NTSB Wants Black Boxes in Passenger Vehicles

This is either a step towards (or practically is) self incrimination,
combined with illegal search and seizure.

There is no reason for data recorders in cars other than to use as
evidence against a driver in an accident. Are these black boxes even
accurate during a collision - where G forces and wheel slippage
provide no absolute indication of what a car may really be doing
during an emergency situation? Let alone equipped for the high
sampling rates needed.

Shouldn't these data recording systems be certified in order to even
be considered as sources of evidenciary data?

This is tantamount to being forced to drive with a forward-facing
camera mounted in the back seat, recording everything you do.

The driver should have the ability to turn the data recording mode on
or off. This works both ways. Anyone who turns the data recording
off will not therefor have any data that could be used against him -
but by the same token he won't have any data that could be used to
defend him either. Every driver should have the right to that choice.

An example of the mis-use of information is the fact that (apparently)
some (many? most?) US states require a fingerprint as part of getting
a drivers license. This seems to have lead (a few months ago) to a
Seattle laywer being arrested for having something to do with the
train bombings in Spain. For reasons that I've never heard explained,
they claimed that fingerprints found on a shopping bag in one of the
trains matched his. How they had his fingerprints was never explained
- presumably because they are required when getting a drivers license?

------------------------------

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,132056,00.html

Privacy Experts Shun Black Boxes
Friday, September 10, 2004
By Kelley Beaucar Vlahos

•NTSB Wants Black Boxes in Passenger Vehicles
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,127945,00.html

•Evidence From Black Boxes in Cars Turns Up in Courts
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,90673,00.html

WASHINGTON — Some safety and privacy experts are reacting with
apprehension, others with all out condemnation over a recent ruling by
the National Transportation Safety Board to require electronic data
recorders or "black boxes" in all new cars manufactured in the United
States.

"I take offense that this personal property of individuals is now
being designed by the federal government," said Jim Harper, privacy
attorney and editor of Privacilla.org.

Black boxes (search), or "EDRs" have been fitted into every General
Motors car in its 2004 line and is in a number of Ford models — about
15 percent of all vehicles on the road today, according to road safety
experts.

EDRs are certainly not new. Information gathered on black boxes —
typically everything from speed, brake pressure, seat belt use and air
bag deployment — has already been used in determining guilt in
criminal and civil cases across the country.

Proponents, including the NTSB and road safety advocates, say the data
collected on these black boxes is valuable for studying how accidents
happen and how to make roads and cars safer. EDR data has been used
for years to fine tune air bag efficiency.

"We think for understanding the dynamics of crashes, the information
here can be very, very helpful," said Lon Anderson, director of AAA
Mid-Atlantic. On the other hand, Anderson said, "We think it would be
very wrong if the data in these boxes was deemed to be public
information, open to anybody and the owner had no say over it."

The NTSB recommended in early August that black boxes be mandated, but
critics say dealers are not now required to alert car owners that
their car has the ability to collect the information. Currently only
California has a law requiring car dealers to notify buyers when their
cars are outfitted with an EDR.

Owners also have no legal protections to keep them from being forced
to hand over that information to another party if a court order
demanded it.

"I think (owners) have to be told of whatever data there is — and what
is being retained longterm. What are the storage conditions? Will
they keep it confidential or will they have to release information to
anybody?" said professor John Soma, director of the Privacy Center
(search) at Denver University.

"Without all of these concerns written into it, then obviously the
recommendation is completely unacceptable," he said.

According to Joe Osterman, director of highway safety at the NTSB, the
recommendation was inspired in part by a tragic auto accident
involving a 86-year-old man who drove his car into a crowded Santa
Monica farmers’ market last summer, killing 10 and injuring 63.

Osterman said a black box in the car might have not saved the people
in the crash, but would have allowed investigators to find out how it
happened and how cars could be better designed to reduce the
likelihood of greater injury in the future.

"We have a long history of using data recorders in other modes of
transportation and found them extremely useful," Osterman told
FOXNews.com, pointing to aircraft. "Unless we have all vehicles
equipped, you will not have a true picture of what is happening on the
highways, in a broader sense."

Phil Haseline, president of the Automobile Coalition for Traffic
Safety, which represents car manufacturers, said automakers are still
debating the value of EDRs, and the idea of requiring them. Haseline
said he is a proponent of black boxes but has certain reservations
about the NTSB’s recommendation.

He, like others, said he would like to first see standardization of
the type of data collected in the black boxes, much like a
recommendation made in June by the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration. Right now, dueling technologies record different
things.

Then, Haseline said, he would prefer that laws address the issue of a
car owner’s knowledge of the EDRs in their vehicles, and that car
owners have ownership of the data once its recorded.

"I can understand [NTSB's desire] to have this information, but from a
practical perspective, it is premature at this point to require it,"
he said.

While privacy experts say jokes like "'big brother' is riding shotgun"
aren’t funny, the technology already is being used to monitor certain
drivers.

Global positioning systems are being used by car rental companies to
track where renters are going and how fast they are driving. GPS also
allows rental car companies to shut off the engine of a car and lock a
renter out of it. It’s the same technology used by OnStar, which
promises to be a guardian angel for car owners who are locked out or
report a vehicle stolen.

Parents of teenagers have also begun to use black boxes marketed by
Road Safety International in Thousand Oaks, Calif. This item, which
can be placed under the hood, is able to track the driver’s use of a
seatbelt, excessive speed, hard cornering, braking and even unsafe
backing, and can store hours of information for review later.

Privacy experts warn that once cars are outfitted for the most limited
data recording, the government will find a way to argue it’s for
drivers’ "own good" to collect more. They point to a push in recent
years to install GPS in all cars so that emergency officials can
easily find incapacitated accident victims.

"When you are telling someone it is for their own good, then it should
be their own choice, they should be able to say ‘no,’" said professor
Yale Kamisar of the University of Michigan Law School. "None of these
things work out the way they are supposed to. Why should we believe
all of these assurances when they haven’t been honored in the past?"

"There is no reason for data recorders in cars other than to use as
evidence against a driver in an accident. Are these black boxes even
accurate during a collision - where G forces and wheel slippage
provide no absolute indication of what a car may really be doing
during an emergency situation? Let alone equipped for the high
sampling rates needed."
====================================

how about evidence to SUPPORT a DRIVER in an ACCIDENT.

YEAH, the person who hit me was speeding, driving erratically, and had a BA
content of .18.
and after looking at the red light camera, definitely drove through the red
light.

