Rodney

It just gets better and better... or worse and worse...

From the December 27, 2004 edition - http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1227/p13s01-wmgn.html

Is your car spying on you?
To get key accident data, 30 million cars now record drivers' behavior.

By Eric C. Evarts | Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor

It was only a matter of time. For several years, electronic devices in cars have monitored acceleration and braking to save fuel and improve safety. Now, they're saving some of that data to give automakers and police a better idea of how you drive.

So far most of the devices record the last five seconds of readings before a crash, for example, a little like flight-data recorders in airplanes. The information has proven extremely useful to auto designers and accident investigators. It's also being used to prosecute drivers.

"The problem is most people don't realize these devices are in their vehicle," says Eric Skrum, spokesman for the National Motorists Association in Madison, Wis. "That information can be used against you, and there's no sort of regulation about who owns that information."

Already, drivers have had data from their own cars used to convict them. Last month, Danny Hopkins of New York was sentenced to 5 to 15 years in prison for killing Lindsay Kyle after the black box in his Cadillac CTS indicated the car was going 106 miles per hour five seconds before the crash. Investigators originally thought the car was going only 65 to 70 miles per hour. In St. Louis, Clifton McIntire of Phippsburg, Me., pleaded guilty to manslaughter last month after the black box in his GMC pickup revealed that he was going 85 miles an hour before he slammed into the back of a Toyota.

Today an estimated 30 million cars contain these "black boxes" - they're actually silver - known as event data recorders (EDRs). Most record simple data such as whether airbags deployed or if passengers wore seatbelts. But most cars from General Motors and Ford, as well as some Toyotas and Hondas, track even more information, including vehicle and engine speed, and whether the driver was accelerating or braking.

Automakers say they want this information to help improve safety equipment. "The main purpose of the EDR is to get data after a crash to help us understand how the airbags worked," says Alan Adler, manager of product-safety communications at General Motors in Warren, Mich. "The privacy of our customers is very important to us, but [the device] doesn't record anything that isn't true."
Crash investigations

Without EDRs, investigators frequently don't have enough data to pinpoint the cause of an accident, says Joe Osterman, director of the Office of Highway Safety at the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) in Washington. That was the case when an elderly man killed 20 people when his Buick plowed into a farmers market in Santa Monica, Calif. in 2000. The driver said he was braking. Witnesses and investigators said he was accelerating.

While what exactly happened in the moments before the tragedy remains a mystery, the NTSB went on record afterward saying EDRs should be mandatory in all cars sold in the United States.

The NTSB, however, doesn't have the authority to mandate black boxes. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does. It proposes that the recorders become standard equipment starting in 2009 models, retain the last eight seconds of data before a crash, and include added data from electronic stability control and antilock braking systems.

Civil libertarians worry that such data will be used more broadly in the future.

"This is another example of where technology has outstripped the law and certain assumptions of how the world works," says Jay Stanley, director of communications for the Technology and Liberty Project at the American Civil Liberties Union in New York.

Some safety experts also worry about the wrong people using the data. While Mr. Osterman of the NTSB favors police investigators using black-box data in criminal investigations, he worries that private experts hired in civil litigation may have biases and could take the data at face value instead of cross-checking it.

"The data can be misleading if you're not a seasoned accident reconstructionist," adds Bob Kreeb, an engineer at Booz Allen Hamilton in Washington who chaired a committee of the Society of Automotive Engineers to set standards for the data gathered from black boxes. "So it needs to be interpreted and validated."

Installing black boxes with five seconds worth of memory was as simple as adding a memory chip to existing computer systems in cars. Increasing the memory to several months' worth of data would not be difficult at all, Mr. Stanley says. "If GM decided tomorrow to track three months of data instead of five seconds, there's nothing that would make them have to tell anybody," he adds.
Tracking the teens

In fact, Davis Instruments of Hayward, Calif., sells a black box called CarChip that will record throttle position and engine parameters for up to 300 hours of driving. Parents can use it to monitor their teenagers' driving habits, for example.

Progressive, an auto-insurance company, is running a pilot program with 5,000 drivers in Minnesota using a device similar to CarChip. It records up to six months of driving data, including vehicle mileage, time of day, and speed. The program, called TripSense, lets drivers choose whether to hand over data from their recorders to the insurer. Based on their habits behind the wheel, they can get discounts on their premiums of 5 to 25 percent.

