If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
NTSB Wants Black Boxes in Passenger Vehicles
This is either a step towards (or practically is) self incrimination,
combined with illegal search and seizure. There is no reason for data recorders in cars other than to use as evidence against a driver in an accident. Are these black boxes even accurate during a collision - where G forces and wheel slippage provide no absolute indication of what a car may really be doing during an emergency situation? Let alone equipped for the high sampling rates needed. Shouldn't these data recording systems be certified in order to even be considered as sources of evidenciary data? This is tantamount to being forced to drive with a forward-facing camera mounted in the back seat, recording everything you do. The driver should have the ability to turn the data recording mode on or off. This works both ways. Anyone who turns the data recording off will not therefor have any data that could be used against him - but by the same token he won't have any data that could be used to defend him either. Every driver should have the right to that choice. An example of the mis-use of information is the fact that (apparently) some (many? most?) US states require a fingerprint as part of getting a drivers license. This seems to have lead (a few months ago) to a Seattle laywer being arrested for having something to do with the train bombings in Spain. For reasons that I've never heard explained, they claimed that fingerprints found on a shopping bag in one of the trains matched his. How they had his fingerprints was never explained - presumably because they are required when getting a drivers license? ------------------------------ http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,132056,00.html Privacy Experts Shun Black Boxes Friday, September 10, 2004 By Kelley Beaucar Vlahos •NTSB Wants Black Boxes in Passenger Vehicles http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,127945,00.html •Evidence From Black Boxes in Cars Turns Up in Courts http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,90673,00.html WASHINGTON — Some safety and privacy experts are reacting with apprehension, others with all out condemnation over a recent ruling by the National Transportation Safety Board to require electronic data recorders or "black boxes" in all new cars manufactured in the United States. "I take offense that this personal property of individuals is now being designed by the federal government," said Jim Harper, privacy attorney and editor of Privacilla.org. Black boxes (search), or "EDRs" have been fitted into every General Motors car in its 2004 line and is in a number of Ford models — about 15 percent of all vehicles on the road today, according to road safety experts. EDRs are certainly not new. Information gathered on black boxes — typically everything from speed, brake pressure, seat belt use and air bag deployment — has already been used in determining guilt in criminal and civil cases across the country. Proponents, including the NTSB and road safety advocates, say the data collected on these black boxes is valuable for studying how accidents happen and how to make roads and cars safer. EDR data has been used for years to fine tune air bag efficiency. "We think for understanding the dynamics of crashes, the information here can be very, very helpful," said Lon Anderson, director of AAA Mid-Atlantic. On the other hand, Anderson said, "We think it would be very wrong if the data in these boxes was deemed to be public information, open to anybody and the owner had no say over it." The NTSB recommended in early August that black boxes be mandated, but critics say dealers are not now required to alert car owners that their car has the ability to collect the information. Currently only California has a law requiring car dealers to notify buyers when their cars are outfitted with an EDR. Owners also have no legal protections to keep them from being forced to hand over that information to another party if a court order demanded it. "I think (owners) have to be told of whatever data there is — and what is being retained longterm. What are the storage conditions? Will they keep it confidential or will they have to release information to anybody?" said professor John Soma, director of the Privacy Center (search) at Denver University. "Without all of these concerns written into it, then obviously the recommendation is completely unacceptable," he said. According to Joe Osterman, director of highway safety at the NTSB, the recommendation was inspired in part by a tragic auto accident involving a 86-year-old man who drove his car into a crowded Santa Monica farmers’ market last summer, killing 10 and injuring 63. Osterman said a black box in the car might have not saved the people in the crash, but would have allowed investigators to find out how it happened and how cars could be better designed to reduce the likelihood of greater injury in the future. "We have a long history of using data recorders in other modes of transportation and found them extremely useful," Osterman told FOXNews.com, pointing to aircraft. "Unless we have all vehicles equipped, you will not have a true picture of what is happening on the highways, in a broader sense." Phil Haseline, president of the Automobile Coalition for Traffic Safety, which represents car manufacturers, said automakers are still debating the value of EDRs, and the idea of requiring them. Haseline said he is a proponent of black boxes but has certain reservations about the NTSB’s recommendation. He, like others, said he would like to first see standardization of the type of data collected in the black boxes, much like a recommendation made in June by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Right now, dueling technologies record different things. Then, Haseline said, he would prefer that laws address the issue of a car owner’s knowledge of the EDRs in their vehicles, and that car owners have ownership of the data once its recorded. "I can understand [NTSB's desire] to have this information, but from a practical perspective, it is premature at this point to require it," he said. While privacy experts say jokes like "'big brother' is riding shotgun" aren’t funny, the technology already is being used to monitor certain drivers. Global positioning systems are being used by car rental companies to track where renters are going and how fast they are driving. GPS also allows rental car companies to shut off the engine of a car and lock a renter out of it. It’s the same technology used by OnStar, which promises to be a guardian angel for car owners who are locked out or report a vehicle stolen. Parents of teenagers have also begun to use black boxes marketed by Road Safety International in Thousand Oaks, Calif. This item, which can be placed under the hood, is able to track the driver’s use of a seatbelt, excessive speed, hard cornering, braking and even unsafe backing, and can store hours of information for review later. Privacy experts warn that once cars are outfitted for the most limited data recording, the government will find a way to argue it’s for drivers’ "own good" to collect more. They point to a push in recent years to install GPS in all cars so that emergency officials can easily find incapacitated accident victims. "When you are telling someone it is for their own good, then it should be their own choice, they should be able to say ‘no,’" said professor Yale Kamisar of the University of Michigan Law School. "None of these things work out the way they are supposed to. Why should we believe all of these assurances when they haven’t been honored in the past?" |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"There is no reason for data recorders in cars other than to use as
evidence against a driver in an accident. Are these black boxes even accurate during a collision - where G forces and wheel slippage provide no absolute indication of what a car may really be doing during an emergency situation? Let alone equipped for the high sampling rates needed." ==================================== how about evidence to SUPPORT a DRIVER in an ACCIDENT. YEAH, the person who hit me was speeding, driving erratically, and had a BA content of .18. and after looking at the red light camera, definitely drove through the red light. Sometimes it would nice to see some support for the "victim"! h |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"There is no reason for data recorders in cars other than to use as
