Home > Lawrenceville.Talk > Archives > 2006 > August > 30 > Entry
DEL.ICIO.USIs your car going to tattletale on you?
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Note to readers: Jacqueline Bullard’s blog will return next week.
It doesn’t matter how many Saturdays you lovingly wash and wax your new car’s exterior. Nowadays, late-model vehicles have Event Data Recorders (EDRs), technological tattletales that can testify against you. Like the little black box buried in my 2006 black SUV’s interior.
Here’s how it works: The instant airbags deploy in a car accident, the EDR starts calculating and reporting. It records key safety components like how the seatbelts are functioning and if your brakes are working.
But an EDR also adds in personal anecdotes like if you mashed the gas pedal and/or the brakes in those crucial accident moments. Plus possible penalizing factors like exactly how fast or slow you were going. Oftentimes, this information ends up as testimony inside courtrooms, as Time magazine reported this month.
Were you over the speed limit when you accidentally slammed into a tree? Did you hit the brakes too hard causing your vehicle to flip over onto concrete? Doesn’t matter if the road was slippery or icy. If you’ve done something illegal, once the EDR information is downloaded onto a laptop it will spill all the beans.
This is why EDRs are so hotly debated. Police, insurance companies and automakers are speeding into the courtroom. During vehicular proceedings they want EDR information downloaded and reported.
On the upside, auto insurer Progressive is offering discounts if they can monitor your driving patterns using this type of system. This could mean lower rates at renewal time with their promise of no monitoring-related increases.
Still, there is an outcry from various civic groups that say this is a very ugly technological privacy violation. That, in particular, automakers knew it was there long before vehicle owners were told about it.
To be fair, last week the National Transportation Highway Safety Administration (NTHSA) ruled automakers are required to tell new car buyers if an EDR is present. The NTHSA are all for these little boxes. Just like the black boxes on airplanes, in an accident they want to be able to research your vehicle’s safety performance. Who needs a crash test dummy when real world accidents are regularly recorded?
Unlike on airplanes, EDR technology won’t record human conversations. No loud-talking children in morning carpools or road rage cursing. But that doesn’t mean an EDR won’t tattletale on you in a courtroom.
Beware the words of my 2006 vehicle owner’s manual stored in my glove compartment. On page four the automaker says, “We will only use this information for vehicle safety improvements.” While the next paragraph cites other possible uses like, “Or if we need to use it as a defense in a lawsuit.”
Do you think an EDR is a privacy violation? Or is the NTHSA’s plea for safety research more important?
Permalink | Comments (6) | Categories: Jacqueline Bullard
Comments
Commenting is now closed for this entry.
By katie
August 30, 2006 9:24 AM | Link to this
Personally I’m not too worried about it. If I’m doing something wrong and cause an accident then I am at fault and have to take responsibility. Those who are worried are the ones that are irresponsible and will most likely lie about their actions prior to an accident. They should be punished for their dishonesty. I am a firm believer that there is no such thing as an accident, someone or something is always at fault. I see nothing wrong with vehicles having ‘black boxes’ to really say what happened.
By Byron
August 30, 2006 12:25 PM | Link to this
I think it is an invasion of privacy. Not only has the public not been informed of these devices but it will allow the insurance industry another way to avoid its responsibility to the insured. There are numerous conditions on the roads that could cause this device to provide erroneous data. For instance if the roads are wet or icy. Other possibilities such as sand, dirt or gravel could also cause a vehicle to accelerate above the speed limit. The NTHSA or states should not allow the insurance industry to use this data but for one purpose and that should be safety. Not to line their pockets with extra money from someone who could be maimed or killed in an accident.
By frank123
August 30, 2006 3:16 PM | Link to this
Agree with Katie. I have no problems with these black boxes or any “privacy” violation. The only time it would probably be used is in a litigation where someone is claiming that there is a vehicle defect or the other driver was at fault. How can there be a privacy violation when a person is suing for money and claims that others did everything wrong. (Note: Never heard of sand or gravel causing a vehilce to go faster. The driver is suppose to take the sand or gravel into account and slow down!!)
By Mike
August 30, 2006 3:50 PM | Link to this
I can see both sides but I am against it. If someone wants their actions monitored, they can take a city bus. I don’t need my car taking names when the teacher leaves the room.
By JD
August 30, 2006 9:15 PM | Link to this
Driving on public roads is not a right - it is a privilege. Combine that fact with the reality that every driver’s actions can place everyone on the road at risk and I have no problem with my, and everyone else’s, actions being recorded and used in the event of an accident.
By Bonedaddy
September 1, 2006 9:20 AM | Link to this
I will either by-pass or disconnect. “Those who are willing to trade civil liberties for temporary security, deserve neither” is the famous Benjamin Franklin quote. I am with Ben. Why not allow a camera in your car to follow you around and record that data? That is why we pay investigators to determine cause and effect, after accidents happen.