E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSIf you are unfortunate enough to land in court after a serious automobile accident, the star witness against you may not be an eyewitness or even a human being. It could be your car.
Today’s high-tech automobiles increasingly rely on computers to maximize performance and monitor operating systems. But while the under-the-hood computers are doing that, they may also be recording data about your driving.
Typically, that information is collected by a vehicle’s “event data recorder,” or EDR, a computer module that is often compared to the “black box” on a commercial airliner. Among other things, EDRs are capable of recording a number of driver behaviors, including brake application, steering, speed at time of impact in the event of a crash and whether the driver and passengers were using seatbelts.
Such information is primarily intended to help improve federal safety standards, but increasingly it is being used in court cases in which vehicles were involved in a serious accident or the commission of a crime.
For example, electronic evidence played a key role in a criminal case at the center of Friday night’s “Dateline NBC” (10 p.m. / 9 p.m. Central). The case involves a heartbroken Montana teenager, a dangerous stretch of highway and some ominous text messages.
A deadly crash on a notorious stretch of highway forever changes the lives of two Montana families. Dateline NBC's Keith Morrison reports.
“Essentially, vehicles nowadays are a huge conglomeration of computer chips and modules,” said Mike McCullough, a retired Phoenix police detective who investigated serious crashes for many years. “And the electronic data they collect is going to become more and more common as evidence down the road.”
Among the drivers of that anticipated growth are new National Highway Traffic Safety Administration regulations that take effect next year.
The rules do not require EDRs – already in use in more than 85 percent of U.S. vehicles – but they mandate that in cars that have them, the devices must capture and preserve at least 15 types of crash data, including pre-crash speed, engine throttle, changes in forward velocity and airbag deployment times. And one day, the agency noted in its final rule, they may even play a role in getting emergency medical service quickly dispatched to the scene of an accident by automatically sending a 911 alert.
'Staggering' amount of information
Even now, however, such information could be cross-checked with information from devices like cellphones and GPS units to build what could be an air-tight court case.
“Now you’re in a situation where, if someone has the time and expertise, they can say you drove from here to there at this speed, you parked at Whole Foods, here’s what you bought, then you got back in your car and drove here and made a call to this number,” said Dean Gonsowski, eDiscovery counsel with Clearwell, which is part of the security firm Symantec. “... It’s staggering how much information can be collected.”
Drew Findling, an Atlanta attorney and chairman of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers’ Forensic Disciplines Committee, notes that e-evidence might just as easily create an unshakable alibi, which is why he routinely hires experts to examine equipment and data.
“You want to have the equipment examined to determine the reliability, both from a chronological and content standpoint,” he said. “And there are times when that evidence is of an exculpatory nature, so you want to make sure that you gain access to it – whether it’s a computer or an iPhone or whatever – and that you preserve that evidence immediately.”
Courts already are wrestling with the challenges presented in general by electronic evidence, which has become almost ubiquitous in both civil and criminal cases.
“Electronic evidence is admitted in almost every trial in America, whether it’s a phone bill or electric bill or a document that’s created, stored or transmitted electronically,” said Mark D. Rasch, director of cybersecurity and privacy consulting at the technology services company CSC and former head of the Justice Department’s computer crime unit. “… When you think about it, even a crime scene photograph is electronic evidence now.”
New layers of complexity
The increasing use of digital evidence has spawned a new legal specialty – e-discovery – and has added layers of complexity that didn’t exist when cases were won or lost on paper documents. In some cases – particularly those involving corporations – the amount of digital data that must be retrieved and sorted through prior to trial is immense.
“State crime labs are adding high-tech pieces, but if you think it’s hard to examine urine and blood samples, try working through a zip drive, a hard drive or an iPhone,” said Findling, the defense attorney.
Evidentiary laws also have failed to keep pace with rapidly changing technology, said Rasch.
“We changed the discovery laws eight or 10 years ago, but we need to change a bunch of different laws, including electronic privacy laws,” he said. “And we need to continue to tweak the laws on chain of custody, validation and verification, authentication, corroboration and the scope and extent of discovery.”
While lawmakers struggle to catch up, judges and courts are taking wildly varying positions on the reliability and admissibility of digital evidence.
“Right now it depends on the state, depends on the judge,” said McCullough, president of the Southwestern Association of Technical Accident Investigators. “A lot of information has to be established to show that it’s reliable.”
Gonsowski said much of the variation is attributable to the differing technology comfort levels among judges, prosecutors and defense counsels.