But once any data is collected, some worry that it might be subpoenaed. If a police officer pulls you over while you're not speeding, "will your EDR tell him that five miles or five days earlier you were?" asked AutoWeek magazine's Bob Gritzinger in a November article.

Recorder data may also present problems for drivers with automobile warranties. Some wonder if vehicle manufacturers are using safety data to void warranties. Some people in Internet chat rooms have alleged Mitsubishi is doing just that to those who drive its racy Evolution VIII in amateur weekend races.

Even if not true, the existence of such stories shows people's concerns about this kind of technology, says Stanley. "If it's not controlled, it allows powerful institutions to increase their control over ordinary individuals," he says.

For example: When AutoWeek conducted handling tests on a mundane Chevy Malibu Maxx hatchback earlier this year, the recorder automatically alerted GM OnStar officials, who called the car to make sure the driver was OK after a particularly severe cornering maneuver. The driver was, but later said he resented the intrusion.

mikec

wouldn't it be nice if they made airplanes and cars out of the same material as the "black box"? then accidents would practically never be fatal hehe.

__________________
Until the 20th century, reality was everything humans could touch, smell, see, and hear. Since the initial publication of the charted electromagnetic spectrum, humans have learned that what they can touch, smell, see, and hear is less than one millionth of reality

Faygo

Fortunately I don't forsee owning a new car any time soon. My old Diesel PU has no electronics in it so it can't spy on me.


Shouldn't this be in tilted paranoia?

Vincentt

Part of the black box's strenghth is its size.
I don't mind so much, onstar asking if I'm okay. If I really got into a crash, it would be nice. But I suppose the ability to turn that stuff off would be good for the times someone wants to act ass wild.

Mephisto2

I think this is a great idea.


Mr Mephisto

kutulu

civil liberties surrender

Stiltzkin

It is a great idea. In fact, they (I have no idea who "they" is, I just know it wold be someone with a lot of money) should start some kind of campaign that spreads awareness about these boxes. That way, jerkoff asshole drivers who go 40MPH backing out of their driveways will feel threatened. They threaten us law-abiding citizens with their idiotic driving, so why not? The main problem I see with this is an underground market for blackbox removal suddenly showing up. Unless there is already such a market? More credit card debt to the losers, I say!

I have the civil liberty to not die at the hands of an idiot who feels he must go 95MPH in school zones to impress his airhead girlfriend. Anyone with nothing to hide (insamuch as their driving habits) should have no problem with these blackboxes.

__________________
The most important thing in this world is love.

Halx

If I still had a car, it would say: "Highly Spirited Driving for 10,000 miles."

__________________
You have found this post informative.
-The Administrator
[Don't Feed The Animals]

skinnymofo

very interesting, i have mixed feelings.
as for onstar... have you heard their promotion commercial where they call the cops on the driver for sitting in a parking lot getting high? they locked the occupants into the car and then made it so the car could no longer drive...
now driving stoned is stupid but, you should not be able to be locked into your car by someone on the radio whenever they feel like if they feel like locking you in. very not cool. 4th ammendment anyone?

Psycho Dad

How do you see anyone has been denied individual rights because of this?

__________________
Don't always trust the opinions of experts.

yellowchef

skinny is it a real promo, how EXACTLY would it know youre getting high?

f6twister

I hope I have one in my car. In addition to the other stuff mentioned, it can also help prove that I wasn't the moron who caused an accident.

__________________
A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day. Calvin

AquaFox

:ulls out toolbox::


does anyone know how to tell if a car has this or not???

__________________


...AquaFox...

mokle

I heard that many cars have the black box as part of the ECM, so that anyefforts to remove it will render the car useless.

__________________
Mokle
"Your hands can't hit what your eyes can't see" -Ali

Jackebear

I'm interested in hearing more about this OnStar situation. I thought YOU pushed the button and called them if you were lost or needed help. I didn't think the company had a mini-cam watching your every move. Is this true or what? I would like to know more details about this....thanks.

