• NHTSA considering all cars required to have a "blackbox" that record all events
    148 replies, posted
[release] The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration will later this year propose a requirement that all new vehicles contain an event data recorder, known more commonly as a “black box.” The device, similar to those found in aircraft, records vehicle inputs and, in the event of a crash, provides a snapshot of the final moments before impact. That snapshot could be viewed by law enforcement, insurance companies and automakers. The device cannot be turned off, and you’ll probably know little more about it than the legal disclosure you’ll find in the owner’s manual. The proposal looks to some like a gross overreach of government authority, or perhaps an effort by Uncle Sam, the insurance industry and even the automakers to keep tabs on what drivers are doing. But if you’re driving a car with airbags, chances are there’s already one of these devices under your hood. Automakers have long installed electronic data recorders in their automobiles, and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has since late 2006 required automakers to tell consumers about the devices. That federal rule also outlines what information is recorded and stipulates that it be used to increase vehicle safety. Now the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is considering a proposal that would “expand the availability and future utility of EDR data” — in other words, a possible requirement that all automobiles have the devices. The proposal is expected sometime this year. A separate discussion would outline exactly what data would be collected. Both proposals follow rules adopted in 2006, and how they affect you depends upon where you live and what data points it records. How much it will affect you in the future may depend on a new set of standards that spell out exactly what data is collected and who can access it. [b]An Incomplete Record[/b] On August 17, 2002, two teenage girls in Pembroke Pines, Florida, died when their vehicle was struck by a Pontiac Firebird Firehawk driven by Edwin Matos. The girls were backing out of their driveway; investigators accessed the vehicle’s data recorder and discovered Matos had been traveling 114 mph in a residential area moments before impact. Matos was convicted on two counts of manslaughter, but his lawyer appealed the admission of the data recorder evidence, arguing it may have malfunctioned because the car had been extensively modified. The attorney also argued the evidence was based on an evolving technology. The Florida Supreme Court upheld the conviction, however, establishing precedent in that state that data gleaned from event data recorders is admissible in court. There are two important facts to note in this case. First, Matos was driving in Florida, one of 37 states with no statutes barring the disclosure of such data. While car companies initially claimed ownership of the data, courts eventually ruled that it belongs to vehicle owners and lessees. No federal laws govern access to black box data, and state laws eventually clarified how much data other parties could access. “The state statutes, starting with one in California, arose out of consumer complaints about insurance companies getting the data without the vehicle owner even knowing that the data existed or had been accessed,” said Dorothy Glancy, a lawyer and professor at Santa Clara Law with extensive experience studying issues of privacy and transportation. In most of the 13 other states, however, Matos’ black box data still would have been available to police officers armed with a warrant. “Law enforcement generally has access to the data,” Glancy said. The second important fact is that, though the court denied Matos’ appeal, the question of the data’s validity remained. Most manufacturers currently use proprietary systems that require specialized interpretation, and many individual event data recorders do not survive crashes intact. Other courts have ruled against the admission of the data. [b]Setting a Standard[/b] The lack of uniformity concerns Tom Kowalick. He chairs the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers P1616 Standards Working Group on Motor Vehicle Event Data Recorders, one of three panels aiming to set universal standards for event data recorders (EDR). “Until recently, there has been no industry-standard or recommended practice governing EDR format, method of retrieval, or procedure for archival,” Kowalick said. “Even for a given automaker, there may not be standardized format. This lack of standardization has been an impediment to national-level studies of vehicle and roadside crash safety.” Standards proposed in 2008 would ensure that data once available only to automakers IS publicly accessible. The new standards would make accessibility universal and prevent data tampering such as odometer fraud. “It also addresses concerns over privacy rights by establishing standards protecting data from misuse,” Kowalick said. The standards also propose specific guidelines and technology to prevent the modification, removal or deactivation of an event data recorder. Those regulations would, in theory, make black box data more reliable than what is currently collected. But they also would prevent drivers from controlling the collection of information — information that they own. “I am not sure why consumers would want a system in their vehicles that they could not control,” Glancy said. [b]For What Purpose?[/b] Before shunning new cars and buying a 1953 MG TD to avoid secret tracking devices, it helps to see how the information gleaned from event data recorders is used. General Motors has been a leader in event data recorder technology, installing them in nearly all vehicles with airbags since the early 1990s. It currently installs Bosch EDRs in all vehicles sold in North America. The technology has evolved and now collects as many as 30 data points, said Brian Everest, GM’s senior manager of field incidents. “In the early ’90s we could get diagnostic data, seatbelt use and crash severity,” Everest said. “Currently, we can get crash severity, buckle status, precrash data related to how many events the vehicle may have been in and brake application.” The newest vehicles also can determine steering input and whether lane departure warning systems were turned on. That info is invaluable in determining how a car responds in a crash. With a vehicle owner or lessee’s permission, crash investigators with access to the data pass on the EDR records to GM, which can determine whether vehicle systems or driver error contributed to an accident. They also can discover what vehicle systems and technologies prevented serious injuries or death. “It’s about trying to understand what a particular system’s performance did before a crash,” Everest said. In addition to helping a manufacturer prevent future crashes or injuries, it can also help in defending an automaker against claims of vehicle defects. “In a great many cases, we can use data to understand whether it had any merit to it or not,” Everest said. Sometimes the information vindicates an automaker, such as in the case of Toyota’s recent unintended acceleration debacle. Investigators could look directly at vehicle inputs to determine what occurred in each case. In other cases — a problem with unintended low-speed airbag deployment in a 1996 Chevrolet Cavalier, for example — the data reveals a legitimate vehicle defect and leads to a recall being issued. [b]Safety In The Future[/b] While automakers might like to examine every aspect of a crash, there comes a point where too much data would overload researchers and the relatively inexpensive computers used in vehicles. The last thing car makers — or consumers — want is to increase the price of a vehicle to pay for super-sophisticated event data recorders. “We’re definitely supportive of additional data,” Everest said. “The drawback on parameters is that you want to understand how it would affect the system,” balancing the need for data with the computing power available from a low-cost EDR. Other concerns involve law enforcement access to enhanced electronic data recorders or whether dealers or insurance companies could use that data to deny or support claims. “It usually depends on state law whether they need a subpoena or a warrant,” Glancy said. “Lots of data just gets accessed at the crash scene or the tow yard, as I understand actual practice.” Whether that information was accessed and interpreted by a trained professional would determine how it held up in court. Insurance companies’ access and use of the data would again be up to state law, said Glancy. Several insurance companies contacted by Wired.com declined to comment on the issue, but Leah Knapp, a spokesperson for Progressive Insurance, offered that company’s policy. “Our position on EDRs is that we would only use that data in a claims investigation with customer consent or if we’re required to do so by law,” she said. Knapp stressed that manufacturer-installed EDRs are different than incentive programs run by insurance companies that offer a discount for customers who voluntarily install monitoring devices on their vehicles. Though dealers have access to EDR records, Everest said he knew of no instance where the information was used to void a warranty claim by proving that a customer abused a vehicle. “Automakers have a duty to warn vehicle owners about safety recalls and the like,” Glancy said. “But you would have to look at the particular warranty to see what would be covered and what would not.” Still, she said she’d “expect that they would” eventually be able to access such data. It comes down to a balancing act between an individual’s right to privacy and automakers’ need for data to determine the cause of a crash, between the need for a robust reporting system and the computing power available, between state interests in protecting consumers and insurance companies. Whether that balance tilts in favor of drivers remains to be seen — but at least EDR standards ensure a level starting point.[/release] [url=http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-05-blackbox-car.html]Source 1[/url] [url=http://www.wired.com/autopia/2011/05/automotive-black-boxes/]Source 2[/url] [url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/25/new-cars-black-box_n_866690.html]Source 3[/url] [url=http://weirdnews.aol.com/tag/new-cars-black-box]Source 4[/url] [url=http://dvice.com/archives/2011/05/feds-to-require.php]Source 5[/url]
i would approve this if it only is used in investigating car crashes and help improve safety no gps fbi tracking bullshit
I reckon it'd be good. It's not like data is being constantly transmitted, but is only accessed in the case of an accident, so it doesn't really breach any privacy principles. It'd help to determine who is at fault, and hold those civilly or criminally accountable etc [editline]29th May 2011[/editline] *good to enforce it in all cars
This actually seems like a good idea, if its done properly. The data required for crash analysis would only need to be x minutes prior to an accident (the same way aircraft black boxes work), and it wouldn't need to be log anything that could cause people to think "the government" is tracking them (ie no GPS at all).
this doesn't seem right one of those "WELL IT'S ONLY BAD FOR THE PEOPLE WHO ARE BAD PEOPLE"
[QUOTE=Wii60;30113822]i would approve this if it only is used in investigating car crashes and help improve safety no gps fbi tracking bullshit[/QUOTE] If you don't want gps tracking bullshit, don't let the government tell you that you need to put a blackbox in your car. Everybody knows it's gonna happen.
[QUOTE=Mr.Dounut;30113918]this doesn't seem right one of those "WELL IT'S ONLY BAD FOR THE PEOPLE WHO ARE BAD PEOPLE"[/QUOTE] not really. since it's only accessed in the event of a crash, accident etc. otherwise the data is never seen. the data might say that you were travelling at the right speed, and applied the brakes, but still hit the car, person, etc, therefore liability is diminished as you did all the right things.
[QUOTE=FinalHunter;30113981]Eh, this is a good idea, but probably won't happen.[/QUOTE] did you miss the part when it's already in cars, and has been for over 10 years?
[QUOTE=DogGunn;30113957]not really. since it's only accessed in the event of a crash, accident etc. otherwise the data is never seen. the data might say that you were travelling at the right speed, and applied the brakes, but still hit the car, person, etc, therefore liability is diminished as you did all the right things.[/QUOTE] The x-ray images that were generated by TSA body scanners weren't supposed to be kept, but it took what, a week before they found out that the pictures were being saved? Who fucking cares if they say that it's only going to be accessed when there's a crash, it isn't like they're incapable of lying.
snorp
[QUOTE=Helix Alioth;30113789][img]http://dl.dropbox.com/u/6226565/aperture/news.png[/img][/QUOTE] Wtf is with that banner being in all your news posts?
[QUOTE=CjienX;30114025]The x-ray images that were generated by TSA body scanners weren't supposed to be kept, but it took what, a week before they found out that the pictures were being saved? Who fucking cares if they say that it's only going to be accessed when there's a crash, it isn't like they're incapable of lying.[/QUOTE] i have no idea of the relevance... you're trying to compare the TSA's protocol to something completely different.
[QUOTE=CjienX;30114025]The x-ray images that were generated by TSA body scanners weren't supposed to be kept, but it took what, a week before they found out that the pictures were being saved? Who fucking cares if they say that it's only going to be accessed when there's a crash, it isn't like they're incapable of lying.[/QUOTE] As long as these things do not log locations (which there really is no need for to do an analysis of a crash) then there is literally nothing it could record that people would care about.
it records data, and is only saved in certain triggered events. to access it, you have to download it. the only way (currently, as it's not wireless) authorities can access the data is if they break into you car... which is illegal, and will serve them nothing.
[QUOTE=DogGunn;30114095]it records data, and is only saved in certain triggered events. to access it, you have to download it. the only way (currently, as it's not wireless) authorities can access the data is if they break into you car... which is illegal, and will serve them nothing.[/QUOTE] I think you are understanding a key detail that a few people are missing, the fact that it would only record in the event of an accident. For the people against this sort of thing, what do you honestly think they record and what do you honestly think the government / police etc could do with the data?
[QUOTE=.FLAP.JACK.DAN.;30114070]Wtf is with that banner being in all your news posts?[/QUOTE] I think he's trying to force some kind of meme here
[QUOTE=Jsm;30114124]I think you are understanding a key detail that a few people are missing, the fact that it would only record in the event of an accident. For the people against this sort of thing, what do you honestly think they record and what do you honestly think the government / police etc could do with the data?[/QUOTE] [quote]The device cannot be turned off, and you’ll probably know little more about it than the legal disclosure you’ll find in the owner’s manual.[/quote] If it's always on, how do you know that it will only record in the event of an accident? How will IT know that there was an accident and start recording? It doesn't matter what they can be recording, I have the right to not possibly be recorded in my own vehicle without my explicit consent. What's next, should we have blackboxes in houses so we can know exactly how robberies go down, but they only record if it detects a robber in the house?
I'd support this if the software it ran was open source and the raw data was available to the driver, but otherwise no
[QUOTE=CjienX;30114164]If it's always on, how do you know that it will only record in the event of an accident? How will it KNOW that there was an accident and start recording?[/quote] Because of the way it works it always has to record... but it's only "saved" if an event is trigged. Slow down, think about it. The only time data is ever saved is if you have a crash. Surely you'd want to know who was at fault - this system is only going to help. [QUOTE=CjienX;30114164]It doesn't matter what they can be recording, I have the right to not possibly be recorded in my own vehicle without my explicit consent. [/quote] Not if the NHTSA says you don't. It's same logic behind the road rules saying you can't drive on the left side of the road. "BUT I WANT TO" CjienX says. "I want to do it my way." Pilots have to accept having their conversations recorded. Ship captains have to accept their hours captaining recorded. Truck drivers have to accept having their hours and location recorded. Car drivers might soon have to accept having their speed and data recorded in the event of a crash. It's not a big deal if only 30 seconds is ever saved.
[QUOTE=DogGunn;30114219] Pilots have to accept having their conversations recorded. Ship captains have to accept their hours captaining recorded. Truck drivers have to accept having their hours and location recorded. Car drivers might soon have to accept having their speed and data recorded in the event of a crash. [/QUOTE] Difference is that the first three don't own the vehicle most of the time
[QUOTE=Zeke129;30114227]Difference is that the first three don't own the vehicle most of the time[/QUOTE] And that's a fair point - but you still own the data being recorded on your car. The only time authorities would be allowed to access the data is via a warrant or properly thought out passages made available via legislation.
[QUOTE=CjienX;30114164]If it's always on, how do you know that it will only record in the event of an accident? How will IT know that there was an accident and start recording? It doesn't matter what they can be recording, I have the right to not possibly be recorded in my own vehicle without my explicit consent. What's next, should we have blackboxes in houses so we can know exactly how robberies go down, but they only record if it detects a robber in the house?[/QUOTE] Because its known how these things work, they only save data after an accident (the trigger is usually a sudden high g-force level). The data they record is nothing more than basic things such as throttle / brake / clutch position, speed etc. I fail to see how any of this would be bad to record if it managed to make driving safer, or even just cheaper. It is not like they are sticking video cameras in cars, these things simply log information from sensors around the car (which most recent cars store anyway). These sorts of things have existed in various forms for many years now.
I can see this being abused. With all these dumb laws the house and senate have been tossing around involving the internet, how long until they make something up involving a blackbox and giving people tickets based on data from them?
[QUOTE=DogGunn;30114253]And that's a fair point - but you still own the data being recorded on your car. The only time authorities would be allowed to access the data is via a warrant or properly thought out passages made available via legislation.[/QUOTE] Like I said, I'm fine with it if the software is either open source or has extensive documentation available and the data is easily accessible by the driver
[QUOTE=IliekBoxes;30114324]I can see this being abused. With all these dumb laws the house and senate have been tossing around involving the internet, how long until they make something up involving a blackbox and giving people tickets based on data from them?[/QUOTE] That would require the way in which the EDR is made. It'd require a constant stream of data recording which is never overwritten. However if someone had an accident (no injury and just damage to own car) and reviewing the EDR saw that a person was speeding, do you give them a ticket for that?
[QUOTE=CjienX;30114164]If it's always on, how do you know that it will only record in the event of an accident? How will IT know that there was an accident and start recording? It doesn't matter what they can be recording, I have the right to not possibly be recorded in my own vehicle without my explicit consent. What's next, should we have blackboxes in houses so we can know exactly how robberies go down, but they only record if it detects a robber in the house?[/QUOTE] We should get rid of rocks in case the government tries to throw them at us.
[QUOTE=Mingebox;30114749]We should get rid of rocks in case the government tries to throw them at us.[/QUOTE] The rocks have cameras and microphones in them, the government is watching.
[QUOTE=Mingebox;30114749]We should get rid of rocks in case the government tries to throw them at us.[/QUOTE] Yes, because something put into something unnecessarily is TOTALLY the same as something that's naturally occurring.
[QUOTE=Mr.Dounut;30113918]this doesn't seem right one of those "WELL IT'S ONLY BAD FOR THE PEOPLE WHO ARE BAD PEOPLE"[/QUOTE] It's not some system that can hear your thoughts and transmits your plots to the government so they can arrest you, it records vehicle data for every 30 minutes (for example) then wipes it and repeates the process, that is then used if there is a crash to tell how fast you were going, which direction g forces acted and how soon you brake etc. [editline]29th May 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=CjienX;30114164]If it's always on, how do you know that it will only record in the event of an accident? How will IT know that there was an accident and start recording? It doesn't matter what they can be recording, I have the right to not possibly be recorded in my own vehicle without my explicit consent. What's next, should we have blackboxes in houses so we can know exactly how robberies go down, but they only record if it detects a robber in the house?[/QUOTE] ....you don't get how black boxes work do you? It constantly records then wipes data then re records then wipes then re re records at set time intervals like every 15 minutes, and it registers everything that is happening to the car, it has built in sensors, it's dumb as fuck it doesn't go AHAHAH A CRASH QUICKLY BEGIN RECORDING! it goes OH NO THERE MIGHT BE A CRASH, LETS RECORD JUST INCASE What the fuck do you think it's gonna need in it? A GPS? that's kinda fucking useless considering they already know where the crash is, it's wherever the crash is, you know, where the car is left mangled, you don't need GPS for that. Voice recorders? The fuck is the point in that? Wireless connection? Good luck with that. It's not an invasion of privacy, it's effectively like putting a smart brick into the engine bay of your car. That's all. [editline]29th May 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=CjienX;30114910]Yes, because something put into something unnecessarily is TOTALLY the same as something that's naturally occurring.[/QUOTE] How is it unnecessary? What if there's a hit and run and the police already know the car involved, the driver says "I was going 20 mph and they just jumped out in front of me" the black box will tell the true story "He was doing 48 mph and a dead centre bumper strike was recorded" Suddenly the plot thickens.
[QUOTE=CjienX;30114910]Yes, because something put into something unnecessarily is TOTALLY the same as something that's naturally occurring.[/QUOTE] Wouldn't it be funny if you were in a crash (only involving damage to property, no injury [because I'm nice]) and you were actually in the right, but couldn't prove it, because you didn't have an EDR?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.