Sometimes it would nice to see some support for the "victim"!

h

"There is no reason for data recorders in cars other than to use as
evidence against a driver in an accident. Are these black boxes even
accurate during a collision - where G forces and wheel slippage
provide no absolute indication of what a car may really be doing
during an emergency situation? Let alone equipped for the high
sampling rates needed."
====================================

how about evidence to SUPPORT a DRIVER in an ACCIDENT.

YEAH, the person who hit me was speeding, driving erratically, and had a BA
content of .18.
and after looking at the red light camera, definitely drove through the red
light.

Sometimes it would nice to see some support for the "victim"!

h

I would have to agree with you, but once those liars... i mean lawyers get
the case it doesnt really mattter
"howard" <fishfeeder@gmail(dot)com> wrote in message
...
> "There is no reason for data recorders in cars other than to use as
> evidence against a driver in an accident. Are these black boxes even
> accurate during a collision - where G forces and wheel slippage
> provide no absolute indication of what a car may really be doing
> during an emergency situation? Let alone equipped for the high
> sampling rates needed."
> ====================================
>
> how about evidence to SUPPORT a DRIVER in an ACCIDENT.
>
> YEAH, the person who hit me was speeding, driving erratically, and had a
BA
> content of .18.
> and after looking at the red light camera, definitely drove through the
red
> light.
>
> Sometimes it would nice to see some support for the "victim"!
>
> h
>
>
>
>

I would have to agree with you, but once those liars... i mean lawyers get
the case it doesnt really mattter
"howard" <fishfeeder@gmail(dot)com> wrote in message
...
> "There is no reason for data recorders in cars other than to use as
> evidence against a driver in an accident. Are these black boxes even
> accurate during a collision - where G forces and wheel slippage
> provide no absolute indication of what a car may really be doing
> during an emergency situation? Let alone equipped for the high
> sampling rates needed."
> ====================================
>
> how about evidence to SUPPORT a DRIVER in an ACCIDENT.
>
> YEAH, the person who hit me was speeding, driving erratically, and had a
BA
> content of .18.
> and after looking at the red light camera, definitely drove through the
red
> light.
>
> Sometimes it would nice to see some support for the "victim"!
>
> h
>
>
>
>

Many states require lawyers to give their fingerprints when they take the
bar exam. That is probaably how they got that lawyers fingerprints and not
from a driver's license. The story is worse than you realize.... it was a
terrible match and in fact the FBI experts said that the fingerprint they
found was so bad that it was unmatchable with any degree of reliability.
Notwithstanding when they found a Arab in the US that kind of looked close
they arrested him on no other factual basis whatsoever. He's sueing the FBI
now.

Recently there was a Toyota story that Toyota refused warranty service
because the computer said he redlined his engine. Well I know lots of
software errors. Darn.... the electronic voting machines hardly work. And
as the engine blew apart who knows what screwed up data the computer got.


"MoPar Man" > wrote in message
...
> This is either a step towards (or practically is) self incrimination,
> combined with illegal search and seizure.
>
> There is no reason for data recorders in cars other than to use as
> evidence against a driver in an accident. Are these black boxes even
> accurate during a collision - where G forces and wheel slippage
> provide no absolute indication of what a car may really be doing
> during an emergency situation? Let alone equipped for the high
> sampling rates needed.
>
> Shouldn't these data recording systems be certified in order to even
> be considered as sources of evidenciary data?
>
> This is tantamount to being forced to drive with a forward-facing
> camera mounted in the back seat, recording everything you do.
>
> The driver should have the ability to turn the data recording mode on
> or off. This works both ways. Anyone who turns the data recording
> off will not therefor have any data that could be used against him -
> but by the same token he won't have any data that could be used to
> defend him either. Every driver should have the right to that choice.
>
> An example of the mis-use of information is the fact that (apparently)
> some (many? most?) US states require a fingerprint as part of getting
> a drivers license. This seems to have lead (a few months ago) to a
> Seattle laywer being arrested for having something to do with the
> train bombings in Spain. For reasons that I've never heard explained,
> they claimed that fingerprints found on a shopping bag in one of the
> trains matched his. How they had his fingerprints was never explained
> - presumably because they are required when getting a drivers license?
>
> ------------------------------
>
> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,132056,00.html
>
> Privacy Experts Shun Black Boxes
> Friday, September 10, 2004
> By Kelley Beaucar Vlahos
>
> .NTSB Wants Black Boxes in Passenger Vehicles
> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,127945,00.html
>
> .Evidence From Black Boxes in Cars Turns Up in Courts
> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,90673,00.html
>
> WASHINGTON - Some safety and privacy experts are reacting with
> apprehension, others with all out condemnation over a recent ruling by
> the National Transportation Safety Board to require electronic data
> recorders or "black boxes" in all new cars manufactured in the United
> States.
>
> "I take offense that this personal property of individuals is now
> being designed by the federal government," said Jim Harper, privacy
> attorney and editor of Privacilla.org.
>
> Black boxes (search), or "EDRs" have been fitted into every General
> Motors car in its 2004 line and is in a number of Ford models - about
> 15 percent of all vehicles on the road today, according to road safety
> experts.
>
> EDRs are certainly not new. Information gathered on black boxes -
> typically everything from speed, brake pressure, seat belt use and air
> bag deployment - has already been used in determining guilt in
> criminal and civil cases across the country.
>
> Proponents, including the NTSB and road safety advocates, say the data
> collected on these black boxes is valuable for studying how accidents
> happen and how to make roads and cars safer. EDR data has been used
> for years to fine tune air bag efficiency.
>
> "We think for understanding the dynamics of crashes, the information
> here can be very, very helpful," said Lon Anderson, director of AAA
> Mid-Atlantic. On the other hand, Anderson said, "We think it would be
> very wrong if the data in these boxes was deemed to be public
> information, open to anybody and the owner had no say over it."
>
> The NTSB recommended in early August that black boxes be mandated, but
> critics say dealers are not now required to alert car owners that
> their car has the ability to collect the information. Currently only
> California has a law requiring car dealers to notify buyers when their
> cars are outfitted with an EDR.
>
> Owners also have no legal protections to keep them from being forced
> to hand over that information to another party if a court order
> demanded it.
>
> "I think (owners) have to be told of whatever data there is - and what
> is being retained longterm. What are the storage conditions? Will
> they keep it confidential or will they have to release information to
> anybody?" said professor John Soma, director of the Privacy Center
> (search) at Denver University.
>
> "Without all of these concerns written into it, then obviously the
> recommendation is completely unacceptable," he said.
>
> According to Joe Osterman, director of highway safety at the NTSB, the
> recommendation was inspired in part by a tragic auto accident
> involving a 86-year-old man who drove his car into a crowded Santa
> Monica farmers' market last summer, killing 10 and injuring 63.
>
> Osterman said a black box in the car might have not saved the people
> in the crash, but would have allowed investigators to find out how it
> happened and how cars could be better designed to reduce the
> likelihood of greater injury in the future.
>
> "We have a long history of using data recorders in other modes of
> transportation and found them extremely useful," Osterman told
> FOXNews.com, pointing to aircraft. "Unless we have all vehicles
> equipped, you will not have a true picture of what is happening on the
> highways, in a broader sense."
>
> Phil Haseline, president of the Automobile Coalition for Traffic
> Safety, which represents car manufacturers, said automakers are still
> debating the value of EDRs, and the idea of requiring them. Haseline
> said he is a proponent of black boxes but has certain reservations
> about the NTSB's recommendation.
>
> He, like others, said he would like to first see standardization of
> the type of data collected in the black boxes, much like a
> recommendation made in June by the National Highway Traffic Safety
> Administration. Right now, dueling technologies record different
> things.
>
> Then, Haseline said, he would prefer that laws address the issue of a
> car owner's knowledge of the EDRs in their vehicles, and that car
> owners have ownership of the data once its recorded.
>
> "I can understand [NTSB's desire] to have this information, but from a
> practical perspective, it is premature at this point to require it,"
> he said.
>
> While privacy experts say jokes like "'big brother' is riding shotgun"
> aren't funny, the technology already is being used to monitor certain
> drivers.
>
> Global positioning systems are being used by car rental companies to
> track where renters are going and how fast they are driving. GPS also
> allows rental car companies to shut off the engine of a car and lock a
> renter out of it. It's the same technology used by OnStar, which
> promises to be a guardian angel for car owners who are locked out or
> report a vehicle stolen.
>
> Parents of teenagers have also begun to use black boxes marketed by
> Road Safety International in Thousand Oaks, Calif. This item, which
> can be placed under the hood, is able to track the driver's use of a
> seatbelt, excessive speed, hard cornering, braking and even unsafe
> backing, and can store hours of information for review later.
>
> Privacy experts warn that once cars are outfitted for the most limited
> data recording, the government will find a way to argue it's for
> drivers' "own good" to collect more. They point to a push in recent
> years to install GPS in all cars so that emergency officials can
> easily find incapacitated accident victims.
>
> "When you are telling someone it is for their own good, then it should
> be their own choice, they should be able to say 'no,'" said professor
> Yale Kamisar of the University of Michigan Law School. "None of these
> things work out the way they are supposed to. Why should we believe
> all of these assurances when they haven't been honored in the past?"

