Slashdot Mirror


Spies Riding Shotgun

Slashdot has covered before the proliferation of black boxes - event data recorders - in modern automobiles, that automatically record data about what the car has been doing and make it available after the fact to police, insurance companies, and people suing you - just about everyone except you, in fact. We'll add to that with yet another story about the computerized spy riding shotgun in your new car.

353 comments

  1. Oh, for Christ's sake, michael! by bj8rn · · Score: 1, Insightful
    You know, michael, you're beating a dead horse down the road. Hell, you even admit it yourself -- and then you still have to post another story on the subject, just to inform everyone that "you called it first". I mean, it's not as if this topic hasn't been discussed on Slashdot thousands of times before. Again and again, someone reports of the "terrible news" that new cars are being fitted with black boxes.

    And now, i can already see the flamewars erupting all over again. Some people crying out "1984!" and others saying that the first are stupid. It's nothing new. Neither is this story. Was it really necessary to report this? Do we really have to go through these flames all over again, if they will not add anything new to the story anyway?

    --
    Hell is not other people; it is yourself. - Ludwig Wittgenstein
    1. Re:Oh, for Christ's sake, michael! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes, it's necessary to report this. As often as possible. If no one reports it, then soon no one will be aware of it happening. One might argue that we already know, but the fact that we've already forgotten that the guy replacing Ashcroft is the same torture guy that called the Geneva Convention "quaint" is proof that our memories are very poor. So, yes, it's necessary to report the ongoing use of event data recorders in consumer products and their use against consumers as often as possible.

    2. Re:Oh, for Christ's sake, michael! by bj8rn · · Score: 1
      If no one reports it, then soon no one will be aware of it happening.

      Good point. But there's always the threat that if it's reported as a "possible threat to privacy" too often, people will/might stop perceiving it as a threat and only shrug slightly when they see yet another "horror story" and forget about it.

      --
      Hell is not other people; it is yourself. - Ludwig Wittgenstein
    3. Re:Oh, for Christ's sake, michael! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Yes, it's necessary to report this. As often as possible, so that /. gets as much attenion as possible. If no one reports it, then soon no one will be aware of it happening, and /. might not make bucket loads of money. One might argue that we already know, but the fact that we've already forgotten that the guy replacing Ashcroft is the same torture guy that called the Geneva Convention "quaint" is proof that our memories are very poor, so theirs plenty of oppurtunity for /. to rake it in. So, yes, it's necessary to report the ongoing use of event data recorders in consumer products and their use against consumers as often as possible, how else would we serve you all those Microsoft (who we hate) ads?.

    4. Re:Oh, for Christ's sake, michael! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You appear to be disturbed by something here, and you're having difficulty conveying what it is. You seem to be angered by the notion of a web site that seeks to attract you as a viewer for the purpose of increasing its value to a web advertiser. Is that correct? If so, you have my sympathies, as you must be driven absolutely batty by the fact that virtually all news outlets employ the same business model. Your veins bulge out of your forehead when you sit and listen to Fox "News" as they prattle on about how amazing it was that some doggy found its way home only to be bombarded with another 180 seconds of Dodge Truck advertisements.

      I feel your pain.

      Stop whining and deal with it rationally: 1) You can shut it off if you want. Change the channel. Don't read /. if it drives you so batty. 2) Use an ad-blocker. I'm running AtGuard and I don't see any ads here whatsoever. Quit your nonsensical whining and apply a fucking solution to the problem.

    5. Re:Oh, for Christ's sake, michael! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I'm running AtGuard and I don't see any ads here whatsoever

      I maintain my hosts file, same effects, same results. actually anyone not doing it is an idiot.

    6. Re:Oh, for Christ's sake, michael! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, I thought Big Brother was watching me, but it turned out it was a poster of Big Brother and the Holding Company....

  2. [OT] The Complete Rules to Calling Shotgun... by PissingInTheWind · · Score: 3, Funny
    --

    A message from the system administrator: 'I've upped my priority. Now up yours.'
    1. Re:[OT] The Complete Rules to Calling Shotgun... by metlin · · Score: 5, Funny

      Being as how everyone is created equal, men have the same right as women to the front seat of the car. i.e. women don't own the front seat.

      Man, this guy is obviously single.

    2. Re:[OT] The Complete Rules to Calling Shotgun... by metlin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Giving in to someone you like is not weak-kneed. If anything, it's wonderful.

    3. Re:[OT] The Complete Rules to Calling Shotgun... by Queer+Boy · · Score: 1
      Or gay.

      Begone! Your breasts have no power here!

      --
      Not since Marie-Antoinette played milkmaid has looking simple and honest been so fake and complicated.
    4. Re:[OT] The Complete Rules to Calling Shotgun... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Special Cases
      3) In the instance the driver's spouse, lover, partner, or hired prostitute for the evening is going to accompany the group, he/she is automatically given Shotgun, unless they decline.
      RTFA :D

    5. Re:[OT] The Complete Rules to Calling Shotgun... by metlin · · Score: 1

      Ooh! Thanks for pointing that out!

      Okay, I change my stance - this guy is perverted for sure ;-)

    6. Re:[OT] The Complete Rules to Calling Shotgun... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AC wrote: "Maybe he's just not a weak-kneed doormat."

      Yeah man, what a way to assert your masculinity... pushing a woman out of the front seat is definitly a sign of manhood.</sarcasm>

  3. Looking forward.. by tarquin_fim_bim · · Score: 4, Funny

    ..to the day when my every every bowel movement is recorded for the enjoyment of future generations.

    "You can't shut it off, and you can't manipulate it," I had that trouble when I had a Ginseng and Viagra chaser.

    1. Re:Looking forward.. by NoMoreNicksLeft · · Score: 1

      Inner party members can always turn off the bowel movement recorder when it suits them. They're allowed that privilege.

  4. This is terrible! by TheOtherChimeraTwin · · Score: 5, Funny

    This is an absolute invasion of privacy! Imagine: recording every questionable driving decision you make. I wonder where I can get one for my daughter's car?

    1. Re:This is terrible! by jim_deane · · Score: 3, Informative

      If your question is at all serious, there are products that you can use.

      For instance, The CarChip.

      My personal belief is vehement opposition to this kind of monitoring. Nevertheless, it is available. If she's driving a car you own, you can install it without any problem. If the car is hers, you might want to check with an attorney before installing any monitoring/spying equipment.

      Jim

    2. Re:This is terrible! by iminplaya · · Score: 2, Funny

      I wonder where I can get one for my daughter's car?

      In that case you'll want it for the back seat. Or you can just put in a web cam.

      --
      What?
    3. Re:This is terrible! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      re: this new spy cam in his daughters back seat...link please ;)

    4. Re:This is terrible! by PitaBred · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Or perhaps you should just learn to be a decent parent and, oh, I don't know, TRUST that you raised her right? Jesus. Kids do dumb things. It's a given. Your job is to teach her how to fly, not to fly with her every second of every day. That only teaches her to be dependent.

    5. Re:This is terrible! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I have deduced one or more of the following about you and a teenage daughter:

      You are really lucky.

      You do not have one.

      You are being completely fooled.

      You read to many books about the subject.

      My daughter is not driving yet. When she is, I hope the only thing I have to worry about is how she is driving. I am far from the exception.
      Blame it on bad parenting or whatever you want. My other child is one year younger and is completely different then the other. Both from the same environment growing up (the wife and I have never been apart).

    6. Re:This is terrible! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Spoken like a snarky 18 year old. Moron.

    7. Re:This is terrible! by Sgt_Jake · · Score: 1

      Blah blah blah... It's not that I won't trust my daughter, it's that I don't trust everyone else. Which is why I'm raising her to be an assassin.

  5. PATHETIC by starman71taylor · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Your castigating him is bordering on the absurd. For your stated reasoning, of being "concerned about a flame war". What in the fuck does that have to do with a REAL NEWS STORY that yes, has been reported here and other places before, have to do with your retort. Simply stated, you don't care about people watching, monitoring, controlling your driving habits etc. People who care are alarmed by this development....as you should too, if your head was a little more concerned about the ISSUE rather than some childish "flamewar". PATHETIC.

    1. Re:PATHETIC by bj8rn · · Score: 0, Flamebait
      What in the fuck does that have to do with a REAL NEWS STORY that yes, has been reported here and other places before, have to do with your retort.

      Oh, nothing, except for the fact that it has been reported on Slashdot so many times already that it's hardly news! In fact, it's been reported so many times that posting yet another story on the same subject is already beginning to resemble the story of the boy crying wolf. And all that comes out of this is idiots (like you and me) flaming each other over things that have been discussed so many times before. Now, do you think they really care about this issue? The odds are that some of them do, but most of the readers will simply forget about it in 3...2...1...forgotten.

      --
      Hell is not other people; it is yourself. - Ludwig Wittgenstein
  6. Pure Speculation by Mike+Rubits · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I was expecting actual abuses of the system, but half of the article is about the things that can potentially happen? Sure, the Earth can implode tomorrow, but those aren't getting front page stories on Slashdot.

    Are there any cases where this has been abused? Why not post those?

    1. Re:Pure Speculation by Monte · · Score: 1

      Some car-rental companies sneak riders into their contracts saying that you have to pay extra $$$ every time you excede the speed limit. Then they use black boxes and GPS, download the data after you turn the car back in,and WHAM! Big surprise when you check your credit card bill.

      At least this was the case a couple years ago, dunno if it's still going on.

    2. Re:Pure Speculation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, you're saying that some companies charge you if you use their property to break the law? What's your point exactly?

    3. Re:Pure Speculation by nwbvt · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Gee, its almost as if you were not supposed to drive them in an unsafe manner. Those bastards, trying to make sure you don't damage their car.

      --
      Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
    4. Re:Pure Speculation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right... because going faster then what an arbitrary number on a sign reads is ALWAYS dangerous, wrong, and part of the axis of evil!

    5. Re:Pure Speculation by nwbvt · · Score: 1

      Would you prefer it to have a more invasive system including a video camera watching you and the road the entire time you are driving?

      --
      Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
    6. Re:Pure Speculation by gcaseye6677 · · Score: 1

      The point is that other companies don't abuse their customers this way. Therefore, I won't do business with a shady place like that. Why should I have to pay a car rental company whatever arbitrary fee they come up with just because I drove their car 56 MPH in a 55 zone? Is this really about "safety", or revenue enhancement?

    7. Re:Pure Speculation by Quixote · · Score: 1
      Are there any cases where this has been abused? Why not post those?

      Since you obviously didn't RTFA (looking at your question), let me point out an instance from TA:

      In California, a federal court slapped the hands of investigators who tapped into illicit in-vehicle conversations via the car's built-in communications system
      and further:
      Rental car companies also have come under fire for using global positioning satellite data to track driving habits

      To usurp Clarke's quote, "any technology sufficiently advanced will be abused by those in power".

      This article is basically saying that we should be vigilant. If we wait to act until the abuses start happening, by then the embedded interests will be too strong to dislodge.

      As they say, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

    8. Re:Pure Speculation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Studies have shown that the safest drivers as a group are those that drive a little over the speed limit, not under.

    9. Re:Pure Speculation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ooh, sorry, thanks for playing.

      Just because you go faster than the speed limit does not mean you are breaking the law. For one example, the car may be on an Auto-Train, going 80mph down the tracks. But the car is not being DRIVEN at 8-mph.

      Another example- in Nevada, there are salt flats that are right next to the road. You can pull off the road, onto the flats, and not be bound by the road's speed limit.

    10. Re:Pure Speculation by UniverseIsADoughnut · · Score: 1

      is the salt flat driving legal. I know driving on the flats coming out of salt lake city heading to bonniville i was thinking about it, figured thats way ilegal.

      Oh and what the fuck is that thing mid way on that stretch on 80, some funky sculpture.

    11. Re:Pure Speculation by passthecrackpipe · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and since these are cars, unlike software, they becomy my property whan I buy them. Who is to stop me from just ripping the fucking stuff out? bypassing the lot? I am sure some eager beaver ricer hotrodder will happily downgrade your car to pre-1984 specs.

      --
      People who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.
    12. Re:Pure Speculation by Pofy · · Score: 1

      >Yeah, and since these are cars, unlike software,
      >they becomy my property whan I buy them.

      Ehh, if you BUY software, then of course it (the copy you buy) becomes yours, that is what buying means. Sure, some try to fool you into believing otherwise, but that does not change what buying is and how it is handled and treated by for example the law.

    13. Re:Pure Speculation by nwbvt · · Score: 1
      Yeah, because the ones that drive under the speed limit are generally people with reduced skills, such as old people.

      You are confusing cause and effect buddy.

      --
      Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
    14. Re:Pure Speculation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "You are confusing cause and effect buddy."

      No, that is precisely what you were doing, buddy.

  7. I love my car.. by EngMedic · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I drive a '92 Honda Civic CX (nobody has them, they suck that much). It's a total hunk of junk, but i love it. It does precisely what i tell it to (at speeds of under 60 mph -- it don't accelerate too well), gets 35 mpg, and takes me from point A to point B. Now i have another reason -- because it's not looking at what i'm doing.

    --
    filter: +3. Hey, look! all the trolls went away!
    1. Re:I love my car.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Ah, but you have forgotten about the odometer -- i.e., the sinister spy in your dashboard !!!

    2. Re:I love my car.. by trewornan · · Score: 1

      Disconnect the speedometer and the odometer stops racking up miles. The oldest trick in the book.

    3. Re:I love my car.. by Joe+Random · · Score: 1

      Ah, but you have forgotten about the odometer -- i.e., the sinister spy in your dashboard !!!

      Just run the car in reverse for a while and it'll take the miles right back off. Oh, but beware of large plate-glass windows overlooking picturesque ravines.

    4. Re:I love my car.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That doesn't work dumbass.

    5. Re:I love my car.. by shawn(at)fsu · · Score: 1

      then then be sure you don't let your friend to close to the pool after he see's the miles aren't coming off.

      --
      500 dollar reward for tip(s) leading to the arrest of the person(s) who stole my sig.
    6. Re:I love my car.. by Fishstick · · Score: 1

      No, it was before they tried jacking up the car and putting it in reverse that he flipped out and fell into the pool. He went into shock on the drive back. It was only after he fell off the diving board and they pulled him out of the pool that he snapped out of it and they tried to dial back the odometer.

      --

      There is much cruelty in the universe, John.
      Yeah, we seem to have the tour map.

    7. Re:I love my car.. by AC5398 · · Score: 2, Informative

      It was in the newspaper a few months ago. There had been an accident on the local highway involving several cars - you know the scene, one guy driving too close to another, the guy in front brakes, and suddenly 5 cars crash into each other. And suddenly another guy crashes into the cars and there's a second pileup.

      A number of witnesses swore blind to the cops that the guy had made no attempt to slow down and was speeding. Cops asked for, and were given, permission to access the black box data, which confirmed the guy did try to brake and that he wasn't speeding. So his black box prevented his being charged and possibly arrested.

      Ironically, the cops required the car owner's permission to access the black box data; the insurance company does not require permission to access the black box data.

    8. Re:I love my car.. by strider44 · · Score: 1

      As long as you can get to D, aka the pub.

    9. Re:I love my car.. by Eskarel · · Score: 1

      Well, as far as I'm concerned all tail gaters(people who drive too close) ought to be shot anyway. So no real loss if he got charged for an unrelated crime.

    10. Re:I love my car.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Back in the day, I pulled a fuse to stop the odometer on a limited mileage rental I had before. I believe it was a early 90's Chevy. I don't remember the whole thing but either the inside fan or AC did not work with that fuse removed either. It was really hot driving around Florida in the summer with no AC. Saved about $100 in excess milage fees though.

      Off topic but I had another rental when my car was in the shop. I set the cruise at 55 and pulled up the ebrake. It was a little tricky to control but it was interesting to witness the cruise and the brakes fight it out. I think the cruise shutoff at like 40 and I let it skid to a stop.

    11. Re:I love my car.. by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      Good point, but at least this way the false witnesses hopefully got in trouble too...

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    12. Re:I love my car.. by shawn(at)fsu · · Score: 1

      I stand corrected, thanks.

      You know what that means, I just have to watch it again to refresh.

      --
      500 dollar reward for tip(s) leading to the arrest of the person(s) who stole my sig.
    13. Re:I love my car.. by Fishstick · · Score: 1

      Bueller, Bueller, Bueller...

      anyone, anyone?

      I love that movie -- must have seen it a hundred times by now .. but strangely never the whole movie in one sitting. I think I may have gone to see it when it was out in the theaters, but I seem to remember missing the beginning. Then later, renting it but missing large parts of it due to a horny girlfriend. Any time it has been on TV, I seem to only catch part of it.

      Someday I must make it a point to watch it again from start to finish.

      --

      There is much cruelty in the universe, John.
      Yeah, we seem to have the tour map.

    14. Re:I love my car.. by Fishstick · · Score: 1

      oddly enough.. right after I finished this post and went into the kitchen to start making breakfast and flipped on the tv...

      comedy central is airing Ferris Bueller's Day Off as I post this!

      --

      There is much cruelty in the universe, John.
      Yeah, we seem to have the tour map.

    15. Re:I love my car.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All people who say "all [X] people should be shot" should be shot.. no wait.

    16. Re:I love my car.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Near as I can tell, he wasn't talking about the tailgaters, he was talking about someone who ran into all the others after they had the initial 5-car wreck.

  8. Personal black boxes arent automatically bad. by LordZardoz · · Score: 2, Insightful

    In a fiction series I read recently (Hominids / Humans / Hybreds by Robert J. Sawyer), in the Neanderthal world, everyone had an implanted companiion that recorded everything their host did, and uploaded it to an Alibi Archive. Essentially, everyone had a personal blackbox that they could look through later, or that could be used against them in criminal proceedings.

    One of the effects this had was that no one would be able to make false accusations against you, because your alibi archive would vindicate you instantly. It also meant that no one could really get away with crime.

