The first thing that come to mind is they're probably going to integrate it into the vehicle's ECU (computer which controls the engine through sensory inputs and device outputs)

So, if I got into a nasty wreck, the first thing I'd do when I access my vehicle is smash the ECU into kibble with a five pound single jack.

This is sad indeed. Another step deeper into the fascism for us.

irgunner: Laughing at all of you from my Segway. TALLY-HO!

Who invited the hipster douche?

Virulency: Oznog: Farker T: Hey!

The really cool part is that they can do away with cops with radar guns by automatically deducting fines from your bank account every time you break the speed limit.



Yeah, there's not as much profit in simply auto-deducting "points" off your license.

just wait till people figure how to hack it and give out other people tickets for fun...


Wow, that would be like... like now.

Sin_City_Superhero: Is this going to apply only to NEW cars? I ain't retrofitting my classic car.

Look at the bright side. With the snooping hardware, your classic is worth even more to people who want the frigging governemnt to leave them the hell alone.

If they push this much harder even the 1980 Chevy Citation rusting in my buddys back yard will be worth something more then the value of the lead we've shot into it.

dropdead: I'm with you on the insurance companies. Governments still generally try to act in peoples interest. Insurance companies don't.

Wow, where to start on addressing the stupid in this statement.

Insurance companies suck. I hate them. On that, we agree. HOWEVER, because they face competition they lose business to competing firms when they don't at least try to keep their customers happy. Government has no competition or real oversight so they do what they want for themselves, the hell with you and everyone else. Government is like the Borg, but without the charm and compassion the Borg had.

As much as I hate the insurance companies, I'd trust them with my life before I'd trust the government with a roll of my pennies.

jagec: The newest vehicles also can determine steering input and whether lane departure warning systems were turned on.

"It's on!"
"Now it's off!"
"Now it's on!"
"Now it's off!"

/"lane departure warning systems"? REALLY?

That's called BLINKING, boys.

dropdead: When did driving become a constitutional right? People keep forgetting driving a car on public roadways is a privilege not a right.


Perhaps it's when our entire country built its cities and towns in such a way that you cannot buy groceries, clothing, or go to work without a car because everything is miles from you. Combine that with the fact that in most parts of America there is no public transportation or it's so minimal as to be impractical.

While cops and lawyers may call it a "privilege", that's bullshiat. In reality it's a necessity for living as an independent adult in the US anywhere except in a major metropolitan area that happens to have any real public transit system.

In terms of everyday life, that "privilege" is more critical to basic living than "rights" like voting. You vote every couple of years, you have to drive almost every day to go shopping or go to work . .or to go vote.

Protip: driving is not a right.

MrEricSir: Protip: driving is not a right.

Neither is food, water, medicine, healthcare, a warm place to piss, and an occasional hand job. This is America, after all.

//Protip: stop being a retard.

Happy Hours: Why do I have a set of knives in my kitchen which could kill you when all I ever cut is deadbeef and cheese?

The point is if you have speed limits why do you need cars that go far faster the the driver will ever be legally able to go?
As for the set of knives It is a tool whose primary purpose is to cut food, Cars are meant to be on the road and moving. Laws generally deal with the normal use of objects.

MrEricSir: Protip: driving is not a right.

Reality check.

While the law books may call it a "privilege", what does that really mean? You aren't guaranteed it and it can be taken away in court? Voting is a "right" and not a "privilege" and you can lose that through due process as well if you commit a felony.

In reality, the real world away from law books and ITGs with their GED in Law, driving is something absolutely essential to functioning as an independent adult. Without driving, you aren't going to be doing much, and your employment options and living options are very restricted.

Yes, I'm sure some Farker can point out how he can walk to work and the grocery and doesn't need a car. . .just like we have Farkers who boast about never needing to take out a loan or have a credit card, but in the real world the vast majority of people need a car to have a life.

For the vast majority of adult US citizens, just choosing to not drive is not a practical option.

fredklein: cfreak: The big difference is that the government provides the road to me. It does not provide my food.

So... anyone who gets Food Stamps can be forced to have a toilet monitor? Anyone who get Housing Assistance can be forced fo have a Telescreen installed??

Do you carry a cell-phone? You can be tracked. Do you have an EZ-pass / toll reader / etc. You can be tracked.

