The Dallas Morning News Article should give new car buyers pause

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Dec 25, 2002
Messages
3,593
Location
Outside smalltown, IL
quote:
Originally posted by ALS:
quote:
Originally posted by Scott P: Wow...a lot of tinfoil hats around
Paranoia is just a heightened sense of awareness. Massad Ayoob

Just becasue you're paranoid, doesn't mean they really aren't out to get you... [Big Grin]
 
Joined
Sep 28, 2002
Messages
39,800
quote:
Originally posted by jsharp: It's not right though IMO. The question right now is who owns the data. I don't see any kind of legal contortionism that can say that the data isn't private and owned buy the person who owns the vehicle. I don't recall any EULA provided when I buy a car that gives anyone else the right to snoop into the internals of that car. But, I'm not a legislator or attorney either... [Wink]
All it would take is an "implied concent" type thing, I imagine. That is, your state would make access to your privately owned data a condition of "granting" you permission to drive.
 
Joined
Jun 2, 2003
Messages
23,591
The argument "If you don't have anything to hide, you have no reason to object to data about you (and your vehicle, health, finances, food perferences, sleeping position etc) being gathered, analyzed and used to define you, is totally irresponsible and opens the door to commerical, criminal and legal misuse and abuse of your information by anyone who can access (as in buy or steal!) your data. We lose out freedom bit for bit -- until it's all gone.
 
Joined
May 7, 2004
Messages
12,245
Location
Nokesville, VA
quote:
Originally posted by ekpolk: but how'd you like to be under investigation, and have a more believable error appear?
Probably happens often enough with police radar. Most EDRs don't record your speed information from a GPS anyhow, it is recorded from a vehicle speed sensor, same as used for cruise control and the speedometer.
 

JHZR2

Staff member
Joined
Dec 14, 2002
Messages
48,614
Location
New Jersey
This is ridiculous... its such old news it isnt funny. For years, MB and saab have utilized such items, and have even sent engineers to the sites of crashes and to inspect the bodies of the vehicles for the purposes of seeing how they held up. It has ben done for a long time to imporve the safety of the vehicles they build. An MB car saved my life, granted it was an 83, so certainly didnt have an event recorder (the diesel egine was completely mechanically controlled), but the safety engineerng that went into that vehicle was thanks to analysis of engineers looking at real life crashes and designing their cars to hold up. The black box has been another tool to understand crash dynamics. IIRC, I recall reading that some car company refused to provide event data for court purposes, due to the privacy issue - it was for engineering purposes only. Personally, I really dont care. I am so non-harmful in my actions that I have nothing to worry about. Frankly, the law is the law,and as much as we like to gripe aboutthe speed limit being too low, if youre doing 75 in a 65 zone, you should risk more than just a ticket... If you are found unconscious at an accident at an intersection, and it shows that in the last 5 seconds before the accident you had floored the pedal trying to get through a yellow by a long shot, frankly, that information should be known. Driving is a privledge, not a right. You are allowed to utilize the roads, so long as you obey the rules. Unfortuantely, many think it is their right to abuse the rules, and that they dont deserve penalty even if something goes wrong. This really isnt the case. So long as the EDR isnt broadcasting your every move to some database, I dont particularly see the issue. And, for safety engineering and diagnostics, Im glad they exist... As for insurance companies and lawsuitsand penalties... i hate insurance companes and lawyers... However, things have to be fair to some extent. People in most states are allowed to have radar detectors to snoop on and evade the plice... why? so that they can do something illegal, typically drive too fast. How is it so terrible that an insurance company (OK, I hate insurance comanies, and prefer to minimize their chance of geining extra profit), or a rental car company can't be allowed to snoop on your driving profile to see if youre driving safely and if youre doing anything potentially damaging to the vehicle? At work, you let them snoop on your internet usage to ensure youre not looking at porn, but if youre driving a rental car they shouldnt be alloed to see if their asset was being abused by you doing 95 MPH? balance is key. JMH
 
Joined
Feb 1, 2006
Messages
3,833
Location
NEPA
The back of the PA registration slip says something like "I acknowledge such-n-such a law"...which is a simple anti-littering law...but you are required to sign your registration, under penalty of law. Catch-22.
 

JHZR2

Staff member
Joined
Dec 14, 2002
Messages
48,614
Location
New Jersey
quote:
Originally posted by moribundman: The argument "If you don't have anything to hide, you have no reason to object to data about you (and your vehicle, health, finances, food perferences, sleeping position etc) being gathered, analyzed and used to define you, is totally irresponsible and opens the door to commerical, criminal and legal misuse and abuse of your information by anyone who can access (as in buy or steal!) your data. We lose out freedom bit for bit -- until it's all gone.
I dont know. It depends on what happens to the ownership of the data. If Saab wants to have some fancy electronics in my car, and uses it to figure out how the car protected me in an accident situation, then great. Im more than happy for them to collect the data, and Im more than happy for them to have it - I gladly give it to them, as it is engineering and product development at its best. If its an accident situation, and I have full ownership of my data, which Im willing to give away, it is better for me. Case-in-point... when I was hit in my 83 MB 300D in July of 2004, and had to sue the undernsured driver in court, progressive insurance claimed that I (second car from the back) was at fault, and that even though my car had all damage to the rear, was pushed to the side, and had minimal damage on the front, that I was at fault for the damages to the cars in front (it wasa pileup). I knew I wasnt at fault, I knew that I was in control and what happened. It took me puttng together an entire physics/engineerng derivation (thanks again forthe help, Molakule) before they tucked their tails between their legs and claimed to be at fault. If I wa sin a car that had a recorder, I could have plopped down the chip and shown that my car had zero throttle, zero speed, and had been at rest for so many miliseconds bfore being hit and re-accelerated dure to the other driver's negligence. Instead I spent how many hours fighting over liability and creating derivations and calculations in mathcad... I dont like car insurance companies, nor do I like rental car companies much better. However, I am a careful driver that generally stays within the laws of the road.. OK, I do 71 in a 65, but usually not more than that. If I coul dget better rates on either (a.k.a. reducing their profits) by being monitored and proving my skill, I think I would. I still think that if youre allowed to own a radar detector to snoop out the cops and allow you to proceed with your illegal speeding activiy without as much risk of being caught, then law enforcement, insurance, etc. has the right to prevent you from evading their grasp by monitoring your driving practices. But it all comes down to balance and ownership of data. JMH
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top