{Snip}

B-Man,

First, read my profile, see my occupation.... I am ALL FOR people taking responsibility for their actions.

If you obey the laws you enforce, I sincerely salute you.

{Snip}

Yes, the police can and will use it against you. Its still an ulawful search and seizure under current law. It belong to you and if they take it without a warrant its illegal, period. Exception would occur if your vehicle is evidence in a felony.

I'm sorry; I could have sworn that the original story which started the topic was in regard to a woman who was:

A. Evading a police officer in a motor vehicle (is that a felony?);

and

B. Managed to wreck the car during the same evasive activity and killed a 7 year old in the process (is that a felony?)

As far as I can see, the police have a DUTY to collect that data and use it to the fullest extent possible to prosecute someone who is so careless with other people's lives and well-being. Call me a sheep, I guess...

I also did not notice that anyone was complaining of them obtaining the data without a warrant. If they did, won't the defense attorney have it dismissed as non-admissable evidence?

{Snip}

But this is more complicated than what we are talking about here. When we, as a society, start accepting all police tactics as okay as long as they (the police) deem them necessary, we put our way of life in danger. Under the logic implied in your statement, as long as the police deem a seizure necessary to make you take responsibilty for your actions, its A-OK. Its not.

I don't believe "my logic" indicated that I advocate any and / or all police activity. Believing that the woman mentioned did indeed commit felonies and the police should use the data against her does not seem to me like I am endorsing that they use unnecessary seizure to collect the information required to prosecute her for her stupidity. If a warrant is required, they should by all means get it. I have no problem with the rules; rather the statement that the box should be removed because it computes (and stores) real time driving data without your permission. (It appears that the reason it looks at speed and such is so it can make an "intelligent" decision regarding whether to deploy the airbags or not in the event of a collision, not to record data to have you arrested)

{Snip}

Your statement about ATM cameras is representative of the "sheep" mentality that everyone is out there to help YOU and nothing is a danger.

Sorry, but I don't get the connection. The banks install the cameras because they HAVE to, not because there is some elaborate spy ring they fund for law enforcement. Trust me, if they didn't have to spend the money for the cameras and recorders, they wouldn't. They have to so they are able to protect themselves from fraud and from lawsuits.

{Snip}

I agree that people need to take responsibilty for their actions, I try to help that happen whenever possible. If I screw up, then I will (and have) admit it, but I only see these being used to manufacture a civil case against someone who simply made a misjudgement and deserves a ticket, but not to have their life destroyed financially by an unscrupulous civil attorney.

AMEN !! I'm all for people taking responsibility for their actions. I'm also all for some serious re-construction of the attorney system in the US. They have taken justice and turned it into a reward system, based on finding the best loopholes (IMHO)

 

We're seriously straying, but WTF...

Now, if ya have any tendency at all to get indignant at dumb cop moves - Monday, Memorial Day, a number of agencies banded together to operate a DUI checkpoint. On US highway 50, at Lone Jack, MO, in eastern Jackson County. These geniuses had traffic backed up TWENTY MILES. It took hours to get through this ill-conceived mess. Some were people who had to go to work (including several cops!), many had kids or themselves wishing loudly for a potty, food, fuel, etc.
No surprise, though. These are the same intellectuals that blocked I-435 after a Monday night Chiefs game a few years ago, for the same purpose. Some folks didn't get home until after 3a.m. Real handy for those with babysitters waiting, no way to contact them (this was before cell phones were so common). Fourth amendment, their ***, so to speak.

For background, I have nothing against cops - I was one some years ago, and my son is a patrol officer. Now, cop administrators - now I have grief....

Slug

 

Here's another thought for you guys who think nothing is wrong with this "black box."

How long will it be before your insurance company taps into the info that's stored there?

Imagine this... "Hmmm. I see Mr. F-150 had his truck up to 95 mph today. I think we'll red flag him and raise his rates another 50%."

Where does it all end? How far are we willing to let it go? How much privacy are we willing to give up?

If you're against gun registration, bigger government, loss of privacy, how can you be in favor of this "black box?" It just doesn't add up.

Yeah, I bet you're all for this "black box" because you got nothing to hide and people should take responsibility for their actions. Yeah, right. I bet if the shoe were on the other foot, you'd think differently. Can you honestly say you never drove over the posted speed limit? Can you honestly say you always come to a complete stop at every stop sign and red light? If you don't, do you turn yourself in to the next police officer you see?

 

This argument is getting just absolutely ridiculous. First I am against big government, I am against gun registration to a point, that’s another debate, but I do not believe felons should own a gun, and I am also against the government invading my privacy “unchecked”.

The key word is “unchecked” if they have reason to do so, by means of a legal search warrant then they have been “checked”.

No one, so far as I can see here, have mentioned or stated in any way that anyone at anytime should just be able to plug into the computer and start downloading information.

The point is that someone started this thread, in my opinion, thinking “oh my God, someone is going to hook up to my truck in the middle of the night and download something that may get me arrested.”

