Yep, OnStar has already been used to eavesdrop (basically, call into the car without "ringing", turn on the microphone and patch it to the FBI) on suspected criminals a few years ago--using a warrant.
In the OnStar case, the Nine District Court of Appeals specifically said that this was an illegal use of the system, not because of privacy--but because if there was an emergency the tones the system sent in the audio line (emergency button press, airbag deployment, etc.) would be missed by the OnStar service center (because they are not listening) and the FBI would be bothered with helping as they probably "have better things to do" plus any emergency communications would be beyond the scope of the warrant and the FBI should not listen...
Ninth Circuit Places Limits on Use of GPS Systems in Vehicles for Government Surveillance Purposes
[ QUOTE ]
The feature at issue in yesterday's ruling, the judge went on to say, allows the operator to open a cellular connection to a vehicle and listen to oral communications within the car. When activated at the owner's request, this feature enables the operator to communicate with emergency personnel, or to overhear the thieves if the car has been stolen.
But the same technology permits eavesdropping, the judge noted, and has thus caught the interest of the FBI, leading to yesterday's review of a series of orders by U.S. District Judge Lloyd D. George of the District of Nevada. George approved a series of four 30-day "roving" wiretap orders requiring the system operator to assist in the investigation by permitting the FBI to monitor conversations within the vehicle.
...
The appellate jurist explained:
"In this case, FBI surveillance completely disabled the monitored car's System. The only function that worked in some form was the emergency button or automatic emergency response signal. These emergency features, however, were
severely hampered by the surveillance: Pressing the emergency button and activation of the car's airbags, instead of automatically contacting the Company, would simply emit a tone over the already open phone line. No one at the Company was likely to be monitoring the call at such a time, as the call was transferred to the FBI once received."
Since the FBI is prohibited by Title III from listening in on conversations unrelated to its investigation, Berzon elaborated, an emergency call would likely have gone unheeded. Besides, she wrote, "the FBI, however well-intentioned, is not in the business of providing emergency road services, and might well have better things to do when listening in than respond with such services to the electronic signal sent over the line."
[/ QUOTE ]
Another article questioned if this "feature" could be activated by others such as foreign agents, organized crime, etc....
But since, I don't believe, there are open specifications for this system--we cannot know one way or the other.
-Bill