Black boxes to be installed in US cars...MANDATORY!

asherbassad

Now I would just LOVE to hear the excuses of the apologists of all the other spying and "anti-terror" measures, in relation to black box recorders being installed in cars in the US.

What? It'll make you safer? If you crave safety so much then stay at home under the bed in the basement with a gasmask on and don't ever venture out.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article33265.htm

Run_to_da_hills

Another fascist move down the slippery slope from the Obama administration.

Adolph Hitler would have given his right arm for such technology in the late 30's but the only problem would have the handful of cars on the roads compared to today.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3A1-qgwKcNM

"With complete disregard for citizen privacy, we learn the Obama administration gave their consent to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration(NHTSA) to mandate black box event data recorders (EDR) be installed in all new cars in the US.

Automakers have been quietly tucking the devices, which automatically record the actions of drivers and the responses of their vehicles in a continuous loop, into most new cars for years.

Many motorists may not know it yet, but it is increasingly likely that every time you get behind the wheel, there is a spy along for the ride in the form of these Data Recorders, better known as “black boxes” — and they are in all new cars and light trucks.

Now, the NHTSA says that by September 2014 all car and light trucks will be equipped with EDRs that will silently “record the actions of drivers and the responses of their vehicles in a continuous information loop.”

http://morichesdaily.com/2012/12/obama-black-box-event-recorders-cars/

Jonny7

asherbassad wrote: »

Now I would just LOVE to hear the excuses of the apologists of all the other spying and "anti-terror" measures, in relation to black box recorders being installed in cars in the US.

What? It'll make you safer? If you crave safety so much then stay at home under the bed in the basement with a gasmask on and don't ever venture out.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article33265.htm

Most modern cars already have these.

Run_to_da_hills

Jonny7 wrote: »

Most modern cars already have these.

There is a difference between having something and being forced to have something.

humanji

asherbassad wrote: »

Now I would just LOVE to hear the excuses of the apologists of all the other spying and "anti-terror" measures, in relation to black box recorders being installed in cars in the US.

What? It'll make you safer? If you crave safety so much then stay at home under the bed in the basement with a gasmask on and don't ever venture out.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article33265.htm

It's to be installed in all new cars, which as far as I know, all new cars pretty much install them now, aren't they? Do you have a problem with the devices, or just when you assume they'll be used for nefarious deeds? You can always buy an older car. By the time you've no choice but to buy a car with them built in, the evil Obama will have long since retired from politics.

Run_to_da_hills

humanji wrote: »

It's to be installed in all new cars, which as far as I know, all new cars pretty much install them now, aren't they? Do you have a problem with the devices, or just when you assume they'll be used for nefarious deeds? You can always buy an older car. By the time you've no choice but to buy a car with them built in, the evil Obama will have long since retired from politics.

I do have a serious problem with Obama enforcing this because he is a fascist.

I would also believe that due to the low manufacturing cost of these devices they could eventually be adapted and rolled out to fit older cars. They are basically a more advanced electronic version of the tachographs and could be tied in with vehicle registration, HP deals, electronic toll payments and motor tax..

These devices already have remote control engine shutdown management.

Having total electronic control over the vehicular traffic grid would suit Obama's fascist administration as it would facilitate in pinpoint, stopping and arresting subversives (those that don't contend to his policies) without charge on the side of the road.

humanji

But it's not Obama's idea. It's the NHTSA who want to do it. The Us government wimply gave the Ok. So is the NHTSA calling the shots over Obama now?

Run_to_da_hills

humanji wrote: »

But it's not Obama's idea. It's the NHTSA who want to do it. The Us government wimply gave the Ok. So is the NHTSA calling the shots over Obama now?

Obama is whats called an opportunist, he gives the orders on some project fooling the people into believe that it is for their benefit and once its implemented he will then work on his evil plan.

Classic Trojan horse scenario.

We see similar patterns emerging with the militarization of domestic surveillance drones and in the not so distant future with Fema concentration camp and human implantable microchipped ID.

humanji

You're missing out the line "in my opinion based on assumption".

You're taking something that has nothing to do with Obama and claiming its him, but he's so sneaky that he's removed all evidence so don't bother looking for any.

