Article that will be of interest to many
08-21-2006, 06:37 PM
#4
CL Expert
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Little Rock, Ar USA
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have absolutely no problem with this....
EDR's will provide more info about crashes and perhaps why they occur. And I see that they will spawn new or more advanced safety systems in the future.
For example, take a look at Brake Assist. This feature was born because research showed that drivers tended not to brake hard enough (or even reduced brake pressure) before an accident. Engineers went to the drawing board and designed a system that would largely negate this error. Very nice.
The EDR's will provide even more data about crashes, the way we drive, common errors and will prove to be an invaluable tool in designing new features. Who knows what trends (driver practices) the EDR's will help to uncover and what new Electronic aids will be implemented to correct them. I look forward to the new features that result from the use of EDR's!
That being said, I am the type who loves electronics, features, and technology. I wouldn't even consider purchasing a car without SRS, ABS, EBD, VSA, TCS, and Brake Assist. So a few more sensors and electronic systems is a plus for me. So, an Event Data Recorder is most welcome in any vehicle that I may own or drive.
EDR's will provide more info about crashes and perhaps why they occur. And I see that they will spawn new or more advanced safety systems in the future.
For example, take a look at Brake Assist. This feature was born because research showed that drivers tended not to brake hard enough (or even reduced brake pressure) before an accident. Engineers went to the drawing board and designed a system that would largely negate this error. Very nice.
The EDR's will provide even more data about crashes, the way we drive, common errors and will prove to be an invaluable tool in designing new features. Who knows what trends (driver practices) the EDR's will help to uncover and what new Electronic aids will be implemented to correct them. I look forward to the new features that result from the use of EDR's!
That being said, I am the type who loves electronics, features, and technology. I wouldn't even consider purchasing a car without SRS, ABS, EBD, VSA, TCS, and Brake Assist. So a few more sensors and electronic systems is a plus for me. So, an Event Data Recorder is most welcome in any vehicle that I may own or drive.
08-21-2006, 07:46 PM
#5
Senior Moderator
Invasion of my privacy
08-21-2006, 09:15 PM
#6
checkmate...
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Red Stick, LA Chocolate City, LA
Age: 43
Posts: 1,422
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who foots the bill for this?
How much does it cost?
In a performance standpoint, how much of a weight and space penalty is incurred?
There better be a lifetime warranty for the system, because I for one wouldn't spend a dime for any repairs.
I believe in functionality. Whatever comes on or in a car should serve a direct purpose, either to the operation, safety, or aesthetics of the car. These boxes don't.
In that view, why would I justify spending money on something that I won't get any benefit from?
Yea, in an accident not of your doing, the data along with your testimony, could help prove your case. But what if the data is misinterpreted? It could also screw you in court. It's your @$$ against your own black box.
When it comes to auto accident research, whoever is behind this EDR deployment, NHTSA or *cough* insurance companies *cough*, they need to carry out their research on their own money on their own rides, not mine.
How much does it cost?
In a performance standpoint, how much of a weight and space penalty is incurred?
There better be a lifetime warranty for the system, because I for one wouldn't spend a dime for any repairs.
I believe in functionality. Whatever comes on or in a car should serve a direct purpose, either to the operation, safety, or aesthetics of the car. These boxes don't.
In that view, why would I justify spending money on something that I won't get any benefit from?
Yea, in an accident not of your doing, the data along with your testimony, could help prove your case. But what if the data is misinterpreted? It could also screw you in court. It's your @$$ against your own black box.
When it comes to auto accident research, whoever is behind this EDR deployment, NHTSA or *cough* insurance companies *cough*, they need to carry out their research on their own money on their own rides, not mine.
08-21-2006, 10:49 PM
#7
WDP Director of R & D
Sure, some things "are" private and should stay that way, but all of the mooooooning about "invasion of privacy" now days is a joke...
Big picture, the "cost" whether monetary or personal, is far less than the benefits of the programs taking place. EDR's are no different. This will benefit way more people than it will hinder.
Bottom line, if you're that adamant about possible privacy invasion issues,,,,, think about it, you must be guilty or worried about getting tagged for something..
Just my opinion
Bring it on...... The more "data" the better!
Big picture, the "cost" whether monetary or personal, is far less than the benefits of the programs taking place. EDR's are no different. This will benefit way more people than it will hinder.
Bottom line, if you're that adamant about possible privacy invasion issues,,,,, think about it, you must be guilty or worried about getting tagged for something..
Just my opinion
Bring it on...... The more "data" the better!
Trending Topics
08-21-2006, 11:37 PM
#8
Originally Posted by Glenn Davis
I have absolutely no problem with this....
EDR's will provide more info about crashes and perhaps why they occur. And I see that they will spawn new or more advanced safety systems in the future.
For example, take a look at Brake Assist. This feature was born because research showed that drivers tended not to brake hard enough (or even reduced brake pressure) before an accident. Engineers went to the drawing board and designed a system that would largely negate this error. Very nice.
The EDR's will provide even more data about crashes, the way we drive, common errors and will prove to be an invaluable tool in designing new features. Who knows what trends (driver practices) the EDR's will help to uncover and what new Electronic aids will be implemented to correct them. I look forward to the new features that result from the use of EDR's!
That being said, I am the type who loves electronics, features, and technology. I wouldn't even consider purchasing a car without SRS, ABS, EBD, VSA, TCS, and Brake Assist. So a few more sensors and electronic systems is a plus for me. So, an Event Data Recorder is most welcome in any vehicle that I may own or drive.
EDR's will provide more info about crashes and perhaps why they occur. And I see that they will spawn new or more advanced safety systems in the future.
For example, take a look at Brake Assist. This feature was born because research showed that drivers tended not to brake hard enough (or even reduced brake pressure) before an accident. Engineers went to the drawing board and designed a system that would largely negate this error. Very nice.
The EDR's will provide even more data about crashes, the way we drive, common errors and will prove to be an invaluable tool in designing new features. Who knows what trends (driver practices) the EDR's will help to uncover and what new Electronic aids will be implemented to correct them. I look forward to the new features that result from the use of EDR's!
