Senate Passes Bill Mandating Vehicle Data Recorders for 2015, House Expected to Do Same

Interesting....

By Peter Wayner
Is your car going to snitch on you? It’s a question on the minds of many enthusiasts given this year’s version of the annual transportation bill meandering through Congress: It contains a section mandating event data recorders, a.k.a. black boxes, for all cars sold in the U.S. as of model year 2015. The bill also purports to resolve a debate over who owns information gathered by the devices—which, it should be noted, already have been installed in most cars for years—by giving the owner clear control over the numbers inside, but the data still could be accessed by government agencies via court order or in other circumstances.



Quick legislative-branch review: Each house of Congress, the House of Representatives and the Senate, pass different versions of bills. These then have to be reconciled before they become a law. (Thanks, “Schoolhouse Rock”!) In this case, the details in the bill (Senate Bill 1813) could change when this becomes law, as the House is considering a version with slightly different language. (The House is widely expected to pass the measure, however, once the minor discrepancies are resolved.) Either way, it’s still pretty vague. The Senate bill insists only that devices must “capture and store data related to motor vehicle safety” and release this information to an “interoperable data access port.”

Which data is related to safety? The bill doesn’t define that but insists that this data, whatever it is, must be captured for a “reasonable time period before, during, and after” any crash or event that triggers the airbags. The Department of Transportation has already developed a standard set of data that includes 15 different measurements such as direction of acceleration, throttle position, and the moment the airbags fired. (Many manufacturers’ boxes capture additional information.) This structure is likely to be the foundation of the mandated information to be recorded, starting with the 2015 model year.

What the Senate bill does make clear is that the data is owned by the car’s owner or lessee. But if the police or other agencies want to retrieve it without the owner’s consent, they’ll need a court order. First responders such as paramedics would also have access to the data—without a court order, even—in cases where it will help them respond to an emergency.

The sensitivity, of course, comes from the potential incrimination of drivers by using the data. Stuff like intake-manifold pressure and fuel mixture are of interest only to the hardest-core gearheads, but information on raw speed and pedal application could be used against a driver. While finding fault in a fatal accident—or, say, clearing an automaker of unintended-acceleration accusations—are noble causes, what’s stopping agencies from seeking court-mandated access to the box for simple speeding violations? A lot, as it turns out. The requirements for getting a court order for access are likely to be as stringent as they are for issuing a search warrant. Without a warrant, many states’ laws might make it illegal to use black-box data for issuing traffic tickets. In New York, for example, police are not allowed to issue tickets using EZ Pass toll data to calculate a driver’s average speed.

Demands for the data from investigators are not uncommon today, as lawyers begin to look to the devices to help blame someone after a crash. For instance, the Los Angeles Times reported in 2010 that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) subpoenaed a black box taken from the wreck of a Toyota Tundra that killed its driver. There was alcohol reported to be found in the blood of the driver, but the family thought that perhaps Toyota might be at fault because of errant data found recorded by the box. There also is a growing network of professional private investigators that specializes in forensic reconstruction of accidents, and they frequently tap in to the contents of the event data recorder.

Some are pushing Congress to do more than add legal restrictions to data access. “It’s almost a done deal that they’re going to mandate,” said Tom Kowalick, an engineer who helped draft the IEEE standard for event data recorders. “The question is: What’s in it for the consumer?” Kowalick would like Congress to let owners lock up the data with a key that gives the owner physical control of access, and he’s circulating a petition to ask the Obama administration to add tighter electronic controls on the data. The physical key would stop the highly unlikely cases of idle snooping—the Jiffy Lube guy doesn’t care about your driving habits—but it’s an incredibly symbolic gesture: Again, the courts would still be able to demand the data with a subpoena.

Source;
http://blog.caranddriver.com/senate-passes-bill-mandating-vehicle-data-recorders-for-2015-house-expected-to-do-same/

OnStar Discloses that it Will Track Customers Without a Plan

Wow, you've got to be kidding me, GM = Big Brother now?!?

by Mark Hackman

OnStar has begun notifying customers that it may continue to collect and use information about the vehicle even if the customer terminates his or her subscription.

In a privacy notice that will take effect this December, OnStar said that it would collect data as long as a data connection was active, including such details as the location and speed of the vehicle, as well as such fine-grained details as the odometer readings and tire pressure.

The privacy statement lists it as being effective as of Dec. 2011, although the statement also notes that the changes were made to the January 2011 privacy statement.

In the privacy notification, OnStar said that it will share the information it collects with credit card processors and data management companies, as well as roadside assistance providers, emergency services providers, law enforcement, and wireless and satellite service providers.

The data collection can be halted, however; OnStar must deactivate the data connection. "Unless the Data Connection to your Vehicle is deactivated, data about your Vehicle will continue to be collected even if you do not have a Plan," the privacy policy states. "It is important that you convey this to other drivers, occupants, or subsequent owners of your Vehicle. You may deactivate the Data Connection to your Vehicle at any time by contacting an OnStar Advisor."

What data does OnStar collect? The company provides a detailed list:
OnStar collects basic contact information, billing information with credit-card information, and details of the car, such as the make, model, and vehicle identification number (VIN);
vehicle information, including diagnostic trouble codes, oil life, tire pressure, and fuel economy, as well as when your fuel was last refilled;

crash information, including the direction of the crash, whether air bags were deployed, and whether the driver and passenger were wearing their seat belts;

anonymized location information, such as the location and speed of the car, via the installed GPS.
In the latter case, OnStar begins by saying that it only collects the GPS location of the vehicle in case of a crash, or lost vehicle. But it also adds that it may collect the information "when needed by us or our Service Providers for our quality, research or troubleshooting purposes" or simply "for any purpose, at any time, provided that following collection of such location and speed information identifiable to your Vehicle, it is shared only on an anonymized basis."

OnStar also collects information on the details of calls made by the associated Hands-Free Calling service.

In July, OnStar launched the OnStar FMV, an aftermarket rear-view mirror with the OnStar service built in. In July, OnStar also added the capability to track their own cars with a beta service. Ford, which competes against OnStar with its Sync service, also recently announced the capability to allow users to call its customer service centers from within the vehicle to inquire about business addresses and phone numbers.

Whether or not OnStar really anonymizes the data is irrelevant, according to Jonathan Zdziarski, a senior forensic scientist at Via Forensics who wrote about the change in the policy.

"This is too shady, especially for a company that you're supposed to trust your family to," he wrote. "My vehicle's location is my life, it's where I go on a daily basis. It's private. It's mine. I shouldn't have to have a company like OnStar steal my personal and private life just to purchase an emergency response service. Taking my private life and selling it to third party advertisers, law enforcement, and God knows who else is morally inept. Shame on you, OnStar. You disgust me."

OnStar also noted that customers with concerns can email its privacy manager at privacymanager@onstar.com, or call the company at (877) 299-1372.

OnStar representatives could not be reached for comment after hours.

Source;
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2393378,00.asp#fbid=8G2XIIvcyWG

U.S. gov’t can track your location by vehicle GPS without cause, warrant

Some say we are inching our way towards a policed state....

In a world full of technology that brings us closer and closer to an Orwellian-type society each day, people are accepting but weary of much of today’s new technology which makes sense when one considers the fact that much of modern technology is based around GPS capabilities and some form of artificial intuition related to it.

Systems such as OnStar have always come under some form of scrutiny due to the constant access to a given vehicles location that it has, but there was some solace in knowing that it was rather un-indictable information in an open court, Well for a brief moment, that may have changed.

Through its denial to hear an appeal (it failed to get a majority vote) in the case of USA v. Pineda-Moreno, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has determined that it is in bounds of our constitution for law-enforcement to sneak under a car parked in a private citizen’s driveway, attach a GPS device thereto, and track the locations of said vehicle – all without a warrant.

Aside from the obvious issues with such a decision, there is a contradiction in jurisprudence, as courts have already determined that a person’s driveway falls under the privilege of curtilage granted to the rest of someone’s home. The court said that the defendant failed to demonstrate why he should expect privacy in his driveway.

Don’t despair. An example of this issue so cut and dry has yet to go before the Supreme Court, and it is my opinion that if this case is cited in future opinions, it will quickly be before the high court, where it will be cleared up. The dissenting judges had the following to say: “I don’t think that most people in the United States would agree with the panel that someone who leaves his car parked in his driveway outside the door of his home invites people to crawl under it and attach a device that will track the vehicle’s every movement and transmit that information to total strangers. There is something creepy and un-American about such clandestine and underhanded behavior.”

Source;

http://www.egmcartech.com/2010/08/27/u-s-govt-can-track-your-location-by-vehicle-gps-without-cause-warrant/

House Bill Mandates 'Black Boxes' For All Cars

Wide-ranging measure also includes mandatory emergency braking

On a 31-21 vote, the House Energy and Commerce Committee has approved a bill that, among other things, would require all vehicles sold in the U.S. to be equipped with a "black box" that records crash data by 2015.

The Motor Vehicle Safety Act now goes to the full House for debate. The Senate is considering a similar measure.

Included in the bill is a requirement for automakers to provide an emergency brake override system that could stop the car if the throttle were stuck in the open position. That provision was added in the wake of Toyota's well-publicized unintended acceleration problems that forced a large recall earlier this year.

The measure also includes a provision increasing the maximum penalty on carmakers that fail to report defects. Toyota has paid a record $16.2 million fine in connection with its unintended acceleration problems.

Some tougher provisions of the bill were removed after objections from the auto industry. However, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers said it is generally in favor of most of the bill's provisions, including the emergency brake override system and the inclusion of a "black box" data recorder.

In testimony before the committee earlier this month, Alliance CEO Dave McCurdy tempered his support of the black box provision with a few concerns when the original wording called for "black boxes like those found in airplanes."

"The typical airplane black box costs $22,000, which is close to the average price of a new car," McCurdy told the committee. "In my opinion, Rep. Green's legislation -- H.R. 5169, the Event Data Recorder Enhancement Act -- is a better approach."

Under Green's measure, the Secretary of Transportation would set the standards for automobile "black boxes."

The measure would give new power to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. NHTSA would be authorized to order recalls that "present a substantial likelihood of death or injury to the public."

To increase NHTSA's budget, the measure would add a $9 tax per car -- ultimately to be paid by the purchaser -- with the money going directly to fund the agency's operations.

The idea for "black boxes" in cars has been around since the 1970s. It was first advanced by the National Transportation Safety Board, the agency that investigates airplane accidents. The agency made the recommendation to both NHTSA and the automobile industry.
Objections

When Event Data Recorders were introduced in the last decade, hundreds of consumers wrote to federal auto safety regulators objecting to a new rule establishing minimum requirements for automobile "black boxes" and data recorders. Privacy advocates said they were concerned the data would fall into the wrong hands and would contribute to government "spying" on drivers.

Many vehicles currently collect data in onboard computers that are part of the vehicle electronics system. Toyota analyzed data from the computers earlier this year when it investigated a number of sudden acceleration reports.

The legal website ExpertLaw.com says there are many misconceptions about a vehicle "black box," saying its best uses are for diagnosing vehicle related problems, not to settle legal issues arising from accidents.

"Motorists should be very concerned about this device," the website warns. "The automobile black box should never be used as a stand-alone device. The use of physical evidence, such as impact data, skid / yaw marks, initial / resting positions of vehicle(s), in conjunction with the black box, as well as common sense is essential to obtain the correct resultant. "

Source;

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2010/05/autos_black_box.html

Big Brother comes to the Automotive World by 2012; Man Cancels Order on Nissan GT-R

This kind of accident-investigation scene, tapping into the car's EDR and downloading crash-related data to a laptop computer, will become far more prevalent as black boxes proliferate in 2012 and beyond.
Until a few weeks ago, Florida attorney Scott Weires was eagerly awaiting delivery of his new Nissan GT-R. But in late August, Weires canceled his order--not because he doesn't want the $82,000 Super Silver supercar he has lusted for since it was first unveiled as a concept seven years ago. Weires says he's uncomfortable with the fact that every GT-R has a recording device strapped to its chassis, an electronic black box that monitors how each owner drives his or her GT-R.

Similar so-called black boxes, or electronic data recorders (EDRs), are now standard equipment in a majority of passenger cars and light-duty trucks sold in the United States. Wired into airbag sensors, yaw and stability sensors, antilock brake and traction controllers, electronic throttle controls and engine monitors, EDRs soon will collect a bewildering amount of data in keeping with pending federal regulations aimed at standardizing information available from the devices. Those regulations, finalized earlier this year and set to go into effect Sept. 1, 2012 (on 2013-model-year vehicles), specify exactly how much and what types of information must be collected and saved electronically in the event of a crash or airbag deployment.

Though the U.S. Department of Trans-portation requirements don't mandate installation of EDRs on every car, truck and sport-utility vehicle in America, the rules do require compliance with the guidelines if the vehicle is fitted with an EDR by the manufacturer. In 2006, the National High-way Traffic Safety Administration reported that 64 percent of manufacturers were equipping vehicles with EDRs, a number the agency says hasn't radically changed. But an informal survey indicates that most automakers--with some notable exceptions--are embracing the devices. And that number seems to have grown in the four years since AutoWeek last investigated the state of automotive black boxes ("Under the Hood, with Big Brother," Nov. 8, 2004).

As a result, most of today's late-model vehicles are equipped with EDRs, ostensibly to help manufacturers engineer better safety equipment in vehicles by analyzing data collected in crashes. In reality, what started as a simple tool for safety engineers is now a key component that provides data to protect companies from safety-related lawsuits and to assist law-enforcement officials investigating car accidents.

While an EDR may seem onerous enough to those who love a spirited drive in a sports car, it was another kind of black box, a vehicle status data recorder (VSDR), that put Weires at odds with Nissan and his GT-R.

Unlike an EDR, which activates only when sensors indicate that a crash is imminent or has occurred, Nissan's VSDR runs constantly, collecting information such as wheel and engine speed. The device, thought to be a first in the automotive industry, stores more than a few days' but less than a week's worth of data on the vehicle's operation, Nissan says. The VSDR cannot be deactivated.

In technical information provided to buyers, Nissan says the VSDR does not record sounds or images but "always records and stores vehicle-operating data between periodic inspections, which can assist and be used for servicing, diagnosing and performing warranty repairs."

Nissan says the VSDR isn't intended to spy on unsuspecting GT-R drivers but is needed to help mechanics and engineers monitor the performance of various onboard systems in the highly advanced car.

It's that part about "warranty repairs" that has Weires worried. He says data collected by the VSDR could allow Nissan arbitrarily to invalidate all or part of the car's warranty. For instance, Nissan specifically warns owners that they could void warranty protection by running a car with its vehicle dynamic control (VDC), governing traction and stability, turned off. (In fairness to Nissan, the owner's manual does allow owners to defeat VDC when wheelspin is needed to rock a car that's stuck in snow or mud.)

"These warranty issues are a little unsettling," said Weires. "That was a huge part of my decision."

Nissan officials are quick to clarify that VSDR data would be used only as a secondary way to verify that a car had been abused or raced. And only the damaged part might not be covered by warranty; a record of hard use wouldn't invalidate the warranty for the entire car.

For the rest of the article, follow the link;
http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080924/FREE/809189970/1506/rss01&rssfeed=rss01