• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

E.P.A. spying on you while driving

  • Thread starter Thread starter
  • Start date Start date

It may come to pass.
Read this.

Currently all vehicles manufactured since Jan,1. 1996 has OBD II (On Board Diagnostic Version 2).
This system constitutes the ECM,wiring,sensors and actuators that run your vehicle.
This system was introduced to comply with the ever tightening emmission controls put forth by the E.P.A. in response to California's smog problem.
The problem being,California's C.A.R.B. (California Air Research Board) have from the start been enacting laws that is slowly eroding our freedoms.



Have You Heard About OBD III?
With the recent approval of regulations governing on-board diagnostics (OBD) information availability, the Automotive Service Association (ASA) has been pleased with the cooperation of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the development of information transfer to repairers. ASA was a strong advocate of independent service shop owners and technicians having access to the same information accessible to new car dealers. The EPA protected these rights in its draft information availability rule and in the final rule published last summer.

One area of concern has been the recent discussion surrounding a waiver of federal preemption to permit California to implement its own OBD regulations. The serious question for independent repairers has been whether our rights will be protected as strongly as in the federal regulations. This is an issue ASA is discussing with regulators and other members of the aftermarket. ASA will make a decision in the near future as to a California strategy on the waiver.

As the OBD II (federal OBD uses the same basic technical standards as California OBD II) debate comes to a close, speculation is already mounting about an OBD III concept in California. OBD III is being discussed as a program to minimize the delay between the detection of an emissions malfunction by the OBD II system and the actual repair of the vehicle. This includes a reading of stored OBD II information from in-use vehicles and the direction to owners of vehicles with fault codes to make immediate repairs. In this concept, faults are picked up by a monitoring technology and reported to a regulator, and the vehicle owner is then directed to get further testing and possible repairs. The debate over controlling vehicle emissions may soon move from what type of testing facilities and test methods are most effective to the complete on-board cycle of fault detection, notification and follow-up testing and repair being discussed in the OBD-III concept.

What types of technology can be used to detect and relay data pertaining to emissions malfunctions? Options include roadside readers, local station networks or satellites. The roadside reader has been tested by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) since 1994. It is capable of reading eight lanes of bumper-to-bumper traffic at 100 miles per hour. It can be used from a fixed location with portable units or a mobile unit. If a fault is detected by a reader unit, it has the capability of sending the vehicle identification number (VIN) plus the fault codes to the regulator. (The term regulator is used broadly here--patrol officers, private contractors or others could be involved, depending on how a program is structured.) The local station network has not been tested by CARB, but would allow a location and monitoring service.

The satellite system can be used with a cellular phone hookup or location monitoring technology. The vehicle would receive an alert via a cellular phone or the monitoring technology. The location, date, time, VIN and OBD II data would be returned to a satellite beacon.

Several issues surround the OBD III concept. From a regulatory perspective, all of the technologies used, other than roadside technology, require a Federal Communications Commission (FCC) license. The possibility of interference with other signals in the same band is of concern. The issues of commercial operators, law enforcement, jurisdiction among state agencies, Intelligent Vehicle Highway Systems, etc., have to be addressed before OBD III is a reality.

How would an OBD-III program prompt further testing and possible repair? An OBD-III program could be incorporated into the current inspection and maintenance (I/M) program. OBD III might also be used to generate an "out-of-cycle" inspection. Once a fault is detected, a notice could be mailed to the vehicle owner requiring an out-of-cycle inspection within a certain number of days or at the next registration or resale, or a citation would be issued. Penalties might include court appearances or fines related to vehicle registration.

A roadside pullover might work this way: the monitoring technology detects a fault, a law enforcement officer stops the vehicle with the fault code, and a technician working with the officer at the scene verifies that a code is set. A citation is then issued requiring testing at a test center, with a time limit for the vehicle owner to do this before a penalty is incurred.

What legal issues arise under OBD III? There seems to be some question as to the "suspicionless mass surveillance" of private property. There is no opportunity to confront or rebut the results; no notice that the vehicle will be tested. Fourth Amendment search and seizure issues tend to arise.

There are obviously technologies and enforcement procedures available to support the OBD III concept. Do the public health arguments as to controlling the severity of air pollution override the constitutional privacy questions involved? What about consent? These are questions that will undoubtedly arise, and could bring a court challenge.

