Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Driver Privacy Act Introduced In US Senate

Soulskill posted about 6 months ago | from the we-know-where-you-drove-last-summer dept.

Transportation 69

greatgreygreengreasy writes "In 2005, then-governor of North Dakota John Hoeven signed into law a bill 'ensuring drivers' ownership of their EDR (Electronic Data Recorder) data.' Now a U.S. senator, Hoeven (R-ND) has teamed up with Amy Klobuchar, D-MN, to introduce similar legislation at the Federal level. 'Under this legislation, EDR data could only be retrieved [for specific reasons].' The EFF has expressed concern in the past over the so-called black boxes and their privacy implications. This legislation, however, would not address the recent revelations by a Ford executive on their access to data, since in those cases, 'The vehicle owner or lessee consents to the data retrieval.' The bill has gained the support of about 20 senators so far."

cancel ×

69 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

More useless legislation (4, Insightful)

sixoh1 (996418) | about 6 months ago | (#45992847)

Not that I'm skeptical or anything... but I would expect this to end up being just like the "Privacy Policy" notices we all get from banks and other places, or HIPPA - a nice sounding bit of legislation with so many holes in it, the 100-200 page bill will end up doing nothing but giving jobs to "compliance officers" while actually resulting in less opportunity for the "consumer" to sue or block the data access. Think about how HIPPA actually works, since the insurance company needs to know what the doctor treated you for, your "data" gets sent to them (if not the actual paper chart, a summary of what boil on what limb, or what infectious disease test was used). Expect that car companies will hammer this hard in lobbying...

Re:More useless legislation (4, Insightful)

ackthpt (218170) | about 6 months ago | (#45993227)

Not that I'm skeptical or anything... but I would expect this to end up being just like the "Privacy Policy" notices we all get from banks and other places, or HIPPA - a nice sounding bit of legislation with so many holes in it, the 100-200 page bill will end up doing nothing but giving jobs to "compliance officers" while actually resulting in less opportunity for the "consumer" to sue or block the data access. Think about how HIPPA actually works, since the insurance company needs to know what the doctor treated you for, your "data" gets sent to them (if not the actual paper chart, a summary of what boil on what limb, or what infectious disease test was used). Expect that car companies will hammer this hard in lobbying...

You think it means something ...

... until you see some guy named Sarek Vulcansden scampering off to the embassy of a South American nation with a Thumbdrive full of evidence the NSA has been tracking your every move and the President denies such claims until they trickle out in the media, including Angela Merkel's predilection for Krispy Kreme whenever she's in the US. About that time you realize laws don't mean much if there be people who think they only apply to other agencies.

Re:More useless legislation (2)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about 6 months ago | (#45993523)

As with online surfing, I am far less concerned with the big companies learning I drive to which stores than I am he government having access to it.

"Nobody can gain access without (a law for NSA? A warrant?). Isn't government abuse of spying the reason for all these protections?

Re:More useless legislation (1)

Jon Schneider (3503939) | about 6 months ago | (#45993669)

Well...the NSA just needs to buy out Ford Motor Company. Per their executives, they already know everyone who breaks the law...

Re:More useless legislation (1)

pepty (1976012) | about 6 months ago | (#45994647)

If big (US owned, US headquartered, or US located) companies have the data why would you assume the government doesn't as well?

Re:More useless legislation (1)

number17 (952777) | about 6 months ago | (#45994863)

As with online surfing, I am far less concerned with the big companies learning I drive to which stores than I am he government having access to it.

So much fear for the government. Who gave these guys jobs anyways?

Re:More useless legislation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45994063)

Not that I'm skeptical or anything... but I would expect this to end up being just like the "Privacy Policy" notices

That's about my expectation as well.

On the other hand, I can't imagine a feasible solution that wouldn't disappoint. Especially not with this crowd.

