Black boxes in our Vibes?!?!?
Posted: Sat Dec 09, 2006 3:50 am
According to this feature on Cardomain, GM has been installing "Black Boxes" in all GM cars since 2004! Does that mean the 2005 models and later or the 2004 models and later? I'm assuming the latter, but this is sure giving me reason not to buy a new car!Copied from: http://www.cardomain.com/features/black_boxQuote, originally posted by cardomain »Black BoxBlack Boxes: Flying to a Car Near YouBy: Diego RosenbergThe open road has long been a symbol of America's promise of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. How better to embrace freedom than drive across one of the greatest pieces of real estate in the world? In the United States, you can travel from sea to shining sea without having to show anyone papers.But while America prides herself on allowing liberties absent elsewhere, there's always been a struggle between the people and the ruling class. For auto enthusiasts—or anyone who spends a considerable amount of time in their vehicle—the latest challenge comes with the growing popularity of so-called black boxes.Black boxes, despite their vaguely sinister name, have many legitimate applications. Technically called electronic data recorders, they monitor factors like speed, acceleration, braking, and fuel consumption. But while they're de rigueur on airplanes—and vital in determining what caused a crash. But since aviation involves someone else in control of your safety, privacy is not an issue.However, automobiles have started to use this technology to measure myriad vitals after an accident. This raises some very important, Big Brother-esque issues. Since 2004, black boxes have been installed in every GM car and many Fords. In an accident, the same sensors that trigger airbags also record other pertinent information—like if you were wearing a seatbelt. At first, the data supplied was to diagnose air bag issues, but technology has allowed the insurance industry and the police to reconstruct an accident. Sure these little monitors collect tons of useful info, but ultimately, they raise more questions than they answer. For instance, what if you're charged with vehicular homicide? In one ruling, a defendant was observed by at least three witnesses, and the judge ruled his velocity was not a private matter. But does this violate a person's right to avoid self-incrimination? The lack of regulations governing what can be and can't be used, and how it is to be used, is a sticking point to privacy advocates. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration would like to see standardization of the type of data collected and believes it can make roads safer. Since providing objective evidence for crash investigations is the primary goal, the NHTSA has run tests to judge the accuracy of the EDRs in comparison to normal methods of reconstruction.But privacy advocates are less than thrilled. "I think owners have to be told of whatever data there is—and what is being retained long. What are the storage conditions? Will it be kept confidential, or will they release information to anybody?" asks professor John Soma, director of the Privacy Center at Denver University.Some of these questions were answered in a landmark 2004 ruling—in California, of course!—which established that auto manufacturers are required to provide customers with info on their EDRs, and data can't be intercepted without a court order or the owner's permission. Today, just ten states have similar laws, though more are expected to joining bandwagon.But how do other countries deal with the same issue? In Europe, EDRs are more common, but they also have a different paradigm on the rights and privacy for their citizens, and a single standard has yet to be established. Our friends in Canada, however, have been lucky to have their courts determine—early on—that EDRs are the vehicle owner's property and cannot be accessed without a court order. Oh Canada indeed! Let's hope our federal courts make the same wise decision.