Remember that no matter how sophisticated the "black box" is only a computer or part thereof.

As such it simply has inputs, outputs, processing and storage. This means that it can indeed be modified. In fact it is possible to cause "convenient data" to be read into it every time your vehicle stops, or if you press the "erase" button, or whatever.

All it takes is an enterprising software engineer with access to the workings of the system. In fact I was cruzin with such a guy who owns a new C6 and said that the box would soon be "customized".

Oh, and don't worry about the officer plugging into your black box, soon enough he will just have to dial it up. Think of how many wireless systems we now have, and that number is increasing.

So long as we, the general public, keep seeing "the good" in such things "brother" will continue to expand the intrusions. Mostly we value "safety" instead of freedom and privacy.. oh well, pays your money and takes your choice. Just realize that you give up far more than you will ever get back.

 

I know my position is going to be unpopular, but here goes.

The police can only stop you for probable cause - meaning, you're doing something wrong. I see multiple DUI offenders (5,6,7 times) all the time. Do they go to prison? sure, for a time, but not long enough, and when they come out they do it again. Over and over and over again until someone gets killed.

When can the "black box" be used against you - when there's been an incident. The police are not able to "monitor" transmissions from it - and I beleive any attempt to give them that power would raise Constitutional questions. Then again, whats the difference between that and the "eye in the sky" or the radar guns attached to photo systems that just mail you the ticket?

We seem to forget the driving is a PRIVILEGE - not a right. If I'm in an accident and its my fault and someone DIES - well then the prosecutor damn well has the right to use whatever informtion is available to establish fault.

The defense will always find a way to challenge the evidence collected by the box, as they should. If the data is questionable, then the jury can disregard it. But if the data is valid - then whats wrong with it. It certainly could save us taxpayers a lot of money rather than the cost of accident reconstruction - which can be extremely expensive.

My two cents - if a black box can help convict a dangerous driver - then its worth while.

I take driving very seriously - I wish everyone did. We all open it up once in a while, and we know, or should know, that we are breaking the law when we do it on the street.

I personally see the box being used for more good than bad.

 

Beyond the many valid pro's and con's these boxes provide, I've wondered how much the hidden costs are of this technology and hardware that are actually be passed on to the consumer, and I can't believe that this doesn't effect the price of a vehicle to some degree.
GM and the other manufactures would likely pass on the cost as just some part of the development of the onboard computer/nav systems expecting that we would not be privy to know all the details of.

IMO, manufacturer's should be required to post the cost and potential uses of the data these boxes provide so the consumer is at least forewarned.

 

 

[QUOTE=65Z01]Remember that no matter how sophisticated the "black box" is only a computer or part thereof.

As such it simply has inputs, outputs, processing and storage. This means that it can indeed be modified. In fact it is possible to cause "convenient data" to be read into it every time your vehicle stops, or if you press the "erase" button, or whatever.

All it takes is an enterprising software engineer with access to the workings of the system. In fact I was cruzin with such a guy who owns a new C6 and said that the box would soon be "customized".

Oh, and don't worry about the officer plugging into your black box, soon enough he will just have to dial it up. Think of how many wireless systems we now have, and that number is increasing.

Giving up freedoms for safety is the nature of the beast (gov).
If it seems bad now just wait. The next move will be an onboard ignition disablemant. A pursing police cruzer will simply push a button and the chase is over.

The upside is a safety issue, the downside is someone else controls your car.
Had my car smogged last week and the tech plugged right into the cars computer. What info did my car send to the state?

I may have a somewhat pro law enforcement point of view, but I've lived without law enforcement for years and it can get really get out of control.

Its the old toss a coin, too many cops, no enough cops.
In this state you can drive at 80+ for 100 miles and never see a cop.
Its not uncommon to see a SUV with a family of 5 driving passed you at 100+. Does anyone really need to drive that fast with thier familes in the car?

 

I find it even more insidious than that. It was Ben Franklin, 200 years ago, who said "Those that give up freedom for security, deserve neither".

Such a sad state of affairs we live in these days. Our privacy is being beaten down with every turn of the screw, and there is little we can do.

If the automakers wanted to install these boxes as a method of improving crash worthyness and overall quality control, they should have had the laws in place before they put them in.

As it stands, no one knows who the hell owns the data, who can access it, and, when. Whatever happened to protection from self incrimination? You have the right to remain silent, but what about your car?

It is one facet of the modern automobile I cannot tolerate.

This is the #1 reason why I would never own a car with Onstar. Sounds good on the surface, but do we need a nanny watching our every move? Our every fast corner? Our every evasive lane change... and then interrupting our train of thought with some ignorant "Are you ok?" It's crap, I tells ya.

I am glad I own an older car. I would not want to have to deal with this crap. This entire black box is a class action suit just waiting to happen.

 

85mph backing out of a driveway?? That must be one hell of a driveway. Hell of a car too to do 85 in reverse.

 

 

Reread it!
The girl got hit by a drunk driving by at 85mph. He said he was going 30 the speed limit in a residential area the black box said he was going 85 mph.
He lied the box caught him and hes in state prison.

 

I have a 2001 Tahoe. Can't find anything in the owner's manual, but I'll keep looking. Nothing in my '85 Corvette (teehee).

 

ive got an intermitant black box in my 1990 6sp
its called THE WIFE " slow down you are going too F***ing fast " usually followed by a slap

 

Mines consant.

 

Mine trips on at 90mph!

 

It could lead to the police NOT stopping you for probable cause, you get a speeding ticket for getting stuck in the mud. You lose your rights because it's a machine doing the work, not the policeman doing accident reconstruction. I'm suspicious of them flagging the use for this is better information before an accident, not after. To prevent a DUI in progress, why not a machine that detects alcohol on someones breath, then the car won't start? The breathalizer has been around long enough for that idea.

Another thing, who's expert is to say the data is valuable or valid? For now, only the manufacturer of the box & he has an interest in seeing it works.

This is merely another tool for the interested parties to make more money by reducing costs, not to save lives. The police don't have to monitor transmissions, it's already being recorded & used in courts of law. And, there are no regulations that protect everyone's rights in place.

 

They already have that device (won't let the car start if is 'smells' alcohol when you blow into it), and in some places judges mandate they be installed for people convicted of DUI for what limited driving they let them do.

 

The ignition interlock is a standard "punishment here is Wisconsin for DUI offenders. I can't think of a single 3rd or later DUI that I've been exposed to where it wasn't required.

As for having it become part of the "standard equipment" on all cars - well, the constitutional issues that would surface in that case would be huge and a blanket "no start if any alcohol detected" (as in the ignition interlock) would never be allowed to pass. But, think about it - would any of us actually object to an interlock for any car that refused to start the car if the machine detected a BAC of say 1.5 to 2 times the legal limit? AGain, the issue of reliability and accuracy becomes the question, and until they were able to make the machine nearly error-proof I don't see it happening. But if it could be made 100% accurate and error-proof - and would lock out the ignition if the driver was 2 times the legal limit. . You bet your butt I'd be all for it. Drunk drivers have no business being on the road, period, plain and simple, and ANYTHING that keep them off is a good idea.

 

You betcha,

 

Combine the monitoring done by the car, a GPS in your car, an online service like on-star, a GPS in your cell phone, and credit cards and bank cards --- and they know where you have been and how you have been driving and walking, and spending. Add to this the video and pictures taken at many street corners, in stores, malls, and banking machines.

The technology all exists today to follow you visually from surveillance camera to camera. Companies already track all your purchases with any kind of credit or bank card.

Just so you don't think I'm completely paranoid, the stuff is not all hooked together today. I am just saying that it could be if someone wanted to do it.

 

It is - buy court order.