who here knows how to dis-arm a data recorder?
 

About a year ago I posted a reply to a topic regarding the auto industry installing "Black Box" data recorders in new vehicals (since the the late '90s) that would be "tatle-tales" with information recorded by them being used against you whenever the authorities seen fit.

Many of you laughingly asked if I also had noticed black helicoptors tracking my movements . . . big brother type face recognition software inhanced cameras mouted on light poles, etc.

Well, may I please submit in my defense the following news artical as evidence that while I may at times promote others to be aware of possible threats, I am not parinoid!

BTW, the good news is that Fords "data recorder" isn't as 'bad' a tatle-tale as is GM's. . . . pls read on.


Hidden witness in crash death
Prosecutors to use car's black box

BY MARK BOWES
TIMES-DISPATCH STAFF WRITER May 25, 2003


A hidden electronic witness that records drivers' actions in a crash may help authorities prosecute a high-profile vehicular-manslaughter case in Chesterfield County.

Unbeknown to many motorists, a monitoring device known as a "black box" is tucked away in the air-bag systems of millions of late-model U.S. cars and trucks.

The device, more formally called a crash data recorder, collects a driver's actions when a collision triggers the air-bag system. Many of the devices record and store such data as vehicle speed, engine speed, throttle position, brake-switch status and seat-belt use five seconds before a crash.


A black box was in Roxanne S. Harrell's 2003 Chevrolet S-10 pickup truck when she crashed after a 20-minute police pursuit Feb. 24 on Hull Street Road in Chesterfield.

Harrell's daughter, 7-year-old Benicia C. "Beanie" Rockwell, was killed in the wreck. The mother was charged with involuntary manslaughter, eluding police and reckless driving.

Crash-team investigators, with assistance from the Virginia State Police, downloaded information from the black box in Harrell's truck and plan to use it at trial.

"We received information [from the box] that was consistent with what we were told had happened [by witnesses] at the scene," said Chesterfield police Lt. Brian Smith, who declined to elaborate on the specific data retrieved. "We feel it is good information that will help us at trial."

Harrell's crash represents the first time police in the Richmond area have retrieved black-box data for use in a criminal case.

Many more cases will probably follow, here and across the state, if Chesterfield succeeds in prosecuting the case with such evidence. Use of the technology will inevitably raise questions about a driver's self-incrimination and privacy.

"As more vehicles [with black boxes] get involved in crashes, we'll be using this more often," Smith said. "So we're looking forward to using it. We think it's a great tool for us."

State police, in conjunction with Virginia Commonwealth University's Transportation Training Center, have helped about a dozen Virginia law-enforcement agencies retrieve data from black boxes during the past year.

State police have purchased seven black-box retrieval systems that should be in use by next month, said Trooper Rick Dowsett, who helped Chesterfield retrieve data in the Harrell case.

"The best information is coming out of late model GM [vehicles] - Saturns, Geos, Pontiacs, Cadillacs - those kinds of cars," Dowsett said. "Ford is just this year coming on line [with the updated technology]."

Ford black boxes record data after impact, not seconds before, Dowsett said.

Florida authorities recently won a conviction in a vehicular-homicide case that was based partly on data collected from a black box.

The defendant was convicted in Broward County, Fla., of crashing his 2002 Pontiac Grand Am Firehawk into another vehicle last August, killing two teenagers.

The defendant testified he was driving about 20 mph over the 30-mph speed limit when the crash occurred. But the black-box data showed he was racing at more than 100 mph, according to news accounts.

Michael Horowitz, the assistant state attorney in Broward who prosecuted the case, said the data helped convict the driver. "It's like having a video of how the crash occurred."

The small boxes were originally designed to ensure that air bags were deploying properly, not to monitor drivers.

Although beneficial to police, the black-box technology won't replace standard police investigations of crashes, authorities said.

"The information we get off of this is just part of an investigative tool," said Chesterfield police Sgt. Dennis Harry. "We just don't go in and plug up to it and get everything we need, and then we're finished."

The boxes in various forms have been installed in many General Motors cars since the late 1990s and in some Ford Motor Co. vehicles since 2001.

Investigators believe the data retrieved from the boxes can, in many cases, be much more reliable than information collected through more traditional means.

Eyewitness accounts, for example, are not always dependable, and skid marks that investigators measure to estimate a vehicle's speed aren't available with new anti-lock braking systems.