evidence against a driver in an accident. Are these black boxes even accurate during a collision - where G forces and wheel slippage provide no absolute indication of what a car may really be doing during an emergency situation? Let alone equipped for the high sampling rates needed." ==================================== how about evidence to SUPPORT a DRIVER in an ACCIDENT. YEAH, the person who hit me was speeding, driving erratically, and had a BA content of .18. and after looking at the red light camera, definitely drove through the red light. Sometimes it would nice to see some support for the "victim"! h |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
I would have to agree with you, but once those liars... i mean lawyers get
the case it doesnt really mattter "howard" <fishfeeder@gmail(dot)com> wrote in message ... > "There is no reason for data recorders in cars other than to use as > evidence against a driver in an accident. Are these black boxes even > accurate during a collision - where G forces and wheel slippage > provide no absolute indication of what a car may really be doing > during an emergency situation? Let alone equipped for the high > sampling rates needed." > ==================================== > > how about evidence to SUPPORT a DRIVER in an ACCIDENT. > > YEAH, the person who hit me was speeding, driving erratically, and had a BA > content of .18. > and after looking at the red light camera, definitely drove through the red > light. > > Sometimes it would nice to see some support for the "victim"! > > h > > > > |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
I would have to agree with you, but once those liars... i mean lawyers get
the case it doesnt really mattter "howard" <fishfeeder@gmail(dot)com> wrote in message ... > "There is no reason for data recorders in cars other than to use as > evidence against a driver in an accident. Are these black boxes even > accurate during a collision - where G forces and wheel slippage > provide no absolute indication of what a car may really be doing > during an emergency situation? Let alone equipped for the high > sampling rates needed." > ==================================== > > how about evidence to SUPPORT a DRIVER in an ACCIDENT. > > YEAH, the person who hit me was speeding, driving erratically, and had a BA > content of .18. > and after looking at the red light camera, definitely drove through the red > light. > > Sometimes it would nice to see some support for the "victim"! > > h > > > > |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Many states require lawyers to give their fingerprints when they take the
bar exam. That is probaably how they got that lawyers fingerprints and not from a driver's license. The story is worse than you realize.... it was a terrible match and in fact the FBI experts said that the fingerprint they found was so bad that it was unmatchable with any degree of reliability. Notwithstanding when they found a Arab in the US that kind of looked close they arrested him on no other factual basis whatsoever. He's sueing the FBI now. Recently there was a Toyota story that Toyota refused warranty service because the computer said he redlined his engine. Well I know lots of software errors. Darn.... the electronic voting machines hardly work. And as the engine blew apart who knows what screwed up data the computer got. "MoPar Man" > wrote in message ... > This is either a step towards (or practically is) self incrimination, > combined with illegal search and seizure. > > There is no reason for data recorders in cars other than to use as > evidence against a driver in an accident. Are these black boxes even > accurate during a collision - where G forces and wheel slippage > provide no absolute indication of what a car may really be doing > during an emergency situation? Let alone equipped for the high > sampling rates needed. > > Shouldn't these data recording systems be certified in order to even > be considered as sources of evidenciary data? > > This is tantamount to being forced to drive with a forward-facing > camera mounted in the back seat, recording everything you do. > > The driver should have the ability to turn the data recording mode on > or off. This works both ways. Anyone who turns the data recording > off will not therefor have any data that could be used against him - > but by the same token he won't have any data that could be used to > defend him either. Every driver should have the right to that choice. > > An example of the mis-use of information is the fact that (apparently) > some (many? most?) US states require a fingerprint as part of getting > a drivers license. This seems to have lead (a few months ago) to a > Seattle laywer being arrested for having something to do with the > train bombings in Spain. For reasons that I've never heard explained, > they claimed that fingerprints found on a shopping bag in one of the > trains matched his. How they had his fingerprints was never explained > - presumably because they are required when getting a drivers license? > > ------------------------------ > > http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,132056,00.html > > Privacy Experts Shun Black Boxes > Friday, September 10, 2004 > By Kelley Beaucar Vlahos > > .NTSB Wants Black Boxes in Passenger Vehicles > http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,127945,00.html > > .Evidence From Black Boxes in Cars Turns Up in Courts > http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,90673,00.html > > WASHINGTON - Some safety and privacy experts are reacting with > apprehension, others with all out condemnation over a recent ruling by > the National Transportation Safety Board to require electronic data > recorders or "black boxes" in all new cars manufactured in the United > States. > > "I take offense that this personal property of individuals is now > being designed by the federal government," said Jim Harper, privacy > attorney and editor of Privacilla.org. > > Black boxes (search), or "EDRs" have been fitted into every General > Motors car in its 2004 line and is in a number of Ford models - about > 15 percent of all vehicles on the road today, according to road safety > experts. > > EDRs are certainly not new. Information gathered on black boxes - > typically everything from speed, brake pressure, seat belt use and air > bag deployment - has already been used in determining guilt in > criminal and civil cases across the country. > > Proponents, including the NTSB and road safety advocates, say the data > collected on these black boxes is valuable for studying how accidents > happen and how to make roads and cars safer. EDR data has been used > for years to fine tune air bag efficiency. > > "We think for understanding the dynamics of crashes, the information > here can be very, very helpful," said Lon Anderson, director of AAA > Mid-Atlantic. On the other hand, Anderson said, "We think it would be > very wrong if the data in these boxes was deemed to be public > information, open to anybody and the owner had no say over it." > > The NTSB recommended in early August that black boxes be mandated, but > critics say dealers are not now required to alert car owners that > their car has the ability to collect the information. Currently only > California has a law requiring car dealers to notify buyers when their > cars are outfitted with an EDR. > > Owners also have no legal protections to keep them from being forced > to hand over that information to another party if a court order > demanded it. > > "I think (owners) have to be told of whatever data there is - and what > is being retained longterm. What are the storage conditions? Will > they keep it confidential or will they have to release information to > anybody?" said professor John Soma, director of the Privacy Center > (search) at Denver University. > > "Without all of these concerns written into it, then obviously the > recommendation is completely unacceptable," he said. > > According to Joe Osterman, director of highway safety at the NTSB, the > recommendation was inspired in part by a tragic auto accident > involving a 86-year-old man who drove his car into a crowded Santa > Monica farmers' market last summer, killing 10 and injuring 63. > > Osterman said a black box in the car might have not saved the people > in the crash, but would have allowed investigators to find out how it > happened and how cars could be better designed to reduce the > likelihood of greater injury in the future. > > "We have a long history of using data recorders in other modes of > transportation and found them extremely useful," Osterman told > FOXNews.com, pointing to aircraft. "Unless we have all vehicles > equipped, you will not have a true picture of what is happening on the > highways, in a broader sense." > > Phil Haseline, president of the Automobile Coalition for Traffic > Safety, which represents car manufacturers, said automakers are still > debating the value of EDRs, and the idea of requiring them. Haseline > said he is a proponent of black boxes but has certain reservations > about the NTSB's recommendation. > > He, like others, said he would like to first see standardization of > the type of data collected in the black boxes, much like a > recommendation made in June by the National Highway Traffic Safety > Administration. Right now, dueling technologies record different > things. > > Then, Haseline said, he would prefer that laws address the issue of a > car owner's knowledge of the EDRs in their vehicles, and that car > owners have ownership of the data once its recorded. > > "I can understand [NTSB's desire] to have this information, but from a > practical perspective, it is premature at this point to require it," > he said. > > While privacy experts say jokes like "'big brother' is riding shotgun" > aren't funny, the technology already is being used to monitor certain > drivers. > > Global positioning systems are being used by car rental companies to > track where renters are going and how fast they are driving. GPS also > allows rental car companies to shut off the engine of a car and lock a > renter out of it. It's the same technology used by OnStar, which > promises to be a guardian angel for car owners who are locked out or > report a vehicle stolen. > > Parents of teenagers have also begun to use black boxes marketed by > Road Safety International in Thousand Oaks, Calif. This item, which > can be placed under the hood, is able to track the driver's use of a > seatbelt, excessive speed, hard cornering, braking and even unsafe > backing, and can store hours of information for review later. > > Privacy experts warn that once cars are outfitted for the most limited > data recording, the government will find a way to argue it's for > drivers' "own good" to collect more. They point to a push in recent > years to install GPS in all cars so that emergency officials can > easily find incapacitated accident victims. > > "When you are telling someone it is for their own good, then it should > be their own choice, they should be able to say 'no,'" said professor > Yale Kamisar of the University of Michigan Law School. "None of these > things work out the way they are supposed to. Why should we believe > all of these assurances when they haven't been honored in the past?" |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Many states require lawyers to give their fingerprints when they take the
bar exam. That is probaably how they got that lawyers fingerprints and not from a driver's license. The story is worse than you realize.... it was a terrible match and in fact the FBI experts said that the fingerprint they found was so bad that it was unmatchable with any degree of reliability. Notwithstanding when they found a Arab in the US that kind of looked close they arrested him on no other factual basis whatsoever. He's sueing the FBI now. Recently there was a Toyota story that Toyota refused warranty service because the computer said he redlined his engine. Well I know lots of software errors. Darn.... the electronic voting machines hardly work. And as the engine blew apart who knows what screwed up data the computer got. "MoPar Man" > wrote in message ... > This is either a step towards (or practically is) self incrimination, > combined with illegal search and seizure. > > There is no reason for data recorders in cars other than to use as > evidence against a driver in an accident. Are these black boxes even > accurate during a collision - where G forces and wheel slippage > provide no absolute indication of what a car may really be doing > during an emergency situation? Let alone equipped for the high > sampling rates needed. > > Shouldn't these data recording systems be certified in order to even > be considered as sources of evidenciary data? > > This is tantamount to being forced to drive with a forward-facing > camera mounted in the back seat, recording everything you do. > > The driver should have the ability to turn the data recording mode on > or off. This works both ways. Anyone who turns the data recording > off will not therefor have any data that could be used against him - > but by the same token he won't have any data that could be used to > defend him either. Every driver should have the right to that choice. > > An example of the mis-use of information is the fact that (apparently) > some (many? most?) US states require a fingerprint as part of getting > a drivers license. This seems to have lead (a few months ago) to a > Seattle laywer being arrested for having something to do with the > train bombings in Spain. For reasons that I've never heard explained, > they claimed that fingerprints found on a shopping bag in one of the > trains matched his. How they had his fingerprints was never explained > - presumably because they are required when getting a drivers license? > > ------------------------------ > > http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,132056,00.html > > Privacy Experts Shun Black Boxes > Friday, September 10, 2004 > By Kelley Beaucar Vlahos > > .NTSB Wants Black Boxes in Passenger Vehicles > http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,127945,00.html > > .Evidence From Black Boxes in Cars Turns Up in Courts > http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,90673,00.html > > WASHINGTON - Some safety and privacy experts are reacting with > apprehension, others with all out condemnation over a recent ruling by > the National Transportation Safety Board to require electronic data > recorders or "black boxes" in all new cars manufactured in the United > States. > > "I take offense that this personal property of individuals is now > being designed by the federal government," said Jim Harper, privacy > attorney and editor of Privacilla.org. > > Black boxes (search), or "EDRs" have been fitted into every General > Motors car in its 2004 line and is in a number of Ford models - about > 15 percent of all vehicles on the road today, according to road safety > experts. > > EDRs are certainly not new. Information gathered on black boxes - > typically everything from speed, brake pressure, seat belt use and air > bag deployment - has already been used in determining guilt in > criminal and civil cases across the country. > > Proponents, including the NTSB and road safety advocates, say the data > collected on these black boxes is valuable for studying how accidents > happen and how to make roads and cars safer. EDR data has been used > for years to fine tune air bag efficiency. > > "We think for understanding the dynamics of crashes, the information > here can be very, very helpful," said Lon Anderson, director of AAA > Mid-Atlantic. On the other hand, Anderson said, "We think it would be > very wrong if the data in these boxes was deemed to be public > information, open to anybody and the owner had no say over it." > > The NTSB recommended in early August that black boxes be mandated, but > critics say dealers are not now required to alert car