Slashdot Mirror
California Protects Black-Box Data Privacy
Snowgen writes "According to a story at SFGate.com, California has recently passed a law regulating the little black boxes found in many modern automobiles. The new law requires that manufacturers disclose the existence of such boxes in the vehicle's operators' manual. The law also prohibits the use of data from such boxes without a court order or the permission of the vehicle's owner, unless the data is used in such a way that it can not be traced back to the owner."
I can finally drive like a nut again!
---Vixx---
...can be found here.
I could swear I've seen this around Slashdot before. Maybe it was another site...
The new law requires that manufacturers disclose the existence of such boxes in the vehicle's operators' manual
Who reads the manual?
SCO to Hell
Finally a reason to be proud of california
I wonder if the cars work without the box? If they do I'll just take mine out
There is no replacement for displacement.
I'm sure, that says, "except whenever."
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
Getting Rid of Spam, *AND* protecting us from little black boxes. I'm starting to dig this whole recall thing...
It sure is helping us little guys...
(from the article)
The devices, which record information on a continuous loop that rewrites itself every few seconds, lock the information in place only after an accident that deploys an air-bag.
Anyone know what sort of media they're talking about? The phrasing implies tape, but obviously there isn't a Commodore 64 Tape Drive hiding under your seat.
I didn't even know this data was being collected. I'm not sure anything bad is happening with it, however. In fact, it could be good for impartial descriptions of accidents. But with the potential for misuse, and my natural distrust of people, I'm not sure I would like it either way.
Shoot.
How the heck am I going to determine if my kids have been:
1. speeding
2. not wearing seatbelt
3. popping air-bags
4. drifting
5. figure-eighting
6. parking off a secluded roadside
Big brother, I miss ya!
submitted and used by the State as evidence. Honestly, if these individuals would rather not be exposed, perhaps they should remove these black boxes! Otherwise, we should use them to expose the fradulent drivers. If their recollection is factual, what have they to fear?
Airlines are required to surrender their black boxes to a government agency for analysis. Why should motorists be treated any differently?
Will it have a compass and a clock, which will help determine the orientation of the car(s) involved in an accident?
this thread becomes yet another "what about terrorists" thread.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
A wave of car manufactures will put stickers on the steering wheel saying "RTFM n00b".
So what they mean is, unless you get sued... You crash a car into someone. You say you were going under the limit, the insurance company knows your car has one of these black boxes in it. Insurance company says to court "we don't think he was going the limit due to skid marks/someone saying he looked like he was going pretty fast/previous record", gets court order, information obtained, insurance claim denied. say the person you hit wants a piece of the actio, they say "his insurance company isn't paying out, I think he was going too fast, give me the black box data", gets a court order, sues your ass off.
So basically it's as useful as the constitutional amendments that begin "Congress shall make no law..." and end in "unless it makes a law that says it can"
The collection of vehicle control evidence is a crucial step in the investigation of traffic accidents. Sheltering that information from the authorities has only one purpose, to shield delinquent drivers from retribution for their unlawful acts.
Even moreso, vehicular event recorders should hold at least 30 minutes of data, including video data, and be downloadable at distance by law enforcement.
Shall we also say again that driving a car is a mere PRIVILEGE and far from being a right????
The manufacturer could paint the box blue.
Now if only the government gave the foggiest shit about electronic privacy. People understand "little black box sitting in your car", and they just don't seem to get the other privacy atrocities that go on every day.
2nd Amendment trolls piss me off. Go off into the hills of Georgia and blow your head off with your 15 assault rifles and 36 shotguns.
The rest of us want to live in a sane, peaceful world.
California is a weird state but sometimes ... they get things right. I'm impressed (and a bit shaken ... I didn't know the OBD modules were being used that way.)
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
The automobile is the biggest weapon that criminals use in the expanses of the 50 states. The automobile is used to hide victims in trunks and alows safe getaways for criminals. If there is a way to use black boxes for evidence in murders and major burglaries then it should be used.
Can be found here
For those interested, here is a link to the text of Assembly Bill 213, sponsored by Assemblyman Tim Leslie:
CA Assembly Bill 213
...if my insurance company in exchange would give me a sizable break on my $$$ premiums.
