What is Digg?110 Comments
- nixonrichard, on 10/12/2007, -2/+103You are aware that in most cars disconnecting the battery will wipe the onboard computer's memory clean, right? But the article isn't talking about engine management, it's talking about crash recorders.
A friend of mine once used a GPS computer in his car to protect himself. A small town next to where he lived (which he had to drive through to get to work) was a giant speed trap and was notorious for giving tickets to people from out of town for going at or under the 25mph limit. After two of these tickets he programmed the GPS to record his speed and time (with the recorded speed maxing out at 55mph). About a month later he got another ticket (the ticket said he was going 32 in a 25). He went to an attorney and asked what his options were. The attorney (who also happened to pick up a few tickets from that city) offered to take his case for free. The city did two things, they attacked the validity of the GPS data and simultaneously argued that the officers radar gun was innocently "uncalibrated." The court didn't buy the city's claim for one second and sided with my friend. They awarded attorney fees and $5,000 in damages (too low in my opinion). The best part was they ordered the city to refund any signed ticket and speeding conviction for 10 mph or less in the past 2 1/2 years (the time since the last calibration of the officer's radar gun). The city ended up refunding over 10,000 tickets which totaled almost a million dollars. What's almost more disgusting is at the next city council meeting, all the council members has the audacity to blame my friend for the town going bankrupt. IMO, they all got off easy. - ipodsweatshop, on 10/12/2007, -0/+33"Who owns the data?" Ummm, me. This isn't IP law or copyright law with all sorts of goofy rules and fair use. I have the title to the car, it's my data. You can have it promptly after you produce a warrant for said data. Otherwise, it will stay exactly where it is.
- aliengoods, on 10/12/2007, -0/+20Because the crash data doesn't tell the whole story. Does it tell if the light was green when you went through the intersection and t-boned someone? No, it just tells that you t-boned someone. All too often these devices are used to assign guilt without a good look at the facts, and convincing someone (police officer, judge, etc.) that the crash data is incorrect or taken out of context can be impossible. If you really want accurate data, we should have these crash recorders in conjunction with a dozen miniature video cameras recording in all directions all the time. At least that way you'll have something to defend yourself with.
- Andy.D, on 10/12/2007, -0/+18I have a friend who had a court-ordered speed monitor installed in his car. Cars are already tattle tales, I think it's just going to get worse.
- wild, on 10/12/2007, -0/+18Great idea, lets take people already speeding and shock the ***** out of them so they swerve uncontrollably.
- NanoStuff, on 10/12/2007, -0/+18That's it, I'm buying a horse. Preferably one with AC and GPS, and maybe wheels.
- Nichevo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+17100,000 microfarads = 0.100000 Farads
- drmangrum, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14MADD can want that all they want, but it's too unreliable and someone would create a hack for it in less than a week.
- turkeyssr, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15Funny that no one here, and especially at digg.com, can see the smilarities between this and mandatory vehicle emission inspections. This is also a warrantless search, especially since the advent of OBDII in 1996+ cars. Oh, but it's for the air, it's for the children. Wake up! The government is YOU. You surrendered this right, why not let your car tell on you too? Sure, I like clean air as much as the next guy, however, without a peace officer noting visible smoke or danger, I see little reason to have these inspections or interventions invading my freedom.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14I'll translate your post for you:
"LAWL IF U DUN HEV NETING 2 HIED Y RU SO SKARED? LAWL!!!!111SHIFT+1"
See how stupid it sounds? Yeah. I have nothing to hide, but I enjoy my privacy. And you should, too. Don't ENCOURAGE a police state, dude. We're already bad enough. - EvilGnome, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11Nixon. Awesome story. Props to your friend. I hate traps that are aimed towards anything over the speed limit, there should always be some leeway. I must ask where this was because I know radar laws are different in every state. I didn't want GPS for fear they'd use that data against me; I never saw it work in someones favor like that.
- DiscordianFnord, on 10/12/2007, -5/+16Because the crash was their fault
- Ibanezfoo, on 10/12/2007, -5/+16Or just take licenses away from women. I used to think it was all just sexist nonsense, but first hand experience has proven to me that broads really do drive much much worse then men. Sorry if its not PC but its the truth, at least around here. Far more dangerous. Every day of my life I am almost taken out by some bitch in a fancy eurocrap car or big SUV.
- Ibanezfoo, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14Bitches in their Mercedes and SUVs blast through our neighborhood all the time. 50+ in a 25. They are somehow immune to laws. Local police or city council do not seem to care. Maybe they will care after some kid becomes a stain on the road..... but probably not.
