Slashdot Mirror
'Black Box' Readings Help Convict Montreal Driver
the man writes "From CBC News, Here's one that is going to get a lot of attention in the coming years. Quebec police won a dangerous-driving conviction Friday using evidence from the 'black box' in the car, a first in the province. Turns out that not many people know of these things. Time to start working on the mod for my Toyota."
As much as everyone here will rant on and on about how this is an intrusion of their rights, how "big brother" is watching them, this is actually a rather good idea.
...*goes to check that his car doesn't have one*
I'm not saying it should be mandated that these be installed in every single vehicle manufactured, but I see no reason why they shouldn't be admitted as evidence in a trial. Perhaps it will make people think twice before speeding like maniacs...
I would expect such blatant racism on Fark, but on Slashdot? Mods please ban this asshole.
How about just driving responsibly instead of trying to mod your box so you can continue driving irresponsibly? If you've gotten in an accident AND the box happens to show you were driving like a fool, then in order for it to be a conspiracy someone would have intentionally had to get you in an accident while your box was malfunctioning.
Right. I believe you.
Dangerous-driving conviction? And that's bad exactly how?
The owls are not what they seem
Time to start working on the mod for my Toyota."
Wouldn't that be illegal under something? The DMCA, or some Patriot Act whatnot? You're breaking into something that supposed to protect society, etc...
cuz it'd be too heavy to take off, duh!!!!!!!!
It records a few simple data for a short period... like the events leading up to a crash. Unless you plan on using your car as a murder weapon, I wouldn't worry much about it.
OTOH, when it starts recording everything and sending it to the police every night at 2am, I will be among the first in the driveway with a soldering iron.
So how long until I can put the usage stats from my car's black box onto my website? Can I hook it up to GKrellM? Is there a /proc interface?
I mod down anyone who says "I will be modded down for this", regardless of the rest of their comment
Time to start working on the mod for my Toyota.
Or your driving skills. Your choice.
Just rebuilt the motor of my '70 Impala. Lots of low milage and high torque but no black box.
I drank what? -- Socrates
Why do planes have black boxes in the first place? I'm guessing the pilots of the plane have a responsibility to their passengers. In the event of a crash, grieving families might want to know what exactly went wrong before a crash. Is a car any different?
If I'm a passenger driving with a friend, that friend has a responsibility to get me from A to B safely. The same rules apply to me as a driver. I know that if a friend of mine was killed in a crash that I'd like to know if it happened to be someone else's fault or ultimately the car that was driving my friend's fault.
If you can prove these things inaccurate in crash conditions then maybe we should be second-guessing whether to use them to prosecute people. Until then, I don't see why it's harmful to use them as a tool to reconstruct fault.
-- everyones not everybody and neither is everybody like everyone.
I've heard about the case a few months ago, since I live in Montreal. They said that these little devices recorded only speeds and such. No audio is involved of course. What is interresting is that it doesn't record for a long time. It essentially has a buffer of about 5 or 10 seconds. When the car body registers a hit, it stops registering speeds, so it doesn't overwrite the speed before the impact. This way, police officers can't use these as a way to prove someone was going over the limit when they were chasing someone, but it's still usefull in car crashes.
I wonder what happens though if I have an accident once with my car, and then have it repaired. Is the box reset by the car repairman?
These things will only be used in two cases:
1) Driver kills or seriously injurs someone, and claims innocence - the box will tell the truth, and if they're guilty of the crime, they SHOULD be found out and punished.
2) The driver is dead, in which case the box will tell his story for him - and tell it accurately.
This thing won't be used for your common speeding violation... it's been in cars for a long while, it serves it's purpose, and there's no reason to be up in arms over it.
~Berj
I can see geeks getting pulled over and cops plugging into the car for the last 5 minutes speed information.
"Sir, I suppose I was wrong - your vehicle appeared to be doing 55 all the time... in fact - it appears to be doing 55 right now..."
In California, they're about to install sensors to detect if cars are "high emitters" in real time. If the car has high emissions, a picture of the license plate is taken, and the car is scheduled for another tax assessm^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H smog check.
Eventually, the car will have to be "activated" by a central computer system every day. If emissions are too high, the car just won't start, requiring a $150 tow charge to have it checked ($50) and repaired ($850) and then re-registered ($700) and an insurance premium paid ($385).
Business isn't willing to pay for products, innovation and careers, so we get brands, mortgage commercials and layoffs.
First these "black boxes" are nothing more than a small amount of flash memory that is written to when the airbag system is activated. if your car has airbags, then YOU HAVE THE RECORDER. [Add ominous evil soundtrack here]
now, they record nothing unless the airbags are deployed. when they do they record vital data that the airbag system manufacturers need to continue to make airbag systems safer and save more lives, it's just that lawyers got wind of this and decided to start having the data used in court.
The fun part is that the insurance companies started the trend. and you know what?? you crash your car, the insurance company can instantly get ownership of the car and data by simply "totaling it out" so they will now gladly give the data freely to the courts.
you want an answer? A- remove the airbags and trigger sensors from your car... or B- drive like a sane person.
those are your two choices..pick one.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
So you can drive like an asshole and get away with your actions when you lose control and kill some innocent bystander?
Where's the 'right to drive', let alone the 'right to drive like an asshole and not answer for your actions' in the Constitution?
Private pilots are tracked by ATC radar, etc. If they fly too low or where they aren't supposed to fly they get busted and aren't allowed to fly anymore.
Assholes in cars kill at least 5x the number of innocent people a year that assholes with guns manage to kill.
'Privacy at all costs and in all situations' is the mantra of the selfish and unrealistic. The road isn't yours. You share it with people - all of whom have no right to privacy when it comes to their driving habits and should be held accountable for what they do - not what they are caught doing.
Oh get a life.
Black boxes in vehicles should be common knowledge, easily retrievable in a court case (preferably fitting a common standard), and tamperproof.
The fault I find with them right now is that because most people don't know they're there it's more likely black box information would be used in cases against the owner rather than by the owner as concurring evidence to an accident report.
Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
-- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822-3.
Oh, come on! It was funny!
Tire marks. The amount of energy required to cause so much metal deformation. Distances airborne. Inertial effects. Witnesses. And I am sure there are many I did not think of.
The black box evidence is just one of many. It will either confirm the other evidence, in which case you have some explaining to do, or it may exonerate you. ( i.e. you WERE driving a safe legal speed and the other party did in fact do a real lulu in front of you. ).
My own take - its a non-issue. Every observable event will leave evidence. This is just one more of many trails left after an automotive accident event. You can really prejudice yourself by trying to tamper with the evidence.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
"Time to start working on the mod for my Toyota."
Yes, let's disable these hideous things that invade our privacy! It isn't the police's right to know that you had the gas to the floor when you rear-ended the woman in front of you, killing her and her two kids. Let her insurance company try to put that theory forth, give you a chance!
Please. These things record data that can be very useful in collision investigations, give the investigators an idea of what happened by letting them know what each car was doing at the time of impact. Seems like this could certainly help to reduce insurance costs if it helps show that you weren't at fault. Presumably, if collision data can be collected and recorded in a central repository it could help auto designers work on the safety systems of their cars as well. I mean, doing your own controlled crash tests are fine and well, but it would seem to me they'd cost a lot of money. Add in some real-world collisions to the mix and you can get a more useful picture.
Current technology is fairly harmless, but as the data capture amount increases in both number of sensors and duration of saving, and all cars are mandated to have GPS/communication devices ( like on-star ) then the data will be used for other purposes.
Such as tracking where you go.. and when you go there... Bye Bye to one of the last remaining avenues of privacy ( a drive in the country )
---- Booth was a patriot ----
My speedometer is off by about 5mph. My gas guage is off by about 1/8 tank. What if the "black box" is out of wack too, and by more? Will I be convicted of driving 100 in a 65 zone when I was really only going 63? A machine makes a poor witness in many cases....
from the article:
"The prospect that we're all under constant scrutiny has social effects and legal effects that we haven't even contemplated," said Stephen Keating of the Privacy Foundation at the University of Denver.
This is just plain wrong. The "black box" can only be used if/when the airbag deploys. Under any other circumstances it discards all information every 2 seconds. Even if it was to be removed from a parked car it would only tell the snoop that the car was stopped before it was shut off.
Just to make sure everbody get the point:
Monitering is not constant but only availible after an airbag deploying crash.
JFMILLER
Strive to make your client happy, not necessarly give them what they ask for
The problem is that they may not have enough data.
For instance if your tires were spinning, it could record you going a lot faster than you actually were, but the blackbox has no way of telling that, it will just simply record the speed your tires were spinning at...regardless of how fast you were going...
There are many more things like this...
GeekWares - Buy and Download Today!
Congratulations on the purchase of your new vehicle! You must activate your new system using our License Activation Service for proper operation. For your safety and convenience the system will record default speed of 95 mph until licensed...
Or very very very close to 100%. If I get into an accident on a 30 mph city street I certainly don't want the box to have a glitch that could cause it to quote the 65 mph I was legitimately doing 2 minutes ago on the highway, making it seem like I was going that fast in the couple seconds before the accident.
---------
There is inferior bacteria on the interior of your posterior.
Big Brother is very much alive . . .
"After all, a car is a lethal weapon just like a gun and guns have serial numbers."
Actually a car is a TOOL which is used for TRANSPORTATION and occasionally has SIDE-EFFECTS which may be harmful, but usually just have the intended effect.
Guns, by contrast, are TOOLS which are used for KILLING and commonly have the intended effect.
By your logic, a whole damn lot of things are lethal weapons just because they cause death. Your mistake is in calling a car a weapon. Weapons are DESIGNED to cause harm. Cars are designed to MOVE.
Now, if you rig a car up with scythed wheels like a good ol' fashioned war chariot, that'll qualify as a weapon.