In recent years, O'Neill said, data from the the devices has found its way into court -- primarily to defend automakers in cases where consumers claimed a vehicle malfunctioned. In at least one case, the recorded data was used as evidence in a vehicle accident.
If I had an accident, and I try to hold the automobile company responsible, can I be sued by them for being a bad driver?
For awhile I was hoping that the presence of black boxes might deter people from speeding and driving so recklessly, since their indiscretions might come out in embarassing ways. Traffic accidents are one of the leading causes of accidental death in the industrialized world. Hundreds of families are destroyed every year because of irresponsible drivers.
This technology had the potential to save perhaps hundreds of thousands of lives. Typical that the screaming alarmists would bring an end to that with this useless and ridiculous legislation.
Check:w ww.accidentreconstruction.com/research/edr /faq.asp
http://slate.msn.com/id/2087207/
http://
They use the OBD-II interface (Same interface the DEQ guys use to make sure your car isn't pumping out too many noxious fumes.) 5 seconds of data are stored in an EEPROM.
The place where this would most likely and most often be used would be auto accidents. This is not a question of the state vs an individual, its a question of an individual vs an individual with the state trying to determine the correct state of affairs. As someone who was in an accident, and had the ticket wrongly awarded to him I welcome this. Next time I won't have to worry about someone having their family members lie that they were watching someone pull out from an apt building when they were thireen floors up and on the other side of the building.
The new law requires that manufacturers disclose the existence of such boxes in the vehicle's operators' manual.
Great idea. People should know that there's a balck box in their car. Maybe they'll think twice about that reckeless maneuver their going to pull.
A previous poster mentioned dupe, this is not. The previous article mentioned how someone was convicted of killing somone 'cause they decided to do ~100 mph down a 25mph resedential street.
Hypothetical future dialog: "Hey son, I trust you and all, but be aware that fi you do try to show off to your prom date tonight, and maybe, umm I dunno, kill someone while your at it, that blackbox recorder could put you away for a long time. Here are the keys, by the way."
Maybe some of this info could also be used to help prosecute people who stage accidents for insurance fruad. I get so sick of seeing these thigs happening. 6 people all loaded up in 2 cars, they bump at 10mph, cry neck and back pain, but they have no idead who they are sitting next to in the same vehicle!
In the contract the manufacturer will add in very little caracters the rights to do everything it wants with the black box !
Uhhhh, I can't speak for anyone else, but the only people I WANT to keep from getting their hands on the black box data away from is a court.
...it could be very useful if manufacturers could get black-box telemetry in an anonymous way. think of how much we've learned from black-boxes about airplane crashes, why they happen, and how to prevent them.
there could perhaps be engineering flaws which would could be revealed a lot sooner by analyzing black-box data, possibly saving lives.
before going to court *you* should get your box's data analyzed by a third party. Obviously you have a right to view the data contained within your own automobile. This law doesn't restrict your personal use.
-
IIRC, California is a no fault auto insurance place (like my home state of Michigan). Therefore I'm fairly certain that "sues your ass off." could not happen. But I could be wrong as I do live in Texas.
Yeah right... As if this is a privacy issue.. The box doesn't store personal information about anyone... All it does is record what the car was doing for 4 seconds before a crash.. It only locks the data away in memory if the car has crashed... OMG.. A computer recording my last actions before a crash.. GOSH.. er driving is a PRIVELAGE not a RIGHT.. Try arguing privacy with your driving tester (I mean what if you crash and their evidence means you take the blame.. WELL BAD LUCK.. ITS YOUR FAULT.. WHO COULD POSSIBLY BE AGAINST THIS EXCEPT PEOPLE WHO ARE SCARED OF HAVING THE TRUE NATURE OF THEY WAY THEY DRIVE EXPOSED AFTER ITS LED TO A SERIOUS ACCIDENT... I know, even better!!.. why don't we take black box recorders out of aircraft to protect the privacy of the pilots.. Yeah, thats a good idea.. You don't have the right to total privacy when you are driving because you have to share the road with other people.
