The Driver Privacy Act of 2015 would require that data contained in a car’s event data recorder (EDR) remain the property of the car’s owner.

Not surprisingly, there is some strong opposition to this, and we want you all to be informed. Check out the article and let us know what YOU think. Driver Privacy Act of 2015 - Our position.

Need to find that chip and hit it with a friggin hammer.

themadscientist wrote:Need to find that chip and hit it with a friggin hammer.

I understand that you are engaging in a bit of hyperbole for humorous effect, but that would be like throwing the baby out with the bath water. If this legislation passes in its current form, we can still reap the benefits of the chip's purpose, which is to help gather data for improved airbag performance, while reducing or lessening (never eliminating) the more sinister effects of indiscriminate data mining.

The downside of this legislation, as I see it, will be the legal hurdles of attempting to retrieve the data in cases where a disabling or life-ending accident occurs due to negligence on one driver's part. Mark my words, it will happen.

Not that much, when my new passport comes I'm nailing that RFID chip with a hammer first thing.

I would hope laws would be put in place to prevent indiscriminate harvesting of this data and I see no downside to making it difficult to seize. Unfortunately, I have no faith that our data will be protected in actual practice regardless of whether this law passes or not.

^I'm with TMS.
...and I'm NOT the conspiracy type.

If a driver, even after all the publicity, is still of the mind that he can text and drive, runs a red light at full speed and t-bones my car, causing catastrophic injury to one of my children, or my wife, or me, you can bet your sweet bell bottom pants that I'm gonna want that data NOW, to show that that driver made no attempt to avoid the accident, because he had is head up his butt. My need trumps your principle. Sorry.

You can still get that data, via a warrant. That's what is the issue here. There needs to be a reason to convince a judge to issue a warrant to get the data looked at, just like your other personal records. The data is still there for when it is subpoenaed, but not just taken in a drag net.

For example: You take off from a light with a little too much throttle. You spin your tires a little at take off, trip traction control, then half a mile later have an minor accident while doing the speed limit.

Scenario A: The police do their investigation the old fashioned way and issue tickets based on the accident scene itself.

Scenario B: The police investigate the scene, and then pull the data logger records. They see "Oh, this guy spun his tired, he must have been driving recklessly." And a ticket is issued on perceived wrongdoing, instead of the scene.

For the data to come up in scenario A there would need to be a compelling reason to look at the data.

Furthermore, as someone who has been crippled in a car accident, with the subsequent 7 years of PT and such, it probably isn't worth it. It's just another thing for the lawyers to argue about in courts. Lawyer's don't argue the facts, they argue how to interpret them. Even digitally recorded data can have doubt cast on it easily. "Do you really trust the data logger more than the witnesses?" etc.

@txchamps

An individual's "need" NEVER trumps the privacy rights of all. Sorry.

How is having access to someones elses data NOW going to change anything? It won't. Sounds like you're engaging in a bit of hyperbole yourself.

The courts will have access to the data if and when all of the determining factors are met. YOU don't get access to anything.

i dont want to sound like a jerk, but the same people complaining about this DDA of 2015 drive around with their smartphone:
1. pinging towers
2. sending exact gps location via map aps, etc
3. post on social media apps from wifi locations
4. access apps via wifi connections
5. give up wither location to google via WAYS app
and to think, this is happening 24/7, even when not in our own cars. to to think that we agree to "TERMS & Conditions" when downloading apps that take & sell:
1. our contact info
2. our phone book
3. our posts, messages, emails, texts
4. microphone
5. camera & pictures
etc. and this is happening 24/7

shall i go on?

All those things you listed are an individual's choice and can be edited accordingly. So I'm not really sure what your point is.

WDRacing wrote:All those things you listed are an individual's choice and can be edited accordingly. So I'm not really sure what your point is.

car ownership now a days, is no more a "choice" than owning a phone. i too can say: "buy a bicycle, take a bus, call a cab, and no one will collect acceleration, braking, speed, etc data.". one can also buy an really old car and not worry about EDR's.

what my point is, is that people are worried about their cars containing driving habits, while their phones are giving up personal pictures/texts/emails/locations/etc 24/7 to God knows who.

if we are going to focus on privacy problems.... lets focus with the app/cellphone manufacturers. it seems like people are worried about the small stuff, while completely ignoring the 300lb gorilla.

ps: edr's have been in use for 10+ years.