Before anyone gets there knickers in a bunch. These "Black Box"'s have been around for years. I know, i work for a car dealership in MD. And there was an article here about a year ago when everyone "first" heard about it. These computers are responsible for controlling all (if not most) of the electronic equipment in your car. They have been doing this since at least 1998 or 99. Most of your new cars have one in them. They record, on average, about the last 3-5 seconds of data for a technician to look at when you car is acting funny. The data is retrieved using a handheld device called a tech-2. At least that is the device we use here.
Now, weather or not this data should be used to convict a reckless driver, I'll leave that up to the law makers and public opinion. But big brother is not watching. They are not there to catch you doing something wrong.
I don't really have an issue with this... even though I'm a dedicated speeder.
BUT... what happens when the idiot in front of me with the 86 Chevy slams on his breaks and pulls across 3 lanes and hits me. Ooops, no computer for him, but I was doing 74 in a 65. Looks like it's obviously my fault.
-- IANAEG - I am not an elder god.
Boat motors have had these for years now and they (as well as GPS systems) HAVE been submitted as evidence in fatal boat accidents.
Dammy
Although I suppose their vehicle list is not comprehensive, it's an interesting source of info.
db
Cig:
ôô
You know, if the government was really so interested in knowing what you were doing, they have these things called "satellites"...
slashdot, news for crazed liberal socialist zealots
Person: Hey George.
George: Hey.
Person: George, I'm going to follow you around and watch everything you do.
George: Huh? Person: Really, it's for the best of everyone. George: Who the heck do you think you are? Big Brother?
Person: No no no. I'm just going to follow you around to make sure you don't do anything that endangers anyone.
George: Why I ought to... what gives you the right to follow me around and invade my privacy like that? What are you accusing me of anyway? Go to hell.
Person: But I'll only follow you by sitting in your car and monitoring your acceleration, speed, and general method of handling your vehicle while you're driving.
George: Well HECK! Wy didn't you say so? That's a great idea. I'm sorry my concerns were so completely irrelevant. I was completely out of line. Hop in and let's start plugging in those sensors. Hey, what else can you monitor with that thing?
Furthermore, I don't see why every single vehicle should not be manufactured with this feature. After all, a car is a lethal weapon just like a gun and guns have serial numbers.
I think most of them are now. The collected data is used to improve airbag designs. Since airbags are dangerous (though, admittedly less dangerous than hitting your steering column and dashboard when you're brought to an abrupt halt from 131km/h in Montreal traffic), manufacturers have a tremendous liability if airbags are killing people in accidents. I know for sure that GM, DaimlerChrysler and most of the Japanese companies are using this.
131km/h is 81.4 MPH. Speaking as one who has lived in Montreal and driven on Montreal's old freeways (built before there was a real understanding of freeway design), this is too fast for the freeways of the area, let alone the city streets. Much of downtown Montreal has narrow winding streets with loads of pedestrian and cyclist traffic. Doing 81.4 MPH in those conditions is criminal irresponsibility, and an individual capable of doing something like that clearly has such a gross lack of understanding of cars and their capabilities that they probably thought 2 Fast 2 Furious was a good movie.
Never been to Montreal? Would you drive 80MPH through the streets of Lower Manhattan? Downtown Chicago?
Christ, parts of downtown Montreal have cobblestoned streets. Wet cobblestones are insanely slippery, and you still can stand at an intersection and watch some idiot who thinks his MacPherson-strut equipped front-wheel-drive Acura Integra with tinted windows can take him around any corner safely at twice - let alone four times - the posted speed limit.
This should have been a criminal conviction, especially with the supporting evidence from the black box.
Fire and Meat. Yummy.
It is almost certain that if you were to tamper with the black box after an accident to remove incriminating data, that would be evidence tampering or obstruction of justice, which are serious felonies. That means over a year in jail, loss of voting and many other penalties that would make it not worth it in most cases other than premeditated murder. (Assuming that morality and legality are not barriers in themselves).
What about if you do it before the accident? Is preventing the recording of data the same as evidence tampering? Would that be admissible in US or Canadian courts?
Even if it is not technically obstruction, I think it would make a defendant look guilty, assuming it's admissible.
Franky Q. has a mistrial declared.
I guess it's good that we don't rush to judgement, but if this guy is actually innocent, then Saddam Husssein is Mother Theresa.
Maybe we shouldn't pay lawyers by the hour.
Well maybe in your country it is a privilege, but here in the USA, freedom of movement is a right. Now the fact that the Gov't can and does regulate movement on public highways has no effect on the inherrent right to drive without a license, drunk as a skunk, anything I see fit on private roads/property
As more an more electronic devices become submitable evidence, how long before theres a serious look at tampering? Like everything else, eventually the specs for these boxes will be on the net and then you'll be able to go to your car and download or upload data too them and unless they are designed right (which by the sound of things they are just for airbag research) you'll be able to modify the data without leaving a trace. If somethings intended to be used in court then it should be designed that way if it can.
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
that there was a death involved here and this wasn't a "speeding ticket" type case
There is no such thing as dangerous driving in Montreal.....any Canadien can tell you it just is dangerous!
OH THE SHAME I fell off the wagon and use sigs again!
My daily driver was built in 1957. Not even a single transistor in the whole car and only perhaps one diode (in the fuel pump)
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
It obviously isn't an issue in Canada, but I believe fifth amendment protections would be relevant, since this could be construed as testifying against oneself.
or you could just try not driving like an asshole
I'm not saying it should be mandated that these be installed in every single vehicle manufactured,
They should be mandatory if they are going to be used at all. Otherwise, people who know they are going to drive like maniacs will select cars without blackboxes while mostly law-abiding drivers will get screwed if they cross the line some time (emergency, etc.) and happen to have an accident.
Either make these things mandatory for everybody or don't permit them to be used as evidence at all. But using them as evidence in only some cases is really unfair.
I would assume that the black box data was only one link in the chain of evidence. The article did not make that clear.
Police have crash specialists that analyse crash sitations. All that expertise will not disappear simply because newer model cars are equipped with data collection devices. No credible professional investigator would rely completely on the black box data when recreating the crash scene. Any competent defense counsel would have a field day if a crash investigator relied soley on black box data if the physical evidence contradicted the data analysis alone.
"Well regulated" translates to "well trained" in the language of the time. ( of the writing )
It wasnt important to include, in the context of a signature.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
The point is that, right now, only some drivers have them, and the people who don't have them can self-select. That's not a good situation.
What do you do, for example, in an accident where one car has a blackbox recorder and it shows the car was speeding, while the other car doesn't have a recorder? It may have been speeding much more, but that may be much harder to prove.
Furthermore, the information in these recorders can be used for other purposes: a private investigator can potentially find out how far you have been driving to your extramarital affair and what roads you have probably taken, and so can Mr. Ashcroft and his goons.
If these things are such a good idea, then politicians should make them mandatory. Of course, that proposal is probably going to be an uphill battle. But to stick only the drivers with this who don't know any better not to have one just isn't fair.
It isn't the police's right to know that you had the gas to the floor when you rear-ended the woman in front of you, killing her and her two kids
Just because you were speeding doesn't mean you are guilty in that case. The woman may have slammed on her brakes in the middle of the highway for no good reason, and the fact that you were 15 mph over the speed limit (like everybody else, her included, although her cheap and unsafe 1979 Honda CVC may not show that) may make little difference.
But because you have a blackbox and she doesn't, everybody is going to jump to conclusions. Like you did.
Yes, sir you are a fool. If you dont see what is going on, ever hear of TIA? Or Homeland Security? Or tracking your kids with RFID's and cameras ' for their safety '
Just wake up and look around. This isnt paranoia, its hard cold reality.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Of course, combine the two and you got a ticking time bomb just waiting for the right target. If the black box was used to convict just that kind of driver, all the better. But if this gets widely adopted, i can turn sour and abusive real quick! Just imagine your inssurance Cie knowing exactly how you drive ...
-- If you actually say LOL instead of laughing, maybe it's time to go outside! --
In Soviet Russia our '200Km/h in the wrong lane' Beowolf cluster of Tatu overlords 0wnz0rs you.
--
FreeNET user? Comfortable with the adverse selection?
While I agree that having this sort of onboard all-the-time enforcement is undesireable...
This particular case involved a fatality. Perhapps we need the devices there and protected from being used execpt where there is a court order involved. Perhapps in cases where there is a fatality or other serious injury.
It will be hard to implement these devices without a forum and discussion.
Thanks for that fascinating and relevant comment.
Don't be a tease though, and be sure to let us know when you change the light bulb in the walk-in closet!
ABS when working properly gets rid of skid marks.
This leaves much less evidence on how fast you were going.
Additionally it might be interesting to see that someone hit the gas when they "accidentally" ran someone over.
Find the control module, open up, determine the type of Flash module and clip the write enable line (or tie to high rail if negative logic). Won't work in the rare case that the Flash is integrated into the same IC package, but it's highly unlikely given cost considerations.
You can also carry a stun gun in your car. Upon accident, go to EDR and hit with stun gun until battery is empty. IC has high probability of dying but reliability of this method is unknown.
Hey, wow, that's great. Why didn't my car's salesman mention that to me when I purchased my car? If only I'd known, I'd have paid him an extra nickle. You make such a good case, why don't you get out and make a law that specifies what kind of information is collected. That would be more honest than what's happened and what could happen.
A small amount of though shows the evil potential of this technology. The problem is not the data that was recorded or how it's been used in this case. The problem is that no one asked for it or has control of what's recorded. What else can be slipped in without your knowledge, consent or ability to change? GPS position information logs able to phone home and keep track of "potential terrorists"? If it's properly spageti coded into the non-free crap that fires your injectors and sparkplugs, there'd be no way to disable it or even know what's collected.
So, I conceed your point, some information collecting is useful. Now, I'll have to ask you what you can do about the problems I mentioned, which seem so obvious to me.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
> Furthermore, I don't see why every single vehicle should not be manufactured with this feature. After all, a car is a lethal weapon just like a gun and guns have serial numbers.