I can turn my cell phone OFF, or leave it home. I can leave my EZpass home, or put it in a nifty little metallic bag so it stops broadcasting. And, of course, I'm not legally required to have either.

...these things actually do increase safety and they settle disputes. If someone backs into you it's going to be really hard for them to claim you re-ended them.

I'm sure that for the right price, the records will get 'accidentally misplaced', like video evidence against cops often seems to.

Turning your phone off does not prevent you from being tracked.

You must remove the battery.

dropdead: When did driving become a constitutional right? People keep forgetting driving a car on public roadways is a privilege not a right.

Or the best way to get rid of this is make cars that can't go faster than the speed limit. Why do you need a car on public roads that can go 120 when the limit is 55?

I assume you've never driven at 120 mph. There is a void in your life.

Silverstaff: In terms of everyday life, that "privilege" is more critical to basic living than "rights" like voting. You vote every couple of years, you have to drive almost every day to go shopping or go to work . .or to go vote.

Access to healthcare is more important to daily living than owning car. Access to high speed internet is more important to daily life than voting. Should the government ensure that every citizen have those?

dropdead:
Or the best way to get rid of this is make cars that can't go faster than the speed limit. Why do you need a car on public roads that can go 120 when the limit is 55?

Because after I knock back a couple PBR tallboys I like to fire up a menthol and do a buck-fifty down the highway while Van Halen's 'Panama' is blasting on the tape deck. And that's my God-Given right as an American... That's why.

bmunroe: If this can happen with breathalyzer, similar errors can happen with black boxes.

Recording and analyzing are different things.

As long as these things can't actively transmit any data of any kind I'm actually pretty well okay with this.

seaninc: I assume you've never driven at 120 mph. There is a void in your life.

This.

garandman1a: As much as I hate the insurance companies, I'd trust them with my life before I'd trust the government with a roll of my pennies.

Insurance companies have plenty of incentive to not payout claims. They report to shareholders who want to see profit and not how they lost money helping people. You probably won't have to look very far to see people who have been subject to this.

What scares me about this idea is that a lot of policies that give government control and power are often sold as being in the best interest of the people. Example...keeping track of your movements is good because in case you commit a crime we will now have proof or wire tapping everyone's phone is good because we will know if you are going to commit a crime. Eventually you give up all your privacy due to fear. The justification or rationalization is always "if you aren't doing anything wrong then you should not be worried." This might be true in a perfect world, but is unrealistic and simplistic in the world we live in. Giving any government this kind of power can only lead to bad things.

dropdead: Silverstaff: In terms of everyday life, that "privilege" is more critical to basic living than "rights" like voting. You vote every couple of years, you have to drive almost every day to go shopping or go to work . .or to go vote.

Access to healthcare is more important to daily living than owning car. Access to high speed internet is more important to daily life than voting. Should the government ensure that every citizen have those?

In other countries besides the US, they government does ensure people have those things.

Most industrialized nations have far more state-sponsored healthcare than the US. Of course, in the US we call that "socialist" and say that it robs people of their freedom to be sick and choose what doctor they want to go bankrupt seeing because they couldn't afford insurance.

Finland recognizes that the right to Broadband Internet access with a bandwidth of at least 1 Mbps is a basic civil right Link and Link

Millennium: I'd be OK with this, provided that the following restrictions were in place:

1) The data recorded by the box must not be usable to determine the vehicle's location without using additional data not recorded (for example, the box must not record GPS coordinates).
2) The data recorded by the box must not cover a time period longer than five minutes.
3) The data recorded by the box must not save any data older than the most recent time the vehicle is started.

This leaves more sufficient data for safety purposes, while being incapable of being used to violate privacy. This is also why it will never fly, because safety isn't the point.

All of which will be violated, 1,2 and 3 now that its been established. It's the slippery slope that is going to have us all crashing into well data pointed rocks when we hit the bottom.

jenlen: He painted me a "cool" scenario that I am sure would have many of you up in arms. He said "Imagine if the car's system records every stop with GPS. I could then bust a drug dealer and I'd know where every single customer he has lives and could go bust them, too!"

Did you explain to him why this is not feasible? Aside from which, even if it did happen, it would happen one time and suddenly everyone's cars will show them driving in Narnia all last month.

