By on January 19, 2014

1970s-custom-van

A bipartisan group of United States Senators has revealed the “Driver Privacy Act”, which is supposed to put you back in charge of your black-box data in your car. But how effective will that legislation be?

The bill is sponsored by John Hoeven (R-N.D.) and Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.). Cosponsors of the bill include Senators Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.), Mark Begich (D-Alaska), Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.), Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Angus King (I-Maine), Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), Michael Bennet (D-Col.), Mike Johanns (R-Neb.), Mazie Hirano (D-Hawaii) and Mark Kirk (R-Ill.). Quoth Senator Hoeven,

To address privacy concerns regarding the device, the Hoeven-Klobuchar legislation specifies that data from an EDR may not be retrieved in any state unless:

  • Authorized by a court of law
  • The vehicle owner or lessee consents to the data retrieval
  • The information is retrieved pursuant to a NHTSA recall and all personally identifiable information is not disclosed
  • The information is retrieved in determining the need for emergency medical response following a motor vehicle crash (used in vehicles equipped with Advanced Automatic Crash Notification systems)
  • The information is retrieved for traffic safety research

Oh man, I was all excited there except for that first one about “authorized by a court of law”. Talk about a loophole big enough to drive an F-750 dump truck through. It would be one thing if we lived in the world of the Dirty Harry movies where activist hippie pinko judges were always letting serial killers go because Harry Callahan transposed the date of birth of a witness to the crime or something like that.

CALLAHAN: Your honor, I have this scumbag on video bragging about how he killed those women.

PINKO JUDGE: I don’t see you reading him his Miranda rights twice on that video.

CALLAHAN: It’s earlier in the tape — rewinds — right there, you can hear me Mirandize him right after he and his attorney signed the statement saying he did the crime and he walked us to the crime scenes to point out how he did it.

PINKO JUDGE: (thinks for a moment) Welll, Officer Callahan, your VHS videotapes might fly in another courtroom, but here we use Betamax. I’m hereby dropping all charges against — what did you say your name was?

THE SAN FRANCISCO RAPE-STRANGLER: The San Francisco Rape-Strangler, Your Honor.

PINKO JUDGE: Yes, yes the San Francisco Rape-Strangler. Mr. Rape-Strangler, accept the apologies of the court, and the home address of that stenographer you’ve been drooling over.

THE END

But modern judges in the United States of American Homeland Security are more like the judges in that movie “Brazil” who are ready to consent to rectal searches of persons to be named later. So I’m not sanguine about the protection of any bill that specifically allows for the court to circumvent it. But we’ll see. This is a good first start. If you agree, contact your legislator.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

105 Comments on “How Much Privacy Will The Driver Privacy Act Provide?...”


  • avatar
    golden2husky

    I buy a car and all that comes with it is mine. Period. The black box was purchased by me, and the data on it was created by me and my car. Nobody should have a right to any of it unless I consent to provide it. Rentals would be different, as they are not my property. I suggest finding where the Orwellian device is and modify the mounting to make an easy disconnect. If you are involved in an accident, take it and destroy it. Don’t let the cop know what you are doing, you are just getting your belongings out of the car. Why there is not a huge public outcry about this amazes me. People bitch about the government storing nonsense communications, but allowing your car to incriminate its owner is ok? I guess if nobody complains, the one-way ratchet of lost freedoms just clicks away…

    • 0 avatar
      snakebit

      Rule One: Try not to own a car with a black box.

      Rule Two: If you must own a car with one, disconnect it or as ‘golden’ suggests, put it in a convenient place in your car, and take it with you.

      Rule Three: Work to outlaw the seizure of your smartphone by law enforcement during any traffic stop, to prevent nosy police forces from rifling through your photos and stored data. Stop carrying one with you if the law permits seizure by law enforcement for routine traffic stops.

      • 0 avatar
        Toad

        Disconnecting your black box is not a good long term plan: the automaker can simply program the ECM not to function if the black box is not working. No black box, no start. Hiding it is not an answer either since a court can simply subpoena it; if you don’t provide it (or erase the data) you go to jail.

        Remember, the automakers want black boxes to function because they are the best defense against product liability lawsuits.

        • 0 avatar
          28-Cars-Later

          This would require some “outside the box” engineering and development, but you construct a “dummy” black box with all of the ports but record nothing.

          • 0 avatar
            Lorenzo

            Those wonderful people in Congress who mandated the installation of black boxes also made it illegal to alter, disable or remove them.

          • 0 avatar
            Advance_92

            It’s easy. Using Visual Studio, rip a copy of your ECU to a computer, decipher it to turn off the functionality that sends data to the black box, then run your car from this version of the OS residing on a thumb drive that you can connect to your ecu with a little soldering work.

            Turn up the boost while you’re at it.

      • 0 avatar
        bryanska

        You can’t be compelled to give over your smartphone password. So if they ever ask, say no. And no again… and ask to speak to an attorney if they continue.

    • 0 avatar
      dartman

      …another article to incite hooplehead rage.

      First of all, as every 15 year old driver-ed student is indoctrinated with: Driving is a privilege not a right. To use public roads one must meet certain requirements including testing and medical requirements. To use the same roads the equipment used must meet certain requirements for safety and performance, violate any of these on a regular basis and your “privilege” will be quickly rescinded. Continue to violate the rules and you may well find yourself incarcerated and lose ALL of your actual rights granted under the Constitution. There are already laws on the books that allow authorities to inspect your vehicle for tampering and violations of the vehicle code. A warrant to do so is not required when the vehicle is operated on public roads.

      Anyone that doesn’t believe that data recorded on a vehicles safety and emissions control systems can’t and won’t be used against the operator and or owner if personal injury or property damage is involved, is extremely naive, to put it politely.

      • 0 avatar
        Lorenzo

        Of course, the driving schools are lying. Freedom of movement by whatever means is a right, not a privilege. The government is not in business to dispense privileges. According to the Declaration of Independence, the main purpose of government is to protect individual rights.

        Most licensing was voluntary until the late 1920s, when carnage on the roads forced states to make them mandatory. Minimum age, knowledge of the rules of the road and technical ability to operate the machinery were ruled as necessary to ensure public safety. Mandatory licensing was judged as necessary to enforce those reasonable restrictions – in the name of public safety, nothing more.

        There are quite a few people, including lawyers, legislators and even judges, who spout that “privilege” baloney. They should be set straight by any and every concerned citizen able to do so. I insist on doing my part by jumping on every yahoo who insists driving is a privilege, whatever the forum.

        • 0 avatar
          Toad

          Driving is a right, income taxes are illegal, the Fed is a conspiracy by the Illuminati…

          I’d go on but instead I’ll go play with my machine gun.

        • 0 avatar
          dartman

          Thank you so much for your service and patriotism in anonymously “jumping on” every yahoo who you disagree with Justice Hooplehead. Now let me explain the difference between a right and a privilege.

          You have the right to come on and say/write anything you want on forums such as this. There is no “Department of Native Intelligence” (DNI) that tests you for common sense, education and rational thought. This right may not be restricted or revoked no matter how ignorant the author/speaker. As to driving- the state grants the privilege to operate a vehicle on public roads based on several criteria; age, physical and medical clearances and the ability to pass an exam showing basic understanding of traffic laws, symbols and general operation of the vehicle. Failure to meet these criteria will result in the state most definitely NOT granting you the privilege to operate a vehicle on public roads. Failure to abide by these laws and others will result in your eventual loss of all rights; including the right of Freedom of Travel. You do have the right of “Freedom of Travel”, by foot and public or private transportation services. Now do you get it?

          Alas, I know your type to well–Next you will be enlightening us as to how the IRS and Federal System of Taxation is illegal and payment of taxes is voluntary under the constitution. Let me know how that works out for you.

          • 0 avatar
            Lorenzo

            Toad and dartman, you don’t know history or the difference between a right and a privilege, or between a restriction and a regulation. I’m fully aware of the differences, since they impacted my work as a design engineer for a state highway department.

            Before you were born, pretty much every citizen knew he/she had the right to use the public way to exercise their right to freedom of movement, anywhere, any time, using whatever method of locomotion available. As the modes of transport got faster, regulations were enacted to prevent the collision of individual rights: your right to swing your fist ends at my nose.

            The regulations placed on driving are there in the name of public safety, and once those public safety REGULATIONS are satisfied, the right must be allowed. Again, your right to swing your fist ends at my nose, and your right to drive in the public way is restricted by others’ right to be secure in their persons and property. Don’t confuse regulation of rights between individuals with privileges granted by government. A privilege can be bestowed without conditions and withdrawn without notice or justification. Don’t take my word for it – it’s in the dictionary.

            Your responses, and that of vulpine in another thread, lead me to conclude you’re all young and are the product of our poor public educational system. I’m older and got a public education that included the elements of citizenship, stressing personal rights and responsibilities.

            Some day, I hope you can read the Declaration Of Independence and the inaugural address of liberal icon John F. Kennedy for comprehension, and you might understand “The American Idea” that defines America as a Nation and a People.

          • 0 avatar
            dartman

            OK Lorenzo you win. As a god-fearing old Engineer I’m sure you will appreciate this scripture:

            “Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.” —Proverbs 26:4 (King James version)

            ..Or put another way a public educated 57 year old can understand:

            “I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it.” – George Bernard Shaw.

            Now; get off my lawn!