That being said, I am the type who loves electronics, features, and technology. I wouldn't even consider purchasing a car without SRS, ABS, EBD, VSA, TCS, and Brake Assist. So a few more sensors and electronic systems is a plus for me. So, an Event Data Recorder is most welcome in any vehicle that I may own or drive.
As for the topic on hand, data from the EDRs can and are used in the court. I do not want something or somebody watching and recording me how I drive, and using it against me later on. Like fsttyms1 said, it is an invasion of privacy. How would you like it if I sat in your backseat and recorded your driving habit? There's no difference.
The Constitution is having less and less meaning by the day in this country, I swear. If the EDR was for research purpose only, then I would be all for it. In fact, GM started it purely for R&D purposes. But the lawn enforcement started using it as evidence, and that's what I'm not happy with. Next thing we know, navigation system will be mandatory because people are too fucking stupid to know where they are going, and the government will start using it to track everyone. Let's just skip that step and go directly to the computer chip transplanted in our foreheads.
08-21-2006, 11:45 PM
#9
Senior Moderator
Regions Leader
Regions Leader
Originally Posted by Pure Adrenaline
Is it so hard to check your tire pressure on a regular basis? Apparently so, because people are stupid.
thats great!
08-21-2006, 11:59 PM
#10
checkmate...
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Red Stick, LA Chocolate City, LA
Age: 43
Posts: 1,422
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Forget speed trap cameras. Just wirelessly transmit speed readings in excess of 1 MPH over the local speed limit (using GPS with the built-in nav) to the local law enforcement. Then automatically generate a speeding ticket and mail it to the registered car owner's address.
I do see where it benefits everyone! No need to hire state troopers and court clerks. On the state level, just think of the savings. Less payroll and more traffic citation income. Genius!
I do see where it benefits everyone! No need to hire state troopers and court clerks. On the state level, just think of the savings. Less payroll and more traffic citation income. Genius!
08-22-2006, 12:38 AM
#12
Gratis dictum
Originally Posted by coykiam
since its in my car...does this mean i can remove it ???
08-22-2006, 05:42 AM
#13
Racer
Thread Starter
I knew this would cause an uproar.
Some have rational reactions to this issue, some do not. I wonder if all of the people complaining about "invasion of privacy" would also feel that way if they were in an accident and the EDR could exonerate them or, even better, prove someone else was at fault. They might feel differently then. Like anything else, it can be used for good or for bad - depending on which side of the data you're on.
And what is with the "invasion of privacy" anyway? Is there really an expectation of privacy while driving on public roads? I've never heard a pilot (I know a few) talk about taking the black box out of his plane and throwing it out on the tarmac.
The cost is negligible as it is spread over so many vehicles. Weight penalty? It's probably under a pound or two. It's surely less than the huge amps and subs many people put in their cars.
They may not serve a purpse that you can see on a daily basis. But if the information gathered from them can be used to help develop better safety systems to keep my wife and kids safe, as Glenn Davis points out, I'm all for it.
The only reason to really be upset is if one knows that they can be caught doing something they shouldn't be doing. Maybe they just shouldn't do whatever that is. Many people think that they have the right to do whatever they want. They drive 150MPH because "It's none of anyone's business, I can do what I want." Well, no you can't. We have laws. Driving is a priviledge, not a right. If you don't want to follow the rules you don't have to drive.
End rant.
Bottom line is the boxes are there, and they can be used. Everyuone has a right to know it's there and can make their purchasing decision accordingly. That's the way it should be.
Some have rational reactions to this issue, some do not. I wonder if all of the people complaining about "invasion of privacy" would also feel that way if they were in an accident and the EDR could exonerate them or, even better, prove someone else was at fault. They might feel differently then. Like anything else, it can be used for good or for bad - depending on which side of the data you're on.
And what is with the "invasion of privacy" anyway? Is there really an expectation of privacy while driving on public roads? I've never heard a pilot (I know a few) talk about taking the black box out of his plane and throwing it out on the tarmac.
The cost is negligible as it is spread over so many vehicles. Weight penalty? It's probably under a pound or two. It's surely less than the huge amps and subs many people put in their cars.
Originally Posted by mr.motoring
I believe in functionality. Whatever comes on or in a car should serve a direct purpose, either to the operation, safety, or aesthetics of the car. These boxes don't.
The only reason to really be upset is if one knows that they can be caught doing something they shouldn't be doing. Maybe they just shouldn't do whatever that is. Many people think that they have the right to do whatever they want. They drive 150MPH because "It's none of anyone's business, I can do what I want." Well, no you can't. We have laws. Driving is a priviledge, not a right. If you don't want to follow the rules you don't have to drive.
End rant.
Bottom line is the boxes are there, and they can be used. Everyuone has a right to know it's there and can make their purchasing decision accordingly. That's the way it should be.
08-22-2006, 06:13 AM
#14
Well said...
I think the media has spun this "invasion of privacy issue" completely out of control. There's nothing "PRIVATE" about driving your car erratically on a "PUBLIC" road. If you're concerned the box may incriminate you for street racing, perhaps you shouldn't street race. If your insurance adjuster finds your car was at 110 mph 3 seconds before the car crashed, and wishes to not honor your insurance claim, perhaps you should use a different, higher risk insurance company.
The counter to this arguement is that with the introduction of EDR, at what point will the government "govern" our driving as to limit speed and such. I argue that technology existed way before EDR we're installed, and we still have 160 mph on our speedo's.
I think the media has spun this "invasion of privacy issue" completely out of control. There's nothing "PRIVATE" about driving your car erratically on a "PUBLIC" road. If you're concerned the box may incriminate you for street racing, perhaps you shouldn't street race. If your insurance adjuster finds your car was at 110 mph 3 seconds before the car crashed, and wishes to not honor your insurance claim, perhaps you should use a different, higher risk insurance company.
The counter to this arguement is that with the introduction of EDR, at what point will the government "govern" our driving as to limit speed and such. I argue that technology existed way before EDR we're installed, and we still have 160 mph on our speedo's.