Well, aside from another reply already pointing out that cars are not *designed* as weapons or killing machines, here's another thought:
Guns have serial numbers, sure. What does that serial number do, exactly? Does it tell you the last time the gun was discharged? How the gun was being handled at the time of discharge? That the person who actually owns the gun was the one holding it? How about whether it went off accidentally or was purposely fired? Or that it even fired correctly?
A gun's serial number can be used to trace the gun's owner, where they bought it from, where that place bought it from, who manufactured it, etc. That's.. about all it can do though. It certainly doesn't relate to a black box.
And anyway, cars have serial numbers too. They're called VIN Numbers and they do pretty much the exact same thing as a gun's serial number.
Actually, my left-wing friend, any tool can become a weapon.
A car becomes a deadly weapon when I intentionally strike you or run you over with one. I am using my tool as a weapon. In this case, you being killed or greatly injured is not a side-effect, but in fact intended effect.
A crowbar is a tool with many uses. If I bash you over the head with it, it just became a weapon. A power drill is also a multi-use tool, unless I plunge it into your skull during sleep. Again a weapon. A butcher knife is a tool for preparing food, unless I use it to sever your genitals.
Guns are tools which are used for deterrence, among other things. They are not used for killing unless I point it at you and shoot you with it. Not that I am threatening to do that or ever could do that to anyone.
Now do I agree with the parent? No. Guns shouldn't have serial numbers either.
GM ran audio recordings in cars too, and via dealerships were able to get the data for use in research.
Actually the results were pretty interesting. Your average driver usually says something like, 'oh god', 'shit', etc. right before a crash.
Except in extremely rural parts of the country, in which the last thing recorded was often, "WATCH THIS!"
Ummm, excuse me, but a gun is a tool which is used for competitive shooting contests and occasionally has the side effect of allowing one to protect oneself from bodily harm. Even more rarely, it is used to kill someone while protecting oneself.
Guns have been used in over 2 million instances in the past year to protect people from other people WITHOUT FIRING A SINGLE SHOT.
Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Cars don't kill people either, people kill people. Hammers don't kill people... and so on...
I've got a soldering iron too! The problem is that my car's software is non-free, so I don't know what it's doing. Sadly, I don't think I can use a soldering iron to replace that silly computer and soon the DMCA will be used to make a free alternative impossible. Non-free software has owners and they are not me.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
This probably only applies to us yanks, so bear with me.
In the US, we have a right to bear arms. It is written so, in the constitution. Looking through the same document, I do not find anything that gives us the right to drive a car on state/public land. That makes driving on that land a privlige (I can't spell today and OO is still compiling). Driving on your privately owned land is a right (you own the land, and the car).
In many states in the US, you do not have the right to privacy in your automobile. Dark tints on windows are illegal, and you must have a visible license plate (and have the LP light working). The right against unreasonable search an seizure is also gone as well. If a cop asks you if he may search the car, you may say "no", but expect him to find away around it within 10 minutes (you will be pulled over again shortly down the road if you refuse).
So basically. We have no rights when driving, unless we are on our own land (farmers, private race course, and such).
That's just my impression. Counter-arguments are greatly appreciated.
I for one, want to know precisely how they store the information, when it's stored, how it's stored, what verification that the information was stored correctly there is, how the verification process and storage processes can fail (and what happens when they do fail), how the sensors can fail, how the sensors report their information, etc...
If any of these items fail (partially or totally), then the information is 100% unreliable and should not be admitted as evidence in a court of law, or otherwise used against me (e.g., insurance premium raising).
If these things are accepted as prima facie evidence, then I am put into the unholy position of defending my innocence when some situation occurs... Rather, the prosecution should have to conclusively prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that the box is 100% accurate...
Some of you will undoubtedly ask "how does this differ from airplanes?" - the simple explanation being that the flight recorder stores MUCH MUCH MUCH more information for much longer periods of time so it's easier to spot anomolous events (or it should be anyway)....
And mod'ing these things to protect one's privacy is not the same as giving one the right to drive like an asshole - there's plenty of methods available to the Police to figure out what happened, without having new powers afforded to them...
Don't by some rice-powered piece of sheat import that's filled with electronics, or some crappy new American car thats trying to be a Japanese. (What the hell's this all about? How the hell is it that Detroit's taking styling cues and engine specs from Honda and Toyota? I mean, have you seen these cars?! Stupid aluminum wings on cars with front wheel drive, massive rims, Night-rider lights, lawn-mower exhaust, and, of course, a 1 liter, 4 cyl engine that makes a whopping 100 horsepower... And now we're copying this garbage. And yet I digress.)
Get yourself an old Firebird or 'Cuda or 440 Six Pak Challenger or Goat with triple duece carbueration. All mechincal and will blow by any stupid Cop driving a Police Interceptor Crown Vic. Plus, you can help the economy for the good folks in Iraq by getting 6 miles per gallon on premium plus double octane booster.
And just for the record, my '69 Yenko Camaro (it's a clone, but hey) will turn 11 seconds on the ET (with Mickey Thompson slicks and some Thorley headers). Eat it, rice boys!
I do not want one of the morons screaming down the highway to wreck my car, injure or murder me, and get away with it as there is no proof they did anything wrong.
On a road - you are a danger to the people around. I do not think you should expect privacy. Get over it.
Somehow I drive my BMW reasonbly, do not get tickets, and I would not mind information about the car to be available. But even more, I would like the data from cars of that teenage idiots who cut me off to be available if anything to happen.
<^>_<(ô ô)>_<^>
I don't see why this is such a difficult concept for the pro-gun crowd to accept.
Guns are machines that are designed to propel bullets at a rate of speed that's intended to be damaging to the target. That is they are designed to do.
Cars are machines that are designed to transport people and goods.
Crowbars are designed to pry things apart.
Yes, all three can be used to do damage. But guns are the only machine whose primary function is to do damage to a target. Yes, virtually anything can become a weapon if the user wants it to be. But guns are special in that their primary functionality as a machine is as a weapon.
Idiot. Shut up. No it wasn't.
The on-board computer writes thousands of telemetry points and stores them in a circular buffer for some predetermined (and adjustable) time. When something goes wrong, it stops writing and makes this data available to engineers on the ground. Some systems have a special buffer that only turns on after an anomaly has been detected, allowing further insight. If I'm not mistaken, Saturn cars have this feature as well.
Cheers.
My life is an open book ... up to a point.
> any tool can become a weapon.
No, any tool can be used as a weapon. There is a reason why there are different words for different things.
> Guns are tools which are used for deterrence, among other things.
Pray, which of these things do not involve pointing and shooting someone? Opening cans, making the light off? "A gun is not a weapon, it's a tool, like a hammer or a screwdriver or an alligator."
A gun is not a deterrence and can be used for killing, but it is a deterrence, because it is used for killing.
A threat without the possibility realising its consequences is no threat.
Either accept that fact and stand to your right, or give it up. But don't play it down.
"Between strong and weak, between rich and poor [...], it is freedom which oppresses and the law which sets free"
interpretation of an object's use... which bring up the obvious question: How do you determine something's primary "purpose?"
... yet none of these uses are the original intended "purpose."
If you go by primary use of said object/substance, then trucks are used to transport people instead of cargo, SUVs are specifically for paved freeways, anti-hypertensive drugs are used to combat baldness (Rogaine), and chemical weapons of mass destruction are used to cure cancer (chemotherapy with the nitrogen mustards)
By the same token, the overwhelming majority of firearms (in developed countries) are used to punch little round holes in sheets of paper at varying distances. Do guns make nifty weapons? Indeed they do... but the vast majority are never used for that purpose, and likely never will be.
To say that guns are only for killing is really a very politically-loaded statement, and makes you look like somebody with an agenda to push.
Just a thought.
Even if a man chops off your hand with a sword, you still have two nice, sharp bones to stick in his eyes.
Everyone is missing the point. The point is not that the data retrieved was legitimate. Any physicist could have provided the same information. (My high school physics teacher used to testify in court doing accident reconstruction.) The problem is not that they got this data on the perpetrator. The problem is that they did it using a recording device in the person's car. This is a slipperly slope! How much information is this device allowed to record? How much of that information is the court allowed to admit as evidence? These are the critical issues. Don't get blinded by the details of this particular example! This is a much larger issue, and it has nothing to do with convicting bad drivers!!
Now do I agree with the parent? No. Guns shouldn't have serial numbers either/
Damn right, they should be abolized all together. Only cowards need guns.
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
Cars already have serial numbers; The are commnly referred to as "VIN" (Vehicle identification number).
Don't you people ever read ANYTHING? All the modded up posts are about how this is supposed to be a GOOD thing! Don't you ever pay any attention to the posts about how things start out small?
It starts with "sobriety check points" and 'harmless' little black boxes, your own property helping convict you of a crime. Then it's little gray boxes in your toilet making sure you're not doing any drugs. Then maybe RFID tags in library books and chips in your computer making sure you're not doing anything terroristic or pedophilistic. Before long the Control Freaks have you right where they want you.
WAKE THE FUCK UP!
O~ Him that studies revenge keeps his own wounds green. -- Francis Bacon
How long after that before random checkpoints access this data without a cop seeing you apparently speeding first?
How long before a wireless option is added and your car data is checked by unmanned roadside monitors and the ticket arrives in the mail? Or is just automatically debited?
How long before they just automatically disable your car when you exceed your limit?
How long...
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Yes, but you are proving the point- a gun IS a weapon; other objects may BECOME a weapon. . .
If I want to drive 100 MPH in a school zone, its my right! The US government has no right to regulate the roads, it doesn't say anything about cars in the consistution! Kids should learn to look both ways before crossing the street!
But guns are the only machine whose primary function is to do damage to a target. Yes, virtually anything can become a weapon if the user wants it to be. But guns are special in that their primary functionality as a machine is as a weapon.
No there are plenty of other tools that are designed to cause damage to a target, lets name some: lasers, knives, rockets, sledge hammers, recking balls, bulldozers, spears, I could go on forever.
