TwinTurbo is exactly right and those trackers/disabling devices are entirely legal. They’ve been around for some years, have become common, and they do what they’re supposed to do; protect the lienholders’ financial interests.
The last paragraph, failure to provide details, and responding only to a poster whom they feel is trying to help them circumvent something does not reflect well upon the OP.
@twinturbo Not to be contrary but a lien is just that-a lien against the car, not a title. The borrower has title to the car and owns it. The lien holder has an interest in the car if the contract is not performed. That interest includes being able to recover the car to sell to get their money, and also to compel full insurance being on it to protect their interests. The owner still owns it though and the title will note the lien holder on it. You can’t get a clear title from DMV without a lien release from the listed lien holder. A small but important distinction.
The same difference between a mortgage and a contract for deed. With a mortgage the person holds title to the property but in a contract only has an interest in the property and the deed is delivered after the contract is performed. More property rights with a mortgage and very few with a contract for deed. I had to explain that distinction once to a lawyer/city councilman once who was confused which is another story.
I agree Bing and fully understand the distinction but most people use the term own as if it is theirs and free to do anything they want with it even though they borrowed money to purchase it. That is the context being used here. You own it and they have no right to stop you from using it. That is completely wrong.
They can come take it, deny you access to using it and are even first in line for compensation in the event of a loss. Who REALLY owns it? 
If someone owes money on a car, house, or other secured loan then they don’t really own it until that last payment is made and the lien is released.
Quit making payments and it will become very clear, very quickly who is calling the shots.
The OP seems unwilling to provide any detail but reading between the lines points to a BHPH deal with a GPS/disabler. They likely agreed to this at the time the papers were signed and many BHPH dealers retain the title until that last payment is made.
A dealer I used to work for got out of the new car franchise business and ran a BHPH lot for many years. I remember one car he was telling me about that required him to repossess it half a dozen times; in one year and 3 different “owners”.
@Bing: “The borrower owns the car and has title to it.”
Uh, not in Pennsylvania they don’t.
Sincerely, somebody who has had his title mailed to him after he paid off his new car loan, 3 years after taking possesion of same. (Also had a cop run a plate on somebody; came back as owned by GMAC when I peeked over his shoulder.)
I’m going to go against the prevailing thought and side with the OP on this one.
Any company that deals with the risk of lending money for used cars knows they will have some losses, and hence their higher interest rates.
They will use whatever tactics they can to protect their profits. It’s a game, and some lenders get pretty slimy about it.
What if the lender wanted to see your paychecks, bank balances, or annual reviews as part of a car loan? How many here would accept it?
If the OP wants to remove the GPS tracking unit or wrap it in tin foil, that’s his business.
If he doesn’t make his monthly payment, then the lender has a right to repossess his car. Beyond that, the OP is entitled to thwart the lender’s games with whatever tactics he chooses.
Chances are, if you’re selling a car that comes with a tracking device in it, you’re going to put something in the fine print that covers your butt. It would be some kind of release of liability and/or permission to track your whereabouts.
Before you go removing a tracking device, you better check your sale paperwork and make sure you didn’t agree not to do that.
Whitey:
Good point. I agree it’s a good idea to read your contract first.
I’m sure there is still plenty of legal room for the OP to cover the unit in foil or to insert a previously blown fuse in the circuit that powers it.
Too many of these companies will use whatever sleaze tactics available to them, even if it infringes on your privacy.
There is a “rent to own” auto place in my town. I have never been in but understand they sell $1000 cars for like $5000 by the time you pay them off. Some people say they are “robbing” their customers much like the “payday loan” places we also have here but people make the decision to buy a car this way or use these high interest loan services. They are not being FORCED to do so. The one thing I have come to realize is that these types of people will go the extra mile to attempt to defraud or otherwise take advantage of any situation they are in.
I suspect that the “rent to own” strategy is a way to maintain complete ownership until the car is paid for free and clear. I am sure it is also a lot easier for the car lot to take advantage of a customer as possibly the loan balance is reset to zero for a late or missed payment.
Either way, I am also suspect that this person is someone attempting to circumvent a device placed in the car by a BHPH type lot.