Could I put a mail server in one of these boxes and use that to send spam in California?
So what these are used for is say you get in a fatal wreck and claim you were doing 45 mph. Witnesses disagree and say you were doing a more reckless 70. Who's to say? Well, the data contained by the car's computer isn't going to lie. It means the difference between accident and manslaughter, in some cases.
-
This does nothig to protect a person from the abuse of the information when they Rent a car (c.f. the story of the "speeding penalty" enacted by the one rental agency) or when a person has a "company car".
Finally, one wonders whether this separates the purchasers and leasees of cars into two separately and unequally protected classes.
After all, if you lease a car, your leasing company owns it. So the police could end-around and make a request of them to access the black-box.
Then again, section 215 lets the FBI do any dang thing they want in the search and seizure arena despite the Constitution.
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
There might be some number of times where the devices could be used to prove your innocence or lack of liability, but I'd rather take my chances without the devices. I mean, how often does anyone really drive the speed limit on the highway?
Of course, my 2002 probably already has something of the sort and I'm probably just ignorant about it. Anyway, I think car safety can be improved over time almost as well without the boxes and the adjoining less of privacy.
Most vehicles computers store the last few seconds of data, but a few are outfitted with recorders that save the data if an airbag is deployed. The manufacturers can use this data to perform analysis on what the cars were doing and so on.
I believe Volvo goes so far as to dispatch an 'accident team' if a wreck involving one of their cars occurs within a few kilometers of their safety division headquarters. They find out what happened, how the car reacted, etc.
-
Conversly, black boxes could be used to prove your innosence. Cop says you were going 5 over? Pull up your handly Linux interface terminal and say, "See officer? I've been going 55 for the past four miles, except where I passed a guy there, and where a guy braked to turn in front of me."
I've been thinking about installing such a device in my car, just for that reason.
My real concern in a terrorism investigation lay in federal "investigators" confiscating your black box as evidence, when that "evidence" would clear your name. I wouldn't put it past them.
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
This is the first I've even heard of the box, but what's to keep someone from modding the input so ANY accident looks like they were sitting still? Heck, mod the box, pull up to the light in front of a guy you hate, slam into him in reverse, then use the box to sue his pants off.
The court shouldn't use a device like this without the appropriate wariness to it's vulnerabilities.
Your engine computer contains some non-voltile memory that saves any error codes your engine may throw up (misfire, malfunctioning O2 sensor, emissions problem..anything that causes your 'check engine' light to come on) so your mechanical can quickly diagnose problems. For economical reasons, they usually use this same nvram chip to hold the running data for the engine. O2 readings, fuel data and of course, Speed, because vehicle speed is integral to calculating optimum fuel and air consumption for the engine. Other things like spark timing and camshaft positions are recorded too. All kinds of mundane data.
As such, your engine computer usually holds a few seconds of this data in its memory. Now get in a wreck, computer loses power, but since they use nonvolatile memory the last few seconds of data are probably in there.
-
Car tuners have for quite awhile been using similar systems.
-
The "black boxes" in airplanes are danger-yellow with black stripes. Would a judge rule on its used based on the wording ("black box") or on the intent? ("status recording device")
(I've never seen the actual law, they might be more specific than "black box".)
Over long periods of time, the assumed intent of a law can be questioned. (Think "right to bear arms") Also, over long periods of time, the wording of a law may not mean the same thing.
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
I've got a better idea - how about we just quit with the messing around and move directly to a Fifth Element style 'cop in the dashboard' system which deducts points every time I do something wrong? So long as the data is being recorded it is going to be accessible to the courts and therefore insurance companies. It's bad enough with ridiculously low speed limits (in Australia as low as 40kph, and 50kph in most built up areas, down from 60kph only a few years ago because according to, you guessed it, our insurance companies, it was to save lives left right and centre - yet my premiums have been on a steady increase! what gives?), radar detector bans and speed cameras everywhere, without having to worry about that new car dobbing you in for disobeying the rules when some idiot pulls/walks out in front of you! That said I guess this law will provide some amount of protection to a select few - presumably the information the would have been available in the same way that your tyres can be examined for wear is now more difficult to obtain. That said, suspicion is probably all that is required to obtain a court order, and you can bet they'll be requested as a matter of course anyway!
