backtop


Print 37 comment(s) - last by YashBudini.. on May 26 at 5:23 PM


  (Source: media.avvo.com)
User privacy and costs regarding the integration of high-tech EDRs are the largest concerns

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration may make event data recorders, or "black boxes," a requirement for all vehicles starting next month according to Wired’s Autopia.

Event data recorders (EDR) are devices already installed in some automobiles, and record information during vehicle crashes or accidents. EDRs cannot be turned off, and once electronically triggered by problems in the engine or dramatic shifts in wheel speed, the EDR records this vehicle input and produces a snapshot of the final moments before the accident. 

General Motors has installed black boxes in nearly all models with airbags since the 1990's. In North America, GM currently uses Bosch EDRs for its models.

"In the early 90's, we could get diagnostic data, seatbelt use and crash severity," said Brian Everest, GM's senior manager of field incidents. "Currently, we can get crash severity, buckle status, precrash data related to how many events the vehicle may have been in and brake application."

Newer vehicles can identify all of the above along with steering input and whether lane departure warning systems were used. 

Some people see EDRs as tracking devices that invade personal privacy, while others see them as helpful aids to accident-related cases. The main problem is that there are no clear universal standards regarding EDRs and who can access their data. 

Florida is one of 37 states that have no statutes barring the access to EDR data, while most of the other 13 states would allow police officers with a warrant to obtain EDR data. 

Car companies originally owned the data, but courts later ruled that vehicle owners and lessees owned the data. There are no federal laws regarding access to EDR data, but states stepped in and determined how much data those other than owners and lessees could access. 

"Until recently, there has been no industry standard or recommended practice governing EDR format, method of retrieval or procedure for archival," said Tom Kowalick, chairman of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers P1616 Standards Working Group on Motor Vehicle Data Recorders. "Even for a given automaker, there may not be standardized format. This lack of standardization has been an impediment to national-level studies of vehicle and roadside crash safety. It also addresses concerns over privacy rights by establishing standards protecting data from misuse." 

Some statutes, such as one in particular in California, came about due to insurance companies obtaining EDR data from users' vehicles without their knowledge or consent. 

In 2008, standards were proposed in an effort to make EDR data accessible to more than just automakers as well as prevent data tampering. These guidelines would also prevent the removal or deactivation of the black boxes, making them useful and trustworthy. In addition, standards would clearly state who has access to the data and what they can do with it. 

While black boxes can be used for vehicle crashes in order to assess what happened, they can also be used to determine whether an accident was caused due to a vehicle defect, which would lead to a recall if necessary. 

The NHTSA's pending mandate may assist in overall driver safety, but there are still many concerns regarding EDRs. For instance, automakers and buyers hope that newer, advanced black boxes do not heighten the price of new vehicles. But perhaps the biggest question involves access to the EDR data. Many wonder if insurance companies and car dealers will be allowed to look at EDR data and deny claims based on that information. 

"Our position on EDRs is that we would only use that data in a claims investigation with customer consent or if we're required to do so by law," said Leah Knapp, a spokesperson for Progressive Auto Insurance. 

For now, how much an EDR affects you depends on what data points it records and where you live, but the NHTSA's new standards are expected to clarify this universally.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Hmmm.
By Amiga500 on 5/25/2011 7:30:57 AM , Rating: 4
Official 1: "We will put a time stamp on the device... and a GPS locator.

We will not put a vehicle speed recorder on the device"

Official 2: <whispers>And hopefully they'll not realise distance/time = speed</whispers>




RE: Hmmm.
By FaceMaster on 5/25/2011 9:26:00 AM , Rating: 2
Drugs, internet, sex... everything that can potentially be good has the potential to be used for bad. I think that there's an element of trust when anything like this is introduced to the market, personally I'd like to try and see their intentions in good light, or I'll end up being like my parents who think that the internet should be banned since it COULD be used for child porn.


RE: Hmmm.
By Reclaimer77 on 5/25/2011 10:36:38 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
personally I'd like to try and see their intentions in good light


Well on behalf of all of us, I would like to thank you for having the same complacent "hope for the best" attitude that's leading us straight into fascism.


RE: Hmmm.
By Kurz on 5/25/2011 12:19:58 PM , Rating: 2
Well said.


RE: Hmmm.
By Souka on 5/25/2011 3:57:18 PM , Rating: 2
Well with the new Sync tech monitoring your health something like this could happen.

Car Speaking:
"Mr Jones, I see you've been in an accident"
"I'll upload the EDR data to first responders, your insurance carrier, local news affiliates (national if you're a politican or celebrity) and your wife"
"I'll also go ahead and check your health"
--> Probe inserts to check temp and prostrate
"Uploading health data to resources listed above"
"Have a nice day Mr Jones"

:)


RE: Hmmm.
By Souka on 5/25/2011 3:58:14 PM , Rating: 2
correction...prostate


RE: Hmmm.
By FITCamaro on 5/25/2011 5:24:05 PM , Rating: 2
I don't mind data recorders in vehicles that can be analyzed in the event of an accident.