__________________
Life's jounney is not to arrive at the grave safely in a well-preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, totally worn-out shouting, "Holy sh*t! What a ride!" - unknown

laconic1

My understanding has been that the data recorder is part of the airbag module on most vehicles. As far as Onstar goes, on the Onstar equipped vehicles I have worked on dont have a camera or smoke detector or anything like that. I'm sure that if you called Onstar and told them your vehicle was stolen they could remotely disable the vehicle, but the owner of the vehicle would have to be able to give some basic information to prove they own the vehicle.

GraveTaker

I'm not surprised what-so-ever, i knew eventually they would have to do something like that. Later on who knows we might be drinking devices in water that tell them where we are at all times or something.....well if they haven't done that already anyways...

__________________
GraveTaker

xerraire1

The Difference between this and airplanes ones is that the aeroplane's Black Box (actually orange) record voices.

This was a big thing back in the eighties. But this should really not be any trouble, if you don't want to save money and if you don't want to abide laws; go to cuba.

ObieX

Living in NJ i would find this to be a great thing. Put them in all cars and put it out in the press every single day until every moron on the road knows about it. Car insurance rates in this state are reason enough for this. The saving of lives and less damage repair costs are good too. As long as it doesnt track where i am and listen/watch me in my car i don't care. Driving is EXTREMELY DANGEROUS. It is sad that more people don't realize this.

__________________
We Must Dissent.

soccerchamp76

The insurance is a great idea. Reduce your rates by up to 25% by "proving" that you are a safe driver, or at least one that follows the speed limits.

__________________
Brian Griffin: Ah, if my memory serves me, this is the physics department.
Chris Griffin: That would explain all the gravity.

scout

Once again we face the dilimna of people very willingly and voluntarily giving up their rights "for safety's sake" to a government that has absolutely no legal obligation to keep them safe. This is so fundamentally wrong it makes me sick to my stomach.

ObieX

I'm not sure what rights i'd be giving up in allowing an investigator to see what happened during the final 5 seconds or so before an accident. You'd only really have to fear that if you plan on speeding and driving in a reckless manner. We've already got enough of that crap going on killing people. Unfortunately the majority of drivers really are dangerous on the roads no matter how "good" at driving they think they are. Taking half-glances when they should look, fixing make-up, speeding, cell phones, speeding and driving recklessly in the rain or snow (VERY FUCKING DANGEROUS for those who don't know), turning wild around blind corners.. not knowing what STOP or YIELD mean.. i could go on for hours.

Some regulation in the area is needed, obviously. At the very least you should be informed when buying the vehicle that it contains such a device. But as i said, driving isnt something silly to fear like terrorism. People drive on the roads EVERY DAY, usually more than once per day. That is taking your life into your hands. It is also taking the life of others into your hands. And your life in theirs. Would you trust your life to a stranger? How about a drunk stranger? how about a drunk speeding teenager in a new sports car his parents bought him that thought it would be a good night to drag race? The roads (atleast in NJ) are like a war zone. You enter at your own risk. There are people out there who think going 5mph over the speed limit in a 65 isnt breaking the law enough. Oh no.. 80.. 90, thats nothing! Who gives a damn if you clip that guy you're passing and spin him under an 18-wheeler, right? It will save 2 minutes and 37 seconds off your drive.

I'm sorry but something like this is sorely needed.
The only right anyone has when it comes to driving is the ability to take a test to do it when they come of the designated age. And even then you have to meet certain requirements (eye sight, hearing, etc).

__________________
We Must Dissent.

hulk

I'm with ObieX on this one. It's needed in this day and age, no doubt about it. How would you feel if some asshat crashed into your car, killed your family and got away with a slap on the wrist because they couldn't prove he was doing twice the speed limit? The only ones who'd oppose it are said asshats, I'm sure. Five seconds of car data is hardly invasion of privacy.

__________________
"'There's a tendency among the press to attribute the creation of a game to a single person,' says Warren Spector, creator of Thief and Deus Ex."
-- From an IGN game review.

MSD

It has used against people in court, and none of those people were informed of the presence of the "black box" when they purchased the car.

Scroll to the bottom of the page to see if your GM vehicle has a black box.
http://www.airbagcrash.com/pages/3/

Psycho Dad

The government is not the body behind this. It is the insurance companies and automakers. I doubt anyone in the FBI or CIA gives two shits as to if you were doing 30 mph or 50 mph when an SUV hits the back end of a Buick.

