Mandatory "Event Data Recorders" will even know you're speeding in reverse.

[Vlad]

This is happening in US and it's close to becoming a law. How long do you think it would take to be adopted in Harperland? How long until it's applied to all vehicles, including motorcycles? Orwell had no idea...

'Your' Car Won't Be After 2015

We'll be told it's all for the sake of (groan) "safety" -- just like the old 55 MPH highway speed limit and every radar trap in the country. Of course, it's really for the sake of revenue -- the government's and the insurance company's. Your rates will be "adjusted" in real time, for every incident of "speeding" or not buckling up. It'll be so much more efficient than using cops to issue tickets. After all, so many fishes escape! With an EDR in every car, no one will escape. Your "adjusted" premium will be waiting for you when you get home.

[GT_Hawk]

You do realize most cars already have some kind of device doing this already. Usually part of the air bag system. Just a few makers don't use them these days. Not saying I like it but they are there already. Do a lookup on EDR devices (the recorder for cars)

[Brian P]

The quote is something of an Orwellian overreaction. The data from the event recorder is only supposed to be made available under certain conditions (court order, etc). It is not supposed to be available to insurance companies, it is not supposed to be made available to a cop at the roadside unless that cop has a court order (e.g. you've been in a collision). Insurance companies have an OBD-II device that can be used today, but you can opt out of them.

I'm much more concerned about the capabilities of OnStar, and that's on every GM vehicle today.

[Vlad]

You do realize most cars already have some kind of device doing this already. Usually part of the air bag system. Just a few makers don't use them these days. Not saying I like it but they are there already. Do a lookup on EDR devices (the recorder for cars)

Sure they do, but they are not mandatory (i.e. you can legally disable them) and, except in the case of some OnStar that can also be legally disabled, do not transmit any data (they need to be connected to physically after a crash/incident). The difference is night-day.

The quote is something of an Orwellian overreaction.

You think so? I don't see anything unrealistic in that quote, but one needs to read the entire text first.

I'm much more concerned about the capabilities of OnStar, and that's on every GM vehicle today.

OnStar is not mandated by law, so anyone can disable, jam or remove it if they want. Now imagine if you were risking a stiff fine or jail time for doing any of that.

Here's another quote for those that won't be bothered to read the entire article:

And naturally, they -- the government, insurance companies -- will be able to track your every move, noting (and recording) where you've been and when. This will create a surveillance net beyond anything that ever existed previously. Some will not sweat this: After all, if you've got nothing to hide, why worry? Except for the fact that, courtesy of almost everything we do being either "illegal" or at least "suspicious," we all have a great deal to hide. The naivety of the Don't Worry, it's No Big Deal crowd is breathtaking.

But the last possibility is probably the creepiest: EDRs tied into your car's GPS will give them -- the government and/or corporations -- literal physical control over (hack) "your" vehicle. This is not conspiracy theorizing. It is technological fact. Current GM vehicles equipped with the same technology about to be mandated for every vehicle can be disabled remotely. Just turned off. All the OnStar operator has to do is send the appropriate command over the GPS to your car's computer, which controls the engine. It is one of the features touted by OnStar -- of course, as a "safety" feature.


One doesn't need to be a paranoid conspiracy theorist to realize that mandating what is essentially surveillance in/of our own vehicles is a line that should not be crossed. Even if the law strictly mandates how/when/by whom that surveillance can be performed. What would be the purpose anyway? The article answers that question pretty well, so I won't repeat it or post another quote.

[fastar1]

"First, the EDRs could be -- and almost certainly willbe -- tied into your vehicle's GPS. (Most new and late model cars, conveniently, already have this, too.) Then data about your driving can be transmitted -- as well as recorded."
Wrong. GPS don't transmit anything.

"To whom? Your insurance company, of course."
According to what? Or is this the "non-paranoid" part of the article?

