Slashdot Mirror
Auto Black-Box Data Being Used In Court
DrEnter writes "Yahoo! is running this USAToday article about automobile electronic data recorder (EDR or "black-box") data being used in civil and criminal court cases. Most owners of cars so equipped don't know they have them, or that they can be used against them. The NHTSA has been investigating EDRs and is collecting public comments to determine if and how these devices should be regulated."
here
I'm not Seth.
can and will be used against you by columbo.
Which cars are equipped with this device?
Is it just the ones with airbags?
SCIREV.NET - fanfics,reviews & more
And how long have cars been fitted with these things for?
I'm sure the privacy advocates will be screaming 'bloody murder' about this one, but with all the idiots out there on the road, if common knowledge of this device can make people think twice about their behaviour on the road, then I'm all for it. My only concern would be as to the accuracy of the data it collects.
when i read about this on some other site, there were lots of people worried about the privacy implications
i disagree. there things just record stuff like speed and when you hit the breaks. also, they keep on overwritting the old data, until you actually crash.
the way is see it is that these things are just unbiased information, and while they can obviously be bad for you if you actually were speeding and got into an accident, they can also help you out if you got falsly accused
Welcome to the Internet, the free-information Utopia imagined by writers such as Jon Katz. There are no boundaries, no walls, no way to contain the flow of information, including anything about your life: purchases, consumer preferences, physical address, etc.
While many thinkers have hearlded the dawning of this new information age as a way of having open access to art, history, science, the media, government, and other sources, they have in general failed to imagine the "negative" aspects of this openness: that wants you get it going, nothing can stop it. Further, you're the next target.
Now, you might be like me, an ordinary guy, just sitting at the computer, eating a Cadbury bar and drinking water, not thinking about your privacy, but at any given moment, you're information is being traded behind your back by any number of coporations, banks, government agencies, and private citizens. But should you be concerned?
Looking out the window, I see no black helicopters flying overhead. No g-men are breaking down my door to arrest me for having bootleg CDs. In fact, my life is no different than before. Sure, I get spam, sometimes, and tagreted banner ads, but spam gets deleted and I can just use IJB anyway. If these are you biggest problems, consider yourself lucky.
Personally, I think the privacy freaks have it all wrong. With the Internet, all digital material, including your personal info, can't be contained. So what if advertisers know that you're a raving Linux zealot? Isn't it their business to know how to offer you consumer goods targeted at tech-savvy buyers? As far as I'm concerned, the Internet and capitalism go hand-in-hand, and this exchange of information will help capitalism, which will in turn help out the Internet far more than government robots like Gore or George "there ought to be limits to freedom" Bush. Your privacy is long gone, but right now we can at least enjoy the benefits that it brings, as long as the U.S. government doesn't screw something up (I'm speaking as and for USians now).
So you have a choice: you can either accept your loss of privacy and get the great economic and technological benefits that it brings, or attempt to cripple the system with laws, which won't bring back your lost privacy anyway. Remember, it was us, the geeks, who wanted free information. This is our reward. Let's use it wisely.
I'm not Seth.
unplug the odometer.
Since insurance money is involved, I wonder how long it will be before someone tries to hack the data. There are already a couple of sites that are at least documenting some things and doing some tricks. Since the owner of the car generally has or can gain posession of it between when the accident happens and the data is subpeonaed (sp?), there is opportunity. It doesn't seem that the data is encrypted or hidden in any way, probably to make it easy on mechanics (simple and portable software).
US Democracy:The best person for the job (among These pre-selected choices...)
This reminds me a lot of hearing about the auto rental places using GPS information to charge fines on people they think are speeding. At the same time, GPS data was used by some police units to send automated tickets to people believed to be speeding...
--etrnl--
I would suspect that the police would have to go through the normal means of obtaining a warrant before they could grab the data from the GPS system in the car. This would be no different that the police getting a warrant to rifle through a guy's home looking for evidence to convict him. It's just that a GPS system gives much more accurate data than a few hairs or a spot of blood could, in terms of location and time.
If the government is able to have access to this data without a warrant, that would be unconstitutional, and might be a "Get Out of Jail Free" card. Even the patriot act doesn't allow that.
The radical sect of Islam would either see you dead or "reverted" to Islam.
This isn't some nasty privacy thing - cars are dangerous things. If someone is driving like an idiot and causes an accident, they need to be banned from driving, and if these black boxes - which only record the last five seconds of data before the airbag inflates anyway - are the only way to get the evidence to do so, then so be it. Conversely of course, if the other driver claims you were speeding and your black box records that you were doing 30mph in the last five seconds, it'll let you off the hook.
These things aren't recording your speed over large periods of time, they aren't downloading info to any police car that asks for it, they aren't transmitting your position to some control centre. So the engineer can look at it, so what, he/she gets to see how slowly you drove the car across their service station forecourt. So at the moment, I see them as nothing but good.
This is utter bullshit. Dealers should have to inform their customers that the car they're buying has a device that could incriminate them with ease in court. And who's paying for these devices? The consumer? Maybe they should be an optional extra. Yeah right.
Car ECU's do seem to hold a lot more information than perhaps most people think they do... and I personally think its for the better.
I am certain that on a number of higher priced cars (such as Porsches or BMW's) they record lots of little details.. like the number of standing 'sprint' starts you have made as a pose to just regular pulling away from lights etc.
A friend recently had to visit the dealership to have his ECU reprogrammed on his brand new Peugeot 206 - they were able to determine from that what, amongst other things, his top speed had been since owning it.
I feel its a good idea for car manufacturers to do it though.. it helps them when it comes down to court cases and complaints about the 'quality' of their car, if they can see how their cars are been driven. They can then gauge if the wear on parts relates to the style of driving and can absolve themselves from any responsibility.
"Hey! Unless this is a nude love-in, get the hell off my property!!"
When you get into an accident, it helps to have accurate information. When BOTH cars have an recorder accidents are less of a mistery.
:)
It could also help to establish the fact that you drove throught red lighst when the data on traffic lights were kept for say a day.
What it accomplishes is safer roads; people are not free to go against traffic regulations as this endangers others by doing so.
PS how about combining black boxes with GPS
Thanks,
Gerard
Save yourselves! Rip these things out right now! Write your senator! E-Mail your representative! Hack the thing so it continueously records you going 25mph with your seatbelt on! Just don't sit there and let anything your car says be used against you in court.
Karma: SELECT `karma` FROM `users` WHERE `userid`=138474;
From the ref. article:
"the data from black boxes, which are on about 40 million cars in the USA"
6 of the 8 posts so far show that they aren't even awware that such a thing exists on cars. Is this an informed society? Or a purposely misinformed, under-informed or engineered society?
Maybe 10 billion of our clothes already contain RFID tags? A few billion of our wrist watches already contain bugs? Seems like paranoia is the only sensible option to remain sane.
If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
These black boxes are virtually identical in function to the black boxes used in planes. As a matter of fact, for those who don't know, there's generally two black boxes located in cars, both of which are under the dashboard usually. One of these records speed, steering, traction, and other data the car's computer collects. This is similar to the flight data recorder. The other is connected to a small microphone, hidden somewhere in the car, that records sound inside the car. This black box is similar to the cockpit voice recorder. It's a concern because it can record conversations and it's possible that this could be used to monitor people. And there's no telling how this data could be used against people or how it can be used to invade privacy. Ever asked for directions before from your car. You talk to someone from your car and you can't tell when they stop listening. It's very possible someone can listen in on you that way, too. Really, it's kind of creepy. Just my two cents.
My '97 Starun SC2 had an electrical problem a little while ago, something called the RKE module fried. OK not a big deal I thought to myself, it's a machine and things fail. What caught my attention was the fact that I always ask for the old parts back. I think there is a california state law about it or something, and just to make sure I am not getting ripped off. The funny thing is the dealership refused to let me have it. Some BS about security and the car alarm ( At the time I thought the mechanic I was talking to just made this up for whatever reason) so I didn't argue as the car worked.
But now I read this and am wondering... is the standard GM "black box" contained in the RKE module? Does anyone know what exactly goes on in the RKE besides car alarm functions. Seems like a rather big box for just an alarm, even factoring in GM's bloated-lo-tech way of doing things.
Or am I just paranoid?
Man....I've seen trolls before, but that was pretty darn good. Great job! -A.C.
Mod parent down!
FORT LAUDERDALE -- So-called ''black boxes,'' which have provided valuable information in determining what has caused airliners to crash, are now being used to help tell what happened in automobile accidents. And information from the computerized devices is increasingly finding its way into civil and criminal courtrooms, where judges and juries are trying to determine who is at fault in car crashes. Some prosecutors and defense lawyers say that the data from black boxes, which are on about 40 million cars in the USA, provide an unbiased account of accidents. But privacy advocates are raising warnings about how information from the boxes is being used. In a trial that opened here this week, , prosecutors hope that measurements obtained from the black box on Edwin Matos' 2002 Pontiac Trans Am will tell what happened seconds before his car slammed into another one occupied by two teenage girls. Matos, 46, is accused of driving drunk when the collision occurred on Aug. 17, 2002, in Pembroke Pines, Fla. The girls were killed. Prosecutors say that black-box evidence will show Matos was driving four times the posted speed limit of 30 mph at the time of the crash. Matos has pleaded not guilty. His attorney, Roberto Stanziale, plans to call the black-box data into question. Black-box recorders have been used on airplanes since the dawn of aviation. Wilbur and Orville Wright used crude machines to record basic information about flights. Starting in the jet era, flight data recorders became integral to investigating crashes. Most drivers unaware of them Initially, they tracked an airplane's movements so investigators could piece together an aircraft's final moments. Steady improvements have broadened the amount of information these recorders store. The latest models record thousands of measurements, from engine temperature readings to the positions of switches in the cockpit. Surveys indicate most motorists don't know that cars have black boxes. But their use is on the rise. Unlike the aviation models, which are required by federal law to be on aircraft, the black boxes in autos are used in safety investigations only as an afterthought. They were installed on newer-model cars to trigger air bags. Because they are not required, no exact figures exist on their use. But experts say that most U.S. automakers began installing some forms of the device in the 1990s. They have found information from the boxes valuable in product-liability lawsuits and in designing safer cars. And, while a black box on a jet can store data on dozens of flights, the boxes on motor vehicles vary widely in how much information they record and in how accessible it is to anyone other than manufacturers. Only General Motors, and to a lesser extent, Ford, have made information from their boxes easily accessible to third parties. The boxes are usually silver, not black, and about the size of a pack of cigarettes. Depending on their sophistication, they may constantly monitor speed, braking, seat-belt use and other factors. Recordings are made in five-second spans. What's captured is the final five seconds leading up to a crash, or to the instant the car's electronic brain determines an air bag should deploy. Similar technology has been used to create other car data recorders, such as those that now monitor crash forces felt by NASCAR (news - web sites) drivers. And several private firms have also begun marketing devices that can be added to vehicles to measure on-road performance of teens, taxi drivers and ambulance crews. GM gave a California company permission in 2000 to sell a computer program to download data. Since then, information from black boxes has been showing up more frequently in accident investigations and in court: * In January in Fort Myers, Fla., a black box caused jurors to question the prosecution's argument that John Robert Walker was speeding recklessly before a head-on crash with another vehicle. Two people died. Walker was found not guilty after a defense expert testified his truck's black box showed he was drivi
...I wished the other's car had such things. I was on bicycle, came from his right on a prioritary road, he had a stop, and he swore he braked when he saw me , but I only saw him swerve to try to pass anyway and there was no "braking" sound. Such a gadget would have put him back in place and forced him to pay my health care (skin and flesh ripped on my right leg, rib cage a bit bent, left hand ripped bleeding like hell and still not usable 100% 5 years after). He got off "lightly" with some point off his licence, instead of a big minus or a cancel since he andangered my life by not braking. A black box would have maybe proved it.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
>Why on earth haven't they told people about these devices?
:-) "I couldn't have possibly caused that accident, sir, I was in reverse the entire time!"
Simple. Because now my next hack plans are to see what I can do to either disable that box, or to fix the data going to it. I expect I'm just one in a soon to be large pool of people hacking their cars.
Wouldn't it be neat to go -20 km/h all the time!
>So at the moment, I see them as nothing but good.
And they sure are. But that doesn't mean I won't do what it takes to avoid getting in trouble. It's human nature.
If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
For crying out loud, if someone is speeding and causes an accident, they deserve to get stiffed by the law because they are a dangerous, arrogant, son-of-a-bitch. These people kill. Having a box that records five seconds worth of data is not a problem. You think you should have a right to endanger other people's lives and break the law? If you think the law on speeding is wrong, campaign against the law. If you think the speed limit is too low, campaign to raise the speed limit. But if you think it's right, then why on earth should you have the right to break it and not get caught?
Not all your points are garbage - the police should not be capable of recording onto such devices, and Insurance companies shouldn't have access to the things, but people who drive well already tend to get lower premiums than people who drive badly - don't you have 'no claims bonuses' in your part of the world? Age-related insurance levels?
"you have the right to remain silent, if you give up this right anything you say can be used agenst you in a court of law". --- Generic Maranda warning America
Don't get me wrong... if I'm dead i'd be happy to share my black box information. However...
Until i'm dead, that information is mine to do with as I please, just as any personal data is. At the very least a warrent should be required to gain access to this information. Unless they record audio though, they are not nessicarly protected under wiretaping laws, unfortunatly.
A brillent observation was made by someone I knew visiting from Germany. "In america no one here pays attention to the speedlimit." This is very much true... while one does run the risk of getting a ticket typicaly, most cops use some form of common sence and don't actually ticket the bizaro speed zones. It wouldn't make me very happy if my car blackbox could be searched at will to judge if I was indeed going over the speedlimit, which chances are I am, 5-10mph. There is a good reason for this, cause everyone else is and I don't enjoy getting rear ended.
Given that some form of warning needs to be issued in most places i'm familar with if you are under arest, shouldn't the same rule apply to car black boxes?
There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
Damn, I forgot to change the title after I deleted the bit accusing him of being a tech-scared luddite who wants to throw all the useful stuff out because it might be taken too far. Oh well, I'll still stand by it as my Karma burns.
Oh, but it's just this black box thing that only effects you when you're in an accident. It doesn't affect your life at all in other circumstances.
But what are the other circumstances in your life? And what other invasive methods have found their way into those other circumstances?
When looked at individually, things like the black box seem insignificant in the grand scheme of life. But when you make an account of each invasive aspect and add them all up, they form pieces of a wall that fall into place around you. Before long, you're completely enclosed and are no longer a free human being.
black box, echelon, tia, savers cards, credit card records, internet logs, cell phone records, traffic cameras, city cameras, shopping cameras, atm cameras, atm records, rfid tags, tivo logs, library records, cookies, medical records, dna checks, drug checks, alcohol checks, credit checks, SS number, drivers license, fingerprints, DNA........
I doubt history can ever exactly replicate Nazi Germany. But there've been plenty of approximations. Human beings are just lazy at heart and it's more efficient to treat people like animals. You want to get something done and all that business about treating others in a way you'd like to be treated just becomes a hassle. What's the point of getting a search warrant for every single person you'd like to investigate, when it's much faster to just enter whoever's home you please? And why go through the trouble of inventing a traffic violation for every automobile you want to search when you can just block off the whole road and check anyone you want?
History shows that human beings are not sufficiently moral to govern without restraint. How many times must the human race learn this lesson?
...that the majority of Automobile vs. Bicycle accidents were caused by cyclists pretending they were pedestrians wearing body armour.
;-)
I don't know the specifics of your accident, so I won't make a judgement there, but the fact remains that the majority of cyclists (at least in my area) totally ignore the rules, 100%. This means that the very few legitimate cases tend to be downplayed. Sorry if you got the short end of the stick. Perhaps you might consider driving a vehicle that's a little more "respected" by the courts? (Don't take that personally!
Yes, I have never, not even once, seen a cyclist motion which way they intend to go. I've never seen a cyclist motion to slow or stop. I often see cyclists in the country riding AGAINST traffic (illegal, obviously). To top it all off, the less professional ones don't even wear HELMETS, and don't have any lighting or reflectors on their bikes at night at all! All of these are required (where I live), and if you don't do them, well, fuck, you're putting your life in danger. I'd rather have one of those new police video cameras strapped onto my car than a black box. That way I could tape the rule breaking cyclist if (sorry, at this rate, more like WHEN) I smash in to them and they sue me for their brain damage (most likely caused prior to the accident -- why else would you ride like you have a death wish).
Not that I'm saying you didn't. But hey...
Sorry for the rant.
If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
In the airplane industry, the hundreds of little black boxes that belong to a typical jetliner can only be read and interpreted by the specific airplane manufacturer that made them. The resulting simulation may appear to be an unbiased account of what truly happened, but we really don't know that -- the system used to decode them is a closely guarded trade secret.
In the automobile industry, those same black boxes will serve the interest of whoever develops them and puts them in your car. If your car manufacturer puts them in, they will be biased in favor of your car manufacturer. If your rental company puts them in, they will be biased in favor of your rental company. And if your car insurance company makes you put them in, they will biased in favor of your insurance company.
May be I'm just paranoid, but I would really like to see somekind of black box kit we could develop ourselves and install ourselves.
oops, this thread isn't about closed source software. In this case, information doesn't want to be free. Why are we always telling information what it wants to do?
Here's a response to a lot of questions people will have:
Which cars have it?
How long have cars had it?
Here's a lengthy explanation:
All cars released in the United States are OBDII compatible. This has been a federal mandate since 1998, although some carmakers decided to support OBDII in 1997 and some(including Toyota) had limited compliance in 1996. OBDII is an extension of OBDI, an earlier version of the standard. Carmakers were well aware that this law was coming, many thought ahead.
What is OBDII
It stands for Onboard Diagnostics, version two. It is a requirement for all cars mass produced(exemptions are issued, but it is for specialty manufacturers). It is a standard describing the diagnostics, logging, and interface to the Engine and Powertrain Controller Unit present in all fuel injected cars. Some of the parameters are always monitored, such as vehicle speed, air/fuel ratio, injector pulse lengths, rpm, gear(for automatics mostly), air flow meter/absolute manifold pressure meter, throttle/accelerator pedal position, and measured oxygen sensor output. There were minimums set for what a car had to monitor, but it is an extensible protocol and carmakers were free to extend it as much as they liked. Once the framework was there, extending it to include things like steering wheel position and brake pedal position/brake system pressure were easy. One of the minimums though, was that all cars had to maintain a 30 second rolling-log of all sensors and that as a minimum, the required sensor inputs had to be saved at the moment a sensor fault is detected. Hell, with the price of Flash memory these days, 30 minutes of logging was feasible. Many cars maintain a very detailed log of your driving activity.
So, in response, all new cars sold today have some form of limited logging, and many have very detailed logging. The only differences being what is logged, and for how long.
If you have any questions, just ask. Believe me, I know. It is my job to know.
You can't legislate goodness. Let each to his own destiny, by will of his freely made choices.
Microphone! sheesh..
Check it out.
PROVE IT to your insurance, employer, and goverment:
bring your car to us and we'll switch your BLACK box
with our WHITE box, always driven under 25 MPH,
always seat-belted, by our team of grandmothers!
Cheers, Joel
Why do some automobiles have Blackbox as their default window manager. Just install WindowMaker... ;-)
The key issue is that these devices in cars were designed and intended to do other things, NOT provide evidence in court. In most of the cases sited in the article, they run safety equipment such as air bags. It turns out that the equipment can provide other information. Just like your browser cache is intended to speed up browsing, not provide evidence in court.
As for speed limits, there are people for whom even the current speed limits are too high. Is the senior citizen who drives 50 kph in 90 zone (slows down to 30 in the 50 zone) and slows down every time the driver in the car just behind decides to get some space between the two cars in case the senior citizen in front should suddenly break? Or the good sheep that overtook you, just to stay directly in front of you (bus drivers just "love" these guys...)? OR the guy who goes 70 kph, and when you try to overtake him, he suddenly wakes up and speeds up to 90?
Those who drive 150 kph in the 50 zone, wouldn't most probably give a damn about the black box, just as they don't care about getting speeding tickets or having their driving licence taken away. I remember a businessman who killed three people in two accidents, and still kept speeding (he was assassinated half a year later the second accident, most people thought it served him right...). Why should they slow down because of a black box?
Hell is not other people; it is yourself. - Ludwig Wittgenstein
disclosure is important for two reasons: yes, these things can be used against you, but it can also be used *for* you.
my problem is that the insurance company will waste no time pulling this out of a hat to deny a claim or raise your rates, but i doubt that they will tell you about this so that you can use this information to help you win a case against them. so i think everyone should know that they have a recorder. (if they have one)
eric
I guess I am torn on this issue.
On one hand, if black box data is used against you, you could claim discrimination since not all cars have the boxes and therefore you are being punished to a greater extent as a direct result of the car you chose to purchase.
On the other hand, I think it would be a good idea (Big Brother paranoia aside) for the industry to create a standard for what kind of dasta is collected and mandate the use of these devices on all new cars. Unbiased witnesses in courtrooms is badly needed these days due to blatant disregard for truth and justice.
Now how do you stop Big Brother from tapping this info? You KNOW they're gonna wanna give this thing an IP address that maps to your Social Security Number and is able to broadcast on wireless networks...