It's fun to speculate though. Perhaps if we rounded up the culprits and sent them to the NSA site in Utah and confined them to the buildings there. And their families. Pets. That sort of thing. Then maybe blew it up a little. Just a small, leveling detonation that left a bit of a crater. Afterwards maybe we patrol the smoking wreckage with sledgehammers and twelve gauges, in case something remained upright. Bulldozing the rubble into a big pit laced with highly radioactive isotopes seems like a prudent step.

Maybe then you'd satisfy some. Right up until they became convinced there are two other, undiscovered sites in NM and TX.

In the meantime you can be sure that whatever minor bureaucratic hassles these bills will create for the automakers/insurance companies/government while they compile a comprehensive history of all travel activity will most certainly not impress the folks here at Slashdot.

Re:More useless legislation (2)

epyT-R (613989) | about 6 months ago | (#45995765)

You could start with a system that values liberties and rights over twisted reinterpretations, fallacies like 'precedent', and passive aggressive political correctness. Then you could replace those currently in office with those who consider their roles to uphold the constitution as duties rather than careers, ie not people from the ivy league law school track. If the laws are made so complex that they require a law degree to 'interpret,' how can we expect the common man to do so in order to obey? It's a minefield for the majority. Finally, such a system would hold its own enforcers to the same laws and punishments as the rest of us, with no special deals for corporations either.

There are several implied changes that would come from this, most of which would be good.

Fallacies compensate for limited information (1)

tepples (727027) | about 6 months ago | (#46000463)

fallacies like 'precedent'

A fallacy is another name for a heuristic. For example, one of Wikipedia's core principles is verifiability of claims [wikipedia.org] to reliable sources, which any logician would identify as the appeal to authority [yourlogicalfallacyis.com] . Likewise, the use of precedent in common law [wikipedia.org] is an appeal to tradition [wikipedia.org] . Fallacies are wrong when all premises are known true or false, but this is rarely the case in the real world. Applying strict logical reasoning to the incomplete information that fallible humans have everywhere but in the artificial world of mathematics [xkcd.com] produces an unhelpful result [tvtropes.org] of "neither certainly true nor certainly false given the premises" the vast majority of the time.

But in a lot of cases, certainty is not needed as much as a preponderance of evidence. Someone just wants to know whether it would benefit him more to act as if a particular claim is true or as if it is false. Fallacies compensate for limited information by guessing which premises are more likely true given what information is available. For example, appeal to authority works in an encyclopedia because overall, reliable sources tend to come closer to truth than the average kook with a blog. And precedent adds predictability over time to the judicial system: similar facts produce similar rulings.

Useless? (2)

davecb (6526) | about 6 months ago | (#45994891)

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. -- Edmund Burke

Setting a good precedent (1)

davecb (6526) | about 6 months ago | (#45994961)

Note that the law says that your data is your property.Car rental companies will fight this, as will hospitals, advertisers and everyone who wants to own someone else's data, but over time they'll get the same kind of respect we now show towards people who believe they can own human beings.

And nothing will change. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45992853)

And so, manufacturers write another line into a sales contract stating that by purchasing this vehicle you explicitly confer them rights of ownership over said data.

Re:And nothing will change. (3, Insightful)

NoNonAlphaCharsHere (2201864) | about 6 months ago | (#45993269)

Not the manufacturers per se, but expect fleet operators and car-rental companies to fight this tooth and nail. Meanwhile, the insurance companies will offer cheaper policies if you waive your rights on this, and, of course, opposing lawyers will subpena your black box records in every little accident.

Re:And nothing will change. (1)

Gr8Apes (679165) | about 6 months ago | (#45993905)

Insurance companies already are working on getting people to have black boxes. These are not for your benefit. They will not make your insurance cheaper. They are there to raise the average insurance revenue.

You can expect data to mysteriously disappear during or shortly after wrecks, if it was ever collected at all.

Re:And nothing will change. (1)

Aighearach (97333) | about 6 months ago | (#45995103)

There is no way to know what they will do until they do it. They might consider what you describe to be too high-risk behavior. They might instead just drop the policies of the worst 2% of drivers.

Re:And nothing will change. (1)

Gr8Apes (679165) | about 6 months ago | (#45999791)

They might instead just drop the policies of the worst 2% of drivers.

