Black Boxes In Cars Raise Privacy Concerns 297
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."
Welcome to MA (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Exculpatory evidence? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
it does work in the defence's favour too - you can prove you hit the brakes, and the speed you were travelling at, so if you hit someone who jumped into the road in front of you, you'll be able to say you weren't running them down.
Collection of data for insurance purposes is another matter though, that's more a way for a corporate to wheedle out of their financial responsibilities than it is to keep the roads safe.
Re:Exculpatory evidence? (Score:5, Interesting)
I would like to say thank you for pointing this out!! It goes both ways! It can help prove your innocence as well!
As someone who was involved in a fatal traffic accident where a 14 year old boy skateboarded out into the middle of the road in front of my truck(it was pitch dark out, the kid was wearing ALL black with no protection crossing a busy/main 4 lane road, oh and from the toxicology report, stoned off his ass), without that black box in my truck I would be in jail for manslaughter right now. The reasons for such is that the police were able to identify 1) Speed information before and after crash 2) Braking information - When did I apply my brakes, How long did it take to reach a complete stop, etc. 3) Steering Information/Angle 4) Seat belt information 5)Impact information and with this information they were able to ascertain that there was no possible way for me to stop in time without my prior speed having been an endangerment to other drivers (35 in a 55 zone to have stopped in time based on where I was first able to see the kid).
Re: (Score:3)
The defense is not given full access to the data ,only to data that has been selected and processed by the government.
[citation needed]
Anyone with a diagnostic cable and the car has access to the data.
Not everything is a privacy concern (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Not everything is a privacy concern (Score:5, Insightful)
And don't say "slippery slope fallacy". It's only a fallacy when there's no clear way for it to progress that way. Just like security cameras, traffic cameras, and phone records are sliding that way black boxes will.
Re:Not everything is a privacy concern (Score:5, Interesting)
Recently Germany installed some plate reading cameras near border with Poland to help looking for stolen cars. It didn't yet catch any stolen car, but did catch two drivers without valid insurance. Your theory is already happening.
Re: (Score:3)
Good. Driving around without valid insurance is worse than stealing cars.
Re: (Score:2)
And don't say "slippery slope fallacy". It's only a fallacy when there's no clear way for it to progress that way.
Last I checked, search warrants, prison terms and lots of other things have not slipped down the slope.
Just because you can imagine the slope does not mean it is slippery. It is good to be aware and cautious. Being paranoid and calling every change a slippery slope is overdoing it.
Re:Not everything is a privacy concern (Score:5, Informative)
When was the last time you checked? We've now got warrantless wiretaps, indefinite detainment, we have to submit to a rapiscan to travel long distances, and the provisions of the TSA are coming soon to a highway near you.
Re: (Score:2)
Check again.
Re: (Score:2)
Those rules will change. For safety. Always for safety.
Also to fight terrorists.
I love the 'privacy' arguments here. (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The point isn't the black box itself; the point is the government being able to subpoena it to use as evidence against you. There's nothing wrong with a manufacturer using the information for its own purposes. As to insurance companies using the data, let's put that argument aside, because it's a separate argument from the one about government using the data. The central question is the one concerning self-incrimination in a court of law. That's the use black boxes can be put to, and using them for that pur
Re: (Score:2)
It's very similar amounts of information, and if one of my loved ones was killed by someone that was lying
Re:I love the 'privacy' arguments here. (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't agree, and largely because you don't have a 'right' to drive within the United States, which is likely where they'll draw any legal help for challenges within the US. You also have limited rights in public places. What's the difference between a black box in the car and investigators measuring your travel speed using a camera from a gas station across the street? Or even in the same parking lot?
I'd say about the same difference between unmarked cars following your car around 24/7 and a GPS tracking device.
Yet the Supreme Court unanimously found that there was a significant difference in that scenario; that the later required a warrant (while the former didn't)
Sometime technology makes something so easy or so covert to widely accomplish that it, in practice, makes it effectively a change in kind not just degree. When that happens laws are written, or courts can find, that because something has become far easier to do that additional protections are required to maintain an acceptable level of practical freedom.
Re: (Score:2)
1. Is it legal for the recorders to be installed, configured, and enabled in vehicles?
2. Is it legal for insurance companies to require these devices to be installed, configured, and enabled?
3. Is it legal for insurance companies to retrieve this information? To share this information? And under what circumstances
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not saying such information should be available to RFID to a police officer that pulls you over for speeding, but the data should be available for review in criminal cases with subpo
Re: (Score:2)
Wait a minute. First of all, it's not just any government that can subpoena things. It only comes through a court process. Secondly, subpoenas work both ways: both the prosecution and defense can subpoena to the same extent. Thirdly, equal access to evidence by both the prosecution and the defense is guaranteed, and most judges can put you in a lot of hot water if you're interfering with access to evidence. Another misunderstanding here is that of self-incrimination. Self incrimination is about what you vol
Re: (Score:2)
Just because it's a digital data recorder and it's mentioned on slashdot doesn't make it special.