A year spent in artificial intelligence is enough to make one believe in God.
These blackboxes have a limited memmory. Just restart your car a few times and all evidence is gone...
>Why on earth haven't they told people about these devices?
:-) "I couldn't have possibly caused that accident, sir, I was in reverse the entire time!"
Simple. Because now my next hack plans are to see what I can do to either disable that box, or to fix the data going to it. I expect I'm just one in a soon to be large pool of people hacking their cars.
Wouldn't it be neat to go -20 km/h all the time!
The article mentioned that these units are also used to help tell the air bags when to deploy. So if you hack this system, it's altogether possible that your air bags might not pop up when you really need them.
- Mike
One person's privilage is another's Right to Travel.
How about just not speeding, then ?
I think that the laws of privacy are wrong and am campaigning against the use of black boxes to intrude upon my privacy. How is this any different? Just because the removal of the black box increases my chances of getting away with a crime does not preclude my rights to remove it from my car if I wish to do so.
These things aren't ...
Yet.
So it's ok to do morally questionable things without your permission, if it's for your own good?
/it's not your choice!/
Hold still...
*WHACK*
The thing was put in your car without your knowledge or permission and here you are moralizing about how great an idea it was. It doesn't matter if you like it or not because they never asked you in the first place. Your input on the decision was undesired.
I've got a meat grinder I'd like to install on your dashboard. Should we discuss the appropriatness of this before or after it's installed? Sorry pal,
Oh, you don't want one? Tough shit. It's for the good of society.
... now I have another reason to love my 25+ year old cars so much. Not only can I go faster, but I can get away with it much more. I've dealt with OBDII when I worked at various shops, and frankly after dealing with it I don't think computers belong in cars at all. They worked for 80+ years beforehand and put out better numbers to boot.
But that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.
When I am king, you will be first against the wall
With your opinion which is of no consequence at all
Alright, so let me get this one straight.
The black box is supposed to help the police and prosecuters figure out the speed before an accident, and car companies fix defects in their design?
That, my friend, is what I call a shovel of bullshit.
Firstly, speed can be gandered by a number of methods, mainly by the length of skidmarks.
Secondly, since when did car companies begin caring about their customers getting killed? As soon as the car is sold, they don't give a ratsass about it unless you stop the payments, inwhich case they reposess it and try to sell it for more than it's actually worth.
Blackboxes are on airline jets becuase, well, there's gotta be an excuse besides "we didn't maintain the plane properly" when one goes down, and it's nice to know what happened. Popular ones are: Sheets of ice were on the plane wings hindering movement, wind broke a wing, or my personal favorite, the piolet was drunk(why would a piolet fly if he was drunk? I'd think if they are smart enough to fly, they are smart enough not to drink and fly). Mostly, it makes a certain amount of sense; if boeing makes a few thousand planes with defencts, the industry is going to find a way to fix them becuase if a large percentage of a fleet of 500 planes goes down, they've got a major financial and PR crisis. How are you going to explain 5 or 6 planes crashing in a 2 month period? Blackboxes help to detect defects. On planes, they are justified to an extend, but on cars...it just doesn't add up.
Candy-Coated Knowledge
Erm. Fortunately, you are wrong. From the article: What's captured is the final five seconds leading up to a crash, or to the instant the car's electronic brain determines an air bag should deploy. The black box is not the brain, it's just a recorder. Hack freely...
Hell is not other people; it is yourself. - Ludwig Wittgenstein
Car's `Black Box' to Be Used in Trial
The Associated Press
FORT LAUDERDALE -- A data recorder similar to the black boxes used in planes, trains and space shuttles will be the key piece of evidence in an upcoming Broward County car crash trial.
The device can record a car's speed and deceleration, as well as when its air bag deployed and the pressure on the brake pedal before a crash. Some cars, including the one in the Broward crash, can also log whether drivers wore a seat belt or how hard they pressed the gas pedal.
Prosecutors in the last few years have begun using the technology, which auto makers began putting in vehicles in the 1990s to test air bag performance.
Broward prosecutor Michael Horowitz argued successfully last week for the chance to introduce the black box as evidence in the traffic homicide case of Edwin Matos. Defense attorney Roberto Stanziale said the technology was so new that he had difficulty finding a defense expert qualified to testify about it.
Matos, 46, is charged with four counts of DUI manslaughter and two counts of vehicular homicide after an Aug. 17 crash left two teenagers dead. Lawyers expect to begin picking a jury next week.
A blood test showed Matos was drunk at the time of the crash, but Circuit Judge James Cohn has dismissed the blood evidence because Matos had not given consent to take it.
Police say Matos was driving nearly four times the posted 30 mph speed limit on a Pembroke Pines street when he rammed into a car driven by Jamie Maier, 16, of Davie, who was backing out of a driveway. She and passenger Paige Kupperman, 17, of Miami Lakes, died when their car slammed into a tree.
The recorder in Matos' 2002 Pontiac Trans Am measured his speed at 114 mph five seconds before the crash, according to court records. It detected he was pressing the gas pedal at 99 percent of its maximum capacity. A second before the crash, he was driving at 103 mph.
So far, only Ford and General Motors have produced black boxes that can be read easily by a computer. The recorders measure these details for five seconds before the crash, taking measurements once every second.
Customers own the data in their cars, but the company can download it with drivers' consent. Investigators can gain access through a search warrant signed by a judge.
Black box data was used three years ago in a car crash trial in Illinois. More recently, the device helped prosecutors convict a South Carolina man in March of killing another man in a car crash.
What is the reset procedure? How is the box tagged (protocal wise) so that it can be linked to a particular vehicle? Is the stored data proprietary?
the blue screen of death.
Only more informative.
I work with Data Aquisition and Control Systems in the aerospace industry. In my experience most systems - especially complicated systems - have flaws despite the best efforts of the people developing them. I imagine that most technical Slashdot readers understand this too.
This makes me think about the reliability of recorded data as evidence in court cases. Granted, all evidence is questionable. Some is very questionable, such as eyewitness accounts. Some evidence has an explicit and reasonably well defined probability attached to it, such as DNA evidence. Even if we can assure ourselves that these onboard data aquisition records are valid, there is still the posibility that they're erroneous.
With all that in mind, I think that evidence such as this should be considered in court alongside its reliability.
I did hear rumors about insurance companies wanting to charge drivers by the mile! This really pisses me off since I use to do copier repair. Why should I be charged for driving my own car so I can work? The insurance industry would love to own all cars to satisfy their stockholders like Microsoft loves to own all computers.
Anyway it would be nice if these boxes could stay but under some rules.
1. Search warrant required to review data
2. No GPS or protection from insurance companies watching my driving habits
3. Only be used in court of laws.
Speeding is hard to prove. Especially if you live in California and 90 to 100mhh is typically average on some highways during non rush hour. Where I am in Vegas route 15 to Los Angeles has Californians going 90 on average on the way back to LA. They are nuts. I would hate to be fined while driving at the same speed as everyone else on the road.
Anyway I do not have a problem if this is not abused.
But I do agree consumers have a right to know about black boxes upon purchasing as well as renting cars.
http://saveie6.com/
I hate the technology, but if it's there then people will use it.
:-( )
My 7-year-old nephew was killed by a drunk driver on his way to school this year, and if the guy would have had a black box, then believe me -- we would have used it in court.
The problem with technology is that it is dangerous, and once it's out there it will be used and abused. Just like anything else (like alcohol
Such is life...
Apparently our police department, without knowledge to the public, patrols condo and high end apartments placing fliers that say,
"Your car is attracting theft for the following reasons:
Your doors are unsecure, unlocked, convertible top down
You have _________ in plain view
You do not have a security system
Your custom _________ is unsecure
You have items on your porch that may attract theft
A note from the Greenville County Police Department"
At first, you think this sounds great. "I'm glad the police are patrolling and keeping me safe" Well, in this case, the man's insurance company wasn't going to pay because the police department apparently writes down your license information when they place a flier on your car. IF you do call to report a break-in that information is added to the police report that is sent to your insurance company when you go to make a claim.
To bring this back to topic. There are many things that we have to be aware of when we purchase with anonimity or use things that can be traced to us (IE car through license plate) This is one reason I like to try to get records of any traceable thing I have (credit cards, license, email, phone, local police, BBB report, eBay, etc) every 3 years. ( I have a list of 25 sources that collect information about me and a form letter I use to request information)
I was surprised to find out a couple weeks ago that the post office even has a rap sheet on me. (Rude to desk clerks, mailing in improper boxes, mailing improper rate)
Without trying to instill FUD, just be aware of how FREE you are and how FREE you are not in a trackable, traceable with seamless technology society.
Yell & scream & rant & rave... it's no use... you need a shaaaave ~ Bugs Bunny
And here's a story about using your cell phone to interface with your car.
VTTi
It is suprising to see how many ppl who think it is okay that information is collected about them without their consent if it is "for their own good"
As technology advances it is possibly to build in more and more advanced electronics in smaller and smaller devices. You don't have to buy a product as big as a car for it to be able to spy at you.
Would it be okay to sell dildos with built in GPS system that the manufactur collects information of when and where it was used togheter with information that of who purchased it and made that information publicly available ?
"It is for your own good"
The mic part is where I busted a gut!
Eve Fairbanks says I drive a hybrid!LOL
I say anything that you can misuse to kill someone should have such data recording abilities.
I used to have a better sig than this, but I got tired of it
Which cars have it?
How do you disable it?
Corporatism != Free Market
E. M. P.
"These things aren't recording your speed over large periods of time, they aren't downloading info to any police car that asks for it, they aren't transmitting your position to some control centre."
The missing word is... YET.
Corporatism != Free Market
That is the key word...
Insurance companies, ever seeking more money from people's pockets are likely behind this.
Indeed, given that insurance companies can JACK UP your rates beyond your means if you refuse to have one of these things, and auto insurance is REQUIRED BY LAW in most states, one must wonder if the insurance companies are becoming "de facto" government actors?
Corporatism != Free Market
And, likewise, driving is a PRIVILEGE, that is, something that is not automatically granted but something that can be withdrawn by the authorities (just try running all the red lights you see, and check what happens to your license).
Therefore, if it is necessary for the public good to install mandatory car event-recorders that are downloadable at distance by law enforcement agencies in order to ticket faulty drivers, there shall be no argument against it.
With the increase in road-rage accidents, and the use of heavier, ill-balanced SUVs who tip over when driven like cars (hey, asshole, what you're driving is a truck, not a Lamborghini Countacci), public safety demands the strictest driver accountability.
Since law enforcement cannot be anywhere, and have better things to do than give speeding tickets, road laws enforcement shall be automated ("Welcome Korben Dallas, you have 5 points left on your license").
The shame of this is, the black box data isn't even needed. Surely, simple forensics could differentiate between a collisionat or near the speed limit (with or without braking) and one at 103 MPH. There is little reason to introduce controversy into the case. As for the DUI, the blackbox can't help there, it could only show reckless driving (which simple forensics could also prove, driving about 100MPH in a 30MPH zone is definatly reckless).
In pretty big type too. I have a 2003 Prius, and in the section on airbags they describe that the box records all sorts of data about a crash. I don't have the book in front of me at the moment, but it was pretty hard to miss.
Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
Now whos laughing all you people who thinks an '88 Ford Ranger with 225,000 mile sucks.
Hahahahaha...
can't sleep slashdot will eat me
The privacy freaks are nuts.
....
If I'm doing something dumb, I usually don't want to broadcast it. And by converse, if I don't want to broadcast something, it's a good indicator that I'm doing something dumb.
We're not talking about freeing our country from the King or a right-wing cabal. We're talking about driving a potentially dangerous weapon down the street.
Trying to remain anonymous about your ability to use common sense when driving a vehicle is a gross misuse of anonymity. Most traffic laws do make sense. Most posted speed limits are there for a reason. Ever notice that speeding tickets are usually graduated fines? There's a reason for that - think about it.
If you want to speed recklessly, do it on a private road that you build. If you want to drive with the rest of us, then follow the *COMMUNAL* rules.
I'm tired of people who think it's their god given right to do stupid shit, and then COMPLAIN when they get caught. If you don't like the rule and you choose to break it, THEN FSCKING STAND UP when you do it.
Some times you need to be anonymous. Like calling the police on the local politician, other-throwing your unjust government, etc. Those are life and death issues. Not seatbelt violations.
Grow up
I'm not a SHEEP because I live in society. I made an informed choice. The typical attitude of 'You agreed so you must be a bleeting sheep' is bullshit. I agreed because it makes sense.
Some of the posters don't think these black boxes should exist, but there is at least one very legitimate reason for its continued existence. In the 1980's, there were claims that the Audi 5000 sometimes accelerated on its own, with no input to the gas pedal, and despite hard braking. Some injuries were involved. Unfortunately, IIRC, nobody could pinpoint the exact reason for these claims. Some suggested that the real problem was that the design and placement of the gas and brake pedals were causing drivers to erroneously accelerate when they intended to decelerate.
Audi US sales plunged to oblivion. Audi was forced to discontinue the 5000, and it took several years for the public relations nightmare to subside. If the black box were available then, we could easily have determined the true cause of the problem. If it were indeed a legitimate defect in the car, it could have been resolved very quickly, thereby preventing further injuries. If it were driver error, Audi could have been spared the tremendous losses they suffered. Both the manufacturer and the consumer would have benefited from this technology.
Come to think of it, based on the timing, I wonder if this isn't what motivated the development of automobile black boxes in the first place?
Not Found
The requested URL
With the money I saved from that fine, I was able to upgrade my graphics card AND sound card on my computer. You wouldn't believe the difference that makes when playing GTA3.
And yes, that is a variation of a much older drunk driving joke.
Man and his family comes driving down the road, doesn't signal, officer pulls him over. Officer checks BAC since it's 1AM on New Years -- it's 0.034 -- impossibly high. Officer taps the device, takes the batteries out, puts them back in -- still 0.034. So he asks the wife to try it, just to check his data. She blows into it -- 0.034. Hmmm. So he tries it on the kids. 0.034. Finally, in desperation, he tries it himself. 0.034. Impossibly high, must be broken. He lets them go. As they're driving away, the man asks the kids "Okay, what's up?" The kids say "We broke into your stash while you had a cigarette before starting home."
Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
The question is, do they include anything more than the final 5 seconds, and do they include GPS data? I'd be really surprised if my 97 Saturn does GPS, even though the sites that list such things say that it has an EDR in it. If all it includes are the things that you can see in the controls (speed, position of wheels, etc) right before a crash, then I definitely don't see why this is a huge deal. If on the other hand it's tracking my movements, that's not good. Even if I weren't doing anything wrong, my mechanic doesn't need to know that information.
7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
anything that you can misuse to kill someone should have such data recording abilities.
Good luck convincing Mother Nature to install "data recording abilities" on rocks, sticks, cliffs, water....
It was recently revealed that the NTSB has been working with some automanufacturers to deploy black boxes in passenger vehicles. Of special interest was drivers last words immediately before impact. In 49 of the 50 states, it was typically "Oh, shit", but in here in Montana, most drivers last words were "Hold my beer and watch this!!"
yes, thanks, your pedantry is noted.
I used to have a better sig than this, but I got tired of it
Apparently cars have an "electronic brain" that they think with. That's great, because I have a few questions that I'd like my car to think about. A worthless comment by a pre-coffee x-guru
If it's only recording the last 5 seconds, then your mechanic would only see the location of his shop. Unless you drive REALLY fast.
mrg
OK, if everyone'e car had one of these devices it would make reconstruction of an accident a bit easier. However what happens if you're in an accident with someone who drives an older car?
Would the other driver be able to introduce your black box into evidence even though he had no such box? So he could say "I swear that I was driving within the speed limits, the black box shows that the other guy was going 5 MPH over the limit, therefore the accident was clearly his fault." You could only prove the speed of the car with the black box, not the other car.
That frightens me because it would only give a biased view of the accident. Maybe I sped up to avoid his speeding car. Maybe I was blindsided so I didn't hit the breaks. But only my black box would be revealed, so I'd be the only one with direct proof against him.
The article posted shows a very clear-cut example of how this technology could be good, and does not give any example of how it could be misused. Heck, by reading the article, you'd agree that a non-consenting blood alcohol test would be a good idea, but that clearly was not permissible in this case. Why would a non-consenting black-box reading be permissible? Why are the two things different?
The objection is not about getting away with speeding. It's about the government watching monitoring you where ever you drive. The government is really a much bigger threat than speeders.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
It is suprising to see how many ppl who think it is okay that information is collected about them without their consent if it is "for their own good"
It has to be said: People are stupid. Dense as lead, rock-hard stupid. Dangerously stupid. Great waves of stupidity. Radiation storms of stupidity. Absolutely, irrefutably, witheringly..stupid.
Maybe that was part of the reason for the Constitution. The stupidity of people was well established and anticipated, so a device was needed to protect people from what sort of advantage might be taken of them and above all to protect them from themselves.
And what do these fucking morons do after 200 or so years? They decide that some token benefits of allowing strangers to monitor their behavior at will was more important than the device that had been protecting them so well for so long. Magnificantly stupid! And the consequences of this society-ranging intellectual misfire will one day meet the vacuum of their heads in an event that will see their world falling around their ears.
And most of them won't even realize it. By then they'd have traded their loafers for jackboots and doing all the things the authority figures of the day will expect of them. Blood up to their elbows and their world in ruins.
Thanks stupid people, for accepting in turn all the small pieces that form disaster once assembled. The black box in your car that makes you feel safe is one of them. Hope you like it.
What we need is an "Anti-Black-Box" (White Box???)gizmo that plugs into the ODBII data port thingy (ASE techs help me out here) and has a reset switch that I can press to clear the memory of the black box in case I'm ever pulled over or cause an accident. Maybe even program it to continually write a set of "safe and law-abiding" parameters into the black box so that I'm always covered even if I can't get to the manual reset. USPTO here I come!
PS - Until I get this on the market I recommend all slashdotters keep a stun gun under the driver's seat for a low-tech method of above. Or at least keep a little petrol in a bottle as a last-ditch backup plan. The cops and the insurance claims guy will gasp in horror as your vehicle bursts into a magnificent "CHiPs" style fireball destroying the damning evidence.
Don't be afraid of your Freedom!
I believe a fair legal system would uphold your ability to do so, but this sounds suspiciously like the very kind of thing the DMCA is used to prevent. Coincidentally enough, the ability (or not) to modify cars is used as an illustration in The DMCA in plain English:
The article claims the DMCA currently applies only to entertainment products, but I don't know that to be true. As covered recently in slashdot, the DMCA is being used to prevent 3rd parties from manufacturing ink cartridges for a certain kind of printer. And if there is any language in the DMCA that suggests it doesn't apply to xyz, I would not be at all surprised to see such language changed.- First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
That nasty little thought poped up in my mind too, but the case is more evident in automobiles than it is in airplanes. The Federal Government can demand black box details if it determines such are needed to investigate a crash but car owners don't have that kind of clout.
A thrid party which looks trustworthy for automobiles might not be and the data from black boxes should be suspect unless the details of how that daat is stored is known. If auto makers only license their "readers" to one or two companies, those one or two companies will then own their income to that knowledge and are manipulable. Insurance companies as well as automobile makers can colude to defraud everyone else. The only way to assure data integrity is to have a mechanism everyone knows how to work and a public verification repository to defeat tampering.
This, of course, ignores the problems of other data being stored in automotive black boxes. I don't need or want Detroit or anyone else keeping tabs on the location of my car in exchange for working airbags. Free software, once again, provides the answer to such problems and this is what we should demand for all out little black boxes like cellphones and dvd players.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
straw man
n.
A person who is set up as cover or a front for a questionable enterprise.
An argument or opponent set up so as to be easily refuted or defeated.
A bundle of straw made into the likeness of a man and often used as a scarecrow.
Present an ubsurd example:
Absolutely, I demand the right to drive at 90mph in a 30mph zone, carving down any small children who run out into the road with the bullbars on the front of my 4x4, while firing my shotgun out the window, and get away with it.
Then knock it down:
For crying out loud, if someone is speeding and causes an accident, they deserve to get stiffed by the law
If you must resort to such tricks to pursuade the reader, perhaps your argument isn't strong enough to "stand on it's own."
OBD2 (as was mentioned earlier) is a standard on every current production car for emissions compliance. The recording 30 seconds of data around a sensor fault is just a feature convenient for the mechanic when he's diagnosing your car. It just so happens that you get a lot of sensor faults when your car explodes, so of course that gets recorded. With that said, the standard set of data being recorded, while interesting, does NOT include GPS data or a voice recording of the driver beforehand or any of that other conspiracy theory crap:
Currently, the standard OBD2 mandates that the following signals are recorded:
Engine Temp, Engine Speed, Vehicle Speed, Spark Advance, Mass Airflow Sensor, Manifold Pressure, Engine Load, Intake Air Temp, Oxygen Sensor status, and a few other little things. That's it.
If you're that worried about them getting to your data after a wreck, go find your ECU and rip it out and beat it with a hammer. It's usually located near one of the kick panels or sometimes in the engine compartment. But really, if the wreck was your fault, quit being an asshole and fess up to it and save us all the headache.
...And the cruise control was the culprit. Old story.
In vino vici
Oh, sorry, no.
