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.
[OT] The Complete Rules to Calling Shotgun... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:[OT] The Complete Rules to Calling Shotgun... (Score:5, Funny)
Man, this guy is obviously single.
Re:[OT] The Complete Rules to Calling Shotgun... (Score:2)
Begone! Your breasts have no power here!
Re:[OT] The Complete Rules to Calling Shotgun... (Score:3, Insightful)
Duped amendment (Score:2)
Looking forward.. (Score:4, Funny)
"You can't shut it off, and you can't manipulate it," I had that trouble when I had a Ginseng and Viagra chaser.
Re:Looking forward.. (Score:2)
This is terrible! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:This is terrible! (Score:4, Informative)
For instance, The CarChip [ambientweather.com].
My personal belief is vehement opposition to this kind of monitoring. Nevertheless, it is available. If she's driving a car you own, you can install it without any problem. If the car is hers, you might want to check with an attorney before installing any monitoring/spying equipment.
Jim
Re:This is terrible! (Score:2, Funny)
In that case you'll want it for the back seat. Or you can just put in a web cam.
Re:This is terrible! (Score:4, Insightful)
Pure Speculation (Score:2, Insightful)
Are there any cases where this has been abused? Why not post those?
Re:Pure Speculation (Score:2)
Since you obviously didn't RTFA (looking at your question), let me point out an instance from TA:
and further:
To usurp Clarke's quote, "any technology sufficiently ad
Re:Pure Speculation (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Pure Speculation (Score:2)
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.
Re:What? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Pure Speculation (Score:2)
I love my car.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I love my car.. (Score:2, Informative)
A number of witnesses swore blind to the cops that the guy had made no attempt to slow down and was speeding. Cops asked for, and were given, permission to access the black box data, which con
Re:I love my car.. (Score:2)
Re:I love my car.. (Score:2)
Re:I love my car.. (Score:2)
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
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:You know what? (Score:3, Interesting)
I wish I could do that here. Unfortunately the roads here aren't even safe when there are no other cars on them. Deer are a real problem here (to the point that it doesn't really have an effect on your insurance premium. The companies just go "oh, another one" and hand over the cash without really penalizing you.)
So speaks the guy who has totaled 2 cars (one of which was only
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.
Re:You know what? (Score:3, Insightful)
Forget it. Passing laws is ten
Re:You know what? (Score:2)
Liberties? It's a liberty to break the law now, is it?
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: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
Re:You know what? (Score:2)
Exceeding those limits will never be enforced, and you will never get everyone to simultaneously stop speeding.
Consequently, we're stuck with the status quo, probably whilst civilised society remains the dominant force on this planet.
Re:You know what? (Score:2)
In the books I refered to, the rule was that if no one accuses you of doing something wrong, then no crime was committed. That kind of thing allows the typical marginal speeding that everyone seems to indulge in.
The fact that you feel entitled to speed when you beleive that it will do no harm is a separate issue, in my opinion.
END COMMUNICATION
Re:You know what? (Score:2)
Not to mention the fact that a large amount of the roadways in this country are not in a pedestrian area or even in a city.
Take, for example I70 though Indianapolis. The last time I drove that section of 70 (it's been 3 years now, but it never really changes there), the posted limit was rather low (like 50 or 55 I believe). I was getting passed by patrol cars as I roughly followed the flow of traffic by doing 80. To be honest, I was lagging behind the car ahead of me a bit..
Re:Personal black boxes arent automatically bad. (Score:2)
Re:Personal black boxes arent automatically bad. (Score:2)
One important distinction is that you control access to the data. Someone can not use it against you without your permission!
This is one of the biggest questions facing our society as we move into the information age:
Who can we trust to make sure no-one abuses the huge amount of information collected about us?
Re:Personal black boxes arent automatically bad. (Score:2)
Well, I do. Sure, let's assume the blackbox records everything perfectly and is only accessed appropriately. It's still not a panacea. It doesn't know WHY you did what you did. Oh, you swerved/sped up/braked hard etc. Those could all be the signs of a bad driver causing an accident or a better driver trying to prevent one and failing. Which is it? It will end up this way: computer said you did something bad, you are at fault, reality/totali
I would quite like one (Score:2, Insightful)
As long as they come with an off switch. (Score:3, Interesting)
Does anyone know if all existing systems such as On-star can be turned off easily by the driver?
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?
There are no rights violated here! (Score:3)
If government forces these items on us, then we should fight that monopoly force called government. If a private manufacturer wants to push us on it, we can tell them to shove it and not buy their product.
That will help with DRM too! (Score:2)
Private manufacturers will listen, too, because in the bizarro universe that you inhabit, the buying power of a few concerned citizens like yourself overshadows the gargantuan purchasing clout of Fortune 500 companies that order 10,000 machines at a time.
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"
Re:Ok, there are spies. Now what? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Ok, there are spies. Now what? (Score:2)
The other problem with this is actual ownership. As a lot of cars are leased or on payments, who actually 'owns' it? The bank (which may be owned by or owner of your insurance company)? And thereby the data on the black box?
In the event the car is totaled, the insurance company often keeps it, and pays you (and the bank). Again, do they then 'own' the data on the black box in the car that they now own?
3) How do I safely rig
Re:Ok, there are spies. Now what? (Score:2)
a button from radio shack (or thinkgeek even [thinkgeek.com]) with the above capactior would prove quite fatal to the data.
National Motorists Association (Score:5, Informative)
Consider joining the NMA: http://www.motorists.org/ [motorists.org]
Insurance (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Insurance (Score:2)
Electric mother-in-law... (Score:3, Funny)
No paranoia here! (Score:2, Funny)
Drivecam (Score:5, Interesting)
It's a Drivecam video - it records the last 30 seconds or so of driver video and only saves it if an accident occurs. The guy was probably kicking himself for installing it. It probably killed whatever insurance claim he had.
Re:Drivecam (Score:2)
Re:Drivecam (Score:2)
Re:Drivecam (Score:2)
Re:Drivecam (Score:2)
But props for the guy for not putting both hands on the wheel when he realized he was in trouble. It takes a special brand of redneck to accomplish that. Even more bonus points for what appears to be a Dale Earnhart shirt.
Re:Drivecam (Score:2)
Actually, such a feat can be accomplished by even your Average Run-of-the-mill Redneck(tm).
Believe me, I'm from Louisiana. I know my rednecks.
From TFA (Score:3, Interesting)
So, he knowingly voided his warranty by racing his Miata. He then tries to defraud the manufacturer by filing a false warranty claim (he no longer has a warranty) and HE is the victim? Give me a fucking break.
For those of use who do not intentionally void our warranty, "black box" recording devices should be seen as a positive: overall, the manufacturer will save on fraudulent warrantee repairs, and warrantee coverage can improve.
Re:From TFA (Score:3, Informative)
And accelerating to the maximum speed, especially on cars with a rpm or speed limiter isn't abuse.
Re:From TFA (Score:3, Interesting)
on a positive side of note... (Score:2)
Now all the geeks think (Score:2, Funny)
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.
Re:rat yourself out (Score:2)
According to the definitive source, CSI, you can be "compelled", but not forced (though I suppose the semantics of the word could be open to interpretation--Webster says, "to drive or urge forcefully or irresistibly"). Often it's in the interest of the innocent to exclude themselves as a suspect by quickly volunteering specimens. Sort of flies in the face of "innocent until proven guilty", but we're talking about the real world
Re:rat yourself out (Score:2)
Re:rat yourself out (Score:2, Informative)
Think "witch trials", people being forced to confess to things they hadn't done... don't see how this is such an issue with DNA samples and whatnot...
Tim
Re:rat yourself out (Score:3, Informative)
There's a reason you can be compelled to give DNA and other physical samples as evidence against you. See here [findlaw.com] for a more detailed explanation of why. Here's the executive summary:
You are absolutely correct quoting the Fifth Amendment. The courts are trying to fulfill the policy goal of making sure that witnesses aren't erroneously convicted of a crime. The phrase "witness against himself," obviously means that y
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.
Your Rights Online? (Score:2)
I know its been suggested before, but would it be so difficult to change the title of this section?
Re:Your Rights Online? (Score:2)
A rather important point.. (Score:2)
So, what is the problem here?
The only thing I can see is that if you are responsible for an accident, this will prove it.
Big Brother can't go seeing where you've been to..
Let me get this straight (Score:2)
So, don't speed, drave safely, and you have nothing to worry about then, right? It *can't* track you and report on where you are/where you're going, it can only record how you've been driving. If that really is a problem, then you shouldn't be driving like that anyway.
Just don't ever do anything wrong (Score:3, Insightful)
Just rip them out (Score:2, Interesting)
Would removing the black box cause the car to stop functioning? I mean, we could just replace the box moments before returning it to the service facility. In fact, don't even remove the box, just pull the cables assuming they are not hard-wired. if they are snip a wire or two and make it look like it was damaged.
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.
Would be good if it weren't half-assed (Score:4, Insightful)
--Ender
You can get that. It's the Eaton VORAD radar (Score:2)
The Eaton VORAD anti-collision radar [roadranger.com] does just that. It tracks up to 20 targets in fr
The DRM of Crash Test Dummies (Score:3, Interesting)
Honestly, I don't mind the fact that they exist... As long as they are only used in the event of a crash and only at your option. I say that above all else because that box is your property, crash or no crash. The information therein is yours to release or not to release and should be covered as the 5th amendment would be used to protect your innocence. This device cannot run a-ground on the same DRM issues that affect consoles, software and music-- You know, the products you bought but don't actually own? That information is yours, recorded on a device you bought inside the car you own.
Now granted, it may very well be the only thing that proves your innocence. That said, story does have the right idea, however. These things are way too prone to abuse to be used without the proper safeguards in place.
Re:The DRM of Crash Test Dummies (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The DRM of Crash Test Dummies (Score:2)
As for my black box, if it's not, I have no idea what it is then as it possess no vital function that I can ascertain.
Re:The DRM of Crash Test Dummies (Score:2)
Re:The DRM of Crash Test Dummies (Score:2)
Fortunately, you are not the King of the World. Discovery compels a party to bring forward specific evidence relevant to a trial. Its not difficult to obtain a subpoena or a warrant for this device. Without this, Microsoft would be untouchable in its business practices. Without the memos and like to demonstrate a willingness to destroy competition in
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
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.
Constitutional rights... man! (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:He was too fucking old to drive Goddamnit! (Score:2)
Well, to be fair to the NTSB, their job isn't to give the LIKELY cause of the accident. It is to find the cause or say they can't. They aren't supposed to make assumptions. Being "too old to drive" isn't the root cause of the accident. Sure, it likely contributed....but that's not the same thing. Losing control isn't the cause. Maybe his heart stopped caus
Re:He was too fucking old to drive Goddamnit! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:He was too fucking old to drive Goddamnit! (Score:3, Insightful)
zerg (Score:2)
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.
My take. (Score:2)
1) Approaching closing speeds that
PATHETIC (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Oh, for Christ's sake, michael! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Oh, for Christ's sake, michael! (Score:2)
Good point. But there's always the threat that if it's reported as a "possible threat to privacy" too often, people will/might stop perceiving it as a threat and only shrug slightly when they see yet another "horror story" and forget about it.
Re:Seat belts usage? Re: cars.com story (Score:2)
Most if not all fairly new cars have a seat belt light that constantly blinks if the engine is running and the driver's seat belt isn't fastened. When the seatbelt is fastened, the light goes out. It's a simple matter to run an extra wire to the black box that records a 1 or 0 based on whether the seatbelt light is on. One of my cars (a 2001 model) has a pressure switch in the passenger seat cushion and does the same thing for the passenger s
Re:Seat belts usage? Re: cars.com story (Score:2)
After the fifth or sixth time I drove home with something heavy on my passenger seat and listened to the permascream, I jumpered the sensor to off permanently with a U of baling wire.
Re:Look, this isn't a problem... (Score:2)
Right. Have fun (if you live in a state that requires them by law) not passing your yearly inspection and getting a fine the next time you get stopped.
3. You can be selective about the equipment. Not a fan of seatbelts? Don't install them. Don't like the idea of an airbag in the face making you loose control of your car after the first bump in a
Re:Disabling? (Score:2)
Probably nothing. What you want is a strong, moving or changing field. Death by eddy currents.
Re:They're out to get you. (Score:2)
It's rather hard for an airline pilot to be sozzled as a flambeed vodka prawn and not have anyone notice.
If cars and car drivers were under that level of scrutiny, car