Originally Posted by SpecialFX
I knew this would cause an uproar.
Some have rational reactions to this issue, some do not. I wonder if all of the people complaining about "invasion of privacy" would also feel that way if they were in an accident and the EDR could exonerate them or, even better, prove someone else was at fault. They might feel differently then. Like anything else, it can be used for good or for bad - depending on which side of the data you're on.
And what is with the "invasion of privacy" anyway? Is there really an expectation of privacy while driving on public roads? I've never heard a pilot (I know a few) talk about taking the black box out of his plane and throwing it out on the tarmac.
The cost is negligible as it is spread over so many vehicles. Weight penalty? It's probably under a pound or two. It's surely less than the huge amps and subs many people put in their cars.
They may not serve a purpse that you can see on a daily basis. But if the information gathered from them can be used to help develop better safety systems to keep my wife and kids safe, as Glenn Davis points out, I'm all for it.
The only reason to really be upset is if one knows that they can be caught doing something they shouldn't be doing. Maybe they just shouldn't do whatever that is. Many people think that they have the right to do whatever they want. They drive 150MPH because "It's none of anyone's business, I can do what I want." Well, no you can't. We have laws. Driving is a priviledge, not a right. If you don't want to follow the rules you don't have to drive.
End rant.
Bottom line is the boxes are there, and they can be used. Everyuone has a right to know it's there and can make their purchasing decision accordingly. That's the way it should be.
Some have rational reactions to this issue, some do not. I wonder if all of the people complaining about "invasion of privacy" would also feel that way if they were in an accident and the EDR could exonerate them or, even better, prove someone else was at fault. They might feel differently then. Like anything else, it can be used for good or for bad - depending on which side of the data you're on.
And what is with the "invasion of privacy" anyway? Is there really an expectation of privacy while driving on public roads? I've never heard a pilot (I know a few) talk about taking the black box out of his plane and throwing it out on the tarmac.
The cost is negligible as it is spread over so many vehicles. Weight penalty? It's probably under a pound or two. It's surely less than the huge amps and subs many people put in their cars.
They may not serve a purpse that you can see on a daily basis. But if the information gathered from them can be used to help develop better safety systems to keep my wife and kids safe, as Glenn Davis points out, I'm all for it.
The only reason to really be upset is if one knows that they can be caught doing something they shouldn't be doing. Maybe they just shouldn't do whatever that is. Many people think that they have the right to do whatever they want. They drive 150MPH because "It's none of anyone's business, I can do what I want." Well, no you can't. We have laws. Driving is a priviledge, not a right. If you don't want to follow the rules you don't have to drive.
End rant.
Bottom line is the boxes are there, and they can be used. Everyuone has a right to know it's there and can make their purchasing decision accordingly. That's the way it should be.
08-22-2006, 08:19 AM
#15
Advanced
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Central New Jersey
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wonder if the car manufactures are doing this more to see what the drivers are doing to there cars for warranty repair reasons.
By that I mean they want to see who is abusing the cars. Things like over revving the engines, burning out transmissions in the snow, modifying your cars engine, driving like $hit, etc.
By that I mean they want to see who is abusing the cars. Things like over revving the engines, burning out transmissions in the snow, modifying your cars engine, driving like $hit, etc.
08-22-2006, 08:57 AM
#16
Kennedy and SpecialFX --
I can see you are proponents of becoming government drones. It is an invasion of our privacy, because for me, inside of my car is my own space. I will not allow a piece of equipment to track my movement. It's no different than having a government agent sit in the backseat and write down my movements.
It's not that I'm really scared about the law enforcement finding about how fast I was going prior to an accident. That technology already exists through accident reconstruction. Sure, the EDR will help pinpoint the exact speed, but hell, why stop there? Let's use our navigation systems to actually record where we go, when and how fast. Why stop at cars? Let's just implant locator beacons in our bodies. Bottom line is that passive technology like accident reconstruction is acceptable, but active technology that let the government spy on people is not. That's like the government putting you on probation and watching you before you commit a crime.
There's a fine line between R&D and invasion of privacy/government intrusion. I have nothing against the EDR being used for research purposes, but that's not the case here. I have several friends who are mechanics, and I've never heard of a case where they were actually required to download the EDR data and send it to the manufacturer. So you can see where I'm coming from when I say that EDR seems to be used more for spying on drivers.
I can see you are proponents of becoming government drones. It is an invasion of our privacy, because for me, inside of my car is my own space. I will not allow a piece of equipment to track my movement. It's no different than having a government agent sit in the backseat and write down my movements.
It's not that I'm really scared about the law enforcement finding about how fast I was going prior to an accident. That technology already exists through accident reconstruction. Sure, the EDR will help pinpoint the exact speed, but hell, why stop there? Let's use our navigation systems to actually record where we go, when and how fast. Why stop at cars? Let's just implant locator beacons in our bodies. Bottom line is that passive technology like accident reconstruction is acceptable, but active technology that let the government spy on people is not. That's like the government putting you on probation and watching you before you commit a crime.
There's a fine line between R&D and invasion of privacy/government intrusion. I have nothing against the EDR being used for research purposes, but that's not the case here. I have several friends who are mechanics, and I've never heard of a case where they were actually required to download the EDR data and send it to the manufacturer. So you can see where I'm coming from when I say that EDR seems to be used more for spying on drivers.
08-22-2006, 09:07 AM
#17
Racer
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Enfield, CT
Age: 66
Posts: 385
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can honestly say that I have to waffle on this issue. Both sides are making very good arguments regarding this. I'm just enjoying the read and waiting to see if anyone sways me one way or the other.
08-22-2006, 09:23 AM
#18
Originally Posted by Pure Adrenaline
Kennedy and SpecialFX --
- Ican see you are proponents of becoming government drones.
- I will not allow a piece of equipment to track my movement. It's no different than having a government agent sit in the backseat and write down my movements.
- Let's use our navigation systems to actually record where we go, when and how fast. Why stop at cars? Let's just implant locator beacons in our bodies. Bottom line is that passive technology like accident reconstruction is acceptable, but active technology that let the government spy on people is not. That's like the government putting you on probation and watching you before you commit a crime.