But yes I don't want the government to have any involvement in it beyond that.


RE: Hmmm.
By tng on 5/26/2011 10:41:50 AM , Rating: 2
Well there is this...

quote:
There are no federal laws regarding access to EDR data, but states stepped in and determined how much data those other than owners and lessees could access.


Sooner or later some Fed Agency (probably DOT) will step in with a mandate regarding the data and then it will be out of our hands, and that data will be used for further nanny state laws that will restrict how we drive, what we drive, where we drive, etc....

After all, can't just let you voting morons take care of yourselves, you aren't smart enough to know what is good for you.


RE: Hmmm.
By YashBudini on 5/25/2011 5:47:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I would like to thank you for having the same complacent "hope for the best" attitude

OK but, how does always assuming the worst improve the quality of your life?

Sorry, you still show no signs of a middle ground.


RE: Hmmm.
By FaceMaster on 5/25/2011 8:46:19 PM , Rating: 2
Thank you. Pretty much every point of view on this topic can easily be dislodged with a sensationalist claim or two.

If you're optimistic about these systems then you're clearly brainwashed by the government, and don't value your privacy.

If you're pessimistic, you might as well still live in the stone age.

If you're in the middle ground, you're indecisive and aren't helping any one. But are probably representing the majority of people out there who would otherwise remain quiet and overpowered by the two vocal extreme groups.


RE: Hmmm.
By YashBudini on 5/26/2011 1:28:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If you're in the middle ground, you're indecisive and aren't helping any one

Religion teaches hope not because it works, but because life is much worse when none is present. You can be hopeful but pragmatic.

quote:
Pretty much every point of view on this topic can easily be dislodged with a sensationalist claim or two.

You just identified why TV soundbites are so effective and dangerous.


RE: Hmmm.
By FaceMaster on 5/25/2011 8:52:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
the same complacent "hope for the best" attitude that's leading us straight into fascism.


It's a big grey line, I know, but you're not going to persuade me to take your side if all you're going to do is criticise me and call me stupid for trying to see the benefits of this sort of system.

Tell me, at what point should we stop doing things like this? Should we remove black boxes from aeroplanes? Should we take down the internet because of 'privacy issues'? Maybe we should get rid of credit cards and the like, because they let people know stuff about us.


RE: Hmmm.
By tng on 5/26/2011 10:52:18 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Should we remove black boxes from aeroplanes?

Can't do that because planes past a certain size/passenger load are mandated to have "Black Boxes" by both US and European laws (other countries as well).

Point is that at what point does the same happen for cars? It would start with big rigs (cargo trucks), buses, and other large vehicles (may already be that way), but end up being on everything including motor cycles. All declared by our government.

Also if the laws states that data recovered from the recorder can't be used against you, do you believe that?

Can you see the day that a cop pulls you over, reads your data from your recorder via a transmitter that is now required by law and then writes you a speeding ticket because 10 minutes before he even seen you, the data can place you in a 55MPH zone doing 75?


RE: Hmmm.
By Samus on 5/26/2011 2:34:24 AM , Rating: 2
It's amazing how ignorant people are of automotive technology.

The RCM (restraint control module) in my 2002 Focus saved me from a lengthy lawsuit years ago when I was hit by a drunk driver. The (Chicago) police took their sweet time getting to the scene, and by the time he was booked and tested, he was under the legal limit.

The control module in my car was used to verify my story that he crossed into my lane as I was stationary in a left turn lane. The control module verified I was traveling at 0mph when the airbags deployed (head-on collision.)

I was uninjured, but he was, and he tried to counter-sue my insurance company (he had no insurance, but it seems that doesn't really matter in Illinois...) as my insurance was suing him to cover my uninsured motorist coverage claim on my Focus. Since there was no witness to this 1AM neighborhood intersection, it would have been my lawyer against his, and he had a personal injury which is usually favored over property damage claims in court. I would have possibly lost my house with the amount he was suing for.

In the end, his shady ass rightfully got nothing because of the data stored in my RCM.

If you're a good driver and don't cause accidents, you should be in favor of this technology. However, if you cause an accident and don't want evidence you did so because you have no balls and can't face the music for your mistakes, then I can see why you might have a problem with it. It isn't facism, it's fair.


RE: Hmmm.
By FITCamaro on 5/26/2011 9:30:43 AM , Rating: 2
I don't think people are against the boxes existing. What they are against though is the government mandating GPS tracking in them with mandatory wireless connections to them for law enforcement.

