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."

20 of 262 comments (clear)

  1. Another article..... by elid · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ...can be found here.

  2. Removal by bossesjoe · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I wonder if the cars work without the box? If they do I'll just take mine out

    --
    There is no replacement for displacement.
  3. Damn... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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...

  4. Why the hoopla? by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Driving a vehicle on a public road 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 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????

    1. Re:Why the hoopla? by Bagheera · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Driving a vehicle on a public road 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.

      True, it is an eminently public act. HOWEVER, to abuse your Fifth Ave analogy, picking your nose at 0237 is a more or less private act because you have a reasonable expectation that no one will see you do it.

      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.

      Certainly AFTER THERE HAS BEEN AN ACCIDENT. Which is what this California law is intended to protect. Your remote download proposal leads down the slippery slope of downloading your logs and fining you based on infractions that it recorded.

      Yes, there are traffic laws. But the fact is nearly everyone pushes them to one extant or another. Whether it's 5 miles an hour over - or 15 over because that's how fast traffic is going. Most traffic laws are in place to guard the public safety. It's been shown in numerous studies (look them up) that it's the DIFFERENCE in speed between vehicles, not the absolute speed that matters.

      There's a reason the California Highway Patrol will cruise merrily past a pack of cars travelling at 72 in a 65 zone. They are all technically speeding, but none of them are posing a hazard.

      (Of course, CA doesn't use Highway Patrol fines as a major revenue stream as some other states do.)

      What this law should do is prevent municipalities and insurance companies et al from abusing the data gathered with the cars onboard systems. Your suggestion reeks of Big Brother.

      Regretably, unless more people stand up for their civil liberties, we'll see just the kind of invasive data collection you propose.

      Shall we also say again that driving a car is a mere PRIVILEGE and far from being a right????

      No argument there. But I won't go into my argument about why it should be considerably more difficult to get a license in the first place. Simple fact is that if drivers were better trained, traffic incidents would drop dramatically.

      --
      Never attribute to malice what can as easily be the result of incompetence...
    2. Re:Why the hoopla? by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Well, haven't you ever been late to a critical meeting and gone 10mph above the limit? Haven't you ever forgotten to buckle your seatbelt?

      Do not cast the first stone, O sinner, for I am totally sinless in that respect; I do not have a car, nor ever intend to have one. And I cannot stand being in a car without wearing a seat-belt.

      And don't even get me started on video/audio data collection... My conversations within a car are indeed private, and should not be accesible by the police, the SS or DHS, or what ever. Especially not at-a-distance-we-don't-have-to-tell-you-PATRIOT-AC T-style.

      Oh, I'm not talking about recording what you DO, but recording what you SEE from the windscreen... The idea is to see whether you drive like a fool or you simply avoided the other fool who drives like one.

      Shall we also say again that driving a car is a mere PRIVILEGE and far from being a right????

      That very well may be, and probably is, but the possesion of that privilege does not nullify a more fundamental right to privacy.

      It most definitely **IS**. You can't drive without a license, and you can't have a license without displaying a minimal amount of understanding of the traffic laws and how to handle your vehicle. Abuse that privilege by driving recklessly, and you'll see it pulled from you presto.

    3. Re:Why the hoopla? by Gojira+Shipi-Taro · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "
      Despite having "good" reasons for doing these things, they're still unsafe"

      Not necessarily. In many municipalities, speed limits are intentionally set lower than the safe "graded" speed of a given road to generate revenue. Studies have shown that the official "Graded" speed of a given road is close to the speed that the average driver feels comfortable/safe. By setting a lower speed limit, the municipality can generate revenue by ticketing drivers who drive with traffic, or drive at the "comfortable" speed.

      It has nothing to do with safety in most cases.

      SAFETY would be ALL traffic travelling at the same speed. Ticket the moron who can't read a map who slows down to 15 mph at every intersection looking for the road he's supposed to turn at the same as you do the guy doing 15 over. Same hazard.

      --
      "Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked."; ~ Donald J. Trump
    4. Re:Why the hoopla? by Gojira+Shipi-Taro · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "The operation of your car is done on PUBLIC roads. So the public has the RIGHT to know what you do with your private property while travelling over public property."

      BZZT Law enforcement has no right to use my private property to collect information regarding my activities.

      The Amendment preventing unwarrented search and seizure was created to prevent a police body that suspected a subject of a particular crime from searching, and continuing to search until they found him guilty of some crime or other, whether it be the one he was accused of originally.

      If they can collect evidence of my actions WITHOUT searching my PRIVATE property, then fine.

      Read the Constitution. Read the Bill of Rights.