There's alot of assumption here that the Government, car manufacturers, and the cops will all happily play within the rules to protect everyones privacy.
...Despite overwhelming evidence from the last century that they rarely ever do so.

Me? I think we should wire up all the cars of our congressmen first. As well as the cars of their family and friends. No of them should go anywhere without an off the shelf black box under the hood.

/Then let hackers bang away at the system.
/Bet the first politician to get caught doing something naughty makes this goes away.
/or they write another "for everyone but us" rule, which they're famous for.

dropdead: When did driving become a constitutional right? People keep forgetting driving a car on public roadways is a privilege not a right.

That's the dumbest argument I've heard in a long time.

I'm sorry, but you can't create a society in which it's absolutely necessary to drive a car around in order to live your life, and then turn around and say that driving is "privilege not a right." That's like saying eating food is "a privilege not a right."

I am really torn on this issue... The libertarian in me wants no data collection. The good driver in me wants to be able to prove that my future collision was not my fault. I don't know what to do!!!!

Ed Willy: These should be optional and the consumer should be able to turn them on or off when they have them.

People who always drive safe can turn them on and use them as legal cover. Maybe insurance companies can offer an incentive to anyone who has it and keeps it on.

But being able to track your moves, even after the fact, violates the 5th amendment.

The most likely outcome is not going to be safer driving (especially if no on knows about them) but police accessing the device to get traffic convictions. I can see cops with quotas during a drunk driving sting being disappointed in not finding enough people and accessing the black boxes to issue speeding tickets instead.

I like this sort of idea... You can choose to have it on or not. bad drivers will turn it off, good drivers will turn it on. Usually, you will only need 1 vehicle in an accident to have it on to prove who is the liar. bad drivers that hit each-other will deserve each-other. and good drivers wont have to worry so much. win win...

Double Plus Good.

Buying conversion...

Braindeath: Did you explain to him why this is not feasible? Aside from which, even if it did happen, it would happen one time and suddenly everyone's cars will show them driving in Narnia all last month.

Like I'd be walking to Anvard twice a month. And you call me crazy.

My old diesel truck doesn't have a computer, so as long as I don't get it too close to the solenoids, a powerful electro magnet should do the trick.

/why no officer, I have no idea why my government mandated black box wasn't working. I don't even know how it works.

Mr.Insightful: Ummmm...... GUYS?

That whole "big (car) brother" ship sailed a long long LOOONG time ago.

Every tire sold in the US has an RFID chip installed in it. Although intended to help track low tire pressure and manage the supply chain so as to comply with the TREAD Act(passed in the year 2000), these chips (which are not deactivated when the tires are sold already been used to track the identity vehicles outside of certain nuclear power facilities. They're also being used on commercial vehicles.

It is absolutely legal to have an RFID scanner and look up the registration of every vehicle that passes your door. In fact, if you don't care about being high tech, that's what a License Number (which must be displayed at all times) also does.

Public streets means public streets. You have no right to privacy when you are on them. (And neither do cops, as the courts are beginning to explain rather clearly to them.)

This is true, but I also have a right to control my property, and to be free from unreasonable search and seizure... I think that over-rides the public roads argument. Especially considering all the other things already required to legally drive on public roads.

dropdead: When did driving become a constitutional right? People keep forgetting driving a car on public roadways is a privilege not a right.

Or the best way to get rid of this is make cars that can't go faster than the speed limit. Why do you need a car on public roads that can go 120 when the limit is 55?

As early as the Articles of Confederation the Congress recognized freedom of movement (Article 4), though the right was thought to be so fundamental during the drafting of the Constitution as not needing explicit enumeration.

dropdead: The point is if you have speed limits why do you need cars that go far faster the the driver will ever be legally able to go?

1) Speed limits vary. If a car is sold in a state where the highest speed limit is 65mph, should it be limited to 65? What if it's driven into a state where the limit is 75? Or vice versa?

2) Speed limits Only apply to public roads. It's perfectly legal to drive 150mph if you are on private property.

3) Emergencies. For instance, if all cars are limited to one max speed, once a criminal gets a lead on the cops, the cops will Never catch him. Unless, of course the cop cars can go faster than the limit.

