Big brother is watching

[carguru]

Don't know how many of you have read this.  Since this seems to be getting attention all over the internet, I thought I'd post this latest article on this subject:

 

 

'Black boxes' in GM cars increasingly help police after accidents

 

August 15, 2002

 

BY RALPH VIGODA

KNIGHT RIDDER NEWSPAPERS

 

PHILADELPHIA -- After a day of golf and an evening of drinking at the Cedarbrook Country Club in Blue Bell, Pa., on Aug. 2, Walter Thomas Rhoads got into his 2001 Corvette and headed home.

 

Just after 10 p.m. in Upper Gwynedd, Pa., he slammed into the back of a Ford Escort with such force that the Escort's rear axle was pushed forward to the driver's seat. The two cars, locked in a deadly embrace, traveled 100 feet before the Escort broke away. The Corvette went nearly 800 feet farther, ending up in a cornfield. Rhoads, then 50, of Worcester, Pa., suffered minor injuries. The Escort's driver, William Stott, 58, of Maple Shade, N.J., died that night.

 

Montgomery County Detective Robert Turner, an accident reconstructor, estimated the Corvette's speed at more than 100 mph in the 45 mph zone.

 

He had a witness to back him up.

 

Hidden under the Corvette's radio in the center of the dashboard was a 3-by-5-inch electronic box. Little known to the public -- but an increasingly important source of evidence for police -- the device recorded data from the Corvette for the five seconds before impact.

 

Since 1999, millions of automobiles made by General Motors, including the Corvette, have been equipped with what the company calls a Sensing and Diagnostic Module (SDM). Industry insiders say as many as a dozen other manufacturers install similar technology under different labels. All are commonly called the "black box."

 

Whatever the name, its presence is raising questions of privacy and Big Brotherism, and legal challenges.

 

Turner decoded the data available from the SDM: the engine's revolution, whether the brake was depressed, if the driver's seat belt was buckled, how far down the gas pedal was pushed and the speed -- 106 mph. It was part of the evidence used to charge Rhoads with vehicular homicide while driving drunk.

 

Rhoads, whose blood alcohol content was .26, well above the .10 legal limit, initially challenged the data, prosecutors said. But he pleaded guilty in May and was sentenced to 3 1/2 to seven years in prison.

 

The black box was not meant to be a tool for criminal investigators when GM first put the modules in its cars in 1990. It was designed to gather information to be used to improve air bag systems.

 

"They could take a computer model and crash a car, but they were interested in how air bags worked in real-world crashes," said B.J. Turner, a former Alabama state trooper and now a consultant who gives black-box seminars to police.

 

Generally, all newer cars with air bags are equipped with modules that determine when the bags are deployed. But only the data from GM cars is readily available to law enforcement.

 

Throughout the 1990s, information recorded by the SDM could only be analyzed by GM. But a few years ago, the automaker allowed a California company, Vetronix Corp., to manufacture decoders for general use. When they became available in March 2000, police investigators were able to do their own analyses.

 

"It's an unbiased witness to an accident," said James Kerr, Vetronix's program director. "I don't foresee it replacing accident investigation, but it will become a useful and powerful tool once it's on all vehicles."

 

The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, based in Piscataway, N.J., is working on a universal standard for car data-recorders, and hopes to have a proposal next year.

 

Prosecutors and lawyers often are not very familiar with the devices.

 

"To be honest with you, the first time I heard about it was when Detective Turner talked to me about the Rhoads case," said Montgomery County, Pa., District Attorney Bruce L. Castor Jr.

 

Don Slavik, a Milwaukee attorney who specializes in product liability involving automobiles, said the black box's notoriety is a recent development. A May convention of the Association of Trial Lawyers of America featured a session titled "The Black Box: It's Not Just in Airplanes Anymore."

 

"Many lawyers are unaware of its existence, when the fact is it can help resolve things much faster," said Slavik, who has taught and written about the black box. He noted that the device can aid the defense, too, if its data contradicts a police investigator's findings.

 

Still, legal experts agree the box cannot stand alone in court.

 

"It's used mostly as supportive evidence," B.J. Turner said. "The policeman does all his work, comes up with his figure, then downloads the data from the car. If it comes within a few miles-per-hour, it adds great credence to his findings."

 

Information from the device, however, has been challenged in courts around the nation -- both on the validity of the data and the invasion of privacy.

 

"To the extent that people have not been apprised that the black boxes (are) in their vehicles, we think there's a privacy issue," said Stefan Presser, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union Philadelphia chapter.

 

"Now, I understand, if you read the owner's manual, you're told these boxes are in there. But I dare say the average person doesn't read the manual that closely."

 

Slavik agreed that it can "smack of Big Brotherism, with all cars someday having a recording device." Car manufacturers have taken the position that the black box's contents belongs to the vehicle's owner. But prosecutors say that collecting SDM data for a case is like any evidence-gathering.

 

"It's possible that some of the issues may have to be sorted out by court decisions," Castor said. "But the question always is, did you have legal authority -- either a search warrant or consent -- and justification to conduct a search for a piece of evidence? If you can demonstrate that, there should be no problem."

