Big Brother getting Bigger... again...

[berj]

Originally Posted by bmussatti

OK, maybe I'm naive, but why should I care about someone knowing were I am and how I got there?

Because one day something legal you do today may be declared illegal. And then someone can go back on all of the records they have for you and determine that you used to do alot of that thing and decide you're a threat of some sort.

Or.

every day you happen to stop at this really great hot-dog vendor and buy a hot dog. You pull your car up, get out.. buy a dog, eat it and get back on your way. Now.. as it turns out they find that said hot dog vendor is a terrorist/drug-dealer/general malcontent. Since they have nice records of you stopping there every day and buying a hot dog.. well.. you must be involved. Off for questioning you go.. maybe you'll be cleared.. but your reputation will be quite nicely tarnished.

The former may be a bit far fetched.. but I've seen the latter happen when the only records they have are visual sightings.. imagine how much more weight these sorts of accusations will have with cold, hard facts.


Now.. that's just when 'they' is a government organization who (let's give them the benifit of the doubt) are just doing what seems right. What if its someone intent on doing you harm? Just because your data is *supposed* to be used in some way.. doesn't mean that it can't and won't be used in another (eg the recent release of search requests by AOL).

Having something to hide isn't just about doing illegal things.. it's doing things that other people have no business knowing about. So what if I go and rent porn from the shop down the road? Should that mean that somone who hacks into the database that contains my travel information should be able to release that knowledge to the world?

I still put my mail in envelopes, I still close my door and windows at night, I still want privacy. It's really pretty simple.

Berj

Originally Posted by berj

Because one day something legal you do today may be declared illegal. And then someone can go back on all of the records they have for you and determine that you used to do alot of that thing and decide you're a threat of some sort.

Or.

every day you happen to stop at this really great hot-dog vendor and buy a hot dog. You pull your car up, get out.. buy a dog, eat it and get back on your way. Now.. as it turns out they find that said hot dog vendor is a terrorist/drug-dealer/general malcontent. Since they have nice records of you stopping there every day and buying a hot dog.. well.. you must be involved. Off for questioning you go.. maybe you'll be cleared.. but your reputation will be quite nicely tarnished.

The former may be a bit far fetched.. but I've seen the latter happen when the only records they have are visual sightings.. imagine how much more weight these sorts of accusations will have with cold, hard facts.


Now.. that's just when 'they' is a government organization who (let's give them the benifit of the doubt) are just doing what seems right. What if its someone intent on doing you harm? Just because your data is *supposed* to be used in some way.. doesn't mean that it can't and won't be used in another (eg the recent release of search requests by AOL).

Having something to hide isn't just about doing illegal things.. it's doing things that other people have no business knowing about. So what if I go and rent porn from the shop down the road? Should that mean that somone who hacks into the database that contains my travel information should be able to release that knowledge to the world?

I still put my mail in envelopes, I still close my door and windows at night, I still want privacy. It's really pretty simple.

Berj

Hi Berj, I guess these are all valid points, but just not a concern to me.

[MNBoxster]

Originally Posted by berj

...every day you happen to stop at this really great hot-dog vendor and buy a hot dog. You pull your car up, get out.. buy a dog, eat it and get back on your way. Now.. as it turns out they find that said hot dog vendor is a terrorist/drug-dealer/general malcontent. Since they have nice records of you stopping there every day and buying a hot dog.. well.. you must be involved. Off for questioning you go.. maybe you'll be cleared.. but your reputation will be quite nicely tarnished...Having something to hide isn't just about doing illegal things.. it's doing things that other people have no business knowing about. So what if I go and rent porn from the shop down the road? Should that mean that somone who hacks into the database that contains my travel information should be able to release that knowledge to the world?

I still put my mail in envelopes, I still close my door and windows at night, I still want privacy. It's really pretty simple.

Berj

Hi,

WOW! Great analogy! I live in St. Paul/ Mpls. and on the West Side of St. Paul (the historical Mexican Community), there used to be this terrific Taco Van. One of my best friends is of Mexican decent and grew up in that neighborhood and we used to go all the time to get our Tacos there - Best in the City!

Anyway, I used to belong to a Thursday Night Poker Game frequented by several St. Paul Cops, a couple from the Narc and Vice Squads. One Thurs. one of them said "You know, we got you on a Surveillance Tape last week..." Surprised I asked why and he said that the Taco Van was a front for a Cocaine Dealer and that they had a surveillance camera on it all week. He then went on to say that it was lucky I didn't ask for a White Bean Taco, the codeword for a Gram of Coke. Said they nabbed the Dealer and 35 Customers from those tapes. The point is, your analogy is not at all far-fetched, it actually happened to me!