GM started putting black boxes in cars as soon as cars had computers in the 1980s. They were sued for not disclosing it, as the data was used against vehicle owners without their knowledge of the device even being in their car. Data recorders must now be disclosed if they are equiped on the car, to the person who purchases it originally. The disclosure was int he paperwork for both my M2 and my Miata. All this strives to do is treat the recorded data like any other personal information. It can be subpoenaed and voluntarily surrendered. Right now it is a legal grey area.

The reason we're talking about this is because it's a current bill and last I checked this is an automotive forum where we discuss such things. No one is ignoring anything. If you want to focus on cell phones and apps, go right ahead. I don't know of any bills in the works right now that address all of the things you mentioned. Just because there are other privacy issues that may or may not pertain to everyone doesn't somehow mean we shouldn't be discussing this. If you don't want to discuss the matter at hand perhaps a better idea is simply not participating. That way you can save yourself the need for any preemptive "sorry for being a jerk but" type of statements.

When I said it was an individual's choice I meant which apps to install, what permissions to give and what general information we allow others to have. All of which can be tailored to the individual by the individual.

Here is a pretty complete list of cars with a EDR, looks like I'm one of the unlucky ones....

http://www.rimkus.com/uploads/pdfs/Even ... corder.pdf

Miata's not on the list? o.O

OriginalWheelman wrote:For example: You take off from a light with a little too much throttle. You spin your tires a little at take off, trip traction control, then half a mile later have an minor accident while doing the speed limit.

Scenario A: The police do their investigation the old fashioned way and issue tickets based on the accident scene itself.

Scenario B: The police investigate the scene, and then pull the data logger records. They see "Oh, this guy spun his tired, he must have been driving recklessly." And a ticket is issued on perceived wrongdoing, instead of the scene.

Scenario B is impossible. The data recorder is continually overwriting itself every few seconds, so the spinning of the tires is no longer a part of the record. Just the data a few seconds before and a few seconds after the impact are available. Unless, of course, you traveled that half mile in just that few seconds, in which case, you are in deep kimchi anyway.

WDRacing wrote:@txchamps

An individual's "need" NEVER trumps the privacy rights of all. Sorry.

How is having access to someones elses data NOW going to change anything? It won't. Sounds like you're engaging in a bit of hyperbole yourself.

The courts will have access to the data if and when all of the determining factors are met. YOU don't get access to anything.

Never say "never" -- there are no absolutes.

Secondly, having access to that data may mean a great deal to me when attempting to sue the opposing insurance company to cover medical costs, repair or replacement of my automobile, etc. No, it changes nothing, I'll grant you that, but that wasn't the point.

And of course I realize, not being an idiot, that "I" don't get access to the data. But those who matter do, say perhaps my lawyer, my insurance company, etcetera. I'm sure you understood my verbal shorthand.

But I certainly don't want too engage in a years-long fight over whether I have the right to view and use that data. I think it should be a simple matter of "Hey, bub, I'll show you mine if you show me yours", and be done with it.

Whenever you drive, you are tacitly engaging in a covenant that you will do nothing to put other drivers (and their passengers) at risk. Hopefully that is reciprocated by the other guys as well. It's when that covenant is broken that we need to reassess who's rights trump who's.

Legislate accordingly.

txchamps wrote:Scenario B is impossible.

txchamps wrote:Never say "never" -- there are no absolutes.

OriginalWheelman wrote:

txchamps wrote:Scenario B is impossible.

txchamps wrote:Never say "never" -- there are no absolutes.

I am duly chastised.

I will rephrase: "Scenario B is not bloodly likely". Better?

The issue at the end of the day is not the data itself but who has access to that data. To a vehicle owner, if the information would help their cause, most would think it's a great thing. But on the contrary, if there is incriminating detail that hurts the owners cause, well, it sucks. The problem is as a nation, (not individually) we've become very casual about government access to our personal information... until something bad happens, only then we get angry. I agree with Brian that I would want to retain personal control over that data. And would go a step more and want the ability to turn the tracking off without penalty (like voiding the warranty).

