NTSB Recommends Black Boxes For All Cars 612
linuxwrangler writes "Officials at the National Transportation Safety Board are recommending the government require data recorders in all passenger vehicles. David Sobel of EPIC says his group has privacy concerns - especially when drivers are unaware of the presence of the devices. Auto black-boxes have been covered here before."
All NEW cars (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:All NEW cars (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:All NEW cars (Score:4, Informative)
I think a lot of people aren't aware of the extent that this happens already. In most newer cars, if there is a major accident (most likely determined by damage to a specific crumple-zone or airbag deployment, though I'm not quite sure) the spedometer will simply stop, pegged at the speed of impact. While this is certainly not infalable, and of course the car could have been accelerating, breaking, or any number of other factors could have been in play at the moment of impact, it is designed primarily to help investigators determine cause and fault in an accident.
Re:All NEW cars (Score:5, Insightful)
The devices are just small pieces of flakey evidence that can help in confirming or questioning someones statement about how the accident went down. Without a statement they are not much use. Not at all for investigators. More for 'expert' witnesses.
Its basically back down to who has the better lawyer. I have yet to hear any person-person lawsuits to use these 'black boxes' only person - Car manufacturer. I'll give you one guess as to who is really pushing the government to mandate this. Its car manufacturers MO. Don't want liability for invasion of privacy? get the government to do it...
Re:All NEW cars (Score:5, Insightful)
No no no, it is NOT the car manufacturers who are pushing. It's the INSURANCE companies. Remember they have a vested interest in keeping track of every "bad" thing you do in order to jack up already exhorbitant rates.
I REALLY hate insurance companies.
Re:All NEW cars (Score:3, Insightful)
Insurance sucks but in all fairness the costs are really going up because of all the frivolous lawsuits which the insurance companies have to pay for. So I blame scum-bag lawyers that file those suits and the people that hire them.
Re:All NEW cars (Score:5, Informative)
-John
Re:All NEW cars (Score:3, Insightful)
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahha h ah ahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.
Get on thing straight. Insurance companies are in the business of making money. Period. End of story. They most certainly will not lower the rates of good drivers. If the insurance company got their hands on this data, the data will only be used to increase the rates of those drivers who have incidents. They have no reason or motivation to lowe
Re:All NEW cars (Score:3, Informative)
I have many reasons to hate insurance companies: how they handle claims, all the little exclusions, getting billing and coverage correct, etc. Jacking rates to irresponsible dri
Re:All NEW cars (Score:5, Interesting)
This basically sums up my views on the situation as well. I think it would be a good idea that such data be used to help determine fault in an accident. Perhaps it could even act as a deterrent to reckless unsafe driving. However such technology doesn't offer the descretion that say a police officer or judge has in determining the guilt in say exceeding the speed limit. What if you are speeding because you are trying to get a dying relative to a hospital or something? The law says that you are speeding, a police officer can determine that perhaps you actually need some help not be punished with a fine.
I can easily see however that transport departments would be eager to be able to query the data to apply tickets, especially to bolster the money made from fines and help the fill the government coffers.
Re:All NEW cars (Score:5, Interesting)
The issue described by the parent of this post is profoundly important. It goes to the very issue of citizen rights. In a country where your rights are issued you by the State and you live on its permits, the logic of allowing this sort of information to be used against you without a serious condition such as an accident or personal injury is hard to understand. There you didn't have the rights anyway. In such a case there is no question of the use of this data.
In Nation(s) such as the USA where the Citizen has the rights and they are leased to the State by a Constitution, the authorities must have "Probable Cause" to bring a warrant. (Real or imminant danger of an offense) A person cannot be compelled to testify against themselves. In such a State this data is not just a matter of its existence, it is a matter of violation of citizen rights to compel it.
I know I will hear from some idiot who remarks about driving not being a "right" but a "privilege." This has always been a questionable ruling of law covering the requirement to carry a drivers license and for "implied consent" for Drug testing of drivers (DUI). If people accept that such an "implied consent exists, they may as well allow electronic devices that can control the car's speed and prevent violations all of the time. But this would defeat the purpose of the violations and citations because they are really issued for revenue reasons and not public safety reasons.
Also violations that are issued by vending machine as these would be have absolutely no consideration of circumstances or conditions.
It might be acceptable under "Probable Cause" to evaluate the data if an accident has occurred. There you have probable cause to look.
Non USA posters will probably not understand this because the logic of most if not all other nations is that the power is the right of the State (Nation syn State) and a person merely gets their rights from a State. Note the (s) after State(s) above. The USA is 50 Nations in a Constitutional Federal Republic. These are nations on their own right. Several of these States approximately equal the greatest of States of the rest of the world (Non-USA) in economic power. Most of these States (USA) have armed forces ranking on their own in the world as world powers and I am not talking about the US Army/Air Force/Navy etc. The Citizens of these States(USA) have their rights and they lease them by Constitution to the States etc.