One way to derive benefits from the statistics while protecting drivers from their own vehicles would be for the boxes to introduce the occasional error into the data - outliers will be filtered out when the stats are processed, but the figures will no longer be able to be trusted for avoiding claims and the like. If the information's recorded accurately, it's there to be abused.
Sig Applied For
Who's to say what is speeding? Without data to confirm the speed of the cars around you, who's to say you were just not keeping up with traffic? On most roads/highways (at least here in Ontario) a slower driver is more likely to cause accidents due to pissed off people trying to pass. Unless there is data regarding the speed of everyone around you, your argument can just be "I was just going as fast as everyone around me". There would be no way to prove either side of this 100% without data from all the cars around you. Eyewitnesses don't count as most people under/over estimate speed by quite a bit..
Just my thoughts
K Man
We have the right to travel freely. Driving is a form of transportation. Is it realistic to say that someone does not need to drive in society today in general? For a large percentage of us, driving is something we need to be able to do.
Not being able to drive is a pretty serious limit on ones freedom to travel.
If driving is indeed a right, by nature, why then do we license it? Safety. Those that do drive have a reasonable expectation of safe roads and qualified drivers. Driving is a right that can be lost if exercised irresponsibly just as many other rights can be.
Let me put it this way. If someone demonstrates they are qualified to drive, is there a reason why they should not get a license? Do they have any expectation such denial will occur? Of course not because everyone has a right to drive provided they do not abuse other people rights while exercising theirs. (Hitting someone with your car infringes on their right to live and prosper for example.)
We deny someone their ability to drive as punishment for poor execution, not because we can. Same for other rights. You might lose your right to move freely if you use that right to kill someone for example. 'nuff said about that, either we agree or not, but I wanted to have the other view present on this thread.
I agree with you regarding driving being a public act, however that does not, in itself, support your idea that law enforcement should be able to access this device at a distance. I think it does support the traffic accident reporting particularly when people are killed. The survivors or other interested parties need to know what happened so the correct decisions can be made. Nothing but good there.
The main problem I have with your distance query is the same problem I have with automated speed detectors; namely, that we should be judged by our peers. That is how the law is written and it is one of the founding principles of this country.
Getting a ticket for doing 5 miles over by an automated machine is simply a tax, nothing more. Think about it. What is punishment without explanation. It's cruel and pointless.
Getting that same ticket because a warm body thought you might deserve it (or not) for some reason is being judged by your peers. That peer who chooses, or not, to write you that ticket will, in the case of writing it, let you know why it is being done and what you should do to avoid having it happen again. That action is what justice and law enforcement are all about. Those same actions can be shown to benefit society in a measurable way.
Those tickets from the automated machine, justifed or not, are simply a tax because no justice was done, no peer involvment took place; thus no corrective action and benefit to society will happen as a result.
So, a cop might download the last 20 minutes of driving. Lets say they do it right after people have traveled down an incline. Every last one of them will be speeding somewhat because that is what the vehicle naturally wants to do in that case. Our law enforcement could then write a ticket, or heck mail a bunch of them without having seen or judged the act.
A possible result: Navigating in traffic down an incline gets more dangerous as everyone concentrates on over control of their vehicle fearing an unwarranted ticket instead of the task at hand; namely, getting down that incline along with everyone else in an orderly manner.
This is exactly why I choose older cars. I can know completly the technologies used and how they will affect me. You don't want too old of a car because you lose the benefit of ongoing engineering however.
Good for California, they want people to know they might be judged in an automated fashion. Knowing the device is there makes a difference in how people react to it. This goes to another right we should have:
We all should have the right of full disclosure on any technology we make use of. If it does something without telling us, it is doing something wrong and potentially harmful that we should know about.
Blogging because I can...
