Question:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Let’s pretend there are no black boxes. Would you begrudge accident > investigatoes the ability to physically examine YOUR vehicle (tires, > crumpled areas, paint transfers, skid marks) on the basis that it > violates your 4th or 5th amendment rights? I think most reasonable > people understand that forensic evidence from property is not self > incrimination. I think also that there is no violation of 4th > amendement protections of the property, if it is sitting crumpled or > battered state at the scene of an accident. That’s pretty much clear > cut probable cause if there ever was. > Back to black boxes. I am of the thinking that the 5 seconds of > telemtry recorded by the black bax before an impact, and which is only > examined upon accident investigation, fall squarely into the realm of > forensics. And as such is okay by me. > What I would NOT be okay with, are systems that monitor AND report in > real time or report anything at anytime if there is otherwise no cause > to investigate. >I wouldn’t have any problem with them looking at my vehicle. But then that’s >all open and in public for everyone to view. The recorder on the other hand >isn’t. I’m against the black box because I consider it a gross invasion of >privacy. Just the way I view it.
Not all of what is looked at on a vehicle is "all open and in the public for anyone to view". For example, if the steering column linkage is hidden from view, would investigators be violating your privacy by examining it? Don’t think so. I understand the way you look it at. What I don’t understand is why. Reasons given don’t add up to me. Are their hidden reasons? I dunno, maybe we just think different.
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->> Well, I own a car with an SDM and was slightly annoyed to find out >> after I bought the car that it came with one. Nowhere in the owner’s >> manual does it warn you that your car may contain information that >> could be considered evidence against you. >> It’s no big deal, but GM didn’t tell anyone this. > I don’t know what manual you have, but they made it crystal clear in > mine. > On page 7-9 of my Chevy Cavalier’s owner manual: > 2001 Firebird. Page 1-26: > Your vehicle is equipped with a crash sensing and diagnostic module, > which records information about the air bag system. The module records > information about the readiness of the system, when the system commands > air bag inflation and driver’s safety belt usage at deployment. The > module also records speed, engine rpm, brake and throttle data. > No mention of "and if you crash, the cops and your insurance company > will seize it to try and determine the cause of the accident." > I have a clean record, I’m just uncomfortable with having an electronic > nanny onboard recording everything incase I might crash. How long until > it’s standard for your insurance company and cops to seize them from > every accident? > Ray
It’s starting: http://www.detnews.com/2004/autosinsider/0409/06/-264474.htm Monday, September 6, 2004 Kentucky case to use automotive ‘black box’ technology Associated Press Previous reports Editorial: Black Boxes in Cars Open Privacy Concerns LOUISVILLE, Ky. (AP) — A northern Kentucky manslaughter trial could join a growing number of cases nationwide in which jurors receive information from data recorders pulled from vehicles. Federal officials estimate the so-called black boxes — similar to those found in aircraft — are installed in 15 percent of the nation’s 200 million passenger vehicles. Like their aerial counterparts, the black boxes in cars and trucks keep precise information about speed and braking just before a crash. The northern Kentucky case begins in January in Kenton County. Lloyd Robinson, of Florence, faces a manslaughter charge in the May 2003 death of Kentucky Fish & Wildlife Resources Officer Doug Bryant. Prosecutors say Bryant stopped Robinson along Interstate 75 near Florence, but Robinson sped away after Bryant got out of his truck to approach Robinson’s car. They both crashed, and Bryant, 62, was killed. The trial had been scheduled for this summer but was delayed after the judge ordered Kenton County Commonwealth’s Attorney Bill Crockett to subpoena Dearborn, Mich.-based Ford Motor Co. for the data from Bryant’s truck and make it available to Robinson’s lawyer. Dean Pisacano, who is representing Robinson, said he is not sure yet whether the technology used in the truck will be useful. Mike Vaughn, a technology spokesman for Ford, said all Fords have had data recorders since 2002, but only a few models have advanced capabilities that have been the focus of critics of the technology. Some of the boxes can record such information as pre-crash speed, braking, direction of travel and even seat-belt use. American Civil Liberties Union lawyers say motorists don’t necessarily know their vehicles have them, and information from the recorders could be used to invade people’s privacy. begin 666 redarrow.gif M1TE&.#EA# `*`(#_`,X“,# P"’Y! $“`$`+ ““`,“H`0 (2C(]YP+H, ` end begin 666 dot.gif ` end
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I bet the airlines wish that the NTSB wasn’t able to seize airplane > black boxes either. I’m glad they can though. I am totally for the > black boxes in cars too. They help to find the truth. That’s a good > thing. So long as they are only used in a forensic capacity, and not > in a tattle tale mode, I think it’s good. By foresic I mean like skid > marks and other things are examined as the result of a major mishap. > By tattle tale mode I mean, hmm… you just drove "120mph, I’m going > to transmit this to the authorities" type thing. >I dunno, I think as long as they can get to it then it can be self >incriminating. Maybe this’ll be something that’ll reach the courts.
Let’s pretend there are no black boxes. Would you begrudge accident investigatoes the ability to physically examine YOUR vehicle (tires, crumpled areas, paint transfers, skid marks) on the basis that it violates your 4th or 5th amendment rights? I think most reasonable people understand that forensic evidence from property is not self incrimination. I think also that there is no violation of 4th amendement protections of the property, if it is sitting crumpled or battered state at the scene of an accident. That’s pretty much clear cut probable cause if there ever was. Back to black boxes. I am of the thinking that the 5 seconds of telemtry recorded by the black bax before an impact, and which is only examined upon accident investigation, fall squarely into the realm of forensics. And as such is okay by me. What I would NOT be okay with, are systems that monitor AND report in real time or report anything at anytime if there is otherwise no cause to investigate.
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Let’s pretend there are no black boxes. Would you begrudge accident > investigatoes the ability to physically examine YOUR vehicle (tires, > crumpled areas, paint transfers, skid marks) on the basis that it > violates your 4th or 5th amendment rights? I think most reasonable > people understand that forensic evidence from property is not self > incrimination. I think also that there is no violation of 4th > amendement protections of the property, if it is sitting crumpled or > battered state at the scene of an accident. That’s pretty much clear > cut probable cause if there ever was. > Back to black boxes. I am of the thinking that the 5 seconds of > telemtry recorded by the black bax before an impact, and which is only > examined upon accident investigation, fall squarely into the realm of > forensics. And as such is okay by me. > What I would NOT be okay with, are systems that monitor AND report in > real time or report anything at anytime if there is otherwise no cause > to investigate.
I wouldn’t have any problem with them looking at my vehicle. But then that’s all open and in public for everyone to view. The recorder on the other hand isn’t. I’m against the black box because I consider it a gross invasion of privacy. Just the way I view it.
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->> Well, I own a car with an SDM and was slightly annoyed to find out >> after I bought the car that it came with one. Nowhere in the owner’s >> manual does it warn you that your car may contain information that >> could be considered evidence against you. >> It’s no big deal, but GM didn’t tell anyone this. > I don’t know what manual you have, but they made it crystal clear in mine. > On page 7-9 of my Chevy Cavalier’s owner manual: >2001 Firebird. Page 1-26: >Your vehicle is equipped with a crash sensing and diagnostic module, >which records information about the air bag system. The module records >information about the readiness of the system, when the system commands >air bag inflation and driver’s safety belt usage at deployment. The >module also records speed, engine rpm, brake and throttle data. >No mention of "and if you crash, the cops and your insurance company >will seize it to try and determine the cause of the accident." >I have a clean record, I’m just uncomfortable with having an electronic >nanny onboard recording everything incase I might crash. How long until > it’s standard for your insurance company and cops to seize them from >every accident? >Ray
That isn’t the concern as much as the accurate of the data being stored and used for a conviction. The average speedometer is 3-5% off but there are wide variations among that. "Theoretically" if one wheel was spinning on ice and the other on pavement a 30 MPH accident could be recorded as 70MPH, or a skidding locked up an 80 MPH accident could be recorded as 0 MPH for the person spinning into your car. Or if perhaps you’ve got a defective speed sensor (not that GM ever has defective parts installed) incorrect data could be entered into the computer. I know that I don’t know what my ABS data is as it’s travelling down the road. Perhaps I’m not as trusting of the government as most, just trying to figure out what new cars would be a secure purchase for me. Thanks for the info guys
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Well, I own a car with an SDM and was slightly annoyed to find out > after I bought the car that it came with one. Nowhere in the owner’s > manual does it warn you that your car may contain information that > could be considered evidence against you. > It’s no big deal, but GM didn’t tell anyone this. > I don’t know what manual you have, but they made it crystal clear in mine. > On page 7-9 of my Chevy Cavalier’s owner manual:
2001 Firebird. Page 1-26: Your vehicle is equipped with a crash sensing and diagnostic module, which records information about the air bag system. The module records information about the readiness of the system, when the system commands air bag inflation and driver’s safety belt usage at deployment. The module also records speed, engine rpm, brake and throttle data. No mention of "and if you crash, the cops and your insurance company will seize it to try and determine the cause of the accident." I have a clean record, I’m just uncomfortable with having an electronic nanny onboard recording everything incase I might crash. How long until it’s standard for your insurance company and cops to seize them from every accident? Ray
Response:
><snip> >And before you say it, the courts so far do NOT feel that there is a >reasonable expectation of privacy in your car. If that were the case, >this guy would’ve been doing something that was perfectly legal: >http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_30-8-2004_pg9_15 ><snip>
Hmm I think the issue there was that what was being broadcast extended beyond the vehicle’s interior (if this is the one I heard on the radio the police felt that gay porn wasn’t up to community standards). I know that certain jurisdictions to have vehicle privacy legislation. (to prevent peeping toms into motor homes etc).
Response:
> No, self incrimination is when they force you personally to give up the > truth. Seeing as GM has not perfected psychic neural implants yet, we > have a while yet to worry about that.
Ahh, but you see, it’s your car, so everything in it is yours also. You see, self incrimination doesn’t involve making you give up anything. You show them or tell them what your involvement is. In this case it’d be your car showing involvement. Main Entry: in
If you like this post and would like to receive updates from this blog, please subscribe our feed.