The most obvious one is when he mentions the boilerplate about a part of OnStar being sold, and then theorizes that they are actually planning to sell, perhaps even to one of those great boogeymen, Apple or Google.
Now how nefarious will that sale be? That is fairly subjective. But as others have pointed out, if you're carrying around a smart phone you may already be giving more information to folks than you care to. It reads like OnStar wants in on that gravy train.
I have seen such wording in a number of other TOSes so far, e.g. by Google :
One of the interesting techniques here is to make this change, get some heat (as they are) but then saying "Hey, its just boilerplate, we're not selling this stuff take a chill pill." And then 6 months or a year later, when everyone has forgotten the ruckus, do start selling the information, except that now since its pre-authorized by the ToS there is no 'lighthouse event' that goes up to alert the public to that fact.
A crusader would now start watching for news about OnStar partnering in six to nine months with someone who could use information about where people are, or where they go.
Edited because my slippery thumbs hit submit early.
After learning that the unnamed system could be remotely
activated to eavesdrop on conversations after a car was
reported stolen, the FBI realized it would be useful for
"bugging" a vehicle,
I mean of all the possible companies that might acquire this GPS data, it's not like Apple or Google already have copious amounts of GPS data on us. Is it?