 

B.J. Turner believes part of the concern over the devices has been raised because "so much mythology and legend has developed in a relatively short time."

 

"You have to remember: It doesn't record anything unless you're in a crash," he said. "It can't tell where your kids were last night, or what you've been doing the last six days."

[hogger999]

I think I know what a lot of you are going to say, but I think this is a good idea. I hope in the future they are able to record more data. I do hope that they do keep the info the "black box" collects available only after an accident. I would hate to think that sometime down the road Johnny Law could scan a bar code on your parked car to see how fast you drove to that spot.

[GreenRado]

Yeah, I have mixed emotions about it too.  The problem is once data is collected, even if it is only used as published now, who knows what it might be used for in the future?

 

Definite Orwellian issues here!   :ooh:

[hogger999]

We do need to get a handle on this because it very well could get out of hand.

 

 

We need someone to stand up for us. Where is Jesse Jackson when you need him. :unclesam:

[ekonk]

As it is being used, I have no problems with it.  In fact, it could help you get out of trouble if you weren't doing anything wrong.

 

I would hate to think that sometime down the road Johnny Law could scan a bar code on your parked car to see how fast you drove to that spot.

 

If they did something along those lines, I think there would be a market for removing those boxes....I know mine wouldn't last too long.....

[gmcjoe]

I've always said there should be some type of information gathering upon impact, speed of the vehicle certainly being one of them. As long as the info is collected after an accident during investigation.

 

It's one of those cases where you don't have anything to worry about unless you're doing something wrong IMO.

[MountaineerTom]

It's one of those cases where you don't have anything to worry about unless you're doing something wrong IMO.

I agree.  

[ekonk]

I actually just read an article on the type of black box that I'm opposed to...

http://www.nytimes.com/2002....OREOVER

This article is about a box that's for parents to monitor their children's driving habits. You know that a 16 year old is going to edge towards the car's limits, but I feel that if you can't trust a kid to do so responsibly then you can't trust the kid to drive at all.

[pacodiablo]

i think the black boxes are a good idea.  walter thomas rhoads killed someone and deserves to pay for it.  but, we need to be sure that this type of thing does not get out of hand with privacy.  recording vehicle speed, airbag deployment, etc... is NOT an invasion of privacy in my opinion because it does not show anything personal or private about anyone.  if they recorded things such as something the person said through a hidden microphone or if they placed a small camera in the car, it would be an invasion of privacy.

[hogger999]

I actually just read an article on the type of black box that I'm opposed to...

http://www.nytimes.com/2002....OREOVER

This article is about a box that's for parents to monitor their children's driving habits. You know that a 16 year old is going to edge towards the car's limits, but I feel that if you can't trust a kid to do so responsibly then you can't trust the kid to drive at all.

Hey, Barbara Gibeaut, thats not being a responsible parent. A responsible parent wouldn't turn their child loose with those driving habits just because they turned 16. Thats why you are supposed to ride w/them while the have their learners permit.

You can save yourself $280 and just put their little sister in the car to taddle on the driver. If the driver is out driving beyond their ability it may be to late by the time you get around to checking that box!

 

Black Boxes

Crash investigations = Good

Baby sitting = Bad

[CMNTMXR81]

FYI folks, this is old news!  Some people are waaayyyy to friggin paranoid.

 

Cars I've had that have had black boxes;

 

-1995 Lumina

-1996 Monte Carlo

-1998 Camaro

-1998 Aurora

 

As you can see, GM has been doing this for quite some time.  I remember reading this on LS1.com back in '98 when people found out F-Bodies had it.

[carguru]

Black Boxes

Crash investigations = Good

Baby sitting = Bad

Can't agree more.  People should take responsiblility for their own actions.  I'm a bit mixed about having the boxes.  On the one hand, the data can be used to help make better cars and trucks.  On the other hand, giving access of the info to the wrong people can be a problem.  I believe that these black boxes are just the tip of the iceberg.  The next one coming down at us is OBD III.  This may even be worse than the black boxes.

 

Have You Heard About OBD III?

With the recent approval of regulations governing on-board diagnostics (OBD) information availability, the Automotive Service Association (ASA) has been pleased with the cooperation of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the development of information transfer to repairers. ASA was a strong advocate of independent service shop owners and technicians having access to the same information accessible to new car dealers. The EPA protected these rights in its draft information availability rule and in the final rule published last summer.

 

One area of concern has been the recent discussion surrounding a waiver of federal preemption to permit California to implement its own OBD regulations. The serious question for independent repairers has been whether our rights will be protected as strongly as in the federal regulations. This is an issue ASA is discussing with regulators and other members of the aftermarket. ASA will make a decision in the near future as to a California strategy on the waiver.

 

As the OBD II (federal OBD uses the same basic technical standards as California OBD II) debate comes to a close, speculation is already mounting about an OBD III concept in California. OBD III is being discussed as a program to minimize the delay between the detection of an emissions malfunction by the OBD II system and the actual repair of the vehicle. This includes a reading of stored OBD II information from in-use vehicles and the direction to owners of vehicles with fault codes to make immediate repairs. In this concept, faults are picked up by a monitoring technology and reported to a regulator, and the vehicle owner is then directed to get further testing and possible repairs. The debate over controlling vehicle emissions may soon move from what type of testing facilities and test methods are most effective to the complete on-board cycle of fault detection, notification and follow-up testing and repair being discussed in the OBD-III concept.

 

What types of technology can be used to detect and relay data pertaining to emissions malfunctions? Options include roadside readers, local station networks or satellites. The roadside reader has been tested by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) since 1994. It is capable of reading eight lanes of bumper-to-bumper traffic at 100 miles per hour. It can be used from a fixed location with portable units or a mobile unit. If a fault is detected by a reader unit, it has the capability of sending the vehicle identification number (VIN) plus the fault codes to the regulator. (The term regulator is used broadly here--patrol officers, private contractors or others could be involved, depending on how a program is structured.) The local station network has not been tested by CARB, but would allow a location and monitoring service.

 

The satellite system can be used with a cellular phone hookup or location monitoring technology. The vehicle would receive an alert via a cellular phone or the monitoring technology. The location, date, time, VIN and OBD II data would be returned to a satellite beacon.

 

Several issues surround the OBD III concept. From a regulatory perspective, all of the technologies used, other than roadside technology, require a Federal Communications Commission (FCC) license. The possibility of interference with other signals in the same band is of concern. The issues of commercial operators, law enforcement, jurisdiction among state agencies, Intelligent Vehicle Highway Systems, etc., have to be addressed before OBD III is a reality.

 

How would an OBD-III program prompt further testing and possible repair? An OBD-III program could be incorporated into the current inspection and maintenance (I/M) program. OBD III might also be used to generate an "out-of-cycle" inspection. Once a fault is detected, a notice could be mailed to the vehicle owner requiring an out-of-cycle inspection within a certain number of days or at the next registration or resale, or a citation would be issued. Penalties might include court appearances or fines related to vehicle registration.

 

A roadside pullover might work this way: the monitoring technology detects a fault, a law enforcement officer stops the vehicle with the fault code, and a technician working with the officer at the scene verifies that a code is set. A citation is then issued requiring testing at a test center, with a time limit for the vehicle owner to do this before a penalty is incurred.

 

What legal issues arise under OBD III? There seems to be some question as to the "suspicionless mass surveillance" of private property. There is no opportunity to confront or rebut the results; no notice that the vehicle will be tested. Fourth Amendment search and seizure issues tend to arise.

 

There are obviously technologies and enforcement procedures available to support the OBD III concept. Do the public health arguments as to controlling the severity of air pollution override the constitutional privacy questions involved? What about consent? These are questions that will undoubtedly arise, and could bring a court challenge.

 

After several court battles with OBD II, the issues are still unsettled as to the California waiver. I/M programs are still to be finalized in several states and the threat of congressional action looms. The concept of bringing all the issues under one program will certainly be controversial, but is being discussed as far as a long-term policy. Independent repairers need to prepare for the next waive of emissions and information issues as they continue to participate in the current debate involving the same.

 

ASA is working with regulators and other members of the aftermarket to ensure that the independent repairers' interests are included as long-term policies are developed.

 

--Bob Redding is ASA's Washington representative. He holds a law degree from the George Washington University School of Law.

[ekonk]

Have You Heard About OBD III?

 

Why does someone feel it's necessary to take error codes from the computer and send them to a regulation agency?  Wouldn't it make more sense to have an error message come up on an in-vehicle message screen so the driver would be immediately aware?  Something that gave you a code number, rather than just "Check Engine", and you could look it up in the manual.  Involving a third party, especially when the third party is a government regulator, is both invasive and inapropriate, not to mention the added costs to run the system.  Just think of this....

A roadside pullover might work this way: the monitoring technology detects a fault, a law enforcement officer stops the vehicle with the fault code, and a technician working with the officer at the scene verifies that a code is set. A citation is then issued requiring testing at a test center, with a time limit for the vehicle owner to do this before a penalty is incurred.

 

Many drivers will take immediate action to keep their car running properly, they don't need someone looking over their shoulder.

[hogger999]

FYI folks, this is old news!  Some people are waaayyyy to friggin paranoid.

 

Cars I've had that have had black boxes;

 

-1995 Lumina

-1996 Monte Carlo

-1998 Camaro

-1998 Aurora

 

As you can see, GM has been doing this for quite some time.  I remember reading this on LS1.com back in '98 when people found out F-Bodies had it.

I had no idea ???  Why aren't they more well known. I believe they could be extremely helpful.

 

Again, I still think having one babysit your kid is dumb.

[GnatGoSplat]

Pretty much all vehicles with airbags have this "black box" module.  The one for 99+ Chevy/GMC trucks is under the driver's seat.

 

I don't see how this is an invasion of privacy issue.

It's a witness to how you drive on public roads.  It doesn't log how many times you scratch yourself or pick your nose, or any other such personal information.