|
|
Mandatory "Event Data Recorders" will even know you're speeding in reverse.
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.
NOTE: I don't visit this board frequently and do not accept private messages. You can reach me at GTAmotorcycle[At]aca{dot.}cc
My country is the world and my religion is to do good. - Thomas Paine
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)
Moderator
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.
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.Originally Posted by GT_Hawk
You think so? I don't see anything unrealistic in that quote, but one needs to read the entire text first.
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.
NOTE: I don't visit this board frequently and do not accept private messages. You can reach me at GTAmotorcycle[At]aca{dot.}cc
My country is the world and my religion is to do good. - Thomas Paine
"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.
There is no planet B.
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.
Last edited by OpenGambit; 04-25-2012 at 05:47 PM.
This post does not provide any legal advice and readers should consult with their own lawyer for legal advice.
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?
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...
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.
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.
?? 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.
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.
Time will tell who is going to laugh last..."And naturally, they -- the government, insurance companies -- will be able to track your every move, noting (and recording) where you've been and when."
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?
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.
NOTE: I don't visit this board frequently and do not accept private messages. You can reach me at GTAmotorcycle[At]aca{dot.}cc
My country is the world and my religion is to do good. - Thomas Paine
Moderator
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).
Straight up, yo.
The article is seriously warped, it doesn't bare the simplest scrutiny. I had to double check that it wasn't written on April 1st, how idiotic it is.
There is no planet B.
Sounds like something THE MAN would say! Seriously, how many people broadcast every intimate detail of their lives through Twitter, Facebook and Youtube? Are cellphone transmissions encrypted? Forums? Traffic and security cameras are always filming.
Now Google and Apple want to offer you Cloud Computing. Consumers won't think twice and we all leave paper trails no matter what we do. Big Brother isn't the government, its US. We trade security and privacy for convenience all the time.
I would be more concerned about identity theft and credit fraud than some updated OBD2 box. Shadowy freedom fighter disables Onstar: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMlhs_-PaHk
Last edited by Flywheel; 04-25-2012 at 11:13 PM.
So, I was duped by the sensationalistic article, my bad. Thanks for the clarification, much appreciated.
I doubt even those that voted for it read the bill, those things are hundreds of pages of legalese(. I wouldn't put too much weight on the "right protecting" provisions though - they are easily amended with an "executive order" (remember warantless wiretapping, among other legalized violations). The only real protection is the inability to read the data remotely in combination with the limited capacity to store that data. I don't particularly care what protection the law provides (or doesn't) if f they need physical access to my unlocked car to retrieve last X minutes worth of data.
NOTE: I don't visit this board frequently and do not accept private messages. You can reach me at GTAmotorcycle[At]aca{dot.}cc
My country is the world and my religion is to do good. - Thomas Paine
Moderator
Your privacy is in more danger form the smartphone sitting in your pocket, than from the proposed car data loggers.
Morally Ambiguous (submissions welcome)
"Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth." - Oscar Wilde
Of course. There are several ways to deal with that problem though, from not owning one to having it turned off or shielded when not in use to... Also, smart phones are not mandatory.
The cheapest 7-11 prepaid phone bought with cash for you by a kid you never met that wears a hoodie easily defies all useful surveillance, identification and tracking. Cell tower triangulation does not work nearly as well as CSI would have us believe and a phone with no battery in it is impossible to locate.
NOTE: I don't visit this board frequently and do not accept private messages. You can reach me at GTAmotorcycle[At]aca{dot.}cc
My country is the world and my religion is to do good. - Thomas Paine
Moderator
But even the simplest phones, available for $0.00 with a 2 year term, have GPS now.
Morally Ambiguous (submissions welcome)
"Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth." - Oscar Wilde
That's the thing.. If you bought it outright, it would still cost you a couple of c-notes. You can buy some lower-end phones for a lot less and they come without a GPS chip, Even smartphones can be flashed with firmware that will give the user more control over the GPS chipset (as in the certainty of it being off unless asked for by the customer).
The Fizzer's up for sale http://www.gtamotorcycle.com/vbforum...-600-2050-cert
Unofficial GTAM chat! Click for the info http://www.gtamotorcycle.com/vbforum...ad.php?t=91578
Like many active sports, shooting has the potential to cause personal injury.
"The proper wave to an e-biker is to raise your beer." [credit:'Baggsy@GTAM]
There are plenty of non-GPS phones everywhere, and they are dirt cheap. Verizon in US sells a phone with $10 of air time for $15 and 7-11 in Canada is not far off. Neither have a GPS.
BTW, those that fall for 2 year terms need to be tracked so they can sell them a bridge next time.
NOTE: I don't visit this board frequently and do not accept private messages. You can reach me at GTAmotorcycle[At]aca{dot.}cc
My country is the world and my religion is to do good. - Thomas Paine
Moderator
You mean like my little Motorola throw-away, that I top up at Best Buy when I go to The States? Yeah, I get that. Pushing new firmware is beyond the skill level of most users and most people don't realize what they have in their less expensive, 'free with contract' phones. If they did, then these data loggers wouldn't even be on the RADAR.
Morally Ambiguous (submissions welcome)
"Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth." - Oscar Wilde
You have to be a serious dumbass to not see the future progression of such technology, and that, I believe, is what the OP was talking about. Yeah ok FOR NOW it's harmless, but how easy will it be for this to transition into the next level of surveillance. Why? Because people dismiss the current level as being harmless. All it takes is one little step forward from the previous, with nobody looking ahead two, and you've got yourself trouble. It's happening non-stop around us, and complacent citizens are wholly oblivious to it. At what point does it become a problem to you? The point of no return? I thought so.
You should thank the OP for bringing it to your attention.
With less than six months' riding experience, on my first bike -- a 600 cc, 110 BHP crotch rocket -- I rode 21,569 km around North America solo in 2011: ridermike.blogspot.com
Don't let anyone tell you it can't be done, because I am living proof otherwise.
Space has a terrible secret. We are here to protect you from the terrible secret of space.
Moderator
OnStar already exists and is MUCH more intrusive and it DOES transmit data back to home base.
Solution: don't buy a GM vehicle - or if you do, insist on the OnStar being disabled (and try to get out of paying for it).
Do they actually give you a hassle when you request it to have it disabled with a proof?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks