backtop


Print 60 comment(s) - last by The Raven.. on Apr 25 at 3:07 PM

One provision in this bill would allow the IRS to take away the passports of US citizens

The U.S. Senate recently passed a new highway bill dubbed the "Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act", otherwise known as MAP21. The legislation made it through the Senate without much in the way of resistance and is expected to pass the House as well moving to the White House where Obama is likely to sign it into law.
 
Once the bill becomes law, all new 2015 model year vehicles will have to have complicated black boxes to record vehicle data. The black boxes are formally known as event data recorders and would be able to record information leading up to and shortly after an accident.
 
The CFR 49 provision of MAP21 would allow the data recorded to be retrieved by the owner of the vehicle or by courts in the event of legal proceeding. Presumably, that information can be gathered to determine if the vehicle or driver was at fault in an accident resulting in a fatality or severe injury and it would seem the data could be called into court in the event that someone attempts to fight a traffic ticket.
 
“Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall revise part 563 of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, to require, beginning with model year 2015, that new passenger motor vehicles sold in the United States be equipped with an event data recorder that meets the requirements under that part,” states the bill.
 
CFR 49 reads in full:
(2) PRIVACY- Data recorded or transmitted by such a data recorder may not be retrieved by a person other than the owner or lessee of the motor vehicle in which the recorder is installed unless–
 
(A) a court authorizes retrieval of the information in furtherance of a legal proceeding;
 
(B) the owner or lessee consents to the retrieval of the information for any purpose, including the purpose of diagnosing, servicing, or repairing the motor vehicle;

(C) the information is retrieved pursuant to an investigation or inspection authorized under section 1131(a) or 30166 of title 49, United States Code, and the personally identifiable information of the owner, lessee, or driver of the vehicle and the vehicle identification number is not disclosed in connection with the retrieved information; or

(D) the information is retrieved for the purpose of determining the need for, or facilitating, emergency medical response in response to a motor vehicle crash.
Information can also be obtained from vehicles in the event of an investigation or inspection conducted by the Secretary of Transportation. The big push for black boxes in vehicles started when Toyota vehicles were blamed for unintended acceleration. Toyota argued it was driver error and in cases where vehicle operators died in the resulting accident, there was no way to know what happened in the absence of a device to record what was going on with the vehicle.

MAP21 is also notable because there is a provision attached that would allow the IRS to strip Americans of their passports restricting foreign travel if they owe enough tax money. That unpaid tax liability threshold is said to be $50,000. 

Sources: Infowars, The Truth About Cars



Comments     Threshold


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

Hooray for the nanny state
By theaerokid on 4/20/2012 10:28:36 AM , Rating: 4
Way to go making our auto industry even less competitive by adding more mandatory cost drivers to our vehicles like CAFE standards, rear-view cameras and black boxes (even though OBDII already collects data). One glorious day we will be completely safe and taken care of, and we will have our "dear leaders" to thank.




RE: Hooray for the nanny state
By Ristogod on 4/20/2012 10:37:10 AM , Rating: 5
Adding cost is the least of my concerns. I'm more worried about a device that records your actions that is being mandated from our federal government once again.

It's the same old game. Infringing on our natural rights and privacy in the ruse of safety and security.


RE: Hooray for the nanny state
By tayb on 4/20/12, Rating: -1
RE: Hooray for the nanny state
By Reclaimer77 on 4/20/2012 11:39:27 AM , Rating: 2
Man you're one naive idiot. So trusting of your overlords in Washington...

quote:
But I would love if there were an option because I would definitely add it in.


Then do it! It's out there on the open market for you to install on your car. Why do you people need to wait for a law to tell you that you can do something?

If you want backup cameras, black boxes, tire pressure sensors etc etc, INSTALL them on your own car. Don't support laws that say EVERYONE must make cars with these features and that everyone must buy it. Just so some Senators can keep their phony baloney jobs by claiming they did something for our "safety".


RE: Hooray for the nanny state
By tayb on 4/20/12, Rating: -1
RE: Hooray for the nanny state
By Adonlude on 4/20/2012 11:54:22 AM , Rating: 5
Big Brother for your car! Maybe it would work better with a camera and a microphone installed as well so the courts can get a feel for your attitude at the time of the alleged crime.

