I don't have any problem with using technology to get to the truth. But
indeed, there are insufficient safeguards to ensure that the blackboxes will
be used in a manner to get to the truth.


"MoPar Man" > wrote in message
...
> Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>
>> > This is either a step towards (or practically is) self
>> > incrimination, combined with illegal search and seizure.
>>
>> No, not at all.
>
> What rules do the police follow at an accident scene?
>
> What procedures are followed to insure that the "black box" is not
> commandeered, examined, and data extracted by police while the owners
> are unaware of what is happening to the remains of their vehicles?
> What can, and what can't, the police do to a vehicle that they
> impound?
>
>> > There is no reason for data recorders in cars other than to use
>> > as evidence against a driver in an accident.
>>
>> Rubbish. And it isn't evidence against drivers as much as it is
>> evidence of what actually happened.
>
> If the police love to do one thing, its to lay charges. As many as
> they think they can prove - and even some they know they can't. Any
> new toy, gizmo, device, method, or power given to them will be used
> just for that purpose. Heat-sensitive cameras that they can point at
> houses to see if they're growing pot inside.
>
> The law may treat you as innocent until proven guilty, but the police
> will always treat you as guilty and let the courts prove otherwise.
> The police will go to great lengths, even criminal or negligent
> lengths, to pursue you as a suspect if the initial evidence points to
> you.
>
>> Let me guess, you are an advocate of removing black boxes
>> from airplanes.
>
> From a black-box point of view, airplanes are different from cars for
> at least 3 reasons:
>
> 1) The vast majority of airplanes with a full set of data recorders
> are used in a commercial capacity to carry passengers or cargo.
> Private vehicles are, naturally, not used in a fee-for-transport
> capacity. The operator of a commercial vehicle does not necessarily
> have the expectation of privacy while on the job.
>
> 2) An incident (accident) with a car will almost always result in the
> complete recovery of all components of a car, and the relatively low
> speeds involved means that there is little chance of total
> disintegration of any critical component. Therefore complete analysis
> of the car's remains is almost always possible. The very opposite is
> almost always the case for a plane incident. There will also usually
> be no witnesses to a plane incident.
>
> 3) The data recorder on a plane serves a much different purpose than
> in a car. Cars incidents rarely result from structural or control
> systems failure. However, planes (and I mean your typical passenger
> jet) is much more vulnerable to those types of failure. It is
> critical to identify such a failure (frequently only possible from
> black-box data) in order to apply corrective measures to all similar
> aircraft operating world-wide.
>
> If you want to compare the "validity" (or reasons) of using black box
> data recorders in cars with something already in place, then you must
> choose something other than a commercial vehicle being operated by
> paid employees.
>
> For example, the gov't could "decree" that all watches sold in the USA
> starting next year must have data and proximity recording capability.
> That means your watch will record your blood pressure, heart rate, and
> proximity to other watches being worn by others in your vicinity. In
> the case of a crime, the data in your watch would either exonerate you
> or convict you. The extension of the data recording car to the data
> recording watch is not very large.
>
>> Assume for example that driver A hits and kills a pedestrian.
>
> Was the pedestrian using a cross-walk or crossing at a intersection?
> Did the pedestrian have the right-of-way? The speed of the car will
> be the last factor to be examined (if indeed it ever would be).
>
> Being hit by a car going the speed limit (30 mph) vs one that is
> speeding (45 mph) makes no difference. Someone has the right-of-way
> in that case, and someone violated it.
>
>> ... he would sign over his rights against self-incrimination
>> and let the DA examine the black box.
>
> What exactly are the procedural rules for the handling of black-box
> data? Who can guarantee that some over-enthusiastic cop won't hook up
> a data terminal right to the computer's access port while it's still
> sitting at the accident scene? They do drive around with them, you
> know. They've gotten them from third-party manufacturers and even
> dealerships.
>
>> The real issue though is this.
>>
>> YOU do not own the streets that you drive on. ALL of us, you,
>> I and everyone, own the streets. If I'm going to allow you
>> to drive on the streets that I own, I'm going to make you have
>> a data recorder that you can't shut off.
>
> What's the difference between the streets, the sidewalks, the parks?
>
> What's next - will pedestrians be required to wear data recorders too?
>
> Streets, sidewalks, parks, etc, are public places. Vehicles operated
> in public places must conform to mechanical and operational (pollution
> control) standards. People that operate these vehicles must be
> licensed. Beyond that, you are really going to take a toll on
> individual's rights to privacy if you want to implement more
> surveillance and data recording systems.
>
> 50 years ago, we could be having this argument, and it would be
> theoretical because the technology wasn't there to implement this data
> recording form of surveillance.
>
> Black box data recorders in private vehicles is probably the first
> implementation of what could be called obligatory personal
> surveillance. In 10 years, the technology will be here to provide a
> low-cost, low-interference way to keep a surveillance record on
> practically all forms of individual human activity. Where do you want
> it to end? Do you want it to end?