"Pedal application is the most likely cause"
In other words, the drivers who were "standing on the brakes" trying to get the accellerating cars to stop were acually "standing" on the accellerator, causing the cars to go.
True story: I drive a 16 yr old mercedes. One day, the car wouldn't start, so I ended up calling roadside service. they walked me through pulling out a small box from behind the battery about the size of a pack of cigarettes. then, again at the instruction of the roadside service rep, I hit the box against the sidewalk a few times and put it back in the car. It wasn't till months later, when I was surfing on ebay for an unrelated part, that I discovered that the part he had me grind into the sidewalk was my engine computer. The car still runs like a dream.
Because not all laws are just, and not all unjust laws have reasonable ways of changing them. Someone may not have the time and energy to mount a campaign. A campaign that does get started may have no effect, and there is generally no fixed timetable in which to tell when an outcome will emerge. An eventual failure of the campaign to change anything may have nothing to do with the merits of the issue or the alignment of a campaign with prescribed reform guidelines; all that's needed is for a politician to be listening to corporate money or to "anti-terrorism" directives.
Having a box that records five seconds worth of data is not a problem.
Not necessarily agreed, but even stipulating the point there's no guarantee that five seconds will remain all that gets recorded. It's likely that five seconds will become longer, and that the types of data recorded will increase in number. What about when the data recorded includes your cellphone conversations? Your non-cellphone conversations? Your gps location? The rfid tag info of the clothing of your passengers? What you chose to listen to on the radio? Video of you? If these sound far fetched to you, think about the Patriot act and related political ongoings.
- First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
People living in the United States seem to have come to a very wrong belief about the concepts of "self-incrimination" and privacy -- to the extent that I think many of us do not really understand what these concepts mean anymore.
Take the constitutional amendment against self-incrimination. Do you really think that this protection was put into place to prevent evidence from your car being used "against you"? For godsake, this amendment was created to prevent people from being tortured or coerced into false confessions by the government, a basic human right. It's kind of embarassing to have this human right turned into "my car's data recorder cannot be used to incriminate me", don't you think? Since when did your car become an extension of your body, subject to the protections of the constitutional restriction on self-incrimination??
And then, the issue of privacy. People here have come to the belief that "privacy" means that nothing you do should ever be aired for anyone else to see. Again, a perversion of what was fought long and hard for. Privacy is the right of common citizens to be let alone in their daily affairs, to be secure in their peoples and posessions from unwarranted intrusion by others. It is *not* the right to conceal information in a car crash. Sorry.
This is a problem in a prosperous society, where many people have forgotten the reasons why urgent protections were needed from different kinds of intrusions by government or others. Basic rights have been manipulated to become more and more, rights of luxury and desire -- so that we claim violation of basic rights for the most trivial (or undeserving) things. The "right" to smoke in bars? The "right" to have an unobstructed view of the beach? etc etc. We need to get a grip and not squander the real rights that were wisely given to us.
Now why did I just imagine getting a BSOD when I die? If I do, I am going to be so pissed off.
The article says some kind of stupid things like this one.
"They were installed on newer-model cars to trigger air bags."
That is absolutely stoopid statement. Its a sensationalist word bending cart_before_the_horse statement. A black box does not trigger an airbag. But all airbag modules record data in order to carry out their business.
In any event, an airbag module does indeed record a little data like if your seatbelt is on so it can adjust the blow of the bag accordingly. But yes, I would be surprised if it were legal to use *your* airbag module against you. That would be personal data. and should require a search warrant for something specific.
Nevertheless if you claim you were wearing your seatbelt at the time of the accident, then can check it out...
I say anything that you can misuse to kill someone should have such data recording abilities.
I say you're a control freak. I'm reminded of Patrick O'brian's Master and Commander when the Captain and the good Doctor are dining with the parents of a young man they're considering for duty on the ship. The boys father begins ranting about "discipline!" is the key to solving the worlds problems.
Steven(the doctor) reflects on this heavy handed attitude and the people he's known over the years.
He attributes various maladies to that sort of personality that includes, but is not limited to:
flat feet, poor digestion, sallow complexion, inferiority complex, overcruel mother, and so on.
And while Steven is reflecting the man continues to rant not even hesitating while pissing in the chamberpot. Steven also adds sexual deviant to his growing list of maladies.
The moral of the scene seemed to be this:
Those who seek fascist governments have come to that conclusion from staring too long at the images of themselves they've cast upon society. He was talking about people like you.
So some idiot with a hacked OBC drives into me at 90mph, but then uses the data in his OBC to prove that the accident must have been my fault? No Way.
SteveB.
I know I'm in the minority here, but the slippery slope and big brother aside, how bad are these things, really?
Lurking around a bit, I noted that many people are saying "How come nobody's been told about these things? Is it a CONSPIRACY?" I doubt it.
This so-called "black box" is nothing but the OBDII diagnostics module, which every car built after 1996 has. It keeps track of how just about every subsystem in your car is functioning, as well as realtime statistics such as speed, RPM, temperature, mixture, etc. For a complete list of general error codes, take a look at these pages:
Chassis
Body
Powertrain
Network
When "Check Engine" comes on, OBDII has detected a failure in one of these subsystems and logged it. Your dealer plugs their computer into the diagnostics port, finds out what the error is, and fixes the problem (usually), and clears the code. The site I referenced for the error codes, Scantool has circuit specs and software you can use to access this data. The downside is that there are three OBDII protocols, and with this system you need a separate module to read each one. There are other places you can go to get a universal reader, but prices are usually pretty expensive.
The upshot is that's it's relatively cheap, and if you like electronics and want to build it yourself it's even cheaper. Autozone stopped doing the free OBD scans, so I used this little project as an excuse to learn how to print my own PCB and have my own diagnostics card for when I need it. Also a big plus is that the software source code is available.
Allright, now that I'm off my tangent, I'll get back to the original subject. It's pure conjecture to guess why the realtime statistics are put in a rolling log for 5 seconds. Could it be a deal with insurance companies? Maybe the computer averages the saved statistics to determine if there's an event? Maybe the orgininal intent was for safety? Who knows?
But remember the data not only can be used against you (which won't happen, you are all safe drivers, right??), but also to exonerate you if the other driver tries to set you up.
And in the article, I didn't see any uses of the logs I particularly disagreed with. If your drunk ass is doing 120mph and you kill two teenage girls, maybe you need to be put in the cooler for awhile.
-R
If the first point in a chain of argument is incorrect, logical derivations will also be wrong.
The black box was never "introduced." It was installed, with no fanfare whatsoever, because the average consumer and car buyer will not pay for "included options" that record their driving.
If it had been "introduced," it would have been rejected out of hand.
Have a little confidence in the "sheep," will ya?
Unfortunately you are quite blind to the bigger picture. This week it's 5 seconds. Next week it's a minute. The week after it's an hour. Shortly there after it's a day. Before long the driving history of your entire car is recorded and is admissible as evidence. But wait, there's a catch. Once it's admitted they can use the entire evidence against you in subsequent charges. You have your car for 5 years and finally get a speeding ticket. The cop wirelessly pulls your BB data (it will happen soon enough) as will be required by law when giving you a ticket. A computer processes that data and issues you a ticket for every single time you speeded in the past. Everytime you didn't wear a seatbelt. Every minor infraction of the traffic laws you committed over those 5 years will come back to haunt you. Then it gets even better. Now after these traffic convictions are through the courts your insurance company sues you in civil court, subpoenas the BB data, and then argues that you now owe an a lareg sum of money due the elevated insurances costs you WOULD have received had these tickets been given at the time of the incident. Now many of these things aren't possible at this very moment but we're getting closer to them more and more every day. Do you think this isn't possible? Are you so nieve as to not recognize that if you give them an inch they will take a mile? Oh wait. You're a sheep. Yes, I guess you really are the nieve. Carry on...
a gig of cf is very cheap now.
How much protection is there on these boxes to stop just any old agent, PI or cult creep from dumping the data? Obscurity? Thought so.
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
I'm not at all supporting the idea of collecting this data, especially not for insurance purposes.
;) As long as you never went say ~80MPH or higher, you technically could have been fine. Like say going 50MPH in a 25MPH neighborhood, they would never know that you weren't on a country road. Hell, even with 80MPH+ you could say you were in Montana...
But I did want to bring up one point...
The funny thing is about recording speeds is that you don't know how fast the person was supposed to be going
The only way that just collecting speeds is a big deal is if they have *PERFECT* GPS data that can tell that you are on the freeway and not the service drive 15 feet away from it going the same direction with a speed limit 40 MPH less. They're a long way away from that so there's time to nip this in the bud before the technology for that arrives.
Just food for thought...
From reading the link to ODBIII these lines scare me the most...
"The system is reportedly capable of retrieving information from 8 lanes of bumper-to-bumper traffic whizzing by at speeds up to 100 mph!"
"...a stationary or portable roadside transmitter, it transmits back an answer in the form of the vehicle's 17-digit VIN number"
In other words they know exactly where you are, what's preventing someone from building a transponder on 915Mhz and tracking cars as they go by?
------
"And may your days be long upon the earth."
GM installed data recording loops that included recording the ambient sounds in the cabin of the car, including voices.
:^)
After using it for a year, they did some statistical analysis and study of what kind of things people usually said when an accident was going to happen. Mostly it was what you'd expect, things like "Oh shit!", "Oh my god!", "Damn!", etc. Except they did see one really weird statistical anomaly. Almost all the car wrecks from more poor rural areas were precluded by, "Hey watch this!"
I have to agree. Police stopping you and finding out your actually speed from the recorder? Heaven forbid!
Now you actually have to make a choice. Either get involved in the local politics and have those speed limits changed, or obey the law and drive the speed limit.
Or you can take your chances and hope there's no one nearby when you're speeding.
Society doesn't just happen. It's formed by people getting involved in the system.
Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
Blow its circuits all to hell. Its not anyones business where i drive or how fast, or that i turned 30 degrees around that curve instead of 35.
While currently they *may* be used for innocent resons to help solve criminal accidents, that wont last.. it will turn into a real-time monitoring designed to further inavde personal privacy.
A lot like random car/people searches are now..
---- Booth was a patriot ----
As human beings we are given choice. We have the right to make choices without question. Notice, I didn't say without consequence. I have the right and privacy to ANYTHING that is about me. It is NOT public in any way! If I want to smoke blunts in my home it's my right. I do not have the right to harm anyone as a side effect of that action.
You have tried to complicate through pseudo intellectual speech what should be clear to you.
Your statments were perversions of FREEDOM and double speak as that found in 1984..
I may not have the right to smoke in a bar that doesn't allow smoking, I DO HAVE THE RIGHT to have bars that allow smoking.
Your statements also blur and confuse priveledge and right.