            Please excuse me as get back to my job as a Supreme Court Justice– ;)

    • 0 avatar
      WhiskerDaVinci

      Do you pay in full for your cars? Or do you lease/finance? Because if you do the latter two options, you technically don’t own your car, especially if you lease. It’s a long-term rental, that’s why you give it back at the end of the lease period.

      That’s what you’re going to hear from people on the other side of the issue, so try and come up with some a bit stronger than that.

      • 0 avatar
        DenverMike

        @WhiskerDaVinci – Just because you lease/finance your car doesn’t mean your not free to ‘customize’ it to your personal tastes. Or do you have to own it outright to put in an aftermarket stereo? The lease co may bill you for distasteful mods like 22″ wheels and whatnot, but a finance co is going to sue you no matter what, following a repo.

    • 0 avatar
      twotone

      I’m developing a new “grey box” that you can put your car’s black box in. It’s filled with thermite and an auto igniter. If the incorrect code is entered more than once, it will self destruct. If it detects and accident or disconnection, auto ignite. Anyone interested?

  • avatar
    OneAlpha

    All we need to do is word the law to read:

    “…data from an EDR may not be retrieved in any state unless:

    Authorized by a court of law

    AND

    The vehicle owner or lessee consents to the data retrieval.”

    Makes you wonder, though.

    Technically, cops have to get a warrant to ransack your house, but one is given to wonder how many judges rubber-stamp warrant applications as a matter of course, no questions asked, on the theory that the suspect must be up to something bad if the cops are asking for a warrant in the first place.

    The accusation becomes the proof. Yay judicial system.

    • 0 avatar
      WhiskerDaVinci

      That depends on a billion things. Most judges do ask questions about warrants in normal courts in most cases. The validity of the warrant can be called into question if you or your lawyer are smart enough to call it into question, so most judges make sure the warrant they’re signing is going to hold up to scrutiny during the trial or appeal process.

      The justice system is not as corrupt or broken as everyone thinks it is. You just have to actually know about what your rights are and what you can do in a court of law. Learn about the legal system a bit, and you might have a slightly less “yay justice system” opinion of it.

      • 0 avatar
        krhodes1

        Indeed. Reality is that the cops DON’T have any interest at all in people who are not breaking the law. They have too many people to deal with who ARE breaking the law.

        To all the tinfoil hat brigade here – I bet you change your tune in a hurry if black box data is used to convict some idiot who takes out your family.

        I break the law by speeding every time I leave my house. If I get caught, so be it. I’ll pull right over and be VERY polite to the officer. I have no warrants, my cars are 100% legal, there are no drugs or any other illegal thing in the car with me.

        As I have said before – live a proper live, give the police the respect they deserve, don’t look or act like a dirtbag, and your interactions with the police will be quite pleasant.

        • 0 avatar
          golden2husky

          ….As I have said before – live a proper live, give the police the respect they deserve, don’t look or act like a dirtbag, and your interactions with the police will be quite pleasant……

          Where do you live? Fantasy Land, Plesantville? I am a well dressed,licensed professional that is well groomed and sports a credit score of 800. In other words, as far as “dirtbag” can be (at least on the surface – lol). Most stops by the cops are hardly pleasant, as they fleece me for not seeing the 50 drop to a 30 for 100 yards and then back to 50. But not too threatening, until they are. I have had my car searched for no reason, had my stuff thrown all over the car, and had them leave without a spoken word. I know somebody who was “stop and frisked” violently, and that person was hardly a dirtbag. Get turned around in some small towns and if they don’t like what you look like, or refuse to turn over your smartphone, things can get very unpleasant very quickly. That anybody believes what you just said I find amazing. Well, maybe some elderly driver in Florida…

          • 0 avatar
            krhodes1

            Maine. In the past ten years I have had interactions with the police in Maine, Montana, North Carolina, Texas, and New York for various reasons. None have been anything but 100% professional. And I am not a stereotypical white male to boot.

            If you are having unpleasant interactions with the police, I strongly recommend taking a good hard look at yourself. Why did they want to search your car?

          • 0 avatar
            el scotto

            Short term fix: Put something military or supporting the military on your vehicle. A whole bunch of LEOs where active duty and/or still serving in the guard/reserves. It’s unpleasant; but a fancy car and sharp tie counts for little in Carhartt country.

    • 0 avatar
      redav

      Is the data recorder any different than you phone history, your computer, its history or other data? A court can authorize seizure of that without the owner’s approval, so why in the world would we expect an “and” there?

  • avatar
    Toad

    The black box is like any other personal item and should be subject to a search/data retrieval with a court order. The black box is not any more or less special than any other personal property, like your laptop.

    Hypothetically, say that somebody is driving their VW Phaeton at 120+ mph and runs into my car. I want the right to sue for the other drivers OBR data; if the data shows that they were speeding or driving recklessly it would be much easier to prove fault and determine penalties or civil damages.

    It would not hurt my feelings if OBR data recovery became standard practice after every traffic accident or major traffic violation (reckless driving, running red light, street racing) as part of the investigation. It would make investigations faster and protect the innocent in he said/she said situations.

    • 0 avatar
      golden2husky

      Define “reckless”…Officer Kangaroo Court says you were speeding, or weaving, so he must be right. You can’t tie violating somebody’s rights to something arbitrary like speed limits or definitions of reckless. The traffic rules of today are written first and foremost as a revenue generating tool for government and industry. And the police are the first step in that revenue generation machine. The vast majority of drivers speed. They also “run” red lights in the eyes of the law, as in the rolling right on red. But the crux of this goes way beyond “breaking” a law. At what point are your rights to privacy no longer a right? Are you so willing to throw away what was fought for long ago in order to feed the authoritarian beast? And you are willing to pay for the hardware with your new car to help incriminate yourself? Do you dutifully follow the letter of the traffic law each and every time you drive? If not, you might want to reconsider.

      • 0 avatar
        HerrKaLeun

        i tend to agree, the recorder can help the innocent as it acts as a witness. If the other party is at fault, you want the data to be retrievable.

        And it is not a device that is much use outside civil court.
        If nothing else, it can make traffic accident law suits fairer since it adds some truth to the story. Unlike witnesses, this recorder doesn’t default to “black male did it”.It will accurately show if blinker was set, brakes applied, speed etc. If you are at fault you’ll hate it – the same way you hate witnesses. if you are not at fault, you’ll love it.

      • 0 avatar
        Kinosh

        If you engage in CC fraud, distribute kiddie porn, or any one of million malicious acts on a laptop, the courts can seize it.

        I would think the EDR is similar to a laptop in the eyes of the law. Not that I’m thrilled with that justification.

        • 0 avatar
          golden2husky

          The examples you give are for despicable acts that few here at TTAC take part of. Driving beyond the limits of the traffic laws are things the vast majority of us here do on a regular basis. You can’t equate kiddie porn with driving 75 in a 55.

          • 0 avatar
            WhiskerDaVinci

            Sure you can, it’s breaking the law. If you get caught/stopped doing either, you get in trouble. While one is more grey than the other, they both have a clearly drawn line to cross.

            While one is more morally reprehensible than the other, both have consequences. Thus why “I was only speeding a little bit” rarely works when you get a court, anywhere in the world. Judges across the world say “speeding is breaking the law, there’s a punishment for it”. It’s simpler than you want to make it sound in the purpose of this argument.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            The system is purposely rigged so you are constantly breaking the law. Garbage in, garbage out.

            http://www.threefeloniesaday.com/Youtoo/tabid/86/Default.aspx

          • 0 avatar
            dartman

            “Paranoia, the destroyer
            Here’s to paranoia
            Paranoia, the destroyer”
            -Ray Davies

            “Whateva! Whateva!
            I do what I want!”
            -Eric Cartman

      • 0 avatar
        Toad

        If the OBR data was available it should be easier to defend yourself against arbitrary citations; show the judge your speed and accelerometer data proving your innocence. Between that and the cops (or your own) dash cam video it should be a short trial. It may be a good tool to be able to download your own OBR data onto your smart phone for this very reason (there’s an app idea for somebody to develop).

        As an upside, black box data can also be used to prevent police abuse: if the officers know that your black box data can absolve you they would be less likely to invent infractions. You will have easy and definitive access to the data to prove your innocence.

        You or I may not like speed limits or stop sign rules, but they are what they are and calling them arbitrary does not make them irrelevant.

        Data is a tool that can help you when you are innocent just as much as it can hurt you when you are guilty. Figuring out how to deal with it productively is more useful than hoping it goes away.

        • 0 avatar
          eManual

          What is recorded in the black box can be manipulated on the outside. Suppose the speed rate was based on pulses from a transducer, and you use a pulse “swallower” that eliminates every 4th pulse. Thus when you are going 80 mph, the box registers 60 mph. In addition, the “chain-of-custody” of the black box information would need to be relatively impervious to attack, so I doubt that a smartphone app would hold up in court.

      • 0 avatar
        OneAlpha

        There’s another aspect to this.

        Where I live, the walking dead (driving dead?) routinely run stop signs and almost sideswipe other cars on the road because they don’t look around before they change lanes – without signaling. Or they just weave all over the road because they’re technically not competent to drive a car. But they all religiously obey the speed limit…

        They’ll never get pulled over, because they’re not “driving recklessly,” simply because they’re doing all this SLOWLY.

        I, on the other hand, run the risk of a ticket every time I get behind the wheel, because although I’m paying attention and usually drive without music playing, I’m over the posted limit. But I haven’t had an actual accident since I was 22, because I, you know, PAY ATTENTION to what I’m doing.

