles that can be remotely tracked and shut down by the state has gone from 0 to X in just a few years, and that increase shows no sign of slowing. Doesn't that concern you?" argument.

        Fourth is the fact that Onstar is one of those things that can easily fall into the unpleasant blind spot of both stereotypical liberals and stereotypical conservatives. Stereotypically, "liberals" tend to suspect and fear the potential malfeasance of government and its agents(concern about police brutality, war crimes, state torture, due process, etc.); but they also want certain services and protections from the state(public education, gun control, etc.). "Conservatives", on the other hand, tend to suspect and fear the state(small government, anti-gun control, anti tax, etc.); but they are often very supportive of and deferential toward agents and symbols of state power("law and order", support of police, support of armed forces, see "due process" as a technicality that lets scum go free, "constitution is not a suicide pact", etc.). For the stereotypical liberal, Onstar's remote kill easily slots into a safety narrative "Prevents dangerous police chases and tragic accidents. Perhaps, in the future, it can prevent speeding!". For the stereotypical conservative, it slots into the tough on crime narrative "Track and recover stolen property, allows police to capture thieves and carjackers."
  • by daemonenwind (178848) on Friday January 22, 2010 @07:25PM (#30865496)

    From realpolice.net:
    In this 9 year period (1994-2002), the data showed that there were 2654 fatal crashes involving 3965 vehicles of which there were 3146 fatalities. Of these, 1088 were to people not in the fleeing vehicle.

    If frying someone's car results in a better outcome than the above, I'm all for it.

    Sounds like a great replacement for caltrops.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 22, 2010 @08:25PM (#30865984)

      Now that engineers have successfully made technology invisible, all technology is equivalent. Notice that no one in the health care debate suggested controlling costs at the technology level, only at the "insurance/payout" stage. Technology is no longer suggested as an answer, only until a solution is available on the market (e.g., video conference in lieu of commuting is not a government or business priority).

      There are now two classes of people: those that don't get it, and the minority that do.

  • They say that they can disable the car's electronic systems - but what they really mean is DESTROY those systems. Any vehicle targeted by this technology will require thousands of dollars in repairs before it can be driven again.

    That might prevent the technology from widespread use - it would be a field day for attorneys as police destroyed people's cars (and other property) while they were chasing a criminal. I'm sure that the vendor also says they can target one car specifically while they disable it - b

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      EM radius *can* be aimed, you know. Like, say, a flashlight. Or a directional antenna. This isn't an EM spectrum from a nuclear airburst. It's directed radiation, probably in the microwave spectrum (the goal is to use frequencies at which circuit traces, or even better, conductive paths within ICs become antennas, causing current to flow in unintended ways)

      • EM radius *can* be aimed, you know. Like, say, a flashlight. Or a directional antenna.

        I can see it now... the chase begins. Officer McNalley, who's three days away from retirement, bellows to his young partner Turk Bannon "Hold the car steady! I'm gonna try to slow them down using the giant EM flashlight!" He leans out the window, aiming the eight-foot device at the suspect's car. Just at that moment, though, a young mother pushing a stroller steps into a crosswalk - right in front of the police car. Bannon jerks the wheel, hard to the left, and McNalley is thrown out the window. He hits the

        • > EM radius *can* be aimed, you know. Like, say, a flashlight. Or a
          > directional antenna.

          A directional antenna of dimensions several times the wavelength of the lowest frequency component of the pulse. As EMP contains substantial energy at wavelengths of many meters your "flashlight" will have be the size of a house to produce anything resembling a beam.

          • by Tacvek (948259)

            You don't need a wide spectrum for a EM pulse weapon to be effective. The microwave band is actually quite effective at destroying electronics, in addition to working as a pain-inducing less than lethal weapon, if you choose the right frequencies. And making a directional microwave gun is reasonably easy, Create a large scaled magnetron, and use say a parabolic reflecting dish. Voila. Having a portable power source for the gun is a bit tricker, but still quite possible.

            • You're going to zap a car from behind with microwaves and fry the engine electronics. Sure. Might work on some rear-engine cars.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      - it would be a field day for attorneys as police destroyed people's cars (and other property) while they were chasing a criminal.

      The standard answer used by many municipalities (and accepted by many courts) is that they are not liable. There won't be a field day -- it'll be something covered by insurance, and sucks to be you if you don't have any.

    • Automotive electronics are fairly tough, because of the noisy environment they operate in. I would bet that in the typical case, the voltage pulse just confuses the computer, and/or latches a few inputs, causing it to shut down. You could likely start it right back up afterward.

      • > Automotive electronics are fairly tough, because of the noisy environment
        > they operate in.

        And the importance of reliability and fail-safe operation.

        > I would bet that in the typical case, the voltage pulse just confuses the
        > computer, and/or latches a few inputs, causing it to shut down.

        No, causing the computer to "reboot" itself. The engine might miss a couple of times, but that's all. They'll have to do permanent damage to reliably stop cars.

