Car Owners to be Notified of Blackboxes in Vehicle

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."

whoo hooo!!

5 years of collecting any kind of data we want, without telling anyone!

Re:Hysterical over nothing, data doesn't leave car

""5 years of collecting any kind of data we want, without telling anyone!""

"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.

Re:Hysterical over nothing, data doesn't leave car

The data is my intellectual property. Their copying it violates my copyright. Even the insurance companies are scared of the DMCA.

Re:Hysterical over nothing, data doesn't leave car

while totally irrelevant, it lead to an interesting thought... the data in the recorder is a unique pattern generated by the drivers purposeful actions- eg the data was explicitly designed by the driver and therefore is automatically copyrighted on their behalf..

now perhaps that wouldn't fly in court, but it's an interesting thought.

Re:Hysterical over nothing, data doesn't leave car

i don't think that argument would fly, but if it's a unique expression of the owner would it not also be self-incrimination?

I would argue that any unpublished recording or document should be considered equivilent to the memory of the person who made it; just as one cannot be forced to testify against oneself (divulge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).

Re:Hysterical over nothing, data doesn't leave car

Not until I agree to the insurance payoff and sign it over, it's mine until then.

Been there and done that one.

I like it.

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.

This black box technology could hedge my (and others) bets on accurately describing what "went down".

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

Re:I like it.

No, you missed the GP post's point.

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.

Re:I like it.

If you're speeding then don't say you weren't, and the black box won't be used against you.

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.

Re:I like it.

Ultimately, it comes down to who has control of the data. If the police can routinely interrogate these devices without the vehicle owner's permission (much less a warrant) then they are of little value to the consumer. The preliminary OBDIII (On Board Diagnostics III) specifications that I've looked at include the ability for cops (or anyone with the proper equipment) to retrieve information from these things wirelessly and without notifying the driver. I really don't think I like that.

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 ... firmware can be replaced.

Re:I like it.

"If you're accident free, why would the data be interesting?"

"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?"

Good move...

But what happens when all cars have black boxes, and there's no way to avoid buying a new car with one in it?

A Better System

What also needs to happen, in addition to informing the buyer of the existence of such a recording device in a car, is to have the buyer decide whether or not such a device should be disabled/removed before purchase at no extra cost or liability to the buyer.

Re:There is always a cost....

Why should anyone ever have to prove their innocence?

Re:There is always a cost....

Have you ever challenged a traffic ticket in court? Did they require the state to prove their case? How else would you get out of the ticket?

Re:There is always a cost....

Have you ever challenged a traffic ticket in court? Did they require the state to prove their case? How else would you get out of the ticket?

Actually... yes, they require the state to prove their case.

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.

Re:There is always a cost....

Most judges won't dismiss based on something as minor as the wrong date. In some jurisdictions (Virginia, for example), even something like the cop not showing up won't automatically get you off (despite the fact that he's the only witness, therefore you're losing the crucial right to cross-examination).

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.

Changes nothing ...

This changes nothing. Try to get car insurance without agreeing to give your insurance company access on demand.

Renters?

Anyone know if this information will be required to be disclosed to vehicle renters?

another new law

Do we ALSO need a law to indicate that it's illegal to remove my own property from the car and then destroy that property if I'm in an accident? Imagining that it's my fault, that is. It's not evidence of a crime, unless I intentionally caused the accident.

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.

After all, the life cycle of a car, beginning with design, is just plain long. They can't just mandate that beginning tomorrow, every car made will have 'future technology 1' embedded. Fine, that makes sense.

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!!

I was telling an attorney friend about EDR's and his response was "really? I suppose that means I can subpoena that information and admit it for evidence. Unless it's ruled self-incrimination..." We spent about an hour discussing and it brought up a whole bunch of interesting questions: Is the information on this machine considered part of a persons "papers or effects" or is all information now property of the government court to be surrendered on demand? Is destroying this device considered tampering with evidence... do I have a right to smash up my own car (computer, books, diary, etc.)? If not, I think this intrudes on my property rights. Where does the court's right to information about me end and my rights to my own property and information begin? Is it safe to say "none of your damned business" any more?

Re:Attorneys everywhere rejoice!!

In this particular case, the argument "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" flies pretty well because the information on the device could exculpate the defendant as well.