    Of course, that view of things was largly utopian. The general arguement against this sort of tech in reality is that humans tend to be corruptible. So I dont think that trying such a concept for every person is ideal.

    However, for things like using a car, I dont see it as a problem. As long is the recording media is practically impossible to tamper with, (in so far as any attempt to alter the contents would be detected as an alteration). And also, the laws would need to be written such that they could only demand to see very specific time segments in the recording. Assuming that only yourself and government authorities could access it, it would solve alot of problems.

    - No one would drive like an asshat if someone would compell them to prove that they werent.

    - You would have ironclad proof against bogus tickets and insurance charges.

    - The only thing you really give up for the two previous items is the ability to lie about the above two.

    Then again, I dont drive at all, so its all a non issue to me.

    END COMMUNICATION

    1. Re:Personal black boxes arent automatically bad. by CrackerJack9 · · Score: 1

      I didn't realize they could be used to say, "While driving between the VASCAR you averaged 44 mph".

      That would be scary if they could, but I think their use to refute bogus tickets is a little overratted.

    2. Re:Personal black boxes arent automatically bad. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      What it comes down to is that everyone speeds.

      On one hand, I wish they would enforce it. So that the speed limits would go up, because if they gave out a ticket every time someone sped, the people would riot.

      And on the other hand, I think it'd be idiotic because the damn gubbmint would end up addicted to the ticket revenue.

      This is the same argument as DRM on computers.

      I buy a physical device, I should be able to utilize it in whatever manner I choose. If I do something stupid with it, say, AND cause someone's injury or death, I should be well punished.

      As John Stuart Mill said, "In all such cases there should be perfect freedom, legal and social, to do the action and stand the consequences."

    3. Re:Personal black boxes arent automatically bad. by LaCosaNostradamus · · Score: 1

      The only real test of these systems is what happens when one of your state Senators is in an accident. If all of a sudden his blackbox is reported as "unavailable", then you can figure out what to do with yours yourself. Hints: blowtorch, hammer/chisel, hand drill, etc.

      --
      [You have a stable society when some nut guns down a schoolyard and the law doesn't change.]
    4. Re:Personal black boxes arent automatically bad. by UpnAtom · · Score: 1

      You make some very important points.

      One important distinction is that you control access to the data. Someone can not use it against you without your permission!

      This is one of the biggest questions facing our society as we move into the information age:

      Who can we trust to make sure no-one abuses the huge amount of information collected about us?

    5. Re:Personal black boxes arent automatically bad. by winwar · · Score: 1

      "However, for things like using a car, I dont see it as a problem."

      Well, I do. Sure, let's assume the blackbox records everything perfectly and is only accessed appropriately. It's still not a panacea. It doesn't know WHY you did what you did. Oh, you swerved/sped up/braked hard etc. Those could all be the signs of a bad driver causing an accident or a better driver trying to prevent one and failing. Which is it? It will end up this way: computer said you did something bad, you are at fault, reality/totality of the circumstances be damned.

      I'll take my chances with incompetent/greedy insurance companies/lawyers/police under the current system, thank you very much...

    6. Re:Personal black boxes arent automatically bad. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "- You would have ironclad proof against bogus tickets and insurance charges."

      This is a niave notion and wrong. An example: I know a person who was ticketed for a speed their vehicle was incapable of achieving in the distance the officer claimed. They had a professional PhD engineer who was also a certified expert witness go to court and testify to the judge to that fact and present the analysis that proved it. The judge listened, was clearly displeased, and then proclaimed "Inadmissable! Guilty! Next Case!" as he struck his gavel.

      The point is, this kind of information can be selectively used against you and then ignored when it would exonerate you.

    7. Re:Personal black boxes arent automatically bad. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Then again, I dont drive at all, so its all a non issue to me.

      Lets try a few variations on that statement as they would appear in history

      Then again, I'm not black, so its all a non issue to me. ( Hans VanHoorten - Pretoria South Africa ca 1974 )

      Then again, I'm not Jewish, so its all a non issue to me. ( Gunter Manheim - Berlin Germany ca 1938 )

      Then again, I'm not Catholic, so its all a non issue to me. ( Shamus O'Reilly - Londonderry North Ireland ca 1968 )

      Then again, I'm not American, so its all a non issue to me. ( Abdel Al Saif - Kabul Afghanistan Sept. 12, 2001 )

      Then again, I don't fly, so its all a non issue to me. ( Paul Johnstone - New York Sept. 12, 2001 )

    8. Re:Personal black boxes arent automatically bad. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In a fiction series I read recently (Hominids / Humans / Hybreds by Robert J. Sawyer), in the Neanderthal world, everyone had an implanted companiion that recorded everything their host did, and uploaded it to an Alibi Archive. Essentially, everyone had a personal blackbox that they could look through later, or that could be used against them in criminal proceedings.

      One of the effects this had was that no one would be able to make false accusations against you, because your alibi archive would vindicate you instantly. It also meant that no one could really get away with crime.


      Sounds like an interesting series. I'll have to read it.

      However, I can see a few flaws in it.
      1) If anyone can accuse you of anything, at any time, that would result in wasting the Governments time and money to pull and review the files.
      2) People could EASILY get away with random crimes. If no one points a finger at them, their 'black box' never gets looked at.
      3) What is to stop the cops from using this to spy on people? Either in the "lets see her take a shower" way, or the "lets watch the possible terrorist" way?
      4) How secure is the system? If it has that much info, it would be the PRIME target for hackers. Having someone gain read access to my... no, EVERONE's lives is bad enough- but what happens if the files can be erased or even manipulated?
      5) Does EVERYONE have this 'black box'? Including the cops? Politicians? The President? The pilot of the new super-secret stealth aircraft the government just had built? Who has access to the recordings? Can I accuse the President of littering and get to see a slice of his life?

    9. Re:Personal black boxes arent automatically bad. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the information is accurate, I don't see how it will lead any rational person to a less accurate conclusion.

    10. Re:Personal black boxes arent automatically bad. by 1u3hr · · Score: 1
      - No one would drive like an asshat if someone would compell them to prove that they werent.

      When they're drunk they will regardless of who's watching. Though those who aren't quite plastered might take more care.

  9. Re:Welcome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Somebody read the last story's first post...

  10. I would quite like one by edittard · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Bearing in mind that I 1) don't drive like a twat 2) hate people who do, I would quite like one.

    --
    At the bottom of the /. main page it says 'Yesterday's News'. Well they got that right.
    1. Re:I would quite like one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In my experience most people who are convinced they "don't drive like a twat", always stick to speed limits, etc, are in reality a menace on the road.

    2. Re:I would quite like one by hplasm · · Score: 0

      In my experience most people who are convinced they "don't drive like a twat ", always stick to speed limits, etc, in reality do "drive like a twat" and are a menace on the road. Well said.

      --
      ...and he grinned, like a fox eating shit out of a wire brush.
    3. Re:I would quite like one by Moderatbastard · · Score: 1
      always stick to speed limits, etc
      Yeah, those people who stop at red lights, indicate before changing lane, look at the road instead of watching a DVD, they're all assholes.
      --
      1/3 of jokes get modded OT. If you get the joke, mod 1 in 3 insightful/interesting/underrated to restore karma balance.
  11. I think I will just keep my littlle sports car by DarkOx · · Score: 0

    Makes my glad to drive an 1985 Alfa Spider. I highly doubt the computer has enough memory to store that kinda information. Infact I think the performance would see big imporvement if could retain information for a longer period the Variable Valve timeing control might be allot smarter if it could keep track of conditions for at least 5 min. I wish the car did* know I was in a race and could keep thing adjusted according rather then droping the cam back to normal just becase I got out of the throtel to take a curve.

    --
    Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    1. Re:I think I will just keep my littlle sports car by Shadwell · · Score: 1

      I hope you don't drive the way you spell.

    2. Re:I think I will just keep my littlle sports car by oexeo · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      > I hope you don't drive the way you spell.

      I hope you don't drive as badly as your as your sig is shit

  12. As long as they come with an off switch. by BitterOak · · Score: 2, Interesting
    I see nothing inherintly bad with this technology itself. In fact, it could prove quite useful at times. But it is vitally important that buyers be informed of these systems, and they must be equipped with an off switch.

    Does anyone know if all existing systems such as On-star can be turned off easily by the driver?

    --
    If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
    1. Re:As long as they come with an off switch. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So I could switch it off at the precise moment that it might become useful to the innocent old dear I'm about to run down by driving like a dickhead?

    2. Re:As long as they come with an off switch. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does anyone know if all existing systems such as On-star can be turned off easily by the driver?

      Yes. The cars are fitted with a convenient ignition key for precisely this purpose.

    3. Re:As long as they come with an off switch. by thorndt · · Score: 1

      After RTFA, the answer to your question looks like "no" you can't turn it off (as long as the car's on). I'm speaking of the black boxes. As for On-star: they claim that 1) you have to subscribe to their service before any monitoring CAN occur. But, if you subscribe, they always monitor that black box. More important though, is the answer to the question: "who owns this black box data?" This is still up in the air.

      --
      - The race is not [always] to the swift, nor the battle to the strong. -
    4. Re:As long as they come with an off switch. by BitterOak · · Score: 3, Insightful
      So I could switch it off at the precise moment that it might become useful to the innocent old dear I'm about to run down by driving like a dickhead?

      So, your assumption is that if I want a little privacy, I must be about to commit a crime. Why not insist that I have video cameras installed in my home in case I should decide to commit date rape some evening?

      --
      If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
    5. Re:As long as they come with an off switch. by AndroidCat · · Score: 1

      After I've disconnected the antenna, and put a lockbox around the I/O connector, I do. Anyone else can ask permission or show a court order to search the data.

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    6. Re:As long as they come with an off switch. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On-star's functionality can be turned off, but the GPS device embedded in it can't. It has to be removed to be disabled.

    7. Re:As long as they come with an off switch. by ssand · · Score: 1

      I think an off switch would defeat the purpose. Poor drivers who acknowledge that they are poor drivers, will turn it off, while drivers who know they obey the traffic laws will more likely keep them on.

    8. Re:As long as they come with an off switch. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Yeah, just like people who use envelopes to send mail must be up to something criminal.

      Good citizens only send mail on postcards.

    9. Re:As long as they come with an off switch. by soft_guy · · Score: 1

      Why not insist that I have video cameras installed in my home in case I should decide to commit date rape some evening?

      Yes, and then you'll be arrested for rape if you cover the lense with your coat since obviously you wouldn't have covered the camera if you weren't going to commit a crime.

      --
      Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
    10. Re:As long as they come with an off switch. by Cervantes · · Score: 1

      That presumes that a /. nerd would get a date, and even GWB isn't dumb enough to think that.

      Of course, his concern of homosexuality will probably lead to the closing of at least half the internets.

      --
      If I knew the wedgies I gave you back in 6th grade would have resulted in this . . . I might have taken a moments pause.
  13. There are no rights violated here! by dada21 · · Score: 2

    You knowingly are purchasing the vehicle as-is. If you are unsure of what they are putting in there, then don't buy it. No violation was performed.

    If government forces these items on us, then we should fight that monopoly force called government. If a private manufacturer wants to push us on it, we can tell them to shove it and not buy their product.

    1. Re:There are no rights violated here! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's why I drive an old Ford. There is no black box to come haunt me.

    2. Re:There are no rights violated here! by yabos · · Score: 1

      So what happens when all manufacturers have them? You can buy used cars, but they are only going to last so long. Eventually you will have no choice to buy a car with one of these boxes.

    3. Re:There are no rights violated here! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1. The government has mandated "safety" standards so high that only very large corporations can afford to comply - so all cars are made by a limited number of big businesses.

      2. If all (essentially 5) auto manufacturers start to include their flavor of On* in all new cars - what choice will you have?

      3. Many states - especially near major cities - have passed "smog" legislation that makes it a hassle - and sometimes near impossible - to keep an old car on the road.

      Fortunately, we will be out of fossil fuel to burn in these cars before the whole issue gets too Orwellian to bear.

  14. Ok, there are spies. Now what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Sorry to AC, but submitted for your consideration:

    1) Who owns the info? You're in a crash*, can you seize the info form the other guy's car to prove your innocence?
    1a) How? Go to the junkyard and rip out his computer?
    1b) Should we all carry OBD2 down-loading recorders? Scene of the crash, you barge into the other car, plug in and download while the tow-truck is still attaching to drag it away?

    2) If you're in a crash*, how do you protect your rights of posession to the data? (You must agree that at the very least, posession of the car implies posession of any/all devices therein, so any data stored within those devices MAY have vague posession-rules, but holding the black box in your hands at least allows you control of that data...)

    3) How do I safely rig something to destroy or scramble my car's computer? As a last-ditch effort to protect my privacy, shouldn't I have a "Destroy" button somewhere? I'm thinking thermite, but maybe a strong capacitor might be better, both carry risks, but not as much as the data falling in the wrong hands BEFORE my lawyers have a chance to see it...) No news is better than bad news?

    *They're all "crashes" /.ers, there's no such thing as an accident. Someone's always going too fast.

  15. They're out to get you. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let's see. We have no problems with black boxes on planes, and yet we're worried about black boxes in cars. Are airline pilots as paranoid as road drivers?

    1. Re:They're out to get you. by mikael · · Score: 1

      Airline pilots fly in pairs for long international flights. Then, they have continuous training under an instructor, and are in constant communication with other pilots and air traffic controllers, not forgetting that they also have strict limits on the number of hours they can fly per day. And the vehicles are inspected after every flight.

      It's rather hard for an airline pilot to be sozzled as a flambeed vodka prawn and not have anyone notice.

      If cars and car drivers were under that level of scrutiny, car accidents rates would probably plummet. Imagine having to check in with the local police station to arrange your route, having a inspection crew check the tyres and engine before leaving, and be in constant radio contact with other car drivers.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
  16. National Motorists Association by Leebert · · Score: 4, Informative

    This article quotes Erick Skrum of the National Motorists Association. It's a great political organization that fights multiple battles of interest to motorists, including black boxes.

    Consider joining the NMA: http://www.motorists.org/

  17. You know what? by StarKruzr · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I NEED the ability to lie about the above two. Why? Because I live in New York City, where speed limits are set arbitrarily low in really stupid places for the express purpose of allowing cops to pick up people for speeding and feed the city coffers.

    If anything, this technology SHOULD allow one to completely eliminate speed limits from the books. Exceeding the speed limit DANGEROUSLY can be called "reckless driving," so why do we have have to have extra laws for it in addition to reckless driving violations? For one reason only: those who make the laws realize that one can drive fast without driving dangerously, but if they let us do that they'd never make any money.

    Driving at 85 mph in the rain on a twisty road in the middle of the night with cars on it? Yes. Your ass should be prosecuted.

    Driving at 80 mph "in a 50" in the middle of the night, with not a cloud in the sky, on a completely empty, straight road? No.

    --

    +++ATH0
    1. Re:You know what? by bladesjester · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "Driving at 80 mph "in a 50" in the middle of the night, with not a cloud in the sky, on a completely empty, straight road? No."

      I wish I could do that here. Unfortunately the roads here aren't even safe when there are no other cars on them. Deer are a real problem here (to the point that it doesn't really have an effect on your insurance premium. The companies just go "oh, another one" and hand over the cash without really penalizing you.)

      So speaks the guy who has totaled 2 cars (one of which was only doing 20mph at the time. seriously) from hitting deer. And I've lost count of how many I've managed to avoid.

      --
      Everything I need to know I learned by killing smart people and eating their brains.
    2. Re:You know what? by the_mad_poster · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So, your theory here is that laws are relative and that this has not been taken into consideration by the people in charge.

      Which makes the laws bogus.

      Which means you should lobby to get the laws fixed.

      Which is an entirely different problem than what's being discussed here.

      --
      Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
    3. Re:You know what? by StarKruzr · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Of course it's been "taken into consideration by the people in charge." That doesn't mean they care. Speed limit laws are never going to get significantly changed or repealed. Those who benefit from them (insurance companies and state and city governments) can always fall back on the ironclad argument (despite any evidence to the contrary) about them protecting people's safety. How can we change or remove speed limits, they will howl, when it will KILL SO MANY BABIES?!?!

      Forget it. Passing laws is ten times easier than getting them removed from the books, and in this case, getting them removed is impossible. The best you can do is buck the system and fight against any additional restrictions being placed on your liberties.

      --

      +++ATH0
    4. Re:You know what? by the_mad_poster · · Score: 1

      Liberties? It's a liberty to break the law now, is it?

      --
      Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
    5. Re:You know what? by StarKruzr · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I love people who think the law makes what's right, rather than what's right making the law.

      I also can't believe how many times I've gotten into precisely that argument on Slashdot.

      --

      +++ATH0
    6. Re:You know what? by LordZardoz · · Score: 1

      Heh. Thats why I added the bit about someone having to actually compell you to reveal the info.

      In the books I refered to, the rule was that if no one accuses you of doing something wrong, then no crime was committed. That kind of thing allows the typical marginal speeding that everyone seems to indulge in.

      The fact that you feel entitled to speed when you beleive that it will do no harm is a separate issue, in my opinion.

      END COMMUNICATION

    7. Re:You know what? by bladesjester · · Score: 1

      No offence, but NYC != world

      Not to mention the fact that a large amount of the roadways in this country are not in a pedestrian area or even in a city.

      Take, for example I70 though Indianapolis. The last time I drove that section of 70 (it's been 3 years now, but it never really changes there), the posted limit was rather low (like 50 or 55 I believe). I was getting passed by patrol cars as I roughly followed the flow of traffic by doing 80. To be honest, I was lagging behind the car ahead of me a bit...

      Speed limits tend to be arbitraily enforced in a lot of places that I've been. My ex-fiance was amazed that my state actually enforced the speed limit because they just tend to igrore in where she grew up in St Louis unless they either don't like you or you do something *really* stupid.

      --
      Everything I need to know I learned by killing smart people and eating their brains.
    8. Re:You know what? by UpnAtom · · Score: 1

      Everyone speeds and the speed limits are consequently set excessively low.

      Exceeding those limits will never be enforced, and you will never get everyone to simultaneously stop speeding.

      Consequently, we're stuck with the status quo, probably whilst civilised society remains the dominant force on this planet.

    9. Re:You know what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately the roads here aren't even safe when there are no other cars on them. Deer are a real problem here

      A new invention can help solve that problem- it's called a fence.

    10. Re:You know what? by bladesjester · · Score: 1

      "A new invention can help solve that problem- it's called a fence."

      No, really it can't. I've seen deer jump fences taller than I am, and I measure in at 6'

      --
      Everything I need to know I learned by killing smart people and eating their brains.
    11. Re:You know what? by banzai51 · · Score: 1

      Sorry, you're asking people to think and reason. Something we have been largely tring not to do since, forever.

    12. Re:You know what? by soft_guy · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      The reason why they do this is so that police have the ability to selectively enforce the law. Thus, we have phenomenon like "Driving While Black" which will result in a ticket and fine many places in the US.

      --
      Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
    13. Re:You know what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've seen deer jump fences taller than I am, and I measure in at 6'

      So, find the tallest fence a deer can jump, and build one a foot taller.

      furrfu.

    14. Re:You know what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The effective range of your high-beam lights is maybe 150-200 yards. Ever hit an Angus at 80MPH on a dark country road? (hint: Angus are black cows, much heavier than your windshield is strong.) You big-city yuppies have far too much faith that unexpected things won't be sitting in the middle of the road. Slow your ass down, we're tired of cleaning up what's left of you!

    15. Re:You know what? by bladesjester · · Score: 1

      "So, find the tallest fence a deer can jump, and build one a foot taller."

      Now there's a cost that the state would be happy to deal with - building 10' fences along *all* of the state highways. That's to say nothing of the counties and townships having to absorb that cost for barriers on *those* roads.

      You're dealing with a lot more than just the fact that deer can jump high. Cost is a major factor (not only to put the fences in but also to maintain them), and I don't know about your state, but mine is in such a budget crunch that they've started cutting funding to unimportant things (like higher education) right and left.

      In theory? great idea. In practice? notsomuch.

      --
      Everything I need to know I learned by killing smart people and eating their brains.
    16. Re:You know what? by tricorn · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't aggressively enforcing speed-limit laws (including officials, police who aren't flashing lights, etc) fairly quickly lead to a demand that speed-limit laws be changed to be reasonable?

    17. Re:You know what? by UpnAtom · · Score: 1

      You might be right. I suspect, however, it would lead to rioting.

      For many people, their cars represent freedom. Over a rise in petrol costs, lorry drivers managed to bring Britain to a complete standstill -- and were generally congratulated for it.

      You have prompted me to think that if the excess was made explicit eg 10% + 2mph, and if they gradually reduced that published excess whilst simultaneously changing the 100,000 signposts worldwide, then maybe things could change.

      However, I don't see a political motivation for such a costly exercise.

    18. Re:You know what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Law is simply the government's definition of what is right.

    19. Re:You know what? by the_mad_poster · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You didn't answer my question - are you suggesting that some liberty to break the law is infringed here?

      Idiot mods. It's the same old "i'm going to use my own personal moral ideals to try and justify my behavior in the larger context of a society" argument. That's not insightful, it's been said by childish dolts like the parent poster a million times before to justify their illegitimate behavior. This stupid "view" of things is especially prevelant in threads where numbskulls use it to try and justify the fact that they steal games/movies/music/whatever.

      Fucking idiot mods need to go look up the definition of "insightful".

      --
      Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
    20. Re:You know what? by benzapp · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      No offence, but NYC != world

      Did you read the post I was replying to? I don't give a shit about the rest of the world because that is not what this discussion is about. We are talking about New York City, you however are apparently telling us people can drive fast in Indiana. No fucking shit.

      Read the whole thread before you jump into a discussion and post some sanctimonious bullshit like that.

      --
      I don't read or respond to AC posts
    21. Re:You know what? by bladesjester · · Score: 1

      Read the whole thread and the article yourself. The person you were responding to was talking about NYC. However, he was giving an example of why this should not work (a reason why the *large scale* implementation would not work).

      This would affect more than just NYC as the person you were responding to realized. They want to do this nationwide, therefore my comments are perfectly in order. Try taking your own advice.

      --
      Everything I need to know I learned by killing smart people and eating their brains.
    22. Re:You know what? by sjames · · Score: 1

      Liberties? It's a liberty to break the law now, is it?

      In some sense, yes. There are many laws on the books that are so routinely broken that many people don't even know the law exists. Believe it or not, in some states, sex outside of marriage is a criminal offense.

      As for speeding, can you think of anyone who will actually question your character if you get a speeding ticket?

      On the interstates around here, traveling at the speed limit is a good way to get rear-ended.

    23. Re:You know what? by the_mad_poster · · Score: 1

      Again, this is a problem with black boxes... how?

      --
      Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
    24. Re:You know what? by StarKruzr · · Score: 1

      Yeah, well, as far as we're concerned if you live anywhere within a mile of a cow, something's wrong :D

      --

      +++ATH0
    25. Re:You know what? by sjames · · Score: 1

      Again, this is a problem with black boxes... how?

      You're the one who brought it up! So you tell me!

      You asked if breaking the law was part of liberty, I explained how it could be.

      All the same, why should I pay for a device to tattle on me?

    26. Re:You know what? by archivis · · Score: 1

      Don't forget the various wildlife knocking down the fences to go where they want...storms...subsidance...paying people to cut down the crap growing on the fence so that doesn't pull it down...

      --
      In July O7, I got a mac pro. There's no punchline. Just endless joy and wonder.
    27. Re:You know what? by bladesjester · · Score: 1

      I'd consider that maintaining the fence (which I already mentioned). The point is that it just isn't a plausable solution (and I have no idea what was going through the person's head who suggested it. I was, after all, only answering replies to my first post).

      There is, however, one factor that isn't covered in that. The farmers that would be *ahem* rather upset because the deer that are trapped on their property eat all of their produce. There are still a lot of farms in my area. To give you an idea, my family has about 100 acres, and that's considered fairly small here.

      Not to mention the places they aren't allowed to fence in, like the state and national forests (which we have a great many of. There are perks to being in the unglaciated portion of Ohio. The hills and forests are beautiful).

      --
      Everything I need to know I learned by killing smart people and eating their brains.
  18. Duped amendment by pjt33 · · Score: 1

    Needs refactoring: amendments XXVI and XXXXIV are the same.

  19. Dear RIAA and MPAA: Ride This This You #$%^@## by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    P2P Lives

    Seditiously as always from an undisclosed, secure bunker
    OUTSIDE of the United Gulags Of Amerika,

    Kilgore Trout, CEO

  20. Black boxes arent automatically bad-Police by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "You would have ironclad proof against bogus tickets and insurance charges."

    That's not all you would have proof against. There was a police chase in which a member of the housing authority police got involved. On his way towards the chase, he was involved in an accident. Who's fault was it? We would never know without the black box in the car.

  21. Insurance by Sgs-Cruz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What worries me the most is the small savings you get on your insurance for installing a tracker unit that gives the insurance company the right to track you (your speed, time of day, location, etc.). At first it'll be a small savings, then, most people won't care, and everyone will have one, and then it'll basically be a large fine if you don't have one. I guess I'd better continue with my plan of biking everywhere; it's better for me anyway :)

    --

    Karma: pi (Mostly due to circular reasoning in posts).

    1. Re:Insurance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What amuses me the most is that they'd trust the data from any system that I had my hands on for any length of time.

    2. Re:Insurance by Brandybuck · · Score: 1

      Frankly, I don't have a problem with this. And I'm a libertarian. Even if they made it mandatory, it's still something I would want to have. After all, seat belts are mandatory in cars, but I'm still using mine even when the cops aren't looking.

      If I get into an accident the government will know about it, and it will be on my record. Ditto for speeding, reckless driving, etc. What this black box does is to verify my side of the story. It's a tool that can be used for my benefit.

      I've been in two accidents, and it was determined that I was not at fault after I presented evidence. This black box is evidence that will support my story against the hearsay of the police.

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
    3. Re:Insurance by goon+america · · Score: 1

      A discount to one group or a fine to one group are mathematically identical. The only difference is marketing. For instance, some places used to charge a small fee for using a credit card. They learned they could get better sales, however, if they merely re-labelled it a "cash discount." Mathematically the two are the same thing, and that's probably what's going on here as well.

    4. Re:Insurance by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1

      The problem is that the information isn't available for YOU to see. It's available for insurance companies and the authorities, but not for YOU. That is something that should concern a libertarian. If it was totally open-book, visible to everyone, then it would be like what you describe.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    5. Re:Insurance by NoMoreNicksLeft · · Score: 1

      No, they aren't mathematically identical. Insurance costs are a calculatable cost for the insurance industry as a whole. Discounting for one group will increase that cost (and they might pay for it out of their profit margin), while fining another group lowers their cost (which will almost certainly feed their profit margin). It is not mathematically identical, either to insurance companies, or to their customers.

      Think of it this way... if they select your neighbor to get a $100 a year discount on his premium, but leave yours untouched, is that a negative, positive, or neutral change in your own costs? At least for me, it's completely neutral. Sure, I might be jealous of my neighbor, just as if he was a $5000 scratch-off. But it's still neutral.

      Only if your warped perspective considers it equivalent to them raising your own premium by $100, will you call them mathematically identical.

      The real danger, is that they play deceptive accounting games, and on such a large scale, that you and I will never realize that we're being cheated.

    6. Re:Insurance by PsiPsiStar · · Score: 1

      Assuming the profit margin of the industry stays the same. The difference between your discount example and insurance industry scenario is that insurance is about risk management. You pay up front based on how much insurance "someone like you" is expected to use.

      Of course, the insurance industry is known for trying to get rid of those most likely to make use of its product. I had my home insurance jacked through the roof because of two floods that were both other people's fault. (State Farm said it was still a strike against me "because it was an accident and not negligence." They refused to recognize the fact that the folks one floor above me failed to change their washer hose after the folks two floors above me had their washer hose spring a leak and flood the floors below them. but I digress.)

      The result will probably be more people without insurance and lower risk and higher profits for the industry.

      --

      ___
      It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
    7. Re:Insurance by Brandybuck · · Score: 1

      Two points. First, I don't NEED to see it, because I already know what it contains. After all, it's recording MY actions. Second, there's nothing stopping drivers from knowing this information except that they simply aren't interested. For example, there are many ways to get info out of your car's computer (like why the "check engine" light came on), but no one really cares about it. If it became an issue, then it's a simple matter of marketing a device that plugs into the black box.

      The statist will automatically argue that insurance companies are nasty evil entities that won't let you look at the black box. BFD! If I want to look at it and my insurance company doesn't want me to, I'll take my business elsewhere! Plus, there's no justifiable economic reason to keep this info secret, so I really doubt any company would want to. They may not be the ones marketing a black box reader, but they have no economic interest in lobbying congress to outlaw them.

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
    8. Re:Insurance by tricorn · · Score: 1

      The reason they don't charge a fee is that their agreements with the credit card companies prohibit it. The point is that it is OK to charge LESS than what you advertise for your price, but not to charge more for it. Those agreements also generally prohibit various other things, such as requiring a driver's license (or at least they did some time ago). Makes me want to challenge stores that require additional ID for using a CC.

      You do see "convenience fees" charged for government collection of taxes and such - which I guess means that they negotiated with the credit card companies to be allowed to do that.

    9. Re:Insurance by sadomikeyism · · Score: 2, Interesting
      a) you aren't compelled to get insurance (at least not here in New Hampshire).

      b) if you are, you also happen to be using the roads of the people making you get the insurance (the state) (and if you thought that meant you were a part owner, or had rights, bub, that sort of thinking ended in most places before Roosevelt or the Russian Revolution...

      c) to disabuse slashdotters of the idea that they can't access the same data, pshaw. Go to Autozone and get yourself an OBDII reader. There is more there than just your sensor trouble codes.

      --
      "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves
    10. Re:Insurance by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1

      It's ironic that you would use the car's diagnostic computer as an analogy, because there IS an economic incentive to keeping that info from you. It means the car manufacturer gets to create a market for licensed/certified mechanics, and gets to dictate where you can get your car fixed. And no, I'm nut just talking out my ass here. I personally experienced this. My Jeep Cherokee had a "check engine" problem that it turns out was pre-programmed to go off when the odometer hit 85,000, and could only be turned off by a mechanic using the specialty computer. It was because there exists an oxygen sensor in the exhaust that they didn't know how to tell if it was going bad or not, so they just preprogrammed an engine light to come on when it *might* theoretically start having a risk of failing - at about 85,000 miles. This was NOT a problem that could be fixed at any generic location, even if they had the parts to replace the sensor. It had to be done at a properly licesed location in order to have the right to toggle that flag in the car's computer to turn off that light. And turning off that light is mandatory becuase it will make the car fail emissions testing even if the car's exhaust is fine (if the check engine light is on, they won't let you pass no matter what the results are.)

      So, yes, there is an incentive to keep this information from you. I had to go to an official Jeep Dealership to get this stupid light turned off that THEY preprogrammed to turn on at a certain odometer reading.


      If I want to look at it and my insurance company doesn't want me to, I'll take my business elsewhere!

      Your world sounds like a nice place.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

  22. Electric mother-in-law... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    All they need to do is add a speech synthesizer and a place to deposit 1/2 your income, and its like marriage in a box (and yes, I do realise this box has nothing to do with sex, which makes the simulation even more accurate).

  23. No paranoia here! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    I don't have to worry about Orwell's "1984" because I drive a car from 1984!

  24. Kill the Electronic Cops in your car... by ReeprFlame · · Score: 0

    This device has been on cars for the past year or so. It only tracks speeds [from what I am told] and is for when you crash. I just hope I don't get speeding tickets in the mail for going 100 down the Interstate!

  25. Drivecam by Zorilla · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Oh, well, I suppose anything is better than what happened to this guy.

    It's a Drivecam video - it records the last 30 seconds or so of driver video and only saves it if an accident occurs. The guy was probably kicking himself for installing it. It probably killed whatever insurance claim he had.

    --

    It would be cool if it didn't suck.
    1. Re:Drivecam by t_allardyce · · Score: 1

      Im guessing it also has a front-view camera, otherwise that would just be stupid.. so anyone have the front video? - Did he actually make it out alive?

      --
      This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
    2. Re:Drivecam by Zorilla · · Score: 1

      He looks like he probably only got some minor cuts from the shattered glass. The rear window area got crushed so the glass probably shattered before his head went though. You can actually hear the guy utter, "shit!" at the end. He knows exactly what happened :)

      --

      It would be cool if it didn't suck.
    3. Re:Drivecam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > "Tony Hawk is a Vulcan liar!" -Don Vito, Viva La Bam It's not Vulcan! you idiot

    4. Re:Drivecam by xenocide2 · · Score: 1

      Thats his head that went through the rear passenger side window. I can't imagine that being a simple and painless task, breaking a window like that.

      But props for the guy for not putting both hands on the wheel when he realized he was in trouble. It takes a special brand of redneck to accomplish that. Even more bonus points for what appears to be a Dale Earnhart shirt.

      --
      I Browse at +4 Flamebait

      Open Source Sysadmin

    5. Re:Drivecam by douthat · · Score: 1

      It takes a special brand of redneck to accomplish that.

      Actually, such a feat can be accomplished by even your Average Run-of-the-mill Redneck(tm).
      Believe me, I'm from Louisiana. I know my rednecks.
      --
      She loves me: 09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0 She loves me not: 09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688BF ...
    6. Re:Drivecam by mduell · · Score: 1

      Do you have a link to a copy of the video that doesn't require a $15 codec?

    7. Re:Drivecam by Zorilla · · Score: 0, Offtopic
      --

      It would be cool if it didn't suck.
    8. Re:Drivecam by SnakeJG · · Score: 1

      Go here to download the codec.

    9. Re:Drivecam by Zorilla · · Score: 1

      It uses the Indeo video 5 codec. I didn't have to intervene at all to get this to play. I believe it played out of the box for both Windows XP and Xine for me. If not, resort to the link above this one, of course.

      --

      It would be cool if it didn't suck.
  26. From TFA by ryanjensen · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Or take the driver who races his Miata one weekend and files a warranty claim the next. What are the chances that his data recorder will rat him out to the manufacturer who then voids the warranty?

    So, he knowingly voided his warranty by racing his Miata. He then tries to defraud the manufacturer by filing a false warranty claim (he no longer has a warranty) and HE is the victim? Give me a fucking break.

    For those of use who do not intentionally void our warranty, "black box" recording devices should be seen as a positive: overall, the manufacturer will save on fraudulent warrantee repairs, and warrantee coverage can improve.

    1. Re:From TFA by loraksus · · Score: 2, Informative

      Haven't seen the purchase agreement for all cars, but generally they don't say that racing will void your warranty.
      And accelerating to the maximum speed, especially on cars with a rpm or speed limiter isn't abuse.

      --
      1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcfv gbhnjmk,l.;/
    2. Re:From TFA by technos · · Score: 2, Interesting

      One of the first things I do in any new car is check out how it accelerates, how it handles me throwing it around a turn too fast, and how controllable it is in a skid. It's a "save my ass" thing. I want to know that I can make the short ramps to I-5 safely when the slow lane is doing 75MPH and packed. I want to know if the rear end throws out easily when all four are locked. I want to know if I'm going to have to surf the broken glass on the shoulder at full speed or if I can brake and change lanes when I come up on the dark, dead car three lengths from me in the middle of night. I want to know if I'm going to get it up to the top of some of the places I work. I'm going to take it on rutted fire roads to see if I clear or if I'm going to need to rut jockey.

      All of which will trip the box in an Onstar vehicle.

      --
      .sig: Now legally binding!
  27. Now all the geeks think by fine09 · · Score: 2, Funny

    How can I hack it? I would love to be able to see what type of data is available in that box.

  28. rat yourself out by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Amendment V:
    [...] nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself [...]

    But we're already compelled to give DNA, urine and tissue sample evidence, so paying for, maintaining and powering devices we own just to spy on us seems inevitable. That crazy old Constitution, with its quaint notions of human rights.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:rat yourself out by MmmDee · · Score: 1
      But we're already compelled to give DNA, urine and tissue sample evidence...

      According to the definitive source, CSI, you can be "compelled", but not forced (though I suppose the semantics of the word could be open to interpretation--Webster says, "to drive or urge forcefully or irresistibly"). Often it's in the interest of the innocent to exclude themselves as a suspect by quickly volunteering specimens. Sort of flies in the face of "innocent until proven guilty", but we're talking about the real world and being expeditious. Oh, IANAL.

      --
      No man's an island, unless he's had too much to drink and wets the bed.
    2. Re:rat yourself out by vwjeff · · Score: 1

      The problem with your argument is that insurance claims are civil claims. You cannot take the 5th in a civil case.

    3. Re:rat yourself out by Timothy+Brownawell · · Score: 2, Informative
      Thing is, being a witness and providing evidence aren't the same...

      Think "witch trials", people being forced to confess to things they hadn't done... don't see how this is such an issue with DNA samples and whatnot...

      Tim

    4. Re:rat yourself out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They weren't "forced" to confess. They had a choice: confess or face the consequences. Maybe they didn't like the options available to them. Tough. We can't always have all the options we want.

    5. Re:rat yourself out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The U.S. constitution is outdated and should be thrown out or overhauled. Luckily some judges are beginning to recognize this fact and rule accordingly.

    6. Re:rat yourself out by deblau · · Score: 2, Informative
      Disclaimer: I am a law student, but I haven't had Con Law yet. None of this is legal advice.

      There's a reason you can be compelled to give DNA and other physical samples as evidence against you. See here for a more detailed explanation of why. Here's the executive summary:

      You are absolutely correct quoting the Fifth Amendment. The courts are trying to fulfill the policy goal of making sure that witnesses aren't erroneously convicted of a crime. The phrase "witness against himself," obviously means that you shouldn't have to incriminate yourself with testimony. Even if you are innocent, however, you can still feel pressure in the witness box. If you stutter or 'choke', a jury could mistake that as a sign of guilt. On the other hand, DNA evidence, urine samples, and yes, data from a 'black box', don't have this problem. They represent hard evidence, and are much less likely to lie than you are. They can still be contested, like any evidence. Fingerprinting in particular has been called into question of late. Nevertheless, this sort of evidence doesn't fall within the narrow reading of "witness" in the Fifth Amendment, because it isn't being restricted by the same policy considerations. Therefore, you can be compelled to turn it over without running afoul of the Constitution.

      There are privacy concerns to be sure. Of course, if you're speeding, then you're speeding. You're still in favor of cops arresting people using radar detectors, right? (Arguments about speeding being a victimless crime go elsewhere.) Somehow, it doesn't seem to me to make a difference whether the radar 'gun' is in his car or yours. Some of the arguments so far seem to be "oh shit, now I can't speed or I'll get into trouble." That doesn't impress me. The GPS tracking arguments are a little more worrisome, but not much more. You have a GPS or other location tracking system in your cell phone, right? You do take your phone with you in the car, don't you?

      --
      This post expresses my opinion, not that of my employer. And yes, IAAL.
    7. Re:rat yourself out by elgaard · · Score: 1

      > You have a GPS or other location tracking system in your cell phone,
      >right?

      No, I do not, but it can still be tracked.

      > You do take your phone with you in the car, don't you?

      But that is my choice. I would also object if I was required by law or insurance company to carry my cell-phone at all times so I could be tracked.

      I would prefer a cell phone that could not be tracked. But that would require extra technology, whereas cars that cannot be tracked require less technology.

      Many crimes (robberies, murders) are solved by tracking cell phones.

    8. Re:rat yourself out by deblau · · Score: 1
      I absolutely agree, we should have a choice as to whether or not we carry our cell phones with us. I wager that an alarming number of /.ers work programming jobs that require them to be "on call" and have their cell with them at all times. Of course, you can choose to find another job...

      As fas as having untrackable cell phones: I'm not sure that's possible. As long as you can be picked up by towers A and B but not C, they can triangulate you. If you can't be picked up by A and B, then the phone isn't going to be much use to you anyway. And cars can already be tracked by radar guns, as I said before. Installing a black box just means that you can be tracked 'more'. The real question people is, "where do we want to draw the line."

      As you point out, many crimes are solved by tracking cell phones. This is generally a good thing, but as with everything else, there are boundaries drawn by conflicting public policies. On the one hand, we want to cut down crime as much as possible. On the other, we want to have our personal privacy and individual liberties. Security versus Liberty: it's one of the oldest arguments in the history of civilization. Radar detectors good, black boxes bad is a starting point, but there are good arguments to be made in either direction. As long as we continue to have the discussion, I'm confident that the system will sort itself out.

      --
      This post expresses my opinion, not that of my employer. And yes, IAAL.
    9. Re:rat yourself out by elgaard · · Score: 1

      >As fas as having untrackable cell phones: I'm not sure that's
      >possible. As long as you can be picked up by towers A and B but not C,
      >they can triangulate you.

      No, they can track the phone I am carrying, not me.
      We just need a system that cannot link phones to persons or calls.

      > And cars can already be tracked by radar guns.
      Only on public roads.
      And cars are not continually tracked by rader guns.

    10. Re:rat yourself out by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Lawyers and judges these days might say the 5th Amendment is based on some trade wisdom about unreliability of self-incrimination, too many false positives, that kind of thing. They also seem to put a lot of stock in the "intent" of people on trial for their actions, which is a lot of malarkey, unless you're billing by the hour. There's a difference between the evidence created by your actions, among public and inanimate property, and your actual person. Even your "papers and effects" are a borderline case, more protected by the constitution (4th Amendment) than, say, your bloody footprints leading away from a body in the street. DNA, hair, urine, is even closer to the "person", and clearly (to me) indivisible from it. It deserves either the same protection as the rest of the person, or some greater protection than "papers and effects". These tracking boxes seem to be somewhere between papers and effects, and body parts, and therefore some other degree of protection is rightful.

      The Supreme Court, and the entire legal profession, has been quite lazy in defining these novel artifacts of our freedom. Vast sums of money and time go into splitting endless hairs, mapping fiefdoms of legal jurisdiction, and publishing often untestable legal theory. Much more of that legal effort would be better spent formulating laws which build on the original burst of innovation in our Constitution, applying its simple insights into the emergent complexities of actually living free. BTW, IANAL, but I am a free person who (usually) understands the law. That leaves me more free, as a consumer, to comment on it in many scenarios, as I'm not beholden to some vested interest in the current broken system.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    11. Re:rat yourself out by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Yes, hopefully we'll have our neotestament law in place before the Apocalypse, to win the favor of the messiah. Jesus is coming, look busy!

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    12. Re:rat yourself out by Content-Free · · Score: 1

      Just another example of technology outpacing the ability of the government (as a proxy of the people) to properly protect rights. On the other hand, with the influence of special interest groups these days, and the "security" measures being implemented in the last couple of years, there is increasing precedent for devaluing individual privacy.

    13. Re:rat yourself out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      N.B. that most phones can (supposedly) have the GPS disabled. On the other hand, a fairly reasonable guess of your location can be acheived through triangulation from your signal level recieved from cell towers.

    14. Re:rat yourself out by deblau · · Score: 1
      They also seem to put a lot of stock in the "intent" of people on trial for their actions, which is a lot of malarkey, unless you're billing by the hour.

      The reason for all the "malarkey" is that intent is a required element to prove a number of crimes, not least of which is murder. It is a law, passed by Congress, that "Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought." 18 U.S.C. 1111(a). Courts over the years have interpreted "malice aforethought" to mean the evil that the killer is thinking, i.e. his intent (to kill, to cause severe bodily harm, to cause a felony), or even what he isn't thinking (extreme recklessness). Intent is one of four elements needed to prove murder, the other three being conduct (the defendant pulling a trigger), death of a human being, and causation (the person died because the defendant pulled the trigger).

      If you don't look at intent, all sorts of nasty things happen. Take the case of someone driving down the street who clips a pedestrian and kills her. Is it murder? Well, that depends: was the driver awake? Having a stroke? Was he escaping from a bank robbery he just took part in? Did the driver know the pedestrian? Did the driver just want to injure her, but not kill her? Was he yelling at his kids in the back seat? Was he just fired by his female boss, whom he spots in the crosswalk? What about if it's his wife kissing another man? What if the woman is pointing a gun at him? All of these questions go to what was on the killer's mind at the time of the killing, and they make the difference between murder, manslaughter, and acquittal.

      To finish off this point, the facts of every case are different. That's why lawyers spend so much time trying to figure out intent: not because they're billing by the hour (look at public defenders), but because every time they have to start from scratch.

      DNA, hair, urine, is even closer to the "person", and clearly (to me) indivisible from it.

      Lawyers have to differentiate all the time between objective evidence and subjective evidence. DNA, urine, and hair is objective: there it is. Tests on it can be flawed, but they can be performed many times on the same sample, and eventually an objective result can be reached. Witness testimony, on the other hand, is about as subjective as it comes. Even if Kobe Bryant was 100 percent positive the sex was consentual, she didn't think it was. He said, she said. You'll never get the whole story out of testimony. The best you can do is put a bunch of people in the room and have them argue amongst themselves to figure out what really happened. Which is, in fact, the whole purpose of juries: to sort out the subjective evidence. If everything had a straight yes/no answer, you wouldn't need juries. You could have a computer decide everything. Unfortunately, that's just not the way things work.

      As for the black boxes, it's pretty clear that they provide objective evidence. Which is why they won't be protected under the rationale of the Fifth Amendment. Keeping objective, this-is-what-really-happened evidence away from a jury is just plain dumb, unless there's some good policy reason for it. Like, as you pointed out, the fact that it was obtained illegally.

      Vast sums of money and time go into splitting endless hairs, mapping fiefdoms of legal jurisdiction, and publishing often untestable legal theory.

      I absolutely invite you to go down to your county courthouse one day and just sit and listen for awhile. It's a great experience. As for the splitting hairs, that's what needs to be done. Your municipality passed an ordinance. Did you violate it? It all depends on interpretation. And the facts of the case. And prior cases decided on similar facts, and how smart the lawyers are, and whether or not the law even applies to you (which side of the street was the car parked on?) (this is your jurisdiction complaint), and some

      --
      This post expresses my opinion, not that of my employer. And yes, IAAL.
    15. Re:rat yourself out by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      You're sympathetic to the law business in ways that I am not. You're a law student, so you start out sympathetic and interested, and you progress in becoming part of the industry, so you form your own reasons for accepting features of it that I do not. We're not likely to change one another's point of view, but I find discussions about legal "intent" interesting, as an articulation exercise, so here goes.

      Why differentiate between "intentional" killing, and otherwise? Killing through negligence, like sleeping at the wheel, and through design, like running down a cheating spouse, are different in *actions*, as well as supposed intent. The sleeper didn't just kill someone, they *slept at the wheel*, a serious offense. But the cheated spouse also *aimed their car at their cheating spouse*, another serious offense. They might also have *acted* to plan the hit. There are questions about just responses, but responding to their "intent" is an exercise in morality - very hard to prove, hard to sentence "morally", and not really the business of secular law, or material responses. While the different acts are all the subject of law, justice, and governance. Just because the murder law encodes intent doesn't make it right. The murder laws haven't made murder any more manageable as a societal ill. If we focused on the provable, correctable, judgable actions rather than the slippery "intent", we might make more headway against the acts. Psychiatrists and priests can continue to wrestle with the soul, making their meager progress, without gumming up the works of the rest of the society we have to live in together.

      Judges are another example of how the legal business is self-defined. Their job is hard, but they're well trained and well compensated. Other professionals, like doctors and even programmers, are held to a higher standard of performance. How many mistrials can a judge run before they're fired? How many appeals can overturn their decisions before they're demoted? How many criminals can be released early, or be sentenced wrong, and commit more crimes? Sure it's more complex than that, but where's the accountability?

      This stuff is important, but you wouldn't know it from the repercussions of failure. Then there are the more abstract malfeasances, like political favoritism in judgements, failure to instruct juries properly (including extremes like jury nullification), and all the corruption we sometimes see in the media, or even in person, when we are exposed to the system enough. We have lots of room in "the system" to fix these things. Unfortunately, we have even more flexibility to perpetuate them. Good luck in pursuing a career that balances your personal fortune against the pursuit of great justice - hopefully, you'll be one of those fortunate enough to get both.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    16. Re:rat yourself out by deblau · · Score: 1
      You make a number of excellent points. I enjoy the opportunity for mature discourse, even if I am biased by my misplaced sympathy. :)

      I believe that one of the primary purposes of law is to encourage people to behave responsibly. Perhaps this belief is misplaced, or fallacious, but it seems a reasonable goal to hope for. It's also what all the professors keep reiterating -- draw your own conclusions. If our society enacts laws to this end, then it naturally follows that, in some sense, the laws attempt to 'coerce' us from doing what would otherwise come naturally, to divert us from a pure Lockean 'state of nature.' My own personal belief is that such unrestrained freedom is not conducive to forming societies, since one could wander around the streets killing at will. So we enact laws saying that you can't do that, and just as the state must follow its duty to protect us, we assume a duty to the state to obey its laws. Our motivation for enacting laws can be moral or religious, but our reasons for enforcing them are merely pragmatic.

      Your argument about killing as act without intent is strong. I felt much the same way throughout the first few weeks of class. At some point, I began to see why mental state could be a useful factor in determining guilt. You might argue that I was just beaten down -- there is some truth in that. On the other hand, I began to realize the importance of negligence. Negligence is all about having a standard of care, or a duty, towards others. There are various degrees of care, as well. A doctor is held to a higher standard, as you pointed out. How then do we keep "higher standards" in a system that penalizes equally based merely on the act, and not on the required duty?

      Such a system holds everyone to an equal standard of care in their actions, regardless of their mental capacity or disability. And isn't that a standard of perfection, since one finds guilt for even a single mistake? I fear that it would harbor disincentives against people becoming professionals, if for no other reason than the economy would adjust for the removal of "professional liability" (i.e. malpractice) risk by responding with downward pressure on salaries.

      I have another problem with strict act-based fault. A simple seizure while driving would require punishment which would fail utterly as a corrective tool. As a simple matter of policy, my opinion is that such a system is too close to eugenics, and I therefore reject it. You may, of course, feel otherwise.

      Secondly, I might have miscommunicated my understanding of legal intent. There is no morality in intent. Morality is seen by the law as one possible motivating factor in making a decision to do a thing. Intent is the concentration of resources in conscious effort to do a thing, once it is decided it must be done. In brief, morality happens before a decision, intent afterward. Intent is proof positive that the decision to act has been made, regardless of the reason for acting. Finding evidence of intent, on the other hand, can be extremely challenging.

      Next, you speak to (a lack of) judicial accountability. Judges are either appointed or elected. Some judges, the Article III judges, are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. These judges hold positions which must be free from attack, lest duress, coercion, or persuasion compromise their ability to adjudicate. If you have an argument against the Supreme Court, then I don't think anything further that I say will have much effect on this point. The rest of the judiciary are elected. The accountability for their actions is in your hands. When I voted on November 2nd, I selected which judges I thought were fit to continue their service, and which were not. I did extensive research beforehand, consulting ratings of judges and descriptions of judicial malfeasance from several different legal associations before making my choices. Elected judges (at least in my jurisdiction) require 60% approval rating each time a vote comes up, or they are not retained. It

      --
      This post expresses my opinion, not that of my employer. And yes, IAAL.
  29. Already seen an ad similar... by tchernobog · · Score: 1

    Ehi, wait, that's just like in Robocop!
    Zzzzaaap!

    --
    42.
  30. Look, this isn't a problem... by Thunderstruck · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    For us at least:

    If you're reading slashdot you're probably technically-minded. You can build things. Rather than mucking about with trying to hack the black box, I present- THE KIT CAR.

    Not only do you get to customize every single detain of one of these vehicles to your own tastes, and not only do the often cost considerably less than a car off the lot but consider the following:

    1. You know exactly what your car's electrical system is doing and how it works. If you only want 3 circuits (and plan to use hand signals to turn) you can have only 3 circuits.

    2. You can avoid emissions and horsepower limitations (these are imposed at the federal level on manufacturers - build for yourself and you're not regulatable.)

    3. You can be selective about the equipment. Not a fan of seatbelts? Don't install them. Don't like the idea of an airbag in the face making you loose control of your car after the first bump in a possible 10 car pile-up? Don't install it. (Drive at your own risk.)

    4. It need not look like a jelly bean.

    The list goes on, but you get the idea. Just like your software, if you don't want someone sneaking features in - build it yourself.

    --
    Trying to use sarcasm in text-based forums does not work.
    1. Re:Look, this isn't a problem... by PhoenixFlare · · Score: 1

      2. You can avoid emissions and horsepower limitations (these are imposed at the federal level on manufacturers - build for yourself and you're not regulatable.)

      Right. Have fun (if you live in a state that requires them by law) not passing your yearly inspection and getting a fine the next time you get stopped.

      3. You can be selective about the equipment. Not a fan of seatbelts? Don't install them. Don't like the idea of an airbag in the face making you loose control of your car after the first bump in a possible 10 car pile-up? Don't install it. (Drive at your own risk.)

      Okay, now you're just getting silly. Unless you live in New Hampshire, this isn't a "drive at your own risk" thing, this is a "not wearing a seatbelt is illegal" thing. Not to mention the fact that if you get into any sort of non-trivial accident, you have a fairly good chance of sustaining serious injury.

      Sorry, but the open source build-your-own, include the safety equipment if you feel like it mentality you seem to be describing just doesn't fit with constructing a modern automobile in today's society.

      I'm not saying there's no way anyone could build their own car, but there are some things you just can't leave out.

    2. Re:Look, this isn't a problem... by t_allardyce · · Score: 1

      Except that most people barely have time to build a spice rack, thats why we have people that sell us things ready made. These people have to answer to us (the customers) in the end though, so if you get all the customers to band together and damand certain things from manufacturers and the government you'll get them...

      --
      This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
    3. Re:Look, this isn't a problem... by Thunderstruck · · Score: 1

      As for the seatbelt thing, most state laws require you to use one if your car was manufactured with one pursuant to the federal regulations. In many states, the seatbelt laws are such that not wearing one in and of itself is not a crime, but it increases the fine if you're cited for some other infraction. The regulations mentioned are promulgated under the commerce power and reach manufaturers selling in interstate commercee. The federal regulations do not reach the individual building for himself, therefore the car can in fact be manufactured without seatbelts, or a gas guage, or a speedometer, or even seats that are attached.

      "Today's society" is probably a misnomer, since at least where I live nobody has ever heard of yearly inspections, and seatbelts are something you wear on certain trips (like those where you'll actually SEE another car.) But the bit about New Hampshire is very astute - the Kit Car lets you build to suit your needs and the society where you live. So this is a second benefit.

      --
      Trying to use sarcasm in text-based forums does not work.
  31. Lets get all excited by Timesprout · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Now that someone may be able to verify if we were all obeying the rules we were supposed to while driving. How come no one complained when the speed limits were put in place? How come no one rejects car rental policies when they read them, opting for the bus instead of their draconian conditions?

    How dare they monitor the speeds we drive, or where we go, in fact how dare they do it now with police and speed cams. This is a total outrage. I am so outraged I cant even be arsed to write the rest of this post because I must devote all my brain power to the massive invasion of my privacy thats happening at every level in Slashworld.

    --
    Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
    What truth?
    There is no dupe
    1. Re:Lets get all excited by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you'll have no problem with wearing a GPS-equipped anklet at all times so that someone may be able to verify that you were obeying the rules all the time, not just while driving, right?

    2. Re:Lets get all excited by pnewhook · · Score: 1
      So you'll have no problem with wearing a GPS-equipped anklet at all times so that someone may be able to verify that you were obeying the rules all the time, not just while driving, right?

      You are making two invalid assumptions with that comment:

      1. You are assuming driving is a right. It is not.

      2. You assume people think you are important enough that they care where you go and what you do. They don't.

      --
      Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
    3. Re:Lets get all excited by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      You are assuming driving is a right. It is not.

      "it [the right to travel] is a right broadly assertable against private interference as well as governmental action. Like the right of association, ... it is a virtually unconditional personal right, guaranteed by the Constitution to us all." - Justice Stewart (Shapiro v Thomson)

  32. Just erase it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Just erase it. Take that ol Porsche, and put it up on blocks in the garage. Run it backwards. This will not only move the odometer backwards, it should erase the events on the black box recorder that happened during these miles. Sounds like an original idea, right?

    1. Re:Just erase it. by wastingtape · · Score: 0

      Just be sure to not get mad and kick it out the window...

    2. Re:Just erase it. by soft_guy · · Score: 1

      It was a Ferrari, not a Porche.

      Bueller?
      Bueller?
      Bueller?

      --
      Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
  33. It's been done ... by Average_Joe_Sixpack · · Score: 1, Troll

    Karma burn in 5..4..3..2..1...BOOM!

    1. Re:It's been done ... by strider44 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      let me think . . . no. I'll just stick with this one

      ---

      Or perhaps this one

    2. Re:It's been done ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I'm blind.

      I went straight to the 1.5-2.0 racks....

      kindof like /. at -1....

  34. Your Rights Online? by nwbvt · · Score: 1
    If you are online while driving down the highway, you have bigger issues than the car rental agency seeing how fast you were driving.

    I know its been suggested before, but would it be so difficult to change the title of this section?

    --
    Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
    1. Re:Your Rights Online? by aardvarkjoe · · Score: 1
      I know its been suggested before, but would it be so difficult to change the title of this section?
      How about just preventing michael from posting stories to the section?
      --

      How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
    2. Re:Your Rights Online? by /dev/trash · · Score: 1

      Maybe it mean "We discuss your rights, in a oneline forum." Now if it was Your Online Rights.

    3. Re:Your Rights Online? by nwbvt · · Score: 1

      Then shouldn't everything have an "Online" at the end of the name? Or is the games section really being discussed on an offline forum?

      --
      Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
    4. Re:Your Rights Online? by nwbvt · · Score: 1

      That works too.

      --
      Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
    5. Re:Your Rights Online? by /dev/trash · · Score: 1

      You'll have to take up the grammar problems with Taco.

  35. Disabling? by Rii · · Score: 1, Interesting

    "You can't shut it off, and you can't manipulate it," says General Motors safety engineering spokesman Jim Schell.

    What would happen if I took a nice, powerful magnet and stuck it to the side of their box?

    1. Re:Disabling? by jd_esguerra · · Score: 1
      What would happen if I took a nice, powerful magnet and stuck it to the side of their box?

      Probably nothing. What you want is a strong, moving or changing field. Death by eddy currents.

    2. Re:Disabling? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would guess nothing. It is likely all solid state recording in there.

    3. Re:Disabling? by goodie3shoes · · Score: 1

      First, one wonders how this "black box' is integrated into the other control computers in the car - for example, does the engine control computer check to see if it's functional? If not, perhaps the output of a microwave oven magnetron directed to its general vicinity would do the trick............?

      --
      BSA: "Would you like a free Software Audit"? me: "No, thanks. My software is all Free".
    4. Re:Disabling? by Rii · · Score: 0

      If the engine computer doesn't check up on the black box, then a more primitive SMASH solution would work, although it may prove very difficult to destroy it.

  36. privacy issues? big woop by ntxb229 · · Score: 1

    Why the big fuss about privacy issues with this? It's not as if IM is a secure medium to start with. So what if someone reads the conversation I had with my buddy about how drunk I was last night. It's not like they setup a proxy between my web browser and my online bank page. I just don't get it.

    Sorry if it sounds like I'm trolling but I just don't get why people make a fuss about privacy issues on something that really wasn't private to begin with.

  37. woops! by ntxb229 · · Score: 1

    I posted that under the wrong article. Sorry about that.

  38. A rather important point.. by iantri · · Score: 1
    These data recorders keep data for a period of a few seconds, and it is written over again from the beginning.

    So, what is the problem here?

    The only thing I can see is that if you are responsible for an accident, this will prove it.

    Big Brother can't go seeing where you've been to..

    1. Re:A rather important point.. by AndroidCat · · Score: 1

      The point is that there's no technical reason that they can't record to the limits of their storage. What if next year's box has 1 GB of flash?

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    2. Re:A rather important point.. by 320mb · · Score: 0

      Sure I'll put one in my pickup......only if the software it uses is Linux......... If it uses Micosoft, then screw you people-- I don't trust M$ and their closed source code at all......

      --
      === 'Kernel Panic' no sig found:
    3. Re:A rather important point.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're a warmongering piece of shit. Fuck off and die, troll.

  39. Re:Someone please tell me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > Don't mod this down, or the MPAA will win.

    I think it's to late in this case

  40. What? by vwjeff · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Some car-rental companies sneak riders into their contracts saying that you have to pay extra $$$ every time you excede the speed limit.

    So they charge you more when you signed the contract agreeing to the conditions. Always read everything before you sign. If you do not agree with the conditions don't sign it. Take your business somewhere else. They are not violating your rights in any way, shape, or form.

  41. See what you Stupid Bush Voters have done? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Of course Kerry-who actually won the election-would have fully restored all our civil liberties ,punished Micosoft and made Napster free again.BUT NO! You moronic Christian Taliban have to vote for BUSH! And now the CorpRepublican Fascists are going to spy on us in our enviormentally responsible Priuses as we listen to NPR Air America and the Gay station on Sirius.
    You Go Michael!
    I am appalled at the stupidity of this country and might move to Canada or Cuba where people are free.
    Mod me up to 5 insightful.

    1. Re:See what you Stupid Bush Voters have done? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm Canadian. We're not that free...I charge $10 a blowjob, myself.

  42. Seat belts usage? Re: cars.com story by Antony-Kyre · · Score: 1

    For one, how do they know if you're using your seat belt or not? Or maybe they were joking.

    Second, in some state(s) it's illegal not to wear your seat belt, and they can pull you over for that without any other reason. Extreme: Annual checks of black box device to ensure you are wearing your seat belt.

    1. Re:Seat belts usage? Re: cars.com story by phillymjs · · Score: 1

      For one, how do they know if you're using your seat belt or not?

      Most if not all fairly new cars have a seat belt light that constantly blinks if the engine is running and the driver's seat belt isn't fastened. When the seatbelt is fastened, the light goes out. It's a simple matter to run an extra wire to the black box that records a 1 or 0 based on whether the seatbelt light is on. One of my cars (a 2001 model) has a pressure switch in the passenger seat cushion and does the same thing for the passenger seat belt.

      ~Philly

    2. Re:Seat belts usage? Re: cars.com story by technos · · Score: 1

      Lots of older cars do this too. I had a '84 Ford with pressure sensors in the seats that would cause the seatbelt warning buzzer to complain incessantly.

      After the fifth or sixth time I drove home with something heavy on my passenger seat and listened to the permascream, I jumpered the sensor to off permanently with a U of baling wire.

      --
      .sig: Now legally binding!
  43. Let me get this straight by Tim+C · · Score: 1

    *If* you crash, this thing will tell the insurance company, police, etc how fast you were going and give them a profile of your driving (hard acceleration/braking, sharp manoeuvres, etc), right?

    So, don't speed, drave safely, and you have nothing to worry about then, right? It *can't* track you and report on where you are/where you're going, it can only record how you've been driving. If that really is a problem, then you shouldn't be driving like that anyway.

  44. Re:I love my car..either you need a new car or ... by Herschel+Cohen · · Score: 1

    When it turns to dust, perhaps your next ride will be on mass transit or perhaps the personal transporters.

    Finally something good enough to get America over its love affair with the car.

  45. Just don't ever do anything wrong by g0hare · · Score: 3, Insightful

    As long as you never ever do anything wrong, and never make a mistake, you'll be fine. If you're not guilty why do you care if everyone is watching you?

    --
    Vote Quimby!
    1. Re:Just don't ever do anything wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're not guilty why do you care if everyone is watching you?

      Ask Rush Limbaugh. He maintains he didn't do anything wrong, but he still wants the medical records that might prove that kept sealed.

      Ask Bill O'Reilly. He maintains he didn't do anything wrong but apparently paid a hefty sum to a woman who apparently had audio tapes of him-- we'll never know because their agreement is confidential.

      Lots of "innocent" people have things to hide, it seems.

    2. Re:Just don't ever do anything wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What fucking country do you live in?

    3. Re:Just don't ever do anything wrong by g0hare · · Score: 1

      America. Like you. I know because you used "FUCK" in your post.

      --
      Vote Quimby!
    4. Re:Just don't ever do anything wrong by Mind+Socket · · Score: 1
      As long as you never ever do anything wrong, and never make a mistake, you'll be fine. If you're not guilty why do you care if everyone is watching you?


      I was hoping that you were being sarcastic, but sadly, it does not appear to be the case.

      Your statement is all well and good if your view of right and wrong matches precisely with those that watch you. I (might) break the law on a regular basis simply because I've decided that, for example, 10 over the limit is not wrong in certain circumstances (no traffic, good conditions), and I'd certainly rather not have a black box impinge on that liberty any more than all the other controls do.

      That's just one example, there are loooads of laws that I don't agree with. I consciously avoid impinging on anyone else in breaking irrelevant laws, so why should I let someone impinge on me?
    5. Re:Just don't ever do anything wrong by fiter · · Score: 1

      I don't trust my government that much.

    6. Re:Just don't ever do anything wrong by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1
      I was hoping that you were being sarcastic, but sadly, it does not appear to be the case.

      What are you talking about? The part where he says "As long as you never ever do anything wrong, and never make a mistake" pretty much makes it sarcasm. Everybody knows there's no such thing as a person who always does right and never makes a mistake.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    7. Re:Just don't ever do anything wrong by oexeo · · Score: 1

      > America. Like you
      No actually.

    8. Re:Just don't ever do anything wrong by oexeo · · Score: 1

      Shit, forgot to check "Post Anonymously"

  46. Just rip them out by Ajmuller · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Why not just rip the black boxes out? has anyone ever tried this, I would go out in my garage right now and rip the damn thing out but I only have old cars that almost certianly don't have boxes.
    Would removing the black box cause the car to stop functioning? I mean, we could just replace the box moments before returning it to the service facility. In fact, don't even remove the box, just pull the cables assuming they are not hard-wired. if they are snip a wire or two and make it look like it was damaged.

    1. Re:Just rip them out by Ph33r+th3+g(O)at · · Score: 1

      They're integrated with the airbag system. It's a clever legal hack that makes disabling the black boxes against the law.

      --
      I too have felt the cold finger of injustice.
    2. Re:Just rip them out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Not integerated, It is the Air Bag computer. You can remove it, but your air bags will not work. Cutting the wires is a bad Idea, you could set off the air bags.

    3. Re:Just rip them out by deathazre · · Score: 1

      I'd actually expect them to be integrated with the ECM. that way, you can't disable it without disabling the engine. goes from illegal to impossible.

      --
      Karma: Negative (Mostly affected by dorm trolling)
    4. Re:Just rip them out by Ajmuller · · Score: 1

      impossible until someone hacks up a way around it.
      If i had a car that I could play with this with I would be out in the garage right now. Who want's to volunteer their car.

    5. Re:Just rip them out by raelimperialaerosolk · · Score: 1

      I have a 2003 GMC Envoy. I found the OnStar box about 10 minutes after I drove it home from the dealer. It's underneath the rear passenger seat.

      I kept it hooked up for the first year and used their free 30 minutes of hands free cell phone calls just for grins.

      Soon after my 1 year of complimentary OnStar, I disconnected the 2 data cables as well as the GPS can cell antenna. Even had the vehicle in for service a couple of times since then and the dealer didn't say anything about it being disconnected.

      --
      A good friend will help you move. A really good friend will help you move a body.
  47. My VW by Magickcat · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I have a 2003 Volkswagen Golf, and have read that the data recording box in it records the number of time the ABS is engaged, fuel emisions, average speed and trip distance, number of times the seat belt isn't worn by the driver - pretty much everything.

    What I hate about it is that the car demands it's service with a flashing light and tone, only a Volkswagen mechanic can turn the alert off. The dataport is hidden behind a removal panel below the radio, and there's no way in hell that my independant mechanic can get the thing to stop beeping at me because I didn't volunteer to be overcharged by a VW mechanic.

    Personally, I think that all the information on black boxes should be accessible to the driver, and additionally, that there should be a standard interface port and protocol so that all mechanics can access the black box. I also think that the exact information being collated should be revealed before you purchase the car.

    I'm happy if police can access the information in the case of a serious crash, but I don't want the information being provided to manufacturers without knowing exactly what my car is telling them. I don't have anything to hide about my driving habits etc and I am a safe driver and don't speed, but I resent not being able to choose my own independant mechanic without a great deal of inconvinience, and I don't like not knowing exactly what my car is recording.

    --

    Si tacuisses philosophus mansisses. If you had kept quiet, you would have remained a philosopher.

    1. Re:My VW by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      May I assume that your next car WON'T be a Volkswagen?

      --
      What?
    2. Re:My VW by Magickcat · · Score: 1

      I'm actually hooked on the VWs. I think next time however, I'm going to make them include the data connector and software - or at least get them to tell me how to turn the service alarm off.

      Hopefully by then, the solution will be resolved. The way the computer industry is in Australia, my next purchase will be a used bicycle.

      --

      Si tacuisses philosophus mansisses. If you had kept quiet, you would have remained a philosopher.

    3. Re:My VW by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      I'm actually hooked on the VWs.

      Me, too. But I'm kinda partial to a ratty '67 Bug. For some reason, the Bug is just fun to drive.

      --
      What?
    4. Re:My VW by zazzel · · Score: 1

      There's a way to turn the service flag off. Get VAG-COM (ross tech software, I think) and an interface cable. It cost me about 30 EUR here (the cable alone).

      The problem is that you have "long life" service activated. If you want you can have it turned off and go back to fixed service intervals.

      Says the guy with the 155hp TDI :-)

    5. Re:My VW by yabos · · Score: 1

      I second the suggestion for the VAG-COM. You can get an OBD2 connector from Rosstech or, you can get a cheaper one that will do almost everything you can ever want for your car.
      The software installes on any laptop with a serial connector and lets you interface with the car's computer to change settings including beeps and door chimes
      It's also handy when your check engine light comes on.

    6. Re:My VW by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      Regardless of how hooked you are, please at least consider other cars -- your principles will thank you.

      As an aside, I'm partial to Hyundais, and I hear they're popular in Australia...

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    7. Re:My VW by Magickcat · · Score: 1

      As an aside, I'm partial to Hyundais, and I hear they're popular in Australia..

      Yep, Hyundais are popular here, but they're not well know for their safety engineering. In one case in Oz, Hyundai failed to recall a model with a chasis that could fall apart. The welding was all bad apparently. They're not popular with fans of safe cars for the most part.

      Subaru make a great all wheel drive car here that really suits the Australian conditions. If I wasn't going to buy a piece of privacy invading German car engineering, I think this would be my next best choice.

      --

      Si tacuisses philosophus mansisses. If you had kept quiet, you would have remained a philosopher.

    8. Re:My VW by Magickcat · · Score: 1

      Ahh, completely understandable. The lovely old Bugs are great fun to drive. In Australia, everyone smiles at you when you drive an old bug around.