  • I have to wonder a few things after seeing that video:

    What happens when a person going 70mph suddenly loses control of their vehicle?
    How accurate can that sort of gun be? Over what sort of angle and distance is it will effective?
    Is there a way to shield the car with a faraday cage to prevent this sort of thing from happening? And if not, wouldn't this just mess up the police cars? What's going to stop the police (or **AA) from "accidentally" frying your computer with one of these?

    This is certainly
    • Re:Questions (Score:5, Interesting)

      by John Hasler (414242) on Friday January 22, 2010 @07:40PM (#30865634) Homepage

      > What happens when a person going 70mph suddenly loses control of their
      > vehicle?

      The run into somebody and kill them. Just like they do when being chased at high speed.

      > How accurate can that sort of gun be?

      It cannot be accurate at all, but the cops will become convinced that it is laser-like.

      > Over what sort of angle and distance is it will effective?

      The field will be blob-shaped, with slightly more range forward than back. It will only wreck cars at a fairly short range but will destroy unshielded electronic equipment (cellphones, 'Pods, laptops...) at a much greater range.

      > Is there a way to shield the car with a faraday cage to prevent this sort
      > of thing from happening? And if not, wouldn't this just mess up the police
      > cars?

      A bit of filtering and shielding will suffice, and the cop cars will get it. So will the vehicles of some criminals.

    • by peragrin (659227)

      Same thing that happens now if your engine quits suddenly at 70mph, you slow don fairly quickly while at the same time lose power sterring. However if your going 70mph your going in a mostly straight line anyways. Unless your dumb enough to go 70 down city streets. worst case is you crash going a lot slower than70 mph.

      Distance unknown however it will probably be like a spot light in it's target area a spot probably about 10 meters wide at most.

      nope, only if it hits them too, we shall find out.

    • What happens when a person going 70mph suddenly loses control of their vehicle?

      They won't "lose control", exactly. It'll just get a lot harder to steer, and the car will slow down rapidly

      How accurate can that sort of gun be? Over what sort of angle and distance is it will effective?

      Not terribly accurate. The spread of the beam is determined by the antenna geometry and the frequency of the radiation. The range, of course, is subject to the power level. With a big antenna, and enough power, you could disable a car from miles away. Practically speaking, it'll probably need to be effective from 100 yards or so in order to be useful. I expect that the effective width of the "beam" wo

  • Uh-oh... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Third Position (1725934) on Friday January 22, 2010 @07:26PM (#30865512)
    I'm not sure I like the sound of this. Consider the lesson of the taser. Now that the cops have a weapon that doesn't kill or maim, they've gotten increasingly slap-happy about using it. Cops were at least cautious about using firearms, least they have to defend themselves against using deadly force. But they're happy to pull out the taser at the drop of a hat.

    This may sound like a good idea, but I suspect the cops will be using this a lot more liberally than intended.
    • by MarkvW (1037596)

      Doubt it. Destroying somebody's property without just cause invites a 1983 suit.

      Does make a good point though. The legislature should make it so that the device used must have built-in data collection that details when (and maybe where) the device was employed. That way, there be some splaining to do if the device gets discharged without a report detailing the incident that caused the discharge.

  • If only they called it the:

    High ElectroMagnetic Power System

    the headlines could read:

    "Cops Use HEMPS to Catch Criminals"

    Hemp - is there anything it _can't_ do?

  • by gurps_npc (621217) on Friday January 22, 2010 @07:29PM (#30865548) Homepage
    Using it on a car sounds really REALLY stupid.

    1. It will kill the car, not merely create a carefully programmed disabling like the Onstar system. Most likely this leads to a car crash and quite likely require complete replacement of all electronics.

    2. As others stated, pacemakers, watches, cellphones, laptops, etc. will also be affected.

    3. This will get into the hands of criminals. I am quite frankly they don't already have it. Here are some of the things I think people might use it on:

    ATM's If there is a 1 in 100 chance of it malfunctioning and spitting out the money, then ATM's will be hit 100 times.

    Toll machines - obvious

    Red lights (and the cameras aimed at them).

    cop cars

    • by CodeBuster (516420) on Friday January 22, 2010 @08:06PM (#30865856)
      Nevermind the fact that this has "massive liability" (i.e. instant class action lawsuits) written all over it; especially for the manufacturer of the device (Eureka Aerospace). The car might as well be sent to the crusher after being hit with this device because it will effectively be a complete loss with damaged or destroyed electronics. No doubt the insurance companies, who will be forced to "total out" stolen vehicles hit with this device, will have a thing or two to say as well.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Carnildo (712617)

      1. It will kill the car, not merely create a carefully programmed disabling like the Onstar system. Most likely this leads to a car crash and quite likely require complete replacement of all electronics.

      Have you ever driven a car where the engine failed at speed? I have -- all that happens is the steering goes stiff and the car starts to slow down. You've got plenty of time to make your way out of the traffic lanes.

