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.themadscientist wrote:Need to find that chip and hit it with a friggin hammer.
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.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.
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.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.
Never say "never" -- there are no absolutes.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.
txchamps wrote:Scenario B is impossible.
txchamps wrote:Never say "never" -- there are no absolutes.
I am duly chastised.OriginalWheelman wrote:txchamps wrote:Scenario B is impossible.txchamps wrote:Never say "never" -- there are no absolutes.
Evidently the US government is not as concerned about "chick" cars..... j/kOriginalWheelman wrote:Miata's not on the list? o.O
At the risk of hijacking this thread and sounding didactic, I wish to say the following:OriginalWheelman wrote:txchamps wrote:Scenario B is impossible.txchamps wrote:Never say "never" -- there are no absolutes.
Funny. All Subarus are absent from that list.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
100% agree.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
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 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.