- Rental, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10i was driving from orlando to tampa on a toll road, and i was following behind a state trooper. Speed limit was 70 he was going 65 or so, and i got tried of it went up to about 76mph and passed him. He pulled me over and said i was going way to fast and being wreckless. I went to court and explained what happened, and it turned out he didn't even use his radar gun to get my speed. i was awarded $250. i lost money cause i had to get to tampa for a job meeting that i didn't make cause of that A-hole.
- toomuchpete, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9@ipodsweatshop: "You can have it promptly after you produce a warrant for said data."
Yep, exactly right... but don't feel too cocky... it would be trivial to get a warrant for that data. (and if the car transmits the data, a warrant would probably not be necessary) - Sneakernets, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Giving your car a blowjob so it'll start will never happen in a million years.
- Ender2007, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9The mandatory interlock can be beaten very simply, have a small air compressor under the seat that is modified to blow at a very low PSI in case they have the lock set to record the pressure. Simply hook that up and have it blow for you, instant start every time.
As for the chip, I'm sure someone would find a way to plug into it and modify the records. That's what hackers are for... - dagr8tim, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10On a slightly related note, MADD wants all cars to be equipped with an interlock that you have to blow to prove you are not drunk before the car will start. This would be for EVERYONE, on EVERY car. No matter if you have a past of drunk driving or not.
But back to the story at hand. It's between $200 & $700 in most places to get your car's computer reflashed or 'chipped'. Usually this is done to increase the performance of the car. But the same thing could be done to disable anything like the article mentions and still leave your car completely driveable.
Also, somebody mentioned removing the battery. That only works with some things. If the technology worked the same as USB flash drive technology, disconnecting the battery would do no good. - cmwotring, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8I have to say that I would be more opposed to insurance companies getting the information than anyone else. They can always find some way to hike up your premiums for some reason. Couple the black box with GPS and now they can say that you drive through a accident prone area and therefore your rates go up. You park where there has been a lot of crime, rates go up. You make too many left turns, rates go up. I can live with law enforcement having the data. I'm not opposed to more safety. I'd take the bus though if insurance companies got in on it.
- blastus7, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8even though i have no idea what you are talking about i dugg you down because i like elephant poo.
Thanks! - ALeavitt, on 10/12/2007, -8/+15As a paranoid, anti-surveillance, freedom-loving prole, nothing scares me more than the notion of someone constantly collecting data on every minor infraction that I make. However, I have found that the state of driving today is just horrendous - people drive like ***** because they know that they can get away with it. There just aren't enough cops to even deter people from routinely breaking the law. I hate to say it, but this is one area of my life in which I would gladly admit to every infraction that I make if it means that other people will have to answer for theirs. I just can't think of another way for driving to get any better.
- williamdyer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7sithlrd is right
Motocycles don't have that surveillance *****, and if they ever do it will be easier to have convenient malfunctions.
The ***** surveillance state should just eat ***** and die. - crash331, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8If they want parks, they need to raise money legitimately, not steal it from people who pass through. If I live in town A and pass through town B and get a ticket for 5mph over when the gun isn't calibrated correctly, I could really care less about Town B getting less parks, since I will never use them anyway.
- CapTylor, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7My freedom, or temporary safety. I dunno.
- Ibanezfoo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Lobbing stuff at vehicles on your street isn't the brightest thing you could do. I thought spraying them with the hose was a good idea until I startled some broad and she wound up in a neighbors lawn. You're better off building your own EMP device and turning off their cars.... theres plenty of plans on the net if you look.
- wonderchemist, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@ipodsweatshop: "I have the title to the car, it's my data."
What if you don't hold the title? Does the bank then own the data? - UnstableMind, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Obviously because no-one is responsible enough for themselves anymore. WTF? I'm cool with my vehicle collecting data for my personal use, not cool with publishing it or giving it away nor am I ok with it being used against me. Keep the police state out of my business. If someone was drunk and driving, I'm sure that would be apparent. Arrest them and beat the ***** out of em and then make them work for free, paving roads.
- ChumpChief, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7I think this is a good idea at the core. The article claims that quick medical response can result in up to a 25% increase in survival rate, which is excellent. If they were protected from the eyes of law enforcement, this has some real potential. Perhaps making the device to alert health care professionals based on damage to the car (airbags went off, front crumple zone maxed, etc.) rather than based on speed would allow it to avoid collecting potentially incriminating evidence, and maybe even be more accurate.
