
‘Big brother’ black boxes to soon be mandatory in all new cars - zacharye
http://www.bgr.com/2012/04/19/big-brother-black-boxes-to-soon-be-mandatory-in-all-new-cars/
======
tptacek
Infowars. Right. Also:

    
    
        (b) Limitations on Information Retrieval-
        
        (1) OWNERSHIP OF DATA- Any data in an event data recorder required
        under part 563 of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, regardless of
        when the passenger motor vehicle in which it is installed was
        manufactured, is the property of the owner, or in the case of a leased
        vehicle, the lessee of the passenger motor vehicle in which the data
        recorder is installed.
        
        (2) PRIVACY- Data recorded or transmitted by such a data recorder may
        not be retrieved by a person other than the owner or lessee of the
        motor vehicle in which the recorder is installed unless--
        
        (A) a court authorizes retrieval of the information in furtherance of
        a legal proceeding;
        
        (B) the owner or lessee consents to the retrieval of the information
        for any purpose, including the purpose of diagnosing, servicing, or
        repairing the motor vehicle;
        
        (C) the information is retrieved pursuant to an investigation or
        inspection authorized under section 1131(a) or 30166 of title 49,
        United States Code, and the personally identifiable information of the
        owner, lessee, or driver of the vehicle and the vehicle identification
        number is not disclosed in connection with the retrieved information;
        or
        
        (D) the information is retrieved for the purpose of determining the
        need for, or facilitating, emergency medical response in response to a
        motor vehicle crash.
    

You're wondering, "section 1131(a) or 30166 of title 49"? That's the NTSB.
Highway safety investigations.

For perspective: had this standard not been pushed federally, the private
sector could probably do far worse; your (mandated, and reasonably so!) car
insurance influences all sorts of standards on the vehicles we drive.

~~~
buff-a
Honda Civic 2015 EULA:

23.1.23.44 (Page 198 of 301) "Your use of this vehicle grants us your
irrevocable and permanent consent to download, transmit, or otherwise obtain
the information contained in the onboard data recorder, and to share that data
with third parties, including but not limited to law enforcement (without a
court order), and marketing companies."

~~~
tptacek
Sounds like a reason not to buy a 2015 Honda.

Note that Honda (and most other manufacturers) were _inevitably going to put
event data recorders in cars anyways_. They are too cheap and they make too
much sense not to have.

So without the federal rules, what you'd have is market full of cars with
event data recorders _and no rules regarding data ownership or requirements to
disclose_ (this bill requires full disclosure about the devices and their
purpose).

But BGR doesn't want to tell you that, because their purpose here isn't to
inform, it's to generate rageviews.

~~~
buff-a
>Sounds like a reason not to buy a 2015 Honda.

Ah yes, the "free market" in action. That has worked so well for us in
protecting our privacy, as evidenced by the plethora of commercial software
with EULAs that respects the user's rights.

Or are you saying Richard Stallman is going to build us a car next?

Here's how it works:

1\. Government is constitutionally forbidden from collecting this information.

2\. Government observes that private corporations can collect this
information.

3\. Government grants private corporations immunity from prosecution and civil
liability if it collects this information and hands it to the government.
Threatens prosecution and civil liability if corporations fails to collect
information and "something bad happens".

4\. US Supreme Court pretends this is acceptable by ignoring "intent" and
"consequences" and then goes on to uphold "intent" and "consequences" in every
other case before it.

~~~
andylei
which might be true except for

> (2) PRIVACY- Data recorded or transmitted by such a data recorder may not be
> retrieved by a person other than the owner or lessee of the motor vehicle in
> which the recorder is installed

also, you say

> Ah yes, the "free market" in action. That has worked so well for us in
> protecting our privacy, as evidenced by the plethora of commercial software
> with EULAs that respects the user's rights.

this bill is exactly the opposite of free market. it says everyone has to put
recorders and cars and then explicitly forbids certain uses of them.

~~~
tptacek
It doesn't explicitly forbid use of them. Honda's EULA is lawful and binding
under the new law. But the case could be made that without the new law, Honda
wouldn't need a EULA (although having it probably cuts down on their legal
bills).

Obviously, though: Honda's EULA is lawful and binding _without_ the bill. This
bill can only improve matters at this point. You can be irritated that it
doesn't improve them enough, but that's not the case BGR is making.

------
johnnyg
Civil liberties are under attack on so many fronts, it seems like the few who
cared initially are punch drunk. This is such a painfully bad idea on so many
levels. Here's a list:

1\. This adds cost without adding value to the consumer of the product.

2\. The only value add is the ability of a democratic government run by the
people...to track its people.

3\. We already carry cell phones and use facebook. Do you really to build a
whole new physical platform to get this done? Can you do it better than the
cell phone providers and facebook?

4\. We're not deep enough in debt yet? Want me to skip to the end game and
just cut out my liver and hand it to you?

Every day I read HN and politico. I think politico is destroying things faster
than HN is building them.

I want to see a PG post titled "Lets Hack Washington". I think the RIAA is too
small a target.

~~~
wusher
The other value add is for insurance companies. They can use that data to
alter rates.

~~~
amitparikh
Pushing through my own cynicism here, you can't ignore the fact that there is
added value to the consumer if she/he is a defensive driver. In the event of
an accident, there is significantly more data for the insurance companies to
use to determine fault and liability.

~~~
DanI-S
_"If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear"_

~~~
darxius
Possibly one of the worst quotes ever.

[http://www.computerweekly.com/blogs/the-data-trust-
blog/2009...](http://www.computerweekly.com/blogs/the-data-trust-
blog/2009/02/debunking-a-myth-if-you-have-n.html)

~~~
MSM
I have read a number of articles on "debunking" that statement, but they
always have large holes.

This one in particular attacks what it considers consistency. It suggests that
we cannot be sure that the data that is collected will consistently used
accurately. It suggests that having ones fingerprints on file were the cause
of a number of false arrests.

While I agree that if we collected no data, we'd probably have less false
arrests, they convinently avoid talking about how many people have been
correctly (as far as we can tell) convicted because of that data.

I'm not saying this has anything to do with the whole car article- I'm just
saying that if someone is swayed either way by that simple computer weekly
article, they haven't really thought the issue through themselves.

------
DanielBMarkham
I think it's time to be clear about what the concern is here, because it's
become a bit of a cottage industry to call out provocative headlines, wave
your arms around a bit, and then claim the readers are being manipulated. Kind
of "Nothing to see here, folks. Please move along."

What we've learned through repeated experience is that data collection always
leads to some future configuration that we are not happy with. Maybe it's
advertisers tracking our every move on the web. Maybe it's the police getting
all of our cell phone records simply by filling out a form. Perhaps it's the
government tracking all international calls. Maybe it's the cops taking COTS
GPS devices and using them to track cars without a warrant. Whatever. The
pattern is clear: one day we start collecting data. Somewhere down the road
somebody starts using that data in a way we do not like. Big Data is simply
too attractive to too many entities to leave alone.

While the cops angle is the one that's most emotional, my money says the real
players behind the scenes here are the insurance companies. Initially, the
spin will be for accident litigation, but within a few years they'll have
"collecting any relevant data" clauses in all their new car insurance
policies. And then they'll be able to see exactly how you drive. Insurance
companies are already trying to do this voluntarily. I think Progressive has
some kind of Orwellian name for it like "Safe Driver Program" or something.
Don't know. All I know is that whenever I see their commercials it reminds me
of how stupid they think their customers are.

It's a fair cop to say that many of these stories are overblown, emotional,
and manipulative. But that's a far cry from saying they are useless. The
problem here is trying to guess a future world in which this goes south. For
every ten guesses, maybe one is close. So looking at it from that angle, what
a terrible track record! But looking at it from the proper (in my opinion)
angle, the problem is simply one of style. Nobody wants to read a long-winded
discussion of the problems here, but everybody will click on "The police are
checking your underwear every night using your iPad!" stories. Simply because
that's the nature of the business doesn't mean there aren't also serious
concerns.

~~~
simonsarris
If anyone is wondering about the Progressive device I can give some
information. My girlfriend actually asked for one.

They gave her this thing that she plugs into her car's diagnostic port. The
incentive is that if an insured driver agrees to use the thing and wants to
"prove" they are a good driver they can. In return the user gets an insurance
discount if their driving stats are good.

The little object does something very basic: It counts the number of "hard
stops" in every trip and uses cellphone networks to report the data. People
can then go look up the stats online. 2 hard stops for this trip, 7 for this
trip, etc. It's neat to see your stats.

Eventually it turns into a sort of game to eliminate the hard stops from your
driving routine. You pay more attention to driving because of it and therefore
become a more attentive driver.

At the end of 6 months you send the device back and your insurance is adjusted
(or not).

This is a huge win-win for software making people behave better:

1\. Girlfriend gets a lower insurance rate

2\. Progressive has evidence she is not an insane driver

3\. Most interestingly, the device has forced her to be (seemingly)
permanently more conscious about her driving and has made her a better driver.
Not only does the device find bad drivers, but it can convince many to become
better drivers, possibly without them realizing it!

Literally software has consciously and unconsciously made her into a better
driver and literally every party involved (her, progressive, people near her
on the road) are better off for her having used this device.

~~~

All of that is good, as far as I can tell. But all of it was optional, too,
and I understand that the topic at hand involves what happens when it becomes
less-than-optional. It is not hard to envision a future where it will be
impossible to get affordable insurance if you opt out.

~~~
thebigshane
I can see this sentiment being easily twisted around to...

    
    
       This is a huge win-win for surveillance software making people behave better:
    
       1. Well-behaved citizens carry on in their lives relatively freely
    
       2. Gov't has evidence of your innocence (notice the implication here)
    
       3. The constant surveillance has forced society to be permanently more
       conscious about their behavior and made them better citizens.
       Not only does it identify "bad people", but it can convince them
       to become better people, possibly without them realizing it!
    

I realize I am putting words in your mouth and I apologize. You probably don't
believe my "translation" but I want to point out that it doesn't take too much
work to go from your words to mine.

~~~
DanielBMarkham
This thread is diverging from what the GP meant, which was just to describe
how fun and good for you collecting data can be. After all, how can you get
better at certain things if you're not willing to collect data on your
performance?

But the problem is that you can spin just about any kind of data collection in
just the same way. In the 1960s, this exact scenario would have been part of a
futuristic horror story. Robots and computers monitoring your every move, with
your permission and encouragement, in an effort for you to become "better." In
fact, I seem to remember several old sci-fi shows with just this kind of plot.

It's interesting to note that such a scenario doesn't seem so horrific any
more, and those warning about it are more and more seen as alarmists. I'm not
sure where this is all heading, but the trajectory in public opinion is not
very heartening. Modern marketing is turning its attention to popularizing
your life "assisted" by machines which then take lots of observations about
your behavior and report on them back to some third party.

------
mortenjorck
_"the primary function of the black box devices would be to record..."_

Ok.

 _"...and transmit data"_

Wait, what?

Are there any further details on how this is supposedly going to work? Do the
boxes have built-in cellular modems with permanently-activated SIMs? What
network are they connecting to? Where are they transmitting the data? Who
maintains the servers?

Transmitting black-box data is a huge leap beyond simply recording it.

~~~
excuse-me
In legal terms transmitted can just mean downloaded after an accident.

One computer company famously had an OS that met a US top security
classification which required that all user events were logged. There was no
way of reading these logs - but the security standard only required that there
were logs, it didn't say anything about extracting them!

~~~
beej71
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Write_only_memory>

------
tokenadult
The subcomment by jen_h has the best information in this thread.

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3863555>

The submitted article is just passing on the content of an Infowars post

[http://www.infowars.com/mandatory-big-brother-black-boxes-
in...](http://www.infowars.com/mandatory-big-brother-black-boxes-in-all-new-
cars-from-2015/)

but the true primary source for this story is one of the United States federal
government sources, for example

<http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/s1813/text>

with the text of the legislation.

~~~
brlewis
Can anybody find the part of the text of the legislation that requires
transmission?

Skimming the table of contents and looking through SEC. 31406. VEHICLE EVENT
DATA RECORDERS I couldn't find it. I could only find requirements to record
data, not transmit it.

~~~
tptacek
It doesn't require transmission ("(4) may require an interoperable data access
port to facilitate universal accessibility and analysis.", as you saw) --- but
note that if you're worried that the government might try to slip medium-range
RF into the recorder standard, there's a Rulemaking procedure yet to come that
could mandate wireless access to the boxes.

Which doesn't mean "start hyperventilating", of course.

------
jellicle
Event data recorders are already in almost all new cars. They record what was
going on just before and just after something causes the airbags to trigger,
and in the event of any sort of severe crash, the accident investigators will
download the data from the box. The privacy implications are mild.

This repost of a repost of a repost of a reposted blog article is useless and
needs downmodding.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Mild? Being essentially forced to testify against yourself in a trial? That's
a fundamental liberty being abrogated.

------
sili
If the primary use for these really is to help find the car in an event of an
accident then why are there penalties in place for circumventing the tracking.
Shouldn't this be as politically controversial as forcing me to buy health
insurance?

~~~
tptacek
No, the primary purpose of these is to determine the events that lead up to an
accident. The penalty is because the only people with an economic incentive to
remove the boxes are the ones likely to cause accidents.

~~~
lawnchair_larry
_Seriously?_ This statement is synonymous with, "If you have nothing to hide,
then you should have nothing to fear." I expect this fallacy from politicians
but I'm pretty surprised to hear it from you.

I've noticed you seem to dedicate a lot of time to denouncing privacy and
civil liberties issues on HN lately, but that statement is absurd.

~~~
tptacek
I care about _real_ privacy and civil liberties issues. Compared to drug dog
probable cause searches, this is a tinfoil hat concern. My guess is that many
of the people denouncing EDRs the loudest _have_ EDRs in their cars and didn't
even know about it.

If you feel like I spend a lot of time shouting down civil liberties issues,
consider that maybe that has less to do with me --- a liberal ACLU supporter
and donor --- and more to do with the tenor of civil liberties discussions on
HN.

... I mean, if you care enough to consider why I'm on the other side of this
issue. If you just want to yell at me, that's fine too. (Really, it's fine;
I'm not being snide).

~~~
lawnchair_larry
Well the point was to call out that offensive fallacy, not to berate your own
views. To be honest though, I feel like you are the guy referred to in the top
post, in every thread on (what I and many others, including the EFF consider)
_real_ privacy and civil liberties issues.

I also don't understand why you keep using "they can already do this" as an
argument against those who are opposed to these issues. The fact that many
people are unknowingly already equipped with EDRs is completely irrelevant. Or
that companies already share breach data. Your logic is such that if X is
already doing Y, being opposed to X is an invalid position. What?

I don't think you can call anything a tinfoil hat concern without
understanding every individual's reasons for being opposed to something.

I don't want someone logging everything I do and everywhere I go, and not
being in control of that data (yes I own a cell phone; see previous). Why? The
same reason many people want the right to own a gun.[1] _"Because fuck you,
that's why."_ The fact that I have nothing to hide, to me, is _all the more
reason I deserve to be left alone_.

[1] I personally don't actually believe society is better off with guns. I
think the "protection" argument is equivalent to what tinfoil hats say. But it
doesn't matter what I think. That's what it means to be a civil libertarian. I
don't care what your voter registration says or who you donate to, if you
don't understand this, you are not a civil libertarian.

"Hacker News comment threads: where people apply 'works on my machine' to
social problems."

<https://twitter.com/#!/jcoglan/status/192408075917983744>

~~~
tptacek
It would have been helpful if you had read the legislation we're commenting on
before forming an opinion _about me_ based on my position on that legislation.

------
EiZei
While I'm not saying it's false I'd treat any news article using Infowars
(Alex Jones, NWO, Chemtrails etc.) as a source with certain scepticism.

~~~
jen_h
Yeah. I always have trouble linking to these folks (even though they're on-
target a lot of the time) just because folks dismiss it out of hand.

Here's the source:

[http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-
bin/query/F?c112:3:./temp/~c112n8J...](http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-
bin/query/F?c112:3:./temp/~c112n8JXN9:e1259800):

~~~
Karunamon
On target perhaps, but overly sensational - any valid points they have are
drowned out by the "CHEMTRAILS!!" "9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB!" "UFOS!!!" that
surround it.

A much superior source is the one you linked - factual and free of
sensationalistic spin.

~~~
ynniv
And already a dead link...

------
krober
"While the primary function of the black box devices would be to record and
transmit data that could be used to assist a driver and passengers in the
event of an accident..."

I'm not even convinced the primary use case is helpful. Most people have cell
phones nowadays, and sometimes systems like OnStar. Furthermore, who is going
to handle the data (storage, responses, etc.)? How much money are we going to
spend on this? Scary monitoring implications aside, this seems like a terrible
idea.

------
bunderbunder
While the common meaning of the word 'transmit' generally implies wireless
communication nowadays, it can also be used to mean any transfer of
information - wireless, wired, even written letters sent over snail mail. The
text of this bill uses the word 14 times, and in almost all of them, it's
clear that the latter meaning is the intended one. It's used only once in
reference to these black boxes, in a section that starts with:

    
    
      Data recorded or transmitted by such a data recorder may not
      be retrieved by a person other than the owner or lessee of
      the motor vehicle in which the recorder is installed unless--
    

And proceeds to list a bunch of limitations that all sound fine to me. It's
essentially saying that the police need a warrant to retrieve the data (duh),
and that if you rent a car, the car's owner can't use the black box to monitor
you without written consent.

I see nothing in there to imply that these devices must transmit wirelessly.
Much more likely, the device will transmit data the same way an airplane's
black box does - via some sort of physical port that you have to plug into.

~~~
tptacek
The bill does not require event data records to transmit anything. The word
"transmit" in the subsection of the bill pertaining to event data recorders is
a restrictive clause; the effect is that if your box _happens_ to transmit
anything, those transmissions are covered by the privacy provisions of the
bill.

~~~
bunderbunder
And if you read from the original bill, it becomes even more clear that this
could not be used for wireless snooping.

The need to attach physical hardware to get data out of it is made clear here:
[http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-
idx?c=ecfr&sid...](http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-
idx?c=ecfr&sid=e20dce3ff7d472b52847e33bddb998b9&rgn=div8&view=text&node=49:6.1.2.3.31.0.7.12&idno=49)

And the conditions under which it's recording data, and the data being
recorded, are described in the following two links:
[http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-
idx?c=ecfr&sid...](http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-
idx?c=ecfr&sid=e20dce3ff7d472b52847e33bddb998b9&rgn=div8&view=text&node=49:6.1.2.3.31.0.7.9&idno=49)
[http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-
idx?c=ecfr&sid...](http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-
idx?c=ecfr&sid=e20dce3ff7d472b52847e33bddb998b9&rgn=div8&view=text&node=49:6.1.2.3.31.0.7.7&idno=49)

Long story short, it's really not very exciting.

------
chrismealy
Cars kill 30,000-40,000 people per year in America. They're 4000 pound killing
machines. If this actually happened it would be a good thing.

~~~
schwit
Please show me a death caused by a car and not by the driver.

~~~
jff
See how well this argument has worked for gun owners over the last 50 years :)

~~~
thebigshane
Its working for cigarettes and foods with trans-saturated fats. (somewhat
tongue-in-cheek here)

------
thebigshane
Section 31406 of this bill says that "Secretary shall revise part 563 of title
49, Code of Federal Regulations, to require, beginning with model year 2015,
that new passenger motor vehicles sold in the United States be equipped with
an event data recorder".

Here is CFR part 563 of title 49: [http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-
idx?c=ecfr&sid...](http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-
idx?c=ecfr&sid=7bf119326a224d36a4a35bcfc817451c&rgn=div5&view=text&node=49:6.1.2.3.31&idno=49)

and you'll notice that all of the "data elements" captured are regarding
velocity/acceleration, air bags and seat belts. There is nothing about the
actual driver/occupants (except maybe how many occupants and in what seats) or
location (gps tracking).

In fact there is a specific note in this CFR:

    
    
       These data can help provide a better understanding of 
       the circumstances in which crashes and injuries occur. 
       NOTE: EDR data are recorded by your vehicle only if a 
       non-trivial crash situation occurs; no data are recorded 
       by the EDR under normal driving conditions and no 
       personal data (e.g., name, gender, age, and crash 
       location) are recorded. However, other parties, such as 
       law enforcement, could combine the EDR data with the 
       type of personally identifying data routinely acquired 
       during a crash investigation.
    
    

Here are further limitations as outlined in Section of 31406 of the linked
bill: [EDIT: removed as `tptacek` already linked to this, see above]

So, is there anything in here to get in a big fuss over? Maybe, but I don't
see it.

Should we still keep a rational eye on it and make sure it stays this way?
Absolutely.

On a related note, did anybody else cringe a bit when they noticed the
original article came from infowars.com?

~~~
trebor
I noticed BGR's paranoid stance last time I read an article there. I don't
remember the subject matter, but it too was linked to infowars.com. I cringe
every time I see an article citing that site.

And yeah, the bill looks harmless to me. Just an EDR with no requirement for
wireless transmission, and no identifying information. And when I saw the
section on ownership I was pretty satisfied.

I could see this data being required by the insurance companies though.

------
helen842000
Black boxes are already in use here in the UK.

They're actually a new initiative provided by the 1 insurance company, fitted
to cars owned by young drivers. The data indicates your driving style in an
attempt to bring car insurance down for more responsible young drivers.
There's even an online dashboard to track your own info.

It's actually been well received especially since normal yearly insurance
costs for teenage boys can be 3x the price of your first car!!!

[http://www.co-
operativeinsurance.co.uk/servlet/Satellite/128...](http://www.co-
operativeinsurance.co.uk/servlet/Satellite/1280989445872,CFSweb/Page/Insurance-
Car)

~~~
barrkel
I think the box is a fine idea - without the GPS. GPS speed limit data is
wrong often enough in any case; IMO decent accelerometer data should be more
than enough to correlate to aggressive driving.

~~~
helen842000
I think GPS is ok, as long as you have access to your own data. Another good
side effect is that the smartbox monitored cars also have a rear window
sticker to say "I'm driving responsibly & saving money on my insurance"
Initially it was a promotional tool but now it is actually helping stop car
thefts as theives are less likely to target a car they know is GPS tracked!

------
fleitz
A new car built by my company leaves somewhere traveling at 60 mph. The rear
differential locks up. The car crashes and burns with everyone trapped inside.
Now, should we initiate a recall? Take the number of vehicles in the field, A,
multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-
court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of
a recall, we don't do one.

------
tedsuo
A car transponder I would like to see is one that coordinates self-driving
cars to eliminate traffic congestion. You can do a rough version of this by
reading traffic reports, but finer grained decisions would require something
invasive like this. I care about my privacy, but I think privacy would lose
over the safety and convenience such a system would provide.

------
mistercow
Oh man, I wish I had noticed the "Infowars" cite before I upvoted this.

------
johngalt
Circumvention tools soon to be available for black boxes in new cars.

~~~
rollypolly
Or maybe 2014 models will become very valuable.

~~~
joezydeco
All Toyotas in North America have had them since the 2010 model year.

------
forgottenpaswrd
If someone does stupid things with the car and has an accident it is going to
be recorded.

This is not a problem if you don't do stupid things.

Is going to take less than a megabyte to record an entire day(I use
smartphones to record inertial movements), and everything is already on place
on cars accelerometers, gyros, gps, and 3d compass(plus tacometers and maps).

They even can add microphones to the mixture(from the hands free phone
system).

The problem in USA is the Patriot Act, every info the government takes about
you should be clear, and it is not, they want to spy on you and they have no
limits.

The problem is also the facebooks: "give us your inertial information and you
will have a discount, or a free lollipop, or your friends will be able to know
were you are driving".

This will happen, maybe it is a good thing. We need the wrong things that
could happen with technology to happen fast so people develop antibodies as
they do with every new tech.

------
nextparadigms
Isn't this just like putting GPS on everyone's cars without a warrant and then
giving access to authorities to that information? Didn't the Supreme Court
decide that's unconstitutional?

~~~
ajross
The supreme court decided it was unconstitutional when does as an unsupervised
action of the executive branch. The action is in principle legal, but requires
a warrant. The warrant is a check vs. a different branch of government. This
is a _law_ passed by the legislature, so that analysis doesn't hold. As long
as the executive branch stays inside the boundaries set by the law, the checks
are in place.

That doesn't mean that it's clearly constitutional either, just that the basis
for the court decision isn't applicable here.

------
m3mb3r
>> The U.S. Senate has already passed a bill that will make >> the devices a
requirement, and the House is expected to >> approve the bill as well.

I'm not very well versed with the political process in the US but why aren't
these bill ever discussed (or voted on) before they are passed.

Doesn't the public get to vote on these important issues?

(By the way, I come from a country where I don't get to vote on individual
bills. Just thought things were slightly better in America.)

------
latch
I have privacy concerns like everyone else. But fatal traffic accidents are a
tragedy, more often than not caused by irresponsible people. In Canada, 34% of
motor vehicle deaths are associated with alcohol use. In Australia, 40% are
associated with driving too fast.

Driving is a privilege, not a right. It's also a responsibility which more
than a few-bad-apples don't take seriously. If you don't like it, don't drive.

------
Palomides
quote the bill, "(1) shall require event data recorders to capture and store
data related to motor vehicle safety covering a reasonable time period before,
during, and after a motor vehicle crash or airbag deployment, including a
rollover;"

so I suppose the question is, what's a reasonable time period?

~~~
Noms_Tiem
Since a crash can happen at literally any time while driving, and the bill
requires data to be recorded before a crash, I suspect "reasonable" would be
"any time the vehicle is turned on." I guess it depends, then, on how loosely
you define "crash."

~~~
skymt
If I were implementing one of these black boxes, I'd interpret "reasonable" in
a privacy-preserving way: use a ring buffer that stores, say, 4 minutes of
data, and stop recording 2 minutes after a crash is detected. That should
provide enough data about the crash without being useful to someone who wants
to spy on the driver.

------
Apocryphon
Court orders, how do they work?

Seriously, what oversight is there over court orders? Wiretaps, getting
private information from social networking sites, now car black boxes- who
monitors and evaluates court orders to make sure the judges made the right
decision?

------
melvinng
They don't even have to track you illegally anymore, just have one build in by
default.

------
kenrikm
Prediction: there will be a black market for hacked data recorders that tell
my insurance company I drive like a granny and never leave my house except to
go to the grocery store.

------
pelemele
Insurance lobby - how to find any reason not to pay

~~~
tptacek
Uh, no. When your car insurance pays out for accidents that they shouldn't pay
for, everyone else's rates go up. Making insurance claims more accurate is a
good thing.

------
abcd_f
_In the US_

~~~
cobrausn
<http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16969509>

Coming soon to a country near you.

------
jdalgetty
Hope this stays away from Canada.

------
methoddk
Welcome to the future!

~~~
falcolas
And here I thought 1984 was in the past.

/s

~~~
NLips
1984?

~~~
falcolas
Shoot. I try for a witty response and get it totally wrong. Thanks!

------
JimGreig
what's next? GPS bracelets?