That argument NEVER flies very well.

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.

In other news...

Bush vows to end America's dependence on foreign oil by 4922.

Typo

Or is the NHTSA a newly hated acronym. National Highway Traffic Safety Asministration

Freudian slip?

As a follow-up to this long ago posting, the National Highway Traffic Safety Asministration has passed a resolution...

Somebody almost made a Freudian slip.

Useless and unreliable

As we all know, "black boxes" used in planes are pretty useless because they often fail at key times, failing to record any useful information. Or, at least, that's what the 9/11 Commission would like you to believe...

Makes me glad...

The fact that this is a problem people have to deal with makes me glad I bike to work.

Of course, I'm also glad that the car my wife and I own is from 1990. We're considering getting a newer car, but only for safety reasons (airbags). As with many software manufacturers, car companies hope their customers will feel compelled to buy a new model every few years. They also don't give much tangible reason to upgrade: my 16-year-old car still gets an average 28mpg.

With the potential privacy concerns, obvious expenses, and lack of ostensible improvement over older cars, I don't understand why anyone is buying new.

Everyone is watching everything!

Well this is crazy! I'm about ready to leave it all behind. I'm going to jump in my car and drive away and no one will be able to find me. Oh.. wait. Damn you technology!

Just one more piece of paper to sign

Notification laws aren't that useful. California has one that requires businesses to post warnings of "hazardous substances". Problem is, damned near everything is a hazardous substance under this law. Consequently, every business has one of these placards and nobody pays any attention because if we did, we'd never be able to buy anything. This notification will just end up as another piece of paper in the mound that nobody ever reads and that we sign whenever we buy a car. I suppose it will have the benefit of letting the seller say, "We told you about this" when some dope comes back a few years later, upset that his black box recording ratted him out as going 100 mph just before the crash.

RTFM

Not sure if it's the same in the US, but this info is already disclosed in Canada(and I assume in other places), in the car's manual. Has anyone actually read their manual to check if they were actually informed of it before saying how violated they feel?

Smash it

If you don't want the information exposed if you are at fault, just smash the self incriminating evidence. They can't use it against you if its in 500 different pieces.

But wait

Okay, I'm no expert, but I do know a little something about automotive control systems, and my understanding is that part of OBD-II is that vehicles record at least 30 seconds prior to and after any event that bears reporting; this is called snapshot data. In most systems, only one snapshot can be stored, and there are IIRC four levels of criticality; snapshot data is overwritten when a more critical message must be logged. At that point, the last 30 seconds of data is written from RAM and, if processing continues, the next 30 seconds are recorded. One of the things that can trigger this event is if the airbag computer indicates that the airbag has deployed.

Mind you, this is on 1996 and newer vehicles - and some vehicles went OBD-II before the deadline. I believe (just as an example) that the 1995 Nissan 240SX is among them.

self-incrim. isn't just anything u don't want seen

A lot of people think that somehow a recording black box producing evidence against you is "self-incrimination" (in case it was your fault in an accident), because the black box belongs to you and is your property. But this completely misunderstands what self-incrimination means.

Self-incrimination is forcing someone to orally testify against him or herself in questioning or trial -- a compelled confession for example, which in our early (colonial, for example) jurisprudence was unfortunately not a foreign concept, and is understood to be highly dubious by any informed jurist. It is limited to that specific act -- testifying against yourself.

For some reason, people think it applies to any act on their part that could demonstrate that guilt, or by extension even evidence produced by something in his/her possession or by someone of his/her acquaintance. That's simply not the case, and an awful reach.

As the caselaw says: a person is immune from having to provide evidence against him/herself. But that does not mean he/she is immune from having that evidence produced [by some other way]...

Consider the license agreement?

Consider the license issues and privacy issues with this software.
You dont own it, you have a right to use that can be removed,
they can look at what you are doing, yada yada yada...

I would bet that you wont own your car for much longer - the
Licence agreement around this data and these computer systems
will soon go the way of the software agreements that we put up with.

The good news is that perhaps one day we may see a GPL car.

What's Good for GM is Good for America

Just in time for the gas to run out. They can't give me my flying car, but they can give the NSA an event log of my location to crossreference with my phonecalls.