- Ican see you are proponents of becoming government drones.
- I will not allow a piece of equipment to track my movement. It's no different than having a government agent sit in the backseat and write down my movements.
- Let's use our navigation systems to actually record where we go, when and how fast. Why stop at cars? Let's just implant locator beacons in our bodies. Bottom line is that passive technology like accident reconstruction is acceptable, but active technology that let the government spy on people is not. That's like the government putting you on probation and watching you before you commit a crime.
You do realize you've already compromised your arguement by using a cellphone don't you? Do you NOT use a cellphone? Almost all modern cellphones use tracking/locating technology, and the government regularly monitors cellphone conversations for terrorist activity. Like it or not, this is the day and age we live.
I understand the civil liberties implications, but I personally am OK with this technology. All that aside, I have nothing to hide as a law abiding citizen. Please monitor my movements, my calling activity, and internet usage. If it will prevent future terrorist attack and lower my insuracne rates I'm all for it.
It's important to note that you've probably already given up the very "invasion of privacy" issue in some other form by arguing that EDR do.
My only concern is that if these measures are implemented, that proper oversight is mainytained to gain access to these records so this data is not abused.
08-22-2006, 09:25 AM
#19
Originally Posted by ALPHSTER
I wonder if the car manufactures are doing this more to see what the drivers are doing to there cars for warranty repair reasons.
By that I mean they want to see who is abusing the cars. Things like over revving the engines, burning out transmissions in the snow, modifying your cars engine, driving like $hit, etc.
By that I mean they want to see who is abusing the cars. Things like over revving the engines, burning out transmissions in the snow, modifying your cars engine, driving like $hit, etc.
08-22-2006, 09:25 AM
#20
Hey...bottom line is...if you want to be a better driver and not worry about this stuff...SEAT TIME, SEAT TIME, SEAT TIME, SEAT TIME, SEAT TIME. There is no substitute for seat time...and I mean real seat time...not that drive around on the highway and act cool type of seat time...but competitive or performance driving seat time. Get to know your car good and exactly what it does and does not do in various extreme situations and you wont have to worry about this EDR thing whatsoever as your skills will outweight any trouble you are likely to get into through avoidance. I think you will find that if you try to remove it...that it would be all but impossible and still retain the features of your car that you paid for. These systems are very integrated within the entire car itself and you would most likely lose most if not all the safety features built into the car, among others. The question has been asked who pays for this. Answer....you already did....I did....we all did when we purchased our cars. Its a good and bad thing...like most technology....there is an upside and a downside. So far as govt "riding in the back seat" and immediatly issuing tickets for exceeding the speedlimit...and doing it electronically....I would surmise at some point...we will get there too. BUT...I am sure there would be a work-around offered by Escort or something stupid.....an emulator or something that would be able to over-ride it or catch the signal or whatever. Heck...if they were using the GPS unit to transmit traffic data real time to issue citations....I am sure the answer would be some type of emulator or shield for the transmitter to either retain the signal or hide your identity somehow....
08-22-2006, 09:30 AM
#21
Originally Posted by ALPHSTER
I wonder if the car manufactures are doing this more to see what the drivers are doing to there cars for warranty repair reasons.
By that I mean they want to see who is abusing the cars. Things like over revving the engines, burning out transmissions in the snow, modifying your cars engine, driving like $hit, etc.
By that I mean they want to see who is abusing the cars. Things like over revving the engines, burning out transmissions in the snow, modifying your cars engine, driving like $hit, etc.
08-22-2006, 09:58 AM
#22
Racer
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by Pure Adrenaline
Kennedy and SpecialFX --
I can see you are proponents of becoming government drones. It is an invasion of our privacy, because for me, inside of my car is my own space. I will not allow a piece of equipment to track my movement. It's no different than having a government agent sit in the backseat and write down my movements..
I can see you are proponents of becoming government drones. It is an invasion of our privacy, because for me, inside of my car is my own space. I will not allow a piece of equipment to track my movement. It's no different than having a government agent sit in the backseat and write down my movements..
And the example of the Mitsu Evo - This is also good use of the data. If someone takes his car out and beats the crap out of it and blows it up, why should the manufacturer pay for that? This will keep costs down for me because the mfr would only pass the warranty costs on to the rest of us.
As for disabling the system, it's probably legal, but I'm sure the manufacturer will frown on it (meaning warranty issues) and since the system is tied to the airbag sensors I would be concerned with either A) firing the airbags when you do it or B) accidentally disabling the airbags completely, which you may not realize until your face smacks the windshield in a crash. No thanks.
Here's more infor from NHTSA: click
For those that tend toward the paranoid/conspiracy theory end of the spectrum do some research on active RFID tracking devices.
The possibilities are endless with that type of technology. And it's here.
08-22-2006, 09:59 AM
#23
Originally Posted by Kennedy
I kinda already am, as a former Marine Officer, and now a contractor supporting a major Federal Agency.
You do realize you've already compromised your arguement by using a cellphone don't you? Do you NOT use a cellphone? Almost all modern cellphones use tracking/locating technology, and the government regularly monitors cellphone conversations for terrorist activity. Like it or not, this is the day and age we live.
I understand the civil liberties implications, but I personally am OK with this technology. All that aside, I have nothing to hide as a law abiding citizen. Please monitor my movements, my calling activity, and internet usage. If it will prevent future terrorist attack and lower my insuracne rates I'm all for it.
It's important to note that you've probably already given up the very "invasion of privacy" issue in some other form by arguing that EDR do.
My only concern is that if these measures are implemented, that proper oversight is mainytained to gain access to these records so this data is not abused.
You do realize you've already compromised your arguement by using a cellphone don't you? Do you NOT use a cellphone? Almost all modern cellphones use tracking/locating technology, and the government regularly monitors cellphone conversations for terrorist activity. Like it or not, this is the day and age we live.
I understand the civil liberties implications, but I personally am OK with this technology. All that aside, I have nothing to hide as a law abiding citizen. Please monitor my movements, my calling activity, and internet usage. If it will prevent future terrorist attack and lower my insuracne rates I'm all for it.
