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.
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.
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'
That's the particular problem with this 'black box' is people are going to think it's like an airplanes black box. Airplanes have people looking at them to make sure all the sensors are working. Your car, maybe once a year at inspection. I have an older car that the seat belt sensor sometimes says I'm not buckled in, which is wrong, I feel naked without the buckle on. But, if I got in a wreck and the sensor showed me not buckled in, I'd have a job of proving I was.
I have a feeling that lawyers will turn this in to a fiasco of prove your 'black box' isn't making shit up, in which they will be right to do.
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.
So you're willing to give up your freedom for security? Ben Franklin had a saying for you.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
Ben Franklin was NOT proposing anarchy.
Neither was anyone else. Nice try, though.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
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)