Carmakers to Back Black Box Recorders

Of course they do. So will your insurance companies and law enforcement.

Yay! More prying by big brother.

Imagine the nerve! Law enforcement and insurance companies wanting to accurately investigate accidents and assign fault. Automakers wanting real-world data so they can improve vehicle safety. Such gall!

Let's make some cliched poster boards and form an indignant rabble in DC! That'll show 'em!

It's a simple question of probable cause, or some similar legal concept. I think our legal system has plenty of protections against unwarranted prying into personal information - assuming we maintain it. It's still MY data. I won't give an insurance company my business if they insist on policing my everyday behavior. If my actions cause damage somehow-where-time, then we'll talk about letting them open my books or boxes.

You may have a harder and harder time of it. Once the insurance companies get going with this it will be mandatory. Sure, you can take your business elsewhere, but competition will be hard to find if every company sees this as a means to control their losses.

Right now some companies are experimenting with this. They offer a program that gives the policy holder a discount for surrendering this data periodically to the insurance company.

If this practice expands they will not be able to offer a discount to everyone, rather it will shift toward a penalty for not providing it.

Why hasn't this taken off in that direction now? Simply there are not enough cars with this technology on-board to make the transition happen. However, that will probably change in the next 3 to 5 years if legislation continues to move forward.

The push to do this is too strong. Insurance companies are struggling to make ends meet and they are looking for anything that reduces their costs and increases their revenue.

If your policy has not been renewed lately you probably will be seeing an increase in your next statement. I discussed this at length with my agent just last month when my policy renewed.

"Have you ever exceeded the speed limit, ever?"

Countless times. I'll surely do so again.

"What, if upon inspection of your black box data, your insurance company decided to raise your premiums 15% based on data harvested from your car's black box?"

I'd think nothing more of it than I do now when a police officer catches me speeding. Part of free will is accepting responsibility for my actions.

"Are you happy to accept partial blame for the accident?"

Since I was either knowingly speeding or foolishly oblivious to the rules I agreed to when I got my license, then I'll have to accept it. Oooo, there's that pesky responsibility again.

"A third scenario is when your insurance company discovers..."

I'm not clear how this would come about.

If the data was collected at an accident scene or traffic stop, then the insurance company would know I wasn't driving.

If there's no accident involved, an insurance company trying to remotely and randomly snoop into my vehicle solely on the basis of trying to assess potential risk would face some serious, lengthy legal hurdles. We can opine on the outcome of those, if you'd like.

As far as the police somehow remotely monitoring your little black box to see if you've been naughty in the past so they can fatten their wallets, probable-cause rules, etc. may come into play there. But ultimately your right to privacy doesn't shield you when knowingly committing an illegal act. Even one that you might happen to consider unworthy. Gosh, that whole rule of law thing is sometimes such a bother, isn't it?

"...the ability to disable or severely degrade a vehicle remotely..."

What? No more live high-speed chases on the TV? Booooo!

"Then there will be the hackers."

But...but...what about the terrorists we'll stop? What about the bank-robbing serial-killer extra-terrestrial space alien car jackers we can thwart?

See what I did there? I can play "what if" too!

Sure, the remote-stop technology has the potential to be a double-edged sword. You can make that argument for just about anything. The new iPad? You can sharpen an edge and use it to slice someone's head clean off. Don't ask me how I know this.

Ultimately it comes down to how you choose to view things. I for one choose not to view every new development with wild-eyed suspicion and an accusatory cry of "EEEEVVVVIIILLLL" on my lips. Try it, you might like it.

There are certain rights you give up when you sign the contract for a license, like sobriety checks without probable cause. Most likely you will also give up the right to the data in the 'black box' and the government will download the data upon vehicle registration, and forward it to the insurance companies.

Those that trade liberty for security deserve neither. Ben Franklin said something like that.

Yes, if we had total surveillance and control by a central authority we would all live a better life from cradle to grave, perhaps?

On these points we seem to differ.

Curous how in this case "liberty" is apparently being interpreted to mean "freedom to break established laws".

Not necessarily so, but what can of worms are we really opening here? Take, as an example, traveling. How would you feel if everywhere you went within your own country you were required to show papers of your citizenship or provide paperwork for your reason to travel? You would be breaking no laws traveling, but you would be subject to search and interrogation at any time or place of the government's choosing.

This essentially happens right now in many states when you are forced to stop for a sobriety test on a public road. There is no probable cause to force you to take that test, but if you fail to comply you would be arrested because the majority of the voting public decided that they would surrender their right to privacy and unreasonable search and seizure for security from drunk drivers.

Just how much intrusion is okay with you to make sure that you are living, working, and playing within the boundaries of the law? When does it become a form of tyranny? Or, when too little becomes anarchy?

The Federalist Papers might be a good read if you would like a deeper understanding of what the thoughts and ideas of the US founding fathers were and why they were concerned with striking a fragile balance between tyranny and anarchy.

Be very careful of the doors you open. Once the cows are out of the barn . . . .

Slippery slopes really aren't THAT hard to negotiate. They can even be fun if you take the right attitude.

Government secrecy versus the Freedom of Information Act, snoopy insurance companies versus HIPAA, NSA versus the Fourth Amendment, etc. I must admit I am still pretty concerned about what a jerk of a president can do with certain clauses of the Military Commissions Act of 2006...

But it's a rare trampling of civil rights that doesn't get addressed... eventually.