Blah Blah Blah... (Score:3, Insightful)
Except that recently, all of your rights went out the window. It is only a matter of time before bad things creep into your criminal and civil case files.
If an attorney will subpeona it, and your car is in a tow lot or in a police impound lot, there is a judge somewhere that will allow it. At that point, just getting it in
Re:All NEW cars (Score:5, Insightful)
You have the absolute right to drive a vehicle any time you want, any way you want without registration or license in the US... as long as its on your private property.
The government isn't granting you the privelidge to operate a motor vehicle, they're granting you the privelidge to operate that vehicle on property owned by the state. The state owns the roads. The state owns the highways. They can (and will) grant you license to use them, and can (and will) revoke that license.
If the government wishes to require that vehicles operated on their roads must track your speed, be able to limit that speed electronically, be disabled by officers or any other option, if the lawmakers representing the people pass those laws, thats just the way it is. Pull that crap out and drive around in circles inside your private compound if you don't like it. You have that right.
I disagree with this as well, but it does nothing to help prevent these laws from being passed when you use silly, irrational arguments spouting about personal rights like one of those "IRS is illegal" whackos.
Re:All NEW cars (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:All NEW cars (Score:3, Insightful)
Think about it - people did move around before the inven
Re:All NEW cars (Score:3, Informative)
Not true. For a long time California had two drunk driving statutes that were virtually identical except one was "on a highway" and the other was anywhere else. (Note: "highway" in legal terms means essentially any public street, road, etc.) I believe there was a similar split for reckless.
They have updated the laws since I last looked at
Re:All NEW cars (Score:3, Informative)
You should get out of this irrational "State ownership" crap. Try leaning towards the reality embodied in the term "the S
Re:All NEW cars (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:All NEW cars (Score:3, Interesting)
Maybe to some but not to the people in charge. If they were able to stop all speeding their budgets would be massively reduced from the lack of income generated by speeding tickets and they'd find some other way to harrass people to generate income. Speeding tickets are big money to most police agencies.
Re:All NEW cars (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem is the logging in the first place. What if you were required to carry a voice recorder wherever you went? What if you were required to have cameras always on inside your house?
Then, the moment anyone has probable cause against you, your 5th amendment rights are useless beca
Re:All NEW cars (Score:5, Informative)
From what I've heard on previous discussions on slashdot and elsewhere, these things as a general rule only record a continuous 15-second queue of material - storing 100,000 miles worth of one second data plots covering speed, breaking force, steering direction, etc would be fairly difficult without more extensive equipment and storage, not to mention largely unproductive. The black boxes are only interested in what happened the last 15 seconds before the crash, which is useful information.
//tinfoil hat off
~Will
New Car Hard Drive Hack (Score:3)
Replace it with your old 40 Gig drive. The system still works, but now it only records the last few days of driving, instead of the complete record.
It's almost like getting a free car!
Re:All NEW cars (Score:3, Interesting)
Hmmm...the police can determine you need help and not issue you a ticket you say? Yeah, I guess that makes sense. I mea
Re:All NEW cars (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:All NEW cars (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:All NEW cars (Score:5, Insightful)
Enforcing laws that the majority disagree with using machines merely brings the law into disrepute. There's a reason why we have people enforcing most laws, because they can actually decide when behaviour is dangerous and when it's not, and act accordingly.
A machine can't make any such decision: your 'black box', for example, would happily let people drive at 35mph in a 35mph limit in thick fog on a snowy road, but would stop them from driving at 40mph on the same road in clear weather. That's ludicrous and most people understand that... enforcing laws in such a stupid way will simply convince people of clue (at least those not already convinced) that the law is an ass.
I'd also add that in the last decade we've seen speed cameras almost completely take over from traffic police for traffic law enforcement here in the UK. The end result is that the standard of driving in this country has gone from quite decent to absolutely appalling, and the death rate, which had been dropping for decades, has started to go up.
Re:All NEW cars (Score:3, Interesting)
22350. No person shall drive a vehicle upon a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable or prudent having due regard for weather, visibility, the traffic on, and the surface and width of, the highway, and in no event at a speed which endangers the safety of persons or property.
IANAL, but as far as I know, at least in California, the posted speed limit signs are "suggested" speed limits for drivers; meaning it's not a hard legal maximum speed at which you can drive
Re:All NEW cars (Score:3, Informative)
Re:All NEW cars (Score:3, Informative)
Maximum speed limit signs will be either be 55mph-70mph signs. You exceed this speed by 1mph, and you can receive a citation. Basic speed law #22350 does not apply.
However, regarding a speed limit sign, these limits are set based on some set of traffic surveys and street conditions (I'm not sure of exactly h
Re:All NEW cars (Score:4, Funny)
Re:All NEW cars (Score:3, Informative)
Sections 22349 and 22456 have to do with highway speeds and the maximums allowed (55, 60, 65, or 70, depending on surveys), and 22351 has to do both with driving on a highway at less than posted speeds and with enforcing and challenging prima facie speed limits on streets and alleys.
Summary:
Re:All NEW cars (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:All NEW cars (Score:2)
How about your abuse? (Score:3, Insightful)
Lets put it differently, what would you call someone who is charged with rape and ordered to donate DNA for investigation and then says NO because it may finger me in previous rapes I commited?
I think current law is pretty clear. "THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT DIPSHIT".
So claiming this black box will stop you or at least catch you at breaking the law IS EXACTLY THE REASON THEY ARE TRYING TO INTR
Re:How about your abuse? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is an entirely different situation.. obviously if you've been ORDERED to provide a DNA sample, there is a QUESTION as you whether or not you were involved with the crime.. hence, you were CHARGED with rape in the first place..
A better question would've been, what would you call someone who is NOT charged with rape and ordered to donate DNA for investigation and then says NO?
I'd call that guilty until proven innocent..
Re:"If they want my DNA, give it to them" -- sad.. (Score:3)
You seem completely willing to trust
-- that your DNA will be **requested** only for purposes you approve (and not for things like investigating dissidents in the guise of investigating crime)
-- that your DNA will be **used** only for "honorable" purposes
-- that your DNA, AND ALL INFO RELATING TO OR PROCEEDING FROM IT will promptly be eradicated.
Despite the actual historic
Re:How about your abuse? (Score:3, Insightful)
It's called the 5th Amendment. You have the right not to incriminate yourself.
And no, people don't want their cars looking over their shoulder. There's nothing wrong with that either. You say it's using technology to proove someone broke the law, which if it was, would be perfectly fine. But it's using technol
Re:How about your abuse? (Score:5, Insightful)
You are worried that someone abuses the black box but you are abusing the absence of a black box by breaking the law.
Let's not forget that he may be abusing the absence of a hidden camera in his bedroom to break the law there too. And he sure could be abusing the absence of a GPS implant in his skull to go places he shouldn't.
It's not just the system mis-used to capture non-criminals that alarms me, but the system used at all to treat people as guilty until proven innocent. If you ask me, it's you if-you're-not-breaking-the-law-you've-got-nothing- to-fear types to blame for the privacy and liberty we've lost thus far.
Re:How about your abuse? (Score:3, Insightful)
Be careful with your assertions.
I think, if you had suggested to the proud owner of a brand new '55 model whatever, that the day would come when little boxes would be stuck in their cars that could tell the police everything they did on the road, they'd laugh and say that would never happen.
Re:How about your abuse? (Score:3, Interesting)
Its been pretty private so far....in many states, the car is an extension of your home, hence you can carry a gun in it.
I think the question is...why should the car become LESS private than it is now? There is no compelling reason to make it less so than it is now.
Re:How about your abuse? (Score:3, Insightful)
Privacy? It's irrelevant t
Re:All NEW cars (Score:3, Insightful)
Or the other person (such as me
Sounds like an excellent market for a mod that feeds the box a hard (or slightly varying) upper speed limit, to be f
it's for the children! (Score:5, Funny)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:it's for the children! (Score:3, Insightful)
"I am too small for Big Brother to even care about".
I amused that folks are so presumptuous as to think that the government really cares what they are doing. The "government" doesn't care a whit about if you speed or not, or even if you buy Coke or Pepsi, or even if you buy anything at all. The only time you have to worry about "them" is if you do something big enough to get on their radar.
I think people confuse "government" with "the local guy in power who wants to strut his/her stuff".
Interesting Train of Thought... (Score:5, Insightful)
Then the opponents of black boxes mentioned that sooner or later, insurance companies & Big Brother(tm) would be pushing for mandatory black boxes.... and not just for noble purposes! They reasoned that a new insurance policy could introduce some new limitation clauses - like if you were going more than 3 mph over the speed limit when an uninsured motorist collided with you, your uninsured motorist coverage would be voided.
Well, here we are, a few years later and NIST is recommending mandatory black boxes.
Skeptics: 1
Naive Technology Connoisseurs: 0
Re:Interesting Train of Thought... (Score:2, Interesting)
Unfortunately, because we have voided our personal responsibility in accidents to insurance companies, it will be left to the insurance companies to decide what is best for THEM and their share holders, not their insurance customers.
Much like insurance companies trying to declare bankrupcy to get out of paying claims in California after the big earthquates in SFO and LAX, because they were undercapitalized...
But, should an in
Re:Interesting Train of Thought... (Score:2)
Good (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Good (Score:2, Funny)
Oh well, I guess I'll just have to play Gran Tourismo on the in-dash.
Re:Good (Score:3, Informative)
Auto-driving systems need good measurements of what's happening right now, but they don't exactly depend on the black box because they don't particularly care about what's happened in the past... they only need data on what the present state is and what future actions have been announced by others.
Black boxes, by definition, record what has happened over a given interval and keep that data on non-volitile memory so that the infomation can survive a crash.
In
Proposal (Score:5, Interesting)
1) The black box will register things such as speed, acceleration, position of the steering wheel, gear shift, pedals, emergency brake, etc.
2) It will not monitor stuff such as GPS
3) It will loop every [30] seconds or so (just a suggestion, maybe a little more)
4) Data will only be available following a crash in which injuries or serious physical damage resulted or with the owner's consent.
5) Optionally, this information will not be available to insurance companies or for prosecution in either civil or criminal cases. I think that the data should be available, but I can see valid objections to this.
That way the safety people get what they want -- a system that will provide information about what happens in a crash -- while not acting very big brothery.
Problem (Score:2)
Such black box info is already discoverable in civil and criminal cases in several states. Why make it unavailable?
Seems like it would be easier to ascertain the truth in court with scientific readings, rather than with two parties' lawyers arguing with each other.
Re:Problem (Score:2)
That's why I think it should be available. However, I can certainly see how forcing people to carry a device in their car that would provide potentially incriminating evidence could be seen as a violation of search and seizure and the right against self incrimination.
However, I think the public good of having what would probably be a significantly higher ra
Re:Problem (Score:5, Insightful)
People like you are the ones allowing our Civil Liverty to go down the tolit. You really mean you want to give up ANY MORE privacy to the U.S Govt just so we can see who was wrong in a car wreck..??
This is what the media does for the govt they scare people all the time with this car accident lead to 60 people dead, this black drug dealer killed 2 white wemen, we are changing the US state of alert to code RED because terrorists are in the US be carefull at your local malls and stores.
Then the next thing you hear is this bill got signed to protect us against terrorists (Patriot Act gets signed), make GUNS illegal so Black drug dealers can't shoot white wemen with them any more.. new gun laws get passed (more criminal have guns less Citizens have them)... now we need black boxes in cars because 60 people died.. black boxes help law enforcement with car crash investigations (read, INS companies get off the hook more often and are paying less and less claims due to black boxes), Single Mother Killed in Car Accident, Hit by drunk Driver family asking community for support due to INC company refusal to pay because she was going 6mi over the speed limit children devistated, New Sky Rise Complex gets built in Denver Colorado Today (INS companyes have more money to invest in realestate)...etc...etc...etc..
Really WANA save lives protest your Govt from invading countries and blowing them up, stop the media from acting as an agent of terrorism, I think 9pm news causes more terror then the black drug dealer I walked by down town yesterday.
WAKE UP, stop buying into all this B.S hype!!
Re:Problem (Score:4, Insightful)
I see a black box as an only means to be exonerated in crashes involving things such as road rage. Sometimes there's a crash where they cannot reconstruct what happened. This data might be all that is needed to understand what happened.
Sorry, I do not understand how knowing what a car was doing X seconds before a crash intrudes on civil liberties in anyway. If someone had access to it whenever they wanted then maybe, but that's not the case now, is it? Who says you/next of kin does't have to sign to have the data released? Who says there doesn't already have to be probably suspicion?
I gotta fire this right back at you. If you want to PROTECT civil liberties, do NOT simply attack every form of progress that could be used in such a manor. DO make sure that when the technologies are adopted your concerns are addressed.
Given the people I share the road with... (Score:5, Insightful)
Any black box recording technology has the ability to be abused, but the potential for abuse flies in the facce of this:
Jeff - Killed in 1987 by a drunk driver.
Carole - Killed in 1993 by a wreckless driver.
My HS Prom King and Queen - Killed in 1984 by drunk driving.
Peter - Paralyzed from waist down in 1982 by an elderly person who could no longer drive.
Tonya - Scarred over 80% of her body by a car fire started when rear ended by a speeding car.
Lisa - Killed in 1996 by a driver who lost control while speeding around a curve.
There are many more I can recount, both dead and alive who have been victims of people who had no business driving a car. The little black boxes might help get them off the road and save lives. As far as using them for anything else. We (the people) will allow it to go just as far as we are ignorant. I am certain it can be abused in so many ways. I am not certain the deaths and maimings it would be able to prevent (or the simple correct assignment of cost of damages) would be that light a reason to install them.