(IMHO} a very good law - how the black box would know ( how can you read from the box ) what the situation was? It just records, it doesn't know if it was a good thing to accelerate or to speed up, how the traffic was. Just 40 years driving fast cars all around the world and one accident ( arguably not my fault but you know the insurance companies ). Maybe if it would record like 6 months or so, then you can make a pattern ( not always right but better than last xxx minutes ). I hope they don't put those on F1 cars!
Information can be gleaned from that and the scene of the accident can be reconstructed from that.
Of course, the lawyers (and trolls) will say that those who have nothing to hide shouldn't have to destroy the info.
Drive cars that don't have boxes. Until those are illegal too...
Davis took a big hit with motorists when he jacked up license fees. He's trying to mitigate that damage. You have the recall to thank for that, and anything other pro-motorist acts that mysteriously get signed during the next two weeks. Feel free to fall for it.
Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
1) First off, I don't what makes you think that because the law says driving is a priviledge, that it should be a priviledge. It's always the "right" that argues circularly that a) they hate the government, but b) selectively we should agree with their values because some parts of government says so [ we should agree with it because its the -law- ].
If we want to make driving a right, we can.
2) "You're right to privacy serves no purpose but to hide..."
I'll take that logic and use that for all information, public and private.
2.a) You're anti-gun registration, tada, is just proof that you are hiding guns to commit a crime.
2.b) You're pro-corporate privacy because you don't want the deception, environmental abuse, and shareholder fraud to be made public. Why shouldn't every citizen be allowed to publish any information they find about an employer, regardless of any agreement they may have with that employer?
Really, the whole point of the right to privacy is that privacy implies a sort of power in an information economy. It says that knowledge about one's person is the property of the person, not someone else.
Of course, conservatives make the argument that individuals have no right to privacy, but they do have the right to their possessions. This only proves how stupid conservatives are. After all, if you don't have privacy in an information economy, you don't have any personal currency, and therefor, you've devalued yourself immediately. So, what's the point of private property when you can't have any sense of self? The bottom line is that either conservatives are really stupid, or they are dangerous and clever liars. Since they have the money, we should assume the latter and exterminate them all.
This is my sig.
Nice little device called "CarChip."
Made by a company called DriveRight. It is a handy diag tool too.
Yes, I am too lazy to put up a link, find it yourself.
From my limited understanding, the 'black box' stores a record of the car's mechanical stats retroactively five seconds prior to an accident - and even then we're talking about a relatively major accident, not a minor fender bender. This device isn't a GPS unit, it doesn't 'call home', nor does it record conversations (which wouldn't consist of anything more than "Oh shiii... *crunch*" anyway). What privacy are we trying to protect? When we file the police report or an insurance claim don't we voluntarily report much of this information anyway? When the police officer or insurance agent asks "How fast were you traveling?", am I to believe that you all claim "I'm sorry, I won't answer that question as I feel it invades my privacy"? Either I'm missing a key fact, or my definition of privacy is grossly out of sync.
I'm still convinced that we're headed toward having these things in all of cars.
We'll probably have our speeds monitored (and our insurance companies notified or even worse, our bank accounts debited) in real time.
Nothing we can do about it. The roads will still have posted speed limits of 55, even though the practical speed of traffic flow is closer to 70. Care to complain? Hey - you were speeding, we have the black box to prove it. Great source of revenue for the states and insurance companies for whom state legislatures have been creating traffic penalties to enrich them.
Then chances are you will own the car and have the owners permission.. which would be you. No this is not big brother strikes again.. its actually protecting your rights from unlawful ssearch and seizures and general snooping.
Fine and you can but this law means *I* don't have to. To each their own.. that is the definition of freedom.
Just like the non-volatile error logs that are in modern (and not so modern) avionics...
history log follows the car...
heck, my car mechanic keeps track of the work done on my car so he can suggest what it's also time for when i'm in for the routine lube and oil change....
You guys in Cali just gots to quits the drugs!
Just a note : if a black box is wiretapping, this would be like having a wiretap on EVERY telephone in the U.S., except that it can "only" be read with a court order. So, the moment the authorities find "reason" (basically anything) to suspect you, they know everything you said BEFORE the court order as well. Is this right? No idea, the argument most people would make is "you have nothing to fear if you're innocent".
