“Your” Car Won’t Be Beginning in 2015

[tee-tea]

Please don't tell me this is true

After a certain point, it’s not paranoia.

The latest brick in the wall is the predictably named “Moving Ahead For Progress in the 21st Century Act,” also known as Senate Bill 1813. (See here for the full text of the bill itself; the relevant section is 31406.) This legislation – already passed by the Senate and likely to be passed by the House – will impose a legal requirement that all new cars made beginning with the 2015 models be fitted with so-called Event Data Recorders (EDRs). These are the “black boxes” you may have read about that store data about how you drive – including whether you wear a seat belt and how fast you drive – ostensibly for purposes of post-accident investigation.

These EDRs are not new. GM and other automakers have been installing them in new cars for years – in GM’s case, since the late 1990s. What’s new is the proposed federal mandate, which would make it illegal to not have one – or (in all likelihood) to remove or disable one in a car required to have the device.

The question arises: why?

Several possibilities come to mind:

First, the EDRs could – and almost certainly will be – tied into your vehicle’s GPS. (Most new and late model cars, conveniently, already have this, too.) Then data about your driving can be transmitted – as well as recorded. To whom? Your insurance company, of course. Progressive Insurance already has such a system in place – voluntary, for the moment. (See here for more on that.)

When EDRs are mandated, you will no longer have a choice.

We’ll be told it’s all for the sake of (groan) “safety” – just like the old 55 MPH highway speed limit and every radar trap in the country. Of course, it’s really for the sake of revenue – the government’s and the insurance company’s. Your rates will be “adjusted” in real time, for every incident of “speeding” or not buckling up. It’ll be so much more efficient than using cops to issue tickets. After all, so many fishes escape! With an EDR in every car, no one will escape. Your “adjusted” premium will be waiting for you when you get home.

You’ve got mail!

And naturally, they – the government, insurance companies – will be able to track your every move, noting (and recording) where you’ve been and when. This will create a surveillance net beyond anything that ever existed previously. Some will not sweat this: After all, if you’ve got nothing to hide, why worry? Except for the fact that, courtesy of almost everything we do being either “illegal” or at least “suspicious” we all have a great deal to hide. The naivety of the Don’t Worry, it’s No Big Deal crowd is breathtaking. Did the average Soviet citizen also “not have anything to hide,” and hence why worry?

But the last possibility is probably the creepiest possibility: EDRs tied into your car’s GPS will give them – the government and its corporate fuck buddies – literal physical control over (hack) “your” vehicle. This is not conspiracy theorizing. It is technological fact. Current GM vehicles equipped with the same technology about to be mandated for every vehicle can be disabled remotely. Just turned off. All the OnStar operator has to do is send the appropriate command over the GPS to your car’s computer, which controls the engine. It is one of the features touted by OnStar – of course, as a “safety” feature.

In the future, it will be used to limit your driving – for the sake of “energy conservation” or perhaps, “the environment.” It will be the perfect, er, vehicle, for implementing U.N. Agenda 21 – the plan to herd all of us formerly free-range tax cattle into urban feedlots. So much easier to control us this way. No more bailing out to the country or living off the grid – unless you get there (and to your work) by walking.

The pieces are all coming together.

First, computer-controlled cars. Next, widespread adoption of GPS in cars. Then, EDRs tied into them.

Viola. “Your” car is suddenly under the control of others. Just as “your” other (cough, hack) property – “your” home, for example – is under the control of others. It does not matter that you paid for it. Or even that you have the legal fiction of ownership. You do not control “your” property – hence it is really the property of others. You are merely allowed to use said property – under certain conditions, by the leave of the true owners – the government and its cronies in the corporatocracy.

And once SB 1813 is passed and signed into law, there will no longer be an opt-out. In fact, sure as the rooster crows in the morning, you can bet the next step will a law requiring older cars not originally fitted with the technology be fitted with it – or else decommissioned. (I wrote about that previously; see here.) It is inconceivable that they – the government and its insurance company cronies – will allow anyone to drive a vehicle not subject to this monitoring and control. They will insist it’s not “safe” – and of course, “unfair” that owners of older cars not equipped with EDRs are able to “get away” with “speeding” and not wearing their seat belts.

Our cars were once a tangible expression of the freedom ideal. They are fast becoming mobile cages. And the really devilish thing is they’re making us pay the costs of our own imprisonment, too.

Throw it in the Woods?

“Your” Car Won’t Be Beginning in 2015 | Eric Peters Autos

[GGnoRE]

I don't think the idea of the blackbox is bad but it shouldn't be supplying GPS positions...

[twitchyzero]

nice thread title

[Excelsis]

just don't buy a car made in 2015 and on wards

[dangonay]

That article is the biggest pile of shit I've read in a long time. He's making a bunch of assumptions (that are nothing more than complete fabrications) about what will be happening in the future of cars.

Nowhere does it say we will have GPS's tracking our every move and it certainly doesn't say insurance companies or government agents will be able to access our daily driving habits. EDR's record the seconds up to an accident. Nothing more. Of course, you can ignore the bill and listen to someone whose arguments are comprised of statements like "could" or "most certainly will".

And I guess he forgot about the whole iOS and Android location tracking scandal from last year. And now he thinks they're going to go even further to implement something far more intrusive?

[optiblue]

If it has GPS, maybe you can track your car at all times too!

[Graeme S]

Originally Posted by dangonay

That article is the biggest pile of shit I've read in a long time. He's making a bunch of assumptions (that are nothing more than complete fabrications) about what will be happening in the future of cars.

Nowhere does it say we will have GPS's tracking our every move and it certainly doesn't say insurance companies or government agents will be able to access our daily driving habits. EDR's record the seconds up to an accident. Nothing more. Of course, you can ignore the bill and listen to someone whose arguments are comprised of statements like "could" or "most certainly will".

And I guess he forgot about the whole iOS and Android location tracking scandal from last year. And now he thinks they're going to go even further to implement something far more intrusive?

Not to mention this is an American bill, not a Canadian one.

[Hehe]

IMHO, they should go back to the drawing board if they really want to mandate something like this.

The only way I would accept something like this is if we can automate our roads entirely.

When a car in front of you slows down, even for just 5sec, the effect could go tens of KM (you slow down, the car behind slows down, and then the car on the other lane that's trying to merge into your lane slows down... so on)

But if cars can communicate with each other, we could build autobahn everywhere. Even at 200KM/r or some ridiculous speed, there's almost nothing that could go wrong since your car is aware of the position of every single car in 10KM radius. And we could still protect privacy; simply take everything as cars, trucks or whatever (car 1, 2, 3 on hwy1, and car 1,2,3 on exit 7 is trying to merge)..

[dangonay]

Originally Posted by Graeme S

Not to mention this is an American bill, not a Canadian one.

The US automotive market is so big that anything they mandate will end up in pretty much every car anyway. Whether or not it's "activated" is another matter altogether.


I read through the bill, and it's fairly straightforward and surprisingly short. Here are some highlights:

- The data in the EDR belongs to the owner of the vehicle.
- The only way data can be recovered is through court order (like an accident or criminal investigation), when requested by the owner (if you're in an accident that's not your fault and want evidence to help your case), in the case of an emergency (like OnStar when you're in an accident and they use the GPS to send help) and when your vehicle is in for service at a dealership and data needs to be recovered during repairs (like replacing airbags or control units).
- The data in the EDR is supposed to record common vehicle operating parameters for a "reasonable time" before, during and after an accident (where accident is defined as an airbag deployment). They didn't state what "reasonable time" means, but I imagine it's going to be short (as in less than a minute). Current EDR data in common airbag modules for most cars is literally only 5-10 seconds. So much for peple being able to track your daily activities.
- The data must be in a protected format which would prevent tampering or destruction (you can't go to a dealer and pay them $50 to erase your data to cover something up). There would be rules as to who would have the ability and equipment to recover this data.
- The data must be in a standard format and be accessible using a standard protocol. Right now every manufacturer is different, so it looks like they want something similar to OBDII where a single device can get data from all makes of cars.


What the idiot who wrote the article failed to mention is right now there are no rules about who can get and use the data in your EDR. There are police agencies and lawyers in the US who are getting this data and using it in court because there are no rules to stop them from doing so. There have been (and still are) several challenges being made by owners of vehicles who say the data is private. When this bill passes, all the current "wild west data gathering" will stop and data will have to be obtained through the court. So this bill actually gives rights to vehicle owners where none currently exist.

[Duff Beer]

[originalhypa]

Originally Posted by dangonay

- The data in the EDR belongs to the owner of the vehicle.