Run_to_da_hills

humanji wrote: »

You're missing out the line "in my opinion based on assumption".

You're taking something that has nothing to do with Obama and claiming its him, but he's so sneaky that he's removed all evidence so don't bother looking for any.

According to this and several other articles on this topic it is him that is giving the orders.

http://www.pakalertpress.com/2012/12/10/obama-gives-ok-for-black-box-data-recorders-to-be-installed-in-all-cars/

Jonny7

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

According to this and several other articles on this topic it is him that is giving the orders.

http://www.pakalertpress.com/2012/12/10/obama-gives-ok-for-black-box-data-recorders-to-be-installed-in-all-cars/

According to this and several other sites, the cow jumped over the moon

http://www.rhymes.org.uk/hey_diddle_diddle.htm

Run_to_da_hills

Jonny7 wrote: »

According to this and several other sites, the cow jumped over the moon

http://www.rhymes.org.uk/hey_diddle_diddle.htm

According to this and several other sites your post could be considered troll.

Tzar Chasm

these things have to be fought hard at this stage or they will be mandatory in all cars, I dont feel like giving up my car, and I definitely don't want one of these

FISMA

Insurance companies are already ahead of the gov't offering discounts to those that plug data collection devices like snapshot into their car.

"The program uses a device that drivers plug into their cars to monitor the time of day that they're driving, the distance they travel, and how hard they're braking. Data is transmitted to Progressive using the Snapshot's internal wireless modem." Citation.

Common Questions.
How it works.

Run_to_da_hills

FISMA wrote: »

Insurance companies are already ahead of the gov't offering discounts to those that plug data collection devices like snapshot into their car.

"The program uses a device that drivers plug into their cars to monitor the time of day that they're driving, the distance they travel, and how hard they're braking. Data is transmitted to Progressive using the Snapshot's internal wireless modem." Citation.

Common Questions.
How it works.

This will be just another part of the master plan by Governments to introduce these black box devices.

Carrot before the sheep,horse.

Substantial insurance discounts, convenience and financial savings.

Motor tax according to distances traveled so it would be in the interests of those that travel short distances to install them.

Of course those on learner permits may not be allowed drive without one of these black boxes in the near future.

We can bet that the British Government is also working overtime on implementing these devices as seen as they are doing such an excellent job rolling out registered smart cards..

asherbassad

Jonny7 wrote: »

Most modern cars already have these.

Ahhhh, the freedom-lover speaks.

So Jonny, tell us, since you have nothing to hide and nothing to fear.....and your angle governs how everyone should approach their day-to-day "being left alone" lives.....are you ok with refusing to have a monitoring device being compulsory in a car that you buy? And if you say "you know, guys, fcuk it, I think I want my car to be completely mine without a tracking/recording device in it" and you're told "Sorry, Jonny7, it's the LAW! Remove it and you're going to jail....that is if of course if you can't pay the fine.....but even if you can, you're still going on a no-fly zone or some sh!t and we don't care HOW you voted." ??

Yeah, Jonny?

:pac:

Next stop, Jonny excuses recording devices in your bedsheets. Why? Well some hospitals have them to protect against nutcase raiding the drugs cabinets so EVERY bed in the land should have them.

hooradiation

asherbassad wrote: »

Ahhhh, the freedom-lover speaks.

So Jonny, tell us, since you have nothing to hide and nothing to fear.....and your angle governs how everyone should approach their day-to-day "being left alone" lives.....are you ok with refusing to have a monitoring device being compulsory in a car that you buy? And if you say "you know, guys, fcuk it, I think I want my car to be completely mine without a tracking/recording device in it" and you're told "Sorry, Jonny7, it's the LAW! Remove it and you're going to jail....that is if of course if you can't pay the fine.....but even if you can, you're still going on a no-fly zone or some sh!t and we don't care HOW you voted." ??

Yeah, Jonny?

:pac:

Next stop, Jonny excuses recording devices in your bedsheets. Why? Well some hospitals have them to protect against nutcase raiding the drugs cabinets so EVERY bed in the land should have them.

Yup... that's definitely a post you made there.
No doubt about that.

