We shouldn't turn the black box off

After a 9 year old boy was killed in a crash with a car last month, many commenters wondered if the driver was speeding, and some expressed a wish that cars be equipped with black boxes. 

The thing is that many cars are equipped with a "black box" and it's likely the one in this crash, an Infiniti Q56, was as well.

Automotive "black boxes" are now built into more than 90 percent of new cars, and the government is considering making them mandatory.

And that's up to 96% in 2013. 

In cars, they're usually called Electronic Data Recorders (EDR) or sometimes the Airbag Control Module,

EDRs are part of a car's safety system, which has to make split-second decisions, for example, whether to pull seat belts tighter or inflate the airbags. And engineers like to see data from real-world crashes to track how those systems are working. So the EDRs save the crash data, and as safety systems grow more complex, the recorders keep saving more information.

They weren't designed for investigative purposes but rather for safety. However, in at least one recent bicycle fatality similar data were used to prosecute a driver. 

Such data would seem to be very useful to the public. It could help car and road designers make both safer, and it could help to prosecute drivers whose negligence leads to a death or injury of another. And for those reasons, the "National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has proposed making the devices mandatory on all new cars, starting next year."  But Rep. Michael Capuano, D-Mass wants to let drivers opt out of using them.

"I would argue that this is a device that the average person should be able to turn off if they so desire," he says. 

The reason appears to be privacy concerns. 

"Consumers should have control over the information collected by event data recorders in vehicles that they own and they should have the option of disabling the device if they choose to do so. This is a basic issue of privacy," stated Congressman Mike Capuano.

I have to disagree, because while the EFF and Capuno have some valid concerns (about who can access the data, what it records and who owns it), those are addressed by current regulations.

In keeping with NHTSA's current policies on EDR data, the EDR data would be treated by NHTSA as the property of the vehicle owner and would not be used or accessed by the agency without owner consent.

EDRs do not collect any personal identifying information or record conversations and do not run continuously

So, drivers already have the right to "opt out", just after the crash - unless they're a suspect in a criminal investigation. Codify the current regulations capping the data types and quantity and defining who owns it and who can access it into law if there are concerns about the regulations being changed, but don't let drivers turn the devices off.

If one is worried that this is a privacy violation, consider that - with a warrant - we can make drivers submit to a blood test. You can't tell me that downloading data off their car's computer is more invasive.

Govtrack gives the law, co-sponsored by western Virginia's Morgan Griffith, a low chance of passing (4%), so I guess for once gridlock is working. But for the sake of making roads safer, and prosecuting unsafe drivers, we need to make the installation and use of these devices mandatory, while putting in reasonable privacy protections for drivers. 

Comments

[UrbanEngineer]

It records no personal information. Just crash data. This is not a privacy concern. This is a "I don't want to get prosecuted or have my insurance rates to go up after a crash" concern.

[ViperInTheVeldt]

This is quite a valid privacy concern.

How would cyclists feel about black boxes recording brake, speed, and angular momentum data?

Ya know, no identifiable information tho.

[washcycle]

Viper, I'd be fine with that.

[SJE]

The privacy concerns must be weighed against the duty to others when using a public road. Its why we require license plates, and drivers licences on public roads, but can do whatever you want on e.g. a farm. If you are involved in a collision, there is a argument that you have violated your duty to others. If we have evidence that can point to whether or not you were driving dangerously, then we should use that. EDRs, video, witnesses, cell phone records, anything, and whether you were on foot, two wheels or four.

[Anonzmous]

Privacy concerns "are addressed by current regulations"

hahahahaha!! Good luck with that. Agencies routinely ignore regulations, and there's nothing you can do. Even if you file a FOIA request to see if they are following their own rules, they will not pull the relevant documents or redact the bad info....as the ACLU recently found out:
http://reason.com/blog/2013/05/13/most-transparent-administration-in-histo

[Mike]

@ViperInTheVeldt: I'd be completely ok with that data being pulled in any case of death or serious injury. People need to actually be held accountable for their poor decisions.

[Doug]

> How would cyclists feel about black boxes recording brake, speed, and angular momentum data?

Well, based on the success of sites like Strava, Garmin Connect and others -- they seem quite fine with collecting and sharing that sort of data (though not *exactly* the specific bits of data you mentioned.)

[Ben Alexander]

Viper, it depends. How many grams does it weigh? Does it come in carbon? :)

[JimT]

If they don't already, insurance companies might also police whether people hand over the data. Drivers who agree to hand over the data should get lower rates. A subsequent refusal to hand over the data after having agreed to do so would give rise to certain inferences, and possibly result in denial of coverage for any incident recorded on the box.

[Smedley Burkhart]

Why don't more people offer their vehicle data in their defense when accused of negligence? If that became routine, withholding it might help to create an impression of guilt.

[Brendan]

Recording the address of the woman you're having an affair with and how many times you saw her last month, that's an invasion of privacy. Recording how fast you drove over there is not. It's a matter of public safety.

[washcycle]

Brendan, I don't know what people are telling you, but I was out of town that day.

[DriveAsFastAsYouWant]

Not only is this wrong, but aren't cyclist helmet cams also an invasion or privacy?

[Christopher Fotos]

By all means, let's increase the scope of state surveillance. The few remaining human activities that cannot be tracked must be eradicated as soon as possible. Those who will not submit clearly have something to hide and can be scheduled for Two Minutes Hate sessions as needed. I, for one, have total confidence this power would not be abused. Because, regulated!

[Jim Titus]

Who's talking about surveillance? We're talking about providing the data related to a crash.

[Mike]

@Christopher Fotos: you just sound like someone who wants to put other people in danger so you can speed without penalty.

[7]

So - a black box in a car is an invasion of privacy but regulating a woman's body is not??

[Tim]

I believe the NHTSA regs on EDRs also state that the data has to be automatically erased regularly, unless there's a crash or something like it. In other words, it's recording that you're going 70 mph, but it's going to erase that if you don't crash.

Not saying this completely eliminates privacy concerns, but it's a safeguard.

[washcycle]

About the best argument I've heard for opting out is this.

The system can be easily hacked. So, if I can't opt out I'm being put at risk of having that information stolen.

The thing is, who will want to steal it? It's not GPS info. Or voice recording. And devices to record those can both be secretly added to your car by the same criminal who wants to steal your EDR data. Even if someone could disable the auto-delete feature and record all of your EDR data and keep it, what is that person going to do with that data?

So, it's close, but no cigar.

[Michael Roy]

It's a privacy concern when a driver drives on a private road. But they aren't driving on private roads; they are on public roads, shared with other members of the public.

[dynaryder]

Just so we're on the same page;it's ok for airplanes to have black boxes,but not for cars? Cuz those planes crash so more often than cars do.

The black box only records the moment of impact,not where you've been or what books you're reading.

[SJE]

Its also funny that people get up in arms about black boxes in cars that record your speed on a public road, but are less troubled by having the government monitor your emails and calls.