It belongs to us, but we can't access it without the proper hardware. So in effect, it doesn't really belong to us. It can however be used against us in a court of law.

- The only way data can be recovered is through court order (like an accident or criminal investigation), when requested by the owner (if you're in an accident that's not your fault and want evidence to help your case), in the case of an emergency (like OnStar when you're in an accident and they use the GPS to send help) and when your vehicle is in for service at a dealership and data needs to be recovered during repairs (like replacing airbags or control units).

Look at the "hotline" to the Superintendant of Motor Vehicles that has been set up in BC. It's not hard to get a court order. Now it's nothing more than a phone call away. If you're the authorities, of course. If you're a civilian, you can go through the proper methods, and could take 6-8 weeks through the "freedom of information" act. You'll get the info, you just have to wait for it.

That's not at all in favor of the individual...

- The data in the EDR is supposed to record common vehicle operating parameters for a "reasonable time" before, during and after an accident (where accident is defined as an airbag deployment). They didn't state what "reasonable time" means, but I imagine it's going to be short (as in less than a minute). Current EDR data in common airbag modules for most cars is literally only 5-10 seconds. So much for peple being able to track your daily activities.

Does the vehicle have a way to transmit the info?
Like a tel# for OnStar *for example...

That means any info captured can be forwarded through the automobile's "network" to anyone who has access to that info. Now, who has access? Today, not many. But tomorrow that info may be sold, just like GM selling my fucking onstar info to another company who is now advertising to me.

Strike 1 for trusting a corporation with my info.

Data is cheap, and you and I both know that adding more parameters, and changing the amount of time those parameters are stored can be changed/accessed very easily with software. Also, we're assuming that the group who chooses the "reasonable time" is going to do so with honest intentions. Do you trust the gov't with our best interests in mind? Do you want Shirley Bond to make this decision? Because her past decisions have proven to be borderline barbaric.

- The data must be in a protected format which would prevent tampering or destruction (you can't go to a dealer and pay them $50 to erase your data to cover something up). There would be rules as to who would have the ability and equipment to recover this data.

Funny, those crazy new Benzes have high tech security systems that are supposed to be protected from hacks. But crazy thought, those hackers were able to figure them out.

Here's an article on high end auto thefts in Belarus, many via hacks.
Telegraf.by - Russian Cars Stolen Most Often in Belarus and Ukraine

So much for protection and security.

Kim.com is laughing at this thread right now. He knows.

- The data must be in a standard format and be accessible using a standard protocol. Right now every manufacturer is different, so it looks like they want something similar to OBDII where a single device can get data from all makes of cars.

Which will make it easier for outsiders to gain access to these systems.
Opensource anyone?

The Kia dealer in the Ukraine goes under and sells their equipment to the mob.
Now what?

What the idiot who wrote the article failed to mention is right now there are no rules about who can get and use the data in your EDR. There are police agencies and lawyers in the US who are getting this data and using it in court because there are no rules to stop them from doing so. There have been (and still are) several challenges being made by owners of vehicles who say the data is private. When this bill passes, all the current "wild west data gathering" will stop and data will have to be obtained through the court. So this bill actually gives rights to vehicle owners where none currently exist.

This is based on the hope that our leaders will take our privacy into account. but honestly, with today's lobbyists owning the gov't, who is going to step up to give us freedom, when that means less profit to the lobbyists?

I just can't believe that our leaders care enough about us to allow us to keep our privacy. The article's writer went off on a tangent, but it's both naive and ignorant to mock his ideologies because they're based on what is happening in our society.

The author is as much an idiot, as Julian Assange is for spreading the truth.

[dangonay]

^ I tried to keep my original post short, but since you raised some questions I'll expand. This info is based on numerous seminars and conferences I had when I was involved with Transport Canada (BTW, we did EDR extraction, which I'll expand on later). These conferences involved police and government officials from both Canada and the US so this information will be an amalgamation of all the things I've learned over the years.


The only way to get data from an EDR memory of an airbag module is to physically remove the module from the vehicle and connect it to a PC (through an interface box) and selecting the appropriate cable (out of a box of dozens). Dealers do not have (nor do I think they will ever get) the ability to retrieve the EDR data. There is no way to do this as the transport protocol doesn't exist in any vehicle to allow for this type of data transfer. This is done on purpose to prevent dealers (or independent shops) with scan tools from getting this data or tampering with it.