Many states require lawyers to give their fingerprints when they take the
bar exam. That is probaably how they got that lawyers fingerprints and not
from a driver's license. The story is worse than you realize.... it was a
terrible match and in fact the FBI experts said that the fingerprint they
found was so bad that it was unmatchable with any degree of reliability.
Notwithstanding when they found a Arab in the US that kind of looked close
they arrested him on no other factual basis whatsoever. He's sueing the FBI
now.

Recently there was a Toyota story that Toyota refused warranty service
because the computer said he redlined his engine. Well I know lots of
software errors. Darn.... the electronic voting machines hardly work. And
as the engine blew apart who knows what screwed up data the computer got.


"MoPar Man" > wrote in message
...
> This is either a step towards (or practically is) self incrimination,
> combined with illegal search and seizure.
>
> There is no reason for data recorders in cars other than to use as
> evidence against a driver in an accident. Are these black boxes even
> accurate during a collision - where G forces and wheel slippage
> provide no absolute indication of what a car may really be doing
> during an emergency situation? Let alone equipped for the high
> sampling rates needed.
>
> Shouldn't these data recording systems be certified in order to even
> be considered as sources of evidenciary data?
>
> This is tantamount to being forced to drive with a forward-facing
> camera mounted in the back seat, recording everything you do.
>
> The driver should have the ability to turn the data recording mode on
> or off. This works both ways. Anyone who turns the data recording
> off will not therefor have any data that could be used against him -
> but by the same token he won't have any data that could be used to
> defend him either. Every driver should have the right to that choice.
>
> An example of the mis-use of information is the fact that (apparently)
> some (many? most?) US states require a fingerprint as part of getting
> a drivers license. This seems to have lead (a few months ago) to a
> Seattle laywer being arrested for having something to do with the
> train bombings in Spain. For reasons that I've never heard explained,
> they claimed that fingerprints found on a shopping bag in one of the
> trains matched his. How they had his fingerprints was never explained
> - presumably because they are required when getting a drivers license?
>
> ------------------------------
>
> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,132056,00.html
>
> Privacy Experts Shun Black Boxes
> Friday, September 10, 2004
> By Kelley Beaucar Vlahos
>
> .NTSB Wants Black Boxes in Passenger Vehicles
> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,127945,00.html
>
> .Evidence From Black Boxes in Cars Turns Up in Courts
> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,90673,00.html
>
> WASHINGTON - Some safety and privacy experts are reacting with
> apprehension, others with all out condemnation over a recent ruling by
> the National Transportation Safety Board to require electronic data
> recorders or "black boxes" in all new cars manufactured in the United
> States.
>
> "I take offense that this personal property of individuals is now
> being designed by the federal government," said Jim Harper, privacy
> attorney and editor of Privacilla.org.
>
> Black boxes (search), or "EDRs" have been fitted into every General
> Motors car in its 2004 line and is in a number of Ford models - about
> 15 percent of all vehicles on the road today, according to road safety
> experts.
>
> EDRs are certainly not new. Information gathered on black boxes -
> typically everything from speed, brake pressure, seat belt use and air
> bag deployment - has already been used in determining guilt in
> criminal and civil cases across the country.
>
> Proponents, including the NTSB and road safety advocates, say the data
> collected on these black boxes is valuable for studying how accidents
> happen and how to make roads and cars safer. EDR data has been used
> for years to fine tune air bag efficiency.
>
> "We think for understanding the dynamics of crashes, the information
> here can be very, very helpful," said Lon Anderson, director of AAA
> Mid-Atlantic. On the other hand, Anderson said, "We think it would be
> very wrong if the data in these boxes was deemed to be public
> information, open to anybody and the owner had no say over it."
>
> The NTSB recommended in early August that black boxes be mandated, but
> critics say dealers are not now required to alert car owners that
> their car has the ability to collect the information. Currently only
> California has a law requiring car dealers to notify buyers when their
> cars are outfitted with an EDR.
>
> Owners also have no legal protections to keep them from being forced
> to hand over that information to another party if a court order
> demanded it.
>
> "I think (owners) have to be told of whatever data there is - and what
> is being retained longterm. What are the storage conditions? Will
> they keep it confidential or will they have to release information to
> anybody?" said professor John Soma, director of the Privacy Center
> (search) at Denver University.
>
> "Without all of these concerns written into it, then obviously the
> recommendation is completely unacceptable," he said.
>
> According to Joe Osterman, director of highway safety at the NTSB, the
> recommendation was inspired in part by a tragic auto accident
> involving a 86-year-old man who drove his car into a crowded Santa
> Monica farmers' market last summer, killing 10 and injuring 63.
>
> Osterman said a black box in the car might have not saved the people
> in the crash, but would have allowed investigators to find out how it
> happened and how cars could be better designed to reduce the
> likelihood of greater injury in the future.
>
> "We have a long history of using data recorders in other modes of
> transportation and found them extremely useful," Osterman told
> FOXNews.com, pointing to aircraft. "Unless we have all vehicles
> equipped, you will not have a true picture of what is happening on the
> highways, in a broader sense."
>
> Phil Haseline, president of the Automobile Coalition for Traffic
> Safety, which represents car manufacturers, said automakers are still
> debating the value of EDRs, and the idea of requiring them. Haseline
> said he is a proponent of black boxes but has certain reservations
> about the NTSB's recommendation.
>
> He, like others, said he would like to first see standardization of
> the type of data collected in the black boxes, much like a
> recommendation made in June by the National Highway Traffic Safety
> Administration. Right now, dueling technologies record different
> things.
>
> Then, Haseline said, he would prefer that laws address the issue of a
> car owner's knowledge of the EDRs in their vehicles, and that car
> owners have ownership of the data once its recorded.
>
> "I can understand [NTSB's desire] to have this information, but from a
> practical perspective, it is premature at this point to require it,"
> he said.
>
> While privacy experts say jokes like "'big brother' is riding shotgun"
> aren't funny, the technology already is being used to monitor certain
> drivers.
>
> Global positioning systems are being used by car rental companies to
> track where renters are going and how fast they are driving. GPS also
> allows rental car companies to shut off the engine of a car and lock a
> renter out of it. It's the same technology used by OnStar, which
> promises to be a guardian angel for car owners who are locked out or
> report a vehicle stolen.
>
> Parents of teenagers have also begun to use black boxes marketed by
> Road Safety International in Thousand Oaks, Calif. This item, which
> can be placed under the hood, is able to track the driver's use of a
> seatbelt, excessive speed, hard cornering, braking and even unsafe
> backing, and can store hours of information for review later.
>
> Privacy experts warn that once cars are outfitted for the most limited
> data recording, the government will find a way to argue it's for
> drivers' "own good" to collect more. They point to a push in recent
> years to install GPS in all cars so that emergency officials can
> easily find incapacitated accident victims.
>
> "When you are telling someone it is for their own good, then it should
> be their own choice, they should be able to say 'no,'" said professor
> Yale Kamisar of the University of Michigan Law School. "None of these
> things work out the way they are supposed to. Why should we believe
> all of these assurances when they haven't been honored in the past?"

it is already in gm cars inside the airbag modules but only gm staff can
access not any dealer people of such as i was told

MoPar Man wrote:

> This is either a step towards (or practically is) self incrimination,
> combined with illegal search and seizure.
>
> There is no reason for data recorders in cars other than to use as
> evidence against a driver in an accident. Are these black boxes even
> accurate during a collision - where G forces and wheel slippage
> provide no absolute indication of what a car may really be doing
> during an emergency situation? Let alone equipped for the high
> sampling rates needed.
>
> Shouldn't these data recording systems be certified in order to even
> be considered as sources of evidenciary data?
>
> This is tantamount to being forced to drive with a forward-facing
> camera mounted in the back seat, recording everything you do.
>
> The driver should have the ability to turn the data recording mode on
> or off. This works both ways. Anyone who turns the data recording
> off will not therefor have any data that could be used against him -
> but by the same token he won't have any data that could be used to
> defend him either. Every driver should have the right to that choice.
>
> An example of the mis-use of information is the fact that (apparently)
> some (many? most?) US states require a fingerprint as part of getting
> a drivers license. This seems to have lead (a few months ago) to a
> Seattle laywer being arrested for having something to do with the
> train bombings in Spain. For reasons that I've never heard explained,
> they claimed that fingerprints found on a shopping bag in one of the
> trains matched his. How they had his fingerprints was never explained
> - presumably because they are required when getting a drivers license?
>
> ------------------------------
>
> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,132056,00.html
>
> Privacy Experts Shun Black Boxes
> Friday, September 10, 2004
> By Kelley Beaucar Vlahos
>
> •NTSB Wants Black Boxes in Passenger Vehicles
> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,127945,00.html
>
> •Evidence From Black Boxes in Cars Turns Up in Courts
> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,90673,00.html
>
> WASHINGTON — Some safety and privacy experts are reacting with
> apprehension, others with all out condemnation over a recent ruling by
> the National Transportation Safety Board to require electronic data
> recorders or "black boxes" in all new cars manufactured in the United
> States.
>
> "I take offense that this personal property of individuals is now
> being designed by the federal government," said Jim Harper, privacy
> attorney and editor of Privacilla.org.
>
> Black boxes (search), or "EDRs" have been fitted into every General
> Motors car in its 2004 line and is in a number of Ford models — about
> 15 percent of all vehicles on the road today, according to road safety
> experts.
>
> EDRs are certainly not new. Information gathered on black boxes —
> typically everything from speed, brake pressure, seat belt use and air
> bag deployment — has already been used in determining guilt in
> criminal and civil cases across the country.
>
> Proponents, including the NTSB and road safety advocates, say the data
> collected on these black boxes is valuable for studying how accidents
> happen and how to make roads and cars safer. EDR data has been used
> for years to fine tune air bag efficiency.
>
> "We think for understanding the dynamics of crashes, the information
> here can be very, very helpful," said Lon Anderson, director of AAA
> Mid-Atlantic. On the other hand, Anderson said, "We think it would be
> very wrong if the data in these boxes was deemed to be public
> information, open to anybody and the owner had no say over it."
>
> The NTSB recommended in early August that black boxes be mandated, but
> critics say dealers are not now required to alert car owners that
> their car has the ability to collect the information. Currently only
> California has a law requiring car dealers to notify buyers when their
> cars are outfitted with an EDR.
>
> Owners also have no legal protections to keep them from being forced
> to hand over that information to another party if a court order
> demanded it.
>
> "I think (owners) have to be told of whatever data there is — and what
> is being retained longterm. What are the storage conditions? Will
> they keep it confidential or will they have to release information to
> anybody?" said professor John Soma, director of the Privacy Center
> (search) at Denver University.
>
> "Without all of these concerns written into it, then obviously the
> recommendation is completely unacceptable," he said.
>
> According to Joe Osterman, director of highway safety at the NTSB, the
> recommendation was inspired in part by a tragic auto accident
> involving a 86-year-old man who drove his car into a crowded Santa
> Monica farmers’ market last summer, killing 10 and injuring 63.
>
> Osterman said a black box in the car might have not saved the people
> in the crash, but would have allowed investigators to find out how it
> happened and how cars could be better designed to reduce the
> likelihood of greater injury in the future.
>
> "We have a long history of using data recorders in other modes of
> transportation and found them extremely useful," Osterman told
> FOXNews.com, pointing to aircraft. "Unless we have all vehicles
> equipped, you will not have a true picture of what is happening on the
> highways, in a broader sense."
>
> Phil Haseline, president of the Automobile Coalition for Traffic
> Safety, which represents car manufacturers, said automakers are still
> debating the value of EDRs, and the idea of requiring them. Haseline
> said he is a proponent of black boxes but has certain reservations
> about the NTSB’s recommendation.
>
> He, like others, said he would like to first see standardization of
> the type of data collected in the black boxes, much like a
> recommendation made in June by the National Highway Traffic Safety
> Administration. Right now, dueling technologies record different
> things.
>
> Then, Haseline said, he would prefer that laws address the issue of a
> car owner’s knowledge of the EDRs in their vehicles, and that car
> owners have ownership of the data once its recorded.
>
> "I can understand [NTSB's desire] to have this information, but from a
> practical perspective, it is premature at this point to require it,"
> he said.
>
> While privacy experts say jokes like "'big brother' is riding shotgun"
> aren’t funny, the technology already is being used to monitor certain
> drivers.
>
> Global positioning systems are being used by car rental companies to
> track where renters are going and how fast they are driving. GPS also
> allows rental car companies to shut off the engine of a car and lock a
> renter out of it. It’s the same technology used by OnStar, which
> promises to be a guardian angel for car owners who are locked out or
> report a vehicle stolen.
>
> Parents of teenagers have also begun to use black boxes marketed by
> Road Safety International in Thousand Oaks, Calif. This item, which
> can be placed under the hood, is able to track the driver’s use of a
> seatbelt, excessive speed, hard cornering, braking and even unsafe
> backing, and can store hours of information for review later.
>
> Privacy experts warn that once cars are outfitted for the most limited
> data recording, the government will find a way to argue it’s for
> drivers’ "own good" to collect more. They point to a push in recent
> years to install GPS in all cars so that emergency officials can
> easily find incapacitated accident victims.
>
> "When you are telling someone it is for their own good, then it should
> be their own choice, they should be able to say ‘no,’" said professor
> Yale Kamisar of the University of Michigan Law School. "None of these
> things work out the way they are supposed to. Why should we believe
> all of these assurances when they haven’t been honored in the past?"

MoPar Man wrote:

> This is either a step towards (or practically is) self incrimination,
> combined with illegal search and seizure.
>
> There is no reason for data recorders in cars other than to use as
> evidence against a driver in an accident. Are these black boxes even
> accurate during a collision - where G forces and wheel slippage
> provide no absolute indication of what a car may really be doing
> during an emergency situation? Let alone equipped for the high
> sampling rates needed.
>
> Shouldn't these data recording systems be certified in order to even
> be considered as sources of evidenciary data?
>
> This is tantamount to being forced to drive with a forward-facing
> camera mounted in the back seat, recording everything you do.
>
> The driver should have the ability to turn the data recording mode on
> or off. This works both ways. Anyone who turns the data recording
> off will not therefor have any data that could be used against him -
> but by the same token he won't have any data that could be used to
> defend him either. Every driver should have the right to that choice.
>
> An example of the mis-use of information is the fact that (apparently)
> some (many? most?) US states require a fingerprint as part of getting
> a drivers license. This seems to have lead (a few months ago) to a
> Seattle laywer being arrested for having something to do with the
> train bombings in Spain. For reasons that I've never heard explained,
> they claimed that fingerprints found on a shopping bag in one of the
> trains matched his. How they had his fingerprints was never explained
> - presumably because they are required when getting a drivers license?
>
> ------------------------------
>
> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,132056,00.html
>
> Privacy Experts Shun Black Boxes
> Friday, September 10, 2004
> By Kelley Beaucar Vlahos
>
> •NTSB Wants Black Boxes in Passenger Vehicles
> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,127945,00.html
>
> •Evidence From Black Boxes in Cars Turns Up in Courts
> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,90673,00.html
>
> WASHINGTON — Some safety and privacy experts are reacting with
> apprehension, others with all out condemnation over a recent ruling by
> the National Transportation Safety Board to require electronic data
> recorders or "black boxes" in all new cars manufactured in the United
> States.
>
> "I take offense that this personal property of individuals is now
> being designed by the federal government," said Jim Harper, privacy
> attorney and editor of Privacilla.org.
>
> Black boxes (search), or "EDRs" have been fitted into every General
> Motors car in its 2004 line and is in a number of Ford models — about
> 15 percent of all vehicles on the road today, according to road safety
> experts.
>
> EDRs are certainly not new. Information gathered on black boxes —
> typically everything from speed, brake pressure, seat belt use and air
> bag deployment — has already been used in determining guilt in
> criminal and civil cases across the country.
>
> Proponents, including the NTSB and road safety advocates, say the data
> collected on these black boxes is valuable for studying how accidents
> happen and how to make roads and cars safer. EDR data has been used
> for years to fine tune air bag efficiency.
>
> "We think for understanding the dynamics of crashes, the information
> here can be very, very helpful," said Lon Anderson, director of AAA
> Mid-Atlantic. On the other hand, Anderson said, "We think it would be
> very wrong if the data in these boxes was deemed to be public
> information, open to anybody and the owner had no say over it."
>
> The NTSB recommended in early August that black boxes be mandated, but
> critics say dealers are not now required to alert car owners that
> their car has the ability to collect the information. Currently only
> California has a law requiring car dealers to notify buyers when their
> cars are outfitted with an EDR.
>
> Owners also have no legal protections to keep them from being forced
> to hand over that information to another party if a court order
> demanded it.
>
> "I think (owners) have to be told of whatever data there is — and what
> is being retained longterm. What are the storage conditions? Will
> they keep it confidential or will they have to release information to
> anybody?" said professor John Soma, director of the Privacy Center
> (search) at Denver University.
>
> "Without all of these concerns written into it, then obviously the
> recommendation is completely unacceptable," he said.
>
> According to Joe Osterman, director of highway safety at the NTSB, the
> recommendation was inspired in part by a tragic auto accident
> involving a 86-year-old man who drove his car into a crowded Santa
> Monica farmers’ market last summer, killing 10 and injuring 63.
>
> Osterman said a black box in the car might have not saved the people
> in the crash, but would have allowed investigators to find out how it
> happened and how cars could be better designed to reduce the
> likelihood of greater injury in the future.
>
> "We have a long history of using data recorders in other modes of
> transportation and found them extremely useful," Osterman told
> FOXNews.com, pointing to aircraft. "Unless we have all vehicles
> equipped, you will not have a true picture of what is happening on the
> highways, in a broader sense."
>
> Phil Haseline, president of the Automobile Coalition for Traffic
> Safety, which represents car manufacturers, said automakers are still
> debating the value of EDRs, and the idea of requiring them. Haseline
> said he is a proponent of black boxes but has certain reservations
> about the NTSB’s recommendation.
>
> He, like others, said he would like to first see standardization of
> the type of data collected in the black boxes, much like a
> recommendation made in June by the National Highway Traffic Safety
> Administration. Right now, dueling technologies record different
> things.
>
> Then, Haseline said, he would prefer that laws address the issue of a
> car owner’s knowledge of the EDRs in their vehicles, and that car
> owners have ownership of the data once its recorded.
>
> "I can understand [NTSB's desire] to have this information, but from a
> practical perspective, it is premature at this point to require it,"
> he said.
>
> While privacy experts say jokes like "'big brother' is riding shotgun"
> aren’t funny, the technology already is being used to monitor certain
> drivers.
>
> Global positioning systems are being used by car rental companies to
> track where renters are going and how fast they are driving. GPS also
> allows rental car companies to shut off the engine of a car and lock a
> renter out of it. It’s the same technology used by OnStar, which
> promises to be a guardian angel for car owners who are locked out or
> report a vehicle stolen.
>
> Parents of teenagers have also begun to use black boxes marketed by
> Road Safety International in Thousand Oaks, Calif. This item, which
> can be placed under the hood, is able to track the driver’s use of a
> seatbelt, excessive speed, hard cornering, braking and even unsafe
> backing, and can store hours of information for review later.
>
> Privacy experts warn that once cars are outfitted for the most limited
> data recording, the government will find a way to argue it’s for
> drivers’ "own good" to collect more. They point to a push in recent
> years to install GPS in all cars so that emergency officials can
> easily find incapacitated accident victims.
>
> "When you are telling someone it is for their own good, then it should
> be their own choice, they should be able to say ‘no,’" said professor
> Yale Kamisar of the University of Michigan Law School. "None of these
> things work out the way they are supposed to. Why should we believe
> all of these assurances when they haven’t been honored in the past?"

it is already in gm cars inside the airbag modules but only gm staff can
access not any dealer people of such as i was told

MoPar Man wrote:

> This is either a step towards (or practically is) self incrimination,
> combined with illegal search and seizure.
>
> There is no reason for data recorders in cars other than to use as
> evidence against a driver in an accident. Are these black boxes even
> accurate during a collision - where G forces and wheel slippage
> provide no absolute indication of what a car may really be doing
> during an emergency situation? Let alone equipped for the high
> sampling rates needed.
>
> Shouldn't these data recording systems be certified in order to even
> be considered as sources of evidenciary data?
>
> This is tantamount to being forced to drive with a forward-facing
> camera mounted in the back seat, recording everything you do.
>
> The driver should have the ability to turn the data recording mode on
> or off. This works both ways. Anyone who turns the data recording
> off will not therefor have any data that could be used against him -
> but by the same token he won't have any data that could be used to
> defend him either. Every driver should have the right to that choice.
>
> An example of the mis-use of information is the fact that (apparently)
> some (many? most?) US states require a fingerprint as part of getting
> a drivers license. This seems to have lead (a few months ago) to a
> Seattle laywer being arrested for having something to do with the
> train bombings in Spain. For reasons that I've never heard explained,
> they claimed that fingerprints found on a shopping bag in one of the
> trains matched his. How they had his fingerprints was never explained
> - presumably because they are required when getting a drivers license?
>
> ------------------------------
>
> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,132056,00.html
>
> Privacy Experts Shun Black Boxes
> Friday, September 10, 2004
> By Kelley Beaucar Vlahos
>
> •NTSB Wants Black Boxes in Passenger Vehicles
> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,127945,00.html
>
> •Evidence From Black Boxes in Cars Turns Up in Courts
> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,90673,00.html
>
> WASHINGTON — Some safety and privacy experts are reacting with
> apprehension, others with all out condemnation over a recent ruling by
> the National Transportation Safety Board to require electronic data
> recorders or "black boxes" in all new cars manufactured in the United
> States.
>
> "I take offense that this personal property of individuals is now
> being designed by the federal government," said Jim Harper, privacy
> attorney and editor of Privacilla.org.
>
> Black boxes (search), or "EDRs" have been fitted into every General
> Motors car in its 2004 line and is in a number of Ford models — about
> 15 percent of all vehicles on the road today, according to road safety
> experts.
>
> EDRs are certainly not new. Information gathered on black boxes —
> typically everything from speed, brake pressure, seat belt use and air
> bag deployment — has already been used in determining guilt in
> criminal and civil cases across the country.
>
> Proponents, including the NTSB and road safety advocates, say the data
> collected on these black boxes is valuable for studying how accidents
> happen and how to make roads and cars safer. EDR data has been used
> for years to fine tune air bag efficiency.
>
> "We think for understanding the dynamics of crashes, the information
> here can be very, very helpful," said Lon Anderson, director of AAA
> Mid-Atlantic. On the other hand, Anderson said, "We think it would be
> very wrong if the data in these boxes was deemed to be public
> information, open to anybody and the owner had no say over it."
>
> The NTSB recommended in early August that black boxes be mandated, but
> critics say dealers are not now required to alert car owners that
> their car has the ability to collect the information. Currently only
> California has a law requiring car dealers to notify buyers when their
> cars are outfitted with an EDR.
>
> Owners also have no legal protections to keep them from being forced
> to hand over that information to another party if a court order
> demanded it.
>
> "I think (owners) have to be told of whatever data there is — and what
> is being retained longterm. What are the storage conditions? Will
> they keep it confidential or will they have to release information to
> anybody?" said professor John Soma, director of the Privacy Center
> (search) at Denver University.
>
> "Without all of these concerns written into it, then obviously the
> recommendation is completely unacceptable," he said.
>
> According to Joe Osterman, director of highway safety at the NTSB, the
> recommendation was inspired in part by a tragic auto accident
> involving a 86-year-old man who drove his car into a crowded Santa
> Monica farmers’ market last summer, killing 10 and injuring 63.
>
> Osterman said a black box in the car might have not saved the people
> in the crash, but would have allowed investigators to find out how it
> happened and how cars could be better designed to reduce the
> likelihood of greater injury in the future.
>
> "We have a long history of using data recorders in other modes of
> transportation and found them extremely useful," Osterman told
> FOXNews.com, pointing to aircraft. "Unless we have all vehicles
> equipped, you will not have a true picture of what is happening on the
> highways, in a broader sense."
>
> Phil Haseline, president of the Automobile Coalition for Traffic
> Safety, which represents car manufacturers, said automakers are still
> debating the value of EDRs, and the idea of requiring them. Haseline
> said he is a proponent of black boxes but has certain reservations
> about the NTSB’s recommendation.
>
> He, like others, said he would like to first see standardization of
> the type of data collected in the black boxes, much like a
> recommendation made in June by the National Highway Traffic Safety
> Administration. Right now, dueling technologies record different
> things.
>
> Then, Haseline said, he would prefer that laws address the issue of a
> car owner’s knowledge of the EDRs in their vehicles, and that car
> owners have ownership of the data once its recorded.
>
> "I can understand [NTSB's desire] to have this information, but from a
> practical perspective, it is premature at this point to require it,"
> he said.
>
> While privacy experts say jokes like "'big brother' is riding shotgun"
> aren’t funny, the technology already is being used to monitor certain
> drivers.
>
> Global positioning systems are being used by car rental companies to
> track where renters are going and how fast they are driving. GPS also
> allows rental car companies to shut off the engine of a car and lock a
> renter out of it. It’s the same technology used by OnStar, which
> promises to be a guardian angel for car owners who are locked out or
> report a vehicle stolen.
>
> Parents of teenagers have also begun to use black boxes marketed by
> Road Safety International in Thousand Oaks, Calif. This item, which
> can be placed under the hood, is able to track the driver’s use of a
> seatbelt, excessive speed, hard cornering, braking and even unsafe
> backing, and can store hours of information for review later.
>
> Privacy experts warn that once cars are outfitted for the most limited
> data recording, the government will find a way to argue it’s for
> drivers’ "own good" to collect more. They point to a push in recent
> years to install GPS in all cars so that emergency officials can
> easily find incapacitated accident victims.
>
> "When you are telling someone it is for their own good, then it should
> be their own choice, they should be able to say ‘no,’" said professor
> Yale Kamisar of the University of Michigan Law School. "None of these
> things work out the way they are supposed to. Why should we believe
> all of these assurances when they haven’t been honored in the past?"