"Progressive Insurance already has such a system in place -- voluntary, for the moment."
Wrong. They may have an OBDII monitoring insurance plan, that has nothing to do with EDR or this proposed bill.

"The question arises: why?"
For the stated safety reason? Naaaaaah.

"Of course, it's really for the sake of revenue -- the government's and the insurance company's."
How do they make revenue from information they can't access until after a crash?

"Your rates will be "adjusted" in real time, for every incident of "speeding" or not buckling up. It'll be so much more efficient than using cops to issue tickets. After all, so many fishes escape! With an EDR in every car, no one will escape. Your "adjusted" premium will be waiting for you when you get home."
They completely have their story mixed up. There's the insurance implemented monitoring system which consumers can choose, and then there's EDR that is used to analyse crashes for statistical and litigation purposes.

"And naturally, they -- the government, insurance companies -- will be able to track your every move, noting (and recording) where you've been and when."


"But the last possibility is probably the creepiest: EDRs tied into your car's GPS will give them -- the government and/or corporations -- literal physical control over (hack) "your" vehicle. This is not conspiracy theorizing. It is technologicalfact. Current GM vehicles equipped with the same technology about to be mandated for every vehicle can be disabled remotely. Just turned off."
Guess what? WRONG AGAIN! EDR has nothing to do with OnStar, which is how GM can remotely disable a car.

"In the future, it will be used to limit your driving -- for the sake of "energy conservation" or, perhaps, "the environment." It will be the perfect, er, vehicle, for implementing U.N. Agenda 21 -- the plan to herd all of us formerly free-range tax cattle into urban feedlots. So much easier to control us this way. No more bailing out to the country or living off the grid - unless you get there (and to your work) bywalking.The pieces are all coming together."
This guy needs psychiatric counselling.

"First, computer-controlled cars. Next, widespread adoption of GPS in cars. Then, EDRs tied into them."
He has it backwards. EDRs have been around for decades, GPS are only becoming widespread now, and computer-controlled cars are on the way.

But the worst thing about this article is that it casts a negative light on the most important transportation revolution since the automobile itself, which is self-driving cars. And he does this with absolutely no logical foundation or reasoned critique of the pros/cons, but by relying on the old American trope of decrying their loss of freedom in the face of anything that requires the cooperation of more than two people. And the fat, ignorant, arrogant bastards in their vapid Cam-cords and Caravans people movers will pile on in support of this cause like it's a matter of life and death.

THAT is the ridiculous squabbling future we have to look forward to, not what was written in the so-called news article.

[OpenGambit]

I stopped reading at "Harperland" since that is usually an indicator that the poster has no geniune desire to engage in a discussion about merits and just wants to: (a) advance a political point that is probably irrevelent; or (b) complain.

[Vlad]

Wrong. GPS don't transmit anything.

Of course they don't, and it's not even implied in the article. That doesn't mean the data cannot be collected and transmitted via other means. Smart phone anyone?

"To whom? Your insurance company, of course."
According to what? Or is this the "non-paranoid" part of the article?

Why not? Ever heard of insurance companies giving away radars/lidars to police? I wonder how many lobbyists are paid by the insurance companies to push for this law...

"Progressive Insurance already has such a system in place -- voluntary, for the moment."
Wrong. They may have an OBDII monitoring insurance plan, that has nothing to do with EDR or this proposed bill.

Just a mere mention of "monitoring" is enough to make me cringe in the case of OBDII. I admit I don't know what that EDR is going to actually function and how different it is from OBDII or a "phone home", real time, full-featured tracking device.

"The question arises: why?"
For the stated safety reason? Naaaaaah.

I buy the safety reason if the data can be read read only with a warrant in hand after a crash and using a direct contact, not via any radio or other remote signals.

"Of course, it's really for the sake of revenue -- the government's and the insurance company's."
How do they make revenue from information they can't access until after a crash?

