40 million "black boxes" In cars since 2000??? Interesting Read in Playboy Advisor

[Vic]

Originally posted by: mugsywwiii
a. You can't very easily put people's lives in jeopardy with your computer.
b. The black box in your car is recording events that take place in the open on public property. What expectation of privacy can you have in that situation?

When you purchase a car, you own everything inside it. If it has a black box in it, then you own that too. Hence using data from the black box against the owner's will to prosecute a crime against the owner would be the same as compelling the owner to testify against himself.

I think California is taking the right move here by forcing manufacturers to disclose the existence of these boxes. I predict some car models are going to become unpopular in California this summer.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: mugsywwiii
I usually agree with most of what you have to say, but I think you're being too paranoid here. Fabricating evidence? They don't need a black box to do that. I don't think this is an invasion of privacy, because the data is only retrieved IF something goes wrong. And it's more to prevent insurance fraud than to prosecute crimes. When a person kills someone with an automobile, they are rarely charged unless they were intoxicated.

The keylogger analogy is only valid in that it collects some kind of data. Beyond that, the situations are not very similar.

Perhaps I lost my temper at some of the opinions that were posted in this thread. If these black boxes were only used from insurance purposes, then I would not care. That would be a private business arrangement between the insurer and the insured. But if they are used, without the car owner's permission, to prosecute a single crime, then I am opposed to them as a blantant violation of the 5th Amendment.
As we are told that one person has already received 30 years...

And, as I said, if the info exists, it WILL be subpoenaed by the government to use against you. NO info is safe from government intrusion.

 

[LAUST]

just because he's on his cell phone and Mr. Self important feels that his appointment is more important then everone else on the roads lives :|

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: FFMCobalt
Well, if you're not driving like a dumbfvck, what do you have to worry about? Drive responsibly and this little black box will be on YOUR side, not theirs.

so say I legally just got back from the track where I hit over 100mph repeatedly....now joe moron pulls out in front of me 2 miles from the track running a stop sign with no witnesses. Sure maybe I was going 10-20-30mph over the limit, but he did not stop...he is dead and would be even if I was 5mph below the limit more than likely.

Now my little black box show all this data +65mph....

Lawyer: "Mr. Alkemyst +65mph is not legal on *any* roads in america, how do you explain this?"
Mr. Alkemyst: "I was at the race track here in town, my car is capable of xMPH in the 1/4 mile. I ran several times."
L: "So you like to drive wrecklessly and fast?"
Mr. A: "No I like to drive safe, that's why I did so at a track"
L: "but clearly they say speed is like a drug, could you have been excited from all the high speeds runs at the track and now want to continue on the way home? The two people you killed were 18 and 16, the 16 yo had only been driving a short time and never raced. She was merely trying to get home after seeing ELF with her b/f, she was a straight A student and in honor society."
...

It's pretty hard to save yourself after that.

Å

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Eli
I have no problems with this.

To me, this is a different privacy issue than say drug testing. The info in the black box will only be called up in the event of an accident.

It shouldn't matter, because you should be telling the truth anyway.

Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb, nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.

Hmm...

Well, may as well be consistant. I don't support any invasion of privacy.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: mugsywwiii
I usually agree with most of what you have to say, but I think you're being too paranoid here. Fabricating evidence? They don't need a black box to do that. I don't think this is an invasion of privacy, because the data is only retrieved IF something goes wrong. And it's more to prevent insurance fraud than to prosecute crimes. When a person kills someone with an automobile, they are rarely charged unless they were intoxicated.

The keylogger analogy is only valid in that it collects some kind of data. Beyond that, the situations are not very similar.

Perhaps I lost my temper at some of the opinions that were posted in this thread. If these black boxes were only used from insurance purposes, then I would not care. That would be a private business arrangement between the insurer and the insured. But if they are used, without the car owner's permission, to prosecute a single crime, then I am opposed to them as a blantant violation of the 5th Amendment.
As we are told that one person has already received 30 years...

And, as I said, if the info exists, it WILL be subpoenaed by the government to use against you. NO info is safe from government intrusion.

Ah... but if the Constitution still existed anymore (except on paper ), then no court would approve the subpeona...