I can not think of any reason to be afraid of a black box unless it pinpoints you being somewhere that you should not have been. (I may be being naive). Black boxes record only enough data to determine what caused an accident to happen. Driving habits could be incorporated, as could other data. Would it be worth it if it cut the number of people killed and maimed on our roads in half?
InnerWeb
Re:Given the people I share the road with... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Given the people I share the road with... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Given the people I share the road with... (Score:3, Informative)
Then it'll only be confirming what the investigators already know from the tire marks left on the road.
Don't get me wrong - I've nothing against black boxes in cars, with the usual provisos about only recording relevant information, only being available in the event of a crash, etc. Your example is nothing that conventional methods
Re:Given the people I share the road with... (Score:2)
Re:Given the people I share the road with... (Score:3, Insightful)
Which does nothing for the victims of those accidents.
Your emotional response to tragedy is making you ascribe magical properties to devices.
KFG
You need better drivers and drivers education (Score:5, Insightful)
At least support something that will solve the *root* of your problems: doing away with generations of bad drivers teaching their kids who turn out to be even worse drivers.
which are notoriously corrupt (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:You need better drivers and drivers education (Score:4, Informative)
Long ago when I took my drivers' education course at the high-school, my other classmates didn't care about learning the rules. They thought they already knew enough, because they know how to press on the pedals...
It didn't help that one of the worst drivers in the class missed 7/15 of the multiple choice questions that it takes to get a license to drive in Texas, yet the grader working for the Department of Public Safety said, "Well, we will just pass you anyway."
I think that in the United States we need a very rigorous written AND on-street test and that drivers should be retested yearly.
I think that the laws in place ought to be enforced ALL THE TIME. If the speed limit is X, then you had better not drive over X MPH, even if you think it's a stupidly low limit. The solution to "bad laws" isn't to break them, but to get them changed (granted, this doesn't happen as quickly as just breaking the law.)
I think that routine traffic laws can be enforced by automatic device. I do not think that this violates anyone's privacy rights. I think that a person's right to privacy is severely diminished when a person is in a public place (like streets...) Privacy laws are intended to ensure that what you do in private stays there, not to make sure that you can break the law if you don't get caught. The law is the law and if you break it, why does it have to be in front of a police officer to have any weight?
I do note that I do not have a solution to the problem of ensuring that automatic enforcement is accurate and unabused. I am sure that it is possible, but I am also aware that some police districts in the U.S. are corrupt. That still does not give anyone permission to break the laws that are in place.
I'm all for it (Score:4, Insightful)
Offtopic ~ If health insurance companies really consider your life to be worth a million dollars, why don't they provide life insurance?
People will speak out against these things ... (Score:2)
While this may come off as a joke, I'm being %100 serious. I wouldn't be surprised at all if this has some implications on exact when these black boxes do function and when they don't. (IE: they only work when the car is in motion, etc)
Sunny Dubey
Why don't we just skip all this stuff... (Score:5, Insightful)
That's where this is all heading at this rate. If it's not the "well reasoned" tech connosieurs pointing out how the new technologies will benefit us, it's the "terrified of terrorists" crowd crowing about how terrorists need to be stopped at all costs.
Baby steps to 1984. Or is it brave new world? Either way, liberty and privacy are slipping away like sand through our fingers. Yeah, black boxes could do alot of good things, but you have to believe in Santa Claus at this point to not think this isn't going to be used against us.
Re:Why don't we just skip all this stuff... (Score:5, Insightful)
2. Do you seriously believe that once the black boxes are in cars, and once the populace is used to the idea, that government WON'T expand on its use? 30 minutes? Why not 90 minutes in case the car's involved in a hit-and-run? Who can argue against that? Why not RFID transmitters on your car too so when you speed past a checkpoint, they can ring you up for speeding? At that point, why not an RFID transmitter implanted in your arm so that the speed trap can detect exactly who was behind the wheel?
3. There is no reason for the government to be monitoring our activities. This should really be the first argument against this kind of nonsense. What I do in my car, even for 30 minutes at a time, is NONE OF THE GOVERNMENT'S BUSINESS. The Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution denies the government the ability to watch over us without probable cause. Are you seriously suggesting that all drivers will probably do something illegal with their cars?
4. I believe privacy concerns would be assuaged somewhat if you limited such "black boxes" to only those who've been convicted of traffic crimes more serious than a simple speeding ticket, and only for a limited time (a form of parole or probation).
5. If an insurance company wanted to give out a large discount for drivers who plant these devices in their cars, more power to them. I'm sure many consumers, who are not worried about privacy, would be more than happy to get a 40% discount on their insurance. The libertarian in me wants to say that's between the insurance company and the driver, but the problem is, our nannies, er, I mean, government, has decreed that all shall have insurance, and there's a slight bit of regulation on the whole industry, so that plan wouldn't work.
6. Please, please stop with the "benefit each and every person" platitudes. It only serves to mark you as naive.
Re:Why don't we just skip all this stuff... (Score:3, Insightful)
2. What's the problem with that? If you're not br
Re:Why don't we just skip all this stuff... (Score:3, Insightful)
"religious nutjobs" and "smoked too much reefer" displays more than you know about your lack of education on the subject.
It has nothing to do with brainwashing, in my case: it's a simple reflection on the vast history of different governments, what's worked, and what's happened time
This would be ok if... (Score:5, Interesting)
2.the owner of the vechicle must be able to get access to the data (i.e. dump and read it, not change it)
3.the only other people who should legally be able to read it are the police with a warrant. (or e.g. the NTSB or some other agency, again with a warrant)
4.It should be illegal for anyone else (e.g. mechanics) to dump the data without permission from the owner.
and 5.they should not record any information that would link the car to the location the car was at at the time the data was collected.
Not very well thought out (Score:2)
Re:This would be ok if... (Score:2)
no surprise (Score:4, Interesting)
It won't make people safer. It won't stop people speeding. After a week drivers will forget the thing is even there, till someone somewhere uses the data in it to fuck them in the ass. (Metaphorically.)
We all commit traffic violations, however minor. Once the population are all criminals, they're *so* much easier to control.
Discussion never going to be settled (Score:5, Insightful)
The pros are simple. Lets make it go a bit further and install a box in very car that records exactly what the car is doing at all times. Furthermore if a car is found driving without a box the police will know instantly and can stop it.
What will happen? Well a sharp drop in car thefts, kinda hard to steal a car that is constantly reporting were it is. Tech like this is already in use and it is helping.
Currently hit and runs are on the increase. With such a system the offending car could be easily traced.
Fewer high speed chases. Police can just hang back and see where the car is going to end up.
People disabling the device would have the problem that the car "winks" out on a certain spot. Very easy for the police to then raid the shop were the device is disabled.
No more need for speed camera or police resources wasted on policing the roads.
So a clear win eh?
After all what is on the CON side?
A lot whining, oh such a black box means I can't lie about an accident anymore. I can't speed anymore. I can't use my car in a crime anymore.
Yeah well guess what, society depends on people not doing these things. So the only ones hurt are criminals and who cares about them.
Any person that raises privacy issues and names one of the above points is an enemy of privacy and is probably being paid to undermine the real privacy advocates.
The real issue with any system like this can be illustrated by the following question. IBM once was asked to setup a system that allowed a certain country to register the religion of each person and that of their parents. Pretty harmless right? Right, read up on the holocaust sometimes and more importantly read up on the time between when the registration took place and when the gas chambers opened.
The problem is not how such a black box will be used now. The problem is 10-15-20 yrs from now. When someone totally different then the current goverment may be handed a tool that tells them exactly where everyone is.
Sadly this issue will get overshouted by all those who don't want to be fingered by their own car in an "accident" who don't want to get a fine because their car reported it was speeding. The criminals protesting are in fact the advocates for introducing such a system.
Personally I am undecided. Cars seem to get more and more out of control with the drivers somehow loosing touch with basic human values. SUV's are expensive gas guzzlers wich are hard to park, don't fit on roads, are unneeded and have a far higher chance of killing in an accident (pedestrians don't stand a chance and small cars get crushed) and yet SUV's sell like hot cakes.
For some reason when people get in a car they seem to need the state to watch their every move or they won't behave by the values they themselves told the state to enforce.
Perhaps the greatest enemy to privacy is human nature. Give a human anonimity and he won't human anymore. Just play a round of CS or chat on freenet and you will see what I mean. Perhaps we need a big brother/community watching over us.
Hell, test youreselve, read /. at -1. No? Then you want a police webstate.
Re:Discussion never going to be settled (Score:5, Insightful)
But, you know what? I live in a small, central European country that is regularly used by large truck convoys to get from A to B. A lot of the drivers, despite mandated rest stops and trip recorders are tired, doped up on speed, bored, inattentive, whatever.
A few days back, I was tootling along on the highway, actually doing the speed limit for once, looking for my exit, with big fricken heavy transports ahead of and behind me. Out of nowhere, don't ask me, I didn't see him approach, this monster freighter passes the guy behind me and, not seeing my little Audi, decides he wants to be where I am. What do I do? I punch it. Real fast. 200 km/h ensured that I was not where that truck was going to be. 80 klicks over the limit is one hell of a ticket here, and you try talking your way out of that one, especially with an overzealous cop.
Same thing last week--an over-tired old guy in a sedan (must have fallen asleep at the wheel) veers out next to me. Once again, punch it and get away. Yes, there are legitimate grounds, however thin and contrived they may seem, to break traffic rules. An unfortunate side effect of playing big brother to casual speeders (like me) is that you also, inevitably nail the innocent. And frankly, I do not trust police bureaucracy to adequately differentiate between the two.
As for No more need for speed camera or police resources wasted on policing the roads. -- well guess what? Who nails tailgaters? Drunk drivers? People who recklessly endanger others in various ways? I _like_ having cops knocking about my roads. One helped me when we broke down in the middle of nowhere once.
Speed cameras? Go ahead. Put them by tunnels, construction sites, schools, blind curves, anywhere a speeder can _really_ endanger others. But don't start with this blanket surveillance horseshit--it's not going to make anyone safer, and will inevitably be misused as a revenue generator for cash-strapped PDs. No, I don't think this reasoning is an excuse so I can go on speeding--I am not a dangerous criminal, but I DON'T WANT TO BE WATCHED 24/7 OUT OF BASIC PRINCIPLE.
As for the rest of your post, well thought-out and written. Look up "Hollerith machines" for more info--link here [jewishvirtuallibrary.org].
And I wholeheartedly agree with you about the SUVs.
Re:Discussion never going to be settled (Score:3, Interesting)
Technically in my state in the US it is ok for me to have a little flashing red light in/on my car to "warn" other drivers when on the way to the station, but legally they do not have to get out of my way, nor am I allowed to break any traffic laws in my personal vehicle. Only once we
Have faith, someone will hack these things... (Score:2, Insightful)
Then it's just a matter of figuring out how to install Linux on them.
Security, not privacy (Score:4, Insightful)
Asl ong as it results in... (Score:4, Insightful)
Does this really get in the way of my privacy? Nope. I don't think the Black Box is going to read my mind and broadcast my thoughts for all the world to see. It's not going to track everywhere I go through GPS and inform some insidious 'Shadow Government' of my whereabouts.
Nope, all it should do is contain crash data. I don't see anything wrong with that.
Re:Asl ong as it results in... (Score:5, Insightful)
Slight problem: the only traffic law it will be able to tell if you obey is driving below the speed limit, and it's been well established that the safest drivers are the 85th percentile by speed, which is usually above speed limits on American roads. So if you always stick to speed limits you're probably a significantly more dangerous driver than many people who break them regularly.
But the biggest problem with this rabid attack on speeding is that it's nothing to do with safety, and everything to do with restricting personal mobility. Only a very small fraction of accidents are due to people driving faster than the speed limit, and the concentration on speeding means that people come to think they're safe if they just stick to the number printed on a piece of metal at the side of the road, and provided they drive that slow there's no problem with not indicating, cutting people up at junctions, driving along reading a map or talking on a phone, or any of the other stupid things I see people doing on the road every day. Those morons are being completely ignored here in the UK because there are almost no traffic police left to do anything about them, while speed cameras sprout everywhere.
"Nope, all it should do is contain crash data. I don't see anything wrong with that."
Right, and speed cameras will only ever be used in accident black-spots.
Seriously, you're incredibly naive if you can't see yet that every time the government introduces a 'sensible' measure like this it's just to get their foot in the door to use it to control the population. Have fun a decade or two from now when you're living in a total surveillance, total control police state, brought about by these 'safety' measures.
But how does it know? (Score:3, Interesting)
1) How does it know if you're obeying traffic laws? the only thing it could track is whether you're under the speed limit, and that isn't really the primary determination of whether you're a safe driver.
2) When has your insurance rates ever been lowered for any reason? I've been driving for almost 30 years, and they've never gone down. How will you know they've gon
Stupid Case to push Legislature on (Score:3, Insightful)
They came to that determination without testimony from the driver, George Weller, who refused on his lawyer's advice to talk with the investigators.
OK, so he says I push on the gas and ploughed over people BY MISTAKE. Since the BLACK BOX could not READ HIS MIND I fail to understand how such data would straighten this case out.
There are, however, many cases where a black box could help. In fact as we understand it, much of this data is recorded allready by airbag circuitry.
No expectation of privacy (Score:4, Insightful)
Our rights online (Score:5, Informative)
Anal Slashdot People (Score:3, Insightful)
I used to be against, but now I am for (Score:4, Insightful)
However I have been in numerous accicents, all but one of which were not my fault. However two of those incedents the insuance companies settled with a mutual fault decision.
I think having the data logger would very clearly show what exactly happened, and in those two cases, save my insurance rates.