Sorry, that is NOT the issue, it is as far away from the issue someone could get. B-man hit it right on the mark. The dumb “ill-responsible” lady that the data was used against COMMENTED a FELONY, she KILLED a LITTLE GIRL, therefore YES, it is ok to use that “additional” information or data to convict here.

Police, insurance companies or anyone else is NEVER going to have the right to just come up to someone and tell them to get out so they can download data. The important thing to remember is there is a very short amount of data collect, I believe it is in the neighborhood of 5 – 10 seconds worth of data. So, if you see the lights behind you, or the black helicopters yelling out the load speaker to pull over all you need to do is drive for about 20 seconds or longer and you have NOTHING to fear but fear itself.

As far as some of you that think conservatives like myself are on the wrong side of this argument go you are just plain wrong. This fits right in with my beliefs that people, all people should be held to account for their actions. It is called PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. Those that practice that have NOTHING to worry about ever.

I have at times gone over the speed limit, no big deal, I am not paranoid or losing sleep over big government or men wearing sun glasses landing in the black helicopters coming to get me in the middle of the night for a minor infraction.

My stance is simple and what it has always been, as long as there is justified reason, this means a search warrant is needed, then any official of law enforcement has good cause to download the data if someone is “suspected” of committing a felony, be it drunk driving etc. If you’re truly innocent you have nothing to fear. If you know you’re guilty as hell then just start screaming about the black helicopters coming to get you and maybe that will help reduce some of your time behind bars and put you in a strapped bed for the help someone may need…



Speaking of black helo's, where did he come from...

 

Here is something else for some of you that FEAR this innocent little black box. You all have the freedom of choice, it is guaranteed to you in that fine document titled “The United States Constitution”

This means you have the choice to own a vehicle with the black box, or you can own a vehicle without the black box, the choice is completely yours to make, so make it and stop losing sleep over it…

 

01 XLT Sport - You are one funny guy !!

ROTFLMFAO !!!!

Pray tell, where would one be able to read about the original source of the "black helicopter" comments you so graciously provide ??

 

I don't recall where I first heard about black helocopters, I think it was that nut case Ross Perol (sp?) when he was running for President...

 

Well I just wonder what else is being recorded by the pcm.

I know that Ford can pull info like if you have been hitting your rev limiter and then possibly void your warranty.

If my truck gets in an accident I'm having it towed and secured in my backyard. Then I dont have to worry about my stuff getting ripped off out of it either.

 

Im sorry, but isnt this information inadmissible in court?


A recording of any person is not admissible unless that person gives their consent to be recorded or a warant is issued by a judge to record without consent/knowledge


Any lawyers in the house?

 

The problem with this and all MONITORING DEVICES is who makes the decisions as to weather or not the offence is enough to constitute a crime. As with automatic speed monitoring devices, someone has to decide at what speed a ticket will be mailed to the vehicle owner.

If I am involved in an accident, which is not my fault, but I happened to be driving 10 or 12 miles over the speed limit, am I then guilty of a crime? Who here can say they have never driven faster then the speed limit? Ever? In the last week? Day?

Some will say 12 miles over is not a crime but I'm here to tell you someone will get charged, and probably convicted.
It's all in the interpretation of the law. There are people serving life in prison for having a joint.
I think there is no middle ground. I don't want the truck I drive to be WATCHING me. It will be interesting to see what happens if this goes to the Supreme Court. It is in one of those gray areas, a person has a right to not self incriminate but also the government has the right to monitor you when you are in public or driving.

 

Well, actually it is not recording anybody. It is simple recording data readings from sensors. Right now it is legal for anyone to record anyone else “without” their permission if you are “not” recording voice. Like bank camera’s, ATM camera’s and if some pervert decided to hide a camera to tape a couple having sex can do so and not be found guilty of the actual taping so long as there is no voice involved. He may find himself guilty of trespassing etc.

So, as far as this recorder it is not taping voice, nor is it actual taping the individual. It is simple recording and storing a short amount of data being sent to it by sensors. Something you should know, as I stated earlier, it is only logging, or recording a short amount of “time”. I believe it is in the neighborhood of 5 – 10 seconds worth of data. It is done basically as FILO (First In, Last Out) in other words it can only hold so much new data and then it must replace, or overwrite old data (old being like 10 seconds worth).

That is one of the reason I have stated there really is nothing to fear from anybody, be it law enforcement, insurance companies etc. Let’s take for example the fear that some may have of the insurance company plugging in and downloading the data to perhaps jack your rates because of speeding. Well, how are they going to do that? They going to follow you down the turnpike and pull next to you demanding you pull over immediately so they can down load the information? No, there not, because if some jerk tried that you simple get back down to the speed limit and drive for a good 60 second seconds and any data that had been recorded about your speed 60 seconds “ago” has now been overwritten by new fresh data showing that you’re a law abiding citizen.

Next, using data against someone in a court proceeding. Let’s take what this thread was originally started with. Some “Ill-responsible” women that cause an accident that killed a 7-year-old little girl. That is a “possible” felony. Since the police have the right to seize all evidence at a “possible” crime scene that means they get to impound the car and the lady can not touch it. The police have the ability to search the entire car for what ever they wish, that’s how it works now right? They can look for drugs, pull samples of DNA etc. Now they simple have one more piece of evidence the last 10 seconds of data the black box recorded, showing possible things such as speed, were the brakes used, seatbelts used, etc.