- UnstableMind, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I think it needs to stay away from police, insurance, and any company in general. The insurance companies will use it against you so you can pay a higher premium. Don't tell me they won't, just about everyone drives 5, 10, or even 15 mph over the speed limit. And everyone has driven over the speed limit at some point and that is all it takes for them to claim you were recklessly driving. Also, I would want to see the data posted on-line for our police vehicles so we can monitor them and ensure they are abiding by the law. If companies of any kind can have access to our/your data then you know they'll sell the demographic or statistics to make money and you'll never see a dime. It's my property, ***** off.
- UnstableMind, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4How can you be ok w/Law Enforcement having access to your data. Your telling me you don't EVER drive over the speed limit or change lanes without signaling or coming to a full stop or speeding up to go through a yellow light. Why do they need access to your data. Your probably ok with them listening to your phone conversations because you have nothing to hide. It's people like this that are letting this place become a police state. You assume the law enforcement are honest people. Wait until that data is used against you and you'll be singing a different tune.
- Ibanezfoo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I was with you until this: "If it saves one innocent life then i am all for it" Thats one of the most over used liberal sentimental pieces of crap I have ever read in my life. That statement makes one sound noble and caring, but upon further research really means nothing.
- Synchro, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Since driving is not a right, we need to make it harder for people to get it. Drivers education should be mandatory and rigorous. If you cannot pass a minimum test, then you should not be allowed to drive. If you get nailed for DUI, your license is suspended for 2 months. If you get another DUI within a few years, you cannot own a vehicle. We have laws that make it so felons cannot own firearms, but we let repeat DUI offenders off until they kill someone.
The level of driving skill is absolutely atrocious!! Improve that. that will have WAY more of a measurable effect on helping to reduce human deaths than banning firearms or going after certain pet projects that politicians have. The statistics on how many vehicle related injuries and deaths every minute, just in the USA, is staggering. You want to talk an epidemic, there it is. driving seems to be some sort of holy thing that everyone is entitled to, but they aren't. - williamdyer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Primer on how to read the Constitution:
If it isn't an ENUMERATED power of the federal government, it belongs to you, or the state you live in.
The ***** in Washington color outside constitutional lines all the time. They should have a finger cut off every time they do it. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"I can't think of any reason at all why I would want to argue against this technology."
That is because you are naive and your world is rose-tinted. - drmangrum, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Well aside from my previous comment of developing better driving habits, i think the legality would work something like this:
The data recorded is your property. In order for law enforcement to gain those records as evidence, they would first have to prove their case enough for a judge to give a warrant. Car accidents are rarely unsolvable by conventional forensics, so developing a solid enough case for a warrant wouldn't prove difficult. I find it far more likely any evidence from the device would be used by the defense as much, if not more than than they prosecution. - gta3mobster, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Bwahaha, lets see how much data gathering is done on my 1990 Cadillac Deville. No plugs for computers here. Disconnect negative terminal and the car relearns itself.
Toyoya is designing cars so the steering wheel will detect alcohol from your hands. I guess you'd have to wear gloves everytime you wanted to drink and drive.
I love my old Deville. I don't have cheap flimsy plastic all over the interior nor computers that track how I drive. I hate this trend of putting more responsibility into the car. Plus, fixing the car is much easier.
I'm glad I don't have miles of wiring harness in my car. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3its called "freedom of travel" and its a right not a privilege.
- Ibanezfoo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Pick a random street in O.C. and you will find the bitches in SUVs or eurocrap cars you seek
- ChumpChief, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Oops, my bad -- .1F
But even so, it just makes more sense to use the units that represent the amount most closely. - Zammie, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5The fact is, it takes a split second for a kid to run out in the run and someone wouldn't be able to stop fast enough.
I personally don't want to be spending my years in Jail getting railed by Junior.
I'm in favor of throwing rotten food at cars driving too fast down my road!
One other rant - the worse ones I see aren't the teens, but Ma/Pa in minivans and SUVs with it loaded with kids.
Typical hypocrites. - Ibanezfoo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3You do make a good point about the insurance companies.... I hadn't considered that...
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@budman21901: "If it saves one innocent life then i am all for it."
You, as a trucker, are likely to fall asleep at the wheel and crush a soccer mom's minivan beneath the sheer tonnage of your vehicle.
Giving up your potentially fatal-to-others job isn't too high a price to pay, right? No price is too high. After all, it could save just one innocent life!