FTA
That info is invaluable in determining how a car responds in a crash. With a vehicle owner or lessee's permission, crash investigators with access to the data pass on the EDR records to GM, which can determine whether vehicle systems or driver error contributed to an accident. They also can discover what vehicle systems and technologies prevented serious injuries or death.
(Bold for Emphasis)
And there's no way GM would lie on the contributing events of an accident to keep from getting sued for a 'vehicle systems error' that resulted in a manslaughter case or three, is there?
Just six months later there'll be a recall on an associated part that necessitates the replacement of the real problem.

ciberido: That's like saying eating food is "a privilege not a right."

not driving isn't going to kill you.

food is a necessity, not a right.

spleef420: ciberido: That's like saying eating food is "a privilege not a right."

not driving isn't going to kill you.

food is a necessity, not a right.

Freedom of movement is a right, it goes back to the Magna Carta and Articles of Confederation.

spaten: Freedom of movement is a right

a car is not necessary for "freedom of movement".

"driving is a right" explains why so many people are so farking horrible at it.

spleef420: spaten: Freedom of movement is a right

a car is not necessary for "freedom of movement".

Legally vague, how is one going to get to Wonder Valley, CA(east of 29 Palms) to Ellerslie, GA without a motor vehicle. Real places, Google Map it.

spaten: Legally vague, how is one going to get to Wonder Valley, CA(east of 29 Palms) to Ellerslie, GA without a motor vehicle. Real places, Google Map it.

Greyhound, Delta, Amtrak

spaten: spleef420: spaten: Freedom of movement is a right

a car is not necessary for "freedom of movement".

Legally vague, how is one going to get to Wonder Valley, CA(east of 29 Palms) to Ellerslie, GA without a motor vehicle (new window). Real places, Google Map it.

OK...then what?

/I like driving, but I hate being followed

Myria: Hackersgearheads find a way to disable this in 3...2...1...

FTFY....

spleef420: spaten: Legally vague, how is one going to get to Wonder Valley, CA(east of 29 Palms) to Ellerslie, GA without a motor vehicle. Real places, Google Map it.

Greyhound, Delta, Amtrak

Find the Greyhound to Ellerslie...

Brainsick: spaten: spleef420: spaten: Freedom of movement is a right

a car is not necessary for "freedom of movement".

Legally vague, how is one going to get to Wonder Valley, CA(east of 29 Palms) to Ellerslie, GA without a motor vehicle (new window). Real places, Google Map it.

OK...then what?

/I like driving, but I hate being followed

Not going to have much luck you can't take dirt roads all the way there. Still have to deal with multiple Highway Patrols and Border Check points on all southern routes.

spleef420: spaten: Legally vague, how is one going to get to Wonder Valley, CA(east of 29 Palms) to Ellerslie, GA without a motor vehicle. Real places, Google Map it.

Greyhound, Delta, Amtrak

Google Map North from Ellerslie, GA to Lakeside, OH. Where is the Amtrak, Delta, or Greyhound?

Silverstaff: dropdead: When did driving become a constitutional right? People keep forgetting driving a car on public roadways is a privilege not a right.


Perhaps it's when our entire country built its cities and towns in such a way that you cannot buy groceries, clothing, or go to work without a car because everything is miles from you. Combine that with the fact that in most parts of America there is no public transportation or it's so minimal as to be impractical.

While cops and lawyers may call it a "privilege", that's bullshiat. In reality it's a necessity for living as an independent adult in the US anywhere except in a major metropolitan area that happens to have any real public transit system.

In terms of everyday life, that "privilege" is more critical to basic living than "rights" like voting. You vote every couple of years, you have to drive almost every day to go shopping or go to work . .or to go vote.

Ha! Public transit, now that is a got-damned dream if I've ever heard one. We barely have sidewalks where I live. There is a failmart about 6 - 8 blocks away, I would guess, and there is less than a half of block of sidewalk between my house and there. Also, I would need to cross a major road (45 mph speed limit) that has 0 crosswalks, with there being no sidewalks and all. Awesome. I prefer not to shop there anyway, but I find the lack of sidewalks disturbing.

uprislng: We barely have sidewalks where I live.

move out of Satan's Asshole and join the rest of civilization.

spleef420: uprislng: We barely have sidewalks where I live.

move out of Satan's Asshole and join the rest of civilization.

No, quit farking with the sobs that, don't farking what join the assholes of the next farking gadget.