Black-box technology is "basically a tool to verify the additional work that's been done by the officer, with calculations and talking with witnesses," Smith said.

Smith agreed that data retrieved from black boxes could be significantly more reliable, depending on the type of crash involved.

"If you're talking about a straight crash that runs into a brick wall, where there's no variables, it's going to be extremely accurate," Smith said. "But when you're talking about multiple collisions - hitting one vehicle, then going sideways down the road and rolling, and then flipping end over end - that's where the problems come in."

Law-enforcement officers must undergo training to retrieve black-box data, which requires a software program and cables to connect the box to a computer. The systems cost about $2,500 each.

New uses for the technology have raised questions of privacy for vehicle owners and operators.

In a public hearing in February, the Electronic Privacy Information Center urged the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration not to mandate the use of black-box technology "without ensuring that strong privacy safeguards are in place to protect the interests of drivers."

The nonprofit research and educational organization examines privacy and civil-liberties implications in emerging technologies.

In September 2001, a panel of experts working for the NHTSA concluded that widespread use of black boxes in cars and trucks would advance motor-vehicle safety. But the group acknowledged that difficult questions remain about self-incrimination and privacy.

In an 89-page report, the panel - including representatives of industry, academia and government - leaned heavily in favor of black boxes for cars and trucks.

But the report said the key to gaining public acceptance is convincing motorists black boxes will help protect them from harm rather than get them penalized for mistakes.

The panel said studies have shown that driver awareness of the black boxes tends to reduce the number and severity of crashes.


Contact Mark Bowes at (804) 649-6450 or mbowestimesdispatch.com

:banana:

So what is wrong with the Black box? If some A hole is going 100 mph let the F'er fry for such a stupid act..... If traffic fines were $1000.00 per10 mph over the limit then there would be no more , or at least very few, speeders. Radar detectors were illegal in Ontario. I only stopped using them when the fine became $1000.00 for having one. But on the subject of the black box, I have no clue except to suggest removing the Air bag.

Regards

Jean Marc Chartier

In the case of an accident is it possible to clear the black box data by taking out the battery?

I would believe the answer is NOPE there is NO reason to fear the "BLACK BOX" it is a great tool for tech's to use to troubleshoot.

The only reason you have to fear the "BLACK BOX" is if you're already doing something against the law.

Personal Responsiblity will make the "BLACK BOX" useless, except as a great tool for troubleshooting....

Don't sweat it these things are sitting right off the coast: http://images.animfactory.com/animat...oat_md_wht.gif

Funny how people don't want to be responsible for THEIR own actions.:mad: :mad:

sounds like the woman killed her child while committing a stupid act like running from the police. If she is guilty, she deserves more than what she will receive. If the black box helps prove the facts, then i am happy with that.

even paranoid people have enemies....

That doesn't answer the question.

If you can clear the PCM codes by unhooking the battery why not the other information in the computer?

The black box and the data contained in it are the property of the person who owns the vehicle. I just read my complete purchase contract and all documentation I have EVER received from FoMoCo and my dealer and nowhere does it state that FoMoCo or any other entity retaines any priviledges to the box or its data. THUS, if a person/agency/dealer removed the box and or its data without my consent, they have committed a theft. If they remove the box, its grand theft since I am sure they cost more than $300 to replace, if they remove only the data, then its just a petit theft.

I agree with the philosophy that you only need to be worried if you have something to hide... but there are bigger, more important issues which underly the data in the box. Its the fact taht the box is there in the forst place - without the permission of the person that its recording. I am not a lawyer, but I bet I could argue to a reasonable collection of 12 people that I was being evesdropped upon in my vehicle without my permission.

Bottom line is that the box and its contents belong to the owner of the vehicle, seizure of the box or its data would require a warrant signed by a judge. Which isn't going to happen - I hope. There are a lot of very proven and well-respected accident reconstruction techniques available to law enforcement that do not need the help pf that little black box.

Phil -

You may own the vehicle and black box and the data that is in it, but if your vehicle is involved in a crime, they can (and will) use it against you if they deem necessary.

If you call logging the data input from the myriad of sensors in your truck eavesdropping, you would probably have a heart attack if you knew what is happening every time you make an out of country phone call, e-mail, etc.

That's like saying the camera at the ATM is "spying" on you. Yes, it could be used to prosecute you for a crime at the ATM, but it's real purpose is to protect you in the event of fraud or assault.

