Car turns driver in for hit-and-run

[darylzero]

She thought she got away with it. I don't think someone could sound more guilty LOL

http://www.wpbf.com/news/car-turns-driv ... n/36755942

Now how do you feel about this kind of tech in your car?

[Rogue One]

Having been in an accident back in January that left me shaken, I can see the advantage of having a system automatically call emergency services in the event of an accident.

Comments:
I can hear the Ford now: Help me! Help me! She's crashed me twice already today! Stop her before she does it a third time. I can't take it anymore!

[MinisterofDOOM]

While ALL this live-data-monitoring in personal vehicles without any real declaration of ownership is scary, I think this situation bears some interesting differences from the typical "black box gets me a ticket for speeding" example scenario.

Firstly: this is a voluntary, opt-in, subscription service that the vehicle owner chose to use.
Secondly: The service was doing its intended and desired job, not surreptitiously collecting potentially incriminating data to be used against its driver. The service is there to respond to incidents, and that's what it did. What happened here is more akin to getting a fire alarm system installed in your home, and then having the fire department show up when you try to commit arson and burn the place down. It wasn't espionage, it was a voluntary protective service that backfired because the user was being a dumbass.

I still hate the idea of data collection in cars, especially where it may have beneficial operational uses (ABS/TCS/navigation/other advanced software) so it's desirable in its own right but can be mispurposed to be incriminatory. But there's a big gap between onstar-style support-and-response services and Orwellian "black boxes" that watch us always and forever.
My company actually does business with a company a lot like Onstar, but who uses an OBDII module to add the emergency-response aspect to any existing modern car. I personally view it in the same light as all those insurance company OBDII modules: just a way to shine a disproportionately bright light on bad driving habits vs good with absolutely zero benefit and significant risk to myself. But there are a lot of people who want that kind of "protection" in the event of a crash, so I expect this kind of thing to become increasingly common, especially since there are a number of upstart companies trying to get in on the market while it's young.

[float_6969]

Looks like Karma to me, and as MoD said, it's a voluntary service she signed up for, so I have no sympathy for her.

[szh]

Such systems are indeed voluntary - my company provides communications network services for 4 car companies for this type of service and other (ala OnStar) drive assistance purposes.

However, people also ought to remember that cars have a 30 second "black box" data recorder that monitors a ton of stuff inside the vehicle without the owner's explicit "opt-in" permissions. This unit is in all modern cars due to governmental requirements.

That black box data has been used for law enforcement and insurance companies to determine "at fault" situations in accidents, speeding situations, etc. That is how they can often say that "excessive speed was the cause of an accident" for example.

Also, FWIW, the OBD-II device mileage reports (called "Usage Based Insurance" or UBI) has been proven to reduce insurance costs. [For the moment anyway,] driving habits are not monitored ... only the number of miles driven is used to calculate the insurance costs and it does help (see Metromile at http://www.metromile.com - one of our customers - for an example). The Progressive product is also one of these units (less of an upstart though, MoD) and there are others in the works.

We are a monitored society ... don't ever forget that!

Z