  • by gti_guy (875684) on Friday January 22, 2010 @07:34PM (#30865586)
    A focused EMP beam from a gun? What a great way to destroy video cameras & alarm systems! It sure would make robbery a LOT easier.
  • Just wait until it's used in a high population density area, and everybody within three blocks who has a pacemaker keels over. And how many bystanders do you think are going to want their watches, cellphones, laptops, etc., replaced by the cops? Free upgrades for all!
    • by Maxmin (921568) on Friday January 22, 2010 @07:52PM (#30865722)

      how many bystanders do you think are going to want their watches, cellphones, laptops, etc., replaced by the cops?

      Good luck with that ... and when it happens, I bid you welcome to the infamous blue wall of silence [wikipedia.org]. After NYPD cops illegally confiscated and damaged a camcorder of mine, it took nearly six months for them to acknowledge that the incident even took place! Despite having excellent video evidence, from other videographers.

  • One more reason to never let go of my supercharged '68 Oldsmobile 442 getaw^H^H^H^H^H ride... no integrated circuits. Except the sound system, of course - which, to keep up the stereotype, plays only 8-track tapes, preferably from the mid-Jurrasic rock period.

    C'mon coppers, let's see your puny little raygun take on some Detroit Iron!

  • by bugi (8479)

    Let me inspect your computer without a warrant or this EMP gun might just accidentally discharge in an inconvenient direction.

  • The bigger news is that the town of Eureka is real. I always thought it was fictional.

  • by NimbleSquirrel (587564) on Friday January 22, 2010 @08:31PM (#30866018)
    Eureka Aerospace can call it "HPEMS", but really it is just another HERF device, and it is certainly not a new thing. In fact you can buy kits from places like this [amazing1.com] and build your own.

    This is a High Energy Radio Frequency (HERF) gun not an EMP weapon, although the two are very similar in their final effects. EMP devices are omnidirectional and create a blanket pulse across a far larger portion of the EM spectrum. HERF affects a much smaller part of the spectrum, which allows the generating electronics to be tuned for higher efficiency and allowing the antennas to be directional. EMP devices are usually much higher power that fry the electronics, whereas HERF devices typically only cause disruption (requiring pulses to be sustained to prevent the normal function from restarting).

    It will shut down the engine computers of most modern cars, but cars with carburetors and mechanical based ignition systems (ie. distributors) and diesel engines without electronic injection will be unnafected. While this may affect most cars and trucks made since 1970, it does not include them all.

    To get to the power output that will stop a vehicle from distances usually seen in car chases would require a massive arrangement, capacitor bank, and a dedicated power supply to keep the HERF pulses sustained. This certainly will not be the kind of device that will be mounted on police cars any time soon.

    I have to also wonder how effective it would be in an actual car chase (assuming they could find as way of making it mobile). They would typically be shooting it at the rear of the car where the bodywork would act as shielding for the engine computer, and there is nothing to stop portions of the RF pulses reflecting off the metal bodywork and disabling chasing police cars.
  • by NimbleSquirrel (587564) on Friday January 22, 2010 @09:46PM (#30866436)
    I just wonder what will happen when they use this on a car hurtling down suburban streets at 100+mph. Killing the electronics would presumably knock out handling and stability controls as well (no power steering, no assisted or anti-lock brakes, no traction control, no airbags). Sure they can stop the engine, but they can't stop momentum. They would just turn the car into an virtually uncontrollable hunk of metal hurtling down the road at 100+mph.... until it hits something.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by cbhacking (979169)

      Who does this myth keep popping up? Have people honestly never tried turning a car with the engine off?

      The difficulty of turning depends on how fast the car is moving. Stopped, and without power steering, sure it's a bitch. On the other hand, you're stopped, so who cares? Rolling even a little makes turning (with no power assists at all) much easier. By the time you hat 15 MPH or so, it honestly is just as easy as with the power steering still active. At freeway or police-chase speeds, you're completely fin

  • by BLKMGK (34057) <morejunk4me@noSpAM.hotmail.com> on Saturday January 23, 2010 @02:48AM (#30867800) Homepage Journal

    Actually READ the linked article on On-Star before trying to summarize it please! On-Star doesn't "beam" a signal down from a satellite - it uses CELL PHONE technology. The only satellite involved in that scenario is the ones in the sky enabling the GPS. Unlike in some crap movies GPS is actually ONE-WAY and you're not beaming your location or anything else back UP. They're simply querying the GPS to find out the current location of the vehicle via cell phone - nothing else. CSI TV technology this ain't.

    Also - if you READ the article the signal sent to the On-Star simply tells it to not START the next time the thief tries to use it. It does NOT cripple the computer, it does not degrade the performance, it simply tells the computer not to restart. "Block the ignition on the next restart" is that NOT clear enough? REstart as in the NEXT time someone turns the key for a start. So if it's running this article doesn't say squat about turning it off remotely.

    On-Star has plenty of things going for it that I don't like and wouldn't want in my car - to include at one point the ability for law enforcement to remotely eavesdrop on you - so you really don't have to make up crazy things and lose credibility.

nohup rm -fr /&

Working...