Every car in existence today pretty much has some form of "black box" in it that stores the latest acceleration and braking data as well as fuel trends etc. The latter of which is used in emissions testing for states that have it. If you reset your fuel trend data, it won't pass the emissions tests because that's a check that the software uses to make sure you're not running two different tunes, the fuel efficient one you just flashed in before coming to the test.


Crash Fatalities
By Reclaimer77 on 5/25/2011 9:56:03 AM , Rating: 2
According to their own numbers crash fatalities and accident rates have been steadily on the decline, year after year. Why exactly do we need these black boxes now?




RE: Crash Fatalities
By Skywalker123 on 5/25/2011 11:26:20 AM , Rating: 2
"Because if it saves the life of just ONE child it will be well worth it!" blubbers the liberally retarded activist.


RE: Crash Fatalities
By M4gery on 5/25/2011 3:55:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
"Because if it saves the life of just ONE child it will be well worth it!"


Ugh, no it wont. There are already too goddamned many people. We need some form of population control.


RE: Crash Fatalities
By JakLee on 5/25/2011 4:39:20 PM , Rating: 2
Well if that is how you truly feel, off yourself - there are plenty of people who feel that way & are only looking for a leader - you will be famous!


RE: Crash Fatalities
By YashBudini on 5/25/2011 5:58:58 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
"Because if it saves the life of just ONE child it will be well worth it!"

Whom here are you quoting? Oh, nobody said it, you made it up to support your hatefilled stance. That's certainly justification enough.

How does a device that records an accident save anyone? It's not a preventative device. And it's not here at all in your favor, the only reason these devices will be present is the same reason you have TPMS, to limit or eliminate corporate liability. Nobody's interested in helping you or anyone else. Your bleeding heart scenario either doesn't exist or it's the sham you fell for.

At casinos they video record people entering the site because many claimed they would being hurt by the automatic doors. The video recordings eliminated the liars. Then one day a person really was slammed by an automatic door. When police asked for the video they had a damn hard time getting hold of it. It's release had to be mandated by the courts.

If you think such recordings are going to show a potentially fatal defect in a car that either won't happen at all or will happen with another law.

Luke, your force is way off, go practice some more.


RE: Crash Fatalities
By tng on 5/26/2011 11:01:05 AM , Rating: 2
I think you missed it Yash, that was not the real reason they would want to put them on everything that moves, just the crap get sympathy reason to get acceptance from all of the people out there.

Those would be the same people who really thought that this administration would really bring change over the last one.


RE: Crash Fatalities
By YashBudini on 5/26/2011 1:24:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Those would be the same people who really thought that this administration would really bring change over the last one.

The scope of my response was limited to the hate monger's remarks. Very un-Luke-like.

The fact that we got Bush 3 for president comes as no suprise to me. Prior to the election dem optimism turned into euphoria, that was the red flag.


RE: Crash Fatalities
By tng on 5/26/2011 2:15:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Prior to the election dem optimism turned into euphoria, that was the red flag.
It was more than just euphoria, there were people out there that would pass out when he would walk onto the stage at an election rally!

You are right, at that point I lost hope. Bush 3.....Can I use that?


RE: Crash Fatalities
By YashBudini on 5/26/2011 5:23:10 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Bush 3.....Can I use that?

No charge, but if you make a movie out of it I'll see you in court.


RE: Crash Fatalities
By Ammohunt on 5/25/2011 2:53:51 PM , Rating: 2
Simple! it will allow the easy transition to per mile taxation becasue of declining tax revenue from gasoline as the federally mandated CAFE standards get implemented.


RE: Crash Fatalities
By Etsp on 5/25/2011 2:58:43 PM , Rating: 2
We've always needed the blackboxes, we simply didn't have the tech to enforce having them.

I personally would have no problem with them as long as they didn't store data for more than 24 hours, and do not transmit this data to anything. Given those conditions, I wouldn't care what they recorded. The only exception to the data storage and transmission limit would be for accidents.

Then the data should be available to be extracted only for the purpose of determining cause of the accident, and determining how effective the safety features of the car were for that given accident.


Black Box Hacking
By phrizzo on 5/25/2011 11:03:56 AM , Rating: 2
As an unemployed firmware engineer, I would do "side jobs" to make money and one of the common ones would be to read/alter/erase the black box data. Currently (or as of 2 years ago) I never saw a car than encrypted or even encoded the data. I had a friend that had an all-night cash-only auto shop and sometimes he would have me remove individual records from the black box. So as with all things, they are only as trust worthy as their security.




RE: Black Box Hacking
By kattanna on 5/25/2011 11:11:14 AM , Rating: 2
why hack.. why not just have the power cable um.. become frayed to the point of not conducting anymore?

;>)


RE: Black Box Hacking
By MrTeal on 5/25/2011 3:22:23 PM , Rating: 2
Because that would just mean the EDR doesn't record any new data. If you need to "remove" the fact that you might have accidentally mowed down 5 nuns while going 40MPH over the speed limit, you might want someone like phrizzo.


