Slashdot Mirror
Driver Privacy Act Introduced In US Senate
greatgreygreengreasy writes "In 2005, then-governor of North Dakota John Hoeven signed into law a bill 'ensuring drivers' ownership of their EDR (Electronic Data Recorder) data.' Now a U.S. senator, Hoeven (R-ND) has teamed up with Amy Klobuchar, D-MN, to introduce similar legislation at the Federal level. 'Under this legislation, EDR data could only be retrieved [for specific reasons].' The EFF has expressed concern in the past over the so-called black boxes and their privacy implications. This legislation, however, would not address the recent revelations by a Ford executive on their access to data, since in those cases, 'The vehicle owner or lessee consents to the data retrieval.' The bill has gained the support of about 20 senators so far."
Not that I'm skeptical or anything... but I would expect this to end up being just like the "Privacy Policy" notices we all get from banks and other places, or HIPPA - a nice sounding bit of legislation with so many holes in it, the 100-200 page bill will end up doing nothing but giving jobs to "compliance officers" while actually resulting in less opportunity for the "consumer" to sue or block the data access. Think about how HIPPA actually works, since the insurance company needs to know what the doctor treated you for, your "data" gets sent to them (if not the actual paper chart, a summary of what boil on what limb, or what infectious disease test was used). Expect that car companies will hammer this hard in lobbying...
And so, manufacturers write another line into a sales contract stating that by purchasing this vehicle you explicitly confer them rights of ownership over said data.
Only the user has the right to there data. Be it the cars back box or there cell phone or whatever else somebody cooks up. In no case my a company use that data or share with others. Is it that hard? Hell force them to serve any warrants to the owners of the data aka the person the data is about.
No sir I dont like it.
Manufacturers will simply include a condition in their contracts that authorized them to use the data in any way they want, because the vehicle owner "consented" when he purchased the car.
If your car was 100% stripped of computers/etc, you'd still be tracked by cellular, CCTV, plates/tags, dashboard cameras, eye witnesses, etc. Let's tone down the EDR, crank up external mechanisms and look good at the same time!!
WASHINGTON â" Senators John Hoeven (R-N.D.) and Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) today introduced their Driver Privacy Act, legislation that protects a driverâ(TM)s personal privacy by making it clear that the owner of a vehicle is also the owner of any information collected by an Event Data Recorder (EDR).
'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
There was a deadly vehicular altercation here locally, in which a black box was recovered from one of the involved automobiles to be used against the driver by the powers that be.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
I said this last time... Consent doesn't mean the same thing for legislators and corporations as it does for you peons. Consent is, you used it, thought about it, looked at it... thanks to intellectual property, it's not dissimilar to rape. And I believe it was a Congressman who said... hey, if it's gonna happen, you might as well enjoy it. But you know, if the intellectual property is illegitimate, then the consumer has ways of shutting that whole thing down, right?
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
I'd like a very specific warrant if they want to touch that too.
Driving is a priviledge, not a right.
You can't drive drunk, high, stupid, menacing, without a seat belt, over the speed limit or run over pedestrians. And you must have insurance.
If someone wants driving privacy, go to a private track.
There are places to worried about government intrusion, but this isn't one of them. About 80% of my driving is either to work or to a store for groceries or what not. I just want it to be safe and efficient.
Priest: "Universe from nothing, no laws of physics, sped up time"+ huge discrepancies. Creationism? No. Big Bang Theory
Consent is, you used it, thought about it, looked at it... thanks to intellectual property, it's not dissimilar to rape. And I believe it was a Congressman who said... hey, if it's gonna happen, you might as well enjoy it.
Almost.
It was Clayton Williams of Midland during his failed run for Governor of Texas against Anne Richards in the '90 gubernatorial campaign.
Likening eminent rape to the weather, he quipped, If it's inevitable, just relax and enjoy it.
His stock fell faster than Blackberry's.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
Oh hell, and here I came in becase I thought they were somehow talking about privacy issues within OS drivers.
You might recover my "black box" after an accident -- just like in an airplane crash -- but otherwise my on-board GPS is going to have "an unfortunate accident" the first day I have it. (I, of course, will NOT be buying the enhanced navigation console.)
If you want to know where I am, you can call me and ask, or wiretap my phone like they did it back in grandpa's day -- with a physical wire.
If the universe is someone's simulation -- does that mean the stars are just stuck pixels?
Soon as a pig pulls you over and takes your cell phone/gps data.
Jim Farley knows what John Hoeven is up to... http://www.businessinsider.com/ford-exec-gps-2014-1
License plate readers and traffic cameras are very soon to ubiquitous.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
davecb@spamcop.net
Note that the law says that your data is your property.Car rental companies will fight this, as will hospitals, advertisers and everyone who wants to own someone else's data, but over time they'll get the same kind of respect we now show towards people who believe they can own human beings.
davecb@spamcop.net
Here's me hoping that those recorders are accurate!
If they are i would much rather like them telling the story of a crash than multiple seperate arguments from the people in a crash.
I'd want them if and only if they are accurate and verifiable!
But, that's an iffy if...
What about all the )(*@)#!# cameras, RFID scanners, license plate scanners and such? This is like a tiny part of the Iceberg here and this legislation needs to cover those aspects as well. I'm less worried about Ford having this than I am some Barney Fife police agency who has no data retention policies and just collects it just for the hell of it. Ford at least can be handled by the courts and brought to account in a class action lawsuit. If you have systems like OnStar, rip them out all they have become is information collectors.
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
Remove the black box from the car. I know I will be.
It should be abundantly clear by now that if you don't want data misused, the absolute best way to do is to not collect it in the first place, with a poor second being to reliably destroy it some short period after the collection. Certainly once you've transmitted it beyond the collection point to a third party, it can be assumed to be available forever.
If you want useful legislation, require that the data not be recorded or transmitted. But of course we already have legislation and regulation (OBD-III) requiring the opposite.
fallacies like 'precedent'
A fallacy is another name for a heuristic. For example, one of Wikipedia's core principles is verifiability of claims to reliable sources, which any logician would identify as the appeal to authority. Likewise, the use of precedent in common law is an appeal to tradition. Fallacies are wrong when all premises are known true or false, but this is rarely the case in the real world. Applying strict logical reasoning to the incomplete information that fallible humans have everywhere but in the artificial world of mathematics produces an unhelpful result of "neither certainly true nor certainly false given the premises" the vast majority of the time.
But in a lot of cases, certainty is not needed as much as a preponderance of evidence. Someone just wants to know whether it would benefit him more to act as if a particular claim is true or as if it is false. Fallacies compensate for limited information by guessing which premises are more likely true given what information is available. For example, appeal to authority works in an encyclopedia because overall, reliable sources tend to come closer to truth than the average kook with a blog. And precedent adds predictability over time to the judicial system: similar facts produce similar rulings.
As the owner and driver of the car, I should have COMPLETE control of MY data. Anyone denying me that information is a CRIMINAL.
The only way to truly show why we need privacy is to openly display its power. If I knew about your every eye movement, facial gestures, your online activity and profiles, your health record, your breathing rate, your heart rate, and be able to influence your responses, I could very much effect your mood. I'm thinking about writing a game to relax and/or scare people, and put warning labels such as, "Don't play for more than X hours, this game might drive you to insanity etc." It would get people thinking about what we communicate digitally and why it's important to have privacy.