No problem with that right? I mean the person does have the ability to fight that in court and have that evidence thrown out by a judge. If they judge ruled in here favor that hair samples from the car could not be used because of possible “illegal” search and seizure then the data would be thrown out as well, all evidence would be thrown out.

The important thing to remember is this black box does not have the capabilities to collect month’s worth of data, as I know it now it is in the seconds. Perhaps someone with the actually answer will come along and tell us just how much time worth of data is collected.

Still no reason to fear the black box…

 

>I know that Ford can pull info like if you have been hitting your >rev limiter and then possibly void your warranty.
>Hapynzap

Let's give this one a moment of thought. I dunno if this can be done or not, nor do I care. Why? If hitting the rev limiter FORD put in it damages anything, it is their engineering at fault, not my operating.

There are many facets to accident investigation/reconstruction. There is a decades-long "science" for example, dealing with skid marks. The investigator plugs in a number of factors concerning the vehicle, tires (depth of tread), pavement (mostly) and comes up with a speed the vehicle was supposedly traveling before the brakes were hit. There are many, many holes in this bidness - what's NOT taken into account? Tread compound - brake balance - slope - vehicle load (Alone? Or was the football team with you?), and - far as I know - tread width. How about was the pavement wet? Still sandy from the last snowstorm? I've seen some wildly inaccurate answers come from this investigatory technique. That little black box might be the best friend you have. Without that data, the opposition is free to claim anything they want to claim, as long as they cloak it in the robes of "science" believable to an unsophisticated layman.





Sittin' back...

Slug

 

As long as we are really roaming around, here's some unsolicited advice, worth what you have paid for it.
Never, NEVER fall for the consensual search. It's a very, very effective investigational tool of the po-po folk.
You are stopped for a trivial traffic thing or equipment violation. The officer (more and more are being trained to do this EVERY stop, whether they have suspicions arouned or not) casually asks you, "Have any weapons, drugs, or other contraband in your car I should know about"?
You reply, "No, sir".
He says, "Do you mind if I look through your car, then..."
If you say "No", you have just said, "No, I don't mind".
If you say "Yes", you have just said "Yes, you may look through my car". At least, that's what the cop will hear. ("You said 'Yes'")He will then commence the search, and once he decides he has permission, you can no longer stop him.
Always answer this question with a complete sentence - "You do NOT have permission to search my vehicle". Try not to use the words "yes" or "no" at all.
So, what's the big deal if you have nothing to hide? If you have nothing to hide, it won't be productive for the cop to search your truck. Might as well save the time for him. If you do, you have kept him away from it. Maybe you have nothing to hide, but what about that hitchhiker, GF, brother-in-law, vindictive a-hole at school...
Simple truth: You have the right to deny access to your vehicle, and you have absolutely nothing to gain from allowing it to be searched.
Now, if a drug dog "hits" on it, you're screwed. Can't stop'em. Miraculously, some drug dogs hit on EVERY vehicle they are asked to search, then the PD stands around in wonderment when nothing is found....

Slug

 

IMHO, if you committed a crime any evidence should be allowed. Regardless of how it was obtained. Short of beating a confession out of you. Filming or photos of any person should not be allowed, regardless of who they are, unless that person obtained permission from the person being filmed. Actors are paid to be filmed. A mechanic is paid to fix cars. When he goes home you have to ask him to fix your car and he is allowed to refuse. Why should actors not be afforded the same privilege? News papers should be obliged to reveal their sources. Someone stop me please!

Bring on the black box. When they are common place like in aircraft we should lobby for increased driver education/skill and unlimited speed limits.

Here some sites that have info on the Black box;

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd...bin-Report.pdf
http://www.collisionrecon.com/servic...retrieval.html
http://www.vetronix.com/diagnostics/cdr/faqs.html
http://www.accidentresearch.com/edr-flyer.pdf
http://www.accidentresearch.com/edr-flyer.pdf
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd...01/ChipEDR.PDF

JMC

 

>IMHO, if you committed a crime any evidence should be allowed. >Regardless of how it was obtained. Short of beating a >confession out of you.

JMC, you have not committed a crime until you are convicted. There are rules governing the trial process to ensure you get a fair trial, right? You do want a fair trial, don't you?

These rules include the rules of evidence. If the cops and prosecutors can make up their own rules of evidence, as you imply, then no one is safe from evidence manufactured to suit the motives of the cops or courts. If these folks are running loose, you will get a fair trial if they decide you will.

Feel free to trust every cop and every court to do the Dudley Doright thing, if you wish. I ain't that naive. I am old enough to have seen a lot stuff I'd just as soon not have seen, and some of it involves "administration of justice".

While we're at it, I'll throw in a pitch for jury duty. Please, when called, serve. It isn't that big a deal, and it's important to the poor ba$tard on the stand. I've always gone gladly, with the thought that when and if my turn comes, I don't want twelve people in the jury box that are there because they think the $8 a day is a good deal.

Slug