Slashdot Mirror
Black Boxes In Cars Raise Privacy Concerns
hessian writes "In the next few days, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is expected to propose long-delayed regulations requiring auto manufacturers to include event data recorders — better known as 'black boxes' — in all new cars and light trucks. But the agency is behind the curve. Automakers have been quietly tucking the devices, which automatically record the actions of drivers and the responses of their vehicles in a continuous information loop, into most new cars for years. Data collected by the recorders is increasingly showing up in lawsuits, criminal cases and high-profile accidents. Massachusetts Lt. Gov. Timothy Murray initially said that he wasn't speeding and that he was wearing his seat belt when he crashed a government-owned car last year. But the Ford Crown Victoria's data recorder told a different story: It showed the car was traveling more than 100 mph and Murray wasn't belted in."
I was born and raised in Massachusetts and this is just the culture of the State Police. Anyone who regularly drives on the highways has been passed by a cruiser with it's lights off doing 90 in the passing lane. After his first lies didn't pan out he retcon'd a new story about being asleep that fit the black box data.
Could it not be used in the defense's favor as well? For example, to prove you came to a full stop or weren't speeding? You'd need a way to collect and save teh data so it's both available and admissible; but a sword can cut two ways.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
It is simple. As long as the black box does not automatically transmit the data, and as long as there are rules who, how and when they can access it (court order?). Then there is no privacy violation.
The guy broke the law, tried to lie about it and now that's called privacy concern? Oh the hypocrisy.
He's a politician. It's not hypocrisy; it's simply his preferred form of reality.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
I live in the United States, where people enjoy the right to not testify against themselves. That means nothing if a person is forced to pay for and travel with a device that will record possibly incriminating testimony which must then be surrendered to the courts. Sorry, but the right to be free from self-incrimination is the historically progressive innovation here. What you're talking about belongs to the days of the Inquisition. From the way you tell it, it seems like it's the Old World that's a little behind on the times.
quiquid id est, timeo puellas et oscula dantes.
- Last time I checked it wasn't slashdot.us either
- Yes, even americans do wander in some "foreign" websites (as if it meant anything on internet) and voice their opinions. What's wrong with it either way ?
Not all Americans are egotistical jerks. Just the lower...I'd say 7% or so? Pretty much anyone who shows up on Maury or Jerry Springer.
If you've done nothing wrong then you have nothing to hide. Now show me your identity papers and PICK UP THAT CAN!!!
Euros are so used to being "subjects" rather than citizens they don't understand that freedom means you shouldn't have to submit to constant surveillance.
I have mod points. The reign of terror begins now.
Okay, let me break this down for you easily.
1. Car makers can put whatever devices in their cars they want. It's up to you, the buyer, to either not buy cars with black boxes OR to petition your local/state/federal politicians to make selling cars with black boxes illegal. You have either choice, it's up to you.
2. Insurance companies can require black boxes in cars if they were factory installed in order to be insured. Though there may be laws that they might be breaking because many states require auto insurance, but I'm not a lawyer. Either way, again, two options: vote with your wallet or make this practice illegal by approaching your politicians.
3. The aforementioned black box information does not have to be admissible in court for criminal penalties, but insurance companies could black ball you for information obtained from the box. Also, affected victims do have the 100% right to go after you for CIVIL penalties related to any crashes. The only time the 'government' matters is when there is involvement of criminal penalty. A civil court could mandate that the black box information be passed over to the victimized parties for review, or the data retrieved from therein.
I like how people talk about 'right to privacy' but each example I've mentioned still falls 100% within the boundaries of privacy laws AND more importantly, the US Constitution. Remember, such 'rights' are only granted against GOVERNMENT, but private parties can require whatever the hell they want. You can bitch and moan up a storm about right to privacy and whatnot but remember, private parties have far more leniency compared to personal information. For example, a government might require a warrant to obtain information on you ; but a PI can do whatever they please. The only reason a PI is limited is because someone somewhere said it was fucked up and got laws added.
Paraphrased from a decade ago on Slashdot:
"That's the downside to driving around a 1500 lb chunk of steel and aluminum. You aren't allowed to hit anyone with it."