        I’ve noticed that the practical definitions of “speeding” and “reckless driving” are almost the same thing – arbitrarily excessive velocity.

        So who’s really the dangerous one here?

        The transporter out on a practice run, or Yertle the Turtle in the Buick, who’s idea of problem-solving is to say, “Oh… did I do that? Sorry…”

        I may be driving well above the posted limit, but at least I’m driving WELL.

        • 0 avatar
          b787

          Black boxes would help you, if one of those people crashes into you. EDRs also measure things like steering angle and from speed you can calculate when they were at a certain time. Thus if they run a stop sign and hit you, you are able to prove they’re at fault.

    • 0 avatar
      OneAlpha

      Yes, because only those who have something to hide have any reason to object to this sort of thing.

      Enjoy the gulag.

      • 0 avatar
        Lie2me

        How do you know if you have “something to hide” or not. What may appear as a perfectly legitimate activity to you may not to someone else. Laws and attitudes change all the time, one day you’re a model citizen, the next you’re an enemy of the state

        • 0 avatar
          OneAlpha

          Exactly – that’s part of my point.

          The honest, peaceable person will occasionally stumble across an arbitrary line out of ignorance, rather than malice.

          It is the devious, sneaky and malevolent that always know where the lines are. Often because they’re the ones who drew those lines in the first place.

          “The cry of the innocent man is, ‘I didn’t do anything.’ The cry of the guilty man is, ‘you can’t prove anything.’”

          • 0 avatar
            pragmatist

            Actually it has been observed that the average person can typically (and unknowingly) break dozens of laws in a day, several of them felonies.

            Most people would be surprised at the number of common things that are actually illegal.

            I took my tire to the shop for repair, I found out that having my car on a jack stand in my yard is illegal.

          • 0 avatar
            krhodes1

            @Pragmatist

            Felonies? Accidently and unknowingly? DAILY? Seriously? Examples please, and bear in mind that while I am not a practicing attorney I do have a law degree. I call B.S.

            And there is a big difference between a civil infraction like a zoning violation (or ordinary speeding) and a criminal infraction that carries the possibility of jail time.

          • 0 avatar
            Lie2me

            I rip those labels off pillows that say, “DO NOT REMOVE UNDER PENALTY OF LAW” all the time… makes me feel like a real badass

        • 0 avatar
          DenverMike

          One thing lawyers and rights advocates always say is NEVER TALK TO POLICE. Nothing you can say is to YOUR benefit. You may admit to a crime didn’t even know was committed. The cops may have zero evidence against you, but when the cop pulls you over and asks, “do you know how fast you were going”, (they may not know exactly themselves) they’re really asking for an ‘admission of guilt’. Or “How many drinks did you have tonight?”

          Then if you fight the ticket, they have your statement. And cops do take notes on things discussed at the scene. They jot them down on the back of their copy of the ticket.

          • 0 avatar
            snakebit

            DenverMike, your statement reminds of a recent Comedians in Cars drinking Coffee episode with Seinfeld and Chris Rock in a Miura. They purposely sped up for a very short time on a local NJ highway, and were stopped by a local policeman. They did a lot talking amongst themselves, but were quiet as mice when the policeman was within earshot. As an aside, it wasn’t clear that the policeman knew who they were until Jerry produced his license and reg ( I think the car belonged to Lamborghini America).

          • 0 avatar
            krhodes1

            I agree with this 200%. BE POLITE, but say as little as possible. Yes, sir, no, sir.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            Right. You don’t have to say a single word to cops at a traffic stop. Cops have even less power at DUI, driver’s licence and immigration checkpoints vs a normal traffic stop. Federal agents, including DHS, have even less authority than local and state police, at least at checkpoints.

            youtube.com/watch?v=fKVq0NMvYX0

        • 0 avatar
          snakebit

          I’m not one to want to leave that up to a peace officer’s interpretation, as in ‘I’ll be the judge of that, Mr. Snake”. Same thing with invasive insurance companies and their own version of OBD units (you know who you are, Flo).

  • avatar
    Kinosh

    Isn’t the EDR normally part of the airbag module? Or is that really manufacturer specific?

    • 0 avatar
      Blue-S

      Yes, the EDR function is typically built into the airbag control module. These days, the airbag controller is connected to the high-speed CAN data bus so that it may capture data at a higher sample rate.

  • avatar
    dwford

    This is a very similar issue to the data collected from cellphones. Courts can subpoena the tracking from your phone to investigate crimes, this isn’t much different.

  • avatar
    Lie2me

    Don’t kid yourself, if there’s information out there about you that somebody wants for whatever reason they’ll get it.

  • avatar
    burgersandbeer

    Did TTAC move to the UK sometime in the last few months? Please move the punctuation back inside the quotation marks where appropriate.

    • 0 avatar
      Lie2me

      You are correct…

      “In the United States, periods and commas go inside quotation marks regardless of logic.”

      … but, illogical.

      • 0 avatar
        Lorenzo

        Exactly.. In America everybody uses a different newspaper style book for punctuation standards. I’ll be glad when all the newspapers are gone,: so I can punctuate the way I want! – at least, until our masters at Google impose a mandatory online standard.!

        • 0 avatar
          highdesertcat

          I believe most in America adhere to Kate Turabian’s “A Manual for Writers of Research Papers, Theses, and Dissertations.”

          ttac is a Canadian board.

          • 0 avatar
            burgersandbeer

            There is no US style guide that allows for commas or periods outside the quotation marks. This includes APA, MLA, and Chicago/Turabian.

            Question marks, colons, and semi-colons should appear outside the quotation marks, provided they are not part of the quote. Commas and periods are always inside quotation marks in US English.

            Furthermore, a quick Google search indicates Canadian English follows the US punctuation rules.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            In the US, punctuation goes inside of quotation marks.

            There’s nothing to debate here. Burgers, etc. taught you something; give him your sincere thanks, and move on.

            http://www.dailywritingtips.com/period-goes-inside-quotation-marks/

            http://blog.apastyle.org/apastyle/2011/08/punctuating-around-quotation-marks.html

          • 0 avatar
            Lie2me

            It still doesn’t make sense and bugs me every time I do it correctly.

            Mike said, “It’s going to rain tomorrow,” but I don’t believe him.

            This is all Mike had to say, his statement should end in a period. I added commentary to Mike’s statement which logically calls for a comma AFTER his statement as a pause before my comment. Putting the comma inside the quote suggests Mike had more to say that I didn’t include in the quote. Very confusing and a life long pet peeve of mine

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            I personally prefer the British method — it strikes me as being more logical — and I’ll admit to using it when it suits me. But it isn’t the US method, and it violates US style rules to use it.

  • avatar
    I've got a Jaaaaag

    I’ve worked as Private Investigator, and I can tell you the law will be essentially useless, anybody can buy the retrieval equipment. It costs $2000.00 Then all that is necessary is 15 mins alone with the vehicle.

    This data is very valuable in accident reconstruction and can mean the difference between a ticket for following too closely and a Vehicular Homicide charge. The authorities will always have access to this information.

    • 0 avatar
      DenverMike

      Your car can not be forced to testify against you, with or without a warrant. Same as your wife. You own every part on your car. You can delete its memory if you want, no different than a laptop computer. It’s not tampering with evidence. It’s there for YOUR benefit, not their’s. Same as your wife. But at the same time, you can use your car to prove your innocence.

      • 0 avatar
        chuckrs

        How is that not spoliation of evidence?

        • 0 avatar
          DenverMike

          But it’s MY evidence to dispose of as I wish. If I capture myself committing a crime on my surveillance equipment aimed at my driveway, like smoking pot and doing lines of coke while washing my car, changing my oil, and vacuuming it out while it’s on jack stands, against local policy, then willfully destroy the tape when I see the cops pull up…

          You see it’s their job to create and store the evidence they have against me. Why should I do their job?

    • 0 avatar
      Pch101

      “I can tell you the law will be essentially useless, anybody can buy the retrieval equipment.”

      But without appropriate authorization to use it, that would leave you with the fruit of the poison tree if the law prevents its use. The evidence gets tossed.

  • avatar
    Pch101

    Most proposed legislation never passes. The bill was referred to committee, and if normal statistical odds apply, it will die in committee.

    In any case, if your insurance company totals out your vehicle and buys it from you, then the vehicle belongs to your insurer, which presumably means that your insurer also owns the data. Ownership as a requirement may not mean very much.

    On the surface, the legislation seems to be reasonable enough, but it may be about as solid as Swiss cheese. Several states have laws like this; it would be interesting to see whether they accomplish anything.

    • 0 avatar
      jimbob457

      I was about to make precisely your major point. Well said. Draft legislation is usually just so much hot air.

    • 0 avatar
      pragmatist

      One thing we’ve learned from the Snowden affair is that you absolutely cannot trust government assurances. One of the things that was discovered is a massive amount of backchannel communication to feed illegally obtained information quietly back to the police and FBI, laundered so that it may look like it was obtained from a legal investigation. Defense attorneys often never saw this ‘evidence’ and they, as well as judges (sometimes even prosecutors) had no knowledge what it was or how it was obtained.

      This was NOT just ‘national security’ or ‘terrorism’ stuff, this was not just a few special cases. This was massive information feeding investigation of even low level offenses.

      • 0 avatar
        highdesertcat

        Back in the seventies, Americans were also routinely spied upon. It was illegal for America to do that, so we had our allies do it for us. And we did it for them on their citizens.

        And even though it is illegal for America to torture suspects, we outsource it to exotic places where torture is routinely done.

  • avatar
    DenverMike

    Is it OK to bring back molester/pedo/surfer/custom vans? Not yet? Man they were the coolest! I promise to use an imported mid-size fwd diesel Euro type chassis. Still no???

    • 0 avatar
      krhodes1

      They were tacky then, they are tacky now. NO!

      • 0 avatar
        DenverMike

        Yeah but fun overrules “tacky” everytime. And it’s the privacy of fully enclosed civilian vans that republicans hate. What do you think that couple in the above picture just finished doing? Right there in public. Look at the smirk on his face…

        • 0 avatar
          Toad

          The vast majority of Republicans (or Democrats or Independents) could not care less what consenting adults do in their vans. Implying otherwise and bringing political parties into it reflects badly on you.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            Your right, but why the F should ANYONE care what consenting adults do in private, whether that’s a car/truck/van or private residence? But you betcha they do… And that includes republicans especially. 0ops, there I go again!

  • avatar
    Chopsui

    To tell you the truth, I’m more worried about my insurance company gaining access to this stuff than the cops.

    PS that van is awesome

  • avatar
    b787

    This is ridiculous. NSA is routinely intercepting most of our communication, but we are concerned about data from EDRs which only record last 60 seconds or so of our driving. Court order should be mandatory though.

    • 0 avatar
      Lie2me

      No, I’m concerned about that too, but will go out of my way to give up as little information as I possibly can where ever I can

    • 0 avatar
      WhiskerDaVinci

      Yup, they seem far less concerned with the NSA storing this conversation than they do having a tiny portion of their driving monitored, stored, and probably never recovered. Which is why it’s so easy for the NSA to do it, most people care very little about it, even though they claim to.

      • 0 avatar
        Lie2me

        I’m going to disagree here, I think the majority of people do care about what information is being harvested and kept on them, but feel powerless to do anything but complain about it

      • 0 avatar
        krhodes1

        If it keeps my fat @ss from being blown up by Abdullah because he is peeved that he saw a video on YouTube he didn’t like, I am all for the NSA data mining, I have absolutely nothing to hide. If they want to read the text messages I just sent arranging this evenings football get-together, so be it. Go Pats!

        You want privacy? Communicate face-to-face.

        • 0 avatar
          b787

          They can’t hear you, but they still know where you are, provided you are carrying a mobile phone. Speaking of location, I think connected GPS systems like OnStar and MyFordTouch are a much more serious threat to one’s privacy than black box data.

        • 0 avatar
          Lie2me

          “I have absolutely nothing to hide.”

          How much money did you make last year and what did you spend it on?

          Everybody has got something to hide whether they know it or not

          • 0 avatar
            krhodes1

            About $120K. Spent on house, cars, food, the usual. No hookers, no blow. I don’t cheat on my taxes either. TOTALLY not worth it, the IRS has no sense of humor.

            Since nearly every cent I spend goes through one or the other of my two primary credit cards, Barclay’s and Chase certainly know where my money goes, and thus I assume the NSA does too. I could not care less. Absolutely nothing to hide.

          • 0 avatar
            Lie2me

            How’s you and your families health, any issues now or in the past that you were treated for? Have you or anyone in your family ever talk to a shrink, if so what about? How about clubs and organizations, belong to any, which ones? Do you belong to an organized religion, if so which one?

            At some point you’re going to tell me to MYOB as you should

          • 0 avatar
            krhodes1

            Health is excellent, despite being a fat b@stard – I come from ludicrously long-lived stock, though Alzheimer’s runs in the family. No shrinks. Belong to BMWCCA and the Saab club. Contribute to the Human Rights Campaign and NPR every year. A VERY devout atheist. And a good Maine Independent politically, I strongly believe in abortion AND the death penalty. Not that you asked. :-)

            I can keep this up all night… Nothing here that a thorough Google search of me wouldn’t find out. Google likely knows as much as the NSA, if you spend any time online.

          • 0 avatar
            Lie2me

            Well, there’s one thing you can’t deny. You’re a member of TTAC, obviously a subversive…

            …we’re watching you, buddy

        • 0 avatar
          b787

          You can afford to share all that info, because we live in a (relatively) free civilization. Unfortunately there is no guarantee it will stay that way forever. Just in the past 100 years, there were several regimes where you could get in trouble for having certain opinions.

          • 0 avatar
            krhodes1

            None of which were in the United States.

            We get the government we elect. I don’t buy into the ever so popular “government can do no right” meme. Our government actually works quite well, in the grand scheme of things.

        • 0 avatar
          ajla

          “I have absolutely nothing to hide.”

          So what is your real name?

        • 0 avatar
          Lorenzo

          They who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

          – Benjamin Franklin

  • avatar
    Juan Barnett

    My larger concern with this legislation is that it only appears to cover EDRs that were IIRC made mandatory per the OMB-approved NPRM last year. http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=NHTSA-2012-0177-1038

    The EDR will only collect data related to the vehicle and not the person. Had the Congress really wanted to make their song and dance more relevant they would have included in in-car navigation and any third party app associated with connecting to a vehicle or for use in a vehicle.

  • avatar
    ajla

    “what did you say your name was?”
    “San Francisco Rape-Strangler, Your Honor.”

    Carlos Rapé and Lisa Strangler would live to regret the decision to hyphenate their last name and name their first child after Saint Francis.

  • avatar
    mkirk

    All police state issues aside. my next project is going to be a Van. I am thinking Econoline diesel, maybe even a 4 wheel drive swap but I want the circle window and a mural. Someone described on this forum one with a cowboy looking off into a desert which turns into the Vietnam Jungle. This sounds about right though I’ll have to update the war. Shag on the inside to finish it off.

    I remember Clinton had a van for a while back in the 90′s when he had busted up his leg or something. Wonder if “Van-1″ is still in service.

  • avatar
    -Nate

    Wow ;

    All this dissent and ideology .

    I ride Ural Motocycles , do I need to discard my tin foil ? .

    -Nate

    • 0 avatar
      Lie2me

      *Your* tin foil? You always struck me as one of their translators, but I never thought of you as a member

      • 0 avatar
        -Nate

        You may not be aware that Ural Riders (Drivers in the case of the Combination Rigs) are called ” Foil Heads ” ~ I personally do not have tin foil in my helmet but so many do ! .

        I wasn’t referring to the average goofball who wears a tin foil beanie to ward off ” Those Evil Gubmint Mind Control Rays ” , yes , I know many of them =8-) .

        -Nate

        • 0 avatar
          Lie2me

          From Soviet Steed, Ural Forum

          “”Foilhead is a Russian rig owner who wears an aluminum foil hat of some kind to protect oneself from the dangerous mind altering Rays from the government who constantly watches us.”
          MartyL Benevolent Emperor”

          Yes, the difference is quite clear now, my bad

  • avatar
    Z71_Silvy

    Time to make a billion dollars and start a company that can disable this nanny state BS. It is an extreme over reach.

    Disable the recorder (or even better, the entire thing) and things are back to where they should be

  • avatar
    Kenmore

    Yay! Another addition to the Jack’s Jihad series. I love it when petty scofflaws hide behind big issues. Hell hath no fury like a princeling ticketed.

    While we’re at it, let’s agitate to ban skidmarks as evidence ’cause we own the tires that made them.

  • avatar

    Is thermite a controlled substance?

  • avatar
    danio3834

    It’s a good thing that this is being specifically addressed. Searching your car’s computer systems should have the same protections as searching your home or other personal property. Sometimes rules need updating to keep up with technological changes so decisions don’t have to be left up to activist judges to “interpret”.

  • avatar
    chevron

    Jack, I think the Dirty Harry thing still happens, but they’ve just added an extreme level of surveillance and infraction policing to the generally law abiding public. Anarcho-tyrany is the old Sam Francis concept.

    Anarchy for the underclass.
    Tyrany for the taxpayer.

  • avatar
    OneAlpha

    When, oh when, will the decade of the 1970s finally be made to answer for its crimes against fashion, culture and especially hairstyles?

    Probably just after Josef Stalin rightfully displaces Adolf Hitler as the World’s Official Worst Bad Guy Ever.

    • 0 avatar
      -Nate

      Hey now ~

      I bet you weren’t even there .

      I’ll have you know that for the Blue Collar Guy , the 1970′s were fashion nirvana .

      In 1972 to go to a wedding all I had to do was polish my Motorcycle boots , starch my jeans and put on a clean t – shirt .

      Because I wanted to look sharp I’d usually wax my PanHead too =8-) .

      Lotta really good Blues came out then too ! .

      -Nate

  • avatar
    ridersfan

    Here’s a crazy thought… don’t do bad things and then you don’t have to look over your shoulder wondering if you’ll get caught! All the privacy nazi’s in this world make me shake my head. Tighten your tinfoil hats up… why do you need to block access to your black box? Do you need to hide that you were driving wreckless? Do you need to hide that you stopped at a known drug dealers house? Do you need to hide that you bought explosives and then parked at an airport? These are things that deserve to get caught and I’m all in favor of bad people getting what they deserve for doing bad things.


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Subscribe without commenting

Recent Comments

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Contributing Writers

  • Jack Baruth, United States
  • Brendan McAleer, Canada
  • Marcelo De Vasconcellos, Brazil
  • Vojta Dobes, Czech Republic
  • Matthias Gasnier, Australia
  • W. Christian 'Mental' Ward, Abu Dhabi
  • Mark Stevenson, Canada
  • Cameron Aubernon, United States
  • J Emerson, United States