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."

Comments

Yea,

[gsparrow]

Finally a reason to be proud of california

Dang nammit!

[Dark Coder]

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!

Re:Dang nammit!

[FyreFiend]

Easy. Ask yourself, "Did I do that at thair age?" If the answer's yes, then odds are they're doing it

Why the hoopla?

[Pig Hogger]

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????

Re:Why the hoopla?

[cgranade]

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.
I think we've already been through the loop about "If you aren't ${someevilthing}, then you have nothing to worry about." 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? 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.

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.

Re:Why the hoopla?

[Waffle Iron]

Even moreso, vehicular event recorders should hold at least 30 minutes of data, including video data, and be downloadable at distance by law enforcement.

That's fine by me, but only so long as I'm allowed to remotely download the black box of any police car whenever I choose.

Re:Why the hoopla?

[Bagheera]

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.

Re:Why the hoopla?

[Pig Hogger]

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.

There's an easy way to evade the regulation

[product byproduct]

The manufacturer could paint the box blue.

Re:Media

[takutai]

The recording is made in a constant 5 second loop to normal RAM. As soon as an airbag deployment event (or "near deployment" - whatever that means) occurs that 5 seconds of RAM data is copied to non-volatile write-once RAM. That is why you need to replace your SDM (Sensing Diagnostic Module) after the air bags have been deployed.

Re:"Or without a court order"?

[realdpk]

So, you're saying, you want to be able to lie to your insurance company, and then the court, about how fast you were going?

Now, I'm not a fan of this black box thing, but I don't think you're going to win much sympathy here.

Re:Removal

[ralphus]

no, you wouldn't definately void your warranty. The Magnunson Moss warranty act (federal law) makes it illegal for manufacturers to automatically void your warranty based on modifications you make excepting that they can prove the modification you made was the cause of the failure.

see: US Code Title 15, Chapter 60, sections 2301-2312

I've been making modifications to my vehicles for years, and never had warranty claims problems on other ares of the vehicle. I've completely replaced the *entire* computer on my ducati and it's still covered. The new computer is not, but the rest of the bike that the manufacturer provided is.

I would argue driving is a right.

[PotatoHead]

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.