Unfortunately guns were primarily designed to cause bodily harm, however over the years people have also begun to use them in sport with no intention of causing bodily harm, much in the same way that we use rockets for sport as well. For example I like to shoot at paper targets hundreds of meters away. I have no intention of ever killing anyone with a weapon, but instead I have found a new way to use this tool which COULD be used for killing in a fun and relaxing way.
I'm afraid that much of the readers on slashdot who have never used a pistol or rifle and aren't inclined to use one in a recreational way are too quick to jump the GUN (pun intended) and make guns illegal for all citizens except for legal enforcement. They have no comprehension of the fact that it is not the gun that kills someone, but the user of the gun and that doesn't mean that all users should be outlawed from using one. If suddenly people start using cars for the purpose of killing will we clump all vehicles into one category as dangerous weapons and make them illegal, of course not, because too many people have utility from them, but when we refer to weapons we are all willing to ban them because we don't care about the rights of the minority. Whatever happened to respecting the rights of others, obviously what is happening in the US is the rule of the mob with no respect for the individual.FACT: The majority of illegal killings from guns is done with guns that are not purchased legally. This means that criminals and not recreational users should be the target of gun bans, because it isn't the guns in the hands of a sport user that is doing the killing of people, but the guns that have come from the streets.
None of this trumps an American's 4th amendment rights. No document you sign or state mandate can, or should.
Cops can monitor your car from outside, via aircraft, cameras, etc. But fitting cars with the automotive equivalent of prisoner ankle bracelets?
Bullshit.
You're not culpable for every minute of your life - just those minutes when you kill someone else.
Never been to Montreal? Would you drive 80MPH through the streets of Lower Manhattan? Downtown Chicago?
You know, I have to admit I drive 75-80 on a regular basis. In fact, its second nature. I drive 75 on the east side and west side highway in manhattan when traffic permits it. I used to drive 60-70 on the major avenues back when the lights easily allowed it.
I used to live in Chicago and drove 75 on lake shore drive all the time, sometimes faster. Got a few tickets too though. I would drive 80-85 on Lower Wacker all the time. Back in the mid 90's, when it was bum central down there, you could easily do this. It was like flying down the trench on the Death Star. It was AWESOME.
I was driving 75 on highways in Montreal too just a month ago. They were shit, and crumbling, but I still did it. I would drive 50-60 on Sherbrooke on the way back to my hotel. Hell, I was driving 100mph on the highway all the way to Montreal.
Christ, parts of downtown Montreal have cobblestoned streets. Wet cobblestones are insanely slippery, and you still can stand at an intersection and watch some idiot who thinks his MacPherson-strut equipped front-wheel-drive Acura Integra with tinted windows can take him around any corner safely at twice - let alone four times - the posted speed limit.
A very small portion of Seaport district has cobblestone streets. I didn't see any in the true downtown area by McGill. I should have driven 100+ down St Catherine and maybe hit some of those crazed freaks.
I don't read or respond to AC posts
No, it's not.
I've owned three airbag equipped vehicles and I can assure you that nowhere was this mentioned in the owners' manual. In fact, the factory service manuals don't mention this functionality either.
Putting moderation advice in your
Actually, my left-wing friend, any tool can become a weapon...Guns are tools which are used for deterrence, among other things. They are not used for killing unless I point it at you and shoot you with it.
Er, and how is a gun a deterrence to me unless I think you are a violent wacko who is going to shoot me with it? I've never understood why disliking guns was a left-wing concept. Plenty of wacko left-wing groups like the Red Flag Army loved guns just as much as wacko right-wing groups like the Branch Davidians. I dislike guns because I'm not into wacko violent groups of any stripe.
Who gives a flying fuck about the intent. Certainly the victims don't care whether you intended for them to die or were just too busy yacking on the cell phone, drinking a beer, eating a Whopper and changing CDs while steering with your foot at 80 mph to actually look at the road in front of you. Instead, let's look at the result.
10,000 people intentionally killed by guns a year.
40,000 people killed as a "side-effect" by motor vehicles a year. Most of these "accidents" were in fact crashes caused by drunk, reckless or just plain careless drivers. The remainder were insane, homicidal maniacs.
Using the highway for travel is a basic right under the Constitution and English Common Law (cites available if pressed.) However, driving an automobile is not a Constitutionally guaranteed mode of travel. It is sufficiently dangerous that the State has has a compelling interest in its regulation. That's why you need a LICENSE to drive. That's why you must REGISTER your vehicle. That's why in most localities you must be INSURED.
If it will help lock up the scofflaws and put a brake on everyone's behavior on the PUBLIC roads, then I'm all for a black box that records vehicle dynamics during the minutes leading up to a collision.
Don't like it? Don't use two tons of hurtling metal to haul your ever-enlardening buttcheeks around town when a 30 lb bike does the job just fine.
</RANT>
[1] And please don't give me the drive-to-work bullshit. The idea of living in a status symbol suburb, thus needing a long commute, is a recent aberation that has no sound logic. Hardly a "real need".
In a perfect world, we would all live a block or two from our job and be within walking distance from pretty much everything we could need (grocerys, etc).
Unfortunately, this world obviously isn't perfect. Reality dictates that you aren't going to always be able to find a job very close to your residence--and please don't give me the find-a-new-residence bullshit. In today's world, I would simply have to laugh at at anyone that insinuates that there is more logic to always making sure you live close enough to your job than there is to having a car to get you to work no matter where you live.
Pretty much everything else you said, I can agree with. But that last footnote of yours really hurt the credibility of your entire post.
Perl - $Just @when->$you ${thought} s/yn/tax/ &couldn\'t %get $worse;
Some second ammendment supporters have been cowed over the years.
The purpose of the second ammendment isn't hunting.
The purpose of the second ammendment isn't keeping yourself safe from a criminal.
The purpose of the second ammendment is to allow an armed populace to perform an uprising against its government if necessary. It is one of the checks on government the people retain, along with the vote and the jury system.
So don't whine about hunting or even criminals (Carl Rowe was a real piece of work). Stand up and proudly say it. Let the other side be cowed.
"Has [being a kidnapped teenage girl, raped repeatedly for months] changed you?" - Katie Couric to Elizabeth Smart
More importantly, a gun is a weapon. If you can't call it that and still use it, you just have an unnatural fear of using a weapon. I do not have a gun. I do have a knife, and I'm not talking about my cooking and carving knives. My knife is a weapon, as is my sword.
If the situation demands, I fully intend to use it as a weapon. I own a weapon, as the second amendment provides for, and see no reason to insist that it's not a weapon.
Why do people have such a serious problem with weapons?
Since the start of OBDII, most cars have had this capability. It is mostly used for improving performance, mileage, and controlling emissions (by doing things like adjusting fuel mixture based on speed).
I'm all in favor of it. Obtaining data from these things and having it admitted to a court is a non-trivial process; your boss won't be downloading your car's data to find out if you were 10 minutes late coming back from lunch.
(The data is not really that detailed, either. It will record things like throttle position, whether the brake pedal was operated, temperatute and air density... but the ones I've worked with have very limited storage - as in a minute or two)
I'm suprised you're still at 5. Many people assume that they have a right to privacy when driving. What they don't realize is that the public roads are state and federal creations held in the public trust, and their right to use use it is predicated on the realization that it is a priveledge.
If they want to get into accidents on private property, that's another story.
Now, if you rig a car up with scythed wheels like a good ol' fashioned war chariot, that'll qualify as a weapon.
At the very least you could post a link to these. Where do I buy the parts to mod my car with these wheels?
Driving is not a human rights issue. If you drive like a aggressive shit head I hope you get busted before you take someone else out with you. No one has a "right" to drive. If you abuse the ablility to do so you will loose your license if you even bothered to get one. If you get in a wreck count on the insurance company and cops to wanting to take a look at this data and drive accordingly. For sure if you want to sue the maker of your car they are going to have a look at it.
If you don't like what I write don't be a CS and mod it down. Refute it.
Yea I can't spell. So what is your point?
Further, the box has an equal ability to prove that someone is not at fault. It is there as a neutral observer.
Most people don't know their car has such a box. I don't know if my does, but being that it's over 10 years old I'm blessing the merits of not having the latest technology for once.
Now, it's fine to say that "Joe Average could use this to prove his innocence," but it seems in most cases "Joe Average" doesn't even know the thing is there, or what it does, and thus it would only likely be used against him.
This Libertarian aggress with you.
If you don't like what I write don't be a CS and mod it down. Refute it.
Yea I can't spell. So what is your point?
http://www.canada.com/montreal/story.asp?id=468F2A B6-4891-456A-AF26-D84E923A0BE0
He was a kid speeding insanely in his new car and he killed someone. Moments before the crash he was doing 157KM/h (~100MPH) on a downtown streets. He was doing 130KM/h when he hit the other car.
There were no witnesses (that lived) so he won't be facing a homicide sentence, just the dangerous driving. He is getting off easy.
I think the usage in these cases is warranted. It was obvious from the damage that he was speeding, but proving how much would be difficult.
There is no qualms about reporting airplane box data in a crash, and it should be the same in cars.
All your black boxen are belong to us...
Frankly if you need to keep the data that the black box contains from the police so that they can't convict you then I hope im not the only one that feels that you shouldn't be driving...
By all means, feel free to bug your car any way you want. But leave me and my property the fuck out of your idiotic plan.
You are all such good citizens thinking hard for the benefit of all.
Most cars, the SRS system is fused seperately. Just remove the fuse and it will kill the EDR system. If you want plausible deniability, blow an automotive fuse by shorting it across a battery, then replace the fuse for the SRS system with the blown fuse.
I'm going to check how illegal it is to connect a box to pump this EDR with false data, disconnect the EDR completely, or the easiest option, rip out all the OEM electronics and install my own engine computer.
Screw big brother.
..don't panic
Don't stereotype all leftists as "anti-gun" :)
Guns are tools which are used for deterrence, among other things.