It's important to note that you've probably already given up the very "invasion of privacy" issue in some other form by arguing that EDR do.
My only concern is that if these measures are implemented, that proper oversight is mainytained to gain access to these records so this data is not abused.
I do use a cell phone, but it is not used to pinpoint locations. In fact, the latest technology that will utilize the cell phone network is traffic monitoring system, which will measure the time it takes for a cell phone to be handed over from one tower to another. I read about this in detail, and it is not used to exactly pinpoint each individual location. Sure the technology exists to do that. The problem with the EDR is that even the ones at the bottom of the chain of command, the police, can use it freely and easily. The cell phone locator is used with the 911 system, but in my opinion, that is acceptable. It is not being used to monitor people's activities. Like I said in the previous post, this would be a passive system, locating a person in need of emergency help. EDR is an active system, constantly looking over your shoulder.
Yes, the government is listening in on cell phone conversations for anti-terrorism purposes. But that argument holds absolutely no water in this case because what does terrorism and listening in on phone conversations have anything to do with car accidents and EDR's? By the way, I have the locator feature turned off on my phone, except for the 911 purpose.
I bolded that certain part of your quote, because it was quite disturbing to me. You would give up your freedom and privacy for lower insurance rates? Never mind the terrorist activity; it is the government's job to protect its citizens without sacrificing their rights, but I can see that they are doing a great job at it.
So let me ask you a question. If a government agent came to your door one day and said "We will provide you with absolute safety from terrorism and subsidized insurance programs, but you have to become our slave with no rights or privacy", you would say yes? That's pretty much what it sounded like to me, which is why I said it was quite disturbing to me.
I understand that it takes compromises and that's why, for instance, I don't mind the long lines at the airport. I've flown a couple of times in the past couple of months, and I'll be flying again this weekend. I never once thought, "come on, let's get this line going, this is ridiculous." I want to be safe, and I would like everyone else to fly safe. So I don't mind at all, for the good of the public. But monitoring people's activities is another thing. Sure, I have nothing to hide, but that's not the point.
08-22-2006, 10:04 AM
#24
Originally Posted by ALPHSTER
I wonder if the car manufactures are doing this more to see what the drivers are doing to there cars for warranty repair reasons.
By that I mean they want to see who is abusing the cars. Things like over revving the engines, burning out transmissions in the snow, modifying your cars engine, driving like $hit, etc.
By that I mean they want to see who is abusing the cars. Things like over revving the engines, burning out transmissions in the snow, modifying your cars engine, driving like $hit, etc.
Originally Posted by MichaelBenz
Yes...they already do that now. My buddy took his Mitsubishi Evo into the dealer a few months ago about a warrantee issue and the dealer told him exactly what he did that caused it....what the engine rpms were, that he was in a "passing mode" and the speed he was traveling and gears selected, ect. Just about everything they needed to know as to what caused the problem. They covered the repair under warrantee, but did slap him a bit because of it and certainly let him know they were aware of it.
08-22-2006, 10:15 AM
#25
Racer
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Enfield, CT
Age: 66
Posts: 385
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Pure Adrenaline
So let me ask you a question. If a government agent came to your door one day and said "We will provide you with absolute safety from terrorism and subsidized insurance programs, but you have to become our slave with no rights or privacy", you would say yes? That's pretty much what it sounded like to me, which is why I said it was quite disturbing to me.
Like I said....I am on the fence....this is a tough call but I hope you guys keep the debate going because it's very interesting.
08-22-2006, 10:36 AM
#26
Originally Posted by Pure Adrenaline
My father spent 25+ years in the military, and my grandfather was a county sheriff. I'm not anti-government. Let's get that cleared up first.
I do use a cell phone, but it is not used to pinpoint locations. In fact, the latest technology that will utilize the cell phone network is traffic monitoring system, which will measure the time it takes for a cell phone to be handed over from one tower to another. I read about this in detail, and it is not used to exactly pinpoint each individual location. Sure the technology exists to do that. The problem with the EDR is that even the ones at the bottom of the chain of command, the police, can use it freely and easily. The cell phone locator is used with the 911 system, but in my opinion, that is acceptable. It is not being used to monitor people's activities. Like I said in the previous post, this would be a passive system, locating a person in need of emergency help. EDR is an active system, constantly looking over your shoulder.
Yes, the government is listening in on cell phone conversations for anti-terrorism purposes. But that argument holds absolutely no water in this case because what does terrorism and listening in on phone conversations have anything to do with car accidents and EDR's? By the way, I have the locator feature turned off on my phone, except for the 911 purpose.
I bolded that certain part of your quote, because it was quite disturbing to me. You would give up your freedom and privacy for lower insurance rates? Never mind the terrorist activity; it is the government's job to protect its citizens without sacrificing their rights, but I can see that they are doing a great job at it.
So let me ask you a question. If a government agent came to your door one day and said "We will provide you with absolute safety from terrorism and subsidized insurance programs, but you have to become our slave with no rights or privacy", you would say yes? That's pretty much what it sounded like to me, which is why I said it was quite disturbing to me.
I understand that it takes compromises and that's why, for instance, I don't mind the long lines at the airport. I've flown a couple of times in the past couple of months, and I'll be flying again this weekend. I never once thought, "come on, let's get this line going, this is ridiculous." I want to be safe, and I would like everyone else to fly safe. So I don't mind at all, for the good of the public. But monitoring people's activities is another thing. Sure, I have nothing to hide, but that's not the point.
I do use a cell phone, but it is not used to pinpoint locations. In fact, the latest technology that will utilize the cell phone network is traffic monitoring system, which will measure the time it takes for a cell phone to be handed over from one tower to another. I read about this in detail, and it is not used to exactly pinpoint each individual location. Sure the technology exists to do that. The problem with the EDR is that even the ones at the bottom of the chain of command, the police, can use it freely and easily. The cell phone locator is used with the 911 system, but in my opinion, that is acceptable. It is not being used to monitor people's activities. Like I said in the previous post, this would be a passive system, locating a person in need of emergency help. EDR is an active system, constantly looking over your shoulder.