This also does away with the theory that this data could somehow be "transmitted" over cell phones commonly installed in vehicles with services like OnStar or BMW Assist. Simply put - the data buses in todays vehicles are in no way connected to, or have access to, the memory of an EDR, therefore they could not somehow transmit the data.

When they talk about a "standard interface" and "standard protocol" is they want to do away with the box of adaptors and multiple software packages and decide on a single standard. My best guess is a smaller, separate connector would be added to an airbag module along with the primary connector used by the vehicle to allow for data extraction only.

The reason they mention the clause about emergency services or dealers is that there is a small amount of information collected that these services do have access to. Not the actual crash data, but evidence that a crash had occurred. Since this data is a subset of the overall data, they included it. It doesn't mean the local "Kia Dealer" is going to have the equipment or ability to get at all the data.

If you've ever been to ICBC where they store vehicles involved in serious accidents you'd know that the average person is not going to be able to walk in and start dismantling the interior of a car to extract the airbag module. This adds a physical "layer" of protection to prevent the airbag module and its data from easily falling into someone else's hands.

As to the data itself, at meetings I've been at most officers and investigators say storing more than a minute is not going to be useful. Even 30 seconds would be more than enough data. What they are concerned with is the frequency the data is collected, not how long (and this hasn't yet been addressed as the bill is missing clarifications on this and other areas since it's a draft at this time). Many current EDR's only record 5 seconds, but worse is they only save data once per second. This is horrible resolution and leads to problems.

For example, you're driving along with your foot on the gas. Someone runs a red and you slam on the brakes before hitting the other vehicle. The time between you reacting and hitting the car can fit within one second, so the EDR might have recorded your last data point as having your foot on the gas when in fact you applied the brakes. If the data was collected at a higher rate (10 times per second is the figure most people believe would be good enough) then your reaction time switching from the gas to the brake would be captured. This could, for example, indicate you were actually alert while driving and able to respond quickly to the situation.

Another thing talked about is storing the data. Since the EDR is recording in a loop, there would always be some data in your vehicle even if you aren't in an accident. What some vehicles currently do (and is suggested they should all do) is record the data in RAM in a loop. When an airbag deploys (there's an accident), the "loop" is recorded to FLASH memory where it's retained. At this point, an electronic "fuse" goes inside the EDR which prevents any further writing of data to the FLASH memory - it becomes read only. If you turn off your ignition after a normal drive, then the "loop" that was being recorded gets lost since it's in RAM. This way, there is never any data stored in your EDR from normal driving activities and it only gets "saved" when there's an accident. This again does away with the fears that your daily activities could be recorded and retrieved.


As to thieves in Belarus stealing cars, I don't see how it relates. With my knowledge of and access to BMW info, I could turn into a thief of high-end BMW's for shipping and resale overseas. These people who steal cars in Eastern Europe aren't hackers who figured out how to "crack the codes" of high-end cars. They are people who have either been directly involved with companies like BMW and Mercedes (like technicians or support staff) or received their information from those same people. The people at BMW who supply us with replacement remote keys could easily create another key for any vehicle they wished and send it to someone who could then hop in and drive away with the car. It's in-correct to call them hackers just like it would be in-correct to call somone who stole the keys to your house a "locksmith".

Besides, there's a huge incentive to steal a high-end car - lots of $$$. What could a thief possible hope to get by stealing data from your car about an accident? Are Russian Mobs going to start exposing people who have had accidents? Are they going to blackmail them saying "we know what really happened - pay up or we'll tell"? There's just no incentive for people to hack into EDR's. The only people I could see who would be interested in this would be someone responsible for a serious accident who wanted to suppress evidence that showed they were at fault.


After my involvement with government agencies involved in these issues, I have no worries about the data or what will be done with it. Credit card companies, cell phone companies, Google, Apple and numerous others already know far more about you and your daily habits and movements. If someone wanted to keep track of you, trying to get data from your car would be the hard way compared to the data that's already being collected about us.

The only issue I'm waiting for clarification on is who gets the equipment. My choice would be Transport Canada for us and NHTSA in the US. I'm not sure I'd want the police to have this equipment as the temptation would be to recorver the data while they have possession of the vehicle with or without a court order. But there's still time before the bill is passed to see how the details will pan out.

[surreyjack604]

It'll start off as something only used sometimes but later on who really knows? im sure since you attended some meetings they told you there full intentions on how they will use it in the future.

my cousin in the UK already has one in there car and insurance companies use it over there to track your driving habits and for eg if you drive over the speed limit you get charged more, and soon he said they will start mailing tickets for speeding or illegal u-turns and stuff.

[Tetsugen]

Anyone else reminded of the movie "Enemy of the State" ?

[conflagrare]

originalhypa. You have a problem understanding the concept of "ownership". If the car owner owns the data, that means none of these imaginative things you mentioned below are possible.

If those are done, by this new law, you have the right to sue their asses.

1) If somebody comes and takes custody of your vehicle to retrieve the blackbox with a bullshit warrant, you can be sure people will sue the police officials responsible.

2) There's no way to transmit the info. You are making this up.

3) If they added a way to transmit your personal information out, which you own, sue their asses.

4) "strike 1 for trusting corporation with info" You never gave them the info. Again, sue their asses if they do, cause this is now, with this bill, called property theft.

5) "data is cheap" blah blah blah... doesn't matter. Lawsuits aren't cheap for them.

6) With regards to "open source" and hacking and getting the information, if the bad guy can physically open up your car and get to the blackbox, I think you have a bigger problem on your hands.

7) "It's not really yours if you can't access it". This is not the most accurate example, but most people can't access their RRSP. Doesn't mean they don't own the contents of their RRSP. You need to figure out what ownership MEANS.

Originally Posted by originalhypa

It belongs to us, but we can't access it without the proper hardware. So in effect, it doesn't really belong to us. It can however be used against us in a court of law.



Look at the "hotline" to the Superintendant of Motor Vehicles that has been set up in BC. It's not hard to get a court order. Now it's nothing more than a phone call away. If you're the authorities, of course. If you're a civilian, you can go through the proper methods, and could take 6-8 weeks through the "freedom of information" act. You'll get the info, you just have to wait for it.

That's not at all in favor of the individual...



Does the vehicle have a way to transmit the info?
Like a tel# for OnStar *for example...

That means any info captured can be forwarded through the automobile's "network" to anyone who has access to that info. Now, who has access? Today, not many. But tomorrow that info may be sold, just like GM selling my fucking onstar info to another company who is now advertising to me.

Strike 1 for trusting a corporation with my info.

Data is cheap, and you and I both know that adding more parameters, and changing the amount of time those parameters are stored can be changed/accessed very easily with software. Also, we're assuming that the group who chooses the "reasonable time" is going to do so with honest intentions. Do you trust the gov't with our best interests in mind? Do you want Shirley Bond to make this decision? Because her past decisions have proven to be borderline barbaric.





Funny, those crazy new Benzes have high tech security systems that are supposed to be protected from hacks. But crazy thought, those hackers were able to figure them out.

Here's an article on high end auto thefts in Belarus, many via hacks.
Telegraf.by - Russian Cars Stolen Most Often in Belarus and Ukraine

So much for protection and security.

Kim.com is laughing at this thread right now. He knows.




Which will make it easier for outsiders to gain access to these systems.
Opensource anyone?

The Kia dealer in the Ukraine goes under and sells their equipment to the mob.
Now what?



This is based on the hope that our leaders will take our privacy into account. but honestly, with today's lobbyists owning the gov't, who is going to step up to give us freedom, when that means less profit to the lobbyists?

I just can't believe that our leaders care enough about us to allow us to keep our privacy. The article's writer went off on a tangent, but it's both naive and ignorant to mock his ideologies because they're based on what is happening in our society.

The author is as much an idiot, as Julian Assange is for spreading the truth.

[dangonay]

^ You know, if someone asks a question you can choose to provide a reasonable answer or you can act like an ass. Guess we know which one you fit into.

[Benz_05TSX]

How can they force people to put the unit in older cars or make them "decommissioned"? I am just going to keep buying old cars....

[dangonay]

Originally Posted by Benz_05TSX

How can they force people to put the unit in older cars or make them "decommissioned"? I am just going to keep buying old cars....

Why would they do that?

When you buy any car, as long as it's kept to the same specs as when it was sold you can legally continue to drive it that way. If your 50's collector car only has lap seat belts in the front you don't have to install shoulder belts. If your classic British car has no turn signals you can still drive it using hand signals. Your 1995 Mercedes doesn't need to pass Aircare using the same specs as a 2005 Mercedes.

Again, this guy is just making stuff up. He reminds me of Alex Jones.