      Oh and they certainly don't invade your privacy.

      --

      Si tacuisses philosophus mansisses. If you had kept quiet, you would have remained a philosopher.

    9. Re:My VW by Magickcat · · Score: 1

      Thanks Zazzel, I'll take your advice. Say hi to your TDI from me.

      --

      Si tacuisses philosophus mansisses. If you had kept quiet, you would have remained a philosopher.

    10. Re:My VW by Magickcat · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the advice. I'm glad I mentioned it.

      --

      Si tacuisses philosophus mansisses. If you had kept quiet, you would have remained a philosopher.

    11. Re:My VW by mrchaotica · · Score: 1
      In one case in Oz, Hyundai failed to recall a model with a chasis that could fall apart. The welding was all bad apparently.
      How long ago was that? I wonder because Hyundais here (in the US) used to be POSs, but they've greatly improved recently (mine seems more well-built than any American car my family has owned, at least).

      But yeah, if you can afford a Subaru (WRX/Impreza, I assume?) instead, go for it!
      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    12. Re:My VW by Magickcat · · Score: 1

      How long ago was that? I wonder because Hyundais here (in the US) used to be POSs, but they've greatly improved recently (mine seems more well-built than any American car my family has owned, at least).

      About three years ago here. They're well priced, but they haven't shaken off the bad reputation from it quite yet. Ford and (GM) Holden just don't produce good cars compared to a lot of the Asian models nowadays. I sometimes think the US companies have stopped caring really. Our Australian made Ford and Holdens are not well designed in terms of safety. Their ads here encourage reckless driving in them too.

      The Subaru Foresters are getting quite popular here as a general run about car for trips into the country. Roads aren't always great, and it gets quite hot in summer, so a great deal of cars don't always cope very well. The Subarus have beautiful suspension and steering, so are ideal for some of the dirt roads here outside of the suburbs. The Impreza's very nice and has a huge following - very snazzy and fast.

      I'll have a look at the Hyundai - good to hear that they're getting better.

      --

      Si tacuisses philosophus mansisses. If you had kept quiet, you would have remained a philosopher.

    13. Re:My VW by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      I don't know, the Holden Monaro (aka the Pontiac GTO to us Americans) seems like a really nice car...

      But yeah, you guys in Australia are lucky -- you get a wider variety of Hyundai choices than we do (Getz, 5-door Accent, etc.), not to mention that you get the Japanese sports cars before we do (Lancer Evolution).

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  48. Re:Someone please tell me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't know but try youceff or torrentbits.

  49. black boxes are creepy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The idea of a black box in my car just creeps my out. Before I buy my next car I'll ask and make sure it doesn't have a black box in it. In fact, I would pay a premium for a black box free car.

  50. A good checklist of cars fitted with blackboxes by dazza101 · · Score: 1

    If you want to know which cars are currently fitted with "black boxes" there's a reasonably comprehensive looking list on the Harris Technical Services website: http://www.harristechnical.com/cdr.htm. Of course the real question is who is working on a hack to enable us to turn these babies off?

  51. Re:Ok, there are spies. Now what? by Ender_Stonebender · · Score: 2, Insightful

    While they are all crashes, they are not all caused by someone going to fast. (Your two statements, considered seperately, are both true - but not connected.) Occasionally, the crashes are caused by some asshat deciding to turn left in front of someone doing the speed limit (or less!) without enough time or space to brake to avoid the crash. (And don't even try "if you see someone looking to make a left turn, you should slow down" - what, I should stop and let them in on a two-lane, 50 MPH road? Bah!) There are also crashes caused by equipment failure - again, no one going to fast, but the person who should have been maintaining the vehicle and did not is responsible for the crash. I could sit here and come up with counterexamples to "Someone's always going too fast" all night - but I won't, because I've got better things to do.

    --Ender

    --
    Loose things are easy to lose. You're getting your hair cut. They're going there to see their aunt.
  52. Buying a car? check this out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Before you buy a new car you might want to check this out: http://www.lacarte.org/tracie/boycotts/onstar/inde x.html

  53. New name: "Your Rights on the Decline" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nothing to see here.

  54. Old Article by gooman · · Score: 1

    This same article originally appeared in Autoweek as: "Under the Hood, with Big Brother" Just sayin.

    --
    "Kittens give Morbo gas!"
  55. Would be good if it weren't half-assed by Ender_Stonebender · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The fact of the matter is that these are only good for people attacking you. If they added a camera that looked out the front window of the vehicle, and recorded the last 30 seconds of data from that as well, it would be good. Then, not only could the know what was done, but might have some clue as to why it was done. Knowing what happened without knowing why it happened...it's pretty much useless for things like this.

    --Ender

    --
    Loose things are easy to lose. You're getting your hair cut. They're going there to see their aunt.
    1. Re:Would be good if it weren't half-assed by winwar · · Score: 1

      Thank you. My thoughts exactly. Stated much better than I did elsewhere.

  56. If the car by iminplaya · · Score: 1

    is going to monitor my driving, let's complete the process. maybe it should do the driving itself. And it better be able to parallel park on the first try. For the women, it should apply their make-up. For the men it should shave them and read the paper and, what the hell, it should make a nice expresso,and maybe a cream cheese bagel. An automated gun turrent might be good if you live in LA.(to deal with those that drive too close to your front bumper) But when I start the thing up, I DON'T want to hear "Where do you want to go today?"

    --
    What?
    1. Re:If the car by /dev/trash · · Score: 1

      They have these already. It's called a bus.

  57. Is that your business? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why do you care what I love? As far as that goes, why do I care enough about what you care about to even type this post? So many questions so little time.

  58. Tampering illegal. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    More than likely, disabling or otherwise tampering with the device will become a criminal offense.

    For a while, the older used cars which are not equipped with a spybox will become more valuable. The repair and spare parts market for these older cars will enjoy a boom. Then after a while it will probably either become illegal to operate any such older vehicle on public roads anymore unless retrofitted with a spybox, or keeping older cars roadworthy will become so prohibitively expensive that most folks will just say "fuggit" and cave in and have to buy spybox-equipped cars.

    Not long after this, there will be implemented a sophisticated motorist tracking system that will require you to register and get prior approval to operate your vehicle on public roads. You'll be required to carefully detail what route you're intending to drive for each leg of your trip and any deviation from your "driving plan" will result in a disciplinary law-enforcement action against you.

    1. Re:Tampering illegal. by Lihtan · · Score: 1

      Not a chance. Older cars will get grandfathered. A car built in 1970 only has to meet emmissions standards for its model year, not 2004. The same with seatbelts, if your car is old enough that it came from the factory without one, it gets grandfathered under the current motor vehicle laws and becomes street legal.

      What is a possibility, is that there will be financial incentives from insurance companies to have dataloggers and tracking systems installed in your vehicle.

      Besides, if it did became illegal to tamper with onboard tracking systems, it would as unforceable as the current laws that restrict modifications to your vehicle.

      --
      Divide by zero hurts my brain.
  59. The DRM of Crash Test Dummies by Mulletproof · · Score: 2, Interesting
    "You can't shut it off, and you can't manipulate it..."

    ...But you can pull the plug. I've found that what appears to be that suspicious black box under the dash of my '02 Elantra. Disconnecting it does not affect the car alarm, radio, ignition, or any other vital feature nessisary to the car's operation.

    Honestly, I don't mind the fact that they exist... As long as they are only used in the event of a crash and only at your option. I say that above all else because that box is your property, crash or no crash. The information therein is yours to release or not to release and should be covered as the 5th amendment would be used to protect your innocence. This device cannot run a-ground on the same DRM issues that affect consoles, software and music-- You know, the products you bought but don't actually own? That information is yours, recorded on a device you bought inside the car you own.

    Now granted, it may very well be the only thing that proves your innocence. That said, story does have the right idea, however. These things are way too prone to abuse to be used without the proper safeguards in place.

    --
    You need a FREE iPod Nano
    1. Re:The DRM of Crash Test Dummies by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Pulling the plug IS shutting it off. Most of the "black boxes" are actually integrated into the ECU/PCM which is a $300-1000 part that your car will not run without. The information can be subpoena'd whether you're in a crash or not, like any other information you might have.`

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:The DRM of Crash Test Dummies by xenocide2 · · Score: 1

      As long as they are only used in the event of a crash and only at your option. I say that above all else because that box is your property, crash or no crash.

      Fortunately, you are not the King of the World. Discovery compels a party to bring forward specific evidence relevant to a trial. Its not difficult to obtain a subpoena or a warrant for this device. Without this, Microsoft would be untouchable in its business practices. Without the memos and like to demonstrate a willingness to destroy competition in as many ways as possible, they wouldn't even be a convicted monopoly, even if defacto.

      --
      I Browse at +4 Flamebait

      Open Source Sysadmin

    3. Re:The DRM of Crash Test Dummies by Mulletproof · · Score: 1

      Well THANK YOU for that brief, redundant insight into common law. I'll make sure to inquire of you next time I need a brief synopsis into all things that are common knowledge. How things should be often bares little resemblance to how that actually are, but thankyouverymuch.

      As for my black box, if it's not, I have no idea what it is then as it possess no vital function that I can ascertain.

      --
      You need a FREE iPod Nano
    4. Re:The DRM of Crash Test Dummies by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      There's always the possibility that it was a dealer-installed alarm system that was deactivated since you didn't ask for it, but if it looks original, it probably is the black box, or you would have noticed that something had stopped working.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    5. Re:The DRM of Crash Test Dummies by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      I have an '03 Accent. Could you provide more details about the location and size of the box, so I could see if my car has one too?

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  60. Re:Ok, there are spies. Now what? by iminplaya · · Score: 1

    Someone's always going too fast.

    I think it's more simple than that. The two cars were just trying to occupy the same space at the same time.. It doesn't matter how fast. The attempt will always result in a collision.

    --
    What?
  61. Wohoo! by Dasch · · Score: 1

    I like me some flaming :l

  62. Re:Ok, there are spies. Now what? by trewornan · · Score: 1
    How do I safely rig something to destroy or scramble my car's computer?

    Should be easy enough to wire up a nice chunky capacitor to discharge through the input wire if there's something better forgotten.

  63. It's a machine for crying out loud by Sai+Babu · · Score: 2, Insightful


    "You can't shut it off, and you can't manipulate it,"

    Sounds like a challange to me!

    "...the driver who races his Miata one weekend and files a warranty claim the next. What are the chances that his data recorder will rat him out"

    The automakers will have to drastically change their advertising. You can't sell a 'aports car' based on performance driving and later argue that using the vehicle as advertised violates it's warranty! Hell, Chrysler is HAPPY if you race their Neon! They will even sell you parts to hot-rod it that don't void the warranty and with others it's the old wink wink nudge nudge, take this out before you bring it in for warranty work. No, car dealers will NOT use performance driving to void your warranty. The manufacturers won't let them. THEY WANT TO SELL THE CARS!. Feedback to manufacturers from performance cars might even give us better cars! I still don't like it happening without my permission though.

    One would think that, 'you own the car, you own the data' would apply. You certainly own the recorder and hacking it could be a lot of fun.

    1. Re:It's a machine for crying out loud by Jumperalex · · Score: 1
      Sadly you are wrong. At least in the case of several sports cars I know of. There are documented cases of dealers hanging out at drag race grudge nights (at the legal track), and sanctioned SCCA Solo II events, etc for the sole purpose of collecting plate numbers to later void warranties.

      Bring a car into a dealer with aftermarket suspension and they will say you were racing it and your blown engine is no longer covered. Sure they are supposed to prove that the non-oem suspension was the direct cause per the Magnuson-Moss act but they will try it anyway and many people will just accept it. Or they will not even say it was the suspension that did it, but the fact that it means you raced it and THAT is what voids the warranty.

      No ... if you think dealers and manufaturers aren't looking for ANY chance to void a warranty you are woefully mistaken :(

      --
      If you can't be good, be good at it!
    2. Re:It's a machine for crying out loud by Sai+Babu · · Score: 1

      with the black box you and the dealer will know if the failure correlates with out of spec operation, or not. this will make warranty response more objective.

  64. Re:Ok, there are spies. Now what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Meteor hits your car, that is an accident, everything else is driver error.

  65. Old news & new paranoia by SysGoddess · · Score: 1

    Event Data Recorders have been in vehicles for a number of years and have even been reported on in the mainstream news & popular press. OnStar was/is only a recent manifestation of this technology.

    --

    Thus spake the SysGoddess
  66. Re:What? by Ph33r+th3+g(O)at · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Yeah, because everyone reads through every paragraph at the airport car rental counter on every business trip. And has an attorney on retainer to just ring up on his cell if there are any questions. Your attitude is precisely why consumer protection laws were enacted, and the problem the OP describes of sneaky contract riders is one that would be most appropriately addressed by one.

    --
    I too have felt the cold finger of injustice.
  67. Don't walk. Run! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't walk. Run! On 2nd thought, don't even run. Those new Keds you have with the thick soles have a data recorder that records everywhere you walk. And if you do nothing but loaf in those loafers, it records this in anticipation of new obesity taxes. Time to go shoeless, Joe! And if you have one of those free pedometers from a McDonald's happy meal? Yes, one of those. That's right. First, scream into it REALLY LOUD. That will ruin the day of the FBI guy listening on the other end. Then, bury it in the back yard.

  68. Re:Ok, there are spies. Now what? by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1
    2) If you're in a crash*, how do you protect your rights of posession to the data?

    The other problem with this is actual ownership. As a lot of cars are leased or on payments, who actually 'owns' it? The bank (which may be owned by or owner of your insurance company)? And thereby the data on the black box?
    In the event the car is totaled, the insurance company often keeps it, and pays you (and the bank). Again, do they then 'own' the data on the black box in the car that they now own?

    3) How do I safely rig something to destroy or scramble my car's computer?

    Never fear...this act will be made illegal. "Destruction of evidence" or some such.
    And an autodestruct/autoerase mechanism would have to be very finely tuned. You don't want it going off randomly, or in the event of a minor fender bender, or if you are in the right. But if you are incapacitated in the crash, you will not have the chance to trigger it.

  69. They're not recording everything.. by kt0157 · · Score: 1

    There aren't any "black boxes" in cars (except those that the rental company or the Feds installed..). There are ECUs (electronic control units) that do the job of making the car work. *Some* of these store interesting information - interesting to the maker of the ECU. The ABS ECU stores a log of the most recent few seconds. Ditto the SRS ECU. The information is mostly there to defend the box maker against lawsuits from Lionel Hutz (with special expert witness Dr. Nick Riviera). This does, of course, mean than in certain cases the information is useful to the police when prosecuting the driver. It can't be used to track or check driving habits. It's mostly data like "was the brake pedal pressed in the few seconds before the airbag deployed?" or "Were the brake lights lit when the car was braking before the impact?" or "Did the ABS kick in or was the car sliding?" or "Which way was the steering wheel turned when the side impact airbags went off?" This information is really not that much more than a good forensic analysis of the scene would tell. Only it's a lot cheaper than getting dozens of guys in white coats out. For example, these forensic guys can (if it's really important enough to make them turn up) tell if your turn lights were going before a crash (they can tell from the way in which the filament breaks whether it was hot or cold). But it's easier to ask the ECUs if the information is available. Saves on white coats. So not to worry about the black helicopters quite yet. Personally, I'd not be worried by the automakers putting this stuff in but by some jerk in Congress legislating to make it mandatory to record all vehicles for a year and to fit GPS tracking, with it being a felony with punishment of a $100,000 fine or ten years in prison for going into an area with GPS coverage. For finding terrorists, of course: all known terrorists have been in a car at some point, don't you know?

  70. So? You are a kind of Republican by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Libertarians are nothing but a sect of Republicans who sanctify drug abuse.

  71. Re:Ok, there are spies. Now what? by pyrote · · Score: 1

    It would be trivial to solder a tap to the data leads of the CMOS or across any data recording device/chip. I think a 1 farad filter should do nicely.

    a button from radio shack (or thinkgeek even) with the above capactior would prove quite fatal to the data.

    --
    THE WORLD IS GOING TO END!!!! eventually.
  72. It was a Ferrari. Geez. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    not bored enough to look up the model, but it was in no way, shape or form a Porsche or anything resembling one, I mean it was _RED_ . . .

  73. Brilliant by HangingChad · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Board spokesman Keith Holloway said public concerns about personal privacy shouldn't get in the way of providing a valuable tool for accident investigators.

    Yeah, don't let public concerns stop you from doing whatever the hell you want. It doesn't stop anyone else.

    --
    That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
  74. Constitutional rights... man! by Thunderstruck · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Actually, a lot of these posts raise an interesting question. If technology is going to be able to tell everything about you, for good or ill, what exactly is your right not to testify against yourself worth?

    --
    Trying to use sarcasm in text-based forums does not work.
    1. Re:Constitutional rights... man! by Kwil · · Score: 1

      Hopefully nothing.

      It's a bloody stupid right anyway, only put in for the practicalities and so that the system can't always add perjury to any list of charges against you.

      It does nothing to benefit society, and little to benefit the individual since "pleading the fifth" is nearly as damning anyway.

      --

      That Jesus Christ guy is getting some terrible lag... it took him 3 days to respawn! -NJ CoolBreeze

    2. Re:Constitutional rights... man! by Thunderstruck · · Score: 1

      Actually it exists to keep the regime in power from using "leverage" to get you to confess. Pleading the fifth might occasionally look bad to a jury, but they're not stupid and they know not to consider that in deciding their verdict. Of corse the argument can be made that we don't torture people to get confessions anymore - But that is because we have this rule on the books. Consider the terrorist prison camps - any "torture" going on there?

      Where the 5th really comes into play is when the defendant simply does not testify at all. This lets the trial proceed without the whole "I plead the 5th" thing even comming up. The state cannot call the defendant to be a witness, the witness does not need to "plead the fifth" and the jury never worries about it.

      --
      Trying to use sarcasm in text-based forums does not work.
    3. Re:Constitutional rights... man! by MikeBabcock · · Score: 1

      Considering we here in Canada have no such right to refuse testimony and we still don't torture citizens for evidence, I'm not sure what your point is.

      Do you have that little faith in your law enforcement? Mind you, what I see on TV is somewhat damning some days.

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
    4. Re:Constitutional rights... man! by Thunderstruck · · Score: 1

      "Considering we here in Canada have no such right to refuse testimony and we still don't torture citizens for evidence, I'm not sure what your point is."

      My point is that your government COULD. In most United States, at the time this right was drafted, such action was quite likely. It seems you are arguing that because neither the right nor the "torture" exist in Canada, the right is of no value in the United States. This reasoning suffers from two flaws:

      1. The United States have different cultures than Canada, and thus require different laws.

      2. To argue that what because Canada never had this problem and therefore the right is useless is like arguing that, since I've never been in an accident I shouldn't wear my seatbelt.

      I would also suggest that allowing a person who'se entire future is in the hands of the government which seeks to convict him, to be compelled to testify by that same government creates an inherent conflict of interest.

      Then of course there are the Natural Law origins of rights in general... but these are the subject of a much longer discussion.

      --
      Trying to use sarcasm in text-based forums does not work.
  75. on a positive side of note... by pikine · · Score: 1

    If an accident happens, one can use the collected data to show that auto manufacturer is at fault, and this can be a powerful support when filing insurance claim. On the other hand, providing this data should be voluntary. The owner should be able to deny any other party's request of such data, if this cannot be used to his/her advantage. I'm not sure if allowing the device to be turned off is a good idea, as the driver may forget to turn it back on again.

    --
    I once had a signature.
  76. He was too fucking old to drive Goddamnit! by multiplexo · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I really love this part of the article:

    The National Transportation Safety Board called for requiring standardized recorders in all light-duty vehicles after it was unable to ascertain what happened when an elderly driver plowed through a farmer's market in Santa Monica, Calif., last year, killing and injuring scores of people.

    OK, let me be the first to call it since the NTSB is a bunch of politically correct pussies who don't want to piss off the fucking geezers in the AARP. The guy who caused this accident was too fucking old to drive, OK! He was 86 years old, according to this article he had "... a medical condition called a "second-degree heart block" that can cause the heart to stop beating for several seconds.", raising the question of why we are letting someone who has a bad heart that can stop beating during times of stress drive a motor vehicle. This guy's reflexes were gone, he couldn't adequately control the pedals because he had had hip replacement surgeries he might have had cognitive deficits as well as severe visual ones. He was just too fucking old to operate a motor vehicle, and guess what! There's millions more like him out there. Old folks are incredibly dangerous behind the wheel. We don't need black boxes in every car, we need annual vision, reaction and cognition testing for all drivers over 70 years old, and those who don't pass lose their licenses right then and there. While we're at it we can strip the licenses of anyone who has more than one DUI or who causes an accident where someone loses life or limb, this would go a long way towards making our roads a lot safer.

    Does this suck if you're one of the old people in question? Well yes it does, but I find it interesting that the people who whine about restricting the driving privileges of the elderly have no problem with restricting the driving privileges of teenagers. Admittedly teenagers are bad drivers, but they're going to get better as they age, someone who's 16 years old will probably be a better and safer driver in 10 years when they're 26, the same cannot be said for a 70 year old. And while it might suck for elderly drivers to lose their licenses it kind of sucks for the rest of us when they lose control of a vehicle and kill 10 people and send 63 more to the hospital or in my case fail to yield right of way on a sunny day, plow into my motorcycle and cost me my left leg below the knee.

    --
    cheap labor conservatives - they want to keep you hungry enough to be thankful for minimum wage.
    1. Re:He was too fucking old to drive Goddamnit! by k31bang · · Score: 1

      While we're at it we can strip the licenses of anyone who has more than one DUI or who causes an accident where someone loses life or limb, this would go a long way towards making our roads a lot safer.



      Oh like thats going to stop a drunk from driving. Here in New Mexico you would have to remove their arms and legs to keep them driving without a license. And even that might not be enough.

      --
      -+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+ *** http://www.mountainfort.com *** +-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-
    2. Re:He was too fucking old to drive Goddamnit! by winwar · · Score: 1

      "Admittedly teenagers are bad drivers, but they're going to get better as they age, someone who's 16 years old will probably be a better and safer driver in 10 years when they're 26, the same cannot be said for a 70 year old."

      Thanks for the post. You know, for some reason, I never really considered this before your post (younger drivers improving in x years vs older drivers...) It may have been an unstated assumption but I never really thought about it. Thanks.

    3. Re:He was too fucking old to drive Goddamnit! by winwar · · Score: 1

      "OK, let me be the first to call it since the NTSB is a bunch of politically correct pussies who don't want to piss off the fucking geezers in the AARP."

      Well, to be fair to the NTSB, their job isn't to give the LIKELY cause of the accident. It is to find the cause or say they can't. They aren't supposed to make assumptions. Being "too old to drive" isn't the root cause of the accident. Sure, it likely contributed....but that's not the same thing. Losing control isn't the cause. Maybe his heart stopped causing him to lose control in part because he was old-but how do you PROVE this was the reason. Maybe he just hit the gas instead of the brakes....

      Considering how often they string up the pilots, aka "human error" in a plane crash, I don't think they (the investigators) have a problem pissing people off.... Of course, if there are no mechanical problems with the vehicle, I guess they SHOULD say "driver error". Well, maybe the managers ARE "politically correct pussies" :)

    4. Re:He was too fucking old to drive Goddamnit! by back_pages · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Public policy is made according to money, not common sense. As long as you resist this truth, you will find yourself at odds with the universe. Old people vote and old people have AARP and other organizations. Old people having accidents produces an economy for medical services, lawyers, and auto mechanics to name just a few. Public policy is made according to money, not common sense.

    5. Re:He was too fucking old to drive Goddamnit! by wizkid · · Score: 1

      But look at all the fodder for the lawyers. We need those little black boxes to help support the #1 industry in the US. Sueing the fucking crap out of everyone we can. What are you, a communist? Trying to blame this on someone being to old to drive just doesn't support the courts need to sue someone.

      --
      I take no responsibility for what I say. Even though I'm never wrong :)
    6. Re:He was too fucking old to drive Goddamnit! by pnewhook · · Score: 1
      Oh like thats going to stop a drunk from driving. Here in New Mexico you would have to remove their arms and legs to keep them driving without a license. And even that might not be enough.

      Well then if they catch him impaired with a suspended licence , they should be able to jail him or confiscate his car. How many cars could he possibly have or afford?

      --
      Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
    7. Re:He was too fucking old to drive Goddamnit! by matria · · Score: 1

      I used to deliver newspapers, and I was horrified one day to see the little old hunchback lady I delivered to, who read with a huge magnifying glass, literally crawl into her car, drag her walker in after herself, then drive off peering under the steering wheel. No seat belt. No side mirrors. Big old boat of a car, if she hits yours it's no contest. You couldn't even see that anyone was in the car. Scary.

    8. Re:He was too fucking old to drive Goddamnit! by tehdaemon · · Score: 1
      "How many cars could he possibly have or afford?"

      *sigh* Usually the answer is zero. It is someone elses car.

      Confiscation only sounds like a good idea.

      --
      Laws are horrible moral guides, moral guides make even worse laws.
    9. Re:He was too fucking old to drive Goddamnit! by legirons · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "He was just too fucking old to operate a motor vehicle, and guess what! There's millions more like him out there. Old folks are incredibly dangerous behind the wheel. We don't need black boxes in every car, we need annual vision, reaction and cognition testing for all drivers over 70 years old, and those who don't pass lose their licenses right then and there. While we're at it we can strip the licenses of anyone who has more than one DUI or who causes an accident where someone loses life or limb, this would go a long way towards making our roads a lot safer."

      There was once a good slashdot comment:

      Q: "why are aeroplanes safer than cars?"

      A: "Because if pilot rules were applied to drivers, then 1/3 the population would never be allowed to drive at all, 2/3 of the rest would only be allowed to drive 50cc cars in clear weather at 30mph, and the remainder would have spent 10 years learning, get retested every year, and be grounded at the first suspicion of human-error"

      Now if only they could apply those same standards to those in control of motor vehicles, and perhaps update the driving test. I don't care that someone's demonstrated that they were once able to control a small car whilst sober, calm, undistracted, and fully-rested, it doesn't have any bearing on the driving they actually do.

    10. Re:He was too fucking old to drive Goddamnit! by MikeBabcock · · Score: 1

      Here in Ontario, Canada, they're debating the merits of mandatory retesting every 5 or 7 years I believe it is. I'm all for it, personally -- I know I'd pass and have hopes that the last idiot I watched cut off a transport truck (which almost jack-knifed) won't pass.

      Or will be dead.

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
  77. zerg by Lord+Omlette · · Score: 1

    When you drive your gas guzzling SUV all by yourself, I assure that you are not alone. Usama bin Laden himself will be sitting in your passenger seat.

    --
    [o]_O
  78. Oregone, gone nuts! by twitter · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Oregon is working on a toll-road system that downloads global positioning satellite data and odometer readings at the gasoline pump to collect fuel taxes on each gallon based on the amount a motorist drives.

    Brilliant. Instead of estimating an average car mileage and using that as a gauge of road use per gallon and adding a fixed price to each gallon of gasoline, Oregon is going to show us how smart they can be! They will get to pay for the development, deployment and upkeep of totally unnecessary and invasive computer system. Imagine people's glee at getting to pay more for my gasoline because they buy an economy car that gets more miles to the gallon.

    --

    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

    1. Re:Oregone, gone nuts! by BobaFett · · Score: 1

      If this ever gets implemented, I can see fuel transfer pumps suddenly selling like hotcakes. Then I can see dumbfounded gas station attendants who can't figure out why this car comes to fill up every day but GPS shows that other than the trip to the gas station it never left the garage, so the fuel tax is minimal.

    2. Re:Oregone, gone nuts! by Maestro4k · · Score: 1
      I wonder how they'd handle cars that drive across the state border to fill up? What happens when they need to fill up intra-state on a trip later on? They get a $500 tank of gas thanks to built-up readings?

      For that matter how would they handle out of state vehicles? They can't get any gas since they're missing out on the required collected info? (For that matter, this would apply to legacy vehicles made before the system was implemented.)

    3. Re:Oregone, gone nuts! by burns210 · · Score: 1

      You're damn right. NOONE, and I mean NOONE can waste money as well as Oregonians can all the while leading most states in unemployment. Congress can't come close to the level of crap spending our legislature can. /me = public employee, oregon resident, disugested with state spendin.

  79. Re:Drivecam (OT) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Louisiana: Land of the drive-through daquiri hut.

  80. I just don't understand by supersoftdrink · · Score: 1

    Really. Why don't people want to take responsibility for their own actions? This running trend is getting worse year by year and it sickens me. Yeah, we all do stupid stuff, but come on: own up to it! This sort of technology just helps figure out what did or did not happen after an accident. People lie.

    1. Re:I just don't understand by wizkid · · Score: 1

      So it doesn't bother you that they can catch you on every act you make. You must be perfect, and have never made a mistake in your life, and never made a bad judgement in your life. Never had a car accident, etc. So when your in your car with 3 kids screaming, your wife is hollering, and you just spilt your coffee, and the car in front of you on the icy road is skidding (you haven't hit your brakes yet), don't complain when they give you a ticket and being impared while driving because your reactions are the same as a person with a 1.5 alcohol content. That little black box they are talking about putting into cars is bullshit!

      --
      I take no responsibility for what I say. Even though I'm never wrong :)
    2. Re:I just don't understand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those things you described are YOUR FAULT.

      Passenger yelling? Slow down. Any passenger that doesnt let you focus on driving is a hazard and you have to do this.

      Spilling hot coffee while driving? I suppose you spilled it because you were trying to drive, punch your wife smack your kids and talk on the cell phone all at once?

    3. Re:I just don't understand by pnewhook · · Score: 1
      Really. Why don't people want to take responsibility for their own actions?

      I completely agree.

      Data recorders simply record what happened in an accident. That's it. People who oppose this technology are just people who think it is their right to drive like complete jackasses instead of obeying the rules of the road.

      Drive properly and when you do get in an accident you can count on the other driver's recorder convicting them instead.

      --
      Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
  81. Yes, but... by Log+from+Blammo · · Score: 1

    While automatic data recorders would tend to vindicate the innocent, and condemn the guilty, that presumes that the activities ordinary people perceive as lawful will remain legal after the devices are installed. I simply don't trust any government or insurer to use that data recorder in my best interests.

    And once I get into a wreck, I may not be able to control access to my data. Furthermore, if I do manage withhold it, that may be used as a pretext to presume guilt instead of innocence.

    --
    "This quote is a product of the Frobozz Magic Quote Company."
  82. No thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have a pickup truck, and quite often I'll have to hit the brakes hard in traffic just as I go over one of those freeway expansion joints. The metal is smooth, and the wheels will momentarily slide over them. You can hear the anti-lock brake relay clicking for a few seconds under the dash when this happens. Nothing unusual at all.

    Until the truck had a recorder and the insurance companies could access it. Then I would be getting much higher rates due to the "unsafe" way I keep operating my truck since I "lock up" the brakes every day.

    No thanks.

    1. Re:No thanks by BoneFlower · · Score: 1

      I imagine the machines would be calibrated to the specific vehicle installed in, to avoid problems like that.

      Either that or there would be a reference chart for various vehicle types and driving conditions, and what normal readings would be for those vehicles under those conditions.

      Even drug tests, you don't automatically fail for having some of the chemical in your urine- there are minimal levels required to count as positive, to weed out false positives and to account for accidental or secondhand exposure. I'm sure this system would have a similar threshold concept implemented, to weed out false positives and the random bad luck situations where driving techniques, that are normally bad, become the only way to avoid a fiery death.

      I'm not saying I'm comfortable with such a system(at least not until I can get a human readable display of the data it records, at the very least), but I don't think the specific concerns you raise are much to worry about.

  83. My take. by Sevn · · Score: 1

    You are operating a whole lot of metal balanced on each end by friction enhanced cylinders with a rotating mass of pressurized air. Your technology to change vectors is based on driving two of the corners from an onboard engine while turning the other two (or the same) corners in relation to the central mass in order to effect velocity, or change direction respectively. You also effect velocity by applying force to the corners to slow their rotation. You do all this while:

    1) Approaching closing speeds that require split second reaction times.
    2) In an environment where there are constant sources of distraction.
    a) cellphone
    b) radio
    c) kids
    d) the sun
    e) other drivers
    f) weather
    g) passengers
    h) cops
    3) Slightly anticipating the changing effects of wind, road condition, and gravity while making tap adjustments to maintain a certain velocity as dictated by passing signs.

    That's why I've never bought into the whole "flying a plane is harder" crap. It isn't any harder. The stakes are much higher, but that isn't the same thing. But the jist of it is, you are going to fuck up once in a while. Compare the dynamics of driving a car to say, tennis.

    So yeah, I'm all for this. Go ahead. I mean, as long as the worst that can happen is that the truth always comes out when there are car accidents. Whoopty do. If you mess up, you deserve the consequences. I don't have a problem with that.

    The problem I have with this is that I drive really fucking fast. And it's my selfish desire to continue to drive really fucking fast. So as long they don't start using this technology to ticket people for speeding automatically every time they do it, I'm all for it.

    --
    For every annoying gentoo user, are three even more annoying anti-gentoo crybabies. Take Yosh from #Gimp for example.
    1. Re:My take. by Charcharodon · · Score: 1
      You've obviously never flown an aircraft then.

      Driving is nothing like flying, well I take that back flying at your cruise altitude is alot like driving, though it's much closer to driving a boat on a lake. Which is why most of your accidents don't occur during cruise it's almost always within 5 miles of an airport during take off and landing.

      Here's a few tidbits for you.

      The fastest car represents some of the slowest speeds a small general aviation can fly. My little trainer Cesna can do 160mph.
      Speed limits around airports is 200mph and outside is around 250mph in some airspaces congested areas. Otherwise the limit is just under the speed of sound. (over 600 mph though you have to be above a certain altitude).

      You don't just dial in your favorite radio station and chill. Just to get out of the local area of my airport I have to talk to ground, then tower, then outbound, then approach. You also have to hop channels if you happen to fly through someone elses airspace and did I mention that there are no standard channels every airport is different hope you brought a airport guide with you. Oh did I forget that ATC talk like a bunch strung out meth freaks, so figuring out what they said can be fun especially when you are jockying with three other planes in the pattern trying to set up for a landing in the next 30 seconds.

      There are no traffic lanes or signs when airborn so other traffic can come from any direction as well as above or below you and to boot is very difficult to spot. That's always comforting to know when you have up to a 500mph closing speed. Note small aircaft are almost impossible to spot when they are coming straight at you beyond about 3 miles. That gives you about 60 seconds to spot then avoid at just a 200mph closing speed at 3 miles

      Speaking of weather a 40mph cross wind may make your arm tired on the way to work in car, but it makes it impossible to land in a plane, and could mean setting it down in a field if you don't have enough gas to make it to a different airport. Getting blown around during a rain storm in a car is easy to manage, at altitude in a light aircraft it is strong enough to flip you upside down, or push you down into the ground. Also without special instrument training the typical pilot loses control of their aircraft after about 7-10 minutes of flying into heavy weather.

      If you drive to slow in your car you annoy the drivers behind you. You fly to slow in a plane and it falls out of the sky

      Other than the occassional deer, stopped car, or kid running into the streets (worth 5 points) the road is relatively free of things to run into. Flying on the other hand has pesky things like mountains, towers, electrical lines, trees, birds, and other man made goods smack dab in the middle of the "road" and may or may not be marked with lights or on a map.