MoPar Man wrote:

> This is either a step towards (or practically is) self incrimination,
> combined with illegal search and seizure.
>
> There is no reason for data recorders in cars other than to use as
> evidence against a driver in an accident. Are these black boxes even
> accurate during a collision - where G forces and wheel slippage
> provide no absolute indication of what a car may really be doing
> during an emergency situation? Let alone equipped for the high
> sampling rates needed.
>
> Shouldn't these data recording systems be certified in order to even
> be considered as sources of evidenciary data?
>
> This is tantamount to being forced to drive with a forward-facing
> camera mounted in the back seat, recording everything you do.
>
> The driver should have the ability to turn the data recording mode on
> or off. This works both ways. Anyone who turns the data recording
> off will not therefor have any data that could be used against him -
> but by the same token he won't have any data that could be used to
> defend him either. Every driver should have the right to that choice.
>
> An example of the mis-use of information is the fact that (apparently)
> some (many? most?) US states require a fingerprint as part of getting
> a drivers license. This seems to have lead (a few months ago) to a
> Seattle laywer being arrested for having something to do with the
> train bombings in Spain. For reasons that I've never heard explained,
> they claimed that fingerprints found on a shopping bag in one of the
> trains matched his. How they had his fingerprints was never explained
> - presumably because they are required when getting a drivers license?
>
> ------------------------------
>
> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,132056,00.html
>
> Privacy Experts Shun Black Boxes
> Friday, September 10, 2004
> By Kelley Beaucar Vlahos
>
> •NTSB Wants Black Boxes in Passenger Vehicles
> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,127945,00.html
>
> •Evidence From Black Boxes in Cars Turns Up in Courts
> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,90673,00.html
>
> WASHINGTON — Some safety and privacy experts are reacting with
> apprehension, others with all out condemnation over a recent ruling by
> the National Transportation Safety Board to require electronic data
> recorders or "black boxes" in all new cars manufactured in the United
> States.
>
> "I take offense that this personal property of individuals is now
> being designed by the federal government," said Jim Harper, privacy
> attorney and editor of Privacilla.org.
>
> Black boxes (search), or "EDRs" have been fitted into every General
> Motors car in its 2004 line and is in a number of Ford models — about
> 15 percent of all vehicles on the road today, according to road safety
> experts.
>
> EDRs are certainly not new. Information gathered on black boxes —
> typically everything from speed, brake pressure, seat belt use and air
> bag deployment — has already been used in determining guilt in
> criminal and civil cases across the country.
>
> Proponents, including the NTSB and road safety advocates, say the data
> collected on these black boxes is valuable for studying how accidents
> happen and how to make roads and cars safer. EDR data has been used
> for years to fine tune air bag efficiency.
>
> "We think for understanding the dynamics of crashes, the information
> here can be very, very helpful," said Lon Anderson, director of AAA
> Mid-Atlantic. On the other hand, Anderson said, "We think it would be
> very wrong if the data in these boxes was deemed to be public
> information, open to anybody and the owner had no say over it."
>
> The NTSB recommended in early August that black boxes be mandated, but
> critics say dealers are not now required to alert car owners that
> their car has the ability to collect the information. Currently only
> California has a law requiring car dealers to notify buyers when their
> cars are outfitted with an EDR.
>
> Owners also have no legal protections to keep them from being forced
> to hand over that information to another party if a court order
> demanded it.
>
> "I think (owners) have to be told of whatever data there is — and what
> is being retained longterm. What are the storage conditions? Will
> they keep it confidential or will they have to release information to
> anybody?" said professor John Soma, director of the Privacy Center
> (search) at Denver University.
>
> "Without all of these concerns written into it, then obviously the
> recommendation is completely unacceptable," he said.
>
> According to Joe Osterman, director of highway safety at the NTSB, the
> recommendation was inspired in part by a tragic auto accident
> involving a 86-year-old man who drove his car into a crowded Santa
> Monica farmers’ market last summer, killing 10 and injuring 63.
>
> Osterman said a black box in the car might have not saved the people
> in the crash, but would have allowed investigators to find out how it
> happened and how cars could be better designed to reduce the
> likelihood of greater injury in the future.
>
> "We have a long history of using data recorders in other modes of
> transportation and found them extremely useful," Osterman told
> FOXNews.com, pointing to aircraft. "Unless we have all vehicles
> equipped, you will not have a true picture of what is happening on the
> highways, in a broader sense."
>
> Phil Haseline, president of the Automobile Coalition for Traffic
> Safety, which represents car manufacturers, said automakers are still
> debating the value of EDRs, and the idea of requiring them. Haseline
> said he is a proponent of black boxes but has certain reservations
> about the NTSB’s recommendation.
>
> He, like others, said he would like to first see standardization of
> the type of data collected in the black boxes, much like a
> recommendation made in June by the National Highway Traffic Safety
> Administration. Right now, dueling technologies record different
> things.
>
> Then, Haseline said, he would prefer that laws address the issue of a
> car owner’s knowledge of the EDRs in their vehicles, and that car
> owners have ownership of the data once its recorded.
>
> "I can understand [NTSB's desire] to have this information, but from a
> practical perspective, it is premature at this point to require it,"
> he said.
>
> While privacy experts say jokes like "'big brother' is riding shotgun"
> aren’t funny, the technology already is being used to monitor certain
> drivers.
>
> Global positioning systems are being used by car rental companies to
> track where renters are going and how fast they are driving. GPS also
> allows rental car companies to shut off the engine of a car and lock a
> renter out of it. It’s the same technology used by OnStar, which
> promises to be a guardian angel for car owners who are locked out or
> report a vehicle stolen.
>
> Parents of teenagers have also begun to use black boxes marketed by
> Road Safety International in Thousand Oaks, Calif. This item, which
> can be placed under the hood, is able to track the driver’s use of a
> seatbelt, excessive speed, hard cornering, braking and even unsafe
> backing, and can store hours of information for review later.
>
> Privacy experts warn that once cars are outfitted for the most limited
> data recording, the government will find a way to argue it’s for
> drivers’ "own good" to collect more. They point to a push in recent
> years to install GPS in all cars so that emergency officials can
> easily find incapacitated accident victims.
>
> "When you are telling someone it is for their own good, then it should
> be their own choice, they should be able to say ‘no,’" said professor
> Yale Kamisar of the University of Michigan Law School. "None of these
> things work out the way they are supposed to. Why should we believe
> all of these assurances when they haven’t been honored in the past?"