I'm not going to go into a rant about growing governemnt control and decreased citizen's rights. Im just going to go buy more ammo.


RE: Hooray for the nanny state
By Samus on 4/20/12, Rating: -1
RE: Hooray for the nanny state
By NellyFromMA on 4/20/2012 12:55:45 PM , Rating: 2
An idiot? It's weird that when people have differing opinions, they are now idiots.

I'm completely against this being a mandate. Yes, vehicles have had remotely similar devices in them in the sense that there is decent data about the vehicle being recorded and if you so chose to buy a car that happened to have that, so be it. You chose it.

Why is it that when I have to sacrifice my ablity to make intelligent decisions about my life for myself, someone has to call me an idiot for it?


RE: Hooray for the nanny state
By amanojaku on 4/20/2012 12:56:07 PM , Rating: 2
An event data recorder is awesome in that it can show statistics for three seconds or so before an accident. Good enough to prove or disprove your claims in court. I totally support that.

But you're completely ignoring the other purpose of this device as defined in MAP21: the IRS can shut off your car. All of the benefits are outweighed by this simple fact. There is no interaction. Your car just won't work. No matter where you are. Frozen tundra. Scorching desert. Picking up the wife from Pilates. A simple glitch and you're f'd. And then, there are the darker implications...

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/0...


RE: Hooray for the nanny state
By Iaiken on 4/20/2012 1:14:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
the IRS can shut off your car.


Did you even read the article you linked?

The ONLY thing that the law enables the IRS to do is to order seizure of your passport by border security in the event that you back-taxes in an amount of %50,000 in taxes or more. Further, this is nothing new. If you are being tried for a violent crime, the judge can issue a similar seizure request to the passport office as part of your bail terms. Even owing more than $2500 in back-child-support can result in you winding up on the same list.

Next time try reading and comprehending what you read first; then spout off at the mouth (or fingers in this case) till your hearts content.


RE: Hooray for the nanny state
By Iaiken on 4/20/2012 2:22:24 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
in the event that you back-taxes in an amount of %50,000 in taxes or more.


Dur. This should have read:

"in the event that you of back-taxes in an amount of $50,000 or more."


RE: Hooray for the nanny state
By faster on 4/21/2012 9:30:47 AM , Rating: 3
Gee Samus, you are an idiot. Anyone in favor of vitiating our constituinal rights against unwarranted search and seizure is truly an idiot.


By foolsgambit11 on 4/21/2012 6:58:52 PM , Rating: 1
The search/seizure only takes place when the data is accessed. So you'd have to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of your privacy being violated without due process to have an argument here.


RE: Hooray for the nanny state
By drycrust3 on 4/20/2012 3:58:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The data can't be retrieved without due process

As a poster below has pointed out, the insurance companies will make it so that you automatically consent to them extracting the data from your car when you have an accident when you sign the insurance contract with them.
In fact, one could see the "hypothetical" situation where, in the event of a serious crash, "their agent" (i.e. the tow truck driver) will "extract the data when convenient" (i.e. get the data out of your car at the crash scene), "convey it via a secure medium to the insurer" (i.e. upload it, unencrypted, to the insurance company database via a smart phone), where "the insurer may want to view the data" (i.e. looked at immediately by assessors), and the insurer could even decide whether they wish to "from time to time re-assess your risk level" (i.e. ring you up on your cell phone at the crash scene so you can pay the "extra risk premium" via your credit card), and this is all done while your car is being hooked up.
In addition, it may be that down the track when the black box has cell phone capabilities, the insurance company computers will assess your risk level by studying your driving style and bill you accordingly.


RE: Hooray for the nanny state
By tastyratz on 4/23/2012 9:00:59 AM , Rating: 2
Or more frighteningly they will choose to deny coverage based on the retrieved data. "we are sorry, we know you pay for accident insurance, but it appears you were going 60mph in a 55mph zone. As such we can not pay out your claim as you were currently engaged in a crime"

Every accident happens because someone was doing something they were not supposed to, or nature happened. Reason 1 is more likely and this gives insurance companies an out.

I do not like the idea of this box being retrievable or usable without a court issued search warrant in legal proceedings. I would support the data collection for both diagnostic and serious case data - but I know my government better than that. This would be lobbied to leverage and work in benefit of everyone but the owner by all other more well funded parties.


RE: Hooray for the nanny state
By NellyFromMA on 4/20/2012 12:52:37 PM , Rating: 2
No one's revolting en masse, so why wouldn't they continue the power grab...

Sad state of affairs, really.


RE: Hooray for the nanny state
By DiscoWade on 4/20/2012 1:05:18 PM , Rating: 2
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

http://books.google.com/books?id=W2MFAAAAQAAJ&pg=P...


RE: Hooray for the nanny state
By TSS on 4/21/2012 6:21:01 AM , Rating: 2
i do wish to partially play devils advocate here. I mean even as a small kid when i heard aircraft had these black boxes, i immediantly wondered why cars didn't, considering a big plane crash was like once a year but a pile up was in the news like once every week.

As far as i'm concirned, it's a logical conclusion that's taken longer then it should to arrive.

Also, just because the tech exist doesn't mean it is being taken advantage of. Retrieval of the information by police after court order is perfectly ok, your rights are still protected by the courts. It's no different from a warrent.

That said, it is clear what the intentions of the US government are by the other provisions that are in the bill. By user consent is flawed, as you cannot, or should not, be able to consent to signing away your rights. Of course there's some exceptions like the militairy, but this is a strictly civilian situation.

However it seems that even subtlety is thrown out the window in todays age as they go a step further and simply say "by investigation by the secretary of transportation". Might as well say "At the leisure of the gestapo".


RE: Hooray for the nanny state
By Reclaimer77 on 4/20/12, Rating: -1
RE: Hooray for the nanny state
By tayb on 4/20/2012 11:13:54 AM , Rating: 2
Do you even know what fascism is or are you just regurgitating buzzwords that you heard on Fox News? Comparing Democrats to fascists isn't just ridiculous, it's hilarious. Not to be outdone by yourself though, you move on to comparisons with Hitler.

For your information 22 Republicans in the Senate voted for this bill. I suppose those 22 individuals are fascists America hating Hitler evil doers as well.


RE: Hooray for the nanny state
By Reclaimer77 on 4/20/12, Rating: -1
RE: Hooray for the nanny state
By tayb on 4/20/2012 11:30:18 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
And if the House doesn't kill this bill, they should ALL lose their jobs. Because they've obviously forgotten who put them there and why they are there in the first place.


Congressional members aren't elected nationally. Members of Congress represent their respective districts and states. You didn't put them there, the people who they individually represent did and who is to say they aren't following the whims of their citizens who elected them?

quote:
Absolutely not. What comparison? I was making a joke about how they can make the most horrible ideas sound so good in their bills. Unwad your panties tayb and chill with the false indignation. Better yet just shut the fuck up entirely. This is a serious discussion for adults.


There's no room for language, references to Hitler, or comparisons to fascists in a "serious discussion for adults." If you would like to have a serious discussion like an adult please let me know. So far you're incapable.

quote:
Fascism is a radical authoritarian nationalist political ideology. Liberal "Progressive" Democrats 100% believe in this style of governing.


Google is your friend.


RE: Hooray for the nanny state
By Reclaimer77 on 4/20/12, Rating: -1
RE: Hooray for the nanny state
By tayb on 4/20/2012 11:44:20 AM , Rating: 1
Bush ran up an $8,000,000,000,000 debt in 8 years and was the President during the first round of bailout packages and the passage of the most intrusive and constitution destroying bill in United States history, the "Patriot" Act. Republicans didn't care about the debt until February 2009.


RE: Hooray for the nanny state
By Reclaimer77 on 4/20/12, Rating: 0
RE: Hooray for the nanny state
By tayb on 4/20/2012 12:10:56 PM , Rating: 4
The only reason I bring up Bush is to highlight how ridiculous it is to blame Democrats for anything and everything that is happening. Republicans are equally as bad in all facets but you don't see me sitting here comparing "conservatives" to Nazis. The Patriot Act is the most radical legislation ever passed but check through the comments on related articles and look for references to fascism. There aren't any, because it's ridiculous to make that stretch. Reasonable dialogue among all parties is necessary. Labeling Democrats as fascists is not reasonable dialogue.


RE: Hooray for the nanny state
By Reclaimer77 on 4/20/2012 12:35:28 PM , Rating: 3
Okay then the Bush Administration were fascists too! Okay happy? Now can I go back to discussing the actual RELEVANT group of lawmakers and fascists in power today?

Thanks :)

quote:
The Patriot Act is the most radical legislation ever passed but check through the comments on related articles and look for references to fascism.


LMAO!! That is SO funny. How can you pretend the Patriot Act and Bush weren't called fascists, dictators, etc etc. All those years of Bush/Cheney hate, really, how dare you sit here today and say that didn't happen.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/apr/24/usa.co...

"From Hitler to Pinochet and beyond, history shows there are certain steps that any would-be dictator must take to destroy constitutional freedoms. And, argues Naomi Wolf, George Bush and his administration seem to be taking them all "

In fact Ron Paul, a pretty well respected a quotable guy around here, said the Patriot Act had moved us into "soft fascism". So please tayb, don't sit here and pretend that ONLY Conservatives who "hate Obama" drag that term up. MSNBC almost DAILY used it when Bush was in office.

quote:
Labeling Democrats as fascists is not reasonable dialogue.


Who cares? It's effective! We can debate about what they were and were not once they're out of office, and their agenda has been defeated. If we don't stop this kind of thing right now, today, it won't MATTER what definition it fits under later.


RE: Hooray for the nanny state
By Etsp on 4/20/2012 12:50:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Labeling Democrats as fascists is not reasonable dialogue.
quote:
Who cares? It's effective!
That, right there, is the biggest problem facing American politics today. The reason you hate democrats so much (and democrats hate republicans so much), is this attitude that is shared by so many (Fox News, MSNBC, Limbaugh, Beck, Maher, etc.). Though, as an evil moderate centrist, I can name far more people on the right as examples than I can on the left.


RE: Hooray for the nanny state
By Reclaimer77 on 4/20/2012 12:58:48 PM , Rating: 2
I didn't call ALL Democrats fascists. I said the Progressive Liberal movement WAS grounded in fascism. And I'll stand by that.

You can be as esoteric as you like. We're in a fight for the future of our country here. The damage that 4 more years of this radical agenda would do to our nation is incalculable.

quote:
Though, as an evil moderate centrist, I can name far more people on the right as examples than I can on the left.


LOL I like how in a manner of a few sentences you turn around and hypocrisize (tm) yourself. By making this statement, you are in fact committing the same crime you accuse me of. Bravo.


RE: Hooray for the nanny state
By Iaiken on 4/20/2012 2:25:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You can be as esoteric as you like. We're in a fight for the future of our country here. The damage that 4 more years of this radical agenda would do to our nation is incalculable.


So what you are saying is that the ends justify the means?


RE: Hooray for the nanny state
By Etsp on 4/20/2012 3:45:01 PM , Rating: 2
What I meant by that was simply that the hypocrisy and the outright falsehoods were easier for me to spot on the right because I didn't agree with their conclusions beforehand. I think the majority of people have this blind spot. You're not going to try to dig in and tear apart an argument that your own views coincide with. (Unless you're trying to improve said argument.)


RE: Hooray for the nanny state
By FITCamaro on 4/20/2012 5:09:34 PM , Rating: 2
And Obama has run up $5 trillion in his first 3 years.


RE: Hooray for the nanny state
By theaerokid on 4/20/2012 11:46:51 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Fascism is a radical authoritarian nationalist political ideology. Liberal "Progressive" Democrats 100% believe in this style of governing.


Exactly. Authoritarian being a key term. The way progressives are consolidating authority around government in EVERY aspect of American life is astounding and contrary to the limits of power envisioned by our founding fathers and embodied in the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Ironically "progressives" are steering the country backwards towards a central authority, except this time instead of one king it's the governing elites such as unelected "czars" and a President that rules by "Executive Orders" to deliberately side-step a Congress that does not give him everything he asks for.


RE: Hooray for the nanny state
By tayb on 4/20/2012 11:49:33 AM , Rating: 1
...except that isn't fascism. Fascism is led by a dictator, violently suppresses protest, and severely regiments social and economic policy.

The passage of a bill in the Senate that can be amended and vetoed in the House and THEN passed to the President to be signed which can then be found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court after months of peaceful and legal public protests is not fascism. It's not even remotely close to fascism. I don't even know where you guys make the jump.


RE: Hooray for the nanny state
By Reclaimer77 on 4/20/2012 12:20:35 PM , Rating: 1
That's a Fascist Dictatorship. Not "fascism" as an ideology. There isn't one neat singular definition for the application of fascism.

Liberal Progressive Democrats power-consolidating top-down approach to Governing has far more in common with fascism than Democracy or a Republic. Especially this Administration which, as he pointed out, makes sweeping policies by fiat executive orders without ANY checks on power, because he's bypassing Congress. They're even ignoring the Judicial system, another check on Executive power. President Obama's Administration is being held in contempt of court for ignoring rulings on the drilling memorandum. Their response? Ignore it as if it didn't happen.

quote:
I don't even know where you guys make the jump.


It's a lot easier to jump when ones head isn't crammed up his own ass. You should try it sometime.


RE: Hooray for the nanny state
By tayb on 4/20/2012 12:19:21 PM , Rating: 1
Fascism does not exist without some sort of totalitarian authority.

Are you counting the 22 Republicans among those Liberal Progressive Democrats? I might partially agree with you on the surface if this requirement was coming from an executive order. It's not. It's coming from elected members of Congress.


RE: Hooray for the nanny state
By Reclaimer77 on 4/20/2012 12:45:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Fascism does not exist without some sort of totalitarian authority.


Congress IS that totalitarian authority.

Jesus man wake up. Almost yesterday they passed a law stating that they have the power to require, under punishment of law, American's to buy Government ran health care. Hello? You don't think we're over the edge yet!? If they have the power to force by law that we buy certain products, their power is for all intents and purposes UNLIMITED. Do you understand the ramifications here?

When a President can pass sweeping mandates for an entire nation, without ANY Congressional involvement, that's not totalitarian and unilateral action?

quote:
It's coming from elected members of Congress.


To the American public that must abide, what's the difference? Saying "oh well it can be overturned later" is philosophically no different than saying "Well a new dictator can overturn this one's law later"


RE: Hooray for the nanny state
By tayb on 4/20/2012 11:26:15 AM , Rating: 2
I'll take this a step further and remind you that conservatives were the original champions of health care reform which included universal health care, passed the Patriot Act and then extended the spying provisions, passed several gigantic comprehensive bailout packages, and changed contraceptives from a cheap over the counter solution to a doctor prescribed MEDICATION. Among others.


RE: Hooray for the nanny state
By FITCamaro on 4/20/2012 2:36:06 PM , Rating: 2
Glad I just bought a 2012 Cruze. Like you said though, acceleration and braking data is already recorded by OBD2. They can already see what happened going up to an accident.

And why the hell is their legislation regarding taxes on this? That's Democrats for you.

Of course they'll exempt themselves since quite a few of them owe quite a bit in taxes.


RE: Hooray for the nanny state
By Reclaimer77 on 4/20/2012 4:30:41 PM , Rating: 2
This Administration is legislating the American Automotive Industry into obscurity or worst, extinction. Quite literally mandates like this, CAFE, and all their associative meddling environmental policies will not have ANY positive effect for the people or the economy. No industry can possibly thrive under a regulatory burden of this magnitude.

And these are the people who were going to save us from "deregulation" and "create more jobs". Yeah this is really the way to do that.

"YES WE CAN" is just arrogant presumption Liberal speak for "Big government can solve all our problems". No, it can't.


By garagetinkerer on 4/20/2012 5:38:26 PM , Rating: 2
Erm, i'd say that Government "can" do a lot of things... but they "won't!" It is more convenient not to. Power grab is a plus!

By end of 2010, bailout was totaling to $9.8 trillion, and no Bush didn't do that. What i've learned is that politicians are all (nary a few, so few as to be ineffective most of the time) corrupt.

I wish more Americans would open their eyes (like you), and recognize whether it is Dem's or Rep's, politicians are ripping off the people all the while finding newer ways of doing the same, while curbing the liberties.


"DailyTech is the best kept secret on the Internet." -- Larry Barber














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