Yes, the government is listening in on cell phone conversations for anti-terrorism purposes. But that argument holds absolutely no water in this case because what does terrorism and listening in on phone conversations have anything to do with car accidents and EDR's? By the way, I have the locator feature turned off on my phone, except for the 911 purpose.
I bolded that certain part of your quote, because it was quite disturbing to me. You would give up your freedom and privacy for lower insurance rates? Never mind the terrorist activity; it is the government's job to protect its citizens without sacrificing their rights, but I can see that they are doing a great job at it.
So let me ask you a question. If a government agent came to your door one day and said "We will provide you with absolute safety from terrorism and subsidized insurance programs, but you have to become our slave with no rights or privacy", you would say yes? That's pretty much what it sounded like to me, which is why I said it was quite disturbing to me.
I understand that it takes compromises and that's why, for instance, I don't mind the long lines at the airport. I've flown a couple of times in the past couple of months, and I'll be flying again this weekend. I never once thought, "come on, let's get this line going, this is ridiculous." I want to be safe, and I would like everyone else to fly safe. So I don't mind at all, for the good of the public. But monitoring people's activities is another thing. Sure, I have nothing to hide, but that's not the point.
First, EDR is not active. It's a recorder that maintains vehicle metric data for service purposes. It's not used to monitor your activities either. The issue is COULD this technology be used for other than intended purposes which violate our civil liberties...
The answer is a resounding yes.
My point is that, WITH APPROPRIATE OVERSIGHT, I would give up a lot of privacy for better protection. Cellphone calls to grandma? Sure... Corporate startegy, absolutley not, but that's what oversight should be protecting.
Your example, albeit over the top, is kinda accurate. We are already slaves if you haven't noticed. I pay crazy taxes and conform to a rather rigid set of societal rules to be allowed to exist in American society. I'm really unsure what I'd be giving up if the governement could track my location and speed, and communications. We do this so we can all co-exist freely, and live within the confines of the law.
Wow... It's an important arguement, but outside of "it's an invasion of privacy", I'm unsure how obtrusive it really is.
Someone dream up a negative scenario for me, where this data is shared with "whoever the privacy invader is"... where this technology would have a negative impact. (assuming oversight is established to ensure the data isn't being abused).
08-22-2006, 10:49 AM
#27
Originally Posted by Kennedy
I understand what you're trying to say...
First, EDR is not active. It's a recorder that maintains vehicle metric data for service purposes. It's not used to monitor your activities either. The issue is COULD this technology be used for other than intended purposes which violate our civil liberties...
The answer is a resounding yes.
My point is that, WITH APPROPRIATE OVERSIGHT, I would give up a lot of privacy for better protection. Cellphone calls to grandma? Sure... Corporate startegy, absolutley not, but that's what oversight should be protecting.
Your example, albeit over the top, is kinda accurate. We are already slaves if you haven't noticed. I pay crazy taxes and conform to a rather rigid set of societal rules to be allowed to exist in American society. I'm really unsure what I'd be giving up if the governement could track my location and speed, and communications. We do this so we can all co-exist freely, and live within the confines of the law.
Wow... It's an important arguement, but outside of "it's an invasion of privacy", I'm unsure how obtrusive it really is.
Someone dream up a negative scenario for me, where this data is shared with "whoever the privacy invader is"... where this technology would have a negative impact. (assuming oversight is established to ensure the data isn't being abused).
First, EDR is not active. It's a recorder that maintains vehicle metric data for service purposes. It's not used to monitor your activities either. The issue is COULD this technology be used for other than intended purposes which violate our civil liberties...
The answer is a resounding yes.
My point is that, WITH APPROPRIATE OVERSIGHT, I would give up a lot of privacy for better protection. Cellphone calls to grandma? Sure... Corporate startegy, absolutley not, but that's what oversight should be protecting.
Your example, albeit over the top, is kinda accurate. We are already slaves if you haven't noticed. I pay crazy taxes and conform to a rather rigid set of societal rules to be allowed to exist in American society. I'm really unsure what I'd be giving up if the governement could track my location and speed, and communications. We do this so we can all co-exist freely, and live within the confines of the law.
Wow... It's an important arguement, but outside of "it's an invasion of privacy", I'm unsure how obtrusive it really is.
Someone dream up a negative scenario for me, where this data is shared with "whoever the privacy invader is"... where this technology would have a negative impact. (assuming oversight is established to ensure the data isn't being abused).
For research purposes, no problem. But to download data from the EDR and use it against you? I don't think so. And they already do use it for that. Appropriate oversight should draw the line there; R&D only. But that's not the case. You might as well install video cameras in my house to see if I'm doing anything illegal. Once again, I've got nothing to hide, but that's not the point. The point is that somebody or something is watching you. I personally don't like that. Anti-terrorism activities are sometimes a pain in the ass, but it's so that we are safe as a nation. Actively recording data in a car? Public purpose if used for R&D, no way if the data is used against the driver in an accident. Once again, it's no different than having someone follow me until I make a mistake then nabbing me for it. "We've been watching you, and now we've got you" does not sound like fun to me.
Do/Will I have a choice? No. But I can certainly bitch about it.
08-22-2006, 11:50 AM
#28
Oderint dum metuant.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Lake Wylie
Age: 46
Posts: 12,496
Likes: 0
Received 534 Likes
on
446 Posts
Originally Posted by Kennedy
Someone dream up a negative scenario for me, where this data is shared with "whoever the privacy invader is"... where this technology would have a negative impact. (assuming oversight is established to ensure the data isn't being abused).
And of course, how about using these devices to adjust our insurance rates? Fair? No. I may not always drive within the laws, but I do not cause accidents, either. Should my rates go up because of how I drive? No, they should go up if I cause accidents. To raise my rates because you think my driving might be more likely to cause me to cause an accident is ridiculous (although, that's what they do already). Maybe someone can start selling futures contracts for insurance, that way I can hedge my losses just like the insurance companies.
