New Proof that I'm not Crazy!!
 

:bows:
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

:wave:

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


:devil:

I still think your nutz:devil:

Btw...The May 26 2003 issue of NewsWeek reports that a Edwin Mato's car was the star witness in his manslaughter and vehicular homicide trail.
He crashes into a car carring two teenage girls, killing them both. His attorney argued that he wasn't traveling faster than 50mph. But the jury trusted the black box more and convicted him.
The black box logged the vehicles speed at 103mph in the final second before the crash.

Article is on page 10, for all that are interested

Gotta hate a guy that is that brutally honest with you.

ROFL!

RP :D

Don't sweat the black box. It is a good thing especially for troubleshooting, and unless your already breaking the law (speeding) you have nothing to worry about... :thumbsup:

That black box is not going to tell a wife that another women has been in their, however that little hidden camara she hid, might... :devil:

Thankfully Ford is preasantly behind the times on this one.

I can see where this could be a big help. I also expect to see backlash as this information is used more often. It'll be interesting to see how this play out.

Who knows. Maybe the next great thing will be a GPS based data system that logs every single mile we go. Kind of like some of the rental car companies do now.

>>>>The black box data transfer is pretty neat. They just recently chose members from our depts. accident reconstruction team to be trained on retrieving the data from these vehicles. They tell speed, when brakes were applied, seatbelt use (which is pretty evident without the blackbox), and some tell G forces at the impact I've been told.

>>>> Funny story about GPS and GMs. I recently heard (from someone who knew both the hubby and wife) a story about a guy a county over from me who was out late after work engaging in activities a married man shouldn't be doing in his new Caddy with Onstar. His wife became suspicious and called Onstar to locate her vehicle. Onstar gave her the exact location and directions to it. It was parked out in the country just off a dirt road in a field. Wifey found hubby there in a compromising position with another gal. Aint technology wonderful.......Onstar it aint just for lost cuetips anymore..... :thumbsup:

Petrol, I don't believe in helicopter conspiricies either but there is something to what you say and more. GM is eventually putting ONSTAR into each vehicle they will sell. With current technology on the shelf, every vehicle so equiped will be able to be tracked to within a few feet of their location 24 hours a day.

There could come a time when we don't want our government to know where we are twenty four hours a day. I agree that it is against the constitution to force people to incriminate themselves. It is spelled out nicely in our bill of rights.

Live Free or Die.

Very good point Nick D. and just the reason they can NOT just download the information and use it against someone in court. It would follow under the same theory as any other search and seizure. The authorities would have to have some type of warrant to get the information and use it against someone. As far as ONSTAR you could if you wanted to just get into it and remove it.

Just like any other technology that helps and benefits the society as a whole there will always be some way to use it against someone. It is very simple, if people practice “personal responsibility” they have absolutely NOTHING to worry about. Those that are always trying to get away with something they know they shouldn’t be doing will always whine about it and cry “invasion of privacy”.

Personally I like the idea about ONSTAR, the fact that if someone is to get into a accident in a remote location where maybe no one else is around and it renders the driver unconscious could very well save that persons life because if the airbags deploy it signals ONSTAR about the situation and then ONSTAR can send out emergency response personal. Another good thing about it is if your vehicle equipped with ONSTAR is stolen it can be tracked, located and hopefully the individual responsible arrested. Now of course the scum bag that is arrested will not like the fact he was tracked down by ONSTAR, but oh well he shouldn’t have committed a crime to begin with.

The black helo’s are parked securely and they are not out looking for the ordinary citizen cruising the roads and maybe doing 10mph over the speed limit. Personally I have no problem with it, just like I have no problem if I was ever pulled over by the police and if they asked to search my vehicle I would say sure go ahead for two reasons. One, I have nothing illegal to hide, and second if they happen to tear it up and damage it they have to pay for it since they found nothing to begin with.

