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?