Corkfeen

asherbassad wrote: »

Ahhhh, the freedom-lover speaks.

So Jonny, tell us, since you have nothing to hide and nothing to fear.....and your angle governs how everyone should approach their day-to-day "being left alone" lives.....are you ok with refusing to have a monitoring device being compulsory in a car that you buy? And if you say "you know, guys, fcuk it, I think I want my car to be completely mine without a tracking/recording device in it" and you're told "Sorry, Jonny7, it's the LAW! Remove it and you're going to jail....that is if of course if you can't pay the fine.....but even if you can, you're still going on a no-fly zone or some sh!t and we don't care HOW you voted." ??

Yeah, Jonny?

:pac:

Next stop, Jonny excuses recording devices in your bedsheets. Why? Well some hospitals have them to protect against nutcase raiding the drugs cabinets so EVERY bed in the land should have them.

Erm cars have always had monitoring devices of some variety. The distance you drive is monitored and various parts of the car tend to be monitored by a computer at this point in time. The purpose of cdr monitoring is for when crashes occur in particular, it doesn't monitor where you go and has the potential to result in resolving insurance disputes quickly. Can you name an actual negative aspect? Rather than vague claims of a police state originating from crash analysis.

asherbassad

Jonny7 wrote: »

Most modern cars already have these.

REALLY???

Most modern cars already have these???

So...by your own admission over 50% of "modern" cars have these.

What's your definition of a "modern car" and IF over 50% have them then why the need to pass a sanction stating that they should be obligatory? Why, if most cars have recording devices, are you not informed (well I don't know about anyone who was/is) that you are not allowed to refuse to have said recording devices as part of your car?

Jonny?

Why would you be forced, FORCED, to have a monitoring recorder in your car?

Jonny?

I can imagine the recordings to determine "crash" data:

Driver: "Slow down?? Well I think I know just how.....SCREECH! BANG"

Driver: "Honey, don't squeeze my cock so haaaar......SCREECH! BANG"

Driver: "Dude, hold the wheel while I change my shirt....SCREECH! BANG"



BUT.....the government needs this data. Refuse, and you're in BIG trouble.

asherbassad

humanji wrote: »

It's to be installed in all new cars, which as far as I know, all new cars pretty much install them now, aren't they? Do you have a problem with the devices, or just when you assume they'll be used for nefarious deeds? You can always buy an older car. By the time you've no choice but to buy a car with them built in, the evil Obama will have long since retired from politics.

I have a problem with tracking devices installed in anything I own.
But I have an even bigger problem with people like you telling me that I should conform.

Disturbs me that I'm surrounded by people who have no respects for someone's desire to refuse.

I respect your right to allow your life to be monitored. I don't understand why you don't respect my right to allow my own to be my private possession.

asherbassad

Corkfeen wrote: »

Erm cars have always had monitoring devices of some variety. The distance you drive is monitored and various parts of the car tend to be monitored by a computer at this point in time. The purpose of cdr monitoring is for when crashes occur in particular, it doesn't monitor where you go and has the potential to result in resolving insurance disputes quickly. Can you name an actual negative aspect? Rather than vague claims of a police state originating from crash analysis.

"ERM"....Cars have NEVER had recording devices that the government deems COMPULSORY to surrender said collected data.

Don't gimme any crap about an odometer as opposed to a device that can monitor passenger movement, your location, what you listen to on the radio, who's in the car, your speed, whether your seatbelt is on, etc. And if you want to make me completely sick by again saying "well just drive where you're supposed to, don't speed, don't text your girlfriend when you're almost at her house saying you're gagging for it, etc." then why don't YOU move to North Korea and leave the rest of us who question authority to stay?

Corkfeen

asherbassad wrote: »

I respect your right to allow your life to be monitored. I don't understand why you don't respect my right to allow my own to be my private possession.

In terms of a car being a private possession, it utilises public roads so is expected to conform to standards. It is not acceptable for a car to not have seatbelts, speedometers etc. When it becomes more economically and technologically viable to incorporate technology that improves the overall driving experience, it tends to be added as a mandatory requirement. It also makes the overall job of an insurance company more straight forward in terms of this item.