“You see some inconsistent decisions because a case may require that the litigants and the judge all understand how Facebook works, for example,” he said. “… So there’s a lot of sort of groping around – not quite the blind leading the blind, but folks wrestling with these new technologies as they apply to traditional legal concepts.”
Stricter rules for digital evidence
Experts have different views of those to-and-fro battles.
Rasch, the former Justice Department official, said that courts often impose higher requirements on digital evidence than they do with physical documents, such as letters.
“We demand a (greater) degree of certitude for certain kinds of electronic evidence than is demanded in the physical world. … A lot of it has to do with the general unease we have with electronic evidence. We’re not sure it’s reliable, that it hasn’t been tampered with.”
But others worry that current laws – and the judges who enforce them – have failed to adequately consider that electronic evidence is “inherently malleable or ephemeral.”
Among them is Steven Teppler, a partner in the Chicago law firm Edelson McGuire and co-chair of the American Bar Association’s Digital Evidence Committee. He is part of what he describes as a growing movement within the legal profession to have digital evidence deemed “hearsay,” and thus generally inadmissible in legal proceedings unless its reliability can be demonstrated.
“Unless we change the rules of evidence to require a higher level of reliability, you have this built in problem where people say, ‘It comes out of the computer, therefore it must be reliable,’” he said.
But that doesn’t account for the fact that programmers create the software that instructs those machines to generate data, Teppler said.
“Computers will repetitively create bad information if they are programmed incorrectly,” he said. “Just because a computer generates it doesn’t mean it’s true.”
Leave a Comment:
I addressed a couple of issues with one of my employees over email. I brought it up before verbally but she wouldn't let me finish and kept interrupting me. The basic context was about keeping a regular schedule and asking her to reduce her cellphone use at work as she has a habit of answering her phone in mid conversation, which I think is extremely rude.
Her reply was a seething email that was very defensive. I now have detailed documentation and now its in her file. While I don't always agree with what my supervisor says, in no way would I put it in a email. Those kind of conversations are verbal, one on one and behind closed doors.
U . . . I may very well qualify as unfixable according to your moniker . . . but I can't make heads nor tails about how, not even exactly, but how at all it is that your posted comment relates to anything in this article on EDR's in automobiles and subsequent collection of digital evidence from them in the case of serious accidents . . .
Because someone write something in a Email insures no veracity of the author, or that anything in it is true, only that they wrote it . it's a common method to CYA.
Eventually, almost all of this data will be admissible .... the real fear is just how easily most of it can be "reconstituted" by really talented people ... to say what they want it to say ... its only 0 & 1's.
The one glaring omission this argument for this type of intrusion lacks is “Why”.
Why were you doing ____________?
The largest reason for “Road Rage” is tailgating.
I do not see how this type of information capture could report an aggressive act purported against an individual involved in a scenario that occurs as a response to road rage, or many other temporary road conditions and the many other fleeting reason’s why the drivers may be doing what the computer is showing, especially if the driver dies in the incident and can not explain this in court.
Here’s what happened, does not explain why this happened, and leads to speculation and conjecture which is never 100% truth.
I have been behind an erratic driver who’s actions were so bad, that it made the decision to speed and cross a double yellow line to pass, and get away from the inevitable wreck ... safer than waiting as four others had already passed, and ten other behind me were pressing to pass as well, if I where to have lost control as I was passing this driver and crashed the computer, skid marks and crime scene could not have explained this in court.
Forensic science has its place in court, however putting a blind and deaf forensic computer in automobiles will give the courts half truths at best, and once again leave it up to the creativity of the lawyers imaginations to place the guilt in some coherent context.
starting in 2010, most of the new auto's and trucks, have very sophisticated recording devices built in, by 2015, Law Enforcement will have readers on board, can tell everything the driver was doing for the last hour of driving, also a locator's beacon, that can disable the car or truck from a signal , this will be assigned to law enforcement; when you are pulled over by a officer, he can request your car to be disabled, windows locked, doors locked, until he gets all the info on you and the auto or truck, this should all be in place by 2016!
Patrick: I may have logged on too late for you to see this but Stupid actually read the whole article, which at least a couple times referred to ALL manner of electronic evidence. Email is but one of many.
I don't like the electronic evidence at all. At least with physical witnesses, they tend to fear 'sleeping with the fishes', but my computer doesn't seem to have feelings at all.
Big Brother has been watching our every move for a long long time now and it is only going to get worse.
