EU Parliament Adopts eCall Resolution 212
arisvega writes with news that the European Parliament has pass a resolution in support of eCall, an initiative to install devices in vehicles that automatically contact emergency services in the event of a crash. The resolution calls on the European Condition to make it mandatory for all new cars starting in 2015.
"The in-vehicle eCall system uses 112 emergency call technology to alert the emergency services automatically to the location of serious road accidents. This should save lives and reduce the severity of injuries by enabling qualified and equipped paramedics to get to the scene within the first “golden hour” of the accident, says the resolution. The eCall system could save up to 2,500 lives a year and reduce injury severity by 10 to 15%, it adds."
Sounds like a great idea. (Score:3, Insightful)
Considering all of the crazy technology we have in even the cheapest modern cars, it is amazing something like this isn't commonplace outside of high end systems like OnStar by now. Would love to see this in the US too.
OnStar is a bug (Score:3, Informative)
They can silently listen in on you. Court filings have shown that this is in fact being done. Merely having the hardware provides this ability; you need not be a subscriber. (thus I refuse to buy a vehicle with OnStar)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, we could stifle technological progress in order to prevent things like this. Just think of all the privacy we'd have if electricity had been outlawed at the start!
Or, we could apply a system of checks and balances to address the root issue, which is that privacy is being violated, regardless of the means.
Re: (Score:3)
Or, we could apply a system of checks and balances to address the root issue, which is that privacy is being violated, regardless of the means.
Politicians always promise "checks and balances" but then always make them either too weak or just remove them at a later date. For example when Icelandic banks started to collapse the UK used anti-terror legislation that was supposed to contain "checks and balances" to freeze their assets.
The only solution seems to be to remove temptation by not allowing the system to be installed in the first place. I wish it were not so, but it is.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not a fetish (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but that design is focused on assembly rather than on modification or repair. If you are altering the factory wiring (by disconnecting OnStar), it can be a real pain.
Besides that, why would I want to pay for the hardware that I never in a million years want active and help them fluff up their sales figures?
If I find myself in the market for a new car, I will let them know that including OnStar is a deal breaker.
Actually, I don't remember cars from the '60s having many problems with wiring (other than B
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, I don't remember cars from the '60s having many problems with wiring (other than British cars).
You obviously never drove an Italian or French car then. Oh, and it was the 1970s when British cars were really bad, not the 1960s.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know anything about OnStar. But as far as I can eCall doesn't actually allow you to talk to anyone, so there wont be a mic in the car.
If I understand it correctly then what this eCall system does is record your position and in case the system detects a crash of some sort it sends off a notice to the emergency services saying " crashed at "
Re:OnStar is a bug (Score:5, Funny)
Translation: I don't want everyone to know that I frequent conspiracy theorist sites.
Re: (Score:2)
This was all over the news, and is a matter of public record. Do some googling, you'd have to be a conspiracy theorist to claim that it isn't true given the volume of consistent coverage by reputable publications, up to and including the New York Times.
Re: (Score:2)
Wouldn't it have been easier to just put up a link (especially since they are so easy to find; I mean, we're apparently talking ten seconds here) instead of writing several messages on how you knowledgeable people are not going to put up a link and everyone should just google for it?
Re:OnStar is a bug (Score:5, Insightful)
"citation needed."
Look it up yourself you lazy cunt.
I'm sick of you lazy fucktards who cannot be bothered to spend 10 seconds on Google.
Hell no. If I had to go and google every crackpot theory every retard on the internet cites as fact I'd never get anything done. Why don't you spend 10 seconds pasting a link and save everyone else the time. This has the added bonus that when we see that your citation is theonion.com we can laugh at you instead of wasting time reading it.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence (and potty mouth retorts don't count as evidence, no matter how many expletives you might use).
I should add that I am fully prepared to believe that your claims might be true, they certainly sound plausible, but i'm not going to waste time listening to the ramblings of some AC that was too lazy to provide evidence and too gutless to put their name to them.
Re:OnStar is a bug (Score:4, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OnStar#Use_as_surveillance_device [wikipedia.org]
Short version: It's possible in theory, but the design is supposed to guarantee several forms of notification (both visible and audible) if someone is listening in. If you had physical access to the vehicle, you could disable the notifications though. So in crack-pot theory land, it's doable; in reality, it probably hasn't and won't ever happen.
IAAFM (former mechanic), and yes I had heard of this when OnStar was introduced. Now you two play nice :)
Re:OnStar is a bug (Score:5, Informative)
OnStar says it can't be done, yet the FBI was granted a warrant to do exactly that [cnet.com]. On appeal the 9th circuit determined that issuing the warrant was improper. So, who do I believe, the FBI (for whom the information is adverse) and the courts, or OnStar who would obviously like to tell us it isn't possible?
Weighing those sources, I'm more inclined to believe it can be done.
OnStar does admit that they get tracking data even when the call button isn't pressed and that they can do so even if you cancel the service. Bottom line, if you want privacy in your vehicle, remove the OnStar system.
I am also a former mechanic though I stuck to small engines and commercial trucks..
Re: (Score:3)
If you're not a criminal, you've got nothing to worry about anyway. I think there's a lot of liberal atheist pedos here getting worried for good reason.
Re: (Score:2)
"citation needed."
Look it up yourself you lazy cunt.
I'm sick of you lazy fucktards who cannot be bothered to spend 10 seconds on Google.
Hell no. If I had to go and google every crackpot theory every retard on the internet cites as fact I'd never get anything done. Why don't you spend 10 seconds pasting a link and save everyone else the time. This has the added bonus that when we see that your citation is theonion.com we can laugh at you instead of wasting time reading it.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence (and potty mouth retorts don't count as evidence, no matter how many expletives you might use).
I agree with him, "citation needed" is overused. One of the wikipedia guidelines i read said it means "I don't believe you, please privise a source" but my experience shows that often it really does means more like "I don't believe you but because I'm a lazy fucktard who can't be bothered to do a simple web search somebody else should fix this". The vast majority of "citation needed" taggings that I have fixed on wikipedia (and I have fixed a bunch of them) were doable in less than five minutes, usually way
Re: (Score:2)
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence (and potty mouth retorts don't count as evidence, no matter how many expletives you might use).
I agree with him, "citation needed" is overused. One of the wikipedia guidelines i read said it means "I don't believe you, please privise a source" but my experience shows that often it really does means more like "I don't believe you but because I'm a lazy fucktard who can't be bothered to do a simple web search somebody else should fix this". The vast majority of "citation needed" taggings that I have fixed on wikipedia (and I have fixed a bunch of them) were doable in less than five minutes, usually way less. Nobody is asking you to refute every crackpot conspiracy theory out there but surely you can sacrifice a few minutes of your time once in a while to do a simple web search and see if you can easily provide a fix before dropping yet another "citation needed" tag in a wikipedia entry.
IMHO it's underused, especially on wikipedia. Making statements without providing sources is pure laziness. Anyone can write crap on wikipedia (evidence: wikipedia ;), it's the research that is where the actual effort is, and the research should be done by the submitter not the reader. I also find the attitude of "i'll just say whatever the hell I want and if anyone asks for proof i'll just scream profanity at them and claim that they are lazy, and maybe throw in a bit of 'suck it up princess' in there too"
Re: (Score:3)
Its meaning as a Slashdot meme/bit of shorthand is not quite the same as its use on Wikipedia. There is always an implication here that the claim is implausible without strong evidence. It's one step removed from calling someone an actual liar, but the hint is there.
Re:OnStar is a bug (Score:4, Insightful)
I can totally understand your sentiment, but at the same time, I can understand being frustrated by the pedantic "citation needed" bullshit, it's just more of of that deliberately obtuse affectation that makes it so hard to have a productive conversation these days. That guy didn't want any citations so he could learn something, he wanted a citation so he could find some reason, ANY reason, to refute it. This is how all controversial posts are here on slashdot anymore. Hell, that's how controversial subjects are ANYWHERE these days, not just here. So many people don't ask for citations for proof anymore, they ask for citations so they can attack them and reinforce their own presuppositions. From the start, that guy was antagonistic towards the idea that OnStar could be being used illegitimately, something that has been in the news many times over the last few years. I doubt a citation from the goddamned FBI themselves saying they do exactly what is being claimed here would have been accepted as fact.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"citation needed."
Look it up yourself you lazy cunt.
I'm sick of you lazy fucktards who cannot be bothered to spend 10 seconds on Google.
You were the one who made the claim, burden of proof lies with you.
Your argument is the equivalent of a physicist saying: "Through rigorous study I have determined that 90% of the universe is in fact a hologram." and when asked to show his work he says "Do the math yourself you lazy cunt. I'm sick of you lazy fucktards who cannot be bothered to do the math yourselves."
Re: (Score:3)
OnStar really isn't highend, it's standard on all GM cars. A lot of dealerships will install a compatible unit if you ask them for it too. Hell you can go down to your local Bestbuy(yeah I know) and buy the stand alone unit for your car actually. They sell it aftermarket for $299, [usatoday.com] though, it's now apparently $99 and then it's $18.95/mo for the service or $199/yr.
Re: (Score:2)
Having come off twice, though thankfully neither involving serious injury, I can safely say that I would absolutely welcome this kind of system on a bike. The biggest concern I have is coming off on a bend and going through a hedge. If I fall unconscious or break bones, it could be days before someone finds me in the brush, especially if it's farmland left fallow (which all the best roads go past).
I've got an idea (Score:3)
We could save hundreds of thousands more lives if we just banned cars.
(If you're reading this from Brussels, don't make this the next "European Policy Initiative".)
Re:I've got an idea (Score:4, Insightful)
Actyally : less cars wouldn't be a bad idea to reduce the amount of accidents ( a lot of accidents happen due to traffic jams ).
But it doesn't need to be forced : ensure good public transportation, and people will use that instead of their cars.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Agrarian lifestyles are very damaging for the environment - fields, irrigation, livestock (especially goats) etc. Hunter/Gather FTW!
Re: (Score:2)
Hunter/Gatherer life styles are harmful to levels of other species which has a knock on effect on the environment. We need to genetically engineer a predator that preys on humans and introduce it into the food chain.
Why genetically engineer it? Lots of stuff already eat humans if they can get away with it. Oh also humans are the natural predator of humans.
Re:I've got an idea (Score:4, Insightful)
We really should do this, starting with the largest cities. Start with the largest vehicles and work your way down, adding in public transportation as cars are eliminated. I really love to drive, right until I get into some shitty city where you can't do it meaningfully anyway. And cities are fucking horrible really, but they would be wonderful without the cars. The "freedom" of driving is largely illusory. Your car can be taken away from you at the drop of a hat and even if you get it back without paying anything you're not going to get anything for the time you spent without it.
Re: (Score:3)
Quite some cities (Amsterdam, Enschede and Den Haag in The Netherlands come to mind) do just that already. They build a large car park at the edge of the city, at the exit of the motorway, and run cheap and frequent shuttle buses or trams to the city centre.
If you really want you're still allowed to enter the city by car, but if you want to park it in the centre you have to deal with higher parking fees if you can find a place to park; traffic jams; and trying to find your way (most cities' street plans res
Re: (Score:2)
Your car can be taken away from you at the drop of a hat and even if you get it back without paying anything you're not going to get anything for the time you spent without it.
The ability of the government to do that without ruining many people's lives is largely illusory. I know that for much of my life, if they had done that to me, I would likely have lost my job shortly thereafter (oh and don't talk about unfair dismissal rights - you only get them after 2 bloody years).
Same thing but in the U.S... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
If you get ever slighty sassy with them they have to run and hide and call the real police...
worthless rent-a-cops
it will about balance itself (Score:2)
I guess it may help some people that crash in some remote place in the night (so basically where none would report it anyway).
Unfortunately it solves pretty much the wrong problem. The biggest issue with help is not that it is not notified in time, but that it cant arrive in time. There is not enough ambulances and they often have to travel vast distance to help. Adding new source of calls wont help.
Whats more they will now get more distracting calls from accidents that are resolved by participants or cops
Re: (Score:2)
Erm, are you talking about this from an american perspective or from an european?
There are not many places in europe that are as isolated as you describe.
And on top of that we have lots of ambulance helicopters.
cue fearmongering in 3... 2... (Score:5, Insightful)
Allow me to sum up the first 5000 or so comments:
Oh yeah, it's an evil conspiracy. Sure. "They" will monitor every car in the world through this, because... uh... no idea.
Funny how geeks have become innovation-phobic. It used to be the other way around.
Re: (Score:2)
Insurance companies will use the data from these devices to get out of paying for insurance claims, regardless of fault.
"So the other party was drunk, texting on their phone while applying make-up, driving 20MPH over the speed limit and also getting 'satisfaction' from his partner? Well I'm certainly sorry, but the log shows you didn't indicate on your approach to the junction. You could have avoided this whole thing. We're not paying for your medical costs or the damage to your car. Sorry to he
Re: (Score:2)
Or perhaps we've just been following the EU more closely than you?
Just for example, MEP Kerstin Westphal recently pencilled in an amendment to mandate ABS on 125cc scooters just as the rubber stamp was descending on yet another Fun Ist Verboten Directive. Completely co-incidentally, Ms Westphal had just been on a "fact finding trip" to the Bosch ABS production facility in Bamberg, where she learned the fact that Bosch is ready to sell a new ABS system for scooters, and so a market needed to be created fo
Awesome (Score:2)
who's going to pay for it?
Re: (Score:2)
who's going to pay for it?
People who buy new cars in Europe?
Re: (Score:2)
So you will, if you buy a car in Europe.
Re: (Score:2)
what about service? radio aint free anymore
Re: (Score:2)
Use the emergency call service of any available mobile network.
Already when your phone is without SIM, or when you don't have your home network or a roaming network available, it will use any other available network to allow for emergency calls. This one as it's automatic will likely use SMS service, maybe data.
All this system needs to have is a GPS receiver and a SIM-less mobile phone, both are cheap. Add an impact detection (link to the air bags?) and have the whole thing ruggedised, and you're set.
There's an app for that . . . (Score:2)
. . . if the motion detector registers serious jolts or shaking that could only be the results of an accident, it automatically calls 112. Just remember to turn it off when you engage is any extreme sports. Hell, why not just plug your phone into the car, and let the car use your own phone to do the calling?
I hate it when devices are made mandatory. They always end up being piss-poor quality, designed by bureaucrat committees. If private companies can offer these things instead, with no "must" behind i
Re: (Score:2)
ABS (anti lock brakes) are also mandatory in cars here, and seatbelts. They usually work, because they are nod designed by the government. Why would the goventment design them? They just mandate some technology that does something, and let the manufacturers figure out how to make that.
Re: (Score:3)
I hate it when devices are made mandatory.
Because you have no clue how procedures liek this work?
They always end up being piss-poor quality,
Can you point out one example?
designed by bureaucrat committees. No, they are designed by the inventors who first invented them.
If private companies can offer these things instead, Private companies are the ones who are offering this. Or do you think Mercedes Benz and Porsche a socialist owned companies?
with no "must" behind it, they will come up with something cheap
How will it determine if assistance is needed? (Score:3, Insightful)
One problem is: How will it tell apart a serious accident in which people were hurt, and one in which the car was damaged but the people inside were unscathed. Once it gets installed in all cars, this could result in emergency services rushing to places where they are not needed, wasting time.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
One problem is: How will it tell apart a serious accident in which people were hurt, and one in which the car was damaged but the people inside were unscathed.
If the airbags went off, its probably worth sending a paramedic on a motorbike - if only to check that people weren't injured by a small explosive device going off inches from their face.
Re: (Score:3)
And how will you determine if people didn't get hurt without sending someone to check on them?
At impacts likely to trigger the device, it's entirely possible for someone to be hurt and not even realize till the next day or so. This happens with neck and back injuries, not enough to notice until the person stretches or makes a bad movement, and then *extreme pain*
So, better safe than sorry.
Specification please (Score:2)
Ok, it's mandatory now, but where is the exact specification of the system ?
I was involved in a eCall prototype device a few years ago and this was a totally crap technology. Basically this was a analog software modem on top of a GSM call, witch is a pretty stupid idea, given the fact that a SMS is a lot cheaper, reliable and faster to transmit the few data that eCall require. A few company proposed algorithms that aggressively abuse the GSM compression to pass a ridicule amount of data per second. All thos
Re: (Score:3)
For reference, here is the specification I have used for the work:
http://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_ts/126200_126299/126267/10.00.00_60/ts_126267v100000p.pdf
http://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_ts/126200_126299/126268/10.00.00_60/ts_126268v100000p.pdf
http://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_ts/126200_126299/126268/10.00.00_60/ts_126268v100000p0.zip
The Qualcomm copyright information have been removed from the earlier revision. This do not grant that the algorithm is not protected by a patent.
While searching on the Intern
Re: (Score:2)
Really, a such complex claim cannot be without a lock in goal:
http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/esafety/doc/ecall/pos_papers_impact_assessm/qualcomm.pdf
"8.2 In-Vehicle System Devices
Subject to certain standard terms and conditions (e.g., protection for
Qualcomm products as to the licensees or its customers patents),
Qualcomm will not charge a royalty rate for a license for its patents
essential to the 3GPP eCall in-band modem standard (3GPP TS 26.267
and TS 26.268) in subscriber devices that
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
AFAIK, due to the fact that the system use an emergency call, no SIM card is required, so the cost will probably be billed to the emergency call center. I am not certain about that, Need verification.
Re: (Score:2)
AFAIK, the in vehicle mobile is probably offline except in case of a emergency event. Since this is a emergency call, it will start scanning to find any operator and pick one, maybe based one the signal quality or other factor. So I don't think that the in vehicle mobile is bound to any operator at all. I expect that the in vehicle mobile is SIM free.
Re:STUPID (Score:4, Informative)
Every accident that happens in the middle of the day on the freeway results in 20 emergency calls (and the response system is more than adequate to deal with this fact). Accidents that happen on a dark windy road in the dead of night? Not so much.
Re: (Score:3)
That was my first thought too, but in a lot of cases (in Australia at least) reception on those back roads is pretty ordinary at best, and would likely drop to nothing when upside-down in a ditch, so i'm wondering about the usefulness of this idea... it would certainly have it's uses but if the primary use-case is the "upside down in a ditch on a back road" then i'm not so sure.
Re: (Score:2)
So you are angry because people care enough to call 911 ?
Re:STUPID (Score:5, Insightful)
Try to remember this post when you're upside-down in a ditch with two broken arms at 3 AM on a country road.
Me? I'll gladly pay $500 extra dollars per car even if only one in a hundred people ever go through that experience. I know a hundred people, and I don't think any of them should spend a minute more in that ditch than they have to.
Re:STUPID (Score:4, Interesting)
You know this is just an excuse to install a GPS in every car. Then once they've done that, automatic speed enforcement! Bam!
Re: (Score:2)
I know 100 people who need to spend some time in a ditch *smacks fist into hand*.
You know this is just an excuse to install a GPS in every car. Then once they've done that, automatic speed enforcement! Bam!
Yeah that would be pretty cool - having the traffic flowing smoothly at the same speed instead of some people doing 20 under in the fast lane and "important people" weaving in and out of traffic at 20 over the limit.
I don't know why but driving seems to stress me out more and more as I get older.
Re: (Score:3)
There have been tests with automatic speed enforcement, and the subjects said it was very relaxing to not be able to go faster than the speed limit.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
1 in 100 seems an improbably high number of beneficiaries. Consider that this technology would only benefit victims of the subset of accidents more severe than those in which the individual remains capable himself of contacting emergency services, but less severe than those in which the individual is beyond help even of services immediately dispatched. One must also remove from this subset all accidents in which other people are available to call for immediate help. In densely populated areas, this number m
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Fine, pay for your own service.
The same argument could be made for seat belts. In both cases it ignores the fact that an accident affects not only the people inside the vehicle but also everyone who who wants to use the road and the public services aren't free either. So it isn't difficult to make an argument that if you're going to drive a heavy box of metal at high speeds you should take a few steps to minimize damage.
And if you're worried about being tracked I hope you don't use a cellphone. Still, the thing should be required to not
Re:STUPID (Score:4, Interesting)
Your argument seems to be based around the idea that it's impossible for you to ever be aided by this service. Instead of castigating you for your unrecognized selfishness, I'll try to appeal to it. First though, we need to at least attempt to break through your self-deception, because a rational conversation isn't possible with it. If I fail, well, at least I tried.
Have you ever encountered black ice? If you haven't, talk to someone who has, whose opinion you trust. If such a person exists, you'll find out that sometimes, it hits, and there is absolutely no way you could have avoided it short of never driving, ever. If it forms just right, you can't see it, period, not with three extra eyes and binoculars. If it forms on a turn, and you hit it, your car will slide, and there is no amount of driving skill that will prevent it, not even if you were the best driver that ever lived. Physics and all that jazz.
And there's all those other idiots on the road, too. What if that hot shit drops his joint in his lap and jerks the wheel just as you're passing, running his car into your lane at the last possible instant causing a head-on collision and knocking you both out? I know you're a magnificent driver, but daddy's money bought little Mr. Hot-Shit a car that turns faster than yours, and the random jerking of the wheel happened to replicate a perfect turn that pushed that car to the limit of its lateral grip, so no matter how astounding your reflexes and command of the machine you pilot, the immutable laws of the universe are dictating a crash. Even though you're perfect, you can't react to something before it happens, provided you're a believer in free will.
So now that we've established that even though you're perfect (and you are), it could still happen to you, what's the price you're willing to pay to drastically reduce the chance that you die, or perhaps just lose a leg? I know you've got a price, since you've made that your argument. I guess $500 isn't worth it to you. I'm curious. What is?
Re: (Score:2)
No, I said I'm not perfect. If you didn't get that concept, maybe you need to go back to sku sku sku school, where they seem to have failed to teach our current sheep herd the most basic principles needed to get by in life, but some how managed to pass them through grade after grade until they got out into the real world. Woe is the general tax payer who actually has to pay for them and theirs...
Do you have any idea what it's like to listen to somebody read out loud and struggle to make it through a few paragraphs in a story because they can't fucking read? Did you know these same people are driving on our streets, unable to read or comprehend the guidelines motorists need to know? Oh wait, we're all winners, nobody is behind the curve...
Yes! Absolutely this technology could save my life! Do I want it in my vehicle? NO! Not until the day I decide I want it. At that time I can call On Star, provided by Government Motors.
I don't have to cost the government, YOU and other taxpayers, a dime! I don't have insurance. Why? I'm not married and I don't have any children. Who would benefit? Well insurance companies for one, and now if I still don't buy insurance I get fined / taxed (however you see it) thanks to Obamacare. Yep, I decide not to be a burden to society while I pay for those that do. Funny how what I worked for doesn't benefit me, but takes care of somebody else.
Fuck that!
Changing the topic a little aren't you? Annoyed that you got a little bit owned?
Re: (Score:2)
If it were up to me, no there wouldn't be fines if you voluntarily disconnect the beacon, provided you notify your passengers that you're taking on more than the minimum possible amount of responsibility for their lives because you'd rather live off the grid than address the issue of corruption that motivates your desire to live off the grid, and you feel that your desire to take the easy way out is more important than the possibility of their avoidable death.
The problem you seem to be having trouble with i
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Fine, die in the ditch. If I was buying a car for one of my kids, I'd pretty much insist it be there, but for you, I'd gladly see you bleed to death because of your bizarre version of "principles" (which is really more likely undiagnosed paranoid schizophrenia).
Re: (Score:2)
But when shaving an hour off the medical response time to reach you could reduce the severity of your spinal injury, and save the public millions in slashing your long term care costs - it does become a public problem. 1. You don't cost anyone money when you are healthy. 2. You are only free to be stupid only when we - your fellow humans on earth - aren't on the hook to pay the price for your actions.
Otherwise chi
Re: (Score:2)
Same logic used to try to tax things deemed "unhealthy." Problem is, it seems to be a false dilemma. "Either get out of society, or stay and let me tax everything you do if it may affect me in some indirect way!" But there is a third option: in order to maintain a society that is truly free, pay the costs. I guess freedom isn't important if it means slightly higher taxes, huh?
Re: (Score:2)
I bet you don't like Obamacare, do you?
Re: (Score:2)
Not even you.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The claims of 'up to' 2500 lives means that in reality it will be half of that at best.
No, it means that on average the previous ten years, every year roughly 2500 people died in car accidents because no ambulance was notified in time.
That means the money would be a lot better spent on fighting cancer, obesity or other life-threatening diseases. did you do the math?
Suppose 1 million cars get sold in germany, and every car costs now 20 Euros more. This is 20 million euros.
Are you sure you can save 1000 canc
Re: (Score:2)
Although you are being ridiculed, I think you are right. It is damn near impossible to have an accident and not having ten or more witnesses.
If you think that, you must live in the city. Outside the cities if you go off the road at night and tumble a few meters down so you're not in anyone's headlights chances are good nobody noticed and nobody will notice until morning even on somewhat traveled roads. Here's a typical example [www.vg.no] from Norway. Driver went off the road, the road is a little bit elevated from the terrain and at night nobody's going to see it. There are always tire tracks from old accidents, unless you see the car nobody's going to che
Re: (Score:3)
No, this system is designed to the resolve "single vehicle incidents", where typically a single male (irresponsible) driver at night loses control of the vehicle at excessive speed and gets knocked unconscious in the accident after hitting a tree.
While it is true that a fast response can save a lot of lives in these situations, I am not sure why I should have to pay for these idiots on the road. Even worse, risk compensation could mean that they drive even more aggressively, thus increasing the risk to sensible drivers on the road. It is certainly a double edged sword.
I am assuming that by 'risk compensation' you are referring to that phenomenon where as cars become safer and safer people become more reckless drivers. Well I don't think that'll apply in the case of this eCall thing, since it doesn't actually make you safer in the event of a crash. It just makes it so the emergency services know about it earlier.
Re: (Score:2)
No, this system is designed to the resolve "single vehicle incidents", where typically a soccer mom on the phone (irresponsible) driver loses control of the vehicle
FTFY ;-)
Re: (Score:3)
You are advocating luddism as a solution to a social problem. The social problem being that "they" think they have a right to track other people. Until you address that, you're just playing whack-a-mole, and with every smack of the hammer denying society access to the technology that's being used against it.
Re: (Score:2)
You wouldn't give a gun to someone you know is going to shoot you with it,
then claim their desire to kill you is a social problem,
and that being anti-gun is luddism.
Enabling mass tracking and surveillance of the citizenry is like handing a loaded gun to someone you know will use it.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if we're making up hypothetical situations...
If I needed somebody to protect me while I slept, I wouldn't give the gun to the person who wanted to kill me, I'd give it to someone who wanted to protect me. Even if my gun is the only gun in the world, and I destroy the gun, the person who wants to kill me will just do it with a knife. If I keep it for myself because I trust no one, they'll just kill me while I sleep. Truth be told, I'd rather be shot than stabbed, or strangled.
The problem is not the gun
Re: (Score:2)
Enabling mass tracking and surveillance of the citizenry is like handing a loaded gun to someone you know will use it.
Mass tracking and surveillance was enabled as soon as we invented CCTV and cellphones.
Re: (Score:3)
If it were the US government I'd be very sceptic indeed; the EU parliament is a lot better when it comes to privacy. I'm sure it's not that hard to design these things in a way that does not allow them to be used for surveillance or tracking.
Re: (Score:2)
You are advocating luddism as a solution to a social problem. The social problem being that "they" think they have a right to track other people. Until you address that, you're just playing whack-a-mole, and with every smack of the hammer denying society access to the technology that's being used against it.
The trouble is it's hard to see any other solution. By their very nature, politicians tend to like control and surveillence, so I adopt the default position of not trusting them with my privacy. Even i
Re: (Score:2)
Therefore every car has GPS. Therefore tracking every car, including yours, is trivial. The motive only appears to be altruistic.
Huh? I was convinced my GPS unit only receives (no, I don't use my mobile as a GPS). When did they start to emit?
Re: (Score:2)
Huh? I was convinced my GPS unit only receives (no, I don't use my mobile as a GPS). When did they start to emit?
GPS units in general can be (and often are) receive-only, but of course if you want your car to automatically notify the authorities when you get into a bad accident, then the car will also need to be able send a signal to the authorities.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Therefore every car has GPS. Therefore tracking every car, including yours, is trivial. The motive only appears to be altruistic.
An one of these people who thinks that GPS sends signals to the satellites. GPS doesn't work that way [si.edu], it only receives signals.
Re: (Score:2)
Therefore every car has GPS. Therefore tracking every car, including yours, is trivial. The motive only appears to be altruistic.
I don't get why this is problematic at all, I mean you are likely to appear on any number of traffic cams at different points during the day anyway, and if you have a cellphone your location is also logged.
The problem is, as it as always been, the huge amounts of data generated by large scale tracking like this makes it impossible to do anything with it in real-time unless you know specifically what to look for, and even if you do know it might not be that easy.
And trust me on this, nobody at the NSA, CIA o
Re: (Score:2)
The system only activates in case of accidents, the only people who should fear of it tracking them are hit-and-runners.
Re: (Score:2)
Even better than that, let's just make everyone immortal! Problem solved!
Re: (Score:2)
The only
people it will save are those who crash with nobody else around.
I've never been to Europe but I have trouble imagining it looks like Coruscant.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
they were planned carefully
No, they weren't planned at all in many cases. The older cities have been retrofit for cars in-town. The newer cities were built with cars in mind but with little or no planning.
The local legend here is that a plow was harnessed to a wild hog. Where he plowed, they paved.
Re: (Score:2)
Far better if they prevented idiots from getting behind the wheel. That would save many more lives.
It would but the only realistic way to do that is to perfect driverless cars (which not many people would object to), then make the use compulsory (which a lot of people would object to).
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect the sale of Chinese GSM jammers will go through the roof now this spyware is mandatory. The problem with such kit is that without proper rules (and hard, transparent evidence to show that such rules are actually being followed) it WILL be abused for other things - it's a given.
Ah, yes - of course those jammers will be made illegal too - after all, you need to keep the prices high..
Re: (Score:2)
One of the many reasons I don't own a cell phone is so I don't have to worry about being tracked or listened to. 99.9% of the conversations I have on the phone are at work and only have to do with work. I know I'm not the only one holding out on buying a cell phone, for whatever reason.
So, we'll have GPS in every car... Mandated... Once we accept the need, because of emergency, we'll soon be forced to deal with the realities of being tracked where ever our vehicle goes. It takes 30 minutes to get to work by car. I smoke a pack of cigarettes a day. A bicycle is a little out of the question... I guess I'll just have to start rebuilding cars that predate the mandate and are excluded. Cash for clunkers seemed like such a great idea at the time...
Also, how do they plan to offset the expense of paying more medics to be on call, the increase in the number of ambulances needed, the number of cops that have to show up to the scene of an accident that might have happened on public property, where they can't even do anything if nobody was injured... We're already having a hard enough time paying our public servants to deal with the shit they already have to deal with.
And who gets the contract to supply all these devices? Will they be manufactured in China with compromised chips like we're seeing with so many of our current electronics?
You guys are already being video taped everywhere you go, and now your car will have GPS... How easy it will be for investigators to consider anybody to be a suspect that was in the general area a crime occurred? It sounds like it would be good for police because they could narrow the suspects down to just a select few to begin with, but do you want to possibly be harassed by the police for something that didn't involve you in any way? We already have plenty of people who are being found innocent of crimes they supposedly committed 15 or 20 years ago.
I say fuck your tracking. As many citizens as possible should remove their bullshit mandated tracking devices and refuse to pay inspection taxes until they retract this law. A government run with no money. Too bad I didn't think of it first...
Dude, you're just one lost marble from moving into the woods to work on your manifesto aren't you?
What I am saying is you're sounding kinda crazy and I think you might wanna consider finding some help.