Won't happen - they must take high risk pool drivers.

Re:And nothing will change. (1)

Arker (91948) | about 6 months ago | (#45993359)

"And so, manufacturers write another line into a sales contract stating that by purchasing this vehicle you explicitly confer them rights of ownership over said data."

Won't give them any rights with a second owner.

Re:And nothing will change. (1)

mysidia (191772) | about 6 months ago | (#45996761)

Won't give them any rights with a second owner.

So they add an additional clause....

"This Agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the parties and their permitted successors and assigns."

"Any assignment or transfer of an asset covered by this agreement, may only be performed, if there is also a binding assumption section of responsibility for performance under this agreement, by the assignee."

Re:And nothing will change. (1)

Arker (91948) | about 6 months ago | (#45999857)

You should study contract law a little if you think it works that way. It does not.

At best it might allow you to sue the first owner for selling in violation of your contract, if you find out about it, but good luck covering the lawyers fees in the process. It still gives you no rights whatsoever against the second owner, who is not a party to the contract.

Re:And nothing will change. (1)

mysidia (191772) | about 6 months ago | (#46000693)

It still gives you no rights whatsoever against the second owner, who is not a party to the contract.

The rights are encumbered ownership to the property, and to the monitoring, recording data about its use --- the next owner doesn't obtain the right to the property, free and clear of the encumbrances. You don't need to obtain rights "against the second owner"; as the first owner gave you rights against the property, that the first owner is incapable of taking back without your consent ----- even if they reassign their ownership rights.

If the second owner objects to your use of the data, they have to pursue action against the original owner, for failing to disclose the conditions, restrictions, or consents that have been made which limited the ownership rights.

Just as if the first owner had sold the new owner a house, and failed to mention they had leased the outhouse to someone else for the next 5 years, who was living there, or that the deed was subject to a restriction, preventing them from building a fence, or obstructing view of the yard from the street.

The lease agreement is still binding on the new owner --- because the extra agreement is bound to the property, and the transfer of ownership doesn't release the new owner of property, from restrictions that had been added to those rights due to agreement.

Similarly, the new owner isn't able to ignore the restrictions, and build a privacy wall around the yard.

Re:And nothing will change. (1)

pepty (1976012) | about 6 months ago | (#45994653)

They already do.

Lets simplify (1)

silas_moeckel (234313) | about 6 months ago | (#45992859)

Only the user has the right to there data. Be it the cars back box or there cell phone or whatever else somebody cooks up. In no case my a company use that data or share with others. Is it that hard? Hell force them to serve any warrants to the owners of the data aka the person the data is about.

Re:Lets simplify (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45993097)

What is "your data"? Listen here citizen, you have surrendered your privacy as a citizen to the corporate oligarchy which runs this country.

Re:Lets simplify (1)

Aighearach (97333) | about 6 months ago | (#45995119)

Here in the US the data belongs to whoever collected it, not to who they collected it about.

Re:Lets simplify (1)

silas_moeckel (234313) | about 6 months ago | (#45995353)

And if were going to go through the time, expense, and effort to put in a new law why not fix that?

Re:Lets simplify (1)

Aighearach (97333) | about 6 months ago | (#45995397)

Because there is not a push for that.

If you can convince people to care enough for it to be an election issue, then it will get changed.

Whereas vehicle data can privacy can be added with less effort.

Re:Lets simplify (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 6 months ago | (#45995853)

Because there is not a push for that.

If you can convince people to care enough for it to be an election issue, then it will get changed.

Perfect campaign slogan:

"Somebody's making money off your data, shouldn't it be you?"

Pointless (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45992867)

Manufacturers will simply include a condition in their contracts that authorized them to use the data in any way they want, because the vehicle owner "consented" when he purchased the car.

Re:Pointless (4, Insightful)

PPH (736903) | about 6 months ago | (#45993183)

Insurance. You will 'consent' to handing over the data for the cheap policy. No consent and your premiums go up a few K$ per year.

You still have a choice.

Re:Pointless (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45994153)

I'll take this moment to do some relevant and on-topic trolling, still AC of course:

You still have a choice.

Isn't this the "free" market at work? Isn't this what everyone is always asking for? Since *I* know there's no such thing, this is what you will get whether you like it or not.

Re:Pointless (1)

PPH (736903) | about 6 months ago | (#45994987)

Isn't this the "free" market at work?

Nothing free about the heavily regulated insurance industry. In many cases (auto insurance being one) they implement political agendas that would otherwise get slapped down were they to be exposed to public review. There be dragons and major social engineering going on here.

You want to sell insurance in our state? You kiss the ass of the insurance commission. Or forget about it. You'll assess 'points' for drivers under a state formula, not one based on risk and cost. So grandpa doesn't get dinged for driving while blind (AARP members vote). You try to set up a 'good drivers only' company and the state 'invites' you to join its assigned risk pool. You get your share of the mullet-heads with the TransAms.

Re:Pointless (0)

epyT-R (613989) | about 6 months ago | (#45996019)

Wow, what a deal, fuck that. That's basically a non-choice for most people, since most need a car to get to work.

Re:Pointless (1)

RobertLTux (260313) | about 6 months ago | (#45998985)

"EDR data shall only be used for the purpose of enhancing the safety of the vehicle or to determine the facts after a failure of said vehicle, any marketing use shall be only on the condition of a detailed written (and physically signed by the registered owner) document. This document shall render null and void any clauses written elsewhere and shall not be tied to any maintenance agreement or otherwise cause the registered owner to be forced to sign."

would that maybe work??

All for votes! (1)

maxrate (886773) | about 6 months ago | (#45992941)

If your car was 100% stripped of computers/etc, you'd still be tracked by cellular, CCTV, plates/tags, dashboard cameras, eye witnesses, etc. Let's tone down the EDR, crank up external mechanisms and look good at the same time!!

Re:All for votes! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45992989)

Eye witnesses are far less of a concern than everything else you listed. People won't remember you in the least, and there isn't a central recording for all (or a select few thugs) to see.

Re:All for votes! (1)

maxrate (886773) | about 6 months ago | (#45993113)

There will be an app for that.

Re:All for votes! (1)

vlueboy (1799360) | about 6 months ago | (#45996721)

Eye witnesses are far less of a concern than everything else you listed. People won't remember you in the least, and there isn't a central recording for all (or a select few thugs) to see.

There will be an app for that.

All brought to you by a nice Google Glass collection front-end

EDR (1)

Fnord666 (889225) | about 6 months ago | (#45993117)

It's an Event Data Recorder, not an Electronic Data Recorder..

WASHINGTON â" Senators John Hoeven (R-N.D.) and Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) today introduced their Driver Privacy Act, legislation that protects a driverâ(TM)s personal privacy by making it clear that the owner of a vehicle is also the owner of any information collected by an Event Data Recorder (EDR).

Can and Will be used against you (1)

rmdingler (1955220) | about 6 months ago | (#45993137)

There was a deadly vehicular altercation here locally, in which a black box was recovered from one of the involved automobiles to be used against the driver by the powers that be.

Re:Can and Will be used against you (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45994181)

That was so vague and full of paranoia it must be true! I believe you!

Re:Can and Will be used against you (1)

Aighearach (97333) | about 6 months ago | (#45995145)

I believe it too! Some thing happened... out there... somewhere... and it was described thusly. I believe it! Something happened!

Consent (1)

girlintraining (1395911) | about 6 months ago | (#45993159)

I said this last time... Consent doesn't mean the same thing for legislators and corporations as it does for you peons. Consent is, you used it, thought about it, looked at it... thanks to intellectual property, it's not dissimilar to rape. And I believe it was a Congressman who said... hey, if it's gonna happen, you might as well enjoy it. But you know, if the intellectual property is illegitimate, then the consumer has ways of shutting that whole thing down, right?