owners that > their car has the ability to collect the information. Currently only > California has a law requiring car dealers to notify buyers when their > cars are outfitted with an EDR. > > Owners also have no legal protections to keep them from being forced > to hand over that information to another party if a court order > demanded it. > > "I think (owners) have to be told of whatever data there is - and what > is being retained longterm. What are the storage conditions? Will > they keep it confidential or will they have to release information to > anybody?" said professor John Soma, director of the Privacy Center > (search) at Denver University. > > "Without all of these concerns written into it, then obviously the > recommendation is completely unacceptable," he said. > > According to Joe Osterman, director of highway safety at the NTSB, the > recommendation was inspired in part by a tragic auto accident > involving a 86-year-old man who drove his car into a crowded Santa > Monica farmers' market last summer, killing 10 and injuring 63. > > Osterman said a black box in the car might have not saved the people > in the crash, but would have allowed investigators to find out how it > happened and how cars could be better designed to reduce the > likelihood of greater injury in the future. > > "We have a long history of using data recorders in other modes of > transportation and found them extremely useful," Osterman told > FOXNews.com, pointing to aircraft. "Unless we have all vehicles > equipped, you will not have a true picture of what is happening on the > highways, in a broader sense." > > Phil Haseline, president of the Automobile Coalition for Traffic > Safety, which represents car manufacturers, said automakers are still > debating the value of EDRs, and the idea of requiring them. Haseline > said he is a proponent of black boxes but has certain reservations > about the NTSB's recommendation. > > He, like others, said he would like to first see standardization of > the type of data collected in the black boxes, much like a > recommendation made in June by the National Highway Traffic Safety > Administration. Right now, dueling technologies record different > things. > > Then, Haseline said, he would prefer that laws address the issue of a > car owner's knowledge of the EDRs in their vehicles, and that car > owners have ownership of the data once its recorded. > > "I can understand [NTSB's desire] to have this information, but from a > practical perspective, it is premature at this point to require it," > he said. > > While privacy experts say jokes like "'big brother' is riding shotgun" > aren't funny, the technology already is being used to monitor certain > drivers. > > Global positioning systems are being used by car rental companies to > track where renters are going and how fast they are driving. GPS also > allows rental car companies to shut off the engine of a car and lock a > renter out of it. It's the same technology used by OnStar, which > promises to be a guardian angel for car owners who are locked out or > report a vehicle stolen. > > Parents of teenagers have also begun to use black boxes marketed by > Road Safety International in Thousand Oaks, Calif. This item, which > can be placed under the hood, is able to track the driver's use of a > seatbelt, excessive speed, hard cornering, braking and even unsafe > backing, and can store hours of information for review later. > > Privacy experts warn that once cars are outfitted for the most limited > data recording, the government will find a way to argue it's for > drivers' "own good" to collect more. They point to a push in recent > years to install GPS in all cars so that emergency officials can > easily find incapacitated accident victims. > > "When you are telling someone it is for their own good, then it should > be their own choice, they should be able to say 'no,'" said professor > Yale Kamisar of the University of Michigan Law School. "None of these > things work out the way they are supposed to. Why should we believe > all of these assurances when they haven't been honored in the past?" |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
it is already in gm cars inside the airbag modules but only gm staff can
access not any dealer people of such as i was told MoPar Man wrote: > This is either a step towards (or practically is) self incrimination, > combined with illegal search and seizure. > > There is no reason for data recorders in cars other than to use as > evidence against a driver in an accident. Are these black boxes even > accurate during a collision - where G forces and wheel slippage > provide no absolute indication of what a car may really be doing > during an emergency situation? Let alone equipped for the high > sampling rates needed. > > Shouldn't these data recording systems be certified in order to even > be considered as sources of evidenciary data? > > This is tantamount to being forced to drive with a forward-facing > camera mounted in the back seat, recording everything you do. > > The driver should have the ability to turn the data recording mode on > or off. This works both ways. Anyone who turns the data recording > off will not therefor have any data that could be used against him - > but by the same token he won't have any data that could be used to > defend him either. Every driver should have the right to that choice. > > An example of the mis-use of information is the fact that (apparently) > some (many? most?) US states require a fingerprint as part of getting > a drivers license. This seems to have lead (a few months ago) to a > Seattle laywer being arrested for having something to do with the > train bombings in Spain. For reasons that I've never heard explained, > they claimed that fingerprints found on a shopping bag in one of the > trains matched his. How they had his fingerprints was never explained > - presumably because they are required when getting a drivers license? > > ------------------------------ > > http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,132056,00.html > > Privacy Experts Shun Black Boxes > Friday, September 10, 2004 > By Kelley Beaucar Vlahos > > •NTSB Wants Black Boxes in Passenger Vehicles > http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,127945,00.html > > •Evidence From Black Boxes in Cars Turns Up in Courts > http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,90673,00.html > > WASHINGTON — Some safety and privacy experts are reacting with > apprehension, others with all out condemnation over a recent ruling by > the National Transportation Safety Board to require electronic data > recorders or "black boxes" in all new cars manufactured in the United > States. > > "I take offense that this personal property of individuals is now > being designed by the federal government," said Jim Harper, privacy > attorney and editor of Privacilla.org. > > Black boxes (search), or "EDRs" have been fitted into every General > Motors car in its 2004 line and is in a number of Ford models — about > 15 percent of all vehicles on the road today, according to road safety > experts. > > EDRs are certainly not new. Information gathered on black boxes — > typically everything from speed, brake pressure, seat belt use and air > bag deployment — has already been used in determining guilt in > criminal and civil cases across the country. > > Proponents, including the NTSB and road safety advocates, say the data > collected on these black boxes is valuable for studying how accidents > happen and how to make roads and cars safer. EDR data has been used > for years to fine tune air bag efficiency. > > "We think for understanding the dynamics of crashes, the information > here can be very, very helpful," said Lon Anderson, director of AAA > Mid-Atlantic. On the other hand, Anderson said, "We think it would be > very wrong if the data in these boxes was deemed to be public > information, open to anybody and the owner had no say over it." > > The NTSB recommended in early August that black boxes be mandated, but > critics say dealers are not now required to alert car owners that > their car has the ability to collect the information. Currently only > California has a law requiring car dealers to notify buyers when their > cars are outfitted with an EDR. > > Owners also have no legal protections to keep them from being forced > to hand over that information to another party if a court order > demanded it. > > "I think (owners) have to be told of whatever data there is — and what > is being retained longterm. What are the storage conditions? Will > they keep it confidential or will they have to release information to > anybody?" said professor John Soma, director of the Privacy Center > (search) at Denver University. > > "Without all of these concerns written into it, then obviously the > recommendation is completely unacceptable," he said. > > According to Joe Osterman, director of highway safety at the NTSB, the > recommendation was inspired in part by a tragic auto accident > involving a 86-year-old man who drove his car into a crowded Santa > Monica farmers’ market last summer, killing 10 and injuring 63. > > Osterman said a black box in the car might have not saved the people > in the crash, but would have allowed investigators to find out how it > happened and how cars could be better designed to reduce the > likelihood of greater injury in the future. > > "We have a long history of using data recorders in other modes of > transportation and found them extremely useful," Osterman told > FOXNews.com, pointing to aircraft. "Unless we have all vehicles > equipped, you will not have a true picture of what is happening on the > highways, in a broader sense." > > Phil Haseline, president of the Automobile Coalition for Traffic > Safety, which represents car manufacturers, said automakers are still > debating the value of EDRs, and the idea of requiring them. Haseline > said he is a proponent of black boxes but has certain reservations > about the NTSB’s recommendation. > > He, like others, said he would like to first see standardization of > the type of data collected in the black boxes, much like a > recommendation made in June by the National Highway Traffic Safety > Administration. Right now, dueling technologies record different > things. > > Then, Haseline said, he would prefer that laws address the issue of a > car owner’s knowledge of the EDRs in their vehicles, and that car > owners have ownership of the data once its recorded. > > "I can understand [NTSB's desire] to have this information, but from a > practical perspective, it is premature at this point to require it," > he said. > > While privacy experts say jokes like "'big brother' is riding shotgun" > aren’t funny, the technology already is being used to monitor certain > drivers. > > Global positioning systems are being used by car rental companies to > track where renters are going and how fast they are driving. GPS also > allows rental car companies to shut off the engine of a car and lock a > renter out of it. It’s the same technology used by OnStar, which > promises to be a guardian angel for car owners who are locked out or > report a vehicle stolen. > > Parents of teenagers have also begun to use black boxes marketed by > Road Safety International in Thousand Oaks, Calif. This item, which > can be placed under the hood, is able to track the driver’s use of a > seatbelt, excessive speed, hard cornering, braking and even unsafe > backing, and can store hours of information for review later. > > Privacy experts warn that once cars are outfitted for the most limited > data recording, the government will find a way to argue it’s for > drivers’ "own good" to collect more. They point to a push in recent > years to install GPS in all cars so that emergency officials can > easily find incapacitated accident victims. > > "When you are telling someone it is for their own good, then it should > be their own choice, they should be able to say ‘no,’" said professor > Yale Kamisar of the University of Michigan Law School. "None of these > things work out the way they are supposed to. Why should we believe > all of these assurances when they haven’t been honored in the past?" MoPar Man wrote: > This is either a step towards (or practically is) self incrimination, > combined with illegal search and seizure. > > There is no reason for data recorders in cars other than to use as > evidence against a driver in an accident. Are these black boxes even > accurate during a collision - where G forces and wheel slippage > provide no absolute indication of what a car may really be doing > during an emergency situation? Let alone equipped for the high > sampling rates needed. > > Shouldn't these data recording systems be certified in order to even > be considered as sources of evidenciary data? > > This is tantamount to being forced to drive with a forward-facing > camera mounted in the back seat, recording everything you do. > > The driver should have the ability to turn the data recording mode on > or off. This works both ways. Anyone who turns the data recording > off will not therefor have any data that could be used against him - > but by the same token he won't have any data that could be used to > defend him either. Every driver should have the right to that choice. > > An example of the mis-use of information is the fact that (apparently) > some (many? most?) US states require a fingerprint as part of getting > a drivers license. This seems to have lead (a few months ago) to a > Seattle laywer being arrested for having something to do with the > train bombings in Spain. For reasons that I've never heard explained, > they claimed that fingerprints found on a shopping bag in one of the > trains matched his. How they had his fingerprints was never explained > - presumably because they are required when getting a drivers license? > > ------------------------------ > > http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,132056,00.html > > Privacy Experts Shun Black Boxes > Friday, September 10, 2004 > By Kelley Beaucar Vlahos > > •NTSB Wants Black Boxes in Passenger Vehicles > http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,127945,00.html > > •Evidence From Black Boxes in Cars Turns Up in Courts > http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,90673,00.html > > WASHINGTON — Some safety and privacy experts are reacting with > apprehension, others with all out condemnation over a recent ruling by > the National Transportation Safety Board to require electronic data > recorders or "black boxes" in all new cars manufactured in the United > States. > > "I take offense that this personal property of individuals is now > being designed by the federal government," said Jim Harper, privacy > attorney and editor of Privacilla.org. > > Black boxes (search), or "EDRs" have been fitted into every General > Motors car in its 2004 line and is in a number of Ford models — about > 15 percent of all vehicles on the road today, according to road safety > experts. > > EDRs are certainly not new. Information gathered on black boxes — > typically everything from speed, brake pressure, seat belt use and air > bag deployment — has already been used in determining guilt in > criminal and civil cases across the country. > > Proponents, including the NTSB and road safety advocates, say the data > collected on these black boxes is valuable for studying how accidents > happen and how to make roads and cars safer. EDR data has been used > for years to fine tune air bag efficiency. > > "We think for understanding the dynamics of crashes, the information > here can be very, very helpful," said Lon Anderson, director of AAA > Mid-Atlantic. On the other hand, Anderson said, "We think it would be > very wrong if the data in these boxes was deemed to be public > information, open to anybody and the owner had no say over it." > > The NTSB recommended in early August that black boxes be mandated, but > critics say dealers are not now required to alert car owners that > their car has the ability to collect the information. Currently only > California has a law requiring car dealers to notify buyers when their > cars are outfitted with an EDR. > > Owners also have no legal protections to keep them from being forced > to hand over that information to another party if a court order > demanded it. > > "I think (owners) have to be told of whatever data there is — and what > is being retained longterm. What are the storage conditions? Will > they keep it confidential or will they have to release information to > anybody?" said professor John Soma, director of the Privacy Center > (search) at Denver University. > > "Without all of these concerns written into it, then obviously the > recommendation is completely unacceptable," he said. > > According to Joe Osterman, director of highway safety at the NTSB, the > recommendation was inspired in part by a tragic auto accident > involving a 86-year-old man who drove his car into a crowded Santa > Monica farmers’ market last summer, killing 10 and injuring 63. > > Osterman said a black box in the car might have not saved the people > in the crash, but would have allowed investigators to find out how it > happened and how cars could be better designed to reduce the > likelihood of greater injury in the future. > > "We have a long history of using data recorders in other modes of > transportation and found them extremely useful," Osterman told > FOXNews.com, pointing to aircraft. "Unless we have all vehicles > equipped, you will not have a true picture of what is happening on the > highways, in a broader sense." > > Phil Haseline, president of the Automobile Coalition for Traffic > Safety, which represents car manufacturers, said automakers are still > debating the value of EDRs, and the idea of requiring them. Haseline > said he is a proponent of black boxes but has certain reservations > about the NTSB’s recommendation. > > He, like others, said he would like to first see standardization of > the type of data collected in the black boxes, much like a > recommendation made in June by the National Highway Traffic Safety > Administration. Right now, dueling technologies record different > things. > > Then, Haseline said, he would prefer that laws address the issue of a > car owner’s knowledge of the EDRs in their vehicles, and that car > owners have ownership of the data once its recorded. > > "I can understand [NTSB's desire] to have this information, but from a > practical perspective, it is premature at this point to require it," > he said. > > While privacy experts say jokes like "'big brother' is riding shotgun" > aren’t funny, the technology already is being used to monitor certain > drivers. > > Global positioning systems are being used by car rental companies to > track where renters are going and how fast they are driving. GPS also > allows rental car companies to shut off the engine of a car and lock a > renter out of it. It’s the same technology used by OnStar, which > promises to be a guardian angel for car owners who are locked out or > report a vehicle stolen. > > Parents of teenagers have also begun to use black boxes marketed by > Road Safety International in Thousand Oaks, Calif. This item, which > can be placed under the hood, is able to track the driver’s use of a > seatbelt, excessive speed, hard cornering, braking and even unsafe > backing, and can store hours of information for review later. > > Privacy experts warn that once cars are outfitted for the most limited > data recording, the government will find a way to argue it’s for > drivers’ "own good" to collect more. They point to a push in recent > years to install GPS in all cars so that emergency officials can > easily find incapacitated accident victims. > > "When you are telling someone it is for their own good, then it should > be their own choice, they should be able to say ‘no,’" said professor > Yale Kamisar of the University of Michigan Law School. "None of these > things work out the way they are supposed to. Why should we believe > all of these assurances when they haven’t been honored in the past?" |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
it is already in gm cars inside the airbag modules but only gm staff can
access not any dealer people of such as i was told MoPar Man wrote: > This is either a step towards (or practically is) self incrimination, > combined with illegal search and seizure. > > There is no reason for data recorders in cars other than to use as > evidence against a driver in an accident. Are these black boxes even > accurate during a collision - where G forces and wheel slippage > provide no absolute indication of what a car may really be doing > during an emergency situation? Let alone equipped for the high > sampling rates needed. > > Shouldn't these data recording systems be certified in order to even > be considered as sources of evidenciary data? > > This is tantamount to being forced to drive with a forward-facing > camera mounted in the back seat, recording everything you do. > > The driver should have the ability to turn the data recording mode on > or off. This works both ways. Anyone who turns the data recording > off will not therefor have any data that could be used against him - > but by the same token he won't have any data that could be used to > defend him either. Every driver should have the right to that choice. > > An example of the mis-use of information is the fact that (apparently) > some (many? most?) US states require a fingerprint as part of getting > a drivers license. This seems to have lead (a few months ago) to a > Seattle laywer being arrested for having something to do with the > train bombings in Spain. For reasons that I've never heard explained, > they claimed that fingerprints found on a shopping bag in one of the > trains matched his. How they had his fingerprints was never explained > - presumably because they are required when getting a drivers license? > > ------------------------------ > > http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,132056,00.html > > Privacy Experts Shun Black Boxes > Friday, September 10, 2004 > By Kelley Beaucar Vlahos > > •NTSB Wants Black Boxes in Passenger Vehicles > http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,127945,00.html > > •Evidence From Black Boxes in Cars Turns Up in Courts > http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,90673,00.html > > WASHINGTON — Some safety and privacy experts are reacting with > apprehension, others with all out condemnation over a recent ruling by > the National Transportation Safety Board to require electronic data > recorders or "black boxes" in all new cars manufactured in the United > States. > > "I take offense that this personal property of individuals is now > being designed by the federal government," said Jim Harper, privacy > attorney and editor of Privacilla.org. > > Black boxes (search), or "EDRs" have been fitted into every General > Motors car in its 2004 line and is in a number of Ford models — about > 15 percent of all vehicles on the road today, according to road safety > experts. > > EDRs are certainly not new. Information gathered on black boxes — > typically everything from speed, brake pressure, seat belt use and air > bag deployment — has already been used in determining guilt in > criminal and civil cases across the country. > > Proponents, including the NTSB and road safety advocates, say the data > collected on these black boxes is valuable for studying how accidents > happen and how to make roads and cars safer. EDR data has been used > for years to fine tune air bag efficiency. > > "We think for understanding the dynamics of crashes, the information > here can be very, very helpful," said Lon Anderson, director of AAA > Mid-Atlantic. On the other hand, Anderson said, "We think it would be > very wrong if the data in these boxes was deemed to be public > information, open to anybody and the owner had no say over it." > > The NTSB recommended in early August that black boxes be mandated, but > critics say dealers are not now required to alert car owners that > their car has the ability to collect the information. Currently only > California has a law requiring car dealers to notify buyers when their > cars are outfitted with an EDR. > > Owners also have no legal protections to keep them from being forced > to hand over that information to another party if a court order > demanded it. > > "I think (owners) have to be told of whatever data there is — and what > is being retained longterm. What are the storage conditions? Will > they keep it confidential or will they have to release information to > anybody?" said professor John Soma, director of the Privacy Center > (search) at Denver University. > > "Without all of these concerns written into it, then obviously the > recommendation is completely unacceptable," he said. > > According to Joe Osterman, director of highway safety at the NTSB, the > recommendation was inspired in part by a tragic auto accident > involving a 86-year-old man who drove his car into a crowded Santa > Monica farmers’ market last summer, killing 10 and injuring 63. > > Osterman said a black box in the car might have not saved the people > in the crash, but would have allowed investigators to find out how it > happened and how cars could be better designed to reduce the > likelihood of greater injury in the future. > > "We have a long history of using data recorders in other modes of > transportation and found them extremely useful," Osterman told > FOXNews.com, pointing to aircraft. "Unless we have all vehicles > equipped, you will not have a true picture of what is happening on the > highways, in a broader sense." > > Phil Haseline, president of the Automobile Coalition for Traffic > Safety, which represents car manufacturers, said automakers are still > debating the value of EDRs, and the idea of requiring them. Haseline > said he is a proponent of black boxes but has certain reservations > about the NTSB’s recommendation. > > He, like others, said he would like to first see standardization of > the type of data collected in the black boxes, much like a > recommendation made in June by the National Highway Traffic Safety > Administration. Right now, dueling technologies record different > things. > > Then, Haseline said, he would prefer that laws address the issue of a > car owner’s knowledge of the EDRs in their vehicles, and that car > owners have ownership of the data once its recorded. > > "I can understand [NTSB's desire] to have this information, but from a > practical perspective, it is premature at this point to require it," > he said. > > While privacy experts say jokes like "'big brother' is riding shotgun" > aren’t funny, the technology already is being used to monitor certain > drivers. > > Global positioning systems are being used by car rental companies to > track where renters are going and how fast they are driving. GPS also > allows rental car companies to shut off the engine of a car and lock a > renter out of it. It’s the same technology used by OnStar, which > promises to be a guardian angel for car owners who are locked out or > report a vehicle stolen. > > Parents of teenagers have also begun to use black boxes marketed by > Road Safety International in Thousand Oaks, Calif. This item, which > can be placed under the hood, is able to track the driver’s use of a > seatbelt, excessive speed, hard cornering, braking and even unsafe > backing, and can store hours of information for review later. > > Privacy experts warn that once cars are outfitted for the most limited > data recording, the government will find a way to argue it’s for > drivers’ "own good" to collect more. They point to a push in recent > years to install GPS in all cars so that emergency officials can > easily find incapacitated accident victims. > > "When you are telling someone it is for their own good, then it should > be their own choice, they should be able to say ‘no,’" said professor > Yale Kamisar of the University of Michigan Law School. "None of these > things work out the way they are supposed to. Why should we believe > all of these assurances when they haven’t been honored in the past?" MoPar Man wrote: > This is either a step towards (or practically is) self incrimination, > combined with illegal search and seizure. > > There is no reason for data recorders in cars other than to use as > evidence against a driver in an accident. Are these black boxes even > accurate during a collision - where G forces and wheel slippage > provide no absolute indication of what a car may really be doing > during an emergency situation? Let alone equipped for the high > sampling rates needed. > > Shouldn't these data recording systems be certified in order to even > be considered as sources of evidenciary data? > > This is tantamount to being forced to drive with a forward-facing > camera mounted in the back seat, recording everything you do. > > The driver should have the ability to turn the data recording mode on > or off. This works both ways. Anyone who turns the data recording > off will not therefor have any data that could be used against him - > but by the same token he won't have any data that could be used to > defend him either. Every driver should have the right to that choice. > > An example of the mis-use of information is the fact that (apparently) > some (many? most?) US states require a fingerprint as part of getting > a drivers license. This seems to have lead (a few months ago) to a > Seattle laywer being arrested for having something to do with the > train bombings in Spain. For reasons that I've never heard explained, > they claimed that fingerprints found on a shopping bag in one of the > trains matched his. How they had his fingerprints was never explained > - presumably because they are required when getting a drivers license? > > ------------------------------ > > http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,132056,00.html > > Privacy Experts Shun Black Boxes > Friday, September 10, 2004 > By Kelley Beaucar Vlahos > > •NTSB Wants Black Boxes in Passenger Vehicles > http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,127945,00.html > > •Evidence From Black Boxes in Cars Turns Up in Courts > http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,90673,00.html > > WASHINGTON — Some safety and privacy experts are reacting with > apprehension, others with all out condemnation over a recent ruling by > the National Transportation Safety Board to require electronic data > recorders or "black boxes" in all new cars manufactured in the United > States. > > "I take offense that this personal property of individuals is now > being designed by the federal government," said Jim Harper, privacy > attorney and editor of Privacilla.org. > > Black boxes (search), or "EDRs" have been fitted into every General > Motors car in its 2004 line and is in a number of Ford models — about > 15 percent of all vehicles on the road today, according to road safety > experts. > > EDRs are certainly not new. Information gathered on black boxes — > typically everything from speed, brake pressure, seat belt use and air > bag deployment — has already been used in determining guilt in > criminal and civil cases across the country. > > Proponents, including the NTSB and road safety advocates, say the data > collected on these black boxes is valuable for studying how accidents > happen and how to make roads and cars safer. EDR data has been used > for years to fine tune air bag efficiency. > > "We think for understanding the dynamics of crashes, the information > here can be very, very helpful," said Lon Anderson, director of AAA > Mid-Atlantic. On the other hand, Anderson said, "We think it would be > very wrong if the data in these boxes was deemed to be public > information, open to anybody and the owner had no say over it." > > The NTSB recommended in early August that black boxes be mandated, but > critics say dealers are not now required to alert car owners that > their car has the ability to collect the information. Currently only > California has a law requiring car dealers to notify buyers when their > cars are outfitted with an EDR. > > Owners also have no legal protections to keep them from being forced > to hand over that information to another party if a court order > demanded it. > > "I think (owners) have to be told of whatever data there is — and what > is being retained longterm. What are the storage conditions? Will > they keep it confidential or will they have to release information to > anybody?" said professor John Soma, director of the Privacy Center > (search) at Denver University. > > "Without all