Slashdot Log In
Car Owners to be Notified of Blackboxes in Vehicle
Posted by
samzenpus
on Mon Aug 21, 2006 05:17 PM
from the spy-in-the-cab dept.
from the spy-in-the-cab dept.
smooth wombat writes "As a follow-up to this long ago posting, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has passed a resolution requiring car manufacturers to inform buyers if their cars are equipped with Event Data Recorders (EDRs). The new regulation also standardizes what information is to be collected. Car manufacturers must comply with the new regulation beginning in the 2011 model year."
Related Stories
[+]
Technology: Spies Riding Shotgun 353 comments
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.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
I like it. (Score:5, Interesting)
One thing I've always feared: some huge speed bump because after some driving incident/accident I'm embroiled in an "I said/you said" recount of the event. I try to be as safe a driver as possible and have managed 30+ accident-free years. But almost every trip is an adventure with crazies on the road every day. This black box technology could hedge my (and others) bets on accurately describing what "went down".
I don't like the thought someone would be watching me all the time like Big Brother, but on the other hand if I get t-boned, and the other party claims I ran a red light or some other nonsense I like the thought there could be an electronic record showing the other party was traveling way over the speed limit, weaving, slamming brakes, etc. right up to the event.
It could be a great equalizer for insurance rates. It could even spur better driving in on whole by the general populace (some drivers of course and their negligence is intractable).
And, as for the breach in privacy, I don't see much demand and/or interest in the type of data described in the article in contexts other than accidents. If you're accident free, why would the data be interesting?
(Aside: I actually installed a "Car Chip" in my car for personal monitoring. Most notably I was surprised at the frequency of "hard accelerations" -- far more than I'd have guessed. The data was charted against distance, and I was able to "see" where I was "hard accelerating". Interestingly after knowing this, and paying more attention to accelerating I self-modified my habits and the mileage for my car (Civic) increased almost 6%.)
(NOTE: this doesn't address and/or discuss the notion of tracking movement and travel via mechanisms such as GPS... a whole other ball of wax in privacy discussions.)
Re:I like it. (Score:5, Insightful)
No, not really. You see, the black box can tell your insurance company that you were going 5 over the limit to pass someone, which could invalidate your claim (you were speeding). It has no idea that the other party was a 30-something on their cell phone with their laptop open, swerving to avoid the teenagers joyriding in the wrong lane with their lights off.
~Rebecca
Parent
Re:I like it. (Score:5, Insightful)
Frankly, there's a good chance that any such black box that is installed in any car I purchase will suffer the effects of a nearby lightning strike. Or maybe a transient short in the ignition system will take care of the problem. Unfortunately, odds are that this will not be a separate device but simply more memory and firmware in the existing vehicle computer.
Still
Parent
Re:I like it. (Score:5, Insightful)
And you missed the counter-argument's point.
The blackbox in the idiot's car would indicate his reckless driving.
What if it turns out HIS blackbox shows him driving straight and normal at the speedlimit. (sure he still ran a red light and t-boned you... but the blackbox shows nothing strange)... and YOUR blackbox shows you driving 2km over the limit with a recent swerves when you dodged a few pieces of debris on the road.
Sure he ran the red light, but your own blackbox paints an unflattering picture of your driving.
Its a knife that cuts both ways. Some times it will cut both ways at once; sure it might identify the other driver as a weaving/hard braking idiot -- but what if it also shows you were going slightly over the speed limit or had done some recent swerving around? Your insurance company might still nail you with higher rates or reduce their coverage.
Parent
Re:I like it. (Score:4, Interesting)
Gotcha... tell them you were speeding up front so they don't even have to look at the black box before assigning you some fault. (And perhaps writing you a speeding ticket; after all you confessed.)
The parent clearly said he was a safe driver.
What exactly does that mean? He never speeds?
What's safer: driving 5mph above the speed limit with traffic, or driving 5mph below* the speed limit (and thus 12+mph below the average speed of traffic)?
Hint: driving with traffic, unless it is driving inappropriately fast is safer.
* you'd have to drive around 5mph below to ensure that you never speed. If you tried to drive right at the speed limit you would still vary 2 or 3 mph due to grades, turns, traffic, etc. So to ensure you "never speed" you actually have to set your target a few mph below the limit. And doing 52-58 in a 60 when traffic is running at 65-70 *is* hazardous.
Parent
Re:I like it. (Score:5, Insightful)
"If you're terrorist free, why would recordings of all your telephone conversations be interesting?"
"If you're treason free, why would a log of all your internet activity be interesting?"
"If you're not searching for child porn, why would a database of all your searches/web browsing being released to the general public be interesting?"
Parent
A Better System (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:There is always a cost.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:There is always a cost.... (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:There is always a cost.... (Score:4, Informative)
If you can poke a hole in the police version of events, you're home free. Hell, if the Police wrote down the wrong information on the ticket, pleading not guilty = case dismissed.
All you have to do is show that the facts, as presented by the police, are incorrect, even if it is something as simple as a wrong date on the traffic citation. Knowledge of the law helps in those not-so-simple cases.
Parent
Re:There is always a cost.... (Score:5, Informative)
If you've been tagged with radar/laser, the best solution for most people, especially those with a clean record, is just to plead guilty (IN COURT -- don't pay in advance), apologize, and ask for the mercy of the court. Emphasize your record, and that you really want to keep it spot free and promise that this was a one-time thing. If your case has anything unusual about it, then it might be beneficial to argue, but in most cases it's not and will only convince the judge that you're not remorseful and therefore deserve the full punishment.
Speeding tickets are income; it's as simple as that. There's no incentive for the courts to take the cases seriously because there's a ton of cases and, for most people, the penalties are minor enough that they won't do anything beyond complaining to their friends. Hiring a lawyer usually means the case will just last longer, which will likely irritate the judge -- not what you want to do. The reality is that speeding in and of itself is not reckless or dangerous. If passing someone going 20MPH faster on a freeway is reckless, then by that logic, passing someone coming the opposite direction on a two lane road at 45MPH (closing speed of 90) must be downright suicidal, yet somehow most of the country manages such feats without much of a problem. Dodging, weaving, driving erratically, unpredictibly, and/or inattentively is what's really dangerous. The fact that speeding often accompanies those behaviors, and the fact that it's easier to spot speeders than inattentive drivers has villianized speeding. The fact that some people get mad seeing others "break the law" while they're working hard to obey it doesn't help either. These people don't question the rules; they just want everyone to follow them because they feel obliged to. They're free feel that way, of course, but it just perpetuates the situation.
At any rate, speeding tickets aren't much of a problem for most people, because they're statistically unlikely to get more than an occasional ticket. Unfortunately -- by virtue of random distribution -- some people accumulate a lot of tickets and suffer serious, life-altering consequences such as losing their license indefinately. The "simple" solution is, of course, driving the speed limit, but in most places that's tough to do. "Peer pressure" to go with the flow of traffic can be overwhelming, especially for new drivers/young people, and the flow is rarely at or below the speed limit. Nobody wants to be "that guy" with 20 cars stuck behind him. Furthermore there's no such thing as a perfect driver, since we're all human. It's just a matter of chance as to whether there's a cop around to see you screw up, and whether or not he wants to write tickets.
Parent
Changes nothing ... (Score:3, Insightful)
another new law (Score:5, Interesting)
Are police just entitled to come along and remove it from my car without my permission now? Do they have to ask?
I understand why regs take so long, usually. (Score:3, Insightful)
But if this is just about notifying buyers, it should be immediate. There's no need to give GM five years to get out a dealer bulletin and some stickers for the owners manuals.
Attorneys everywhere rejoice!! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Attorneys everywhere rejoice!! (Score:5, Insightful)
If the law says I have a right to hide something, then fuck off.
If the law doesn't, then there is no reason to pull out that asinine argument.
P.S. "your child or family member" is a great appeal to emotion.
Parent
Just one more piece of paper to sign (Score:4, Insightful)
What Needs to be required (Score:4, Insightful)
Hysterical over nothing, data doesn't leave car (Score:3, Insightful)
If the data is a loop of recent events and data is not leaving your car how are they watching you?
Re:Hysterical over nothing, data doesn't leave car (Score:5, Insightful)
"If the data is a loop of recent events and data is not leaving your car how are they watching you?"
Because in the event of an accident the police can easily download the events off the black box and use it against you in court. It's happened several times already.
That's not the collecting 5 years of data. the statement that I questioned. Secondly, I bet you are being told if the police are touching your vehicle. Alternatively your insurance company may have right to the data and they may turn it over, but you had agreed to that, so you were told. My question stands.
Parent
Re:Hysterical over nothing, data doesn't leave car (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Hysterical over nothing, data doesn't leave car (Score:5, Interesting)
now perhaps that wouldn't fly in court, but it's an interesting thought.
Parent
Re:Hysterical over nothing, data doesn't leave car (Score:4, Interesting)
I would argue that any unpublished recording or document should be considered equivilent to the memory of the person who made it; just as one cannot be forced to testify against oneself (divulge one's memories as evidence against oneself), one should not be forced to divulge private (audio, video, data) recordings that one has made. Such will undoubtably become even more important as we begin to develop ever more effective electronic (and possibly cybernetic) aids to memory, and as our technology for decoding the neural patterns in the human mind improves.
Perhaps one day we might discover a way to read a person's memory directly; will this technology be used to circumvent our laws against self-incrimination? What if the memories are encoded, not in human neural tissue, but rather in an electronic implant? Why should there be any difference? And if reading an electronic implant is considered self-recrimination, then why would an external memory device be any different? On the other hand, if one can subpoena the blackbox in the defendent's car, or the contents of the defendent's PDA or laptop, then what makes the defendent's biological memories special? Had we the technology, would it be right to submit the defendent's own memories as evidence? That would make a mockery of our laws against self-recrimination -- and yet we do the same today by seizing and entering into evidence the private documents and recordings of the defendant.
No offence is truly committed when the defendant is demonstrated guilty, provided that the infringement of the defendant's rights does not exceed the crime itself. However, should the defendant not be demonstrated guilty, then the infringement is entirely unjustified, and those responsible should be open to countersuit by the (presumably innocent) former defendant. This would go a long way toward curbing abuse of power in carrying out justice -- as would the addition of a requirement that the prosecutor be the victim of the crime (or the victim's appointed representative, but not the government), with clear (though not necessarily precisely measurable) damage as the basis for restitution (and possibly retribution; this is rather more controversial).
Parent
Re:Hysterical over nothing, data doesn't leave car (Score:4, Informative)
Been there and done that one.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The presence of the recorder will be disclosed in the fine print you don't read. Duh.
The "telemetry" of your drive will be disclosed to the rental car company (the car's owner - seems fair) in preparation for computing you bill.