After several court battles with OBD II, the issues are still unsettled as to the California waiver. I/M programs are still to be finalized in several states and the threat of congressional action looms. The concept of bringing all the issues under one program will certainly be controversial, but is being discussed as far as a long-term policy. Independent repairers need to prepare for the next waive of emissions and information issues as they continue to participate in the current debate involving the same.

ASA is working with regulators and other members of the aftermarket to ensure that the independent repairers' interests are included as long-term policies are developed.

--Bob Redding is ASA's Washington representative. He holds a law degree from the George Washington University School of Law.


OBD II is bad enough,currently I can access your vehicles E.C.M using my scan tool and can tell how fast you have been driving (Say you drove 100 M.P.H.) along with the date and time.
As it stands,you have to bring your vehicle into a repair shop and have a technician hook up the scanner to retrieve this information.
With OBD III,the E.P.A. , C.A.R.B. and/or law enforcement will be able to read your vehicle speed in real time.

 
"Roadside scanning" of vehicles with OBD-III seems rather senseless because it would be relegated to only the most modern (and hence, the least polluting) vehicles...it is not backward compatible with OBD-II or older technologies. New cars aren't part of the pollution problem. Old junkers are. My neighbor has a 1976 Chevy pickup truck and the damn thing spews white smoke all over the place. (They are tight-@ssed retired people...otherwise, such crap wouldn't exist in my neighborhood). And yet I had my 2001 ULEV Accord tested for emissions last month and it came up with goose eggs: 0.0% CO, 0ppm HC, 0ppm NO. It's a clean car by design...why bother monitoring it!?

That's the logical analysis. In terms of big brother spying on the populace, it will only get worse by the year as technology makes it easier and cheaper to perform surveillance on a massive scale.
 
eventualy the older polluting car will disapper. Think about it, how many pre 1970's vechicals do you see on the road ? Not that many.
Some people can't afford or dont want a newer car. But eventualy they die out and get sent to the crusher. In lets say ten years or so it would be hard to find a pre 1980s car on the road.
 
I think cops really, REALLY have better things to do than pull somebody over for a faulty oxygen sensor or a failing catylytic converter.
 
I hate all these regulations.
Also the Bush admin forcing CA to use ethanol makes my blood boil.
I think smog is important issue. We definitely need to clamp down on old junk cars, some polluting suv's and diesels which are really polluting and unpleasant to drive behind. We don't want our cities to smell like Tijuana.
But... At the same time, controlling pollution for public interest shouldn't give the feds the right to collect totally unnecessary information about our cars without our concent. If the vehicle detects some problem, it should tell the owner. Most people are responsible enough to go get it fixed. If not, they'll fail smog check.
We need to get rid of traffic cameras too. Totally a cash cow for the goverment.
Also, how come we get the slowest versions of Japanese cars like WRX. how is that fair? They lost the war, and we get stuck with slower cars 🙂
 
Roger, there is much irony to your thinking in my opinion. We make laws. So what is the problem with enforcing them. Would you object to a technology that maybe had little nonobots everywhere in the world such that every time somebody murdered somebody else, they would be immediately apprenended? Are you insisting on the right to privately commit a crime. Do you want pollution vehicles on the road. Wher is your axe you are grinding. Are you worried about the abuse of power. How about 24 hr. citizen survailence of politicians and law enforcement and a peoples court. Social animals, it seems, have rules of conduct and ways to enforce them. Maybe you can buy an island. I got a hunch you mod your car. 😀
 
Moonbeam


Roger, there is much irony to your thinking in my opinion. We make laws. So what is the problem with enforcing them. Would you object to a technology that maybe had little nonobots everywhere in the world such that every time somebody murdered somebody else, they would be immediately apprenended? Are you insisting on the right to privately commit a crime. Do you want pollution vehicles on the road. Wher is your axe you are grinding. Are you worried about the abuse of power. How about 24 hr. citizen survailence of politicians and law enforcement and a peoples court. Social animals, it seems, have rules of conduct and ways to enforce them. Maybe you can buy an island. I got a hunch you mod your car.

I have nothing against technology or implementing laws for the reduction of pollutants.
I am wholeheartedly against the government watching every move I make while driving my car.
Do you want someone watching you evry minute while you are in your car ?
It's bad enough that everywhere I shop,every time I go to the library or drive on any major highway in Connecticut,I am being monitored by cameras.
Now I know what you are going to say,the cameras deter crime,fine,I can accept that.
But placing cameras on the light poles on the highway so the police can track your every move,and now they want to place sensors in your car to track each individual car is unnacceptable.
Stick with the current system of checking emissions at the stations on a regular basis,it works just fine as it is.

Our freedoms are slowly being erased for the supposed good of all.
I don't buy it.

 
There's a simple fix for this. Don't buy a new car. 😛 In all seriousness though, there are no new cars right now that are seductive enough to make me choose one over, say an older Porsche Turbo 3.3 or 3.6 if I had the money. I don't see any reason for me to stop band-aiding my old Accord really. After 202,000 miles the mechanicals are still in near-perfect shape, and she doesn't burn a drop of oil. In a year or two I'll have new quarter-panels on it and she'll be good to go for another 13-14 years hopefully. I'm not about to let people watch me regardless of the fact that I'm doing nothing wrong. I resent the implication that I'm a criminal. All I have to say about OBD III is good luck getting a scan on my '76 914. (Or my '88 Accord for that matter.)

Zenmervolt
 
the bottom line is that its all about the money. They make these laws and new equipment to prevent pollution and such but the
bottom line it cost the driver more money.
Two years ago it costs me $17.50 ($10.00 for emissions, $7.50 for safty) to get my car inspected. Now it costs $10.00 for
safty and $24.00 for emissions (the dynamic test w/ the rollers). If you dont pass emissions then you have to show a recepit for parts
or service to get a wavier. Its silly.
Its funny how Diesel cars/trucks DO NOT have to get an emission test and they do not have smog equipment on there vechicals, but
gasoline drivers get the shaft.
 


<< Also the Bush admin forcing CA to use ethanol makes my blood boil. >>


It's all about votes. If the government doesn't push ethanol, then the corn farmers in Iowa complain. Their votes are important in a swing state like IA.


<< We definitely need to clamp down on old junk cars, some polluting suv's and diesels which are really polluting and unpleasant to drive behind. >>


Agreed. But if we do this, then the "advocates for the poor" will say we are cold-hearted barons hurting disadvantaged people who can't afford anything better.
 
Roger, I understand and sympathize with your lament. I am saying, however, our freedoms are slowly being erased for the good you don't really mean what you say. You don't think it's good. You are saying that noses in your business is worce than the good it can do. Those, it seems to me are the battle lines, and it would seem too, that circumstances change which require constant reevaluation of where we stand on the issue. There are, it seems, a couple of ways to move on this. We can keep noses out of our business and acquire no increased benefit from law conpliance, or we can increase the nosiness but do it in such a way as to insure it isn't abused, data that can be gotten only for cause. Also, when you say oru freedoms are being erased, they must be being erased by something. I suspect you mean government, and the government works for you. If you don't like what is happening, complain as you are here, but also vote to change what you don't like. If enough people agree, things will change.
 


<< OBD II is bad enough,currently I can access your vehicles E.C.M using my scan tool and can tell how fast you have been driving (Say you drove 100 M.P.H.) along with the date and time.
As it stands,you have to bring your vehicle into a repair shop and have a technician hook up the scanner to retrieve this information.
With OBD III,the E.P.A. , C.A.R.B. and/or law enforcement will be able to read your vehicle speed in real time.
>>



That's why I want a 1995 Supra Twin Turbo. 😀
 
Did someone mention the good ol' EPA. I worked for the EPA over the summer over in the Federal Building in downtown Chicago. Goood times. 🙂
 
As soon as somebody is punished based on these devices, it'll go to court and never pass constitutional muster. That's blatantly against the 4th amendment. They can't randomly check your cars emissions any more than they can randomly search your car for drugs.
 
it's all the suv owner's fault. I blame them .... for everything. They are the reason I had to work through lunch today :|
 
Bobber I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, however your analogy seems to fail on the point that your car must have emissions testing to be registered (in my state at least) and this must be re-checked every two years when you have your car inspected.

Anyhow, I feel there's more important things for the EPA to be doing, but there is a difference between searching your car for drugs and making sure your car is up to standards that protect the public.
 
Just call 1-800-END-SMOG to report vehicles 🙂 You would if you were behind some car leaking fumes and crap. They have no place on the road. If they're on their way to repairs, good for them.
 
I'm not required to test emissions, when I move back to Minneapolis I will. But there's a difference. One is where you bring your car to the state to be checked, as part of licensing requirements for the car. That's akin to a drug test before you get a job. Both are legal. Checking the emissions of anyone, anytime, without their knowledge is a breach of the 4th, just as it would be for a cop to frisk everyone walking down the street to see if they're carrying drugs. It's open and shut really.
 
Back
Top