Would you care to explain how a gun is used for DETERRENCE? I can see you saying it is used for "defense" but not deterrence. If it were really deterrence then everyone would own a gun and no one would be attacked.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places
I agree, strongly, with your point about guns, but the argument that cars are tools, not weapons, smells of more than a bit of sophism
A baseball bat isn't a weapon, either, until you whack someone on their head with it. When a tool is used as a weapon, intentionally or accidentally, then we have every reason to consider it a weapon.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
No right turns there, either. It's the only city in the state where it's illegal, just like Montreal is the only one in the province.
There are roughly twice as many deaths per car as there are per gun.
In the first half of the 1990s, there were about 43,000 deaths per year for 142 million vehicles, or 30 vehicle fatalities for every 100,000 autos.
In the same time period, there were about 35,000 gun deaths per year for 223 million guns, or about 16 gun related deaths for every 100,000 guns.
See Table 1 and Table 2 of "Treating Guns Like Consumer Products" (David Kopel. University of Pennsylvania Law Review. April 2000).
As the author noted
It seems odd that something that is only "designed to MOVE" causes twice as many per-unit deaths (mostly unintentional) as something that is supposedly "DESIGNED to cause harm." (mostly intentional, either to self or others).
FYI: Guns are also used for target and recreational shooting, which is not killing, nor even harmful. Shooting happens to be an Olympic sport.
Despite their design, guns are not more dangerous than cars in the real world. Perhaps people's beliefs are influenced by the dispraportionate amount of coverage that murders with guns receive in the mass media.
How many people remember the pre-school playground killings that took place two weeks after the Columbine High School shooting in 1999?
The problem with this is, that the types of firearms the government allows you to own are so limited that they would be almost useless in an armed conflict against the military as there's virtually no difference between half of the military with automatic weapons, tanks, artillery, aircraft, cruise missiles and WMDs against the other half and one half with all of the stuff above and a bunch of guys with hunting rifles against the other half.
Iraq shows that massive numbers of small arms (don't forget that the average household there has at least one Kalashnikov and that ridiculous amounts of military grade weapons vanished at the end of the Saddam regime) can hurt occupying forces but are not even able to be a deciding factor (even in the sense of slowing down the attacker significantly) in the battle between regular armed forces let alone defeat them on their own.
So either you give Bubba and his friends their Abrahams and Stingers or you acknowledge that all that talk about the inviolable 2nd ammendment is just a farce
Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
Look. It all very very simple.
I own the vehicle.
I do not want the EDR.
I should be allowed to remove/disable it.
End of Story.
The black box recording can be turned off, or so i'm told by a friend that works for GM. He says he turns the recording off in all his vehicles. They have some device called a tech 2 or tech 3 and the recording can be turned on and off with this device.
So the inept driver that is driving erratically and dangerously pulls directly in front of someone that is fully under control but happens to be doing 2mph over the limit, guess who the boxes will say is at fault?
This is not the greatest sig in the world, this is just a tribute.
Uh, lemme se if I got that right...
Cars are machines that are designed to propel people at lethal speeds??
yeah dat's it...
This is true historically, but if you really needed to defend yourself from the government _today_, a gun wouldn't do you a whole lot of good, for one thing. In that sense, 2nd amendment is entirely anachronistic.
"Only the small secrets need to be protected. The big ones are kept secret by public incredulity." - Marshall McLuhan
Well, now the scope creep comes in. Since the legal system found out what was being recorded, these are being used for other purposes.
Accuracy? When I worked at GM, they recorded the RPM of each wheel as well as acceleration. One wheel far faster than the rest? that means that wheel is spinning, or maybe 3 have locked up. It does not take a rocket scientist to determine which case. Maybe you ought to think about driving a little slower?
Because generally they make it _easier_ to kill? Because weapons like handguns make it easy enough for a child to do it? You print hard-to-copy money to make it hard to produce conterfeit cash. Not impossible, but difficult. You install locks in doors to make it harder for the potential burglars. As simple as that. The easier a weapon makes it to kill people, the less available it should be.
"Only the small secrets need to be protected. The big ones are kept secret by public incredulity." - Marshall McLuhan
All of the arguments made here against the 'black boxes' are equally valid - or not valid - when applied to license plates. I just wanted to see how you guys make a distinction between the two, and accept license plates, but not black boxes.
Witold
www.witold.org
witold.org
During my time in the service, we would on very rare ultra-honest occasions refer to the military as having some very basic functions: find and destroy people and things our government tells us are bad guys. Anything we did which did not aid us in those goals was wasted effort.
For example, sensitivity training leaps to mind as being something which trained killers don't really need too much. But, that's just my opinion.
Illegitimi non carborundum
There are a lot of people here saying that 'this is no problem if you are within the law, just drive slower'.
This logic is damn scary.
It ASSUMES that the law is sensible, realistic and actually suitable for the situation. In fact, laws are only RARELY ANY OF THESE. It assumes that police and prosecutors will never bend the situation in their favor to further their careers at the expense of the accused. Perhaps we should discuss a bridge I have for sale...
The laws do not consider any variations in levels of skill or preparation of the car. There are many of situations where an unskilled driver in a rattletrap car is unsafe at 30mph, a skilled driver in a good car and tyres is safe at 60, and a qualified racer in a prepared street car (to say nothing of formula cars) would be *slow* at 90.
Does the law consider any of this? NO. Would the prosecutors consider any of this? NO.
Sure, in this case, the offence seems particularly egregious, and the device only records a few seconds. But this is where it all starts down the slippery slope. Pretty soon, it is minor accidents, or generic offences, then the devices are used to record more, and report.
Note that this is just the airbag sensor, there are already much more sophisticated sensors and recording being installed in the engine management and other systems (check out OBD-II and OBD-III).
What is most scary about this is that this is a forum for the supposedly technologically sophisticated. These are exactly the people who should be most inclined to consider the ASSUMPTIONS. Yet many posts just assume the law and procecutors would be fine.
Scary by itself. Worse yet, what does it say about the code and products these people build?
Cheers.
"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the America people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
--George Washington
He said nothing of the sort regarding speeding in cars.
Look, I hate reckless drivers as much as the next guy. Actually, probably more so because I have to deal with college kids who drive so bad you wouldn't believe. A lot of them simply don't stop for stop signs in spite of the fact that many of them drive heavy/powerful trucks and there are lots of young children in the area.
But here's what spooks so many people about this newest case: it sets a frightening prescedent that will surely be used in other less-clearcut cases. Your comment is dangerously close to "Well, so what if some cop broke into someone's house without a warrant? It turns out that guy was a pedophile and had tons of kiddie porn! If he hadn't gone the extra mile, that creep would still be out on the streets!" It's all too easy for people to applaud the use of hidden technology to nail a "bad guy" when the crime is so heinous to many of us. But once we start on the slippery slope, prosecuters will start using these hidden technologies for cases that you might not be quite so thrilled about. It'll be too late then.
I can't tell if you're one of those "the ends justify the means" guys or you simply didn't think too much before posting your comment. But I'm never going to be a fan of the government (or corporations) spying on us, even when that is used sometimes for cases that I personally like. That, my friend, is "exactly how" this new development is bad. Yes, I admit that I'm somewhat relieved that we've gotten another nutball off the road. But something like this can open the door to a whole host of nasty things down the road.
GMD
watch this
Recently our company has begun writing several of the sensor signals into unused areas of the EEPROM when we detect certain types of component failures. This helps to troubleshoot what area of the failure detection strategy code might be too sensitive. (To avoid those "I had a warning lamp on this morning and when I drove to lunch it was gone." experiences)
I am certain that the the airbag module supplier has this functionality implemented for similar reasons, especially since new "multiple stage" airbags are beginning to be used. The article calls it an Event Data Recorder which most definitely was not the intent of recording such data.
The stability control system has the ability to record 10-20 more interesting pieces of data such as throttle position, yaw rate, steering angle, lateral and longitudinal acceleration, four individual wheel speeds, master cylinder hydraulic pressure, etc. But why should it? The auto industry fights vigorously for every single cent (even fractional cents) in the cost of each component. Unless the OEM specifically requests such functionality, the supplier (my company) won't just add it in for fun.
We only have enough unused space in our EEPROM for a few signals at the exact point in time that the failure occurred, and would have no reason to increase this capacity unless our customer (the OEM) requested it and was willing to pay for it. This type of "snapshot" is only to improve the robustness of the product in the long term.
Misuse of this data is really the issue, not the fact that it is being written.
> ...therefore there cannot be any expectation of privacy
Drivel. The law reads "to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,".
My car is one of my effects.
Unlike your police officer, I imagine, that black box recorder is one of MY personal effects. It is collecting evidentiary data, and doing it without my permission, probable cause, or issued warrant.
You may note the text in question does not read "some of your effects", or "effects you keep at home", or "effects on some white list that 9 demonstrated frauds, that refuse to read Admendment IV, yet continue to call themselves Supreme Court Justices approved".
You may also note that "shall not be violated" bit. Not "may be violated", not "violated if it's a really good idea", or "violated because, well, we're the US freaking Government and can do anything we damned well please."
> Aircraft, locomotives, buses and trucks are currently fitted with event recorders. It is only natural...
No, actually. Your examples are matters of commerce. Corporations and other entities of commerce have no Constitutional protection (until, again, we start discussing those 9 inventive frauds, and only in fairly modern times.)
So, you see, it is not "natural". Amendment 4 simply does not apply to anything in commerce.
> Driving is a public activity performed on public roads, therefore there cannot be any expectation of privacy
And your house sits on property which is, ultimately, situated on "public" lands. Like a car on a road, your home is surrounded by "public-ness". I guess we can now do away with all that nonsense about due process, search warrents, heck, most of the Constitution.
Oh, wait, we did that with the Patriot Act.
Never mind.
I disagree that light arms are almost useless in an armed conflict against a well-equipped military. First, even with a disparity in weapon power, there are many more civilian guns and civilians with guns in this country than there are members of the military. Second, many if not most members of the military would likely refuse to act against U.S. civilians, and some would certainly join them, taking their superior firepower with them. Third, superior firepower can be captured, even with "only" civilian weapons.