But was it used by the government in court or by an insurance company or automaker that was protecting themselves against someone who did not exercise personal responsibility behind the wheel of a car? If people want to get up in arms over this and make sure that people are informed that these exist in a vehicle before they purchase it, they should contact their representatives to have some sort of disclosure statement enacted. Posting your views to most state reps these days is no more trouble than posting about it here and it will carry far more weight.

__________________
Don't always trust the opinions of experts.

scout

Being forced to provide evidence to convict yourself isn't a violation of your civil rights? This argument is much along the lines of the argument for urine tests, or the argument for forfeiture of property. If you never do anything wrong then you have nothing to worry about. Hell I don't speed or do drugs but that doesn't make this issue something to take lightly. If someone is speeding or driving recklessly then get the hell out of the way.

TM875

How can you people possibly support this? Not only does this scare the hell outta me, it makes me want to NEVER buy a car made after this year, ever.

I do not like to see that the police can, by plugging into my car, read my driving habits. I certainly do not like the intrusion of some computer service monitoring my driving. If I crash, I'll call 911 on my own time, sir. I do not want my car doing it for me.

More than that, I certainly don't want irrefutable evidence of speeding. As someone who vocally opposes current traffic speed standards - and one who does not obey them - this now shifts the burden of proof onto the driver, not the police.

I would pay anyone any amount of money to have this EDR removed from my vehicle. As for the guy that creamed someone at 106mph - he was in the accident, it would not have mattered what the speed was on the highway. 60, 80, 100 - there's a margin of diminishing probability after a certain speed. Supports my posistion that highway speeds should be increased.

__________________
"I've made only one mistake in my life. But I made it over and over and over. That was saying 'yes' when I meant 'no'. Forgive me."

The_wall

I defineatly don't like this at all. I knew from the moment that I heard about gps that I would never want that in my car.

__________________
"We do what we like and we like what we do!"~andrew Wk

Procrastinate now, don't put off to the last minute.

AquaFox

that got me thinking...

here's my plan for a new system

each car has a computer, when it senses a cell phone, the car is disabled untill the phone is turned off, when the computer senses any open drink, the car is limited to 30mph, when it senses illegal substances, it locks you in your car, disables it, and calls the cops, when you yawn, your car limits your speed to.... ummm.. 5mph.., if it hears the sound of a map opening, it limits your car to 15mph, if it hears bitching between the occupants, the car will disable...





i soo hate it when people do things other than drive when driving.... i really don't want my privacy invaded, or the possibilty of my car being used agaisnt me in a accident, but its good that it can be used against wreckless people...

either way someone gets screwed with these

__________________


...AquaFox...

MageB420666

I have to agree that it is a good idea, but there does need to be legislation to limit how and when it can be used.

1. Such as the information can only be used as evidence if an actual accident occurs, not during a routine traffic stop, and may only be used as evidence by a court order (a.k.a. subpeona or however the hell that word is spelled). Meaning that an insurance company can not just come by check your driving habits randomly.

2. Anyone purchasing a car with the device must be informed that it is there and what it does.

3. Cannot be used to track actual location, just information pertaining to how the car was being driven, not where.

Oh, and just as a reminder to people in the U.S.: Driving is not a right, it is a priviledge, you abuse it and you lose it. As for breaking your 5th amendment right, if police have a search warrant for your house and they find plans for a crime that had been commited earlier that day, they can use that evidence in court, this device is much the same.

__________________
Apathy: The best outlook this side of I don't give a damn.

Carno

I think it's bullshit.

Luckily I drive a '73 Chevy, so my truck ain't saying nothing.

Shpoop

i agree that the lack of privacy is frightening and unconstitutional, but face it. The data will not be used against you, and in fact will help you very much, if you have not broken the law. If you have broken the law, it is you job to tell the truth about it, and frankly, very few do anymore. There is no trust in the general citizen, which is actually a reasonable accusation, and that to me is more frightening than lack of privacy. I wish we could all trust each other again. Never gonna happen. Probably never did happen either.

MSD

I have contacted my representatives and recieved the nice form letters that had nothing at all to do with the issue I raised.

What if, for example, you purchased a new house, and were not informed about hidden cameras in the walls. Would you think that the cameras were a good idea? Would you accept the installation of the cameras wihtout your knowledge? Would you think it's a good idea?

hulk

Come on, it's five seconds of data. Theoretically it could be more, but that's where regulation comes in.

It's easy. IF you're an idiot and cause an accident because you were doing the wrong thing THEN you deserve to be charged. I doubt it'll be used for minor traffic misdemeanors, only in cases where fatalities have occured. Now, if someone in my family was killed and the bastard that did it was breaking the law, if one of these things was the only bit of evidence that proved he did it, what should happen? Should he just claim he didn't know about it, and walk? I doubt it.

Car manufacturers have never denied the existance of these. Anyone that cared enough could have easily found out about it. It's not some government conspiracy, it's an invention that will save lives in the long run, and punish those who deserve it.

__________________
"'There's a tendency among the press to attribute the creation of a game to a single person,' says Warren Spector, creator of Thief and Deus Ex."
-- From an IGN game review.

Scorps

I wonder if you can take those things out?

I don't have to worry I own a 82 chevy and there is no brain in that thing just a lot of relays that don't work very well...LOL!

blindawg

In my home town a guy was just convicted of negligent homicide in the deaths of two girls that pulled out in front of him due information in in a black box.. It showed he was doing 75 in a 45 and didn't have time to break. Here's the article.

http://www.record-eagle.com/2005/jan/07schub.htm

__________________
( • Y • )

I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it.

( • Y • )

- Jack Handey

TexanAvenger

If the evidence says that you were doing something you weren't supposed to be when an accident occured, isn't it only right to fess up to it? Maybe not mandatory, but morally right.

If some jerk smashes into, or god forbid, hits you because they were speeding and weren't paying attention, you'd want them to be held accountable for it. If that data can prove they were in the wrong, why shouldn't they have to present it? Or would you consider yourself the one at fault because you didn't, "Get the hell out of the way?"

I see where you're coming from, I used to agree with you completely. But really, it doesn't hold up to common sense as much as I once thought. It's a nice idea for a perfect world. When we get to that world, I'll hand over my device and expect everybody else to do the same. Until then, I'm completely fine letting people see the last 5-8 seconds of my car's history if it'll help people. I'm all for giving up the "freedom" of nobody but me knowing what happened in the last 5-8 seconds before somebody slammed into me if it'll help get the person who did the slamming to be held accountable for it.

And in case you were thinking about quoting that Ben Franklin, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." crap, don't. It's not an essential liberty, or really much of a liberty at all, and I'm not looking for safety. I'm looking for people who do things that are wrong to be held accountable for them. What's more, Ben Franklin has been dead for 214 years and never even considered the idea of a 1-2 ton vehicle slamming into him at 70 miles an hour.

dksuddeth

Unlike computer software or a movie DVD where you only buy a license to play or view it, you are actually buying the car. It's yours and yours alone. The manufacturer, insurance company, and especially the government have zero right or authority to force a 'black box' addition to your vehicle. Now, its POSSIBLE that your insurance company could make this a pre-requisite in order to provide you with cheaper insurance but it certainly shouldn't be mandatory

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

punx1325

I have a bad feeling about this one, before you know it cops will be giving you tickets via satelite. They could have a computer sit there and send you a ticket everytime you exceed the speed limit. I am one who will go with the flow of traffic, sometimes I am speeding other times I am not. But I don't ever feel I am being unsafe because I go a little over the speed limit. I definately feel it is a violation of my rights.

__________________
If something seems too good to be true, then it probably is....

TM875

[QUOTE=Shpoop] The data will not be used against you, and in fact will help you very much, if you have not broken the law. If you have broken the law, it is you job to tell the truth about it, and frankly, very few do anymore. QUOTE]

This is because most traffic laws are outdated, overbearing, and just simply stupid. I'd say about 60-75% of drivers speed, especially on the highways. Loads don't use turn signals. You see all sorts of "illegal" behavoir (even from cops) on the road - and it's because the laws simply are no longer in compliance to our technology and lifestyles any more.

The guy that plowed into the chicks that pulled out in front of him - yea, he's guilty, but the speed had nothing to do with it. If he was going 25mph and hit them, he'd still be equally liable. You must remain in control of your car, regardless of circumstances. Your speed should be dictated by your ability.


-Now, if we'd have auto-piloted cars like in the movies, that'd be so much better...

__________________
"I've made only one mistake in my life. But I made it over and over and over. That was saying 'yes' when I meant 'no'. Forgive me."