Driver-Facing cameras.
By kerpwnt on 5/25/2011 11:28:28 AM , Rating: 2
Disclaimer: I don’t support black boxes for consumer cars.
However, if you're going to do it, might as well do it right. I think the best way to determine the cause of a crash would be to watch the driver during the moments leading up to the crash. Nearly 100% of car crashes are the result of drivers' mistakes.

We all know that when someone says "I don't know what happened. I just lost control of the car" They really meant to say "my eyes were glued to my cell phone because I was texting." With cameras, big brother would be able to prove it.




RE: Driver-Facing cameras.
By Kurz on 5/25/2011 12:21:48 PM , Rating: 2
Sessh First thing I would do is remove that camera.


You people are so old school.
By jfelano on 5/25/2011 1:19:36 PM , Rating: 2
Every car with airbags has a recorder. So if your car has airbags, it can record all information except location of your vehicle. The gps was introduced to the recorder way back with Onstar, which is like 2002 I believe. My 2006 Chevy has Onstar but I'm sure it originated in the Cadillac much earlier.
It's funny how Ford claims to be so hip with it's SYNC that it so heavily pimps on tv. Truth is GM had Onstar 6 years before Ford had anything like SYNC.




RE: You people are so old school.
By tng on 5/26/2011 11:08:10 AM , Rating: 2
I rent quite a few vehicles and having seen versions of both, Sync and Onstar are really different things.

Granted I have yet to see the newest version of Sync, and maybe it is moving more in the direction of what Onstar is, but that would spoil what Sync is IMO.


My Plan
By Stuka on 5/25/2011 8:16:17 PM , Rating: 1
I am absolutely for civil liberties and personal responsibility. However, this would be easy to implement with no real implications for privacy given the nature of an auto accident. You have absolutely no reasonable right to privacy when involved in a possible violation of law with regard specifically to the events and actions immediately preceding your involvement.

I would impliment it as such:
1) Only law enforcement will be able to retrieve data via warrant issued in response to involvement in collision with vehicle, pedestrian or property. Retrieval will consist of removal of the EDR, break of tamper seal, and replacement of new seal (specifying access date) by certified law enforcement authority upon completion. Data will be utilized to govern issuance of appropriate traffic violations, if any. Data will not be made available to any person or entity unless subpoenaed for criminal or civil court proceedings.
2) Data will consist of most recent 5mins of input from the following: GPS track, %brake application, %throttle application, %throttle position, gear select position, clutch position (on/off, if applicable), speed, steering wheel position, accelerometer (for collision vectoring), tire pressure.
3) Critical events will be stored for 24hrs, simply stating one of the following: Speed in Excess of 90mph, Acceleration in Excess of Xft/sec^2. This data will not be utilized to cite traffic violations, only to determine "character" of driver leading up to incident.
4) Tampering with device or related sensors preventing retrieval will constitute a felony.
5) Failure to provide law enforcement access to EDR will constitute Obstruction of Justice.
6) No remote monitoring devices shall be installed.

This would be the most cost effective solution and least intrusive for all the whiners. I think most of us have been in at least one accident, or know someone who has, where the other guy didn't get shit 'cos lack of evidence.




RE: My Plan
By sorry dog on 5/26/2011 1:46:27 PM , Rating: 2
The one of the biggest problems with data storage to be used for legal means is that is gives attorneys ample fodder to confused issue for judges or jurors.

quote:
3) Critical events will be stored for 24hrs, simply stating one of the following: Speed in Excess of 90mph, Acceleration in Excess of Xft/sec^2. This data will not be utilized to cite traffic violations, only to determine "character" of driver leading up to incident.


The fact that I did 93 on deserted highway the night before had nothing to do with my actions if I was in an accident of some type the next day...and you certainly can't know a whole lot about my character from that. I think that is one of the biggest fear about this whole deal that a few random data points can be misconstrued and what's "fair" will be even harder to figure out.


Too late
By Raiders12 on 5/25/2011 7:43:22 AM , Rating: 2
"Big Brother" can already pin point and locate you and a good majority of your activities in barely anytime. Internet, banking, communications, etc...

These EDRs benefit accident studies and vehicle safety, at least I hope so.




Cameras
By btc909 on 5/25/2011 12:39:06 PM , Rating: 2
It's the HEW 2016 Whatcamacallit wow I wonder why they installed night vision cameras all around the vehicle.

I do agree cars need to go beyond the stupid check engine light and service light. I own a Dodge I've seen the check engine light many of times. "i'm sorry sir we didn't pull any codes". Uh huh.




"I want people to see my movies in the best formats possible. For [Paramount] to deny people who have Blu-ray sucks!" -- Movie Director Michael Bay














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki