PCWorld Forums: Senate Passes Bill Requiring Black Boxes In All New Cars - PCWorld Forums

Post your comments for Senate Passes Bill Requiring Black Boxes in All New Cars here

What a load of Crap!
As I understand the article, these devices provide NO safety or otherwise positive benefit - just the provision for snooping (and soon litigation), plus a bump-up in car prices.

Regarding the clause about revoking the passport of citizens that owe taxes, and possibly stripping citizens of their driving rights? I have a news flash for InfoWars. The government is already doing that for people that are behind on their child support. These are NOT new ideas, they are just being suggested for a different application.

Absurd. Now I cannot go anywhere without being followed by big brother. This will also no allow my insurance company access. BAD IDEA.

This is ridiculous. If you're going to put black boxes in only some of the vehicles it should be in privately owned vehicles.

But the best thing to do is put them in every vehicle, including government vehicles. There should be no exceptions.

jbkraut, on 20 April 2012 - 10:53 AM, said:

Black boxes in vehicles would be used just like the black boxes in aircraft - when there is a crash. You are confusing black boxes with a GPS that would broadcast your position. Something law enforcement would like but no one else. Stop jumping to conclusions.

I believe this would be an invaluable tool for the Insurance companies, that make it mandatory that this 'data' be surrendered to them. The obvious use would be to either limit or deny any claim.

GPS not installed in boxes ( yet) give the government time, heck we won't know whats in the " Bill until it gets passed" Pelosi

It may also be retrieved if the owner/lessee consents." Which means good luck getting auto insurance unless you consent to give the insurance company access!

"[...] or inspection conducted by the Secretary of Transportation"

Inspection - for what? Poor emissions? Speeding?? License plate light out???

I could see this being a real money-maker for those behind it.

If government mandates anything, they're always the ones to benefit.

These concerns are not "largely" irrelevant, they are completely irrelevant. These are not GPS devices. They are used to gain information after a collision, and if you think it is your god given right to lie about how a fatal collision occurred, you are sadly mistaken. "I was only going 55 mph." No, you were going 90, and the people you killed are entitled to justice. Why doesn't everyone stop acting like it's their right to endanger the public and that law enforcement should be hamstrung when it comes to investigating possible criminal behavior. The article doesn't even address the technical aspects of the devices and incorrectly states that EDRs would make it easier to track a vehicle. EDR's have no such capability. They record aspects of the car's operation: e.g., speed, acceleration, yaw, pedal position, braking force, etc. Get your paranoid head out of your ass.

Stevec, on 20 April 2012 - 11:30 AM, said:

That was my 1st thought.

And in the extremely fine print on your auto insurance its stated, “If your going 1/2 MPH over the speed limit or breaking any other law when any accident happens we are not libel for this accident nor any expense that it might incur our policy holder for damage to his nor the vehicle he hits.”

So your insurance company gets the court order to get your black box from your car the moment you file a claim, & they will always find a loop hole to keep from paying any claim. Insurance companies are no more trustworthy than the man working for the government.

GPS is however installed in OnStar and every 'high end' cellular connected car system. In fact, a cellular connection of any sort can be used to track your movements.

Not only has OnStar endlessly tracked and recorded the comings and goings of its customers, they have done so with the non-subscribers who still have the hardware installed. If you don't use onstar, you might want to consider pulling its fuse, or otherwise disabling it.

OnStar's 'big step' in privacy was to offer to let you constantly send a hardcopy letter to tell them not to record everywhere you drive, then trust them not to. Like most 'opt out' arrangements for privacy, they expect you to send this letter every six months to year, or whenever they change their policy, giving you every opportunity not to be spied on, by giving you many, many opportunities to forget to fill it out, sign it, stamp it, and mail it back.

Your wireless carrier for your 'smart phone' are no better. They also track you. So even if you make your car stop tracking you, your cellular phone is doing the same thing on top of it.

As for the bill, many cars already have 'black box' data. It's part of the OBDII computer. A small window of history of speed, engine details, events, etc. Implementing it is literally a software change. This bill will only 'standardize' it (as OBDII was 'standardized' to some degree in the mid-1990s). So one kind of OBDII frob can expect certain kinds of data to be there, and read it one standard way, rather than different ways for every make/model/year of car.

People are also voluntarily carrying 'black box' gadgets for an insurance discount.

I keep looking but cannot find where the constitution says that the Federal Government can require black boxes in the cars of private citizens.

This bill contains much more that just Event Recorders. Much may be part of standard Government Operations. We hope that those approving have READ the entire bill and understand the implications. It should be noted that 2 years after it is implemented, they will determine the benefits to safety, the cost to manufacturers (and the consumer), and numerous other criteria. Looks like another typical government attempt to put them in total control....

Government meddling. Add yet another cost to a car, small though it might be.

This is a great idea to police terrible behavior. But it will be even better when they embed a black box under our skin so that they can keep track of each of us as individual citizens. Hey, the only people who will object will be people who plan to do illegal things. Ask the victims of crimes whether they wished that the bad guys were tracked better, and what better way to do that than to track everybody? When you get arrested for robbing a bank it will be very efficient, they will be able to read the data that says you were in the bank at the required time. Maybe they will be able to record sound, so they can hear the message "stick em up". Who could possible object to such essential crime fighting tools? Not innocent law abiding citizens that is for sure. Anybody who objects to this black box stuff for cars should be carefully monitored because they likely are planning to break speed limits and other laws, so they need to be fined and punished.

This post has been edited by jtimouri: 20 April 2012 - 01:26 PM

spaul40, on 20 April 2012 - 12:44 PM, said:

Nothing in the U.S. constitution says you can't destroy your own car's 'brain' if you have an accident, either. Or patch the firmware never to record anything. Products and instructions for killing the car's 'brain' in an emergency will probably be forthcoming, as will 'new ROMs' for the racing enthusiasts.

But federal law is kind of crazy.

These little videos should explain nicely about why you should worry about things that talk to the cops 'for you'.



This site has more information on protecting your 4th amendment rights. Including a nice article about how the police need a warrant to attach GPS to your vehicle. No such guarantees made about built-in GPS and service providers that record that information routinely for resale, with your permission. Their videos about what to do when the police show up are kind of useful, too.
http://flexyourright...axonomy/term/20
http://www.youtube.c...urRights/videos

Things that log your location all the time save the police a lot of time getting search warrants. They even basically make it possible to 'go back in time' with a request to record for where you went. They pay OnStar or your wireless carrier a small fee, and here's a list of everywhere you've ever been with your car and/or phone. You agreed to be tracked when you signed the contract. Somewhere in line 30,000 of the terms of service that you never read, because it's as long as 'Crime and Punishment', and far more boring than any russian author, you said they could, and that they could 'share' that data with their 'partners'. 'Partners' including law enforcement.

So to have your shiny toy, you basically waived your 4th amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure, and your 5th amendment rights against incriminating yourself (allowing your own electronic toys and gadgets to incriminate you automatically). I sure hope the capability of playing 'Angry Birds' while you're waiting in an elevator was worth it.

Can I pay someone to remove this piece of junk out of my car???

Raymond823, on 20 April 2012 - 12:11 PM, said:

Raymond - that MAY be true at first, but how long do you think it will be before some "wiseguy" politician thinks it's a "great idea" to ADD the GPS capability to ALL vehicles? Any tech out there that they think they can bend to their advantage WILL be used/AB-used to those ends. Nothing will stop that except making tech like this "unavailable".

And, don't you think you could have made those comments without dropping down into the gutter in your last sentence?