Although the Iraqis had large numbers of light weapons, they weren't a deciding factor because they didn't offer much opposition. The majority of Iraqis, and thus also the majority of Iraqi light weapons, did not oppose our military.
There are, literally, hundreds of millions of civilian firearms in this country. There are over 50 million gun owners. The U.S. military numbers around 3 million. And the fact is, even with their planes, ships, and missiles, they would be fighting a force in their own cities, their own backyards, and surrounded by the rest of the population, the people the military is supposed to be protecting. For the most part, Bubba and his friends don't have to worry about the Abrahms and Stingers, and wouldn't be at a huge disadvantage without them.
License plates came around before libertarian "I gots me rights and a gun" Mad Max paranoid futurists discovered the internet and got too big for their boots. Pay no attention, there is no real story here.
Remember, the fallacy works like this: The government is too incompetent to actually do anything right, but they somehow manage to be BIG BROTHER and implant the JOHN HOLMES-O-MATIC RECTAL PROBE in every living man woman and child.
> Guns are machines that are designed to propel
> bullets at a rate of speed that's intended to
> be damaging to the target. That is they are
> designed to do.
Wow, are they really, Chris? Thanks for the tip!
I'm sure that information will come in handy in the future.
I dislike guns because I'm not into wacko violent groups of any stripe.
Like the military and the police? They are a bunch of violent wackos aren't they? We should disband them!
It kills me how politicians want us to give up our guns, but would never consider giving up their own.
Following up to myself... I wonder if they all have cache cleaning software, or if they do it manually because they don't actually trust anything that isn't open source or what... Coz I mean, you run across that occasional picture out of context and WHOA SHIT PERVO, THAT'S A NAKED KID! Were you just beating it to that picture or is it a picture of your niece? Doesn't matter, LAWBOT 2.0 will send you to jail and throw away the key.
BOOP BOOP BEEP. *CHILD-LIKE PORN DETECTED*
But guns are the only machine whose primary function is to do damage to a target.
By your (wrong) definition a three hole punch is a weapon. (An evil ASSAULT WEAPON, it punches three wholes with every operation!) A three hole punch punches holes in paper, my guns punch holes in paper.
But guns are special in that their primary functionality as a machine is as a weapon.
Yes, guns are special. The ownership of them by the common man (or woman) is protected by the U.S. Constitution
You seem to have "movie watchers' syndrome". Only in the movies are guns exclusively used as weapons of agression.
They said the same think about pikemen. Then a peasant army defeated a Swiss Guard's worth of mounted knights. It turned the concept of the mideval army on its head.
Before you shoot down the second ammendment, remember that all those soldiers in their tanks and pilots in their jets have families that aren't in planes and jets. The same principle applies to the people that make the bombs and guns. To the people that pump the gas into the airplanes. and to the guy that works in the chow hall.
The American revolution wasn't exactly the nobel affair that they teach you about in History class. Only one third of the country was in favor of revolution. It's just that the third that was in favor of it was willing to go to lengths that the other two thirds weren't.
Look at the situiation in Columbia right now. Columbia has an army. They have support of the US government, yet revolutionaries control large portions of the countryside.
A butcher knife is a tool for preparing food, unless I use it to sever your genitals.
Don't worry about that. Just put it through the dishwasher, and it'll be good as new.
Montreal is only now considering legalizing right turns on red lights for motorists. As far as I know, this is legal everywhere else in North America.
One poster mentioned how badly-designed the Montreal highways (autoroutes) are. That's not necessarily true everywhere, although many of the uptown area Met (Highway 40) onramps are ridiculously short. And the slippery cobblestones only exist in Old Montreal. If you find yourself on cobblestones while driving in Montreal, chances are you're going to be looking at a horse's ass pretty soon (or horse turds on the road...in that area of town, horse-drawn carriages rule).
The article states only "downtown Montreal" as the accident location, but I suspect this indicates that it occurred on the Ville Marie Expressway/HWY 20. This is a relatively recently-designed freeway that has limited access and actually goes under the city for a few kilometres (likely similar to what Boston is now doing). The speed limit varies along this route, but routinely people drive about 100K in the 70K zone when traffic permits.
There are those that say that overall traffic speeds increase in the city during the F1 race season (this is no doubt true, since would-be, wannabe richboys show up with their overpowered, personality-extension machines), but I am unaware of a corresponding, statistical increase in car accidents or deaths for those couple of weeks..
But to get back to the original subject, being able to reconstruct the events before an accident seems like a good idea.
Quite right. I enjoy making 'edgy' (by Slashdot standards) posts. Please, see my crowning achievement. I'm still quite proud of that one.
"The problem with this is, that the types of firearms the government allows you to own are so limited that they would be almost useless in an armed conflict against the military" Yes, you are correct. A 30/30 isnt going to do jack to a Bradley, or an Abrahms. But, if you can, head down to a millitary post, recruiting office and get a copy of the oath of enlistment. In that oath, you will see the phrase "uphold the constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic". This doesnt just apply to civil uprisings and such. This also applies to the government. If they try to turn the US into a dictatorship (or do other things that will undermine the Constitution and the liberties of the populous) then we, the millitary, are sworn by our oath of enlistment to put an end to it. If we fail, we will probably be tried for mutiny (spelling?) and put to death. I am one of those people that have sworn to uphold the constitution and to protect the liberties that make our country great. I am sworn to follow my orders, but I am required to disobey if they are illegal. I just hope we never have to act on our oath and protect my country from its government with the use of force. Secondly, a stick of dynamite (you can make explosives with that amount of strength) can disable a tank with the proper placement. You de track a tank, it is stuck. It cant move, its only good for as far as it can shoot. I do doubt that you can get close enough to a tank to do it though if the crew is actively engaging aggressors.
Stop signs are only Suggestions
Now, what if you pay cash? Well, the original still goes to the state MVD.
In exchange for this (it is part of registration), you get your "license to drive" - well, actually, to get a license, you have to surrender your MSO to the MVD.
There is a lot of speculation that it may all be bullshit (like all good conspiracy theories), but look into "Right to Travel" on Google.
Basically, as the theory goes, when licensing for automobiles came about, we traded our freedom to travel for the automobile license, and thus have become slaves (not Free Men) to the State...
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
Not sure how true it is, but from the reading I have done on it, it seems pretty valid, even if our so-called "laws" don't support it...
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
Believe it or not, some guns are even made specifically for killing people. Such guns are especially useful for killing burglars, bad cops, or the occasional evil dictator and his henchmen. Being able to kill these people is extremely important, and that's why we keep guns, and why we'll also kill anyone who tries to take them. The right to posess massive firepower is the one right that guarantees all others, and is the highest responsibility of every American citizen.
Of course, anyone who abuses this right and commits a crime with a firearm should suffer the highest punishment allowed by law; not for the crime itself, but for giving you pinkos another excuse for trying to take our guns. That's tantamount to treason!
How can you possibly believe that to be safe from the negligence of others is a right? If you take that to it's logical end, then nobody can do anything. For one thing, negligence is not necessarily purposeful, and even if it is, it will never be possible to be safe unless we all live in little sheltered pods that feed us everything we need, a la The Matrix...except even then you can die inside the matrix, possibly due to another's negligence. My point is basically that there is no possible way to ever be completely safe from the negligence of others(besides dying, but do you really want that?). However, justice, which holds people responsible if their negligence causes harm to you, is a right, and one that is actually enforcable. You can call anything a right, but if enforcing that right is impossible, then it doesn't do you much good. Well, I guess you probably got my point by now. I hope you didn't take offense at anything I said, I just felt I needed to point out that you can't truly enforce the "right" to be safe from the negligence of others unless you preemptively take away every single possible means of hurting someone through negligence, intentional or not. I generally agree with the rest of your post, and I think that black boxes are a good thing, but that you should have the option of not putting them in because there will always be people who don't like the idea of being spied on, but who still would like to be able to drive places. Well, that's my opinion, and most likely nobody will ever read it, since I haven't gotten around to creating an account yet.
Ever heard of the PATRIOT Act?
Warrants are a thing of the past, my friend.
What does 'primary function' have to do with anything?
Is this like artist's intent when speaking of a work of art?
The problem isn't speed. I've been driving about 700Mi/week as part of my service job and I'm VERY comfortable driving between 70 and 100 miles/hour. I've never so much as touched another car on the road.
The problem isn't speeders, its people who speed where and when they shouldn't, like on wet or icy days, or on non-highways.
The other MAJOR problem is the idiots who tailgate. Most highways would be perfectly safe at speeds up to 120MPH if people just stayed a few hundred feet away from each other, used the left lane for speeding, and stopped switching lanes so damn often.
Did I mention people who attempt shit other than driving while they are at the wheel? They cause a lot of trouble too. It would be dead easy to get them off the road though, if there were BIG fines for 'Driving Under Distraction'.
"Sometimes, I think Trent just needs a cup of hot chocolate and a blankie." -Tori Amos on Nine Inch Nails
Let's ban #2 pencils, because I can shove a pencil through someone's heart, among a number of places, and easily kill them.
You people that want to restrict the whole world to the lowest common denominator need a gun applied directly on you. I wish stupidity and hypocrisy were punishable by jail time or worse.
A 30/30 isnt going to do jack to a Bradley, or an Abrahms.
Nope, won't even annoy those inside of it. However, it will work wonders agiast the crew of one if you're smart enough to catch them slacking. And what do you call a tank with no crew? That's right - you call it "yours".
IIRC, the oath you took didn't have an experation date on it did it? Funny, mine didn't either. Is it "uphold the constitution" or "defend the constitution" - I might have to do a memory check on that one.
Because of people like you, *MY* children will grow up in a free nation and for that you have my thanks.
Good judgment comes from experience, and a lot of that comes from bad judgment.