...of course, it becomes a 'privacy concern' to the government, when a government official is the one whose 'privacy' is being exposed.
You know, one of those 'elected public officials' who probably should have the least expectation of privacy from their voting public?
-Styopa
Not so much this guy. He drove a government-owned vehicle and has a public function so his duties include giving a good example, and so he has less expectation of privacy. And yes, I'd be inclined to allow law enforcement access to such data in the case of a deadly incident. Though "breaking the law" is debatable as road rules generally aren't "law", merely rules. Yes, there's usually a difference, though I haven't the faintest about the details of the road code(s) relevant to this.
But there is a privacy concern, and if you ignore the guy and his incident in TFA, it's pretty clear later on what the problem is. It's about adding recording devices to cars without the owners knowledge or consent. That was a problem before the law requiring this came into force, and it's still a problem now. There is also the problem of reliability of the things that may or may not be quite the same as the perception (electronic thus infallible, just like "biometrics" is generally taken to be infallible but is anything but). Aeronautical black boxes are tightly regulated. These things, not so much.
What if the storage fails in a way that shows incorrect data and you do end up in an accident when only driving 50 but the device showing you've been zigzagging and doing 90 (which you were just before it burned out, but on a privately owned racecourse a couple weeks prior)? Or what if someone manipulated the recorder to frame you? It's unlikely, but not impossible, and if this sort of thing is going to be used as evidence against the owner of the vehicle it had better have safeguards and tamper evidence mechanisms built-in.
And then there's the question of who owns the data and who may access it when, at what cost, how, that sort of thing. On top of that there's the problem of various promises made ("only use for law enforcement, honest!") when such promises are routinely broken in similar situations elsewhere.
So yeah, plenty of problems with this practice. The example isn't a particularly good one, but laws turning your car into evidence against you is a bit much, innit? Then just gimme a robotic car and have someone else be liable for its mistakes, thanks.
Simply put, the US won't put them in jail for exercising free speech.
Simply put, the US is in no position to lecture anyone about incarceration rates.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Looking at the picture of the car and having been in several high speed accidents I find it hard to believe he did not have his belt on. I got thrown out the back window of a Chevy Suburban in an accident where I was doing about 80mph and I got beat to hell and spent 2 weeks in the hospital. After that I started wearing my seat belt but didn't really slow down until years later. High speed accidents are unbelievably violent and often even people properly belted die or are seriously injured. I hit a guard rail at 50mph and even belted I couldn't believe how much it hurt. I had an 80 pound toolbox in the hatchback and it smashed through the backseat and crushed the passenger seat against the dash. Thankfully I was alone in the car. If this guy really wasn't wearing a seat belt then he's the luckiest SOB around.
They didn't. That's why life expectancy was so short.
The actions you take in your car bear a much higher risk if KILLING ME than the actions you take inside your home.
While most people don't secretly build bombs in their homes and blow themselves and their neighbors up, many, many people exercise negligence while driving which does kill (or badly injure) their neighbors (the highest cause of death is driving through your neighborhood).
So, this difference in risk and consequences justifies a difference in handling.
As a good driver who has been victimized by a bad driver who broke the law, crashed into me, lied about it, and managed to get ME ticketed for it, I am happy to accept a black box in my car. It can be used to demonstrate my innocence, and hopefully to prevent other drivers from driving as badly as they do.
I love my right to privacy, and I love YOUR right to privacy, in our homes and on our computers. But not while barreling around on public roads.
I live in the United States, where people enjoy the right to not testify against themselves. That means nothing if a person is forced to pay for and travel with a device that will record possibly incriminating testimony which must then be surrendered to the courts. Sorry, but the right to be free from self-incrimination is the historically progressive innovation here. What you're talking about belongs to the days of the Inquisition. From the way you tell it, it seems like it's the Old World that's a little behind on the times.
In this case the vehicle was not owned by him, it is owned by the employer i.e. the government who has every right to sue and claim damages of their property and also have the right to instal any sort of device on their car without requiring the consent but the after disclosing the fact to the user.
The so-called choice to buy another car is moot in this regard once all car manufacturers have them.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
I agree to a point, but for the most part some of your recommendations have to be balanced with the needs of the country. Drivers losing their licenses for injuries is a bit much considering the US as a whole has rather abysmal public transportation. A suspension of a license with remediation is fine and should be encouraged, as long as fault is established.
I disagree with the end of "right turn on red", but I do think it should be more strictly enforced. Right turn on red is AFTER STOP, but most people tend to ignore the stopping part. Again, a black box would help provide this information assuming the stop and turn was within the range of the recorder.
The one nice thing about these things is that they will help establish fault better. I'm currently involved in a traffic case right now (thank god no injuries) where a person merged into me on a road without signaling and without looking. Apparently, accidents involving "merging" are very difficult to prove fault and information like this would help determine that. For example, returning information on turning of the wheel without a blinker, etc. would be IMMENSELY helpful in these situations. I'd say a lack of using signals for turning and merging is one of the top causes of accidents within the US, they just can't really do anything about it because it's nearly impossible to prove.
Okay, so you reckon that the evidence he was speeding and not wearing a seatbelt is "self-incrimination"? So by the same token, if I cut your throat does that mean that the knife I have that's smeared with your blood is inadmissible because handing it over would be "self-incrimination"?
Good to know...
Just look at what you wrote, think about the meaning you were apparently trying to convey, then about what meaning was actually conveyed.
America's a big place with lots of different people. Some of them are interested in the wider world, some aren't. I've met some of the most ignorant (racist) and provincial people in Europe, but I don't extrapolate that to EVERY EUROPEAN.
What's wrong with right turn on red? You look around, if the way is clear, you go. Simple enough.
The major difference between the European and U.S. approach is that stricter licensing laws would pretty much put a large part of population out of work. In most European cities you can live just fine without a car. For the majority of the U.S. population: forget it. You won't get your groceries, you won't get to work, you won't be able to do anything much. Sometimes you won't even be able to go for a walk.
A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
>It's not any different than subpoenaing human witnesses of the accident. It's completely different: there's no law requiring a witness to sit in on my driving.
If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
No, but if the knife was, by law, required to keep a record of everything it was used to cut and the police were allowed to come into my kitchen and check its records, then yes.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
And shove it up your ass. The U.S. operates this way because, and I'll point it out since you can't remember your own contintent's history, tyrants used to dictate our every move from 2,000 miles away, almost 300 years ago. We have certain freedoms which protect individual rights because of our experience with their abuse. Let's also point out that EUROPE is PARTICULARLY NEW on the INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS front. They couldn't completely come to terms with the concept until the 1950s European Convention on Human Rights was convened and votes to enact a large set of human rights regulations through out it's member countries.
By the way, we still don't trust high and mighty assholes that live 2,000 miles away.
In the case of Lt. Gov. Murray, it was a vehicle owned by his employer.
Employers routinely monitor the driving habits of the drivers of their vehicles. Ask any trucking or delivery company.
There is no privacy concern or fifth amendment issue in his case.
As a side comment, it's pretty amazing that you can crash a car at 100 mph, not wearing a seat belt,and say anything afterward, isn't it? Twenty years ago he would have been dead and none of his "scandal" would have happened except an accident investigation and a funeral.
The preferred solution is to not have a problem.
I live in the United States, where people enjoy the right to not testify against themselves. That means nothing if a person is forced to pay for and travel with a device that will record possibly incriminating testimony which must then be surrendered to the courts.
The historical root of the privilege against self-incrimination is the use of torture and intimidation to extract confessions. It is one of the few exceptions to the general rule that all relevant evidence is admissible.
In most trades and professions, there are log books or black boxes which record and document your actions every working hour.
Nurses. Physicians. Pilots. Railroad engineers. Ship captains.
It happens in industry. Finance. IT. Education. It happens to the self-employed. You need a license. You need insurance. You need a banker. You need an accountant. You need clients and customers who have been burnt once too often by the guy who works off-the-books.
Taking to the public roads is a privilege not a right.
You need to prove your competence to manage a mult-ton vehicle on both city streets and the high speed expressway an examiner. You need to establish your financial responsibility. The condition of your vehicle. Your sobriety on the road can be tested at any time.
If you crash, your vehicle can be impounded for forensic examination --- often very revealing black box or no black box.
