About a year ago I posted a reply to a topic regarding the auto industry installing "Black Box" data recorders in new vehicals (since the the late '90s) that would be "tatle-tales" with information recorded by them being used against you whenever the authorities seen fit.

Many of you laughingly asked if I also had noticed black helicoptors tracking my movements . . . big brother type face recognition software inhanced cameras mouted on light poles, etc.

Well, may I please submit in my defense the following news artical as evidence that while I may at times promote others to be aware of possible threats, I am not parinoid!

BTW, the good news is that Fords "data recorder" isn't as 'bad' a tatle-tale as is GM's. . . . pls read on.


Hidden witness in crash death
Prosecutors to use car's black box

BY MARK BOWES
TIMES-DISPATCH STAFF WRITER May 25, 2003


A hidden electronic witness that records drivers' actions in a crash may help authorities prosecute a high-profile vehicular-manslaughter case in Chesterfield County.

Unbeknown to many motorists, a monitoring device known as a "black box" is tucked away in the air-bag systems of millions of late-model U.S. cars and trucks.

The device, more formally called a crash data recorder, collects a driver's actions when a collision triggers the air-bag system. Many of the devices record and store such data as vehicle speed, engine speed, throttle position, brake-switch status and seat-belt use five seconds before a crash.


A black box was in Roxanne S. Harrell's 2003 Chevrolet S-10 pickup truck when she crashed after a 20-minute police pursuit Feb. 24 on Hull Street Road in Chesterfield.

Harrell's daughter, 7-year-old Benicia C. "Beanie" Rockwell, was killed in the wreck. The mother was charged with involuntary manslaughter, eluding police and reckless driving.

Crash-team investigators, with assistance from the Virginia State Police, downloaded information from the black box in Harrell's truck and plan to use it at trial.

"We received information [from the box] that was consistent with what we were told had happened [by witnesses] at the scene," said Chesterfield police Lt. Brian Smith, who declined to elaborate on the specific data retrieved. "We feel it is good information that will help us at trial."

Harrell's crash represents the first time police in the Richmond area have retrieved black-box data for use in a criminal case.

Many more cases will probably follow, here and across the state, if Chesterfield succeeds in prosecuting the case with such evidence. Use of the technology will inevitably raise questions about a driver's self-incrimination and privacy.

"As more vehicles [with black boxes] get involved in crashes, we'll be using this more often," Smith said. "So we're looking forward to using it. We think it's a great tool for us."

State police, in conjunction with Virginia Commonwealth University's Transportation Training Center, have helped about a dozen Virginia law-enforcement agencies retrieve data from black boxes during the past year.

State police have purchased seven black-box retrieval systems that should be in use by next month, said Trooper Rick Dowsett, who helped Chesterfield retrieve data in the Harrell case.

"The best information is coming out of late model GM [vehicles] - Saturns, Geos, Pontiacs, Cadillacs - those kinds of cars," Dowsett said. "Ford is just this year coming on line [with the updated technology]."

Ford black boxes record data after impact, not seconds before, Dowsett said.

Florida authorities recently won a conviction in a vehicular-homicide case that was based partly on data collected from a black box.

The defendant was convicted in Broward County, Fla., of crashing his 2002 Pontiac Grand Am Firehawk into another vehicle last August, killing two teenagers.

The defendant testified he was driving about 20 mph over the 30-mph speed limit when the crash occurred. But the black-box data showed he was racing at more than 100 mph, according to news accounts.

Michael Horowitz, the assistant state attorney in Broward who prosecuted the case, said the data helped convict the driver. "It's like having a video of how the crash occurred."

The small boxes were originally designed to ensure that air bags were deploying properly, not to monitor drivers.

Although beneficial to police, the black-box technology won't replace standard police investigations of crashes, authorities said.

"The information we get off of this is just part of an investigative tool," said Chesterfield police Sgt. Dennis Harry. "We just don't go in and plug up to it and get everything we need, and then we're finished."

The boxes in various forms have been installed in many General Motors cars since the late 1990s and in some Ford Motor Co. vehicles since 2001.

Investigators believe the data retrieved from the boxes can, in many cases, be much more reliable than information collected through more traditional means.

Eyewitness accounts, for example, are not always dependable, and skid marks that investigators measure to estimate a vehicle's speed aren't available with new anti-lock braking systems.

Black-box technology is "basically a tool to verify the additional work that's been done by the officer, with calculations and talking with witnesses," Smith said.

Smith agreed that data retrieved from black boxes could be significantly more reliable, depending on the type of crash involved.

"If you're talking about a straight crash that runs into a brick wall, where there's no variables, it's going to be extremely accurate," Smith said. "But when you're talking about multiple collisions - hitting one vehicle, then going sideways down the road and rolling, and then flipping end over end - that's where the problems come in."

Law-enforcement officers must undergo training to retrieve black-box data, which requires a software program and cables to connect the box to a computer. The systems cost about $2,500 each.

New uses for the technology have raised questions of privacy for vehicle owners and operators.

In a public hearing in February, the Electronic Privacy Information Center urged the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration not to mandate the use of black-box technology "without ensuring that strong privacy safeguards are in place to protect the interests of drivers."

The nonprofit research and educational organization examines privacy and civil-liberties implications in emerging technologies.

In September 2001, a panel of experts working for the NHTSA concluded that widespread use of black boxes in cars and trucks would advance motor-vehicle safety. But the group acknowledged that difficult questions remain about self-incrimination and privacy.

In an 89-page report, the panel - including representatives of industry, academia and government - leaned heavily in favor of black boxes for cars and trucks.

But the report said the key to gaining public acceptance is convincing motorists black boxes will help protect them from harm rather than get them penalized for mistakes.

The panel said studies have shown that driver awareness of the black boxes tends to reduce the number and severity of crashes.


Contact Mark Bowes at (804) 649-6450 or mbowestimesdispatch.com

 

I got dizzy reading all that

Black boxes and crash and the fuzz ahhh where will it end....



I need some coffee

 

I doubt my 92 F150 has a data recorder, so I have nothing to worry about. But, if I ever bought a new truck, I would do everything I could to remove the data recorder. I hope some smart electronics guys will be able to tell me how to by-pass the black-box when the time comes.

 

I know for certain that my 82 doesn't have one of these. And to be honest i'm kind of glad it doesn't.

I can see the point of it, in gathering information in a wreck where both parties were injured, along with their passengers.

Or the eye witnesses can't accurately describe exactly what happend seconds before the wreck.

Then again, it could be abused too... used as final judgement whether or not someone commited manslaughter, wreckless driving etc. Possibly nullifying the proper channels of judgement and authority.

Then again, i hope to never see what i mentioned above happen, becuase if it does, i'll be driving my old rigs until there are no more parts for them.

-Tim-

 

Big Brother IS watching you. I suggest anybody complacent about things like this read 1984.

 

I KNEW that sneaky problem riddled F250 Lariot was spying on me,, Where is my rifle.

 

Thats why I like the old ones...'87 F150...34,000 MILES. When my lease is up on my '01 Ranger, its going back, and the '87 will be my main truck.

 

This really comes as no surprise to me. I learned back in 1995 that there was a movment to put the "flight recorder" in cars to deliver data in the event of a crash. The rational was that too many people lie about what they were doing at the time of a crash, and the flight recorder would deliver the real truth in many accidents.

The question I have is who has the right to go up to someones mangled wreck and extract data without going through certain legal channels such as a court order. This is definitely gonna wind up in the courts with the lawyers having a blast making all that money.

 

Well, for one thing, they can inspect the seat belt and seat belt latches to determine if you were wearing a seat belt without a warrant, they can measure the black lines you left on the road.... what's the difference?

 

If this is legal then the next step will be a proactive black box that will send out a signal when you exceed the posted speed limit. Or maybe a black box that will shut down the engine and lock the seatbelt so you can't get out of the vehicle when pulled over. Shoot maybe they'll install pepper spray dispensers to ensure compliance during routine traffic stops. People are cattle, the majority of Americans will roll over and accept this interference. How sad.

 

Whoa BobbyL
don't give the Gov anymore ideals to waste our tax's dollors on

 

Similar things have been said throughout history about fingerprinting, radar, photo radar, security cameras, thumb prints for checks, the Internet, social security cards, the US Census, telephones, criminal background checks for guns, credit card numbers, cellular phones, airport security checks, 2 forms of id being required for jobs (to help prevent illegals), thumb prints for drivers licenses, DNA testing.... I can continue but you get the point. You're probably video'd by at least one camera per day, knowingly or not.

 

As I understand it, the original purpose of the device is to determine when the airbad needs to deploy. I guess it was only logical to make that data retreivable so that someone could find out why the computer decided to deploy the airbag.

To tell you the truth, if this device can provide evidence to convict someone for killing a kid because he was flying through a residental district at 80mph, then I'm all for it.

Now, when it's starts actively calling the cops on me because I'm speeding, that's where I draw the line

 

How is this thing supposed to know if you are speeding or not. I don't think it is possible for that box to know what the speed limit is on a particular road? Unless you are doing 85+.

 

There are ways to "neutralize" these devices. Take a polaroid camera and take a picture of what it would normally look like and tape it to the camera with a little light on it. Also, if you can get a hold of a strong magnet, you can hold that up to a camera and it will cause the signal to have static and bad picture quality.