Luckily, I didn't even know about their illegal subsidiary and only visited it when I was hungry. But, upon asking, I was told the tape containing me buying Tacos cannot be erased or sealed, my Privacy, in this instance, will be forever invaded. This is why these EDRs are such a problem. Write in and voice your opposition!...

Happy Motoring!... Jim'99

[70Sixter]

This link and some from the site shed some light on what is or might be done.

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2006/08/nhtsa_black_boxes.html

Seems like letters to lawmakers are indeed in order.

Originally Posted by MNBoxster

Hi,

WOW! Great analogy! I live in St. Paul/ Mpls. and on the West Side of St. Paul (the historical Mexican Community), there used to be this terrific Taco Van. One of my best friends is of Mexican decent and grew up in that neighborhood and we used to go all the time to get our Tacos there - Best in the City!

Anyway, I used to belong to a Thursday Night Poker Game frequented by several St. Paul Cops, a couple from the Narc and Vice Squads. One Thurs. one of them said "You know, we got you on a Surveillance Tape last week..." Surprised I asked why and he said that the Taco Van was a front for a Cocaine Dealer and that they had a surveillance camera on it all week. He then went on to say that it was lucky I didn't ask for a White Bean Taco, the codeword for a Gram of Coke. Said they nabbed the Dealer and 35 Customers from those tapes. The point is, your analogy is not at all far-fetched, it actually happened to me!

Luckily, I didn't even know about their illegal subsidiary and only visited it when I was hungry. But, upon asking, I was told the tape containing me buying Tacos cannot be erased or sealed, my Privacy, in this instance, will be forever invaded. This is why these EDRs are such a problem. Write in and voice your opposition!...

Happy Motoring!... Jim'99

OK, so you bought a hot dog, and they have you on "tape". So what? How is your privacy invaded? And, if you did order the "white bean taco" and they handed you a gram of cocaine, would you have taken it? I don't think so.

[eslai]

This will be great because then we can get rid of photo-enforced intersections--just put a transponder in each of these black boxes that gets tripped whenever you run a red light and base a ticket on that! Saves money and generates revenue! Yay!

OK, I am ready to get lambasted by Jim. I can hear him typing away!

[MNBoxster]

Originally Posted by bmussatti

OK, so you bought a hot dog, and they have you on "tape". So what? How is your privacy invaded? And, if you did order the "white bean taco" and they handed you a gram of cocaine, would you have taken it? I don't think so.

Hi,

You seem to be missing the point here. It's not the fact that I am on Tape, it's that I am on a Gov't. Tape as a potential Bad Guy and without my prior knowledge or consent. There doesn't have to be any more material damage than that.

I went to buy some food, a normal, legal, everyday activity. I have the right to expect that my Gov't. isn't watching my day-to-day activities. Sure, if I went to a McDonald's or Supermarket, I could just as easily ended up on tape, but, these establishments post a notice (albeit often in an inconspicuous place) that there is surveillance and I can choose whether or not I want to patronize them. And, they are not the Gov't., that's a Big distinction. I don't own McDonald's or the Supermarket, but I am one of the owners of my Gov't. and Country.

The Right to Privacy was not given to me. As confirmed by the Founding Fathers, this Right is inalienable and is mine simply because I exist here as a Citizen. It cannot be Granted, I own this Right. It cannot be taken away, unless I (or a majority of my fellow citizens) agree to relinquish it. In the case of the EDRs, I choose not to relinquish it! At least without voicing my opposition and doing all I can to oppose it.

I am not satisfied that this technology is needed to either make my life better or safer. It doesn't prevent a guy from speeding and running me down in a Crosswalk, it merely records the fact that he did. Is this justification enough? Well, most drivers will stop and for those who Hit-and-Run? Well, they catch waay more of them than get away, so I don't see the benefit. Could there be some benefits? Perhaps. But, I feel the detriments outweigh the benefits by a long shot...

Happy Motoring!... Jim'99

PS As to your query would I accept the White Bean Taco? No! Twenty years ago...???

Good post, Jim. Well spoken (written).

Your "PS" gave me a much needed chuckle today! Thanks

How is you book coming along?

[Grizzly]

O.K. Bmuss, I'll try to help deflect some of the heat.

These things are not as all knowing and all seeing as this thread would suggest. We have them in our newer cars. Not long ago, one of our guys was following someone when he lost control in a corner and struck a light pole. The accident investigators had to physically plug into the unit to get the information from the crash. It is not transmitted anywhere, and it is not maintained for an extended period of time. If you don't crash, the data is written over almost immediately. So the conversation goes like this:

Accident Investigators: "How fast were you going?"

My Guy: "About 45".

Accident Investigators: "No you weren't. Were you wearing you seatbelt?"

My Guy: "Yes".

Accident Investigators: "No you weren't. Was your partner wearing his seatbelt?.

My Guy: "Yes".

Accident Investigators: "No he wasn't".

Without the GPS interface, Law Enforcement is not able to obtain this information without physically hooking up to the data port in your vehicle. Do you really think the Government, local, State or Federal, is going to install and then track the GPS Units for every 2008 and up vehicle in the United States? Not likely. Even if they passed the initial cost on to the consumer, who would pay the freight for the service and then the man hours necessary to administer this enormous undertaking?

Now, maybe if you were being investigated for some reason, which called for surveillance, agents could track you using this system, but they can do that now. They just have to slap a puck on the underside of your ride first.

The only issue I see is that if you crash, you can't lie about it. Whatever.

[MNBoxster]

Originally Posted by Grizzly

O.K. Bmuss, I'll try to help deflect some of the heat.

These things are not as all knowing and all seeing as this thread would suggest. We have them in our newer cars. Not long ago, one of our guys was following someone when he lost control in a corner and struck a light pole. The accident investigators had to physically plug into the unit to get the information from the crash. It is not transmitted anywhere, and it is not maintained for an extended period of time. If you don't crash, the data is written over almost immediately. So the conversation goes like this:

Accident Investigators: "How fast were you going?"

My Guy: "About 45".

Accident Investigators: "No you weren't. Were you wearing you seatbelt?"

My Guy: "Yes".

Accident Investigators: "No you weren't. Was your partner wearing his seatbelt?.

My Guy: "Yes".

Accident Investigators: "No he wasn't".

Without the GPS interface, Law Enforcement is not able to obtain this information without physically hooking up to the data port in your vehicle. Do you really think the Government, local, State or Federal, is going to install and then track the GPS Units for every 2008 and up vehicle in the United States? Not likely. Even if they passed the initial cost on to the consumer, who would pay the freight for the service and then the man hours necessary to administer this enormous undertaking?

Now, maybe if you were being investigated for some reason, which called for surveillance, agents could track you using this system, but they can do that now. They just have to slap a puck on the underside of your ride first.

The only issue I see is that if you crash, you can't lie about it. Whatever.

Hi,

OK, I agree with you to a point. The technology used to date records only a few hundred incidents and parameters. But, the leap to an actual intrusion already exists on the shelf and as these things gain popularity, the urge to record more and retain records longer will be irresistable to Law Enforcement.

But, more importantly, in an effort to gain higher profits and more market share, the component manufacturers who make these devices will not be able to resist adding more capability - Engineers are never satisfied with a stagnant technology, they are driven to push the envelope further - it's what they do. If nothing else, it's a way of justifying their existence and jobs once the 1st Generation of these boxes exists.

Once NAV systems predominate in cars (and the percentage of cars on the road with them increases almost exponentially every model year), it's not difficult to have a fully-automated system which triggers a citation if the offender's box chirps.

It's a proverbial Cash Cow for Gov't. Treasuries and a Politician faced with raising Taxes (and the constituents' ire) or turning to this ready source of Cash will be irresistable. That's reality, that's how things evolve.

Should that point occur, there's likely to be a Public Backlash which would ammend if not repeal the requirement. But, what happens in the meantime?

So what if an accident investigator dodges the occaisional claim? That happens now. In reality, the insurance process assesses blame correctly most of the time without these devices. Their hope is to avoid the Big One, but they are shortsighted as a good attorney will find other ways of argueing the case. DNA Testing was supposed to be irrefutable, but what happened in the OJ case? The Marquis Legal Team simply discredited the ways the evidence was obtained and handled, all they had to do was instill Reasonable Doubt. The same thing will occur with these devices.

Will it help reduce the cost of your insurance? ABS and SRS systems were supposed to do that too. Pull your Insurance statements from the last 10 years. Is there even one year where the cost didn't exceed the previous one?

Car Manufacturers want to use them to deny warranty claims which have risen tremendously. So what? Boo-Hoo! It was the Car Manufacturers who first instituted Warranties to lure more buyers in the first place, and raised the price of the vehicles to accomodate them, instead of just making better, more reliable cars to begin with.

Now that the pendulum has swung against them they want to cry foul? But, most Car Companies are profitable. Many post losses either as accounting trickery, Labor concessions, or because the losses are due to poor Management decisions, not the sale of their cars or cost of the warranties.

So again, I have to ask where is the benefit to the consumer? I can see the benefit to Gov't. and to Corporations. But I'm not willing to buy and drive around one of these little Lie Detectors for their benefit alone. Now, if they want to pay me, then perhaps the cost/benefit analysis may warrant further consideration... if their offer were generous enough...

Happy Motoring!... Jim'99

[Adam]

Originally Posted by MNBoxster

Hi,

Once NAV systems predominate in cars (and the percentage of cars on the road with them increases almost exponentially every model year), it's not difficult to have a fully-automated system which triggers a citation if the offender's box chirps.

Happy Motoring!... Jim'99

Somehow, I can see this happening especially with people so willing to give up their right to privacy as evidenced by the last two pages. Some people don't mind being sheep I guess.

[jeff]

Suppose I loan my 2010 GT (I can dream can't I?) to my brother who is recorded doing 200 mph in a 20 miles per hour school zone in a snowstorm during school hours. Who gets the ticket? How will Big Brother Know?

Originally Posted by jeff

Suppose I loan my 2010 GT (I can dream can't I?) to my brother who is recorded doing 200 mph in a 20 miles per hour school zone in a snowstorm during school hours. Who gets the ticket? How will Big Brother Know?

Given your hypothetical, I say you will pay for your little brother's error, since you can afford a $679,000 car (I am adjusting for inflation! ) you can also afford the $1,000 speeding ticket! Everyone's happy. And you brother is never allowed your keys again.

PS- the last production year for the GT was 2005.

[Grizzly]

Originally Posted by MNBoxster

Hi,

You seem to be missing the point here. It's not the fact that I am on Tape, it's that I am on a Gov't. Tape as a potential Bad Guy and without my prior knowledge or consent. There doesn't have to be any more material damage than that.

I went to buy some food, a normal, legal, everyday activity. I have the right to expect that my Gov't. isn't watching my day-to-day activities. .

The Right to Privacy was not given to me. As confirmed by the Founding Fathers, this Right is inalienable and is mine simply because I exist here as a Citizen. It cannot be Granted, I own this Right. It cannot be taken away, unless I (or a majority of my fellow citizens) agree to relinquish it. In the case of the EDRs, I choose not to relinquish it! At least without voicing my opposition and doing all I can to oppose it.

. But, I feel the detriments outweigh the benefits by a long shot...

Jim,

I understand your concern, but the Government was not watching you. The Government was watching the establishment, which was the front for a drug operation. You ended up on the tape by happenstance, and because you didn't buy drugs, you were not harmed in any way. The Government did not use the tape against you, or publish the tape of you. The Officers were prohibited from erasing any portion of that tape, so I understand that you are on there for the ages, but, beyond taking drug dealers off the street, who were likely selling dope to our children, what harm did the tape do?

I like the comment about being on a Government tape as a potential bad guy without your prior knowledge or consent. So, you're saying that Law Enforcement Officers should have approached the operators of the Taco Stand and say " Hey, is it O.K. if we set up across the street and record you guys selling dope? Oh, and here's a stack of consent forms. If it's not too much trouble, can you hand them out to the people who come to buy dope? Thanks a bunch. We'll be in that blue van right over there if you need us" I mean, they are entitled to the same protections as you, right? I suspect that surveillances would be highly successful under that set of rules.

If the Government had to guarantee that no "good" person would ever inadvetently cross their camera lens, how could they possibly watch the drug dealers, child molesters, gang members and terrorists who prey upon us. And if the Government couldn't watch the drug dealers, child molesters, gang members and terrorists, how could they ever be expected to stop them?

[BuffaloBoxster]

Those of you in the US who think this is a good idea should move to another country.

I don't want to "stir the pot" and invoke a bunch of emotions, but I would gladly give up some privacy to still see the World Trade Center standing in New York.

[JackG]

Originally Posted by bmussatti

I don't want to "stir the pot" and invoke a bunch of emotions, but I would gladly give up some privacy to still see the World Trade Center standing in New York.

Nice try, but in fact you went directly for "invoking a bunch of emotions" with that statement. Too bad it's a non sequitur.

The proposed black box in 2008 model cars have nothing to do with 9/11 or terrorism. You know that.

[BuffaloBoxster]

Far be it from me to trivialize one of the worst days in the history of our country byt

Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.

Ben Franklin said it, not I...

There are plenty of other countries around the world who will happily take your freedom in exchange for security. Please leave the one founded on NOT doing that alone for those of us who like it the way it is/was.

[Grizzly]

Ah yes, Benjamin Franklin...a truly great American, and a Philadelphian to boot!

I suspect however, that if Mr. Franklin returned to the Country he co-founded today, an entirely new set of famous quotes may be attributed him.

Such classics as:

"HOLY ********************! WHAT THE F**K HAPPENED TO THIS PLACE? "

"THIS IS DEFINITELY NOT WHAT WE HAD IN MIND!"

and, of course

"HEY! LOOK ON TV! IS THAT CHICK NAKED!?!?!"