Spies Riding Shotgun 353
Slashdot has covered before the proliferation of black boxes - event data recorders - in modern automobiles, that automatically record data about what the car has been doing and make it available after the fact to police, insurance companies, and people suing you - just about everyone except you, in fact. We'll add to that with yet another story about the computerized spy riding shotgun in your new car.
Oh, for Christ's sake, michael! (Score:1, Insightful)
And now, i can already see the flamewars erupting all over again. Some people crying out "1984!" and others saying that the first are stupid. It's nothing new. Neither is this story. Was it really necessary to report this? Do we really have to go through these flames all over again, if they will not add anything new to the story anyway?
PATHETIC (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Oh, for Christ's sake, michael! (Score:2, Insightful)
Pure Speculation (Score:2, Insightful)
Are there any cases where this has been abused? Why not post those?
I love my car.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Personal black boxes arent automatically bad. (Score:3, Insightful)
One of the effects this had was that no one would be able to make false accusations against you, because your alibi archive would vindicate you instantly. It also meant that no one could really get away with crime.
Of course, that view of things was largly utopian. The general arguement against this sort of tech in reality is that humans tend to be corruptible. So I dont think that trying such a concept for every person is ideal.
However, for things like using a car, I dont see it as a problem. As long is the recording media is practically impossible to tamper with, (in so far as any attempt to alter the contents would be detected as an alteration). And also, the laws would need to be written such that they could only demand to see very specific time segments in the recording. Assuming that only yourself and government authorities could access it, it would solve alot of problems.
- No one would drive like an asshat if someone would compell them to prove that they werent.
- You would have ironclad proof against bogus tickets and insurance charges.
- The only thing you really give up for the two previous items is the ability to lie about the above two.
Then again, I dont drive at all, so its all a non issue to me.
END COMMUNICATION
I would quite like one (Score:2, Insightful)
Ok, there are spies. Now what? (Score:3, Insightful)
1) Who owns the info? You're in a crash*, can you seize the info form the other guy's car to prove your innocence?
1a) How? Go to the junkyard and rip out his computer?
1b) Should we all carry OBD2 down-loading recorders? Scene of the crash, you barge into the other car, plug in and download while the tow-truck is still attaching to drag it away?
2) If you're in a crash*, how do you protect your rights of posession to the data? (You must agree that at the very least, posession of the car implies posession of any/all devices therein, so any data stored within those devices MAY have vague posession-rules, but holding the black box in your hands at least allows you control of that data...)
3) How do I safely rig something to destroy or scramble my car's computer? As a last-ditch effort to protect my privacy, shouldn't I have a "Destroy" button somewhere? I'm thinking thermite, but maybe a strong capacitor might be better, both carry risks, but not as much as the data falling in the wrong hands BEFORE my lawyers have a chance to see it...) No news is better than bad news?
*They're all "crashes"
You know what? (Score:5, Insightful)
If anything, this technology SHOULD allow one to completely eliminate speed limits from the books. Exceeding the speed limit DANGEROUSLY can be called "reckless driving," so why do we have have to have extra laws for it in addition to reckless driving violations? For one reason only: those who make the laws realize that one can drive fast without driving dangerously, but if they let us do that they'd never make any money.
Driving at 85 mph in the rain on a twisty road in the middle of the night with cars on it? Yes. Your ass should be prosecuted.
Driving at 80 mph "in a 50" in the middle of the night, with not a cloud in the sky, on a completely empty, straight road? No.
Re:Personal black boxes arent automatically bad. (Score:1, Insightful)
On one hand, I wish they would enforce it. So that the speed limits would go up, because if they gave out a ticket every time someone sped, the people would riot.
And on the other hand, I think it'd be idiotic because the damn gubbmint would end up addicted to the ticket revenue.
This is the same argument as DRM on computers.
I buy a physical device, I should be able to utilize it in whatever manner I choose. If I do something stupid with it, say, AND cause someone's injury or death, I should be well punished.
As John Stuart Mill said, "In all such cases there should be perfect freedom, legal and social, to do the action and stand the consequences."
Insurance (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:As long as they come with an off switch. (Score:4, Insightful)
So, your assumption is that if I want a little privacy, I must be about to commit a crime. Why not insist that I have video cameras installed in my home in case I should decide to commit date rape some evening?
rat yourself out (Score:5, Insightful)
[...] nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself [...]
But we're already compelled to give DNA, urine and tissue sample evidence, so paying for, maintaining and powering devices we own just to spy on us seems inevitable. That crazy old Constitution, with its quaint notions of human rights.
Lets get all excited (Score:3, Insightful)
How dare they monitor the speeds we drive, or where we go, in fact how dare they do it now with police and speed cams. This is a total outrage. I am so outraged I cant even be arsed to write the rest of this post because I must devote all my brain power to the massive invasion of my privacy thats happening at every level in Slashworld.
Re:Pure Speculation (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:[OT] The Complete Rules to Calling Shotgun... (Score:3, Insightful)
What? (Score:3, Insightful)
So they charge you more when you signed the contract agreeing to the conditions. Always read everything before you sign. If you do not agree with the conditions don't sign it. Take your business somewhere else. They are not violating your rights in any way, shape, or form.
Just don't ever do anything wrong (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:As long as they come with an off switch. (Score:1, Insightful)
Good citizens only send mail on postcards.
Re:You know what? (Score:3, Insightful)
So, your theory here is that laws are relative and that this has not been taken into consideration by the people in charge.
Which makes the laws bogus.
Which means you should lobby to get the laws fixed.
Which is an entirely different problem than what's being discussed here.
My VW (Score:3, Insightful)
What I hate about it is that the car demands it's service with a flashing light and tone, only a Volkswagen mechanic can turn the alert off. The dataport is hidden behind a removal panel below the radio, and there's no way in hell that my independant mechanic can get the thing to stop beeping at me because I didn't volunteer to be overcharged by a VW mechanic.
Personally, I think that all the information on black boxes should be accessible to the driver, and additionally, that there should be a standard interface port and protocol so that all mechanics can access the black box. I also think that the exact information being collated should be revealed before you purchase the car.
I'm happy if police can access the information in the case of a serious crash, but I don't want the information being provided to manufacturers without knowing exactly what my car is telling them. I don't have anything to hide about my driving habits etc and I am a safe driver and don't speed, but I resent not being able to choose my own independant mechanic without a great deal of inconvinience, and I don't like not knowing exactly what my car is recording.
Re:Ok, there are spies. Now what? (Score:3, Insightful)
--Ender
Would be good if it weren't half-assed (Score:4, Insightful)
--Ender
Re:You know what? (Score:3, Insightful)
Forget it. Passing laws is ten times easier than getting them removed from the books, and in this case, getting them removed is impossible. The best you can do is buck the system and fight against any additional restrictions being placed on your liberties.
It's a machine for crying out loud (Score:2, Insightful)
"You can't shut it off, and you can't manipulate it,"
Sounds like a challange to me!
"...the driver who races his Miata one weekend and files a warranty claim the next. What are the chances that his data recorder will rat him out"
The automakers will have to drastically change their advertising. You can't sell a 'aports car' based on performance driving and later argue that using the vehicle as advertised violates it's warranty! Hell, Chrysler is HAPPY if you race their Neon! They will even sell you parts to hot-rod it that don't void the warranty and with others it's the old wink wink nudge nudge, take this out before you bring it in for warranty work. No, car dealers will NOT use performance driving to void your warranty. The manufacturers won't let them. THEY WANT TO SELL THE CARS!. Feedback to manufacturers from performance cars might even give us better cars! I still don't like it happening without my permission though.
One would think that, 'you own the car, you own the data' would apply. You certainly own the recorder and hacking it could be a lot of fun.
Re:What? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The DRM of Crash Test Dummies (Score:3, Insightful)
Brilliant (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, don't let public concerns stop you from doing whatever the hell you want. It doesn't stop anyone else.
He was too fucking old to drive Goddamnit! (Score:5, Insightful)
The National Transportation Safety Board called for requiring standardized recorders in all light-duty vehicles after it was unable to ascertain what happened when an elderly driver plowed through a farmer's market in Santa Monica, Calif., last year, killing and injuring scores of people.
OK, let me be the first to call it since the NTSB is a bunch of politically correct pussies who don't want to piss off the fucking geezers in the AARP. The guy who caused this accident was too fucking old to drive, OK! He was 86 years old, according to this article [cbs2.com] he had "... a medical condition called a "second-degree heart block" that can cause the heart to stop beating for several seconds.", raising the question of why we are letting someone who has a bad heart that can stop beating during times of stress drive a motor vehicle. This guy's reflexes were gone, he couldn't adequately control the pedals because he had had hip replacement surgeries he might have had cognitive deficits as well as severe visual ones. He was just too fucking old to operate a motor vehicle, and guess what! There's millions more like him out there. Old folks are incredibly dangerous behind the wheel. We don't need black boxes in every car, we need annual vision, reaction and cognition testing for all drivers over 70 years old, and those who don't pass lose their licenses right then and there. While we're at it we can strip the licenses of anyone who has more than one DUI or who causes an accident where someone loses life or limb, this would go a long way towards making our roads a lot safer.
Does this suck if you're one of the old people in question? Well yes it does, but I find it interesting that the people who whine about restricting the driving privileges of the elderly have no problem with restricting the driving privileges of teenagers. Admittedly teenagers are bad drivers, but they're going to get better as they age, someone who's 16 years old will probably be a better and safer driver in 10 years when they're 26, the same cannot be said for a 70 year old. And while it might suck for elderly drivers to lose their licenses it kind of sucks for the rest of us when they lose control of a vehicle and kill 10 people and send 63 more to the hospital or in my case fail to yield right of way on a sunny day, plow into my motorcycle and cost me my left leg below the knee.
Oregone, gone nuts! (Score:3, Insightful)
Brilliant. Instead of estimating an average car mileage and using that as a gauge of road use per gallon and adding a fixed price to each gallon of gasoline, Oregon is going to show us how smart they can be! They will get to pay for the development, deployment and upkeep of totally unnecessary and invasive computer system. Imagine people's glee at getting to pay more for my gasoline because they buy an economy car that gets more miles to the gallon.
Re:You know what? (Score:4, Insightful)
I also can't believe how many times I've gotten into precisely that argument on Slashdot.
Re:This is terrible! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:He was too fucking old to drive Goddamnit! (Score:3, Insightful)
Hello, free market (Score:1, Insightful)
What gets me is that essentially what annoys people about these car nannies is that it makes it more difficult for them to lie about their bad driving behaviour. What they neglect is that, for the good drivers out there, these devices help you prove that a wreck was not your fault. They also call 911 for you while you're lieing unconcious in a ditch with your legs wrapped several times around your ass. Sounds handy to me but, hey, what do I know, I don't wear a foil hat.
Re:This is terrible! (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:He was too fucking old to drive Goddamnit! (Score:3, Insightful)
There was once a good slashdot comment:
Q: "why are aeroplanes safer than cars?"
A: "Because if pilot rules were applied to drivers, then 1/3 the population would never be allowed to drive at all, 2/3 of the rest would only be allowed to drive 50cc cars in clear weather at 30mph, and the remainder would have spent 10 years learning, get retested every year, and be grounded at the first suspicion of human-error"
Now if only they could apply those same standards to those in control of motor vehicles, and perhaps update the driving test. I don't care that someone's demonstrated that they were once able to control a small car whilst sober, calm, undistracted, and fully-rested, it doesn't have any bearing on the driving they actually do.
Re:You know what? (Score:3, Insightful)
You didn't answer my question - are you suggesting that some liberty to break the law is infringed here?
Idiot mods. It's the same old "i'm going to use my own personal moral ideals to try and justify my behavior in the larger context of a society" argument. That's not insightful, it's been said by childish dolts like the parent poster a million times before to justify their illegitimate behavior. This stupid "view" of things is especially prevelant in threads where numbskulls use it to try and justify the fact that they steal games/movies/music/whatever.
Fucking idiot mods need to go look up the definition of "insightful".