I’m torn on this. The part about not helping until the subscription was paid is BS.
Yep.
The likely issue is that the deputy was talking to a low-level person on the phone who was not versed with this. It SHOULD have gone something like this:
Deputy: This is Deputy XXX of the YYY Sheriff's Department located in (place). I have a warrant to obtain your services in locating the following vehicle.
Service Agent: I'm sorry, but that subscription has lapsed and requires a $150 fee to be reinstated.
Deputy: Excuse me, but this isn't a request to reinstate the subscription. It's a law enforcement request to locate this vehicle pursuant to a warrant. Please connect me to your supervisor immediately so we can get this straightened out.
Service Agent: One moment, sir.
And then things happen.
I'm sure some people would object to getting taking the time to get a warrant for this, but getting a warrant is something that can be done in minutes in such a case while the deputy is running down other things, like contact information for this agency for one.
"Volkswagen has a procedure in place with a third-party provider for Car-Net Support Services involving emergency requests from law enforcement. They have executed this process successfully in previous incidents. Unfortunately, in this instance, there was a serious breach of the process. We are addressing the situation with the parties involved," the company said in a statement provided to Ars and other media outlets.
I'm not sure how "serious" a breach of the process this actually was because they don't go into details on what the process involves and how it's supposed to work. Certainly I agree that with a warrant, this should not take much longer than the amount of time to verify the source (law enforcement and warrant) and the time it takes to enter the vehicle information into their tracking system.
arstechnica.com