Just another case of computer technology being used to spy on people. What I can't believe is the isurance company, I think progressive, that wants people to attach a device to their car to record their behavior. Of course the bait is "you can save $", but what it can actually do is raise the rates as each of these devices collect data so that the risk management department has hard evidence to back up their rate hikes. That is what computers do now a days, record and correlate data for marketing or other areas. It's all about the $ and how they can get more out of you. It's just a shame that people fall for the "save $" rouse, when they are actually going to be costing everyone more.
The Auto Insurance companies have lobbied to own your "black box" They have exclusive rights over the black box. Everything you do is recorded... So when you are involved in an accident and it running a stop sign and that caused the accident they got you! You did not use your break so you ran the stop sign!
Actually this news is about 4 yrs old. It is just now being challenged in courts so it is new news again!
This is a "double edged sword", it could help you, or fry you. There are times that I have said, "This person driving next to me talking on their cell phone, swerving from one line to the other; if they cross into my lane and hit me, I am sure (because of their already observed behavior) will say it was my fault. Without any witness it will be just my word against their word. Oh did I mention I was driving alone, and the SUV next to me had 5 witness for the other vehicle who swore that I was the one driving erratic?
Since your car is yours, can it be forced to speak against you?
i wonder how using EDR evidence in court holds up against the right against self incrimination.
and also how it holds up against unlawful search and seizure. for example, just this week, there was a case where the authorities used GPS devices on the cars of suspects without obtaining a warrant. but why is it any different if the car already has one built in? i realize that EDR's are evidence and that they could be subpoena'd, but still...
Yes it can be used against you, up in NC a guy was involved in an accident, he was speeding at the time. Some one was killed. He did not cause the accident. But because he was speeding they charged him with Vehicular homicide. And he got a lot of time in jail. His case is on appeal last I heard. They trying to say it violates his right of self incrimination since the car was his, and he was not informed about the black box being installed in his car.
me personally if i buy a car an know it has a edr chip i say take it to a michanic an take the @!$%# out there is no reason for this spying an as for the cellphne thing buy prepaid phones an use a fake name
Auto rental companies have had these devices for years, and I don't believe they need any kind warrant to access the data on chips.
tiredofsilly, once you're in a wreck i'm sure your car becomes their evidence.
Wally,
"I don't believe they need any kind warrant to access the data on chips."
You're right, until someone challenges them in court about it, that is. There's a case before the United States Supreme Court now about the police attaching a GPS device to a guy's car without his knowledge. He is challenging them because they did not have a warrant. We'll just have to see how that one goes. The Court's decision there could have an impact on these devices also. It all depends on whether they rule in his favor or against him, and whether their decision is a broad one or a narrow one.
Mickey - what would happen if a private citizen put a GPS tracker on a police car?
As for these devices, they are easy to defeat. You could simply install a reset. A good scanner can do that. Sometimes mechanics have to do that when your car gets corrupted data. So in the future, people may simply buy a device that resets the data recorder upon the push of a button. It wouldn't be an engineering stretch - and we already have black market electronics from China here.
And GPS relies on weak time signals from satellites. We all know that those signals can be blocked. It's easy to locate the antenna for it. It could easily be covered with a thin sheet of lead.
Then it isn't very hard to send your own time signals to it. Again, if someone in China can make a GPS unit, they can make a sending unit that would be able to place your location anywhere (stopped or moving at any rate).
And once these devices are common, the real data will always be questioned.
All they need is the market for buying these counter surveillance and monitoring devices, and the products will soon follow.
In regards to the chip in the car and I will even throw in traffic cameras, this does not prove one important aspect, who was driving the vehicle? Like all other forms of electronic communication, just because something was sent through my email account or my cell phone doesn't mean I was the person that sent it.
There are no absolutes and when it comes to executing fraud there is no easier way to do it than using electronics. If there is code written for the device it can be hacked. It is already a known fact that hackers can get in to your vehicles systems through Bluetooth connectivity while driving next to you.
A surge or dip in the voltage supplying the chip can scramble some data. A powerful magnet could completely wipe it out. We are talking about electronic pulses through very fine wires and that is now considered physical evidence? I don't think so.
Here's my take on the earlier mention of the police having the ability to shut your car down and lock the doors and windows by 2016. The first time this happens accidentally or because someone hacked the system, the ultimate lawsuit would shut it down. Especially if there is bodily harm because of it.
We are trying to eliminate traffic cops electronically. Next up will be cameras everywhere. Now that they don't need film they can be placed anywhere anyone wants to put them. There will be the proof of who was driving, coupled with the chips data and you are screwed.
I hate it when I answer some of my own questions. Couple that with voice and facial recognition software and you could have one person in each state manage the data. The computers will do all the work.
That is why I drive a "Classic" POS. Can't force me to give you data that is legally mine from my property. I would think this falls under the 5th Amendment to proclude oneself from self incrimination, but I am sure all those Republican Judges aren't concerned about people rights, Just "Corporate People's" rights.
The danger , of course, is when the powers that be change the definition what "doing something wrong" is.
Smoking a cigarette in your car could be a felony by this time next year. You parked in front of a bar for 3 hours you must be a drunk. You drove by 3 elementary schools in less than an hour so you must be a child molesting pervert. You went to a shooting range then you must be a dangerous right winger and potential terrorist.
Hard not to be concerned when the Government starts to profile people by where they drive, what they buy, who they call, Etc............ad-infinatum. This makes racial profiling look like childs play.
We're all just a law away from suddenly being a criminal for doing what was perfectly legal yesterday!
RyanInTexas,
"Mickey - what would happen if a private citizen put a GPS tracker on a police car?"
That's a good question. I don't know the answer except to say the police would not appreciate it. It would be a good case of tit for tat though. I just hope you don't think I was defending what the police did with the GPS tracker.
Of course if you simply disconnect the battery all of the information on these chips is wiped. On know this for a fact because a dead battery caused my car to fail inspection in CA. Apparently part of the every two year inspection you take your car in fr involves looking at certain engine operating data that is stored on these chips. If your battery has gone dead recently there will not be enough data so your car will fail the inspection, regardless of whether there is anything at all wrong with the car. So, if you get in an accident and are afraid the data on the EDR may hang you, just pull the battery cable. You can always say you did it because you were afraid a spark would start a fire. I really hate the idea of all these electronic devices keeping records of everything you do without your knowledge or permission. I also think that the authorities should be required to get a warrant before accessing any of this data. Otherwise it is no different then them having a wiretap on your phone without a warrant.
If my car testified against me, it would say that I live in a place where it spends a lot of time in gridlock freeway traffic, or has its brakes subjected to hills and tiny old winding roads. Other than that, it has a very good life, and shouldn't be complaining. There is nothing worse than a sneaky, whiny car.
If I don't know better, in a round about way, it sounds like some of you drive illegally.
Since 9 out of 10 Arizona drivers are constantly breaking the law when they drive - the old computer is going to show both parties are at fault.
I drive the speed limit for no other reason than to get those with no self control all jacked up. As an old Commercial Drivers Licensed operator, I just got used to driving safely. When you drive a dump truck with a backhoe trailer, you don't get much flack from enraged drivers...lol.
Some of the above posts lack all logic - assuming that disabling you computer will solve any problems - what are you going to do, crawl into the other car a start snipping wires? If I hit the breaks and you rear end me in .07 seconds, it is going to be pretty clear you were tailgating.
Without a lawyer you are most likely going to be found guilty if you actually were in the wrong - so it's still going to cost you one way or the other. People always talk a good game out of court, they also claim they never lose at the casino...lmao.
when it helps to provide certain details about the accident to determine with more accuracy who was at fault, and who was innocent.
then again, if you are not breaking the law... then you dont need to worry about my sheeple. the part where they can shut your vehical down after it has been stolen, or being used in a criminal act, is an effective tool.
i believe also, doesnt the nav company have to have the owners permission, or a court order to shut the vehical down or to obtain any other typ of information? also rental companies i think should be required to have these devices.
If my truck ever rats me out it'll wake up one day with it's tires slashed rim to rim. :)
LMAO. Exactly what I was thinking. That crap don't fly in the 'hood. I'd do a driveby on my car ... but I would have to borrow someone elses to do it.
iseenow,
"If my truck ever rats me out it'll wake up one day with it's tires slashed rim to rim. :)"
In this case I can say, "Thank God for poverty!" I drive an old 1981 Toyota Celica that I bought when it was new, but which has just celebrated its thirtieth birthday this year. It contains no computer chips at all, and I will continue to drive it until the transmission falls out on the highway. Find yourself an old pre-computer clunker and drive it. That may help you stay out of jail.
Mickey,
Agree 100%. My 88 Ford truck has no chip (NO TRACKING), I can work on it myself (no exuberant maintenance fees), all I need do is preventative maintenance. Has only let me down once, dead 5 yr old battery. The government has no business knowing every move that I make.
isesoclearlynow I need to work on my people skills. Somebody is trying to kill me. The car
accident one Christmas night was no accident and nobody can tell me otherwise Nobody, absolutely
no body but I am keeping my Grand Prix. I love the car and it a Testimony they never saw
coming!!! I am back in the driver's seat!!!
WashingtonStateEagle,
"My 88 Ford truck has no chip (NO TRACKING), I can work on it myself (no exuberant maintenance fees), all I need do is preventative maintenance."
Yes, the old vehicles are easier to maintain since you don't need to be a computer programmer to fix them, and as we can see from this article, they don't have the disadvantage of being able to spy on your every move. My old Toyota runs just fine and doesn't spy on me like some of these newer vehicles do.
I often wonder if one of the hidden purposes of the "Cash for Clunkers" thing was to get older cars that can't be harvested for driver-data out of circulation...
A Senator was convicted of second-degree manslaughter, for hitting a motorcycle while driving drunk...
His vehicles data collector proved that he was; speeding 72 in a 55 and did not apply the breaks for a stop sign @ the intersection where the accident occurred...
This occurred a few years ago.
After running a stop sign at speed and killing Randy Scott, former governor and congressman Bill Janklow gets just 100 days in jail, followed by three years of probation, during which he will not be allowed to drive.
Read more: http://www.motorcyclecruiser.com/newsandupdates/bill_janklow_sentenced/index.html#ixzz1dOen71VM .
"This occurred a few years ago."
Yes, and this article is not news. This has been going on for several years now.
hs321: yes, it goes on nearly every day, but I think what Robertson is saying is the little black box is what got Janklow convicted.
A Senator was convicted of second-degree manslaughter, for hitting a motorcycle while driving drunk...
HMMMMM, Wonder if it would have made a difference in Ted Kennedy’s case at Chappaquiddick
Good conviction? Perhaps, but think about the possibility that national inspections of vehicles becomes law, and while there they upload all the vehicle data to a databank. Then several days you recieve a fine for each and every time you were speeding during the previous year. What a marvelous revenue stream for our friends in Washington.
In New York, they consider killing someone while drunk murder, and have been successful at convicting people of it. But I am sure since he was a politician he would get off easier than the general population. "Its good to be the King" Mel Brooks
Big brother gets bigger and bigger as time goes by. =:/
The truth shall set you free - - unless you did it.
Paraphasing George Orwell, The times will be so deceitful it will be a revolutionary act to tell
the truth." The truth shall set you free --unless you did it, very funny. Which reminds me I was
in a car accident several years ago and I still have my Grand Prix and now I will not consider
selling it because I am convinced it was not an accident and it 'may be evidence." I am being
pressured to sell the car. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm The truth will set you free unless you
did it. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
Who needs "Big Brother" when we've been all turned into "Little Brothers" spying on others and ourselves?
Surveillance of all types has increased to the point that you'd best not relieve yourself after dark in your neighborhood lest you be caught on some one's infrared illuminated security camera system and charged with indecent exposure.
Your car's been tattling on you for some time, the pressure from lawsuits upon car manufacturers created the need so they equipped them, big government's kind of late on getting onto the bandwagon and requiring them. It's more likely that your insurance company will require you to have GPS tracking installed in the future. Expect them to lobby the government on that.
Why wouldn't this be tantamount to a wife being forced to testify against her husband? Or even illegal search a seizure? Just b/e your in a wreck does NOT mean you give up your rights to your property!
If they have a supoena it is not illegal search. What do you have against judging on facts?
The difference is that I love my car!
Really??
I think it's more like dusting the gun to see if it has your fingerprints.
Provided proper search and seizure laws are followed, if the car was the "weapon" you used, certainly it can be examined for evidence and that evidence used in court.
You're comparing a wife testifying against a husband with... giving up rights to your property? One has nothing to do with the other, at all, unless in your twisted perspective your wife IS your property.
Just another nut job who's fearful of technology.
The Auto Insurance lobbied to own and have exclusive rights of the black box... you do not own the black box the auto insurance industry does
Just kidding hon!
My car would only cuss at them in Italian, no computers in a 79 Lancia.
Apparently the police can put a GPS device on your vehicle without a warrant... so what's the difference?
Gold Rush, you've got a GPS on you without a warrant if you have a cell phone made this side of 2002 anyway because of the E-911 act (Enhanced 911 act of 1999). In case you think I'm kidding...
http://transition.fcc.gov/pshs/services/911services/enhanced911/archives/factsheet_requirements_012001.pdf
Yep. Unless your cell phone is over 10 years old, it's got your location nailed to within a football field proximity. The reason why is because 911 dispatching was becoming rather useless on many calls because people calling in couldn't accurately describe where they were. Most people driving on a freeway don't know which mile marker they're at, and many people driving in the city aren't always good for knowing the nearest cross streets either.
So, calling 911 and saying "get here fast!" means the 911 dispatcher has to know where "here" is. Thus, the E-911 act was passed. It was an answer to a problem which had been previously solved because the 911 system had data on every landline, but now half of American homes don't even have landlines, all they have are cell phones or ip-based options like Magic Jack and Vonage and such.
You ask "what's the difference?" and the difference is simple... there's a fine line between wanted help (911 is wanted help, unless you're robbing a place) and unwanted help (cops pulling you over is usually unwanted help unless you've been carjacked).
Every tech advance is a blessing and a curse. For example, that train crash on September 12th, 2008 in Los Angeles was caused by the curse, the engineer (Robert Sanchez) was texting away on his cell phone as his train blew a stop light and collided with a freight train, 25 people dead and 135 injured.
That was bad, but the silver cloud in the lining was that cell phones got help on scene fast. It sure wasn't the engineer who called for help (being as how he was killed on impact), it was the cell-phone equipped passengers who mitigated the disaster and got emergency response on scene, even though they likely had no clue where the train wreck actually was.
There's a ban on cell phone use while running a train due to the results of the investigation. Engineers who do so will be fired, which is still a better deal than the texting engineer got (death penalty imposed by Darwin's Law).
I think the good outweighs the bad. Most choices are always about the lesser evil. It's never just as easy as choosing the good.
That isn't so apparent. That very issue of GPS tracking without a warrant is before the Supreme Court this term.
And NOT all phones have GPS tracking, and some, like mine, the GPS tracking can be turned off if I want it off........ But IF they want to use the GPS tracking ablility of phones, use it to determine if the phone is moving OVER 5mph, if it is, disable it until it stops moving again. Over 5mph would be sure bet that the person has their ear clued to it while driving instead of paying attention to their driving.....!!!!!!!
Wow, pitching NBC shows, can this "news" outlet sink any lower??
No one is forcing you to be at this site.
Besides, name me a single media company that doesn't cross promote. I'll save you some time. You can't.
If all you took out of this article is evil cross promotions, you really need to read deeper. Cross promoting should have been the least of your concerns.
I don't like it, too much big brother.
If it's reliable evidence then it's admissable. Fingerprinting didn't exist 120 years ago and DNA not even 35. They are now as accepted as gunshot residue.
Moreover what if a family member of yours was killed by a drunk driver who left the scene and the ONLY evidence linking him to the crime was the car's computer???
I'll bet you would want it then.
I may be wrong, but I don't believe any of the computer information in a car can actually prove who was driving at any given time. So, if, as in your scenario, a drunk driver killed someone and left the scene, the auto's computer could not prove who that driver was nor if they were drunk.
waybear
They already have the technology in use that won't allow the car to start if your drunk. Someone will invent a program to erase all info if this becomes reality.
Reading some of your comments reminds me of comedy central. Anyway, here's whats in the work in regard to these recording devices.
1. Any form of tampering with the device will prevent the automobile from starting.
2. A photo of the driver will be taken, in some vehicles this is already in the works, as well as the driver's weight.
3. Eventually all persons in the vehicle at the time of an accident, or dangerous vehicle move, will be photographed.
4. Besides paying for fuel at the gas station, you will also be billed automatically by your state each month based on the mileage you drive. Some states are working on this program at this moment.
5. Vehicles will have a determined life span, yet to be determined. This is in the works, being pushed by the automobile industry.
6. Unless there is an accident, the traffic speeding police will be the thing of the past. Systems are be developed at this moment that will determine if you are speeding at ANY given time or area. This of course will get you a speeding ticket in the mail. Don't pay the ticket or show up in court, your vehicle will be disabled so you can't use it. They can do this on some vehicles right at this time.
7. Recording devices will be mandatory, even if you refurbish an antique.
8. Tire pressure too low, you will be notified by the on-board system to air up your tires to the proper pressure with a time limit to have it done. Otherwise your vehicle won't be able to be started.
9. Got worn out tires, same thing will happen as in 8 above.
10. Don't have your seat belts on, all passengers, this will get you a ticket if the vehicle moves, and not paying the ticket or showing up in court will shut your vehicle system down to prevent it from moving.
11. Tamper with the recording device will also shut down your vehicle system, requiring you to have it reset at a cost. It could possibly get you a ticket and jail time. This is being argued at the moment.
12. Only the registered owner or the vehicle, or whoever the owner allows a person to drive the vehicle will be able to drive the car. This will be done through eye recognition. Auto insurance companies are pushing for this one.
These are just a few of the things that are being planned, all under the guise of SAFETY. Who know what else is planned. The reason I know these things is because I work in the automobile safety industry.
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -----Benjamin Franklin
BUY AN OLDER CAR........ Don't get a cell phone, or remove the battery, from the cell phone while driving...... Big Brother, can't track your phone if it doesn't have POWER......
sandia........... Somehow, everything in your post, will become reality..... The voting public, will be convinced, that its all for safety......
Dennis......... SO very true...
Sandi,
Let me guess you are a big fan of the SCI-FI channel, right?
There are two sides to this: As much as I resent the "Big Brother" aspect of technology, I'm the mother of a teenager, and a lot calmer for the ability to communicate with her by cellphone or text.
Like driving itself, it is not a right but a privilege. Having information on multiple systems in the car can provide cross verification. Where that is not the case, more than one sensor can be used. I may not want to have my car tell on me if I break the law but society certainly has the right to demand that information as a prerequisite to operating a motor vehicle. I would rather know I had no privacy than be lied to. The government is already looking at an astounding amount of data that you think is private. It may not show up directly in a court case but it helps them find other information that does.
From the article: "We’re not sure it’s reliable, that it hasn’t been tampered with.”
As mentioned in the article, even crime scene photographs are digital...how do you know with certainty that some overzealous technician didn't use Photoshop to "enhance" the evidence? Maybe I'm being a little paranoid, but it is worrisome.
That has been true of evidence of any kind since the dawn of courts.
Just because your paranoid, doesn't mean they are not out to get you, LOL
I would worry more about paper than electronic. When 12yr old can print fake money there is not much you can not make look real. I suspect if there is too much abuse of electronic data recorders some semi legal device will be invented to cause them to self destrust
I guess it's time to learn how to turn off certain parts of our car's brains. Might make for a nice income boost from the family garage.
I am glad...they caught an old man who tried to rape and than killed his kids 12 year old babysitter using this tech....now he is doing like 40 years....told his wife he didnt do it...but the gps tracked his involvement and he could not believe it ...so yeah...if it keeps pervs like this behind bars...I am all for it
"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty, than those attending too small a degree of it" BF !!!
This is against the peoples will and our Constitution..
This runs along the lines of '1984'. I don't want to be watched. I like my freedom. I don't want you to be watched either.
Good and bad comes from everything we touch.
The basic problem is that you are under constant surveillance by your car. At some point the government will be able to read the data automatically, and for example send you a ticket for going 72 in a 55 zone. The monitoring is done without your consent. Your only choice is to not buy the vehicle, but the article states 85% of all new vehicles have the EDRs (try finding a model that doesn't). People have a basic right to be free of surveillance unless there is a suspicion of criminal activity; in my judgement it is not constitutional to monitor actions in this way. Congress should pass a law forbidding the installation of EDRs in vehicles.
It was Congress who mandated the air bags in your vehicle...
It was the insurance companies that forced the companies to install air bag systems that would protect different size occupants...
This is the result of part of that system, to use these inputs to regulate the deployment of the air bags...
Anything that can be programed should not be allowed as evidence. A cell phone will tell you where it is or has been but not if it was "borrowed" for a while with or without the owners knowledge. With computer hacking being so prevelent doctoring information in an electronic device could frame someone. Granted it is an elaborate plot but it could happen. We have forgery experts to examine letters for forgery what are we doing about electronic forgery. It simply takes knowledge of electronics rather than a physical skill or talent. Progressive insurance has a program that uses auto data to determine rates. If I haven't had a ticket is in 11 years and no accidents in 50 I think my driving is good. I don't want someone else to determine if I brake too hard. I stopped. This information is used to set rates not necessarily responsibility in an accident. You have the right to "confront your accusor" which is techincally impossible since it is a machine that is giving testimonay. It has to be hear say evidence.
So, how do I make my car 'forget'?
Simple, don't set off your air bags in a crash, that is the only time they record the data, unless that happens they simply just over write what was there, just like in an airplane black box.
It really does not matter, they already know more about you then you know about yourself, our freedom does not exist anymore, the minute you step outside your door they already have pictures of you in the car or out or in your home. how did this happen, it was you the voter that let this happen. so never say never they don't know where your at.
New Jobs....people making devices to erase the car's computer & memory chips.
Gringo-2926654- Sorry but it does not work, erase the memory; the car will not start, very complex inboard com.
Fronco: There will always be a way to circumvent the starting problem. Figuring out how to erase the memory probably will be the big challenge.
Although car tech changes rapidly, if I wanted to tweak my engine or get rid of a CEL or reset other data I'd get a OBDII diagnostic tool and goof around with that, installing new firmware if necessary.
Now we need to find out how to remove or deactivate the EDR ourselves.
Big brother has gotten too big for their pants/skirts.
We also need to remove people like you from the roads
The use of EDR's is an absolute infringement on my privacy. Not debatable.
I agree. People like you should walk or take the bus that will help us all
Let me guess carl,you get in the fast lane and go 5 under the speed limit doncha'?
Maybe it's because i'm not American.. but i don't care who watches me. If i'm not doing anything wrong, they've got a boring day ahead of them! Unless you have something to hide, what is the big deal if they know i cheated on my diet and got a doughnut with my coffee! If technology can HELP prove someone committed a crime, and is backed by solid evidence and investigation, i say it's a powerful tool to help the authorities in their fight against things (and people) that hurt innocent people.
Well said!! Seriously, when people get so upset about "big brother watching their every move" it has to make you wonder what they have done to make them so paranoid. Not to mention, to take the position that this only pertains to YOU and YOUR liberties is quite dull. I would be willing to bet my life's savings that if Lonesome Rhoades mother, daughter, husband, etc. were killed in a car accident they would greatly appreciate the information and evidence that could be extracted from the other drivers EDR. I'll eat my words if I ever hear of a case where a family member of killed motorist objects to using this information in the prosecution of the offending driver...... but then again, I won't hold my breath.
DO YOU REALLY WANT SOMEONE TO KNOW WHEN YOU TAKE A $HIT....... Really, enough already about ITS ALL FOR SAFETY CRAP.... I'm a grown man.... I'm not a child ... Do we realy have to be told what we need to do, or what we should do....
Comply now. Submit, dhimmi. Resistance is futile. Smile.
You ate a doughnut and drank coffee! We're canceling your health insurance! Think about it.
"Electronic evidence is admitted in almost every trial in America, whether it's a phone bill or electric bill or a document that's created, stored or transmitted electronically," said Mark D. Rasch, director of cybersecurity and privacy consulting at the technology services company CSC and former head of the Justice Department's computer crime unit. "… When you think about it, even a crime scene photograph is electronic evidence now."
If you understood what was being said, you would understood the comment by U...
You want to avoid 'Big Brother'???
Do not drive a vehicle newer than 1985 and install window tint or wear hoodies, conduct cash only transactions, and then disable the GPS in your cell phone or better yet, do not carry one...
Become more self reliant...
The POLICE now have the capability to down load the memory of your cell phone & GPS data, when you are arrested. This has already passed the court test as being legal and not a privacy issue, due to cellphones using public domain radio waves.
And GET OFF the Internet...
Big Brother is not coming - He is already here...
So a car built in 2002 already have this technology built in them?
If they are putting this tech in ALL cars now, the citizens should be able to turn the tables and track police and government vehicles as well. Since NOBODY has anything to hide, this should help everyone to feel at ease.
I cannot believe this is news to people. Car computers have always kept and used data NOT related just to emission control devices on the engine - they have to. There were devices sold across the counter in stores like Auto Zone 7 or 8 years ago that read and stored up to 300 hours of data that could have been downloaded or printed out from a home computer that read parameters like, max speed, average speed, distance traveled, hard accelerations and braking, the turning of the steering wheel, the time the engine was in operation, braking count. With the right knowledge of cars, and/or the right software, even 7 or 8 years ago it was pretty simple to tell how someone drove, where they drove, what time they got there and left, and with the help of maps and GPS even then, you could almost pinpoint where they were. Everyone's car has this capability!
These devices you see featured on the Progressive, State Farm, and Allstate's commercial is such a device. You plug it in to your car's OBD connector and these people get to analyze how screwed up most people drive and charge you or raise your rates accordingly! Buyer beware! Given the fact that most consumers don't know what kind of software these insurance companies are using or what they are doing with these mountains of essentially "personal" data, I suggest NO ONE install such devices and willingly give this information to the insurance companies!
Anyone who has OnStar or any other type of on-board vehicle monitoring systems beware. While these things may come in handy for breakdowns and crashes, they are also relaying information on all of the above in real-time, but are also tracking your location. Police are starting to notice the usefulness of this information and some states are allowing access to such information without a court order. Technology is a double-edged blade.