Anyway, I've digressed a bit there...these devices are a major invasion of privacy, and like most other invasions of privacy, can allow sensitive data to get into the wrong hands. The more data these devices have, the more data some scumbag can get. Oversight? Please, oversight has never worked so I doubt it would start with this.
08-22-2006, 02:11 PM
#29
checkmate...
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Red Stick, LA Chocolate City, LA
Age: 43
Posts: 1,422
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by SpecialFX
I've never heard a pilot (I know a few) talk about taking the black box out of his plane and throwing it out on the tarmac.
.
Originally Posted by SpecialFX
The cost is negligible as it is spread over so many vehicles. Weight penalty? It's probably under a pound or two. It's surely less than the huge amps and subs many people put in their cars.
Don't forget, black boxes in planes are required to be able to withstand total destruction in the event of a crash. That means heavy duty, fireproof and waterproof construction. Same for autos. I'd say that, along with all the sensors and wiring is more than just a few pounds.
Originally Posted by SpecialFX
Many people think that they have the right to do whatever they want. They drive 150MPH because "It's none of anyone's business, I can do what I want." Well, no you can't. We have laws. Driving is a priviledge, not a right. If you don't want to follow the rules you don't have to drive.
In my 6-7 years of driving, I was never in a wreck. Maybe I'm lucky. Or maybe being a responsible teen in my first years, then learning to control a car instead of just driving it, kept me out of trouble. Restating Benz's words, teaching preventive accident avoidance is better than trying to baby the drivers of today, who will learn only after they get in a wreck.
08-22-2006, 03:03 PM
#30
Racer
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Enfield, CT
Age: 66
Posts: 385
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by chill_dog
This is just a step towards placing the devices that do monitor everything in our cars (as some insurance companies will install for you to get lower rates). Now, what harm is there in that? Here's a simple one...hack into the system, follow the daily routes of a car, kidnap the person at the optimum point along their route. It sure beats taling them for weeks, huh? Want to know where the car is with the person you want to assisinate in it is?
And of course, how about using these devices to adjust our insurance rates? Fair? No. I may not always drive within the laws, but I do not cause accidents, either. Should my rates go up because of how I drive? No, they should go up if I cause accidents. To raise my rates because you think my driving might be more likely to cause me to cause an accident is ridiculous (although, that's what they do already). Maybe someone can start selling futures contracts for insurance, that way I can hedge my losses just like the insurance companies.
Anyway, I've digressed a bit there...these devices are a major invasion of privacy, and like most other invasions of privacy, can allow sensitive data to get into the wrong hands. The more data these devices have, the more data some scumbag can get. Oversight? Please, oversight has never worked so I doubt it would start with this.
And of course, how about using these devices to adjust our insurance rates? Fair? No. I may not always drive within the laws, but I do not cause accidents, either. Should my rates go up because of how I drive? No, they should go up if I cause accidents. To raise my rates because you think my driving might be more likely to cause me to cause an accident is ridiculous (although, that's what they do already). Maybe someone can start selling futures contracts for insurance, that way I can hedge my losses just like the insurance companies.
Anyway, I've digressed a bit there...these devices are a major invasion of privacy, and like most other invasions of privacy, can allow sensitive data to get into the wrong hands. The more data these devices have, the more data some scumbag can get. Oversight? Please, oversight has never worked so I doubt it would start with this.
chilldog, that was one of the most compelling arguments regarding invasion of privacy that I have ever read.
That comes close to swaying me in that direction...
08-22-2006, 03:13 PM
#31
Originally Posted by Adamo0926
Still speaking as an objective observer...
chilldog, that was one of the most compelling arguments regarding invasion of privacy that I have ever read.
That comes close to swaying me in that direction...
chilldog, that was one of the most compelling arguments regarding invasion of privacy that I have ever read.
That comes close to swaying me in that direction...
08-22-2006, 03:37 PM
#32
Originally Posted by chill_dog
This is just a step towards placing the devices that do monitor everything in our cars (as some insurance companies will install for you to get lower rates). Now, what harm is there in that? Here's a simple one...hack into the system, follow the daily routes of a car, kidnap the person at the optimum point along their route. It sure beats taling them for weeks, huh? Want to know where the car is with the person you want to assisinate in it is?
And of course, how about using these devices to adjust our insurance rates? Fair? No. I may not always drive within the laws, but I do not cause accidents, either. Should my rates go up because of how I drive? No, they should go up if I cause accidents. To raise my rates because you think my driving might be more likely to cause me to cause an accident is ridiculous (although, that's what they do already). Maybe someone can start selling futures contracts for insurance, that way I can hedge my losses just like the insurance companies.
Anyway, I've digressed a bit there...these devices are a major invasion of privacy, and like most other invasions of privacy, can allow sensitive data to get into the wrong hands. The more data these devices have, the more data some scumbag can get. Oversight? Please, oversight has never worked so I doubt it would start with this.
And of course, how about using these devices to adjust our insurance rates? Fair? No. I may not always drive within the laws, but I do not cause accidents, either. Should my rates go up because of how I drive? No, they should go up if I cause accidents. To raise my rates because you think my driving might be more likely to cause me to cause an accident is ridiculous (although, that's what they do already). Maybe someone can start selling futures contracts for insurance, that way I can hedge my losses just like the insurance companies.
Anyway, I've digressed a bit there...these devices are a major invasion of privacy, and like most other invasions of privacy, can allow sensitive data to get into the wrong hands. The more data these devices have, the more data some scumbag can get. Oversight? Please, oversight has never worked so I doubt it would start with this.
I appreciate your opinion, and although hacking a remotely accessible EDR system (for route discovery for assasination) may be a highly lucrative industry in Iraq today, it's not a big issue here in the states. I'm much more concerned about my daughter posting to much information to myspace and pervy showing up to assisinate her.
My point is that:
1) Typical American society has already given up willingly (for conveneince/dating/etc.) vai common conveniences (internet shopping, dating, banking, etc.) way more privacy information than an EDR would record/yield.