Sadly, that safety net is broken. So I agree with you. I don't think the general public will like these anyway. For once, I think CA is making the right move here. In addition to my prdictions above, I also predict that, come this summer, many car forums will have information on what cars already have the black boxes and how to remove them.

 

[flxnimprtmscl]

Originally posted by: Carbo

Idiots like you will never figure just WHY we have the constitutional protections in this country that we do, so why don't you just jump off the Fremont bridge?

Hiding behind the Constitution is always the first choice of those hiding guilt. Put down the booze and the bong, drive responsibly, and you'll have no need for concern about that black box.

Congratulations. You just posted the dumbest, most ignorant thing I've read all week. I can't believe anyone is stupid enough to be able to type that with a straight face

You realize there's a practical reason we have the constitution right? Nevermind, I'm sure you don't and I'm not taking the time to explain it.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: LAUST

Originally posted by: Ikonomi
"You have one point left on your license. Have a good day."

When I see animals on the road cutting people off, changing lanes with no signal while in an intersection with 2 of 3 brakelights out.. I ALMOST get to the point I wouldn't mind this happening especially if we could just do autopilot and sit back and relax

Then you piss off some bureacrat (maybe over a regular permit dispute or something like that), who calls his buddy down at vehicle control, who causes your car to crash with you and your family in it, with no one the wiser as to what happened.

Have a nice day, Comrade.

any autopilot is most likely going to be a completely self contained system that reads the lines on the pavement, and measures distance to other cars with some sort of laser rangefinder like high end cruise controls do. in that way it would be compatible with all the roads already built, which is far cheaper than embedding something in a road.

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: mugsywwiii

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Carbo

Idiots like you will never figure just WHY we have the constitutional protections in this country that we do, so why don't you just jump off the Fremont bridge?

Hiding behind the Constitution is always the first choice of those hiding guilt. Put down the booze and the bong, drive responsibly, and you'll have no need for concern about that black box.

Right.... I hope you're kidding.
Enjoy it when a bored underworked prosecutor forges evidence onto your black box and sends you to prison for the rest of your life. As I said, there are VERY valid reasons why we have the constitutional protections we do. If you're too stupid to understand them, at least do the rest of us who do a favor, and let us protection what few freedoms and protections from government abuse we have left...

Idiots... I swear... when does the government camera go in everyone's house? When do they just implant a chip in my brain? "Oh, you have nothing to worry about from this chip as long as you're a good slave..." Morons... :|:|:|:|

Oh, and take your assumptions about alcohol and drug use and shove them up your self-righteous pricked ass! :|

I usually agree with most of what you have to say, but I think you're being too paranoid here. Fabricating evidence? They don't need a black box to do that. I don't think this is an invasion of privacy, because the data is only retrieved IF something goes wrong. And it's more to prevent insurance fraud than to prosecute crimes. When a person kills someone with an automobile, they are rarely charged unless they were intoxicated.

The keylogger analogy is only valid in that it collects some kind of data. Beyond that, the situations are not very similar.

How is that? The black box collects data too. Both are forcing an individual to keep a record of their actions, and both are records that are able to be subpoenaed by the government. What part of the 4th and 5th Amendments do you not understand?

Yeah but the goverment isn't puting this in cars. Auto makers are putting them in cars to cover their own asses should you sue then because of air bags. So thier isn't a problem with the 4th or 5th Amendments.

 

[EyeMWing]

This is why we have the 198* model years. If you're concerned about your privacy - DRIVE A FRICKIN REAL CAR. Damn pussies and your modern 3-year-then-throw-away vehicles. In 2020, I don't think I'll see many model year 2000 vehicles around, but in 2004, I certainly see a lot of 1984's.

The environmental impact caused by throwing away your damned car after 5 or 6 years is WAAAAY more than my driving the Vandura half a million miles, so don't give me that environmentalist crap.

 

[dpopiz]

um, why is this bad? all it does is give people a little bit of an incentive to not drive recklessly and kill people. it doesn't record any "private" data or anything that would expose anything about you except that you were driving recklessly.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: EyeMWing

The environmental impact caused by throwing away your damned car after 5 or 6 years is WAAAAY more than my driving the Vandura half a million miles, so don't give me that environmentalist crap.

thats probably true. have you seen how much water it takes to make a car?