?? They make revenue from any information even remotely related to driving habits and statistics thereof. I don't trust insurance companies will lower the rates if the data collected from devices like this proves they were overcharging people. Indeed, they never did.

If, and only if, the data cannot be accessed until after the crash there may be some future benefits for safety. Also, under no circumstances would I let that device hold more than a few minutes worth of data. Too many potentials for abuse already, all of which are magnified ten fold if the device is mandated and standardized by the government.

They completely have their story mixed up. There's the insurance implemented monitoring system which consumers can choose, and then there's EDR that is used to analyse crashes for statistical and litigation purposes.

Are we sure the EDR that will be installed as mandatory after 2015 will be the same as the one in voluntary use today? Don't know, just asking myself that question too.

"And naturally, they -- the government, insurance companies -- will be able to track your every move, noting (and recording) where you've been and when."

Time will tell who is going to laugh last...

"In the future, it will be used to limit your driving -- for the sake of "energy conservation" or, perhaps, "the environment." It will be the perfect, er, vehicle, for implementing U.N. Agenda 21 -- the plan to herd all of us formerly free-range tax cattle into urban feedlots. So much easier to control us this way. No more bailing out to the country or living off the grid - unless you get there (and to your work) bywalking.The pieces are all coming together."
This guy needs psychiatric counselling.

The last half is a bit psychotic, I admit, but I lived in a time and place where people with even number plates could drive on even number dates and vice versa. Limiting your right to drive your vehicle is a real possibility and mandatory technology only makes it easier to enforce.

Imagine if OnStar with all it's bells and whistles was mandatory? Who's to say it won't be?

But the worst thing about this article is that it casts a negative light on the most important transportation revolution since the automobile itself, which is self-driving cars.

Now you are going on a tangent in an otherwise valid discussion. Computer controlled cars are not the same as self driving cars. The rest of your tirade sounds just as psychotic as the last part of the bold paragraph above.

[Brian P]

The EDR's that are planned to be mandated after 2015 are expected to be very similar to what is in most cars today.

They do NOT transmit ANYthing. They do not have any capability to transmit anything to ANYone remotely. Not the police, not the government, not your insurance company. The ONLY way you can get anything out of the EDR is by connecting an external device with the correct software to it and download the recorded data from the vehicle's OBD-II / CANbus port.

If anyone has bothered to read the bill that was passed by the US Senate, it contains specific mention of the privacy issues associated with the EDR data. It is only supposed to be collected with a court order in hand (i.e. in the process of criminal investigation after a serious collision). It is NOT supposed to be accessible by your insurance company. It is NOT supposed to be accessible by a police officer who has pulled you over for a traffic stop.

Most cars today already contain EDR's that either already conform to the new requirements or are very close, and have already done so for years. By the way, those EDR's in today's vehicles CAN NOT be disabled, the data logging is built into one of the controllers in the vehicle that is on the vehicle's OBDII / CANbus network.

Recall Toyota's "sudden acceleration" fiasco? Know how they debunked a lot of those cases and established that the real issue was driver error? Simple ... those cars have an EDR, and they recorded the accelerator position and the (absence of) brake pedal status (and vehicle speed and transmission gear selection and all sorts of other things).

EDR's are nothing new, and their original purpose was to protect the auto manufacturers from liability in cases of airbag deployment - to understand why airbags didn't fire when they allegedly should have, or did fire when they allegedly shouldn't have. The modern "smart airbags" that are capable of firing at different strengths (or not firing at all) depending on impact conditions and direction and whether the occupant of that seat has their seat belt on or not, made the associated EDR very important so that those conditions could be understood (and potentially used by the auto manufacturer to defend their system's decision to fire the airbag or not in a specific collision).

There is really nothing new here, and the only vehicles it will affect are the VERY few that do not already have an EDR of some sort.

EDR =/= OnStar. Very different. OnStar is much more intrusive and IS capable of transmitting data back to home base (and does so almost continuously).