      My public actions are a matter of record if there is a WITNESS that is willing to testify to them.

      My property is not a valid witness, without a WARRANT.

      That's the law, according to the Constitution. Property does not specifically mean "House" it means anything that I own.

      Getting a warrant does not restrict legitimate law enforcement.

      --
      "Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked."; ~ Donald J. Trump
    5. Re:Why the hoopla? by LawTom · · Score: 2, Interesting
      >Shall we also say again that driving a car is a mere PRIVILEGE and far from being a right????

      Sure, you can say that; but a Driver's License, once granted, is still subject to the protections of procedural Due Process guaranteed by the 14th Amendment. Bell v. Burson, 402 U.S. 535, 539 (1971). Know what one of those protections is? The protection against unreasonable search and seizure.

      Also, your argument should be more specific that driving a car on public land (for example, a highway or street) is a privilege granted by license. In most states, no license is necessary to drive on private land. For example, say I own a large ranch; I don't need a license, don't need to pass a test, don't need the state's permission to drive on my own land. Rather than asking what right an individual has to use a car, try asking what right the state has to regulate my use of a car.

    6. Re:Why the hoopla? by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 2, Interesting


      People have a fundamental right to privacy, despite what every government entity thinks. If they have a need to violate it, take it to a judge, get a couple of cops, and stake you out. Its rediculous for a car I purchased to tattletale on me. If a car is speeding in the desert when no one else is around, is it a crime?

      Is it ridiculous for an aircraft to be a tattletale on it's pilots? Or for a locomotive to be on it's crew? Or for a truck to it's driver? The duty of policemen is to watch motorists and monitor them for traffic law violations. The event recorder merely automates the data-gathering part of it, and is able to provide policemen accurate objective data in order to better assess the situation.

      Speeding is not a crime, it's a misdemeanor.

      Per vasive intrusions like these car monitors are disgusting. Imagine if your hands transparently recorded what happened within one foot of your crotch, and anyone with a reason could download the data. Then tell me these pervasive intrusions are a good thing.

      Either you think your car is an extension of your sex organs (I am not ashamed to admit that I masturbate 2-3 times a day), or you fail to realize that monitoring how one manoeuvers a car on a public road has absolutely has ZERO expectation of privacy.

  5. Okay, but... by Fnkmaster · · Score: 3, Interesting
    How exactly was the data going to get used without a court order? I mean I would be concerned if I were in a car accident or something that this data could be used against me, but it sounds like it still can, if the court orders it. Maybe it should be mandatory that you be allowed to deactivate or remove these things, like you can with airbags. I like the idea of at least being able to opt-out of the monitoring of my car's usage in any way.


    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.

  6. Re:Yeah, well by ergo98 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Speaking of car manuals, too bad more people wouldn't read them. Here in Canada most cars are equipped with daytime running lights which engage a low power high beam when the car is running (it increases visibility, even in bright clear days). The problem is that people tend to be overly paranoid about their car battery at the drive-in, so they incessantly start and then turn off their car. The little tidbit in most manuals, however, is that engaging your parking brake (including in automatics) before turning on the car turns off the daytime running lights. Just a little factoid to be aware of.

    Of course I didn't learn this from the manual (though I verified that it was there): I discovered it after running out from the car and returning with the parking brake engaged.

  7. I agree with the privacy concerns, but by utexaspunk · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ...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.

  8. still don't want the boxes by Daniel+Quinlan · · Score: 2, Interesting
    I'll be honest. I do not want any data recording devices in my car because the information gathered by the box could be held against me in any number of ways. Maybe it can improve car safety over time, but with vehicle laws and civil lawsuits being the way they are, I don't want the equivalent of the permanent wire-tap on my driving. If the data is there and any legal situation comes up where it could be useful, it will be used and if these devices are regulated into cars, you won't have any choice about it (obstruction of justice, destroying evidence, anti-tampering laws, etc.).

    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.

  9. mod the box by SparklesMalone · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

  10. all cars record at least some data by rebelcool · · Score: 2, Interesting
    They have to, for the fundamental operation of the engine.


    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.

    --

    -

  11. The motivation by asbestos_lead · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Odd how fast consumer protection legislation gets passed when a congresscritter happens to be involved:
    Recently, South Dakota police tried to get data to show whether Rep. Bill Janklow had run a stop sign before he struck and killed a motorcyclist.

    --
    Sig Applied For
  12. Re:"Or without a court order"? by Large+Green+Mallard · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "perfect" enforcement of laws is a sign of a police state. If no-one is affected when you break the law, why should you be punished? :)

  13. I would argue driving is a right. by PotatoHead · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  14. Re:if my kids have been: by Technician · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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!