2) Anyone that's ever had any training in how to tail someone to get information, or for "assisination planning", (thumbs pointing back to myself) would tell you humans are creatures of habit, and with today's technology I can have a lot more for about $50 than any elaborately hacked EDR route tracking scenario. if someone wants you dead, the way we live today "security free", they'll get you dead... hacking an EDR won;t be necessary. You drive home the same way every night... becasue we don't live in a high security zone... except for our Detroit bretheren
For $50 I can buy a background investigation/local records check which will yield everywhere you've lived, your family has lived, phone numbers, vehicles titled to you... you name it. No need to "hack an EDR".
Again, your privacy data is already out there... and this is the crux of the arguement, as there is little governance over who can access it.
I'd rather give up my data, and have it used for good, and protected, opposed to folks who would sell it for profit.
And I disagree with the insurance thing. it's great you're no causing accidents... but unskilled drivers with your attitude are. I gaurantee dangerously unskilled teenagers would not be handed keys to a 260HP TL by thier dads if insurance companies adjusted rates from the real time metric data sent form EDR.
You wanna drive fast, speed, take chances? Buy a track car, take it to the track and drive it there, free of these restrictions.
I'm almost to the point of devils advocating this issue, just for the sake of arguement... but I'm still willing to give up a sensible amount of privacy for better protection. Hell I already have.
08-22-2006, 03:56 PM
#34
checkmate...
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Red Stick, LA Chocolate City, LA
Age: 43
Posts: 1,422
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Kennedy
You drive home the same way every night...
BTW, we've been tossing around the acronym EDR so much, I forgot what it stands for. Is it Erectile Deficiency Response?
08-22-2006, 04:08 PM
#35
Oderint dum metuant.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Lake Wylie
Age: 46
Posts: 12,496
Likes: 0
Received 534 Likes
on
446 Posts
Kennedy,
I don't dispute we have given up too much of our information, willingly, to the powers that be...we have. Unless you live in a cabin in the woods, you can be found almost instantly and everything about you known (and yet we can't catch criminals who use phones, shop, etc. everyday, but that's another story).
My example was extreme, but not implausible. Just because the means are ridiculous doesn't mean it won't be done. Your example of some pervert going after someone's kids is more realistic, and just as frightening.
As for the insurance thing, I guess having had to pay my own way for car/insurance/gas/etc. from day one I don't think of it from the financial perspective of generous parents. For me, it's always been about what I do...actions and consequeces, all to be bore by me. If I actually cause harm and damage, then yes, my rates should rise, but I should not be jacked on the front end for a perceived increased propensity. That's like arresting a guy who is acting like he's going to steal something...until he steals it, he's done nothing wrong.
The bottom line of the whole privacy debate is that we need to limit the amount of our personal data available to others out there. Yes, we volunteer it to everybody from the grocery store to myspace to save money or meet people, but we don't need little black boxes collecting more (or more than we feel comfortable sharing). It always starts out as being "for our safety", but it never ends there.
I don't dispute we have given up too much of our information, willingly, to the powers that be...we have. Unless you live in a cabin in the woods, you can be found almost instantly and everything about you known (and yet we can't catch criminals who use phones, shop, etc. everyday, but that's another story).
My example was extreme, but not implausible. Just because the means are ridiculous doesn't mean it won't be done. Your example of some pervert going after someone's kids is more realistic, and just as frightening.
As for the insurance thing, I guess having had to pay my own way for car/insurance/gas/etc. from day one I don't think of it from the financial perspective of generous parents. For me, it's always been about what I do...actions and consequeces, all to be bore by me. If I actually cause harm and damage, then yes, my rates should rise, but I should not be jacked on the front end for a perceived increased propensity. That's like arresting a guy who is acting like he's going to steal something...until he steals it, he's done nothing wrong.
The bottom line of the whole privacy debate is that we need to limit the amount of our personal data available to others out there. Yes, we volunteer it to everybody from the grocery store to myspace to save money or meet people, but we don't need little black boxes collecting more (or more than we feel comfortable sharing). It always starts out as being "for our safety", but it never ends there.
08-23-2006, 06:09 AM
#38
Racer
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by mr.motoring
Do you know the retail price of an O2 sensor? Last I checked in 2000, $243. How happy would you be if you were told your brake pressure sensor for the EDR failed from wear and it had to be replaced by you? And for something that the car doesn't need for its operation.
Originally Posted by mr.motoring
Don't forget, black boxes in planes are required to be able to withstand total destruction in the event of a crash. That means heavy duty, fireproof and waterproof construction. Same for autos. I'd say that, along with all the sensors and wiring is more than just a few pounds.
Originally Posted by mr.motoring
So you mean to tell me you never drive just 5 or 10 miles over the limit? Everyone here does, I'll admit it, I do it too. Doesn't make me a bad driver.
In my 6-7 years of driving, I was never in a wreck. Maybe I'm lucky. Or maybe being a responsible teen in my first years, then learning to control a car instead of just driving it, kept me out of trouble. Restating Benz's words, teaching preventive accident avoidance is better than trying to baby the drivers of today, who will learn only after they get in a wreck.
In my 6-7 years of driving, I was never in a wreck. Maybe I'm lucky. Or maybe being a responsible teen in my first years, then learning to control a car instead of just driving it, kept me out of trouble. Restating Benz's words, teaching preventive accident avoidance is better than trying to baby the drivers of today, who will learn only after they get in a wreck.
08-23-2006, 06:19 AM
#39
Racer
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by chill_dog
This is just a step towards placing the devices that do monitor everything in our cars (as some insurance companies will install for you to get lower rates). Now, what harm is there in that? Here's a simple one...hack into the system, follow the daily routes of a car, kidnap the person at the optimum point along their route. It sure beats taling them for weeks, huh? Want to know where the car is with the person you want to assisinate in it is?
Originally Posted by chill_dog
And of course, how about using these devices to adjust our insurance rates? Fair? No. I may not always drive within the laws, but I do not cause accidents, either. Should my rates go up because of how I drive? .
That's why the laws are there. I don't agree with some of them but that does not mean I can just ignore them. It's all part of living in a society. It's not always fair.