It does not take that much today for the police to get a search warranty and come kicking down the doors since 9/11. Has anyone heard or read how the police and other government officials are just going around kicking in doors for the hell of it? Nope because it is not happening… :thumbsup:

Live free with Personal Responsibility or die... :thumbsup:

1. They are not JUST downloading the data and using it against you in court. "They" (the insurance industry) are preparing to use it against you in the market place (higher rates or reason for cancellation/denial of coverage)

2. Several car rental companies are all ready using technology to charge consumers a premium if data shows they have been speeding in the rental vehical! It wouldn't take much for the police to get permission from folks like you to go after the hugh cash cow that everyday drivers present. All that would be needed is the application of already existing cheap technology AND folks like you who would welcome it's use.

3. Perhaps you've been out of touch with a couple recent incidents . . . Just last week Police in New York City busted down the door to a small apartment, through a 70 yr old woman to the floor and "cuffed" her. . . she died of a heart attack. She was no criminal and had done nothing wrong what so ever. This same thing happend last year here in Richmond. The fact that someone has a badge and a government job doesn't mean they are free to trample our rights, and even kill us in the process!:devil:

1. That is not a bad thing, it is no different then when an insurance company uses a ticket against you for higher rates, or to cancel your insurance. It is a good thing for those of us that follow the law, it means “cheaper” insurance rates. Personal I would love to see one more government intrusion into the automobile. That would be a breath analyzer where before the person could start the car and drive it they would blow into the tube, if they passed the car would start, if it didn’t then they’d have to sit and wait or call for a ride. That there would drastically help to cut insurance rates as well.

2. As far as rental companies go I think so long as someone knows they will pay a higher price for using “someone else’s” car to speed around in then fine and they should be able to charge more. That car belongs to someone and if someone is abusing it, it will cost more for upkeep, if it cost more for upkeep you and I and everyone else who rents cars from time to time pay for it. I DON’T want to pay for it so charge the guy causing the extra upkeep, sounds fair to me.

3. Those unfortunate things will happen. I don’t like to see for a minute someone innocent getting messed with, or worse killed over something they had nothing to do with. However nothing is fair in this world never has been and never will be. It will happen, and it will happen again, that is just life. The point being is you do not see it happening everywhere for just no reason. They may have had the wrong address, wrong information etc. Today in this post 9/11 world we just can not sit around waiting for all the I’s to be dotted and all the T’s to be crossed or many more innocent people WILL in FACT get hurt. When the police or government officials practice vague disregard for peoples civil rights then they should be punished to the maximum extent of the law, however if they have been found to be in error due to “good faith” information then so be it.

The only thing these new technologies hurt is those that have been use to getting away with crap for years. Now that there is a possible watchdog among them they start whining like little babies. Let them be adults and step up to the plate and start assuming the responsibilities they have pushed on to us for all these years. I will not lose one night of sleep if one of them loses their driver’s license or goes to jail for something THEY did on their OWN, and of their OWN PERSONAL CHOICE… :thumbsup:

there was a recent article in popular science regarding this.

i believe it stated that if the air bags were deployed certain data was stored from immediatly prior to the accident such as:

speed, when brakes were applied, when brakes locked (anti-lock) and if the driver was wearing a safety belt.

according to the story, this has been in all the major manufacturers automobiles 'black boxes' since the late 90's.

Well, its our car..we own it.. so I guess the best question is, where is this "black box" and how do I rip it out?

Ugh, this I gotta disagree with for 2 reasons:

1. I have a heavy foot and I like going over the speed limit. If it comes to the point where they can watch how I drive whenever and raise my insurance accordingly that is nowhere near like a speeding ticket.

If I'm out speeding and get a ticket, fine, my fault, I chose to do it and got caught.

But constantly moderating and possibly raising insurance even if no cops sees and pulls a person over, thats just away to control people.

2. I'm from NJ, we have the absolute worst insurance policies availavable. Every year insurance goes up, even if your driving record stays clean. So until the whole NJ insurances gets re-formed, noone will see cheaper insurance from something like that.

just a quick question, why should i pay more for ins. because i speed. i am a habitual speeder, i don't hide it, and really don't care if you like it.
but why should i pay more for ins then others. in 20 years of driving i have never made a single ins. claim and yet you think my rates should go up. so yours can stay low, have you ever made a claim, at all. vandalism,hit and run, the wife hit the pole but i'll say somone got me in a parking lot. those all count.