So, which are you? A person who practices what he preaches, or a mindlessly slogan-spewing hypocrite? - fsjonsey, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3This is why I love my 63' Corvair Monza. All I have to do is check the timing and carburettors every once and a while, and when the engine passes 100k miles again (for the fourth time!) i'll replace the cylinders, valves, pistons, and lifters. Not to mention it gets 27mpg city/32highway. And, it will never spy on me.
http://pliggfi.blogdns.org/img/Corvair%20002.jpg - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2How about NotSoSmartItGuy?
- whosyourdiggdad, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3This response must be a trolling attempt, but in case it isn't... xXAzraelXx "I do it responsibly, because I can do it better then everyone else."??? Where'd you pass that test?
I'm sure the road is full of reckless drivers that all feel that they have superior driving skills... most of you have that attitude because you've never been faced with a motorcycle that you didn't see, a kid heading your way on a bike just around the corner (and let's throw in some oncoming traffic) or another 100 experiences that you haven't thought of yet. The big danger is usually the delta between your speed and others on the road.
I had your attitude and a very high powered car when I was in my 20's... I never wrecked it but eventually figured out that the risk wasn't worth it. Regardless of whether you're "better then everyone else", consider that there are people that aren't that good out there. If you're in the public road, it's your responsibility to keep their well being in mind.
People need to stop evading responsibility when they do things wrong... - bmartin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"Now if you grabbed a few of the 1 Farad capacitors that were rated at a few hundred volts, and shorted them directly across a nive vulnerable area, that should do some damage, just don't touch it, shorting it across a person could easily be fatal."
Strangely enough, this was a concern for me once as a potential lawsuit. I had a 2 farad cap in my car for my old system (a Tempo w/ a 1600W system). It was raining outside and some guys broke into my car (it was parked at my university). The CD player and cap were wrecked, but I got everything back. The cap was discharged and the circuit board had blown off from its mounts. If their hands were wet and they touched the terminals (probable, as they'd have to disconnect the wires), the cap would've acted as an anti-theft device. DC voltage is pretty safe, but with a little bit of rain water, it doesn't take much to kill you. - tazx, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3To those against this sort of thing: Driving is a privilege, not a right.
Let me say that again. Operating a motor vehicle on publicly-owned roads is a privilege granted you by the representatives of The People, who own the roads you're on. You *must* be licensed. Your vehicle must be registered. Your vehicle must adhere to countless safety regulations. There were people who objected to mandatory seatbelts in cars; yet they improved everyone's chances of survival in accidents.
Roughly 40,000 people die every year in the US due to car crashes: http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/ 100% of those are preventable deaths. Spending trillions in response to a terrorist act that killed 3000 seems counterproductive, when there is a more serious threat to human life going on every day.
Eventually, possibly not too far in the future, every vehicle on the road will be completely automated. We're already making significant progress in that direction. While SOME drivers are fine, and never have an accident, there's many more who gab on their cellphones, put on their makeup, let their eyes or attention wander, eat lunch, or drive drunk, that threaten the lives of others around them. Statistically, human beings can't be relied on to drive safely.
So it will come to the point where if you want to show off your driving skills, and risk your life, you can do so on private tracks. If you need to get from point A to point B on public roads, any technology that CAN make that safer, WILL be implemented, even if it means taking all control out of your hands. - ewetubing, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2From the tone of the post, it seems like the poster of this digg is wondering if this data will ever be used against someone in court.
In the US and in Canada, it has been happening for at least 5 years now.
Here is one such link to a story (from 4 years ago):
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2003-05-15-boxes-usat_x.htm
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/07/03/air_bag_black_box_nails/
A big concern is the accuracy of the data being stored on these devices. As you all know, automobiles need constant maintenance. What happens to the integrity of the data if the device somehow goes out of calibration or whatever?
I have had my car in to the dealership for "computer replacement" as well as "anti-lock sensor" replacement. What if I had not had those repairs done? Would there be a chance that the stored data is then inaccurate? Is there a chance that the stored data could somehow become inaccurate, even with me maintaining the vehicle properly? I have also had my car in at the dealership where they told me that "the computer was spitting out the wrong diagnosis code." OK. So fix it. The point is, these devices can go bad quickly and are only as good as the sensing equipment they are connected to.
I am not arguing for or against this data recording stuff. The roadways are completely unsafe as it is. Something needs to be done. I just wonder how accurate that data really is. Inaccurate data could be a disaster in a courtroom. - netmugger, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2BIG BROTHER - incremental intrusion over generations - avoids rebellion of the masses by making the small 'common good' social changes necessary for 'public safety' seem trival or minor upon introduction to the public. Little things add up. Slowly the vice turns on freedoms melon head.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 103 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 