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

 

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:

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

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