Downloading content on a public network is an eminently public act, and those who do it shall have no more expectations of privacy than someone picking his nose in front of Sack's Fifth Avenue on the morning rush-hour.
The subpenaing of personally identifying information is a crucial step in the investigation of copyright violations. Sheltering that information from the RIAA has only one purpose, to shield delinquent downloaders from retribution for their unlawful acts.
Even moreso, all online activities should be associated with personal identifying information, and be downloadable at distance by law enforcement.
Shall we also say again that using the internet is a mere PRIVILEGE and far from being a right????
Like bascially all laws (such as copyright laws), traffic laws are designed with a certain amount of assumed flexibility in enforcement: flexibility that is destroyed by complete and mandatory disclosing of all data.
My parallel is slightly tongue in cheek... but only slightly. And I can adapt your argument the same way for almost anything. For example, the existance of cash in our economy allows a great deal of crime to take place, because it grants a certain anonymity. Do you really espouse the complete desctruction of the idea of anonymity in our society, in place of a big-brotheresque system that enforces total accountability of everything?
There's a fuckin xbox hidden in my car?!
Demolition Man
You, as the driver, have to be in absolute control of your speed at all times. If you are unable to do so, you are unfit for the road!!!
Have you ever actually driven? I don't know about you, but I like to occasionally look at the road, instead of staring fixedly at my spedometer. This means that my speed will, on occasion, drift slightly (even if I had "absolute control" over every muscle in my body, there would be variations when I, say, hit a pot-hole and am bounced slightly). This is true for everyone else as well. Having "absolute control" over your speed is a physical impossibility, especially when you are doing something else, like trying to drive safely.
So your argument is that no-one on earth is fit for the road. Let's see what else we can determine from your logic:
The list is endless, but I think I've made my point. You keep living in your fantasy world; I'll keep using the better part of my finite attention to watch the road than to worry about whether I'm going 34 or 36 in a 35 zone.
The Ninth amendment to the constuition states:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
In case you aren't clear on what this means and why it is there:
"I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not content that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretence for claiming that power."
-Hamilton
"It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure."
-Madison
Driving, especially here in the USA, is a necessity, much like Food, Shelter, and Clothing, all of which you cannot afford if you cannot get to a decent job. How close do you live to your work? (I live 28 miles away and public transportation is a pathetic joke in this town) Can you walk to the nearest public trasportation node or do you park-n-ride? Carpool? (SOMEONE still has to drive, and usually people take turns). Basically, if you can't have a good job where you live (few people can), you can't make a living without driving; without being able to drive you can't afford the other Necessities.
The "Black Box" system that everyone is crying about is part of the OBDII standard, or On Board Diagnostics that all cars produced since the early 90's are required to support. This is a set of standards that includes what data is to be accessible via diagnostics. There are several modes of retrieving data, and they are all intended for aiding in diagnosing the emissions welness of the vehicle as well as other faults your vehilce may encounter. The feature that has everyone up in arms is the "Freeze frame data" feature of OBD-II. What this does is, whenever there is a sensor fault (Ie: front of your car gets blown up in a collision, or something simple like your Oxygen sensor goes bad), the previous 5-30 seconds of data (varies depending on the car) is logged to *aid the technitian* in diagnosing the fault. Unfortunately, someone figured out that when you get in a wreck, there's usually some sort of sensor fault, and the car's computer conviently records a lot of variables relevent to the collision.
It is impossible to remove this "black box" because on any car that supports OBD, *EVERY* computer in the car logs some sort of data. The important stuff is logged in the same computer that controls how your engine runs. It IS possible to clear the data using a diagnostic tool designed to do so. See the SAE J1979 standard if you're interested learning how to do this.
Fun with Anagarams! LADS HOST, SHALT DOS. HAS DOLTS. AD SLOTHS, HATS SOLD. ASS HO, LTD.
I'm also worried if the boxes could be used the other way, that is, someone being able to *upload* something to these boxes with some questionable purpose.
tinfoil hats anyone?
http://www.accidentreconstruction.com/research/edr /faq.asp
I might be out driving on a PUBLIC ROAD, but I still retain a freedom from unreasonable search and seizure. There are expectations of privacy which are constitutionally protected, no matter how "public" the location may be, and talk of anonymity is really talk of privacy. A police officer can't pull me over and search my car merely because I am driving on a public street. While walking down the street, they can't grab me and search my person merely because I'm on a public sidewalk. If I am talking on a cell phone in public, the police officer may be able to hear me speaking, but he cannot electronically intercept the other side of the conversation, merely because I'm in public. All actions in public are not "public actions" as you define them, and even truly public actions do not deprive you of all privacy.
This law doesn't prohibit using a subpoena to get a court order to read out the event recorder. It's quite reasonable to do so, too.
Check out some of the portable GPS units. Some can easly be stashed under the dash and will record a track with speed & elevation info. Tuck it up behind the glove box just under the plastic dash. Set it to record .1 mile intervals. Speed can be calculated from the time between points. Retrieve it later and find out how long they were stopped beside the road instead of being at the movies.. It's great for the for the paranoid parent. A set of batteries are good for up to 12-16 hours for many portable units. A DC adaptor can be used to save batteries. Download it later.
If you go this route, there must already be a trust problem that needs confirmed.
The truth shall set you free!
This was law brought to you by ... The Mafia !!!
Your comment is far from insightful, it is just plain ignorant. It goes to show just how stupid some of the people with moderation points truly are on this site.
By your assumptions we should also be free from being required to have insurance.
Sorry, you have NO RIGHT to drive on the public roads. You are privledged to do so, PROVIDED you obey the laws - which includes maintaining your vehicle, obeying signals, and keep yourself insured.
Their is no basis for your self assumed right. Using the excuse that "everyone needs to" or "every does it already" is invalid. Your rights granted under the Constitution are no way infringed if the state decides you cannot drive.
Hence, do not assume a right. Your type is the same who assumes entitlement, and that current attitude is quickly sinking this country.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
The law also prohibits the use of data from such boxes without a court order or the permission of the vehicle's owner,
you crash, insurance company total's out your car... they are NOW the owner of your car and they will gladly give the data to the courts.
End-running most privacy laws is really easy and is a specality of insurance companies.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
To issue tickets, me and a bunch of my friends are going to gas up and drive 55 (no faster) on the Chicago expressways. We'll gang up, four lanes wide, and slow traffic to a standstill.
Trust me, after a few days, the State Troopers will stop issuing tickets via black box. Some local politician will get stuck in 55 mph traffic (which normally moves at 70-85), be late for a meeting, and that will be the end of black-box ticketing...
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Your car is not your castle. We're not talking about what you do or what you say within the car, but how do you DRIVE the car. The license plate outside your car allows it to be identified from a distance, thus blowing any kind of anonymity you believe you have. Likewise, the event recorder merely records how you do DRIVE the car. So your privacy, within your car, and subject to what is visible from without through the windscreen and windows, is still safe.
And, in any case, the event recorder is State property (just like your licence plates), so they can damn well interrogate it at their whim, like anybody can read your license plates.
is there anything better? well, maybe some spanish box. hmmm, yellow box is pretty good too.
damn, i think i need a napkin here.
heh.
Driving is a "privilege" only because assholes like you say that it is; if you repeat something long enough, people will start to believe it, no matter how nonsensical it is. Fuck that! Driving is a RIGHT. The government shouldn't be able to deprive you of your rights unless they can show a damn good reason. The road belongs to YOU, not them. Take it back.
Call me pessimistic, but I see this being covered by another piece of paper, or some small print when you buy your car. Auto dealers and mechanics will just add a clause in their standard forms that say you agree to let them access your box and use the data.
This previous article describes how rental companies can fine you for speeding using GPS, even if you don't get caught. Just part of their standard rental agreement.
Still, this particular black box doesn't seem too bad. It records vehicle data in a buffer that is constantly rewritten and only saves the data when the airbag deploys in an accident. Then again, future BB's could do a lot more.
Lawyers asking to have this tossed out have pointed out a decent percentage of cases where the data retrieval was damaged. In addition loss of traction could make the VSS think the car was going faster than it's actual over the road speed. Swapping tires little error) or swapping gears (potentially big error) can change the recording of the VSS too.