Same with the black box. Just because it CAN supply real time data does not mean it was designed for "eavesdropping". It was designed for operational, troubleshooting and design improvement data collection. The police just happened to realize other useful applications for the same data used by the vehicle's engine management systems.

I agree with HomeSkillet, 01 XLT Sport, and 03f150man. I'm sick of people who are unwilling to take responsibility for their actions.

:rocker:

My problem with the system is this: how do you know it is even working properly? What if it is recording data incorrectly and that causes it to show you going 50 mph when you were really only going 10?

There are many cases where even if the machine records the data exactly right, it would lead to an incorrect assumption of the actual events. What if I'm driving down a road through a green light, and some guy comes out of the dark and runs his light and I slam into him, not even hitting my brakes because I didn't see him. There are no witnesses besides him, and he says the light was green for him, and the cops see you didn't even attempt to stop because of the computer. That could influence the decision completely, but its not really taken in context.

People are funny. On one hand, they don't want the government involved in their lives. On the other hand, when they can come out and make a statement, "You have nothing to fear if you don't do anything wrong," they are ok with the government "listening in" on what they are doing and willing to let such information be used against anyone.

Then again...

I'd bet that if anybody in this thread who sees nothing wrong with this black box ever got into an accident that they may have caused, they'd be crossing their fingers and toes that their truck doesn't have one of these boxes.

In regards to the box, I'm thinking you need to find out if it is essential to the operation and safety of the vehicle and if not, you disconnect it. Since all vehicles don't have it, I'm thinking it's ok to disconnect it.

Anybody know where it's located?

Final thoughts. I wonder how long it will be before the government starts issuing citations after routinely checking the data to see if you've been speeding? I also wonder how long before these boxes can start recording audio like they do in aircraft?

Correct me if I'm wrong but the term black box is a misnomer. The recording aspect is part of the PCM isn't it?

The other guys insurance company will want to tap into it, no doubt. Once a guy ran a stop sign and broadsided me but claimed my headlights weren't on which was BS. His insurance company said they could do a chemical test on the broken headlight to tell if it was on or not.

I just recently took my first ODBII emission test. All they did was plug into the port. How easy would it be for the Po Po to do that on a traffic stop, heh.

B-Man,

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

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. 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 p[olice) 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.

Your statement about ATM cameras is representative of the "sheep" mentality that everyone is out there to help YOU and nothing is a danger. This attitude won't fade until you become a victim of this new helpful technology. I am not a skeptic and I am certainly not paranoid; I simply recognize that not everyone is out there with the intention of helping me. I watch out for myself and, to that end, disagree with being monitored in my own conveyance by a device that I own but didn't consent to having in there. If there were a way to remove it, I would - not because I plan to do anything wrong, but because I plan to do everything right and see no need for anyone to have info about what I do.

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.

Interesting points from all. FWIW the restraints control module has the crash data function built in to it. So if you remove/disconnect the RCM you remove the sensor. But you also render the air bags useless. Not a bad thing IMHO. ;)

JMC

{Snip}

B-Man,

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

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)

:rocker:

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 ass, 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… :thumbsup:

http://images.animfactory.com/animat...oat_md_wht.gif

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

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… :thumbsup:

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... :devil:

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. :rolleyes:

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… :thumbsup:

>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.



:lurk:

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

slug,

I see your point. Let all the creatons go free just incase one of them is actually inocent... Even Judge Dread made a mistake..... ;)

JMC

Creatons? ROFL!

FREE AT LAST..... FREE AT LAST... THANK GOD ALMIGHTY... WE ARE FREE AT LAST...

I'm not surprised that you're not getting the point.

So, the box only holds 15 seconds of data. That's today. Next year? 30 seconds? 5 minutes a year later? 1 hour a year after that?

You scoff at the possibility. Did you ever anticipate say 10 years ago, in your wildest dreams, that the car manufacturers would put something in your vehicles to actually monitor how you're driving without informing you of it? Did you anticipate that the data held in that box can be used against you in court?

The insurance companies won't be able to tap into the box? Are you sure of that? Do you trust your government to protect your privacy? My local water department can read my water meter just by driving by it, using a radio transmitter activating a transponder on my water meter. Who knows? This technology could be employed in our vehicles too. The justification? The government needs to know where every vehicle is and how it's being driven because of national security. Insurance companies can use that data to save good drivers money and increase the premiums of unsafe drivers. The government could use that data to confiscate vehicles that have been used to break the speed limits.

Hey, if they can put a gps in a cellphone that tells people exactly where that $100 phone is, you can bet your bottom dollar that they can put a gps in the black box too. Hell, a bunch of high end vehicles are being tracked 24 hours a day right now!

Impossible? How many of you have flown recently? 3 years ago, how many of you would have left your luggage unlocked? You'd no sooner leave your luggage unlocked than you would leave your zipper down. Today, the TSA tells you to leave your luggage unlocked. They remind you of it at the airport. Your bag falls open? Too bad. Stuff gets stolen from your bag? Too bad. It's for the good of national security so you just lost your rights as an airline passenger.

Ever seen those full body scan machines at the international terminals? You get scanned by one of those things and some stranger knows what you look like without your clothes on. Did you anticipate the use of such a machine 5 years ago?

In less than 10 years from now, you'll remember this debate when laws are passed to allow the remote reading of data from your own personal vehicles by law enforcement and insurance agencies.

Don't think it will happen? Look at how much privacy you've lost in the past 2 years because of national security.

Well, just thank the liberals for making it possible. If we actually had personal responsibility in this country maybe some of these things would not be happening... :thumbsup:

Actually, it is better to let a criminal go free if it means you prevent the incarceration or death of somebody who is innocent. Case in point. The recent raid on a home where a lady died from a heart attack. Turns out it was the wrong address. Was it worth the risk of killing an innocent person to catch a criminal? I don't think so.

Prosecutors agree that they'd rather let a criminal go free than put an innocent person in jail.

Let me put another slant on this. How would you feel if you sat on a jury that sent a person to death row only to have that person cleared of the crime after that person was put to death?

The point is, we have a greater responsibility to protect the innocent than we do to convict a criminal.

Yep, poor ol' criminal's it's not their fault anyway, someone else's fault.

As far as the elder lady that died that is truly sad, but it is something that is a part of life. Sure I would love to sit here and say it should never happen, but that is fantasy, something liberals love to grab on to in order to make some kind of argument against anyone really being safe.

Nothing in life is fair, and nothing is life is perfect. So, since it seems someone should be held accountable for an innocent elder lady dieing because of a “mistake” then let’s actually do something to make it “fair”, shall we?

Here is what I propose. They police were obviously looking for someone so when they find them, and if that person they were looking for is found guilty of the crime the police were looking for him for then that person should be charged with the elder ladies death. To me that is fair and just. Well, let me explain that one because some liberals may not actual get it.

First was it the police’s fault for the death or who they were looking for to begin with, but got the wrong information on the person’s whereabouts? Well, the logical answer, when thought out with knowledge and not “feelings” is it was the person the police were looking for, it is that person’s fault. It is so because this person, by some kind of action set in motion the circumstances for the police to have to go breaking down doors looking for them.

If this person had actually practiced “personal responsibility” the police would not have to have gone busting down a door looking for them. This would have prevented an innocent person dieing due to the mistakes made by the police that was set in motion by the person they were looking for.

Why are some people so worried about a black box in a vehicle but not worried about their phones, computers, their personal mail, trash, or anything else you can think of that data can be collected on you.

It is not a perfect world, never has been and never will be. :thumbsup:

Are we still talking about trucks?:confused: :eek: :D

Sure... :thumbsup: :devil:

I still don't like the idea of a monitor in my truck, which is capable of incriminating me. I agree with Dennis, memory is cheap. 5 seconds turns into 5 days and the phone rings and my insurance rate goes up because I did 60 in a 55 zone. No matter because 5 minutes ago the phone range and my license was suspended. Of course I didn't answer either call because I had them forwarded to my truck. After all, plenty of memory to hold all my call messages there...

Just read in the paper that the government is working on a way to track people's every movement including what they say and do.

All in the name of national security. Oh, to top it off, this information will be PUBLIC DOMAINE! You can thank Rummy and friends for this. I'm sure Ashcroft had his hand in this too.

Mark my words. This black box in our trucks is only the beginning. My one hope is that 10 years from now, you remember this debate and what I've been saying.

BTW, don't be making this a liberal vs. conservative thing. Some of you always do that and all it does is drag the whole thing into the crapper. Just stick to the issues and leave the vindictive comments out of it.