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: mugsywwiii

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Carbo

Idiots like you will never figure just WHY we have the constitutional protections in this country that we do, so why don't you just jump off the Fremont bridge?

Hiding behind the Constitution is always the first choice of those hiding guilt. Put down the booze and the bong, drive responsibly, and you'll have no need for concern about that black box.

Right.... I hope you're kidding.
Enjoy it when a bored underworked prosecutor forges evidence onto your black box and sends you to prison for the rest of your life. As I said, there are VERY valid reasons why we have the constitutional protections we do. If you're too stupid to understand them, at least do the rest of us who do a favor, and let us protection what few freedoms and protections from government abuse we have left...

Idiots... I swear... when does the government camera go in everyone's house? When do they just implant a chip in my brain? "Oh, you have nothing to worry about from this chip as long as you're a good slave..." Morons... :|:|:|:|

Oh, and take your assumptions about alcohol and drug use and shove them up your self-righteous pricked ass! :|

I usually agree with most of what you have to say, but I think you're being too paranoid here. Fabricating evidence? They don't need a black box to do that. I don't think this is an invasion of privacy, because the data is only retrieved IF something goes wrong. And it's more to prevent insurance fraud than to prosecute crimes. When a person kills someone with an automobile, they are rarely charged unless they were intoxicated.

The keylogger analogy is only valid in that it collects some kind of data. Beyond that, the situations are not very similar.

How is that? The black box collects data too. Both are forcing an individual to keep a record of their actions, and both are records that are able to be subpoenaed by the government. What part of the 4th and 5th Amendments do you not understand?

Yeah but the goverment isn't puting this in cars. Auto makers are putting them in cars to cover their own asses should you sue then because of air bags. So thier isn't a problem with the 4th or 5th Amendments.

Yes, it is. Because the info now exists, and as I said, if the info exists, the government WILL find a way to use it against you.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: dpopiz
um, why is this bad? all it does is give people a little bit of an incentive to not drive recklessly and kill people. it doesn't record any "private" data or anything that would expose anything about you except that you were driving recklessly.

Because it forces you to record your own actions which can be used against you. Read the 5TH Amendment and get back to us, OK?

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: mugsywwiii

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Carbo

Idiots like you will never figure just WHY we have the constitutional protections in this country that we do, so why don't you just jump off the Fremont bridge?

Hiding behind the Constitution is always the first choice of those hiding guilt. Put down the booze and the bong, drive responsibly, and you'll have no need for concern about that black box.

Right.... I hope you're kidding.
Enjoy it when a bored underworked prosecutor forges evidence onto your black box and sends you to prison for the rest of your life. As I said, there are VERY valid reasons why we have the constitutional protections we do. If you're too stupid to understand them, at least do the rest of us who do a favor, and let us protection what few freedoms and protections from government abuse we have left...

Idiots... I swear... when does the government camera go in everyone's house? When do they just implant a chip in my brain? "Oh, you have nothing to worry about from this chip as long as you're a good slave..." Morons... :|:|:|:|

Oh, and take your assumptions about alcohol and drug use and shove them up your self-righteous pricked ass! :|

I usually agree with most of what you have to say, but I think you're being too paranoid here. Fabricating evidence? They don't need a black box to do that. I don't think this is an invasion of privacy, because the data is only retrieved IF something goes wrong. And it's more to prevent insurance fraud than to prosecute crimes. When a person kills someone with an automobile, they are rarely charged unless they were intoxicated.

The keylogger analogy is only valid in that it collects some kind of data. Beyond that, the situations are not very similar.

How is that? The black box collects data too. Both are forcing an individual to keep a record of their actions, and both are records that are able to be subpoenaed by the government. What part of the 4th and 5th Amendments do you not understand?

Yeah but the goverment isn't puting this in cars. Auto makers are putting them in cars to cover their own asses should you sue then because of air bags. So thier isn't a problem with the 4th or 5th Amendments.

Yes, it is. Because the info now exists, and as I said, if the info exists, the government WILL find a way to use it against you.

But you as a driver create the data. It would be the same as me taking a photo of myself doing an illegal act. The goverment isn't forcing you have the black box.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: mugsywwiii

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Carbo

Idiots like you will never figure just WHY we have the constitutional protections in this country that we do, so why don't you just jump off the Fremont bridge?

Hiding behind the Constitution is always the first choice of those hiding guilt. Put down the booze and the bong, drive responsibly, and you'll have no need for concern about that black box.

Right.... I hope you're kidding.
Enjoy it when a bored underworked prosecutor forges evidence onto your black box and sends you to prison for the rest of your life. As I said, there are VERY valid reasons why we have the constitutional protections we do. If you're too stupid to understand them, at least do the rest of us who do a favor, and let us protection what few freedoms and protections from government abuse we have left...

Idiots... I swear... when does the government camera go in everyone's house? When do they just implant a chip in my brain? "Oh, you have nothing to worry about from this chip as long as you're a good slave..." Morons... :|:|:|:|

Oh, and take your assumptions about alcohol and drug use and shove them up your self-righteous pricked ass! :|

I usually agree with most of what you have to say, but I think you're being too paranoid here. Fabricating evidence? They don't need a black box to do that. I don't think this is an invasion of privacy, because the data is only retrieved IF something goes wrong. And it's more to prevent insurance fraud than to prosecute crimes. When a person kills someone with an automobile, they are rarely charged unless they were intoxicated.

The keylogger analogy is only valid in that it collects some kind of data. Beyond that, the situations are not very similar.

How is that? The black box collects data too. Both are forcing an individual to keep a record of their actions, and both are records that are able to be subpoenaed by the government. What part of the 4th and 5th Amendments do you not understand?

Yeah but the goverment isn't puting this in cars. Auto makers are putting them in cars to cover their own asses should you sue then because of air bags. So thier isn't a problem with the 4th or 5th Amendments.

Yes, it is. Because the info now exists, and as I said, if the info exists, the government WILL find a way to use it against you.

But you as a driver create the data. It would be the same as me taking a photo of myself doing an illegal act. The goverment isn't forcing you have the black box.

Yes, I agree that the automakers are not doing it because of regulation... but how soon will it be regulation? And how long will it be before it is illegal to disable the boxes?

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: mugsywwiii

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Carbo

Idiots like you will never figure just WHY we have the constitutional protections in this country that we do, so why don't you just jump off the Fremont bridge?

Hiding behind the Constitution is always the first choice of those hiding guilt. Put down the booze and the bong, drive responsibly, and you'll have no need for concern about that black box.

Right.... I hope you're kidding.
Enjoy it when a bored underworked prosecutor forges evidence onto your black box and sends you to prison for the rest of your life. As I said, there are VERY valid reasons why we have the constitutional protections we do. If you're too stupid to understand them, at least do the rest of us who do a favor, and let us protection what few freedoms and protections from government abuse we have left...

Idiots... I swear... when does the government camera go in everyone's house? When do they just implant a chip in my brain? "Oh, you have nothing to worry about from this chip as long as you're a good slave..." Morons... :|:|:|:|

Oh, and take your assumptions about alcohol and drug use and shove them up your self-righteous pricked ass! :|

I usually agree with most of what you have to say, but I think you're being too paranoid here. Fabricating evidence? They don't need a black box to do that. I don't think this is an invasion of privacy, because the data is only retrieved IF something goes wrong. And it's more to prevent insurance fraud than to prosecute crimes. When a person kills someone with an automobile, they are rarely charged unless they were intoxicated.

The keylogger analogy is only valid in that it collects some kind of data. Beyond that, the situations are not very similar.

How is that? The black box collects data too. Both are forcing an individual to keep a record of their actions, and both are records that are able to be subpoenaed by the government. What part of the 4th and 5th Amendments do you not understand?

Yeah but the goverment isn't puting this in cars. Auto makers are putting them in cars to cover their own asses should you sue then because of air bags. So thier isn't a problem with the 4th or 5th Amendments.

Yes, it is. Because the info now exists, and as I said, if the info exists, the government WILL find a way to use it against you.

But you as a driver create the data. It would be the same as me taking a photo of myself doing an illegal act. The goverment isn't forcing you have the black box.

Yes, I agree that the automakers are not doing it because of regulation... but how soon will it be regulation? And how long will it be before it is illegal to disable the boxes?

It will never be required unless consumers refuse to buy cars with the black boxes. The automakers want them there so it not like they will just stop. It already is effectively illegal to disable the boxes because they control the airbag and with the airbag disabled you can't get your car inspected.

I agree that they are bad for consumers because they contain to little data to prove your side. Say you are going stairght on a road and there is a light with some one turning left in front of you if you are over the limit you are going to get in troble when you hit the other car. Even if the collision should have been the other person fault for running a light.

 

[OutHouse]

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: mugsywwiii

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Carbo

Idiots like you will never figure just WHY we have the constitutional protections in this country that we do, so why don't you just jump off the Fremont bridge?

Hiding behind the Constitution is always the first choice of those hiding guilt. Put down the booze and the bong, drive responsibly, and you'll have no need for concern about that black box.

Right.... I hope you're kidding.
Enjoy it when a bored underworked prosecutor forges evidence onto your black box and sends you to prison for the rest of your life. As I said, there are VERY valid reasons why we have the constitutional protections we do. If you're too stupid to understand them, at least do the rest of us who do a favor, and let us protection what few freedoms and protections from government abuse we have left...

Idiots... I swear... when does the government camera go in everyone's house? When do they just implant a chip in my brain? "Oh, you have nothing to worry about from this chip as long as you're a good slave..." Morons... :|:|:|:|

Oh, and take your assumptions about alcohol and drug use and shove them up your self-righteous pricked ass! :|

I usually agree with most of what you have to say, but I think you're being too paranoid here. Fabricating evidence? They don't need a black box to do that. I don't think this is an invasion of privacy, because the data is only retrieved IF something goes wrong. And it's more to prevent insurance fraud than to prosecute crimes. When a person kills someone with an automobile, they are rarely charged unless they were intoxicated.

The keylogger analogy is only valid in that it collects some kind of data. Beyond that, the situations are not very similar.

How is that? The black box collects data too. Both are forcing an individual to keep a record of their actions, and both are records that are able to be subpoenaed by the government. What part of the 4th and 5th Amendments do you not understand?

Yeah but the goverment isn't puting this in cars. Auto makers are putting them in cars to cover their own asses should you sue then because of air bags. So thier isn't a problem with the 4th or 5th Amendments.

Yes, it is. Because the info now exists, and as I said, if the info exists, the government WILL find a way to use it against you.

But you as a driver create the data. It would be the same as me taking a photo of myself doing an illegal act. The goverment isn't forcing you have the black box.

But Ford is putting them in ALL their cars! From the responses to my post has shown everybody in here didnt know this either. How do we know the Auto industry lobyist didnt make a deal with the governenment to allow these to be put in?

 

[Jzero]

All you guys pissing and moaning need to do some reading on how these things work. They record FIVE SECONDS worth of data. Link

It can only give information on what the car was doing seconds before a crash. Otherwise, it is utterly useless.

As long as the device remains that way, I have no problem with it, and I can't see why anyone would.

This Article talks about how it was used to EXONERATE a driver accused of causing an accident by witnesses.

My biggest concern comes in the first article - it mentions a future application that allows the data to be transmitted. As long as the data is stored on a device that must be physically accessed and only stores 5 seconds' worth of data, I'm not concerned.

As soon as it stores more data than that or is capable of communicating the information without being physically accessed, then I've got a privacy issue.

 

[DrPizza]

I read this thread with moderate interest... I couldn't care less either way... but, wow, some of you sound paranoid!

Anyway, since some of you are OBVIOUSLY not very educated in law, the part of the 5th amendment relates to:

1. You do *NOT* have to go up to the front of the court and answer questions the prosecutor asks. You do not have to testify either for or against yourself.
2. You do *NOT* have to tell the police anything.
3. Your Miranda rights are related to this "you have the right to remain silent. Anything...."
4. It's been ruled that your spouse does not have to testify against you also.

I'm not positive, but possibly diaries would be off limits.

Nonetheless, just about any other record of what you've done is not what the 5th amendment is speaking about. Think about it for a second... How about all those emails they demand from various businesses to use as proof of wrongdoing? Do you ever hear of Enron executives (or executives from any other company under investigation) screaming "That's a 5th amendment violation of my rights! You can't seize my email!" Or hackers screaming "you can't seize my computer!" Etc.

 

[Amused]

Actually, a diary can, and will be used against you in court. Anything you record can be used against you. The question is, can you be forced to record your own actions?

It was used against the Unibomber:

http://www.cnn.com/US/9712/27/unabomb.diary/

 

[TekDemon]

you're all crazy...most of the new cars have logs of everything...engine overrevs, any malfunction, pollution, speed, impact info, etc... I mean, it has to know how fast you're going or else it can't calculate whether or not to trigger your airbags...

If your belt is unbuckled the computer in most new cars will adjust the force and speed required in an impact to trigger the airbag so you don't die as easily, but if you have your belt buckled the speed and force required to trigger your airbag is put to a new threshold by the computer so you don't get unneccessarily popped in the face. When I totaled my car the passenger airbag went off because the car didn't detect a buckled passenger(and the stupid car also didn't have a passenger detector like my new car...although the version with side airbags has those detectors) but my own did not because I was wearing a belt.

Mostly cars keep this stuff for diagnostic reasons and whatnot, not to incriminate you. Plus, if you're NOT being a drunken moron doing 130 on a residential street the info could even be used to defend you against someone who claims you were speeding or something. A car isn't a toy, and there are responsibilities that come with owning it. I agree that we should KNOW that there's a log, but other than that I have no issue with there being a log of crashes, because this can be a valuable tool to protect the innocent from being roasted by witnesses and incompetent policework.

 

[NogginBoink]

Originally posted by: Carbo

Idiots like you will never figure just WHY we have the constitutional protections in this country that we do, so why don't you just jump off the Fremont bridge?

Hiding behind the Constitution is always the first choice of those hiding guilt. Put down the booze and the bong, drive responsibly, and you'll have no need for concern about that black box.

I don't know that the Constitution plays into this (gov't vs private company), but your argument is asinine.

I do my best to hold on to the last shreds of privacy and anonymity that are still afforded to me in today's overregulated and increasingly police state society.

I am not "hiding behind the Constitution" nor am I "guilty."

I just want to be left alone to live my life without having the government or industry spy on me. You don't have to be "guilty" to want that.

Today the data isn't available to the goverment. What happens when that changes tomorrow? Freedoms are easily taken from us by government, and rarely given back. Ideas like this are okay if you absolutely trust the government, but history has demonstrated that there will ALWAYS be someone in government (*cough*JohnAshcroft*cough*) who will abuse the power given them.

 

[NogginBoink]

Originally posted by: Jzero
All you guys pissing and moaning need to do some reading on how these things work. They record FIVE SECONDS worth of data. Link

It can only give information on what the car was doing seconds before a crash. Otherwise, it is utterly useless.

As long as the device remains that way, I have no problem with it, and I can't see why anyone would.

This Article talks about how it was used to EXONERATE a driver accused of causing an accident by witnesses.

My biggest concern comes in the first article - it mentions a future application that allows the data to be transmitted. As long as the data is stored on a device that must be physically accessed and only stores 5 seconds' worth of data, I'm not concerned.

As soon as it stores more data than that or is capable of communicating the information without being physically accessed, then I've got a privacy issue.

In theory, I agree with you.

But I have absolutely no faith in the bolded statement.

Erosions of privacy and the ever increasing presence of goverment in the lives of citizens usually starts slowly like this. We'll all miss the news report buried on page 6 of the local paper when it's announced that these recorders now record 24 hours worth of data.

 

[ViRGE]

Originally posted by: Citrix

Originally posted by: ViRGE
Umm, if you're so worried, just take the boxes out(difficult!=impossible). Just don't come whining to me when your insurance goes up.

How the f*ck did you correlate lower car insurance to black boxes?

Well think about it: insurance companies certainly know about these boxes, and they are certainly helpful to insurance companies when taking care of claims(i.e. it proves if the customer was lieing or not), so how soon will it be until you get a "discount" for having a black box? How soon then until it becomes standard, and it instead becomes more of a penelty for not having a box?