I wish I could mod you down "overated"
Are you a congressman? Mr. Daschle please use your real name!
Now, I don't go 50 through school zones even when they are apparently deserted because I don't want a ticket, but I'm trying to illustrate a point. I do drive fast, generally above the speed limit, but my car is designed for it and I pay attention, slowing down for blind curves or in general when my view of the road is compromised. A driver not paying attention at 20mph is infinitely more dangerous to assholes who expect cars to stop for them whether they have the right of way or not, which is pretty much the only people who are regularly in danger from cars except for occasional freak occurrences. As a pedestrian you must remember that you are fragile and the right of way won't stop you from being run over. Similarly, as a driver you must remember that other drivers and various pedestrians are running around in a state of cranial-rectal inversion, so you must be careful about how and when you speed.
As for campaigning against the law; They're not going to raise speed limits. Research has "proven" that going faster raises the risk of an accident. Of course, this does not apply equally to all people, but laws must be written for the lowest common denominator because the same laws must apply to everyone. I will simply continue to drive fast, civilly disobedient, and avoid running people over.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
And a copy of your driver's license.
All searchable by number plate.
Better to have no privacy than fool yourself into a false secruity.
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
Clearly you've never used any of the modern automotive gps navigation systems. They're not perfect, but they're damned close. They know what road you're on about 99.8% of the time, which will surely be deemed good enough by our new conservative overlords.
"I couldn't have possibly caused that accident, sir, I was in reverse the entire time!"
Um, you know you can crash in reverse too? Unless your automobile has some sort of way to handle that... (indestructable K.I.T. coating or something but only on the back end?)
I have one of these units pointed out my window right now, looking at an intersection. (I'm testing one for a robotics application.) Here's what it reports:
-
[151] # 68: 101.1 ft. -5.3 fps 0.046 radians
(Target #68 is 101.1 feet away, approaching at -5.3fps on a relative bearing of 0.046 radians. Target #70 is 224.6 feet away, etc.) The data is updated every 65 milliseconds.[151] # 70: 224.6 ft. 38.2 fps -0.032 radians
[152] # 68: 100.8 ft. -5.3 fps 0.046 radians
[152] # 70: 226.9 ft. 38.4 fps -0.032 radians
[153] # 68: 100.4 ft. -5.3 fps 0.048 radians
[153] # 70: 229.0 ft. 38.4 fps -0.032 radians
[154] # 68: 100.1 ft. -5.4 fps 0.050 radians
[154] # 70: 232.0 ft. 38.5 fps -0.032 radians
[155] # 68: Dropped.
[155] # 70: 234.5 ft. 38.6 fps -0.032 radians
[156] # 70: Dropped.
This allows detailed accident reconstruction. The data can be viewed graphically, of course, and trajectories and speeds can be plotted right up to the crash. If any vehicle in a collision has this equipment, it's possible to tell what the other vehicles are doing.
There are tens of thousands of big rigs on the road with these units right now. They're starting to appear in RVs. A few more years will see them in cars, as the price comes down.
They do more than log. There are warning alarms. Some versions will slow down the vehicle. These devices are already reducing accident rates for big trucks. Another generation of this technology and radar/computer control will prevent many more collisions.
Dividing the braking task between the driver and the computers is tough. But we already have elaborate ABS systems with computers and gyros, and those are well-accepted. This is the next step. It's reasonably clear that when a collision is inevitable if braking isn't started within a few hundred milliseconds, the anti-collision system should apply the brakes. At that point, it's too late for human intervention. Whether the system should always prevent tailgating is less clear. VORAD units will do that in cruise control mode, but the driver has to turn that on.
The joke that went around a while ago about the government requiring voice data recorders in cars: Most of them picked up prayers, cussing etc. before the crash except those in pickup trucks sold in the south that all seemed to end with, "Y'all watch this."
BTW, you're using a public highway supposedly in compliance with law. The argument that this is an invasion of privacy stinks. If a cop or a whitness sees you doing it, its a legitimate infraction but if you're car records you doing it its an invasion of privacy? I don't think so. How does getting you're speed from your car's data recorder differ from measuring the skid marks you left on the pavement before you hit the other vehicle? Both give the same information although the data recorder will be more accurate.
I would also point out that hacking the recorder either before or after the fact would probably be a very bad idea. If what's recorded by the recorder doesn't match physical reality, I'm guess the recorder will simply be assumed to be damaged. If the alteration is shown to have been made "after the fact", I'm guessing that "tampering with evidence" (a felony) will be added to the list of charges.
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
Ben
You might be able to change the data being fed to the black box on the fly, but depending on what sort of inputs the boxes take (and since the standard is extensible, you may not be able to know for sure just what info your particular box is collecting), it may not be possible to do without it being obvious on examination of the box's data that the input signals were tampered with in some way.
These devices, once they become more common in automobiles, can save HUGE amounts of money in legal costs for insurance companies, and I would not be suprised to see at least some of that savings passed on to collision insurance buyers who have such units in their cars.
Where I live, any accident occurring between a vehicle moving in reverse and another vehicle not moving in reverse is automatically considered to be entirely the fault of the driver moving backwards (regardless of circumstances, to the best of my knowledge, as the traffic code doesn't outline or imply the existence of exceptions). It is the responsibility of the driver to ensure that their rear is completely clear of all obstacles before and while proceeding in reverse, and to yield right of way to any and all other vehicles.File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
First - as a person you have the ability to plead the fifth and refuse to incriminate yourself. An "automated" system that stores data that you know nothing about, but that you OWN (afterall, we buy and OWN our cars, except for leased vehicles), should _NOT_ be available. If you plead the fifth, then an automated data collection systems should be OFFLIMITS. If your lawyer tries to use part of the system to defend you, then you've allowed it, and the prosecution should be able to get all the data. The point is, YOU decide what you say.
Should the idiot doing 90 in a 20 mowing down kids in the process get caught and punished? Absolutely! No doubt about it! Witnesses, forensic evidence (blood on the bull guard), etc. can be used.
This has been going on for awhile; I know of at least one case where this data has been used to deny a warranty claim to someone who mis-shifted, overrev'd the engine, and bent a valve.
:-).
However, there's an easier option. Remove the factory ECU completely. There are at least a dozen aftermarket systems that completely replace the electronics in the car, although you'll spend a pretty penny getting it tuned, you'll probably have a faster car that you have complete and total control over. No manifold damage warnings, though
It's against the law to replace the ECU in your car - emissions laws - but I don't think that it would void your insurance, yet, anyhow. Unplugging a ECU isn't difficult, either. If you really wanted to get exotic, you could feed the stock ECU fake or "sanitized" information to keep things hunky-dory. Most of the ROM information on popular cars has been reverse engineered as well. OBD-II isn't so bad. OBD-III should scare the hell out of you. I won't drive a OBD-III car if it goes through as is.
Speeding does not kill. It is very possible to drive fast, and safe. You can safely drive 100mph in a lot of places and times. There are times when you can't safely drive 30mph. I have a nontrivial amount of money invested in driver training. I drive a fast car. My car is equipped with better brakes, tires, and suspension than ~99% of the cars on the road. I don't feel I am endangering anyone occasionaly driving 25 or 30mph over the limit on the freeway.
Someone driving a SUV 95mph with no concept of braking distances, dynamics, or emergency avoidance training makes me very nervous.
Speed doesn't kill. Dangerous driving does. The two aren't the same. Going 90mph in a C5 corvette won't get you a ticket in Montana. Doing 90mph in a minivan, will.
..don't panic
Then DMCA the shit out of anybody who attempts to access it.
This is not my sandwich.
>How about just not speeding, then ?
LOL. And get smashed from behind?
Perhaps you haven't driven out in the country yet. Generally, even if you are caught DOUBLING the speed limit (160 km/h in an 80 zone) if you live there, you can avoid points on your license, never mind getting your license taken away.
The average speed is 110 km/h, and if you aren't doing that, you _are_ going to suffer rear-end consequences from impatient drivers. And contrary to popular belief, if you are in more than a couple of accidents that aren't your fault, your insurance company will still raise your rates. They'll tell you not to drive in dangerous areas if you ask them why.
Like young drives said, "go with the flow".
If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
>Um, you know you can crash in reverse too?
:-) You'd be much better off figuring out a way to feed just _slightly_ less bogus data to the recorder. Say, shave 10% off your speed all the time.
Yes, but then if the damage is on the front of the car, it should be assumed you were trying to avoid some insane driver in front of you...
Not that a judge is going to pay attention to a tampered box, anyways.
If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
In a court of law, if you're proven to have tampered with something, chances are you will lose -- even if you weren't at fault in the accident!
The best solution is honesty. As long as you drive defensively, and don't do stupid things, you will be fine. Your black box will record that you did what you could to not get in trouble.
Only people with questionable driving skills/habits will be affected by the black box.
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
At worst, your black box going -20 means you're automatically at fault in an accident because you were driving a fault vehicle.
Why do people have problems with honesty? This is merely being honest about your driving leading to an accident. The person who's guilty of reckless driving will not like it, but normal people are fine.
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
Blah, police note, blah, used against him. [NOTE: does not resolve anything, reader must assume that police report is negative and was BAD]
Blah, blah, blah, FREEDOM FREEDOM
Seriously, the first part of your post is barely coherent, up until you just "veer" back onto topic, and then you delve straight into incoherency afterwards.
Yes, when you use something that is traceable, it is recorded. Welcome to modern life. Yes, people will remember you. Back in the 1800s, you'd have a reputation in the town -- now you have a credit history and rap sheet at the local post office. Karma, dude -- live with it.
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
Apparently, you didn't read Sean's comment til the end. While it is ok to use the data to find out the cause of an actual accident, it's definately over the top for cops to download it routenly on random traffic stops.
Having a box that records five seconds worth of data is not a problem.
Nowadays, the boxes do indeed only record a very limited amount of data, but who says that storage capacity won't go up in the next couple of years. In 5 years from now, storing 30 days of data will definately be economically feasible, and that prospect is quite worrysome!
don't you have 'no claims bonuses' in your part of the world?
Yes, but that's quite different. These are based on your actual accident history, and not on how somebody thinks that you drive dangerously because you drive fast.
Some people are better drivers than others, and can afford to drive faster. Their accident-free driving history proves it, and allows them to get lower premiums. If insurance companies start basing their premiums in what accidents you might get into, rather than those that you really had, we get into trouble.
One case study that we were doing involved a guy who drove a shiny new car into a bridge pillar at 70mph. By examining the black box data it was clear that it was a suicide attempt (30% throttle until 3 seconds before the impact then it went to 100%, brakes never touched).
Data is collected in a variety of ways...some are low on details and widely collect. Some, like the case above, are in depth investigations into how accidents and cooresponding injuries occur. The answer to this general problem is legislation that makes this data private and valid for confidential use only by accident investigators.
Adzoox wrote:
/no/ reason specified. People who were like, "that's double plus ungood!" with nothing to back it up are idiots. You have to think why you're saying something, not just respond with, "government bad!"
"I'd like to know what you ACTUALLY thought about the post. Your post was unnecessary and rather immature."
Yes, and? Welcome to Slashdot, where we use teasing freely. I reserve the right to tease you if you're not coherent.
"The post was quite on topic as there are LOTS of things we are unaware that can be used against us."
Without you actually saying that, it comes across as incoherent. It's like having a conversation with someone, where half of what they say is with their "inner" voice. That's why I wound up with the wrong impression. That's also why it's a good idea to walk away for a bit (or read a different browser window/tab) before rereading what you wrote. You'll see that stuff staring up at you in a way that you wouldn't otherwise have noticed.
"Besides, we're talking American freedoms, you live in Canada!"
Statements like this validate my reason for writting my original post. "Besides, we're talking WHITE freedoms, you're black!" How different are we really?
If you didn't notice, I "picked on" a lot of people who argued againist the onboard recording device with
If you'd specified WHY your first anecdote was bad, instead of just saying the main part of the joke without any kind of punchline, then seguing into a bit about the recorder which just became incoherent, then your post might've had some meat to respond to. Since it didn't, my post reflects that.
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
If you think about it, how is this any different than, say, an Apache log, or an intrusion detection system log? Well, the data is recorded on the server and not on the client, but other than that it's basically the same. What happens when someone attempts to crack a system? The logs are evidence. With black boxes it would be exactly the same in a car accident.
What happens if you are speeding (like ALMOST EVERYONE DOES) and you get into an accident. The person that you crashed into was not speeding, but since they are a shitty driver you rear-end them (because they cut you off) or some other scenario. This happens all the time. There are several stupid idiotic drivers who cant drive and it is crazy. The drivers ed. recuirments are way way WAY to lax and the driving intructors who administer the tests are very biased. I lost a lot of points on my test for retarded reasons and the guy was very biased against me for being a 16 year old boy. Then we see the ditzyest girls who can't drive at all pass because the test is so easy. The drivers ed system will never be perfect and I wonder if we will ever be able to make it better. A lot of guys are bad drivers too because they drive like assholes; I'm not saying it is just girls who are bad drivers, but they are definately less... dumb, for lack of a better word. Anyways back to my main point: just because you are speeding doesn't mean your at fault for the accident, but because of these little black boxes you can be blamed and get screwed over because the moron by you doesn't know how to drive.
and I would not be suprised to see at least some of that savings passed on to collision insurance buyers who have such units in their cars.
Fat Change! When have the issurance companys every lowered there rates?
For crying out loud, if someone is speeding and causes an accident, they deserve to get stiffed by the law because they are a dangerous, arrogant, son-of-a-bitch. These people kill.
Unlike the inattentive driver doing the speed limit that mows down my child.
It's not the speed, it's the level of awareness. The black box will help convict the speeder because he's a ba-aa-aa-d ma-aa-aa-n, but create sympathy for the inattentive, but compliant driver because that could be any one of us.
Speed doesn't kill people. There is no magic limit under which driving becomes safe. Stop attacking the easy target (speeders stand out) and try fixing the root of the problem:
Inattentive driving kills.
These opinions guaranteed or your money back.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
What if you had a health meter that watched your vital signs. The moment they stopped, the recorders would stop and broadcast the last 5 minutes of your life (on video + health signals) to the police, so they could arrest any potential murderer.
This is a monitor of how you responded to a situation where what you decide affects other people. This allows courts to properly find who was at fault in an accident, possibly for deaths, and punish accordingly. If you'd pull your head out of your Orwellian Fear Box, you'd notice that things that record (such as books, VCRs, computers, video cameras) are used for much good in society. Like any tool, they can be abused, but that doesn't outweigh the benefits of the tool.
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
This guy's a troll, where's my mod points!
Sure, so when peter pissquick rams into the back of you the morning after - sticking your passengers in a wheelchair his "hacked" boxed shows that he was driving legally and yours enforces his claim that you reversed into him.
"Yes, you're in a wheelchair lucy, but at least y'got privacy"
Try running head first at a wall getting faster and faster, repeating the mantra "it's not the speed. speed doesn't kill people."
Score 1 pt for every hit.
I don't care if data is used against you...as long as you are able to use the data *for* you as well.
May we never see th
Montana has had a speed limit since 1999.
Yeah, the black box records everyhting about your car around the time of a crash. But the diag system feeding that info keeps all kind of interesting stats. Like number of airbag near-deployments. Number of times ABS was engaged. Top and aberage speed and rpm, and possibly other speed stats. It's really info used to diagnose car trouble, but could be used in all kinds of interesting ways. And most (many?) people don't see their cars as simple transportation, they seem them almost as their second home, an extension of themselves, and it's a very personal thing, so it's understandable people would get upset over their cars snitching on them.
>I expect I'm just one in a soon to be large pool of people hacking their cars. Thanks for letting them know, shepd. Now I'm going to have to read a freakin' EULA for every car I shop for next time!
I agree, mod Onimusha or whatever his name is down ..What was incoherent about the parent? Your response is the post "lacking substance" and is offtopic - you make no real point yourself.
This is why we have forensics. The less that CAN be manipulated (ie cameras,recorders,etc) the better. You are wanting the guilty to be guilty by association rather than hard evidence. I like an investigation to be done for murder. Even if they find a video tape of Scott Peterson murdering his wife, it still doesn't mean he's guilty. Although I suppose, to you, as a juror, you'd stop listening to evidence if you saw that. What if, just what if, someone drugged him, what if someone made the video to look like he did it, like Minority Report.
You weren't paying a lot of attention, were you? The article talks about the last 5 seconds before a crash. My apologies for assuming someone would know what I was talking about without my having to be completely verbose about it.
7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
A blood dripping knife in plain view? Then you don't need no steenkin' warrant :p
:)
Now, they can still frisk you. IIRC if you are within 30 miles of an international border, they don't need a warrant to search your car either. (It's been a while since my law classes.. US law of course...)
Except even then, I think its only to search for contraband, weapons, etc....
BB would probably still need a warrant. However, it seems like everyone is concernced that this probably won't happen, and it will just be assumed that it is ok to take the BB from the vehicle. Now I'm sure there SHOULD be some sort of privacy statement and DISCLOSURE when you buy the car right? I'm not sure what the current disclosure laws in the states that require them encompass. There should be an opt-out or opt-in clause somewhere when you buy the car
>It's completely feasable to design an enclosure that, once opened, cannot be reassembled without it being visibly obvious that it was opened by a consumer.
However, in that case third party identical enclosures would be made, even if they had to be black market.
Honestly, companies have tried everything from suicide chips to smart cards to prevent tamering, and once one determined person figures a way around it (and they _always_ do) the protection is history. At worst, if the going gets tough, the tough start pirating (witness the pirated documents on the P4 DirecTV smartcard... it's only a matter of time now...)
>These devices, once they become more common in automobiles, can save HUGE amounts of money in legal costs for insurance companies, and I would not be suprised to see at least some of that savings passed on to collision insurance buyers who have such units in their cars.
That would be a first!
How much did you save when you bought a car with airbags installed? With these the insurance company can determine if you were doing 30 km/h or over, and if you had a front end collision or not, since day one (before black boxes).
>Where I live, any accident occurring between a vehicle moving in reverse and another vehicle not moving in reverse is automatically considered to be entirely the fault of the driver moving backwards (regardless of circumstances, to the best of my knowledge, as the traffic code doesn't outline or imply the existence of exceptions).
There's always exceptions... what if you're on a one way road and the driver in front of you starts tap-tap-tapping on your bumper? Do you think the cops/court expects you to sit there and have your car destroyed?
I agree, it would be silly to set it in reverse. Of course, since few-to-no collisions are going to ocurr on the rear bumper of a fast driver's car, I don't see them needing to worry about it...
If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
Typical slashdot thought: we could encrypt it! It would be nice to see what happened in accidents!
But please, be more cynical in your thoughts. The black boxes can, in fact, be used in thoroughly nasty, underhanded, unjust ways:
Bad cops can: stop drivers, look at their black box data, and arrest them on the spot!
Crooked politicians can: give any reporter grief just by enforcing laws selectivly
Crooked high-ranking politicians can: make a routine stop look very, very bad for any person on a 'hit list'.
How? Because virtually everyone speeds to one extent or another; we generally get caught in a random way, so it doesn't matter. These boxes will let the 'catching' be targetted.
Who do you think will be targetted?
Want a sig like mine? Join ACM's SigSig today!
No, if someone causes an accident, whether they are in the speed limit or not, is bad.
A car driving legally at 70MPH hitting a bridge abutment or that minivan on the side of the road is a lethal weapon to someone...
If I'm driving at the legal speed limit, and you insist on driving 15-20MPH below it, and claim that my higher speed relative to you is more dangerous to society in general (but really you mean to say, "I'm scared to drive"), and hence the speed limit should be lowered, you are the one who is dangerous.
It is not "excessive" speed that kills. It is not paying attention and operating a vehicle within the driver's capabilities or what the environment around it is allowing.
People who drive "well" are simply people who haven't been in an accident. If you have too many claims, your insurance rates WILL go up whether they're your fault or not. You are indirectly causing the insurance co. to give you money.
If you are insured by a "good driver" policy, some them are pretty scary. One claim or negative is enough to boot you into the Bad Driver category for such companies, if they don't drop you altogether. It doesn't matter if you've been insured with them for 50 years w/o a negative claim.
Your knowledge of speed limits is lame, also. They are not always put in place for safety. Some are put in place for revenue, both for the police, and also to "encourage" people to slow down and shop in a business district. Sometimes it's because the alderman wants to make sure that the speedlimit on his street is 15mph.
The fact that we are all allowed to drive implies that yes, the very fact that I'm allowed to drive means that I am endangering other people's lives when I operate a car. It's not a right, it just is.
If you are driving like a nincompoop, are you not also endangering the lives of others around you, because you are forcing them to pay far more attention to you than they should? You may think you're being a "safer" driver, but it works both ways...
Driving faster than everyone else is just as bad as driving slower than everyone else. The statistics do support this. I believe the line is, "it is not speed that kills, but speed differentials that kill". A large pack of cars driving 70mph down the interstate is a relatively safe and sane situation, until it comes upon a couple of asshats on cruise control going 55 and 56 next to each other.
In my experience, the "normal means of obtaining a warrant" is to make a phone call to a friendly judge, whereupon whatever search the police desire is granted. Drug-sniffing dogs, search the trunk, tear up the seats and speaker covers, pull out the radio, impound the car for months as "evidence" even if nothing is found to support whatever the hell they thought was there. This has happened to me - they found nothing; there was nothing to find. I had to sell my car to pay the three month's worth of impound fees after the case was settled. All they got me for was DWI, which I admit is a reason to pull my license, but not to rape my car without probable cause.
Welcome to Amerika. Big Brother is watching you.
"A generation which ignores history has no past and no future." -- Robert Heinlein
...I remember when they first started coming out with these, and people talked about some of the things that the Ford ECUs could blab. Not a lot of data, but it was mileage stamped, and some of it was stored for the lifetime of the unit (error codes, I think).
Same goes for OBD-II. The ongoing data might be brief, but if your "check engine" lite has been on for the last 6 months, the pollution tech is gonna say, "sorry, you have 30 days to have the problems investigated and repaired" yadayadayada.
Again, it's not the speed, it is sudden decelleration that causes problems.
You can even die from tipping over backwards in a chair if your head hits the ground right.
Hitting a large immovable object (tree, bridge pier, semi truck trailer, The Hulk) at 55mph vs. 70mph might be marginally more survivable, but the key word is "survivable". It does not indicate how fucked up you might still be from that accident at 55mph.
Again, it is driver inattentiveness or negligence that causes most accidents.
Life was so fun being tailgated by some bigass 4x4 "desert racer" truck in San Diego at 90mph in my MR2...
Black boxes don't make a car any safer than they would otherwise be, but they don't make the car any less safer either, and if a good driver can prove that a particular accident wasn't his fault because of the testimony contained in a car's black box, I'd be willing to bet he'd be pretty happy about it.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
For crying out loud, if someone is speeding and causes an accident, they deserve to get stiffed by the law because they are a dangerous, arrogant, son-of-a-bitch. These people kill.
Absolutely, I agree 100%.
Having a box that records five seconds worth of data is not a problem.
That depends. Technology is amoral, the morality stems from who or what uses it. I tend to err on the side of mistrust of Big Brother, so I don't want this device, but that's IMHO.
You think you should have a right to endanger other people's lives and break the law? If you think the law on speeding is wrong, campaign against the law. If you think the speed limit is too low, campaign to raise the speed limit.
Your statement is a non-sequitur, but it gives me a chance to propose something that's been on my mind for awhile.
I don't believe in victimless crimes. I think speeding laws and seatbelt laws are a cheap ploy to raise money for the local police departments. How often is someone in an accident injured because the other guy wasn't wearing a seatbelt? I mean, if a guy is gonna take his life into his own hands by not wearing the belt, good for him. It's none of my business, and it's none of the government's either. Same goes for speeding. OTOH, if speeding is a contributing factor to an accident, the penalty should be tripled, and the guy should have his lead foot cut off.
My proposal is for a 'speeder's license', for which you have to go to a state-sponsored school and pass a proficiency exam, and which gives you the priviledge of speeding down the highway. You only get it for certain cars (it's another tag or star on the license plate), and it's only rated up to certain speeds. All the regular people can follow the normal speed limit, but you wouldn't have to. My plan has all the safety benefits of the normal speed limit, and allows those who are skilled with their vehicle to get to the airport in time to catch their flight. If you can demonstrate higher levels of skill and responsibility, you should be afforded greater priviledge, as with all things in life.
I would propose that it be much, MUCH harder to get a driver's license in the first place. That alone would cut the number of traffic accidents dramatically. Unfortunately, our society is enslaved to our machines.
This post expresses my opinion, not that of my employer. And yes, IAAL.
>Airbags don't have any potential to identify whose fault the accident was.
:-)
:-)
Sure they do. Airbags only deploy in a front end collision over 30 km/h (or is it mph? I haven't got my owner's manual memorized.
>and with these devices installed in cars, insurance companies can say goodbye to those headaches. These things will be a welcome addition to vehicles by insurance adjusters.
I'm sure they will be popular with insurance companies all around. However, I doubt they're going to pass the savings on to you. If you're willing to pay what you currently pay for insurance (and, assuming you have a car, you certainly are) then why should they?
>if a good driver can prove that a particular accident wasn't his fault because of the testimony contained in a car's black box, I'd be willing to bet he'd be pretty happy about it.
And say the black box is the only thing that will put you in jail for, oh, let's say manslaughter... you'd be ok with that?
Well, I'm sure right now you'll say yes, but when the time comes, there are many foxes in court rooms.
If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
As for the example you described, the only way that would even be an issue with me is if I was actually driving safely, but the evidence on the black box of my car said I wasn't. Certainly the black box in another person's vehicle could not be used to convict you of such a crime unless it was corraborated by the evidence on the black box within one's own vehicle.
It's 30kph, btw... but consider the following: A person is motoring along a road and while driving through a controlled intersection, another vehicle runs into them. The other vehicle's airbag deploys, hopefully saving their life. As an aside, there's an intersection only a few blocks from where I live where there are about 5 or 6 accidents of this sort a week. A few months back, security cameras were installed by the city at that intersection so that it would be possible to review incidents as they were reported.Anyways, with regards to the situation I described, depending on who went through a red light actually determines whose fault it is, and the fact that airbags were deployed is completely meaningless.
According to a friend of my wife's who is an adjuster for a local auto insurance company, driver's stories about the circumstances surrounding an accident differ suprisingly frequently. Usually when this happens (at least in my region) the settlement is often considered fifty-fifty, and both drivers end up having to pay more for insurance next year. This *REALLY* sucks when you weren't at fault at all; and I've seen it happen more than once.
Because they might be able to convince people to get a comprehensive insurance coverage at a reduced rate as opposed to just getting basic coverage. Yeah, they pay more for comprehensive either way, but the difference between it with the black box and without could be enough to make people buy up when they otherwise wouldn't have.File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Blame should be rightly assigned.
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
Now you actually have to make a choice. Either get involved in the local politics and have those speed limits changed, or obey the law and drive the speed limit.
Driving across the country (or the neighboring city) suddenly got a lot more complicated.
Do you really thing that everyone in the legal system is an idiot? If they see that you tampered with the box, and if you do something so blatantly obvious as setting your speed at 20km/hr, then you are already looking guilty!
>According to a friend of my wife's who is an adjuster for a local auto insurance company, driver's stories about the circumstances surrounding an accident differ suprisingly frequently. Usually when this happens (at least in my region) the settlement is often considered fifty-fifty, and both drivers end up having to pay more for insurance next year. This *REALLY* sucks when you weren't at fault at all; and I've seen it happen more than once.
:-( Yes, quite true. I'm almost sure that's why in my province they have no fault insurance. That way it basically makes everyone pay no matter what. Keeps you on your toes when you're driving, though.
;-)
.
>Because they might be able to convince people to get a comprehensive insurance coverage at a reduced rate as opposed to just getting basic coverage. Yeah, they pay more for comprehensive either way, but the difference between it with the black box and without could be enough to make people buy up when they otherwise wouldn't have.
Trust me, as it stands right now in Ontario, without comprehensive coverage, you could be paying medical bills for years if the other driver skips town (check my link earlier). People still get third party/cheap/basic insurance anyways (most of my friends with cars worth less than my computer have this
People always assume they'll never be in an accident.
If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
> it's definately over the top for cops to
> download it routenly on random traffic stops.
I agree, but I don't think it really goes beyond todays enforcement.
After all cops are pointing their instruments at me every day, recording my speed as evidence for potential tickets, without reason or supeona. whats the difference if the vehicles turns that over, or if they contnue constantly monitoring speed manually as they do today.
Trafic tickets are obviously not "the law" their are regarded as a civil penalty exempt from standard legal innocent until proven guilty, and evidence acquisition requirements.
If speeding was intended to be a criminal penalty, they would need to have reason, before recording evidence against you.
The difference? Usually it doesn't really happen every day, but only very occasionnally. They only catch you if you speed at that very moment. If you know the hot spots (cops often tend to set up their speed traps at the same places...), or if you have sharp enough eyes to spot the cruiser in a distance, or if a friendly fellow driver warned you with his headlights, you'll be able to slow down in time. Like lottery, it's a tax on the stupid ;-)
However, if the cops have the possibility to look at your driving history of the last 30 days, it becomes much harder to avoid that ticket. Unless you never ever speed...
And just let's hope that they won't be able fine you for each time you sped during the last month. Or else: 50 speeding offences recorded = 50 times the price of a normal speeding ticket!
Take the bus. Or the train. Or a cab. Or a bike.
Your right to privacy ends when you're piloting a two-ton kinetic energy weapon, and I'm in front of you.
Somebody with a seat belt on in a car that's going out of control will have greater control over the car than someone who is unbelted.
And as long as the govt provides health services to people that don't have insurance, there's a good reason to ticket people who don't wear seat belts. They could make it like the helmet law in Texas; if you have a minimum level of health insurance, you can drive without a helmet. Do the same with seat belts. As long as my tax money doesn't pay for you when you become paralyzed from the neck up, I couldn't care less.
But yes, I would be surprised if it were legal to use *your* airbag module against you. That would be personal data. and should require a search warrant for something specific.
IANAL but!
Almost every thing you see in shows TV about courts of law is wrong. Almost everything you see in TV shows deals with criminal courts. Civil case law (torts) is very different set of rules.
Your right to against self-incrimination is limited to your own testimony in a criminal trial. In a case under the tort laws in most states, any data that the other side knows exist can be exposed during discovery. Additionally the standard for burden of proof to find against you shifts from beyond a reasonable doubt of guilt, in a criminal case, to simply a reasonable doubt. There is no guilt or innocents in a civil trial only 'agree to' or 'disagree with' a position. They'd just ask the judge to subpoena the recorder data as part of the evidence in the case. That you are trying to 'hide' the data by refusing to freely surrender it would also be admissible and would be used to color the jury's perception of your arguments. Enough little 'in the oppositions face' hissy fits over discovery and the judge may discharge the case and not in your favor. Enough seeming deception or secretiveness on one side and the judge or jury will discount everything that side has to say.
Sounds similar to modern aircraft control systems, where when you pull the stick back, the computer things to itself 'hmmm, trying to increase pitch, are we?' and figures out if you're allowed to, if you should, if you really really want to, and how to actually accomplish it; nothing so pedestrian as pull stick back = move control surfaces or anything.
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
StabiliTrak works surprisingly well in aggressive maneuvers. GM put quite a bit of effort into that, determined to avoid being blamed for any accidents. Car magazine writeups by drivers invited to try it on GM's big skid pad were amusing.
Unlike ABS, this doesn't seem to encourage drivers to drive more aggressively.
It will.
Aye; the traction control on my beloved Cavalier has come in handy once or twice; between that, the radar systems and night-vision stuff being installed in some vehicles...wow. Soon will we start seeing cars with KITT-style chaser LEDs on the grill?
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.