Also, i'm not sure if you actually understand what it records.
http://www.harristechnical.com/downloads/EDRFinalRule_Aug2006.pdf
Page 197 details what they actually record....

asherbassad

Corkfeen wrote: »

Erm cars have always had monitoring devices of some variety. The distance you drive is monitored and various parts of the car tend to be monitored by a computer at this point in time. The purpose of cdr monitoring is for when crashes occur in particular, it doesn't monitor where you go and has the potential to result in resolving insurance disputes quickly. Can you name an actual negative aspect? Rather than vague claims of a police state originating from crash analysis.

These devices are recording information that the government deems mandatory to surrender to them. And you have ZERO problem with that?

It's AMAZING. Condition people to surrender their chapstick at the airport in order to stop some alchemist from making a lipstick bomb....and after a few years they're so used to being told what to do that they have no problem having something shoved up their arses to help National Security or some utter bollocks?

This is laughable....it really is.

If someone came out with a tracking device inside kindergarten toilets and said it was to determine if some toddlers were displaying perverse tendencies when taking a piss you'd find a way to excuse it, because it could keep future people safe from ...I don't know....would-be Hannibal Lechters or some crap.

Corkfeen....are you a shill or are you just too reluctant to admit that you have been completely hoodwinked and bamboozled by complete bollocks?

Seriously...

asherbassad

Corkfeen wrote: »

In terms of a car being a private possession, it utilises public roads so is expected to conform to standards. It is not acceptable for a car to not have seatbelts, speedometers etc. When it becomes more economically and technologically viable to incorporate technology that improves the overall driving experience, it tends to be added as a mandatory requirement. It also makes the overall job of an insurance company more straight forward in terms of this item.

Also, i'm not sure if you actually understand what it records.
http://www.harristechnical.com/downloads/EDRFinalRule_Aug2006.pdf
Page 197 details what they actually record....

"The overall driving 'experience'"
What friggin' "blue-sky-thinking-outside-of-the-box-synergy-paradigm-course" did you just sign up for?

Nobody is stating that a car on public roads shouldn't conform to standards that protect first, second and third parties. Nobody.

But to stick to your glib little issue. A car that uses public roads has to have a recording device ...HAS to have a recording device??? Forget about seatbelts or good tyres or a catalytic converter.....I'm talking about a MANDATORY recording device....one that you have to have and whose recorded data you MUST surrender to the government.

But to make a mockery of your stupid "public roads" nonsense. You can rip out the seatbelts, speedomoter, exhaust pipe, etc if your car is on private land and to be used to scramble around a back field. Is it ok to do the same with a recording device? The law says no.

Look, Corkfeen....I'm sure you have nothing to hide and in fact probably don't even have curtains on your house because to do so would make you a CT-er and that's probably a huge fear, but why are you so opposed to others wanting to be anonymous?

Torakx

When you register something with the gov, its not legally yours anymore, so in that respect, they may already have been given the right to use this technology...on their vehicles.

humanji

asherbassad wrote: »

I have a problem with tracking devices installed in anything I own.
But I have an even bigger problem with people like you telling me that I should conform.

Disturbs me that I'm surrounded by people who have no respects for someone's desire to refuse.

I respect your right to allow your life to be monitored. I don't understand why you don't respect my right to allow my own to be my private possession.

That's some amount of strawmen you're building there. Not once have I said any of that, but I doubt that's your concern.

The device is common in most modern cars. This came about because the car companies wanted to install them. The US motor office saw the benefits of it and asked the gov if they could have them installed in new cars as it would be a great benefit to them. Nobody complained, so the gov said ok. That's what's happened here.

The wild claims of a bigger conspiracy comes from people making wild claims and not backing it up with anything other than a "hunch".

Now, could these systems be abused? Sure. Does this mean they will? No. Does it mean they will? No. All we have so far is an already available technology that isn't being rolled out into all cars. No one is being forced to buy a new car. And as I pointed out, it will be quite a while before older cars are not usable and people have to buy one of the cars with the device.