      Basically unlike a car, if things get hairy there is no pulling over for a breather nor can you just stop when someone gets in your way, or when the weather turns to shit. There is also the little bit of joy that if you do get in an accident, that is if you survive it, the FAA may pull your license (a basic pilot license runs you about $5000 a comercial rating starts at $30,000) if you are found to be negligent.

      Also if they held drivers to the same level of competence to obtain a drivers license as they do for pilot's flying license, then half of the general public would never be allowed to drive at all. Eighty percent of the remaining amount would only be allowed to drive a 50hp compact but only if it was a nice clear sunny day.

    2. Re:My take. by Sevn · · Score: 1

      You've obviously never flown an aircraft then.

      Nothing requiring a license. I've flown two aircraft that weigh under 499 pounds.

      Driving is nothing like flying, well I take that back flying at your cruise altitude is alot like driving, though it's much closer to driving a boat on a lake. Which is why most of your accidents don't occur during cruise it's almost always within 5 miles of an airport during take off and landing.

      I agree with everything there. I didn't say they were alike. The difficulty levels involved in the actual operation of the types of vehicles is about the same though. I'd much rather talk on a cellphone or radio while flying than driving.

      Here's a few tidbits for you.

      The fastest car represents some of the slowest speeds a small general aviation can fly. My little trainer Cesna can do 160mph.
      Speed limits around airports is 200mph and outside is around 250mph in some airspaces congested areas. Otherwise the limit is just under the speed of sound. (over 600 mph though you have to be above a certain altitude).


      So rather than doing 55-75 miles per hour at extended periods of time operating within a very confined area with potential collisions 10 feet away at any given moment, you are going 100-250 miles an hour at the beginning and end of your trip with much less traffic that is constantly being relayed to you along with information on how and where to fly. I'd say that balances out.

      You don't just dial in your favorite radio station and chill. Just to get out of the local area of my airport I have to talk to ground, then tower, then outbound, then approach. You also have to hop channels if you happen to fly through someone elses airspace and did I mention that there are no standard channels every airport is different hope you brought a airport guide with you. Oh did I forget that ATC talk like a bunch strung out meth freaks, so figuring out what they said can be fun especially when you are jockying with three other planes in the pattern trying to set up for a landing in the next 30 seconds.


      I pretty much agree with all that. And yeah, the ATC folks are special.


      There are no traffic lanes or signs when airborn so other traffic can come from any direction as well as above or below you and to boot is very difficult to spot. That's always comforting to know when you have up to a 500mph closing speed. Note small aircaft are almost impossible to spot when they are coming straight at you beyond about 3 miles. That gives you about 60 seconds to spot then avoid at just a 200mph closing speed at 3 miles


      And in your years of flying, this has happened how many times? I'm not talking about times when the tower called to warn you about close traffic. I wish I had 60 seconds to spot and avoid a child chasing a ball. I wish I had even 10 seconds to react to a rig having a tire blowout 5 feet away, veering wildly. I wish I could get a call from ATC when I'm about to crest a hill and some drunk dumbass is coming up the other side in the middle of the road.


      Speaking of weather a 40mph cross wind may make your arm tired on the way to work in car, but it makes it impossible to land in a plane, and could mean setting it down in a field if you don't have enough gas to make it to a different airport. Getting blown around during a rain storm in a car is easy to manage, at altitude in a light aircraft it is strong enough to flip you upside down, or push you down into the ground. Also without special instrument training the typical pilot loses control of their aircraft after about 7-10 minutes of flying into heavy weather.


      It's probably a good idea to pay close attention to weather forecasts if you aren't IFR rated, or if your aircraft isn't adequately outfitted to deal with extreme weather. I never had a problem briefing any pilots that came into my weather shop. You end up comparing working with a fluid environment (the air) where you have a degree of fl

      --
      For every annoying gentoo user, are three even more annoying anti-gentoo crybabies. Take Yosh from #Gimp for example.
    3. Re:My take. by TheLink · · Score: 1

      Since there are fewer planes, it is more likely that idiots flying planes tend to kill themselves first before managing to kill other pilots, or never get licensed.

      That's not true for cars. So even if you do everything right, the chances of you dying because of what some OTHER idiot does is much higher.

      That said I've seen statistics that claim driving is about as safe as flying on commercial airliners on a per _trip_ basis. Not on a per _distance_ basis (flying on a commercial airliner is safer).

      So you're probably right - if typical airliner pilots are more skillful, professional and trained than the typical driver then landing/takeoff is more difficult than driving.

      I believe private planes have different stats.

      --
  84. That will help with DRM too! by NoMoreNicksLeft · · Score: 1

    Because simply boycotting every single computer manufacturer is an option, when some industry standards group mandates that it be included with each motherboard produced for sale in the US.

    Private manufacturers will listen, too, because in the bizarro universe that you inhabit, the buying power of a few concerned citizens like yourself overshadows the gargantuan purchasing clout of Fortune 500 companies that order 10,000 machines at a time.

  85. You can get that. It's the Eaton VORAD radar by Animats · · Score: 1
    The fact of the matter is that these are only good for people attacking you. If they added a camera that looked out the front window of the vehicle, and recorded the last 30 seconds of data from that as well, it would be good. Then, not only could the know what was done, but might have some clue as to why it was done. Knowing what happened without knowing why it happened...it's pretty much useless for things like this.

    The Eaton VORAD anti-collision radar does just that. It tracks up to 20 targets in front of your vehicle. The main purpose is to help prevent accidents; you get a loud alarm, and some versions will start braking on their own. But it also logs information. Range, range rate, and azimuth are captured, along with the vehicle's own data (speed, turning angles braking, etc.) Accidents can be reconstructed from that data. It's especially good for demonstrating that some other vehicle ran a stop sign.

    There are about 20,000 of those units on the road, mostly on heavy trucks.

    We use VORAD units here at Overbot, For test purposes, This is far more advanced than a speed gun; it's a true phased-array steerable radar. You get tracking data. I've had one pointed out a window overlooking an intersection, and have software that lets me watch the traffic go by. You can reliably see cars and motorcycles; bicycles and strollers are marginal targets.

  86. You know what?-The wrong, right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "I love people who think the law makes what's right, rather than what's right making the law.

    I also can't believe how many times I've gotten into precisely that argument on Slashdot."

    And here's the other part that goes with that argument. Who's definition of "right" is going to get used, and what happens if the "wrong","right" gets used? Ah let me make it easy for you. What you agree with is right. What you disagree with is wrong. Simple, no?

  87. Re:Ok, there are spies. Now what? by pnewhook · · Score: 1

    So if you think it is the other guys fault you want to rip out his recorder so you can use it as evidence. But if it is your fault, you want the right to destroy your own recorder?

    Don't you see anything fundamentally wrong with this?

    --
    Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
  88. Don't worry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Then again, I dont drive at all, so its all a non issue to me."

    Don't worry. When you turn 16, you can get your permit and finally get your license.

  89. Don't be a fool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "It's a liberty to break the law now, is it?"

    Liberty stands alone. Laws can aid it, or they can interfere with, but law doesn't create liberty.

  90. Reply to sig:-) by khrtt · · Score: 1

    $5 to tell me where I saw a Childrens' story where a white object falls from the sky onto a house & everyone dies.

    TV?

  91. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ah ah ah ah aha ha ha ah ahaha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "the manufacturer will save on fraudulent warrantee repairs, and warrantee coverage can improve."

    Yes, because we all know that when a manufacturer reduces costs, that savings is always passed along to the consumer.

    How do you feel about the easter bunny, the tooth fairy and santa claus?

  92. Re:Welcome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    or the same guy with the same style!

  93. answer: standalone engine management by Lihtan · · Score: 2, Informative

    Any vehicle on the road today can have its ECU replaced by a standalone engine management system. Once it's installed, you can then genuinely hack your car's engine as well. If you don't like expensive propretiary systems, there's even "open source" alternatives like MegaSquirt

    --
    Divide by zero hurts my brain.
  94. Ha how long before someone hacks these by Charcharodon · · Score: 1
    Make the little black box your bitch.

    Want safe driving habits for better insurance rates? No problem.

    Need to make the police you are on the other end of town? Child's play.

    Plan on taking a long lunch in the company truck on company time? A snap.

    Want your wife to think you are bowling with the fellas rather than over at her sister's throwing it in her ass? Consider it done.

    Sure they can mandate to the aviation world pilots don't want to loose their expensive certifications and companies without those certifications are out of business, so exactly how are they going to bully the general public into it, and how are they going to check millions of cars cheaply enough to make it worthwhile. The car mod and hacker crowd will have a work around available within a month of this being mandatory that will mislead the authorities. As far as the GPS goes how hard is it going to be to rap the antenna in shielding? Poof no more signal, no more tracking.

  95. Turn them off! by talldark · · Score: 1

    Turn them off!

    It would be interesting to see if we as consumers could request to turn off these black boxes, or find some way to disable them without interfering with the operations of the cars safety systems. Either that or a large electromagnet placed next to it!

    Seriously though, there is an issue of control here. I own the device, and therefor I should have the right to turn it off. After all I just paid for the car, so I should have the right to do with it as I want as long as it meets safety requirements (although I see some states are now mandating them in new cars)

    Thoughts?

  96. Voiding of Warranties by Lihtan · · Score: 1

    Or take the driver who races his Miata one weekend and files a warranty claim the next. What are the chances that his data recorder will rat him out to the manufacturer who then voids the warranty?

    If you're a car manufacturer, you can do the smart thing and encourage your customers to participate in sanctioned racing events. Subaru gives you a free membership in the SCCA when you buy a WRX.
    On the other hand, if you try to champion any races, in an EVO, Mitsubishi will just void your warranty.

    --
    Divide by zero hurts my brain.
  97. Re:Welcome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I, for one, welcome our repetitive welcomer of Overlords.

  98. ...The Whole World is a Nail by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 1
    "You can't shut it off, and you can't manipulate it," says General Motors safety engineering spokesman Jim Schell.

    I'll manipulate it with a hammer, and it will be a manipulation it will long remember.

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
  99. Enough whining - lets get down to hacking... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    These recorders have to get data somehow right? How many different kinds of recorders are there?

    What media are they recording to?

    Are the chips standard (or MilSpec) flash memory? Ummm what if the write enable line needs to be pulled high and it's ummm, defective or scratched? :-)

    Is there any sort of read-after-write verification done? How do they know the data recorded is accurate?

    What if the sensor was faulty? I wasn't going 100 MPH, but the sensor said I was?

    How long is the data retained? What causes it to round-robin out? Can that be emulated with a small box interfaced in front of the black box?

    What if the flash chip gets smoked out? Is this box only used for recording data, or does some other system rely on the information recorded in it for some other critical function (say - the air/fuel mix)?

    I for one do not want this crap in my car. I want to know where it is, and I want to disable it. That said, I still want my airbags and ABS/traction control to work properly.

    As for OnStar - fuck that... I don't want it, and don't need it. I'll never buy any vehicle with it installed either... In fact, how do we rip that crap out if we want to? Where's the antenna?

  100. This is too much!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You know, I have no problem with my girlfriend blowing me as we drive past 18 wheelers, but this box is just an invasion of my privacy....

    1. Re:This is too much!! by chawly · · Score: 1

      Invasion of your privacy ? Well perhaps so .... but I read that there are some advantages - such as the possibility of an automated call to 911 after an accident. I have, as yet, no fixed oppinion about these boxes - but I do have a couple of questions for you. When you are passing an eighteen wheeler as you describe, it seems to me that anybody looking down from the said eithteen wheeler would invade your privacy a bit - do you have a sunroof ? In the same way, which one of you does the driving ? We are, after all, discussing road safety here - or so I thought.

      --
      How many beans make five, anyhow ? ... Charles Walmsley
  101. Hello, free market by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Hey, newsflash folks -- OnStar is not surgically implanted into your fetal skull just prior to birth. It is not tethered to your leg at age five, it is does not follow you home at night when you are sixteen. OnStar is a product that comes as an option on some cars. Does the idea of a car nanny creep you out? Then feel free to buy one of the millions of cars currently for sale that come nanny free.

    What gets me is that essentially what annoys people about these car nannies is that it makes it more difficult for them to lie about their bad driving behaviour. What they neglect is that, for the good drivers out there, these devices help you prove that a wreck was not your fault. They also call 911 for you while you're lieing unconcious in a ditch with your legs wrapped several times around your ass. Sounds handy to me but, hey, what do I know, I don't wear a foil hat.

  102. Re:What? by etnoy · · Score: 0

    Some car-rental companies sneak riders into their contracts saying that you have to pay extra $$$ every time you excede the speed limit

    I always wondered how I should deal with those cars when I am about to make a completely fair and legal overtake. Holding the speed limits? Completely impossible!

    --
    Quantum hacker.
  103. sounds like microsoft by fractilian · · Score: 0

    "...the black box insidiously hard-wired into your car's electronic guts, unstoppable, unalterable, and unbeknownst to most drivers, silently recording every dramatic move."

    Sounds like somrthing M$ said about XP registration codes.

    --
    "The universe is my dwelling place and my house is my only clothes! Why are you entering into my pants?" - Liu Ling
  104. "Not our concern"? by fuzzybunny · · Score: 1

    "We don't want to record someone's whole route," Holloway says. "We're focusing on the last few seconds before an accident. Granted, some people could use that information (in criminal prosecutions or lawsuits), but that is not our concern."

    Well it sure as hell is my concern, and it should be yours as well.

    --
    Cole's Law: Thinly sliced cabbage
  105. Gut reaction vs reasoned thought by gone.fishing · · Score: 1

    My gut recation has on these kinds of things is "Oh, that sucks! It's an invasion of my privacy!" and people will tell you that your gut reaction is right about eighty percent of the time.

    While it is true that these black boxes can tell the manufacurer, the insurance company, and the cops more about you than you want them to know, think about the other side of the coin for a moment.

    They can call an emergency service if your airbag deploys. They can provide data to manufacturers to make engineering and safety improvments or even trigger a recall if necessary. They can be used to shore up your version of an insurance claim. In short, they can save lives and money.

    I agree that there should probably be some regulations on the data privacy side of the issue, including notifying the owner of any data access or recovery effort where the data may be tied to him/her.

    In a broad sense, much of the data recovered from these boxes is already available to the police and insurance companies after a significant crash. Over the years accident scene reconstruction has become amazingly detaied and accurate. From the evidence at a crash scene they can tell how fast you were going, what exact driection you were heading, and if you were wearing your seatbelt. DNA evidence can tell them where you were sitting even.

    I say the boxes themselves are good, and the data they collect can be beneficial. I can understand the potential for abusing the data but still think that it can be regulated to the point where these boxes can be a good thing.

  106. my car runs fine with a dummy load on the Onstar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've used a dummy load on the transceiver for the last 2 years without any problems.

  107. One more reason to drive a bicycle instead by markjugg · · Score: 1
    This sounds like one more reason to drive a bicycle instead.

    I don't think those litle bike computers are big enough to be spies anyway.

  108. You've missed my point, by StarKruzr · · Score: 1

    which is that laws are not necessarily guided by *logically determinable* ethical reasoning. This isn't about personal moral ideals.

    --

    +++ATH0
    1. Re:You've missed my point, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're digging yourself deeper. "Logically determinable ethical reasoning" to whom? Republicans? Democrats? Nazis? Radical Muslims? Anarchists? Libertarians? Vulcans? There is no universal system of ethical reasoning that is "logically determinable" whatever the fuck that means. You're just talking out of your ass. No one on earth has the ability to work in a vacuum and determine laws based on logic alone. The entire idea of a law is to protect people from someone or something or protect their property. So before you begin there are stakeholders. Once you identify stakeholders you've introduced morals.

  109. You don't live here, do you? by StarKruzr · · Score: 1

    I'm talking about places like the Korean War Veteran's Parkway in Staten Island, which is a well-maintained straightaway with a 50mph speed limit for *absolutely no reason whatsoever other than to give cops an excuse to write tickets*. I know several officers in the 120th Precinct and they have flat-out told me that that is the reason.

    Where else... there's that stretch of the Belt Parkway which has its limit set at *40mph* because of "limited sight distance." There's a fucking hill. That's it. 40mph is a *crawl* compared to the speeds people travel at realistically (Jesus, almost *RELATIVISTICALLY*) on the Belt.

    Then you've got the BQE, which has a 45mph speed limit in places and 50 mph elsewhere, again, for no good reason. Huge swaths of it are recently repaved and pose no traction hazard whatsoever. There is a cop who sits with a laser gun about a mile before Exit 32 (Metropolitan Ave.) because the speed limit drops to 45 there (in a three-lane section with wide lanes).

    Who the hell is talking about driving at top speed on *5th Ave.*? Buddy, if you can get above 35mph anywhere in Manhattan other than the West Side Highway and the FDR, my hat's off to you, because it's next to impossible even at 3 o'clock at night.

    Stop trolling about something which you don't understand.

    --

    +++ATH0
  110. Ownership of data by BillX · · Score: 1

    If it was my own erratic driving that generated the data, am I not the copyright holder to all that erratic-driving data? Would I have a claim if such a service violated my copyright by selling this data to the highest bidder (e.g. my insurance company)?

    --
    Caveat Emptor is not a business model.
  111. Re:Drivecam (OT) by archivis · · Score: 1

    There's one not too far from my house, sadly enough.

    --
    In July O7, I got a mac pro. There's no punchline. Just endless joy and wonder.
  112. Unreliability of Eyewitnesses... by SeanDuggan · · Score: 1

    Good point, but at least this way the false witnesses hopefully got in trouble too...
    Not really. More than anything, it just shows more evidence that eyewitnesses are not reliable witnesses. Seeing is not believing and our minds can trick us into seeing or not seeing things as we believe. It's been seen in actual cases and it's been shown in lab tests. People see what they expect to see or what they want to see. It gets even worse if you give them a chance to discuss their stories with one another.

    --
    This sig has absolutely no significance and serves only to take up screen space and waste the time of the reader.