FWIW, when Mr Murray was driving the vehicle, it was owned by the state government. After it was discovered that he was speeding when he wrecked the car, it made a political promise to cover the value of the car for the state. This wasn't him buying a car from the government and then crashing it when it was his personal car.
You don't need to go that far.
If you are driving and you refuse a blood-alcohol test on the grounds of "self-incrimination", that won't buy you much in most states. By having a driver's licence (which AFAIK is not a right, but a privilege all states in the US) you pretty much conceded that you know that driving under the influence or impaired is illegal and you have consented to be tested.
Although IANAL, I see little difference (legally) in a black box and testing for DUIs (after the fact), if the information can only be retrieved after the fact and not for survelliance purposes. Your blood (or breath) records an inexact history of your recent alcohol consumption. The police officer that stops under suspicion of DUI has recorded an inexact history of the resultant car actions. This black box will presumably record an inexact history of your recent car command inputs and resultant car actions, which if only available after suspicion is almost the same thing.
I was stopped by a full of attitude cop, for what he claimed was "speeding". Even though he had no radar gun, he claimed I was doing 50 in a 35mph zone. A lie, I was doing 35. I asked him how he determined that and he said he "paced" me. He was nosing around trying to find something to charge me with, when I said, well, I won't disagree with you, but my car has a data logger, so I guess we''l have to sort it out in court. He wheeled around with a mad look on his face and asked me to explain. I told him that the car records all operational information with a time stamp, (I was fibbing, but, hey, I knew the cop was wrong about speeding), and the data can be downloaded. This made him madder, and he demanded I open my trunk (he was off his rocker- I have a wagon). Then he yelled at me about how I can't record cops. I said, sorry, it's all automatic and it does not record conversations, just data and location, via GPS. Like how long I have been stopped here at this location, how fast I was going, and speeds linked to location, turn signal use, brake use and rate of braking, acceleration etc. He realized that he was in trouble, should he give me a ticket, and I produced the data in court, so he yelled at me for being on the road late at night and drove off. These things can work both ways, you know.
Republican leadership = Idiocracy
100mph no belt a crash and he walks away?
Although IANAL, I see little difference (legally) in a black box and testing for DUIs (after the fact), if the information can only be retrieved after the fact and not for survelliance purposes. Your blood (or breath) records an inexact history of your recent alcohol consumption. The police officer that stops under suspicion of DUI has recorded an inexact history of the resultant car actions. This black box will presumably record an inexact history of your recent car command inputs and resultant car actions, which if only available after suspicion is almost the same thing.
Lets predict what the "blackbox" roll-out would look like:
v1.0 - Basic Blackbox
v2.0 - Basic Blackbox + GPS (Navigation edition)
v3.0 - Blackbox Enhanced Navigation edition (terrorist tracking edition for Homeland Security)
v4.0 - Blackbox Enhanced Navigation edition with Wireless (download capabilities for driver, Tablet App, etc.)
v5.0 - Blackbox Enhanced Wireless Navigation edition (download capabilities for Police)
v6.0 - Blackbox Advanced Wireless Navigation edition (download capabilities with Kill Switch for Police)
v7.0 - Blackbox Gold Wireless Navigation edition (automatic ticketing & reporting)
It's not hard to break 100. Most cars will do it.
Once upon a time I asked a state trooper how fast his car would go. He told me either 132 or 143 mph, but that was only because it had a limiter on it to keep it going no faster than the speed rating on the tires. If the car in question was a former police car, it would do 100 without even breaking a sweat.
The problem is the time lag between the two (decades to build-out infrastructure) and the costs (trillions and trillions for a country the size of the US and the distances involved) and population density (huge areas with little population).
Of course, the UN's Agenda 21 seeks to solve that by enacting local policies while attacking private real-estate/property ownership and rights, and transferring wealth from 1st-World nations to 3rd-World nations, all aimed at eventually resulting in nearly all people crammed tightly together in urban centers in large "government housing project" style apartment blocks.
They use warm, fuzzy phrases like "sustainable development" to mask their true intentions and the negative effects of their policies upon individual liberty, property rights, and freedom, as well as national sovereignty.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.