We can all claim that anything will happen now. Some can claim that this is the beginning and soon all older cars will be forced to have them. I can claim that the device will surely become sentient and the new cars overthrow their human masters. It doesn't mean it'll happen, but it's something to be wary of.

As I said, if you live in the states and don't want to have the device in your car, then buy an older car. Or buy a new car and have a mechanic friend take out the device.

Sure, if you're wary of the device then keep up on the topic. Make sure you know any new developments that come along. But don't be surprised when you come on here and make baseless claims and belittle anyone who questions them.

humanji

asherbassad wrote: »

But to make a mockery of your stupid "public roads" nonsense. You can rip out the seatbelts, speedomoter, exhaust pipe, etc if your car is on private land and to be used to scramble around a back field. Is it ok to do the same with a recording device? The law says no.

What law? They haven't written it yet, so how can you be sure what it says?

hooradiation

Corkfeen wrote: »

Also, i'm not sure if you actually understand what it records.
http://www.harristechnical.com/downloads/EDRFinalRule_Aug2006.pdf
Page 197 details what they actually record....

That is so incredibly fucking mundane.
No wonder this theory needs an such amazing dose of hyperbole

Jonny7

asherbassad wrote: »

Ahhhh, the freedom-lover speaks.

So Jonny, tell us, since you have nothing to hide and nothing to fear.....and your angle governs how everyone should approach their day-to-day "being left alone" lives.....are you ok with refusing to have a monitoring device being compulsory in a car that you buy? And if you say "you know, guys, fcuk it, I think I want my car to be completely mine without a tracking/recording device in it" and you're told "Sorry, Jonny7, it's the LAW! Remove it and you're going to jail....that is if of course if you can't pay the fine.....but even if you can, you're still going on a no-fly zone or some sh!t and we don't care HOW you voted." ??

Yeah, Jonny?

:pac:

Next stop, Jonny excuses recording devices in your bedsheets. Why? Well some hospitals have them to protect against nutcase raiding the drugs cabinets so EVERY bed in the land should have them.

Aha I knew it was you!

What model car do you own, what year? chances are it has a device inside it. Recording Sending the manufacturer government all sorts of details about your speed, braking, gear changes personal life.

weisses

With the large amount of idiot drivers in this country. They should have installed that black box yesterday

asherbassad

Jonny7 wrote: »

Aha I knew it was you!

What model car do you own, what year? chances are it has a device inside it. Recording Sending the manufacturer government all sorts of details about your speed, braking, gear changes personal life.

It's irrelevant what recording devices are in cars right now. As far as I know they record basic operational data like rate of deceleration after the brake is engaged or other data that is useful for MANUFACTURERS to examine in the aftermath of a crash or unexpected behaviour reported by the operator that might be grounds for a factory recall.
Why the government wants this data (and other data that has NOTHING to do with the performance of the vehicle) is where I have a problem.

Jonny7

FISMA wrote: »

Insurance companies are already ahead of the gov't offering discounts to those that plug data collection devices like snapshot into their car.

"The program uses a device that drivers plug into their cars to monitor the time of day that they're driving, the distance they travel, and how hard they're braking. Data is transmitted to Progressive using the Snapshot's internal wireless modem." Citation.

Common Questions.
How it works.

This has been around for ages.

If you get this system and are a younger driver, they'll lower your insurance.

hooradiation

asherbassad wrote: »

It's irrelevant what recording devices are in cars right now. As far as I know they record basic operational data like rate of deceleration after the brake is engaged or other data that is useful for MANUFACTURERS to examine in the aftermath of a crash or unexpected behaviour reported by the operator that might be grounds for a factory recall.
Why the government wants this data (and other data that has NOTHING to do with the performance of the vehicle) is where I have a problem.

Of course, a legitimate part of the role of government (if you are not pathologically terrified of them, that is) is to force corporations to take actions they may not ordinarily do because it is the public interest.

As you've inadvertently brought up - these devices are pretty handy for determining if there was mechanical failure after an accident. It would be good to have these devices in all cars for exactly this reason. Thus, the role of government is clear. Legally mandate that they be fitted, rather than letting the manufacturers decide if they can be bothered this time.
Upshot - We now have these devices in all new cars, they conform to a standard spec.

