Black Boxes in cars...The American Surveillance State.

Post Reply New Topic

Do you think performance on the job should meet standards or not?

ruveyn

I do.

If there were no need for "nanny boxes", then they would not have been invented.

Yes spoofing could be a problem. Also won't this reduce feul economy and performance by a small degree.

And what, precisely, is the constitutional right that is being eroded here? Privacy is not, and has never been protected by the US Constitution--although, I will concede that the "penumbrae" have created some privacy expectations. But where is the legitimate expectation of privacy in the operation of a motor vehicle? This is an action that is carried on in space that is, by definition, public (streets and highways). It is carried on in a vehicle which bears unique aids to identification (license plate). It is carried out by individuals who have applied for, and received permission from the relevant governmental authority (a driving license). And the individuals carrying out this activity are bound to identify themselves to a peace officer on demand.

Suppose, for example, insurers make it a condition of motor vehicle insurance to have such a device installed on the vehicle, then is this not simply the insurers exercising their legal right to freedom of contract? If you don't like the terms of the contract, you are perfectly free to forego insurance, and not to drive. So where's the constitutional violation inherent in that?

There should be no question, of course, that routine surveillance would be inadmissible in criminal proceedings. The protections against unreasonable search and seizure should see to that. But where else can we confidently assert that there is a constitutionally protected right at stake?

Now that's not to say that I don't see the encroachment of technology is potentially troublesome. But let's not inflate this issue to a level where it does not belong.

In Griswald v Connecticut Justice Goldberg invoked the 9 th amendment. We have a natural or human right to privacy.

If the gummint wants to peek inside let them get a search warrant.

ruveyn

Perhaps ... but only if engine and drivetrain signals are spoofed, and not GPS or other external signals.

Pesky, activist judges![/sarcasm]

I note, however, that the right found in Griswold certainly isn't absolute. There are countless situations in which an individual either has no legitimate expectation of privacy, or has waived any expectation of privacy through the undertaking of a public act.

So, again I ask the question: what legitimate expectation of privacy does a person have while operating a motor vehicle?

Certainly in Fourth Amendment cases, cars have afforded little protection.
(See, for example, Whren v. United States (1996) 517 U.S. 806 http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal ... /case.html)

Given that motor vehicle operation takes place in public I suggest that the open fields doctrine negates any subjective expectation of privacy on the part of the driver of that vehicle--particularly with respect to the method in which that vehicle is being operated. If police are routinely able to use surveillance technology like radar to determine the speed at which you are operating your vehicle, I see no basis on which to conclude that other types of surveillance are constitutionally excluded.

Little or none. Driving on the public roads is NOT a right. It is a privilege granted by the State in a (hopefully) non-discriminatory manner. You drive your car by permission of the Almighty State. Expect to be watched.

ruveyn

To think otherwise would be moronic. I have never implicated in my comment that I was against them, but rather, that said "nanny boxes" are nothing new.

I remember our textbook put is rather succinctly: The right to privacy as it stands now is merely a "penumbra" right granted by overlapping rights; it is not absolute or explicit in the very least.

I wonder if I will be able to access this data myself and maybe be able to look at it on a computer for knowing how it is driving. Although being able to hook up a usb drive to the car and look at this data if you had a track day could be an interesting option.

We clearly need a new amendment directly addressing a right to privacy.

The 4 th and 5 th amendments will do just fine.

ruveyn

I don't think the various US government agencies care about privacy or amendments:

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/12/13/1737240/nctc-gets-vast-powers-to-spy-on-us-citizens

It would be possible to disable the box if a hacker found a way to circumvent the technology. However, this would require a massive amount of reverse engineering or expensive proprietary hardware and a large amount of reverse engineering. Each car manufacturer uses a different proprietary computer system.

And a mechanic definitely wouldn't be able to do it because merely removing the box would result in the car not functioning. The engine wouldn't start without the box being plugged in. So you'd need to be an expert hacker with high level knowledge of the specific computer the car has.

Onstar can already disable engines on vehicles for cops in purusit.

ive got a1989 landcrusier troop carrier and live in rural australia don't think i have much to be concerned about.