OriginalWheelman wrote:Miata's not on the list? o.O

Evidently the US government is not as concerned about "chick" cars..... j/k

Let us revisit this:

OriginalWheelman wrote:

txchamps wrote:Scenario B is impossible.

txchamps wrote:Never say "never" -- there are no absolutes.

At the risk of hijacking this thread and sounding didactic, I wish to say the following:

The second quote, if read in context, refers to the philosophical construct of the "right to privacy". It is an amorphous area whose boundaries are loosely defined, and hard to pin down. Referring to it with absolutist language such as "never" and "always", "invariably", etc. will get you into trouble with experienced sophists (of which I am not one).

The first quote, again, if taken in context (funny how quoting somebody out of context can give one such freedom to point fingers, isn't it?) refers to a physical object with limited and definable capabilities -- in this case, a microchip that has a certain limited capacity. Holding data beyind its capacity is, therefore, impossible -- not just unlikely, but purely impossible. There are only so many bytes available. Can you put a gallon of water in a quart jug? No -- that is impossible, not just unlikely. I stand by my first statements, and hereby retract my "corrections".



I now relinquish control of the thread back to y'all -- Cheers!

Greenblurr93 wrote:Here is a pretty complete list of cars with a EDR, looks like I'm one of the unlucky ones....

http://www.rimkus.com/uploads/pdfs/Even ... corder.pdf

Funny. All Subarus are absent from that list.

subaru? impossibru!

Lest I be misunderstood, I wish to make one thing abundantly clear: I am 100% in favor of this legislation. But I (as I always seem to do) am playing devil's advocate by building scenarios in which this could work against you, personally. Those who study science already know that when you solve one problem, you are likely creating another problem, generally in places unlooked for. The same is generally true for writing legislation, such as the NHTSA's mandate for these damned EDR's in the first place.

Cheers, everybody

txchamps wrote:Lest I be misunderstood, I wish to make one thing abundantly clear:

Did you have a relative in politics by chance?

Bubba1 wrote:

txchamps wrote:Lest I be misunderstood, I wish to make one thing abundantly clear:

Did you have a relative in politics by chance?

Bubba, you have cut me to the core. But, seeing as how I am a Quaker, I will not retaliate.

I've spent quite a bit of time reading the proposed legislation, as well as a lot of [really smart peoples'] analyses of it. I'm not seeing one iota of evidence that supports striking down this proposed legislation.

It is my opinion that, when privacy matters are on the table, we should err on the side of protecting the privacy of the individual... in all of the aforementioned scenarios, as James and Brian said, the data can still be accessed - with a subpoena. I *don't* want that data shared willy-nilly with my employer, my auto insurance company, the pencil-necks who calculate viaticals for my health/life insurance, or worse, some marketing nitwit who wants to sell me something based on my location / habits.

I can defeat every setting on my phone that tells anyone anything about me, with a few taps and swipes. I don't want some politician or auto manufacturer telling me I can't do the same with my car.

It is my opinion that, when privacy matters are on the table, we should err on the side of protecting the privacy of the individual

100% agree.

I can defeat every setting on my phone that tells anyone anything about me, with a few taps and swipes. I don't want some politician or auto manufacturer telling me I can't do the same with my car.

It may be too late for that, as it appears that the architecture of these devices has already precluded our access. There are some devices available (or soon to be available) that will actually lock the data port -- with a physical key -- but the ability to remove the device or access it and wipe it has apparently already been been taken from us.

I have not read the legislation in detail, and if I did I'm not at all sure that I would comprehend all of it. Does it cover just the use of the EDR, or does it also cover uses of other devices found in our modern day autos, such as our GPS's, Blue-tooth (call histories?), video cams, or any other devices that also keep a log of where we have been, who we have called, etc.? In other words, is it comprehensive?

So, if we pair this legislation with the possible redefinition of owner the auto makers want the copyright office to make, does that mean that even if we do err on the side of the owner or lessee, the manufactures still get access because we would only be license users and not owners?