But it's done with a computer. According to the patent office, and by extension the government, that makes it completely different....
Re: (Score:2)
Your argument makes no sense in a story about the government requiring a black box in every new car.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The system is working pretty much as
Re:I love the 'privacy' arguments here. (Score:5, Insightful)
That is so much bullshit. [slashdot.org]
You have a right to privacy, and it is the government's remit to protect that right against all who would trample it, just as you can't sell yourself into slavery, enter a contract that obliges your vote, or dictate that an employee or renter go to church. And with your examples, you don't get to put an asterisk and say "except where denied by law" when you say stupid shit like that, it's an absurdity. It's saying "this categorical statement is true, except where it isn't".
And the government didn't give us that right, it exists simply because we demand it of them. It's funny to see the libertarian herp-a-derps get that backward, treating the Constitution like it was a magic freedom fountain from which the rights flow.
Re: (Score:2)
What, like souls? You believe in magic?
Did these rights exist when human society was pre-literate, and the only government was tribal strong men? Did these rights exist before we evolved the ability to speak?
When the bear has its mouth around your skull, do you protest about the violation of your natural rights?
Re: (Score:2)
Reminds me of an astute comment years ago... (Score:2, Informative)
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.. (Score:3)
...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?
About time (Score:2)
(1) Much stricter licensing requirements, including mandatory defensive driving courses and road tests required for renewal, paid for by much higher license fees.
(2) Strict enforcement of traffic laws, including red light cameras and speeding cameras.
(3) A complete e
Re: (Score:3)
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 ten
Re:About time (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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 nati
Re: (Score:2)
I'm all for stricter enforcement of traffic laws, but red light cameras simply don't work [schneier.com].
Re: (Score:2)
"A complete end to "right turn on red"."
In my experience, places where you can't turn right on a red are more dangerous. Drivers turning right on red lights stop, look, then turn. Drivers who have to wait hit the gas on a green and run over pedestrians. Frequently they only see the green light because they've been texting during the red.
Re: (Score:2)
Too many people live in suburbs where not being able to drive means utter dependency. The problem with democracy is, if everyone wants to drive, then we aren't going to erect a lot of meaningful barriers against it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Safety, safety, safety. Thanks for the TSA!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, let's legislate countless people into using inadequate public transportation (if it even exists in their area)
I forgot: (5) Steeply increase gasoline taxes, with the funds earmarked for public transportation.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's the buses themselves that are uncomfortable. And incredibly inconvenient. My current commute of a hour each way would become *four* hours each way using public transportation, and my personal cost would skyrocket (according to google, it would take me five bus transfers, commuter rail, a subway, and a three mile taxi trip....)
Buses are great for the environment and traffic congestion if they're full, but you gotta run a lot of quarter-or-less full buses if you want enough routes and frequently spaced
Re: (Score:2)
Well, for you it would probably be "left turn on red" but it says that, if you're turning right, you can go on red once you come to a stop. Only applies to the right-most lane that is allowed to turn. There is also left-turn on red if it's one-way street to one-way street.
People often don't come to a stop, and ignore the "rightmost lane" rule.
It was introduced in the US in the 1970's due to the energy crisis of the time, and was universal (per Wikipedia) in the US as of January 1 1980, except for New York C
Seatbelt? (Score:3)
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.
Re:Seatbelt? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
In a well-working court, no individual piece of evidence alone is sufficient. The sum is what matters.
So if eye-witnesses say that they are sure you were driving damn fast, and the impact damage is examined by an expert who concludes you were doing at least 70, and the black box says you were driving at 74.5 at the time of impact, then the evidence is conclusive.
If the eye-witnesses say you were the same speed as everyone else, and the impact gives and estimate in line with that, while the blax-box says you
Re: (Score:2)
What eye witnesses? In most cases the only witnesses to a car crash are the participants. Everyone else is long gone by the time the cops show up to take statements.
Personally, I have a lot more faith that an impact analysis than either of the other two options. It's going to have a lot more basis in reality than a magic black box that has gone through 10 years plus of weather extremes with no maintenance check whatsoever or any (notoriously inaccurate) eye witness account.
Re: (Score:2)
Make it the driver's responsibility to keep the black box in working order, in the same manner as headlights and blinkers.
Re: (Score:2)
Not to mention what your body will show.
I was in a low speed accident once and you just had to wait a day to see the seatbelt bruise.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. The crash didn't happen at 100mph. I think he might have been driving 100mph at a point before the crash.
Wrong Motivation? (Score:2)
If these "black boxes" were installed (hidden away) in all new cars for years -- then why is the new law needed?
Since 1996 IIRC all new cars sold in Merika had to be equipped with a *Uniform Plug Interface* called OBD2 so independent mechanics and civilians could access the CPU and associated subCUs and sensors' information, and reset dash warning lights. They were in no way hidden away -- in fact, the position of the access plug is specified quite clearly in the reg so it will be easy to find.
ECUs that re
I got out of a ticket (Score:2)
Cellphone leashes and now this... (Score:2)
... I'm so glad I got to be a kid in the 80's. Not all of us survived, but we had some epic car rides.
Is he Superman? (Score:2)
100mph no belt a crash and he walks away?
Re:So wait now (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:So wait now (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:So wait now (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
In looking for info about this I found a news article that he wrote a check to the state government to cover the value of the car - $8965.67, which is probably right for an older Crown Victoria, probably with many miles on it from government service, possibly as a police car.
http://bostonherald.com/news/regional/view/20121005tim_murray_paid_9000_to_cover_crashed_car_costs [bostonherald.com]
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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...
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
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 informat
Re:So wait now (Score:4, Insightful)
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)
Re: (Score:2)
While I treasure the right to not testify against yourself, I am also a firm believer in truth. I don't mean that in any philosophical sense, I mean facts of the physical world. Your speed at impact is such a fact.
I believe that in all walks of life, we are better off if we follow the facts. While your personal interest in a lawsuit is to get the best result for yourself, the social purpose is to arrive at a fair judgement. And that begins with establishing the facts.
The problem with the inquisition and tor
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Compare it to a flight data recorder. The pilots surrender that specific freedom to be able to fly and earn their wage for their chosen profession. They know about it, and they willingly accept it.
The only thing wrong here is that the public isn't generally "in the know" about these, but the premise is the same: you are using a federally funded system of roads, there are requirements for its use, public safety is involved, so it is not unreasonable to add on a requirement that a car data recorder be in pl
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:So wait now (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh bullshit. This has nothing to do with one guy that got caught in a lie. If true this is an extreme privacy concern. The government has no right to know where I've been or what I've been up to unless I want to tell them.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I think you're taking things a wee bit too far. Cars can have black boxes, that's IMHO good. If, during a legal proceeding, someone subpoenas said black box, that's usually perfectly within the bounds of the legal process in the U.S. Unless the court seals the records (rare for traffic cases), everything that came up and got admitted into the record is a public record. It's not any different than subpoenaing human witnesses of the accident.
Re: (Score:3)
It is a privacy concern, yes (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
You missed the part where he's a public official driving a public vehicle. It's hard to think of a worse example for the article poster's point.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a bad example to be sure.
Right or wrong, much of this is an attempt to re-balance the scales. You have an accident, the insurance company wants to deny coverage because they somehow have determined that you were going 1/2 MPH over the speed limit. A child runs into the freeway and you hit him. Naturally you feel terrible but weren't at fault, but the DA needs to 'do something' about 'the problem' so you're on trial.
The natural counter-action is to deny everything always and fight against anything that
Re:So wait now (Score:5, Insightful)
- 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 ?
Wow every American huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Take your european haughtiness (Score:2, Insightful)
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 R
Re:So wait now (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Welcome to the internet.
Re: (Score:2)
Because in a lot of European countries he'd be arrested and jailed for not being nice, or disparaging someone or the government, or saying "Ha!" to some broad that offs herself because she can't figure out how to do her job.
Simply put, the US won't put them in jail for exercising free speech.
Re:So wait now (Score:4, Informative)
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 [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Americans (well, a few of them) take vacations to London and Paris and do it in person while calling the waiter "garçon."
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Important difference (Score:2, Insightful)
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
Re:Important difference (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Important difference (Score:5, Insightful)
Ben Franklin was NOT proposing anarchy.
Neither was anyone else. Nice try, though.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The thing is, we can always sacrifice freedom for security. It is a one way ratchet. Going the other way usually is only done in a complete revolution.
Re: (Score:3)
No, he's saying he wants people to be accountable for their actions.
You're already responsible for your actions behind the wheel. The question is, do we have such a problem with holding people accountable that we really need this? Will it solve a huge problem, so significant that it warrants the nationwide deployment of a device like this? Is that the only intended or likely use of these?
And how mandatory is this? Can I decide to rip this widget out of my car? Would the car continue to operate? Will all cars have it, by whim of transportation safety authorities? Would remov
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Okay, well, I've arbitrarily decided that your right to privacy in your home isn't important because people do commit crimes in their homes. You should have no problem with this; it's for your own safety.
Re: (Score:2)
That's why that quote from Ben Franklin is appropriate: you're giving up some
Re: (Score:2)
Recording someone's every move is different than someone spotting you in a public place.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I drove a '98 Grand Marquis (essentially the same car as this Crown Victoria) for a few years. It handled better and was faster than the (V6, 3.8L) '96 Firebird that I totaled right before I bought it.
The Lt. Gov. paid for the car he crashed by writing a check for under $9,000, so it was probably a former police car. Those are faster.
Re: (Score:3)
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.