"MoPar Man" > wrote in message
...
> This is either a step towards (or practically is) self incrimination,
> combined with illegal search and seizure.
>

No, not at all.

> 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.

Let me guess, you are an advocate of removing black boxes from
airplanes.

So, have you bothered to ever READ the 4th and 5th amendments?

> Are these black boxes even
> accurate during a collision - where G forces and wheel slippage
> provide no absolute indication of what a car may really be doing
> during an emergency situation?

No, not during a collision. But before one, yes. If someone smacks into
another car it would be useful to know if they were speeding.

> Let alone equipped for the high
> sampling rates needed.
>

Modern computers, even cheap ones, can sample far quicker than what
is needed.

> Shouldn't these data recording systems be certified in order to even
> be considered as sources of evidenciary data?
>

Yes and no. A lot of this really depends on the court case.

Assume for example that driver A hits and kills a pedestrian. The
driver argues that he was going the speed limit, and the pedestrian
jumped out in front of him. Two witnesses to the accident state
the driver was speeding and the pedestrian didn't jump out in
front.

In this case the DA has no choice but to file charges of manslaughter
and let the subsequent court case sort it out.

If the driver had a black box in the car, and was positive that he
wasn't speeding, he would sign over his rights against self-incrimination
and let the DA examine the black box. If the black box said that the driver
wasn't speeding, the DA would know that even if he pressed
manslaughter charges, he would lose the case, and so he wouldn't
press charges, thus saving the driver a lot of grief, and the court
system a lot of money.

If the driver had a black box in the car and WASN'T positive
he was speeding, he would simply refuse to allow it to be
searched. In that case the DA can still search it - and use the
evidence to decide to file manslaughter charges - but the evidence
wouldn't be admissible in the following trial, and the driver would
have the same chance of getting off as without a black box. And
if the DA were to mention it during trial, that would be an immediate
mistrial and the DA could be disbarred.

> This is tantamount to being forced to drive with a forward-facing
> camera mounted in the back seat, recording everything you do.
>
> The driver should have the ability to turn the data recording mode on
> or off. This works both ways. Anyone who turns the data recording
> off will not therefor have any data that could be used against him -
> but by the same token he won't have any data that could be used to
> defend him either. Every driver should have the right to that choice.
>

OK let's give airplane pilots that right too.

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. My right to require you to have a data
recorder is equal to your right to not have to have one. So where
does that leave us?

Well, let me explain it. First, read the 5th amendment. To put it
simply, a black box in a vehicle that YOU are driving is collecting
evidence, AKA witness, on YOUR behalf. Legally it is exactly
the same as if you were writing down all that data into a notebook
that you have next to you, at very high speed. After all you own
the black box, not the owners of the airplane.

In a court case, if I demand you hand over the black box data
and you know for a fact that that black box data is incriminating
against yourself, then your lawyer will call for a trial halt, demand
the jury leave, and when they have filed out you can simply invoke
the Fifth Amendment and that is the end of it. When the jury comes
back the judge will simply state that the black box data is unavailable.

In fact if you had a really good lawyer, he might not even bother to
do that, but simply say that we are sorry but there is no data
available from the black box, then refuse to answer any further
questions along those lines. Legally it would be correct for him
to say that even though it would give the impression to the jury
that the black box was smashed, which is a lie.

In any case, this kind of thing is generally handled pre-trial when
each side requests evidence from the other.

Ted