The key word here is 'intentionally'. I really don't believe that any reasonable person would use any of your examples as a legitimate weapon, however let's call a spade a spade; guns were and are designed to kill. A crowbar or butcher knife have other design INTENTS, but can be used as weapons; yes. Besides target shooting (which represents a minute fraction of the legal gun buying community) a gun is designed to effectively kill something; whether it's human or not. Either way, I disagree with your argument on 'guns are deterrence' claim.
[SIG] Remember Mattel handheld games?
Would you care to explain how a gun is used for DETERRENCE?
.357 are much lower in that house (at least the first time). Hense, they have been deterred from robbing the house B.
Pretty simple really, but I'll use small words.
If you know that I have a gun, you're less likely to do something that may end up in getting you shot.
For example, If you were a criminal type and wanted to rob a house would you be more likely to enter house A or B?
House A: Peace loving hippy mobile parked out front (tie died seat covers, stickers that say "make love, not war", etc)
House B: Has a sign in the window "This property protected by Smith and Wesson" and a gun rack in the back window of the pickup?
I know most bad guy types would more than likely hit house A, becuase the odds of getting their nuts blown off with a
Questions?
Good judgment comes from experience, and a lot of that comes from bad judgment.
No. A three-hole punch is a device for *enhancing* sheets of paper, not to damage them.
There are a couple of reasons your example is poor. First of all, what you are saying will make no sense if EVERYONE (or a large number of people) own guns. In such a case, the criminal will choose anyone. Your example presupposes that one person is not armed. Unless your idea of deterrence is for a FEW people to be armed while the rest aren't, it won't work.
Secondly, the person has to "advertise" the fact that they are armed. If you don't have a sign saying "protected by armed residents" it won't work. This may or may not work. How many criminals break into houses with stickers saying "protected by Alarm Force (or whatever)?"
Lastly...this is the main reason actually... a criminal that wants to harm you, they will. You can't stop it. Arming yourself just gives you a fake sense of safety. A criminal will simply use smarter techniques to defeat those that are armed. This is just like defeating a car alarm. Car protection has increased a hundread fold (if not more) over the decades. Yet cars are stolen as much as they always were.
If you want to own guns, fine; but it's not going to protect you...
---OFF-TOPIC---
BTW, your website sucks... it is IMPOSSIBLE to read the text on your site. Either lighten the background colour or lighten the foreground colour...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places
Several problems with this:
First of all, no, you don't have to turn over your car to the insurance company if they decide that it's a total loss. Due to the value (or lack thereof) of my last car, it didn't take much damage (15 mph soft collision) to total it. So the insurance company says "Here, take $2k." I say "No, here's some equitable vehicles. I've done my homework. Give me $5k." They say "Okay, well, give us your car." I say "No, heres the clause in our agreement that says I can subtract $250 from your settlement and keep my car." They say "Um, okay."
Your insurance company will keep your car in the event of a total loss. Then they sell it through auction, etc. However, you can pay "salvage" cost (usually not very much at all), and keep your vehicle, even fix and drive it again, at your discretion.
Second... well, I'm not hearing as much ominous music as you are. Let's think about this for a minute. There's a device in your car that your insurance companies and government (via law enforcement) can use against you. You're (allegedly) not allowed to disable and/or remove it. I have yet to see a citation of any specific law that prohibits this, but I'll assume that people are speaking of the DMCA, Patriot Act, or other such non-sens... I mean, legislation. That's fine, but, well... why aren't people excited about being given proof against the many incorrect citations that everyone always complains about? Yeah, I don't like government tracking/control any more than you do. But let's be honest here: You control what kind of data these devices will record because... well, you're the driver.
You know, they've been selling devices for years that record front and rear video, speed data, brake data, etc. People are buying these and choosing to install them, not so that they can be used against them, but so they could use them to defend themselves against dishonest drivers and *ahem* "mistaken" law enforcement personnel. Now, your auto manufacturers have provided this device for you, free of charge. You don't need to disable it. All you have to do is figure out how to access the data. Hell, you can mount one of those matchstick-box-sized CPUs in a tiny shock-resistant case, wire it up, and slap a mini-LCD in your glove compartment. Then, when you roll down your window and he asks you if you know why he pulled you over, you can say "No, and neither does my continuous data recording system. Why did you pull me over?
Keep the airbags, keep the sensors. Hopefully, you'll never need to use either. But if you do, hopefully one can save your life, and the other your finances and legal standing.
A colleague of mine was once driving when the power steering failed for a few seconds, in a curve. He was very surprised and this could have led to an accident. How would have he been able to prove he was driving correctly if he had hurt somebody, for the purpose of determining responsibilities with respect to insurances?
A black box would have shown the erroneous action of the power steering, making the car manufacturer liable instead of the driver.
(He was of course insured, but
You are right. The oath does not have an experation date. My point was more that we are to protect and defend the constitution, even if it means overthrowing the government. You are right in all accounts as well about the crew members. I dont know about the exact wording, but I think you are right about the defend and not uphold. I could argue though that defending the constitution is upholding it. Either way, you are enforcing it. I dont know if you are being sarcasting when you say *MY* children .... . I think you are saying it that way to emphasize that you feel responsible (and they are yours) for them. I feel the same way about the freedoms of *MY* country. I hope all of us (no matter what country you are from) feel that way about our countries. If we dont take a personal interest in our homelands, then we cant complain when it is no longer ours.
OTOH, I am glad I could be of service to you and your family, as well as everyone elses.
Stop signs are only Suggestions
Ah, but what do you do when a coward points an abolished gun at you?
"Verbing weirds language." -- Calvin
Wait till they slap an active RFID on the black box, then invisible checkpoints can scan everyone who drives by.
Add a drug-checking gray box and some GPS, now you're talking. Remote access to someone's past and present location and speed, and states of consciousness.
Kansas is going bye bye...
First of all, what you are saying will make no sense if EVERYONE (or a large number of people) own guns. In such a case, the criminal will choose anyone.
/. that's the norm.
:-), but that's what makes the web such a beautiful place.
You may very well be correct. However, as the way things are currently, those who have guns and make it known deter people from picking those people as targets over those who do not have or do not make it known.
Secondly, the person has to "advertise" the fact that they are armed. If you don't have a sign saying "protected by armed residents" it won't work. This may or may not work. How many criminals break into houses with stickers saying "protected by Alarm Force (or whatever)?"
Again, letting it be known that you have a gun will deter the average "bad guy" from picking you over someone else. Perhaps my example should of been _advertising_ a gun rather than just having one.
Lastly...this is the main reason actually... a criminal that wants to harm you, they will. You can't stop it. Arming yourself just gives you a fake sense of safety. A criminal will simply use smarter techniques to defeat those that are armed. This is just like defeating a car alarm. Car protection has increased a hundread fold (if not more) over the decades. Yet cars are stolen as much as they always were.
If you want to own guns, fine; but it's not going to protect you...
While it may be true that there are people who don't care how badly you can harm them while defending yourself, the average person is reasonable, and a reasonable criminal will pick the easier target over the harder one. The secret service knows that if a man is willing to try to give his life to take out the president, they may not be able to stop that person. However, they exist to protect the president from the 99.99% of those they can stop.
Saying that just because a bad guy wants to do you harm means that there is nothing you can do to stop it would be foolish. I know hand to hand self defense, I was expert rating with small arms in the military. A bad guy wants to do me harm, I'm not going to roll over and let him.
---OFF-TOPIC---
BTW, your website sucks... it is IMPOSSIBLE to read the text on your site. Either lighten the background colour or lighten the foreground colour...
Off topic? The whole thread is off topic, since this is about black boxes in cars, but this being
Thanks for at least checking out my web site. It's been ages since I've done an update and think perhaps the text on the child pages are probably easier to read than those on the main page - next update I'll keep that in mind. Thanks for the feedback. Your web page on the other hand is very easy to read. But then again, html is easy, saying something that doesn't suck is hard. I disagree with your views since everything you know is wrong
Good judgment comes from experience, and a lot of that comes from bad judgment.
You've created the problem, you'll have to live with it (die with it) until we get rid of them all.
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
Its a fucking sig.. I never said I IGNORED anything..
All I said was that it was not important to include in the context of a signature. A SIGNATURE.. not some all encompassing document of the meaning of life..
I don't have to quote the whole thing in this context. Nor do i ignore the remaining parts. You are making uninformed assumptions.
The problem is YOU DONT understand the meaning of the rest, thus jump on it as some sort of 'ha ha.. see i told you so'
YOU are taking 'regulate' in the modern context of regulation, in order to restrict.. In reality 'regulate' in the context of the framers means training.. which blows your anti-freedom agenda right out the window.
Using the proper context of 'training', please tell me what effect it has by neglecting to include that part in a stupid signature? You cant.. as it doesn't make a different.
Furthermore, the militia is NOT part of the professional military. That is the whole point. The militia is made up of individual citizens, to defend *against* a misused professional military.
Get a life, get your facts straight, drop the assumptions, and take your tired anti-American fear based agenda elsewhere.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
> And you can't drive your car recklessly by endangering other people any more than you can't wreck your house recklessly by endangering your neighbours.
Agreed, and neither of your proposed situations go to privacy at all.
>House A: Peace loving hippy mobile parked out
.357 are much lower in
>front (tie died seat covers, stickers that
>say "make love, not war", etc)
Well... you could always be dealing with one of the freedom loving hippies that has a cannabis patch in the hills that he tends religiously every spring/summer break. In which case, I'd definely leave his pad alone: he's probably got some pretty sweet self defense "tools".
>House B: Has a sign in the window "This property
>protected by Smith and Wesson" and a gun rack in
>the back window of the pickup?
>
>I know most bad guy types would more than likely
>hit house A, becuase the odds of getting their
>buts blown off with a
>that house (at least the first time). Hense,
>they have been deterred from robbing the house B.
Buzzz... wrong, but thanks for playing!
Question: what has a higher street value: a pound of pot or a stolen 9mm? If you answered pot, well then, what can I say? You obviously haven't tried to buy an stolen firearm recently. After all, stolen guns don't grow on trees.