of these concerns written into it, then obviously the > recommendation is completely unacceptable," he said. > > According to Joe Osterman, director of highway safety at the NTSB, the > recommendation was inspired in part by a tragic auto accident > involving a 86-year-old man who drove his car into a crowded Santa > Monica farmers’ market last summer, killing 10 and injuring 63. > > Osterman said a black box in the car might have not saved the people > in the crash, but would have allowed investigators to find out how it > happened and how cars could be better designed to reduce the > likelihood of greater injury in the future. > > "We have a long history of using data recorders in other modes of > transportation and found them extremely useful," Osterman told > FOXNews.com, pointing to aircraft. "Unless we have all vehicles > equipped, you will not have a true picture of what is happening on the > highways, in a broader sense." > > Phil Haseline, president of the Automobile Coalition for Traffic > Safety, which represents car manufacturers, said automakers are still > debating the value of EDRs, and the idea of requiring them. Haseline > said he is a proponent of black boxes but has certain reservations > about the NTSB’s recommendation. > > He, like others, said he would like to first see standardization of > the type of data collected in the black boxes, much like a > recommendation made in June by the National Highway Traffic Safety > Administration. Right now, dueling technologies record different > things. > > Then, Haseline said, he would prefer that laws address the issue of a > car owner’s knowledge of the EDRs in their vehicles, and that car > owners have ownership of the data once its recorded. > > "I can understand [NTSB's desire] to have this information, but from a > practical perspective, it is premature at this point to require it," > he said. > > While privacy experts say jokes like "'big brother' is riding shotgun" > aren’t funny, the technology already is being used to monitor certain > drivers. > > Global positioning systems are being used by car rental companies to > track where renters are going and how fast they are driving. GPS also > allows rental car companies to shut off the engine of a car and lock a > renter out of it. It’s the same technology used by OnStar, which > promises to be a guardian angel for car owners who are locked out or > report a vehicle stolen. > > Parents of teenagers have also begun to use black boxes marketed by > Road Safety International in Thousand Oaks, Calif. This item, which > can be placed under the hood, is able to track the driver’s use of a > seatbelt, excessive speed, hard cornering, braking and even unsafe > backing, and can store hours of information for review later. > > Privacy experts warn that once cars are outfitted for the most limited > data recording, the government will find a way to argue it’s for > drivers’ "own good" to collect more. They point to a push in recent > years to install GPS in all cars so that emergency officials can > easily find incapacitated accident victims. > > "When you are telling someone it is for their own good, then it should > be their own choice, they should be able to say ‘no,’" said professor > Yale Kamisar of the University of Michigan Law School. "None of these > things work out the way they are supposed to. Why should we believe > all of these assurances when they haven’t been honored in the past?" |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
"MoPar Man" > wrote in message ... > This is either a step towards (or practically is) self incrimination, > combined with illegal search and seizure. > No, not at all. > There is no reason for data recorders in cars other than to use as > evidence against a driver in an accident. Rubbish. And it isn't evidence against drivers as much as it is evidence of what actually happened. Let me guess, you are an advocate of removing black boxes from airplanes. So, have you bothered to ever READ the 4th and 5th amendments? > Are these black boxes even > accurate during a collision - where G forces and wheel slippage > provide no absolute indication of what a car may really be doing > during an emergency situation? No, not during a collision. But before one, yes. If someone smacks into another car it would be useful to know if they were speeding. > Let alone equipped for the high > sampling rates needed. > Modern computers, even cheap ones, can sample far quicker than what is needed. > Shouldn't these data recording systems be certified in order to even > be considered as sources of evidenciary data? > Yes and no. A lot of this really depends on the court case. Assume for example that driver A hits and kills a pedestrian. The driver argues that he was going the speed limit, and the pedestrian jumped out in front of him. Two witnesses to the accident state the driver was speeding and the pedestrian didn't jump out in front. In this case the DA has no choice but to file charges of manslaughter and let the subsequent court case sort it out. If the driver had a black box in the car, and was positive that he wasn't speeding, he would sign over his rights against self-incrimination and let the DA examine the black box. If the black box said that the driver wasn't speeding, the DA would know that even if he pressed manslaughter charges, he would lose the case, and so he wouldn't press charges, thus saving the driver a lot of grief, and the court system a lot of money. If the driver had a black box in the car and WASN'T positive he was speeding, he would simply refuse to allow it to be searched. In that case the DA can still search it - and use the evidence to decide to file manslaughter charges - but the evidence wouldn't be admissible in the following trial, and the driver would have the same chance of getting off as without a black box. And if the DA were to mention it during trial, that would be an immediate mistrial and the DA could be disbarred. > This is tantamount to being forced to drive with a forward-facing > camera mounted in the back seat, recording everything you do. > > The driver should have the ability to turn the data recording mode on > or off. This works both ways. Anyone who turns the data recording > off will not therefor have any data that could be used against him - > but by the same token he won't have any data that could be used to > defend him either. Every driver should have the right to that choice. > OK let's give airplane pilots that right too. The real issue though is this. YOU do not own the streets that you drive on. ALL of us, you, I and everyone, own the streets. If I'm going to allow you to drive on the streets that I own, I'm going to make you have a data recorder that you can't shut off. My right to require you to have a data recorder is equal to your right to not have to have one. So where does that leave us? Well, let me explain it. First, read the 5th amendment. To put it simply, a black box in a vehicle that YOU are driving is collecting evidence, AKA witness, on YOUR behalf. Legally it is exactly the same as if you were writing down all that data into a notebook that you have next to you, at very high speed. After all you own the black box, not the owners of the airplane. In a court case, if I demand you hand over the black box data and you know for a fact that that black box data is incriminating against yourself, then your lawyer will call for a trial halt, demand the jury leave, and when they have filed out you can simply invoke the Fifth Amendment and that is the end of it. When the jury comes back the judge will simply state that the black box data is unavailable. In fact if you had a really good lawyer, he might not even bother to do that, but simply say that we are sorry but there is no data available from the black box, then refuse to answer any further questions along those lines. Legally it would be correct for him to say that even though it would give the impression to the jury that the black box was smashed, which is a lie. In any case, this kind of thing is generally handled pre-trial when each side requests evidence from the other. Ted |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|