Privacy advocates wary of push to mandate auto 'black boxes'

The increasing computerization of cars allows them to capture and transmit data that can help improve highway and driver safety, federal officials said.
But the technology also raises privacy concerns about the ownership and unintended uses of that data, experts said.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is seeking a law that would require automakers to install "black boxes" in every new car and light truck sold starting September 2014. But unbeknownst to their owners, many vehicles already carry event data recorders, or EDRs. The NHTSA estimates that about 96 percent of all 2013 vehicles have the devices.

more...
By Dave Larsen

Dayton Daily Newsmercurynews.com

Posted: 05/24/2013 02:40:57 PM PDT
May 24, 2013 9:42 PM GMTUpdated: 05/24/2013 02:41:00 PM PDT

http://www.mercurynews.com/cars/ci_2...to-black-boxes

 

I think this is coming whether we like it or not. I read that New Jersey wants to track how many miles each car registered in the state is driven in the state in order to assess road taxes. It would be based on miles driven.

On the one hand, they already assess at tax based on miles driven just by taxing at the pump each gallon you buy because, if you drive a lot of miles, you buy more gas.

On the other hand, the guy who drives a 30 mpg car pays half the taxes a guy who drives a 15 mpg car does. Some would argue that the 15 mpg guy should pay more to give him an incentive to buy a more fuel-efficient car. But the idea of tracking how many miles you drive makes this go away as the guy who drives the 15 mpg car would pay the same taxes as the guy who drives the 30 mpg car for the same amount of miles driven.

Still, I don't like the intrusion on privacy.

But this already exists in some quarters. Rental cars now typically have GPS tracking in them both so they can be found if stolen or abandoned and so the rental company will know if you take the car outside of the boundaries of the area you're allowed to drive it in.

 

Oregon's ahead of the curve for the same reason as NJ. The state isn't getting enough taxes from the high efficiency cars to pay for the wear and tear on the highways. The state is starting a pilot program that all cars getting 55 mpg or greater will be taxed on the miles driven not gallons of fuel used. Then in future years it will slowly come down to 50, 45, etc. until the state decides they've accomplished "fairness". They haven't said how they will monitor the miles driven yet, but the GPS unit sounds like the most accurate. I think implementation is Fall 2013 or early 2014. So once in place how hard would it be for them to make all cars do this? I agree jaunty, it's just a matter of time.

Even those stinking bicycles are charged a license in many cities to help fund our roads. And that is the reason stated in the most recent bicycle license program. Whatever the gumberment decides is fair shall be imposed on the people. Whoops! did I say that outloud

 

One question I have is the cost to implement this. They would need to install a GPS unit, or whatever the mileage-tracking device is, in EVERY car already in the state and every car sold there. That's A LOT of devices. Who's going to pay for that? I know, I know, the motorist.

What's to stop someone from removing the device every once in a while so that you look like you've driven only 8,000 miles in the past year instead of the 12,000 you really did? Of course, tampering with the device will probably be a crime, but so is tampering with catalytic converters, and how many people yanked those off when they were first installed on cars back in the '70s?

 

I agree, we the people will pay for whatever modifications are needed... or park our cars and walk! I'm sure the powers that be will brainstorm some way to punish us if we try to game the system. Such is life.

 

Of course, if they DO implement this, I should expect to see the roads-supporting tax on gasoline removed, right, as it would no longer be needed? I know. I should live so long.

 

mate i thought we got it bad in OZ

 

the 72 cutlass has no stinking black box!

 

"If you drive a car, I'll tax the street,
If you try to sit, I'll tax your seat.
If you get too cold I'll tax the heat,
If you take a walk, I'll tax your feet."

- The Beatles

 

It's the same with all tech, if it produces info, people want to gather it.

 

What we have here in Ontario is a new system to replace the emmisions test. What they are doing now is we have to plug in and all info is taken directly from the computer.This will include electric cars and Hybreds and the milage will be taxed.
My 95 suburban will be useing the old system and they are changing the emissions allowed until this truck can not pass.
The new ppm requirements are tighter than when new forcing older cars and trucks off the road.
Steve

 

That's only the start. With a tracker on every vehicle, you can easily assess the vehicle's speed at all times. Since you know where it was and the speed limit there, you can then send a monthly bill for speeding infractions. Just a little, of course, for minor speedings. It'll be implemented in the name of safety and security of course. Oh, if only we knew exactly what vehicles were in the area the night that bomb went off... when they came and went... better yet, an RFID chip for each PERSON...

 

John, I sure hope I do not regret my decision on moving to Oregon!
And yes, all of my OLD cars are coming with me. With in my case it is logical. Out there along the coast where I will be at there is only one Ford dealership. If I own a late model Dodge, who is going to reprogram the (insert part name here) when it needs replacement? Who will have the computer powers to diagnose the simplest things? No thanks - I will fix my old cars in my garage.

 

Our county has a road tax for that purpose. But it doesn't matter if you drive your car or not, or if you get 3 or 30 mpg, you pay it at registration every time you renew your plates. This, imo, is fair use. You use the roads legally, then you pay the same as everyone else.

What burns my butt the most is bike riders who use the roads we motor vehicle owners pay tax on, but yet have to yield everything to while on the road. I think bike riders should pay a road use tax as well since many use it. At the time of purchase they could pay a one-time $15 lifetime road tax and that would at least make me feel things are a bit more fair.

 

Yes, but the road use tax is to pay for wear and tear on the roads, and you can't really believe that bicycles cause any at all.

- Eric

 

Yes, but it's also used to build new ones, and bikers benefit from that as much as drivers of motor vehicles. It doesn't seem unreasonable to me to ask all of those who use and benefit from the public roads to make some contribution to them, however small.

 

I believe there will eventually be some type of black box in every vehicle (at least new vehicles). It's going to be a bummer once your insurer starts charging you more when they get their hands on the data transmitted from your family vehicle. I guess I will be stuck with older cars.

 

This ship has already sailed. Every car with airbags has a data recorder that, at a minimum, records the five seconds of data just prior to air bag deployment. Newer vehicles record even more. This data has already been used in courts. There's a legal argument going on right now as to who owns the data, you or the automaker. Even worse are devices like the Progressive Insurance "Snap shot" device that goes on the OBD II connector and is a data recorder that looks at speed and miles travelled, as well as (I assume) things like throttle position. This one is voluntary, so anyone who uses one deserves what they get. I think most rental car companies have something similar in their cars now.

I'll just drive older vehicles that don't have these devices. Big brother really is watching.

 

Just wait and see what mobile phones collect.

 

The road use thing is because I can't equally drive my car on a bike trail which probably uses my tax money to build and maintain anyway (Different than the school tax part that I'll never be able to use, but I don't really mind paying for). It's not that I have issue with a bike on the road or worry about them wearing out the highway, but I also don't want to have to subsidize every bike rider out there by having to alter MY driving (so they don't end up as a hood ornament) on a road that I help pay for. If you use it, you should help pay for it. It's more of a principle thing.

So far, a lot more money every month than I'd like.

 

I know laws aren't made with common sense in mind, but I figure if I buy the car, and I can disable the device, is that illegal? As far as I know, no. If not, then I figure I own it if I have free will to decide the fate of the black box and any data that's in it. When I buy the car, do I have to register the device separately or the whole car? If I modify the car and remove the unit, will the car still function? If yes, then that pile of wires and component I put in the trash heap belongs to the trash collection facility or anyone who wants to go get it.

I think the bigger question is not who owns the data, but who owns the box. Because like a digital recorder like say, a camera, if you take a photo, that data belongs to you. You own the copyright to it so if you own the box and what you do is recorded on your equipment, you should retain the copyright of that data. Thus you own the data. They could subpoena that data, but it's yours because you essentially gave it the raw data (since you own the car and the box).

If I get taxed on the car in my property taxes, everything on the car that was put on there by the manufacturer is part of that tax. If taxed by weight, then the weight of the box is included.

The flip side is that the data could prove you were in the right. So facts are facts. If it would prove your innocence then I'm sure it wouldn't be a big of a deal. As long as the data is accurate and unalterable. The bigger question around that would be is the data recorder validated/calibrated? Such as the speed recording devices used by law enforcement.

Just trying to use common sense. As long as I get to decide what happens to that box/data, barring any court order, then I'm ok with it.

 

I'm not sure of this. As I said earlier, I believe it is illegal to disable or remove a catalytic converter on a car, even though you own it. A tracking device could be viewed similarly by lawmakers.

 

Unless it's all part of the car's overall computer, and can't be separated without disabling the car.

- Eric

 

Good point. It most likely would be.

 

With GM (and I am sure others but don't have first hand experience) the cars don't opperate without the device. The VCIM and BCM control everything and use serial data lines for most everything in a car. Most new cars don't even have a traditional brake or signal switch. You tell the BCM you want to turn and the BCM turns on the light.

Just in the last 2 weeks we had a guy towed in with a bad rattle in his newer camaro V6. It was a 5 speed car and story was check engine light came on as he was rolling through an intersection and started making noise. Motor was trashed 2 broken pistons and a bunch of bent valves. GM wanted us to pull data. 3 seconds before check engine light throttle was at 100% Busted!!!!

 

Why would he been busted, they are equipped with a rev limiter, and what ever usable travel the pedal has, why not use it?

 

Sad but true.

 

But you can swap out the cat for another brand that operates differently as long as it meets regulations. Plus, it's an federal mandate concerning emissions which are covered by existing laws. There's no federal/state/local laws to my knowledge concerning automotive data tracking. So if I do modify a tracking device, it's not illegal by today's standards.

Obviously if it's part of the car's computer, it would be tough to bypass. It would just take a very smart individual to be able to bypass it. If man built it, man can destroy it or find a way around it.

If it's data in a computer, there should be a way I could access it if they can. So if it's not there when they look...hee hee.

OnStar tried this crap a while back by announcing they were going to track cars via OnStar even when the owner didn't subscribe. That got a lot of attention and OnStar did an about face on that. Some people disconnected their OnStar module just in case anyway.

 

Anyone using one of those Tollway I-Passes is already open to speeding tickets!
Those money-suckers time you to the second as you go through the tolls!
Do the math!!!

 

An interesting point, but does anyone know of an instance where someone has actually gotten a speeding ticket because of this?


Of course, you could just not speed...

 

That's like when people say "Ride safe!" when you take off on your bike.

Where's the fun in that?

- Eric

 

No, but when questioning some charges on my account, the girl said occasionally the state troopers come in and go over random accounts. Now, what does that mean??
I think once they realize they can make some BIG MONEY in fines, they'll enforce it as they do those stupid 'traffic cameras'!!
Guilty until proven innocent!!

 

If you get me started on this, this thread will turn "political" right quick.

That which governs least governs best.

- Eric

 

x2 I couldn't agree more. We are heading in a really bad direction with this and many other intrusions into our personal privacy.

 

This discussion doesn't have to turn political because both political parties follow directions from those above them such as evil investment bankers, titans of industry and some historically wealthy families, aka; the Illuminati.

 

Just because you drive an old car doesn't mean you won't have to put one in.
With the sweep of the gov't pen you can be required to retrofit.
I can imagine cop cars outfitted with a sensor that determines if every car passed is transmitting. You won't be hard to find and tax fraud is a nasty charge. I'm sure the Irs will treat you fairly though.

 

Time to put the tinfoil hat away.

Look, old cars (pre-electronics) don't even have the sensors necessary to retrofit such a device. If the gov't thought it could reasonably mandate retrofits, you would have seen laws requiring the retrofit of emissions equipment years ago. Other than the Calif-mandated and short-lived NOx device (which had the same intent as Oldsmobile's TCS), there have been none. Coupled with the small population of older cars on the road, it isn't even on their radar.