Claytie vs. The Lady (1)

rmdingler (1955220) | about 6 months ago | (#45993915)

Consent is, you used it, thought about it, looked at it... thanks to intellectual property, it's not dissimilar to rape. And I believe it was a Congressman who said... hey, if it's gonna happen, you might as well enjoy it.

Almost.

It was Clayton Williams of Midland during his failed run for Governor of Texas against Anne Richards in the '90 gubernatorial campaign.

Likening eminent rape to the weather, he quipped, If it's inevitable, just relax and enjoy it.

His stock fell faster than Blackberry's.

Re:Consent (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45994211)

What happen guuuuurrrrllll? Your posts used to be insightful, informative, sometimes even funny. Pretty much all of the good /. mods. But lately you've been trollin and flamebaitin and aren't even trying to hide it. You can do better than that. Remember your training, gurll!

My cell phone is an electronic data recorder (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45993355)

I'd like a very specific warrant if they want to touch that too.

I'm not for driver's "rights" (2)

TrollstonButterbeans (2914995) | about 6 months ago | (#45993475)

Driving is a priviledge, not a right.

You can't drive drunk, high, stupid, menacing, without a seat belt, over the speed limit or run over pedestrians. And you must have insurance.

If someone wants driving privacy, go to a private track.

There are places to worried about government intrusion, but this isn't one of them. About 80% of my driving is either to work or to a store for groceries or what not. I just want it to be safe and efficient.

Re:I'm not for driver's "rights" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45993813)

You say that now while self-driving cars are in their infancy. Where will your rights be when they use them to take everyone past the age of 65 off the roads because being "old" gets added to the list of things that are prohibited while operating a vehicle....hmm?

Re:I'm not for driver's "rights" (1)

jafiwam (310805) | about 6 months ago | (#45998113)

You say that now while self-driving cars are in their infancy. Where will your rights be when they use them to take everyone past the age of 65 off the roads because being "old" gets added to the list of things that are prohibited while operating a vehicle....hmm?

I know a few 65+ year olds that are scared to death of driving. Plus a few too stubborn to stop when they get dangerous, and a few who simply don't have driver's permits in the first place.

A safe and efficient way for all of them to get to the store or doctor's office would be a godsend to most of them.

Sure, a few stubborn old men have substituted their driving and car for their non-functional penis, but that's not a valid reason to do anything.

PS, 65 would be way too young now days. 75 or 80 is a more realistic "most of them can't drive anymore" age.

Re:I'm not for driver's "rights" (3, Insightful)

Spy Handler (822350) | about 6 months ago | (#45993853)

Walking is also a privilege, not a right. You will comply when gov't requires you to wear a GPS device around your neck at all times to track your location. It is for a safe and efficient society.

Re:I'm not for driver's "rights" (2)

davecb (6526) | about 6 months ago | (#45994923)

Actually, use of the public road is a right. Driving a 2-ton clumsy-box at high speed is the thing that's a privilege. Asmittedly, horses and bicycles are annoyingly slow, but no-one can make riding them a privilege (;-))

Re:I'm not for driver's "rights" (1, Interesting)

TrollstonButterbeans (2914995) | about 6 months ago | (#45995093)

Most driver's that want "rights" have very dirty laundry.

1. Repeat drunk driver who tends to blow stop signs doesn't like having to have special license plates.

2. Drug runner guy doesn't cameras or cops following them around.

3. Old coot who can't see doesn't like to take driving test every 5 years.

4. Pot smoker dude wants an app to show police checkpoints

But cars are dangerous 2-ton equipment.

"More than 2.3 million adult drivers and passengers were treated in emergency departments as the result of being injured in motor vehicle crashes in 2009." --- Motor vehicle stats

Re:I'm not for driver's "rights" (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 6 months ago | (#45995957)

It's not so much driver's rights, as it is property owner's rights.

Rights that are apparently so important, they used to be the main criteria in deciding whether or not you were allowed to vote.

Most driver's that want "rights" have very dirty laundry.

What a cute way to re-word "if you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide." Aside from the fact that, thanks to a little phenomena known as overcriminalization [nacdl.org] pretty much every single American over the age of 6 is technically guilty of committing some sort of infraction, the point of it all is that the government does not have a right to search or seize your personal property without a fucking warrant. "Search" up-to-and-includes spying on, a statement which has been repeatedly upheld by the Supreme Court.

"More than 2.3 million adult drivers and passengers were treated in emergency departments as the result of being injured in motor vehicle crashes in 2009." --- Motor vehicle stats

Over 9 million Americans were treated in emergency departments as a result of an unintentional fall in 2011. [cdc.gov]

So the point you're obviously trying to make here is that driving is four times safer than walking, right?

Re:I'm not for driver's "rights" (1)

TrollstonButterbeans (2914995) | about 6 months ago | (#45996045)

Most people that get injured or die outside the home under 50 involves an automobile.

And automobile accidents only take a little bit of inattentiveness.

Funny enough, I used to be against states continually lowering the BAC numbers but seeing the death/injury stats a few years ago made me realize automobile realities should yield to the statistics of how and who are causing these accidents and when.

Hint: Friday and Saturday nights after 10 PM, unsurprisingly, are very dangerous. So are summer afternoons on Friday.

Re:I'm not for driver's "rights" (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 6 months ago | (#45996147)

I think you missed my points, so I'll summarize:

- People tracking you against your will has nothing to do with driving, other than the fact they're doing it while you're driving.

- Your fear of automobile accidents does not justify taking away the Constitutional rights of everyone around you.

Re:I'm not for driver's "rights" (1)

VortexCortex (1117377) | about 6 months ago | (#45996065)

Most people that want "rights" have very dirty laundry.

0. Sensational "journalists" who tend to blow things out of proportion only likes censorship when it exposes their closet skeletons.

1. Drug users who don't care whether or not the state says it's OK to use Heroin, Cocaine, Marijuana, Tobacco, Tylenol, Vinegar, Sugar, Catchup, Water, etc.

2. Young folks who can't see why failing business models based on artificial scarcity should be propped up by the state and breech of civil contract elevated to a felony.

3. Traffic commuter who travels at the speed of surrounding cars even if they go above the mandated limit during "rush hour" wants an app to show simple facts like the publicly available location of traffic congestion.

4. Tinkerers who create things in their own garage without government supervision, and even sell some without being sued because they stumbled upon an obvious solution to a problem that someone else figured out first.

5. Sex crazed individuals don't want to have to get permission from the state to have long term partners and/or be gay want to screw the government out of license fees they change to change your relationship status.

But life is dangerous, everyone should be prevented from opting out of protection they don't want or need -- The state should be responsible for the economy and well being of every individual -- Or else you might die someday!

"More than 2.3 million adult drivers and passengers were treated in emergency departments as the result of being injured in motor vehicle crashes in 2009." --- Motor vehicle stats

So what? Accidents happen. In 2010 Accidents (unintentional injuries, automotive and otherwise) killed 120,859 people. We should implant RFIDs in all the humans? Heart disease killed 597,689 people in 2010 [cdc.gov] THIS IS FAR MORE DANGEROUS THAN ALL ACCIDENTS! We should outlaw Freedom Fries!!!

Go swim a tar-pit, you're hindering the herd.

Re:I'm not for driver's "rights" (1)

Mashdar (876825) | about 6 months ago | (#45999331)

Argumentum ad hominem much? People who don't want their every movement tracked are old druggy drunks who kill people?

Re:I'm not for driver's "rights" (1)

vlueboy (1799360) | about 6 months ago | (#45996747)

Walking is also a privilege, not a right. You will comply when gov't requires you to wear a GPS device around your neck at all times to track your location. It is for a safe and efficient society.

You mean a cellphone? ;)
Pardon my 2 year old stats...
http://arstechnica.com/business/2012/06/prepaid-mobile-phone-users-in-america-hit-record-high/ [arstechnica.com] says most US phones are run by contract (75% users as of that article posting)
IIRC, contracts normally come with carrot-stick: you actually want those hmmm-tasty subsidies to knock half off that phone's MSRP, so you must pass a credit check. But that credit check is tied to your social security number, which gives the government your identity. And my retort isn't off: http://arstechnica.com/business/2012/06/prepaid-mobile-phone-users-in-america-hit-record-high/ [arstechnica.com] 80+% of Americans owned a cellphone back 2 years ago.

Re:I'm not for driver's "rights" (1)

Aighearach (97333) | about 6 months ago | (#45995167)

There is a whole lot of fail there. Driving is a privilege, so if we want to ban drunk driving, we can [did]. And if we want to regulate privacy of Event Data Recorders installed in vehicles, we can [will].

And a private track is exactly where many regulations don't apply, not a place people go for regulated driving.

Driver Privacy Act Introduced In US Senate (1)

grep -v '.*' * (780312) | about 6 months ago | (#45994033)

Oh hell, and here I came in becase I thought they were somehow talking about privacy issues within OS drivers.

You might recover my "black box" after an accident -- just like in an airplane crash -- but otherwise my on-board GPS is going to have "an unfortunate accident" the first day I have it. (I, of course, will NOT be buying the enhanced navigation console.)

If you want to know where I am, you can call me and ask, or wiretap my phone like they did it back in grandpa's day -- with a physical wire.

Bet that is checked at the door (1)

Ralph Ostrander (2846785) | about 6 months ago | (#45994315)

Soon as a pig pulls you over and takes your cell phone/gps data.

Doesn't matter (1)

Patent Lover (779809) | about 6 months ago | (#45994677)

License plate readers and traffic cameras are very soon to ubiquitous.

Hoping the data is valid and authenticateable (1)

gunnaraztek (1077439) | about 6 months ago | (#45995477)

Here's me hoping that those recorders are accurate!

If they are i would much rather like them telling the story of a crash than multiple seperate arguments from the people in a crash.

I'd want them if and only if they are accurate and verifiable!

But, that's an iffy if...

Just Driving information from your ECU? (1)

Virtucon (127420) | about 6 months ago | (#45995943)

What about all the )(*@)#!# cameras, RFID scanners, license plate scanners and such? This is like a tiny part of the Iceberg here and this legislation needs to cover those aspects as well. I'm less worried about Ford having this than I am some Barney Fife police agency who has no data retention policies and just collects it just for the hell of it. Ford at least can be handled by the courts and brought to account in a class action lawsuit. If you have systems like OnStar, rip them out all they have become is information collectors.

Simple solution (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45997127)

Remove the black box from the car. I know I will be.

Legislation won't solve the problem (1)

russotto (537200) | about 6 months ago | (#45998893)

It should be abundantly clear by now that if you don't want data misused, the absolute best way to do is to not collect it in the first place, with a poor second being to reliably destroy it some short period after the collection. Certainly once you've transmitted it beyond the collection point to a third party, it can be assumed to be available forever.

If you want useful legislation, require that the data not be recorded or transmitted. But of course we already have legislation and regulation (OBD-III) requiring the opposite.

Re:Legislation won't solve the problem (1)

mysidia (191772) | about 6 months ago | (#45999675)

Certainly once you've transmitted it beyond the collection point to a third party, it can be assumed to be available forever.

Encrypt the data at the point of collection with a key only accessible to the user.

And make sure the transmision is securely to a third party outside the local, national, and co-operating international parties jurisdictions in which the person the data is about resides.

As the owner and driver of the car... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46000565)

As the owner and driver of the car, I should have COMPLETE control of MY data. Anyone denying me that information is a CRIMINAL.

Make a 0 Privacy Game (1)

ememisya (1548255) | about 6 months ago | (#46004187)

The only way to truly show why we need privacy is to openly display its power. If I knew about your every eye movement, facial gestures, your online activity and profiles, your health record, your breathing rate, your heart rate, and be able to influence your responses, I could very much effect your mood. I'm thinking about writing a game to relax and/or scare people, and put warning labels such as, "Don't play for more than X hours, this game might drive you to insanity etc." It would get people thinking about what we communicate digitally and why it's important to have privacy.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>