My point is that the data, just like radar guns today, will be taken as gospel by the tech illiterate judicial system even if you explain to them the many reason s why it could be full of shit...
Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org
The parent of this post has my intent, flawed as it may be, correct.
I posted above after thinking on this for a while. Driving may not be a natural right, but it is more than a simple privilige because of the affect it has on other more clearly defined natural rights.
Blogging because I can...
You judge me with regard to entitlement. It's a hasty judgement that detracts from your other point.
Man, I have never been entitled to anything period. Growing up, I had nothing but what I earned. One does not get anything unless they earn it. The driving is a right/privilige thing is getting hashed above, so I am not going to rehash again here, but I will say this:
I have worked hard for everything I have. Dig though my comment history for a little more on that. There are attitudes sinking this country, but mine is clearly not one of them.
Blogging because I can...
Engine RPMs and load which can be measured either via a pressure sensor or some form of mass airflow sensor is used to calculate fuel pulse. Thorttle position can also come into play depending upon how it's been setup. NO system I'm aware of must have vehicle speed in order to calculate fuel flow - that's incorrect. Speed of vehicle doesn't change fuel requirements - wind resistance simply causes engine load to increase.
.
Some EMS monitor vehicle speed and use it to limit speed but only due to the number of liability lawsuits that have occured. Far be it for a Camaro to be able to exceed the speed rating of it's tires for instance
What's interesting is that things like steering angle and brake application are listed as things recorded. These data points are NOT required for the engine to operate. An argument could be made to monitor brake application because it usually draws some engine vac and power steering can apply additional load but both of those loads can be compensated for without using the EMS to do it. ABS isn't in the engine controller usually nor the cruise control, it's usually a standalone ECU module for these functions.
For awhile now manufacturers have been making their EMS more and more omnipotent over vehicle operation - something I'm not a fan of. One single point of failure in a part that's not user servicable could be quite costly. Some vehicle dealers won't sell you an EMS these days without allowing them to do the work - seems odo information is now stored in them!
No thanks! My OEM EMS was too limited for the performance work I decided to do and has been removed\replaced with something I can control myself....
Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org
Vehicles don't have quite the same protection as homes, but they are highly protected nonetheless. The 4th Amendment protection against unreasonable search & seizure, the 5th and 14th Amendment protections of Due Process all apply to vehicles as well as homes.
We're not talking about what you do or what you say within the car, but how do you DRIVE the car.
I think the black box is much more than that. If the police want to follow me around with a camara, recording how I drive, they can do that. The black box seems to capture much more than just how i drive. It captures very specific, very detailed information that is impossible for the police to know without the black box.
The license plate outside your car allows it to be identified from a distance, thus blowing any kind of anonymity you believe you have.
The license plate only tells them to whom the car is registered. It doesn't tell anyone who the driver is. Sometimes I let my friend borrow my car. Sometimes I drive my friend's car. Sometimes cars get stolen. License plates are unique to the car, not the individual.
Likewise, the event recorder merely records how you do DRIVE the car. So your privacy, within your car, and subject to what is visible from without through the windscreen and windows, is still safe.
I disagree that it merely records how you do drive the car. I think the details are much more specific than what is publicly viewable. It's an issue of what's in public view or plaint sight. If a police officer sees something illegal in your car, in public view, it can be used against you. If he searches without probable cause or warrant, and finds something illegal, generally it can't be used against you. I propose, that the black box and the information it collects are absolutely not within public view.
And, in any case, the event recorder is State property (just like your licence plates), so they can damn well interrogate it at their whim, like anybody can read your license plates.
I still don't know where it says the black box is state property. Perhaps I've misunderstood, and we're discussing your proposed video-capable event recorder that's accessible from a distance? The actual black boxes discussed in the article, though, are not even required to be installed on vehicles. Some manufacturers put them on to retrieve accident information, ostensibly to improve their vehicles. The bill mentioned in the article is only about protecting the rights of the owners of the car against improper use of the black box information, when present in the vehicle. Let me know if I'm mistaken.