And aside from some minor hysteria the world keeps ticking.

Jonny7

asherbassad wrote: »

It's irrelevant what recording devices are in cars right now. As far as I know they record basic operational data like rate of deceleration after the brake is engaged or other data that is useful for MANUFACTURERS to examine in the aftermath of a crash or unexpected behaviour reported by the operator that might be grounds for a factory recall.
Why the government wants this data (and other data that has NOTHING to do with the performance of the vehicle) is where I have a problem.

Soo...

Which government branch will be keep what information (details) and for what purpose?

Once the answer to that becomes clear, then you will understand how government legislation works.

Otherwise substitute in your own version, or Alex Jones version

asherbassad

Jonny7 wrote: »

Soo...

Which government branch will be keep what information (details) and for what purpose?

Once the answer to that becomes clear, then you will understand how government legislation works.

Otherwise substitute in your own version, or Alex Jones version

Ad hominem sneers won't legitimise your blind acceptance of every little step that strips away your freedom, petit a petit.

As I mentioned before, the Patriot Act (the "promised") would only be used for anti-terrorism purposes (whatever they are), yet now it is routinely used in all kinds of criminal investigations. Eliot Sptizer being one high profile victim.

Now of course these recording devices (they "promise") will only be used to investigate operational failings....bollocks.

The government are now installing listening devices on buses in the US. What the hell is that for? They give you this crap about crime prevention or customer service or driver safety......what utter bollocks.

And still, STILL, you'll apologise for it :pac:

http://perdurabo10.tripod.com/galleryl/id56.html

http://rt.com/usa/news/us-public-transport-security-817/

Now I know you'll just say "Ah, RT, Kremlin mouthpiece! Don't believe the crap!"

But what if it's true? Forget that RT is reporting it. If it was so false then wouldn't CNN be coming out and saying "RT are lying when they say that listening devices are being installed in buses. It's NOT true and we're going to sue them for spreading misinformation and breaching of journalistic standards." ??
No?

If a January 1st RT news broadcast started with "Good Evening. Today is January 1. Happy New Year to all our viewers" would you say "Today can't be New Year's Day. RT said it WAS!" ?

Jonny7

asherbassad wrote: »

Ad hominem sneers won't legitimise your blind acceptance of every little step that strips away your freedom, petit a petit.

As I mentioned before, the Patriot Act (the "promised") would only be used for anti-terrorism purposes (whatever they are), yet now it is routinely used in all kinds of criminal investigations. Eliot Sptizer being one high profile victim.

Now of course these recording devices (they "promise") will only be used to investigate operational failings....bollocks.

The government are now installing listening devices on buses in the US. What the hell is that for? They give you this crap about crime prevention or customer service or driver safety......what utter bollocks.

And still, STILL, you'll apologise for it :pac:

http://perdurabo10.tripod.com/galleryl/id56.html

http://rt.com/usa/news/us-public-transport-security-817/

Now I know you'll just say "Ah, RT, Kremlin mouthpiece! Don't believe the crap!"

But what if it's true? Forget that RT is reporting it. If it was so false then wouldn't CNN be coming out and saying "RT are lying when they say that listening devices are being installed in buses. It's NOT true and we're going to sue them for spreading misinformation and breaching of journalistic standards." ??
No?

If a January 1st RT news broadcast started with "Good Evening. Today is January 1. Happy New Year to all our viewers" would you say "Today can't be New Year's Day. RT said it WAS!" ?

Legislating black boxes for cars makes perfect sense and most modern cars have them anyway.

Believing the US government will use these boxes (data recorders) to track you personally is of course paranoid and irrational.

Run_to_da_hills

Jonny7 wrote: »

Legislating black boxes for cars makes perfect sense and most modern cars have them anyway.

Believing the US government will use these boxes (data recorders) to track you personally is of course paranoid and irrational.

No it is not.

Some people including myself were concerned about privacy issues when social networking made its debut several years ago.

Now the US Government is currently these sites as an entrapment tool to weed out those that speak out against their policies. We are constantly hearing of people being arrested and hassled over posted Twitter and Facebook material.

No doubt the exact same thing will happen with these black boxes and any other new developments that we are lead .to believe are fore our benefit.

I could well see the day when arrests will be made from evidence gathered remotely from these black boxes devices.

We can also be damn sure that a time will soon come when the authorities want to put someone off the road they will be able to do it at the touch of a button from behind a computer screen.

Jonny7

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

No it is not.

It's makes sense. The paranoid and cranks are just trying to make it into a scare story. There's a big market in survival supplies for this department.

Some people including myself were concerned about privacy issues when social networking made its debut several years ago.

Concerned is not a word I'd use to describe what I've read of your view of privacy issues regarding social networking.

Now the US Government is currently these sites as an entrapment tool to weed out those that speak out against their policies. We are constantly hearing of people being arrested and hassled over posted Twitter and Facebook material.

That's because people are pushing common sense boundries to this medium. It's a debated issue.

No doubt the exact same thing will happen with these black boxes and any other new developments that we are lead .to believe are fore our benefit.

This is the irrational paranoia I am referring to.

I could well see the day when arrests will be made from evidence gathered remotely from these black boxes devices.

Oh yes, assuming the US takes control of the manufacture of the boxes, impliments a tracking and transmitting device into the box without the car manufacturers and privacy advocate groups knowledge (impossible), uses a system to be able to secretly monitor and communicate with every car on the road and illegally uses this illegally gained information in trials.

We can also be damn sure that a time will soon come when the authorities want to put someone off the road they will be able to do it at the touch of a button from behind a computer screen.

More paranoid irrationality. Perhaps that's why you post, to get these assurances and assay fears. However, if you really did genuinely believe all your own postings, it's unlikely you'd be in the business of uncovering secret government plots all the time on a public forum using an easily traceable system.

So, it's paranoid crapola, you know it, I know it.

hooradiation

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

I could well see the day when arrests will be made from evidence gathered remotely from these black boxes devices.

Such is the power of the imagination.

Care to explain how the information stored on these devices, as currently specced out, could be used to do that?

Corkfeen

Would Asher or RTDH address the information on page 197 to 203 of this link.
http://www.harristechnical.com/downloads/EDRFinalRule_Aug2006.pdf

It has hardhitting data such as 'Engine throttle, % full (or
accelerator pedal, % full)' and 'Maximum delta-V,
longitudinal'. Page 14 also describes how it only actually records crash data

Page 6 reveals the nefarious plot of crash recorders:

Specifically, EDR data can help the safety community develop ACN, electronic 911 (e-911), and other emergency response systems to improve medical services to crash victims. In addition, EDR data can also provide information to enhance our understanding of crash events and
safety system performance, thereby potentially contributing to safer vehicle designs and more effective safety regulations

Page 8 also details how the government has been petitioned by presumably insurance companies to make them mandatory since the early nineties.It was also campaigned for by a physician in the early 00s.

But presumably both of you have actually read the data. There's literally no way that the recorder could be used for evil ends ....

asherbassad

Just saw that a guy whacked a few in a random attack and then turned the gun on himself...AGAIN.

So....question......how many "domestic terrorists" have killed or wounded in the last 12 years? and what measures are being taken to reduce this weekly threat? Listening devices? Shoes off at the pizzeria?

No full bottles of water in your car? Full body scans at the gas station?

:pac:

Corkfeen

asherbassad wrote: »

Just saw that a guy whacked a few in a random attack and then turned the gun on himself...AGAIN.

So....question......how many "domestic terrorists" have killed or wounded in the last 12 years? and what measures are being taken to reduce this weekly threat? Listening devices? Shoes off at the pizzeria?

No full bottles of water in your car? Full body scans at the gas station?

:pac:

You don't plan on reading anything so.....

weisses

Jonny7 wrote: »

Believing the US government will use these boxes (data recorders) to track you personally is of course paranoid and irrational.

Being to paranoid and irrational is not good ... But sticking your head in the sand is of no help either

Jonny7

weisses wrote: »

Being to paranoid and irrational is not good ... But sticking your head in the sand is of no help either

Is there a third option? such as having the cop not to fall for ill-informed silliness and instead do a bit of personal research on the matter.

weisses

There is always "the third" option Johnny