Now, big brother can watch you, or they can watch your back for you. Unless these black boxes have unique identifies and wireles signals, I'm venturing it'll be watching your back for you technology. As long as someone has to get into my car (get physical access from the box) and plug a reader in, the only time I'm going to allow that is under court order or if I am innocent. If police start black-box checking at road blocks for speeders liek the do drunks, then I would not be for this. However I do think it is an impractical scenario.
Now as moore's law applies eventually they wil be able to store 100,000 miles worth of data. Not only that but an on board accelerometer can establish your every lane change and turn. You can then coalesce the data and come up with every place you've driven to.
The easy way to fix this is just to limit it to the last 5 minutes or 5 miles, which is done easily enough.
Now on the subject of speeders. Every speeder has to admit that if speed was a factor it should be known. After all we know we do speed. However if speed is not a factor because of a larger violation (failure to stop, etc) then I doubt any court will see your minor speed infraction as relavant. But if it is a major speed infraction, then you can have unclean hands, because mostly likely you would not have caused the accident.
If you are so concerned about speed, then get off your butts and change the laws. And I think that is the reasonable and right way to address your concerns. If we all speed, then that is civil disobediance on a wide scale and the laws need reform.
Remember only criminals are afraid of the truth (in an accident).
One more time... (Score:4, Insightful)
In addition, driving a motor vehicle on a public road is, by definition, A PUBLIC ACTIVITY that is witnessed by hundreds of eyes. Therefore, one CANNOT HAVE ANY EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY WHILE DRIVING A MOTOR CAR ON A PUBLIC ROAD.
Hence, a black box in a car is perfectly acceptable.
And no one bitches about black boxes in aircraft, locomotives, trucks and buses whose drivers have to fill-in log-books. So why should a private motor-car be treated any differently???
"If they want my DNA, give it to them" -- sad... (Score:3, Insightful)
You seem completely willing to trust
-- that your DNA will be **requested** only for purposes you approve (and not for things like investigating dissidents in the guise of investigating crime)
-- that your DNA will be **used** only for "honorable" purposes
-- that your DNA, AND ALL INFO RELATING TO OR PROCEEDING FROM IT will promptly be eradicated.
Despite the actual historical evidence from police behavior in even the most "liberal" of countries, you retain such trust.
How sweet.
It's really depressing to be reminded of the number of people who are seduced by the argument which says, "If you're doing nothing wrong, what have you to fear?"
Some famous person said, "All that is required for evil to triumph, is that good people do nothing."
Log kept for how long ? erasable? (Score:5, Interesting)
Has much thought been given to the quantity of data involved and how long it will it need to be archived ?
Accidents happen very quickly and so, to be useful in accident analysis, readings would have to be taken many times a second. Readings would probably include wheel position, accelerator position, braking state, grip, suspension movement, temperature, weather(!) as well as all the internal readings from inside the engine. This could amount to a considerable stream of data.
How would this data be stored ? Solid state or hard drive ? Would there need to be a mandatory minimum size for the log? One week's data or one year? Could it be an offence not to have enough capacity?
Would the on-board log wrap round or would it get reset? Could the driver reset the log? Would it be an offence to reset the log immediately after an accident?
If the log was used for maintaining the car would the garage doing the servicing have to download the log? Would they have to pass on details to the police? Would you be allowed to carry out servicing at home or only at "authorised" garages?
In imagining uses for this log it is interesting to note the differences between the US and the UK when it comes to the use of aircraft "black boxes". US airlines are required to record a minimal set of parameters and then these are used as part of any crash investigation. UK airlines, on the other hand, are required to record hundreds of parameters and each log has to undergo computer analysis after every flight. This analysis looks for values (or combinations) outside normal ranges and is used to trigger preventative maintenance and more detailed safety inspections.
GM and Ford already make the data available. (Score:4, Informative)
Does anyone know if any of the other large manufacturers (e.g., BMW, Toyota, Honda) do this? Is there a list somewhere?
Here is a link [sfgate.com]to see how the data is being used from GM and Ford vehicles.
And now, the Rest of the Story (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:why not? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:why not? (Score:5, Insightful)
You also misunderstand the technology, black boxes are passive monitoring devices. They transmit nothing, they just record.
Re:why not? (Score:2)
Re:why not? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:why not? (Score:2, Interesting)
This doesn't necessarily mean that it's a bad idea, but the "...if you never break the law..." arguement is naive in the extreme.
Re:How is this a bad thing? (Score:3, Interesting)
Are you being serious? You do realise where the concept of a "black box" first got started? They've been in aeroplanes for years.
Another question is what happens with cars shipped overseas. If a car is made in America for use in England, what happens to the black box? What if a car is made in the UK, where it doesn't have to have a black box, only for the owner to emigrate to the States taking his car with him? What if a car is made in Canada and the owner regu
Actually that is just the container (Score:2)