...and make some sarcastic remark or straw-man argument. But, it is better to actually think.
The point is that the law itself REQUIRES JUDGEMENT and flexibility. Even any attorney or legislator worth his or her salt will tell you that the law is only an over-simplistic approximation. If you were smart, you would also compare laws in other countries and see that in some areas they do better than us, and in others our laws are better; the botom line is that they are all imperfect.
The issue here is that adding this kind of absolutist/big brother type technology to laws ACTUALLY CHANGES THE LAW without even the benefit to legislative or judicial process.
To be more specific, speed laws are only there because they are the simplest thing to measure, and easily generate town revenue. Speed is actually at best a secondary consideration if you really think about safety in most instances (and, no, this is NOT meant to imply that speed in residential or urban areas is reasonable).
Consider highway traffic, where the *relative* speed of cars is VASTLY more important than any car's absolute speed. I regularly commute around Boston, where at certain hours the dense traffic is *averaging* over 80mph, and one is consistently passed by others when driving 85+. Anyone actually driving under the 65mph speed limit, especially in a left lane, would create a far greater hazard than anyone driving with the pack. We drive past numerous state and local cops directly observing this. Why don't they start handing out tickets? Because they would CAUSE wrecks just by turning on their lights; even if no one braked too hard, the accordian effect would likely cause a big wreck. Notice that, while the ACTUAL law has not changed, the EFFECTIVE law has changed, and rightly so.
There are plenty of other examples where speed is a secondary consideration, and/or where a simple fixed rule cannot adequately describe the situation.
Current laws are tolerable because they have the inherent flexibility of human judgement and even failings (e.g., cops can't be everywhere at once). This is what makes them livable.
If we simply add technological enforcement to current laws, WE CHANGE THE EFFECTIVE LAW, and convert our society into something far more rigid than even the most ardent police-state Nazi could ever dream.
Please THINK about the assumptions and implications before you implement or support applying technology somewhere.
(and, no I am not a luddite; I've been CTO of several successful tech companies, but also have a philosophy degree)
Hehe, my car was made in 1985... I wonder if I've got one of them then, it was after 1984 then after all :-)
Like the military and the police? They are a bunch of violent wackos aren't they? We should disband them!
I realize that post-9/11, people are supposed to look up to soldiers and cops with uncritical adoration, but I don't. In general, the people who are drawn to such careers are the same bullies who picked on the Slashdot crowd in high school. Whenever I read about soldiers stationed somewhere who raped a native girl or cops who beat the crap out of some suspect, I'm not surprised at all.
Absolutely, guns are created to be weapons... not neccesarily to be used, but to be there if need arises for them to be used.
And the revolutionaries who put the second amendment in the constitution did NOT give us the right to bear arms so we could go huntin' with pa. They put that in there in case we should one day have to do what they did.
Are guns enough should the need arise to overthrow our corrupt government? Nope sure aren't, then again the second amendment says nothing about guns, it says arms and the word arms implies weapons intended for military use.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating doing that, but that is why it's there although you'll never get a politician to admit it. Arguments about whether we need to hunt to survive these days are irrelevant in the gun debate because that's not what it's for. It's to keep open the ultimate authority the people have.
When she was in court, the person in front of her got a ticket for going 37 in a 35!!! Further, despite the fact that the cop didn't show up to court, the judge allowed it. He even postponed the court date because the cop didn't show up. The second time around, he still didn't show up, and the judge said its ok, and continued. What's up with that?
Lets see you try to kill me with a #2 pencil, and then try again with a handgun. You really don't see the difference of degree there? Are you're lecturing everyone else about stupidity?
Guns were designed to replace/eliminate the skill and costs associated with prior weapons.
The learning curve for an armored knight was steep and long. Only the wealthy and powerful were able to have the years necessary and the money to attain that level of weapon expertise.
Firrearms brought lethel expertise to anyone who could be given a few weeks training. The advances in firearms have been to make them cheaply available and easier to use. Only in places such as the USA, Great Britian, etc., where damage to felons is unlawful has gun ownership been placed under restrictions.
In many countries, security is available only to those who pocess and use weapons.
Any weapon can be abused by the unwitting and unlawful. It needs to be pointed out that many more children are killed riding in cars driven by their parents than are killed by firearms.
You make no sense.
"Verbing weirds language." -- Calvin
You decided the level of debate with your retort.
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
If you read my posting again you'll see that that was exactly my point. The deciding factor will be how the military is split not the number of civilians with weapons
Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
>How long before the cop just walks up, plugs a handheld into your car's standardized onboard access port (like they do for smog checks now), and it spits out a ticket with your exact speed, while recording a record for the court?
>How long after that before random checkpoints access this data without a cop seeing you apparently speeding first?
>
>How long before a wireless option is added and your car data is checked by unmanned roadside monitors and the ticket arrives in the mail? Or is just automatically debited?
>
>How long before they just automatically disable your car when you exceed your limit?
>
>How long...
But how is this bad in any way?
What right do you have to break any laws? Do you have a special right to speed? No, disagreeing with the posted limit because you are a "superior" driver does not qualify.
As many, many people have suggested - driving a vehicle on a public road is a priveledge not to be taken lightly.
Happy motoring - schmuck!
In general, the people who are drawn to such careers are the same bullies who picked on the Slashdot crowd in high school.
Ok, for the sake of argument, they're jerks. But they're our jerks. Should we disband the military so that Cuba's jerks can come in and pound our defenseless ass?
But I'll make sure it's removed from any car I own. If there was a law that said the records could only be retreived from the previous 5 minutes, then I'd say it's a good thing. Otherwise, there will be people who are wrongly convicted of speeding.
In my state we have a lower "unrestricted" speed limit to other states of Australia. The Northern Territory has no speed limit in "unrestricted" areas. I would be well within my rights to drive on those roads at >200km/h and I could safely do so (I have a racing license to prove it).
I also regularly participate in motor racing using my daily driver (a 1986 Lotus). I get that car up to ~200km/h while operating well within the law.
But if I was involved in an accident and it came to a court case. I doubt I'd have any chance of winning if it came to the court's attention that I had driven at those speeds (even if in a place where it was legal) regardless of whether I was in the wrong or not.
To know that you know what you know, and that you do not know what you do not know, that is true wisdom. --Scooby Doo
Let's "enhance" you and see if you call it an enhancement then. :)
It occurs to me that although the technology is not currently being implemented for "constant scrutiny," it could be changed in the future to do just that, after having gotten people used to the idea of sometimes being monitored. On the other hand, that may be the point where the "black box" becomes less useful and more invasive, and that is when people stop using it.
If I may:
There are no dangerous weapons; there are only dangerous men. We're trying to teach you to be dangerous -- to the enemy. Dangerous even without a knife. Deadly as long as you still have one hand or one foot and are still alive.
-Heinlein
Ted Kennedy has killed more people with his car that I have with my gun. I have used my car as a weapon against more people than I have used my gun against. Admittedly, I have only caused those people a bit of inconvenience, embarrassment and increased insurance premiums (always have right of way when you hit someone). A gun is simply an escalation, not an absolute. Antagonism and hostility will always exist, and firearms are not a necessary ingredient. I still own one, because to need one and not have it readily available would be a distinction that I do not want.
I spent a year in Iraq looking for WMD and all I found was this lousy sig.
I see no difference of degree there. Let's see you try to kill anyone. Is your attempt any less sincere based on the tools you have immediately at hand? Let's put it this way: After you decide to kill me, will your lack of a handgun make you give up the plan? Of course not. You have already decided that I am to die, and your choice of weapon will not make me feel any better of worse about it.
I spent a year in Iraq looking for WMD and all I found was this lousy sig.
In New Zealand a few years ago there was a crash of an Ansett plane with a few fatalities. The police wanted to use the flight recorder to prosecute the pilot for careless flying or some such thing (he crashed in fog). The result? Pilots started popping the circuit breakers to the black box when flying in NZ.
Well, this time you managed to make a little more sense, but not much more.
Just a tip, if you always debate at the level of the person you're debating with, the best you can hope for is a tie.
In this case, when I said you make no sense, I meant excactly what I said. You said "You've created the problem" without providing any context at all, leaving me to belive that you mean that I created the problem, which is obviously nonsense. I don't own a gun, and I've never voted.
You also said that I'll have to live (or die) with it, which makes only slightly more sense than the first statement. Still, without defining the original "You", I'm unable to tell exactly what you meant by that. I certainly don't see that there is a problem with the legally owned guns in this country regardless of who you mean will have to deal with it.
When you say "until we get rid of them all", my best guess is that you mean get rid of all the guns, but that's also ridiculous. Short of killing every person who knows how to make a gun, every person who would want to discover how to do it again, every text describing how to make a gun, and then every gun in existance, you'll never get rid of them all.
Maybe now you can understand what I meant when I said that you make no sense.
Also, getting back to my original question, since you will never be able to get rid of all the guns, what will you do when someone threatens you with one?,
"Verbing weirds language." -- Calvin
I was just discussing this sort of thing the other day. They can look at the black box in your car right? Well how is this data any different from data in your mind, or on your computer? As you have control over creation and modification of this data, should the courts be able to use it without your permission?
Let me approach this in the way that I started thinking about it: if your car's black box wrote its data to a memory chip implanted under your skin, should the courts be able to forcably retrieve that data stored in your body?
What about once we have memory chips which interface directly with the brain? I think this is inevitable, even if it may be quite a while. Once we're using technology to expand our brain's storage capacity, will the government be able to subpoena the data in your brain's RAM?
Shouldn't all of this be considered unreliable and inadmissable anyway because the owner can falsify the data? What happens when people start modifying their car's black box to never record speeds greater than 55mph? If they can convict you with data you created, will they also let it free you? Even though you were the one who (indirectly) recorded the data?
Because its a stupid childish question. Are people supposed to say "Ooh, we hadn't thought about that! You are right, lets give everybody guns!"
You either:
1.Die - in which case you do nothing more.
2.You don't die in which case you tell the police afterwards.
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating