Your Rights to Drive have just been modified - and no one knew it.

[Pulsar]

Well to the land of the.... semi-free.

This quote was taken from an email I received today:
Toyota's sudden acceleration imbroglio and the wider dialogue concerning auto safety remain a media focal point. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration this week linked 89 deaths to Toyota accidents involving sudden acceleration, a 71 percent increase from previous estimates. On Wednesday, the U.S. House passed a revised auto-safety bill requiring installation of brake-override systems and event recorders.

Have absolutely NO DOUBT that traffic officers will very soon have a hotline to a judge so that they can obtain a warrant to search your event recorder in case of an accident. Just the simple accident event is enough to provide probable cause for a search of the data.

Hybrids will now have sound systems installed to better hear them (welcome even greater cost to an already questionable cost analysis).

You will now be monitored whether you like it or not. It will soon be the law.

http://www.freep.com/article/20100527/BUSINESS01/5270484/Auto-safety-bill-called-too-tough

 

[ElFenix]

most vehicles already have a recorder. and most car companies readily provided decoder rings to LEO and insurance companies to determine what happened. the only reason congress had to get involved is because toyota only provided 2 decoder rings for the whole country, and regularly required the boxes to be sent to them to pull data off.


you were already monitored and didn't know it.


and you have no right to drive anyway.

 

[MotF Bane]

Aw, fuck.

 

[Pulsar]

While I agree with the installation of brake over-rides, the idea that there MUST be a black box on all cars really bothers me.

Fenix, I understand the point of saying that "we don't have a right to drive" because it isn't in the bill of rights, but I think that's arguing semantics. You could just as easily argue that we don't have the right to fresh water, food, etc. because it isn't spelled out.

Simply, we DO have the right to drive, because laws spell out how to get your drivers license. Again, it's just an argument of semantics and is a bit silly.

Back to the 'black boxes' - now that the law will soon be in place that they are mandatory, you better believe they will very quickly be mandated to be generic in their outputs. You say that cars already have it: they do. But they are not used by Law Enforcement on a regular basis because they are obfuscated and different from the different manufacturers: it's impractical at this point for them to try to read them.

Having the law on the books is a very short step away from mandating that they all be readable by the same common device. I.e. - this bill IS the first step onto the slippery slope of being monitored all the time when you drive.

 

[dennilfloss]

Driving is a privilege, not a right.

 

[Throckmorton]

While I agree with the installation of brake over-rides, the idea that there MUST be a black box on all cars really bothers me.

Fenix, I understand the point of saying that "we don't have a right to drive" because it isn't in the bill of rights, but I think that's arguing semantics. You could just as easily argue that we don't have the right to fresh water, food, etc. because it isn't spelled out.

Simply, we DO have the right to drive, because laws spell out how to get your drivers license. Again, it's just an argument of semantics and is a bit silly.

Back to the 'black boxes' - now that the law will soon be in place that they are mandatory, you better believe they will very quickly be mandated to be generic in their outputs. You say that cars already have it: they do. But they are not used by Law Enforcement on a regular basis because they are obfuscated and different from the different manufacturers: it's impractical at this point for them to try to read them.

Having the law on the books is a very short step away from mandating that they all be readable by the same common device. I.e. - this bill IS the first step onto the slippery slope of being monitored all the time when you drive.

Wouldn't you want law enforcement to look at your black box data after you've been in an accident, to prove that it wasn't your fault?

 

[Tristicus]

I'll never buy a new car anyways.

 

[theeedude]

Why is this a problem again? Black box is only going to record whatever it is you are doing before the accident. If you are doing something stupid or illegal and cause an accident, guess what, you deserve whatever comes to you based on black box recording.

 

[ElFenix]

Fenix, I understand the point of saying that "we don't have a right to drive" because it isn't in the bill of rights, but I think that's arguing semantics. You could just as easily argue that we don't have the right to fresh water, food, etc. because it isn't spelled out.

you don't have a right to those either. you have a right to attempt to acquire them by lawful means.

Simply, we DO have the right to drive, because laws spell out how to get your drivers license. Again, it's just an argument of semantics and is a bit silly.

no, this isn't a simple exercise in semantics. this is a real discussion. you have the right to travel within the united states without unreasonable restraint. how you do that, specifically, you do not have a right to.

Back to the 'black boxes' - now that the law will soon be in place that they are mandatory, you better believe they will very quickly be mandated to be generic in their outputs. You say that cars already have it: they do. But they are not used by Law Enforcement on a regular basis because they are obfuscated and different from the different manufacturers: it's impractical at this point for them to try to read them.

again, you're simply wrong here. practically every other manufacturer has them. GM has installed them on every car for the last decade, and they record about 5 seconds worth of information. if the airbags are deployed, it saves the data. from articles as far back as 2003 it cost $2,500 to get a machine that could read the data from both ford and GM systems. LEO was using them even way back then to confirm the calculations they'd made from the usual accident scene measurements. recent articles basically make clear that practically every make but toyota could be read with rather common equipment.

Having the law on the books is a very short step away from mandating that they all be readable by the same common device. I.e. - this bill IS the first step onto the slippery slope of being monitored all the time when you drive.

again, they already practically are readable by the same common device.

 

[Kadarin]

Why is this a problem again? Black box is only going to record whatever it is you are doing before the accident. If you are doing something stupid or illegal and cause an accident, guess what, you deserve whatever comes to you based on black box recording.

Because it's a very, very small step from there to go to a model where law enforcement gives you infractions and insurance companies raise rates automatically based on that data even without an accident. Imagine the box records you going 3 mph over the speed limit at some point and you get a ticket coupled with a raised insurance rate, all without human intervention.

 

[TwinsenTacquito]

It just means I'll be building my own cars that barely meet every single one of the thousands of restrictions they make up on a whim. One day I'll just put on some chained tires and do burnouts on high traffic roads. I don't know how else to try to do back half of the damage they do just to be assholes.

I don't know why they bother with all these overwhelming regulations still. They've already put 99% of car makers out of business and have assured that none can ever be started up again in this country. They trying to make it so the big three become the big two and then the big one?

 

[theeedude]

Because it's a very, very small step from there to go to a model where law enforcement gives you infractions and insurance companies raise rates automatically based on that data even without an accident. Imagine the box records you going 3 mph over the speed limit at some point and you get a ticket coupled with a raised insurance rate, all without human intervention.

So you are saying that people are going to vote for that or will elect politicians who do?

 

[ElFenix]

Because it's a very, very small step from there to go to a model where law enforcement gives you infractions and insurance companies raise rates automatically based on that data even without an accident. Imagine the box records you going 3 mph over the speed limit at some point and you get a ticket coupled with a raised insurance rate, all without human intervention.

i've got a toll tag and so the toll road authority knows i've gone significantly over the speed limit just based on the time stamp (even on non-toll roads as the tags are used for real time traffic info on all the major freeways). it's sort of like a big speed camera. they aren't about to start ticketing people as they know people would stop using the tags.

 

[JSt0rm]

right to drive. You dont have the right to drive just like you dont have the right to party.

 

[cubeless]

right to drive. You dont have the right to drive just like you dont have the right to party.

but every one knows what you have to do...

 

[JSt0rm]

but every one knows what you have to do...

Thank you

 

[Kadarin]

So you are saying that people are going to vote for that or will elect politicians who do?

You'll never have a chance to vote, as it'll all be revenue driven. Consider a scenario like this: Some state governor or legislature will be looking for ways to cover a budget shortfall (think California, for example). Auto manufacturers with black boxes (think GM OnStar, etc) jump in and lobbby the legislature to authorize such an automated system for revenue generation. Government adopts the system because it provides a new revenue stream, and politicians are covered because the alternative is laying off firefighters, teachers, and police officers (never administrators, for some odd reason). This could happen at a county or municipal level as well.

 

[theeedude]

You'll never have a chance to vote, as it'll all be revenue driven. Consider a scenario like this: Some state governor or legislature will be looking for ways to cover a budget shortfall (think California, for example). Auto manufacturers with black boxes (think GM OnStar, etc) jump in and lobbby the legislature to authorize such an automated system for revenue generation. Government adopts the system because it provides a new revenue stream, and politicians are covered because the alternative is laying off firefighters, teachers, and police officers (never administrators, for some odd reason). This could happen at a county or municipal level as well.

By this logic all tax increases would pass too, because alternative is laying off firefighters, teachers, and police officers. But don't let common sense distract you from slippery slope arguments.

 

[Patranus]

God. Stop telling me what I can and cannot buy.

Whats next, built in speed readers to automatically send you speeding tickets?

 

[JEDIYoda]

Well to the land of the.... semi-free.

This quote was taken from an email I received today:
Toyota's sudden acceleration imbroglio and the wider dialogue concerning auto safety remain a media focal point. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration this week linked 89 deaths to Toyota accidents involving sudden acceleration, a 71 percent increase from previous estimates. On Wednesday, the U.S. House passed a revised auto-safety bill requiring installation of brake-override systems and event recorders.

Have absolutely NO DOUBT that traffic officers will very soon have a hotline to a judge so that they can obtain a warrant to search your event recorder in case of an accident. Just the simple accident event is enough to provide probable cause for a search of the data.

Hybrids will now have sound systems installed to better hear them (welcome even greater cost to an already questionable cost analysis).

You will now be monitored whether you like it or not. It will soon be the law.

http://www.freep.com/article/20100527/BUSINESS01/5270484/Auto-safety-bill-called-too-tough

your an idiot-- Driving is a privilege, not a right.

 

[TwinsenTacquito]

By this logic all tax increases would pass too, because alternative is laying off firefighters, teachers, and police officers. But don't let common sense distract you from slippery slope arguments.

But they do all pass. We're talking about the United States of America, right?

 

[dali71]

your an idiot

More self-ownage from the resident mangler of grammar. I have to admit being disappointed that he didn't throw in his usual 10 or 20 exclamation points and question marks.

 

[JEDIYoda]

More self-ownage from the resident mangler of grammar. I have to admit being disappointed that he didn't throw in his usual 10 or 20 exclamation points and question marks.

you intertane meself........whu alectad yuu grhammer pulease???

 

[Kappo]

By this logic all tax increases would pass too, because alternative is laying off firefighters, teachers, and police officers. But don't let common sense distract you from slippery slope arguments.

I hear tax rates have gone steadily down since we introduced legalized robbery (aka income tax). AMIRITE!?

 

[MotF Bane]

More self-ownage from the resident mangler of grammar. I have to admit being disappointed that he didn't throw in his usual 10 or 20 exclamation points and question marks.

He's actually on my ignore list, just because I couldn't take the grammar/spelling.