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

Post Reply New Topic

Do you?

I'm not trying to be snarky with that question, I don't think that there is a clearly demonstrated need, at all.

That's not to say that privacy is not important--it is. But is there a demonstrable case to be made that the restrictions on government need to be further extended? If there is, I don't think that the case is manifestly clear.

Frankly, I am more concerned about private intrusion into privacy. What are the limits that exist upon individuals' and corporations' use of personal information that they collect about us. My bank knows vast amounts of information about my spending habits. But my bank is pretty tightly regulated. But what about my ISP? What about entities with whom I have no contractual relationship at all, such as search engines?

A constitutional right to privacy binds government. But it doesn't bind private entities. And I think that is the far greater threat.

If personal information was given property status, the private incursions could be dealt with as torts in civil court.

ruveyn

But when people leave personal data strewn all over the place like the internet what then? It is similar to leaving litter in public places - if someone else picks it up off the ground is it theft or a matter for the civil court? Curiously this loophole is sometimes used by the police when a suspect refuses to give a DNA sample where they cannot be compelled to do so... It isn't uncommon for police to offer them a drink so they can take the DNA from the saliva on the discarded can/bottle/cup or to follow the person in public and pick up a discarded cigarette end.

At what point does personal data become public property? Just asking.

Has everyone overlooked this part of the article?

In use since the 1970s, event data recorders were originally installed as part of air bag systems, recording data such as acceleration, speed, braking and bag deployment in the few seconds before and after a wreck. While the data include whether the driver is wearing a seat belt, it doesn't record any other facts about the driver or the car's location, and can only keep a maximum of five seconds of information.

All this Orwell's '84 talk is overhyped.
I know that UK insurance companies are interested in using black boxes as a way of lowering the cost of insurance to younger drivers, yipee! I don't see no problem with putting these devices on my car.

Under what tort? If you are suggesting that a property interest in personal information would be key, then it seems to me that you only have two that you can rely upon: trespass and conversion.

I suggest that volens would be a complete defence to the former. If I use my internet connection to go surfing for porn, then I voluntarily allow my ISP to know my browsing history. A person cannot trespass on that which I have given the person permission to handle. Conversion is a more interesting one, though, because it goes directly to the issue of using property for gain without colour of right. (It is, in fact, the basis of the common law definition of theft.) But even here, there is a strong argument that voluntarily giving a person access to personal information gives them colour of right to make use of that information unless some other means exists to prevent that.

And--of course--it must be noted that none of this is relevant in circumstances in which a contract between two individuals speaks to the question of access to and use of private information. If the terms of service for my amazon.ca account confer permission upon them to make use of my information, I cannot then claim any interest in tort when they rely upon that contractual right.

The reality is that there is a lacuna in Common Law regarding personal information, and almost all law in this area is statutory law. And it is in statute that you will find the optimal means of protecting individuals from predatory actions relating to personal information.

While the trend of growing private databases is worrisome, I'm more concerned about what happens when the government either keeps it's own databases or subpoenas those held by private companies; Google tries to sell me stuff, the state looks for reasons to fine or imprison me. I'll give you a good example of an older version of what I'm worried about; DUI checkpoints. Supposedly, these things are set up to catch drunk drivers, and somehow they pass constitutional muster for that purpose, but if you actually look at the numbers, the cops typically may catch a drunk or two, but write hundreds of tickets for minor infractions that they would never have otherwise encountered, because of the legal fig leaf provided by the DUI checkpoint.

Ideally, I'd like to see a tandem right to privacy amendment and law go into place binding both the state and private industry, regulating what they're allowed to collect, on whom, who they're allowed to share that data with, and how long they may retain said information. I'd also like to see a number of current and emerging technologies flat outlawed in public spaces, specifically facial recognition software, automated license plate scanners, pervasive CCTV presence, and other overly broad surveillance tools that track massive number of innocent people in order to catch a handful of not so innocent ones. Given the pace that this technology is evolving at and the speed with which it's deployed with little to no legal framework or protection, I'd say the need for new law is pretty glaring.

I think it's a bit ridiculous to believe that government is looking for reasons to prosecute you. Government may be looking for people to prosecute (i.e. the person who committed a particular crime). And there may be particular people of interest for whom the government would like to find any reasonable basis to prosecute (the Al Capone scenario). But to suggest that government is on some broader program of randomly looking for things to prosecute people for is to suggest that government has a whole lot of time on its hands.

Your analogy is a bit problematic, first because driving is a public activity, to which no privacy expectations accrue, and second because I have absolutely no problem with the conduct of the DUI checkpoint, and the collateral prosecutions that result. I am completely fine with rigid enforcement of the rules of the road.

But I do understand your concern. However, if unreasonable search and seizure isn't going to protect you in these circumstances, why do you suppose that a right to privacy will?

The much more reasonable analogy is wiretapping. Government is capable of listening in on every phone conversation that strikes its fancy. But they are severely limited in the direct use that they can make of the information that they glean. Even acknowledging its existence as a basis for further investigation puts an entire prosecution in jeopardy. If this is the legal regime under which electronic surveillance constrains government, I suspect you have far less to fear from them.



I certainly like the more specific legislation you propose. A broad "right to privacy" is too vague. But a specific set of rules on handling information is much more reasonable. I could get behind all of those.

As for the emerging technologies, though, I am a little more sanguine. If you're out in public, I am not sure that you have any privacy interest in your face, your license place, or the fact of your presence in a particular location. Person X can say, "I saw Dox47 at the corner of Main and First on December 15th at 9 am," and that evidence is sufficient to place you in that location. Why is that not a breach of your privacy but a CCTV on the corner of Main and First is?

My concern about these tools is not their implications for surveillance of large numbers of innocent people. My concern is that they take law enforcement off the street.

When one is out in public on the street he has no reasonable expectation of privacy. When one is in his home behind his walls he does have a reasonable expectation of privacy. If you want privacy try not to go out too much.

ruveyn

Fantasies of government persecution - or in this case, prosecution - about everyday, mundane matters tends to be going a little too far. Being wary about your rights is one thing, but it goes way over board when an average Joe or Joan thinks the government is conspiring specifically against him/her.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

My neighbor had a VW Jetta he modified to be around 400hp. All the emissions tests on ODB-II cars are done not by an actual sniffer to the exhaust pipe anymore, just simple plugging in the ODB-II port. Anyway, he removed the catalytic converters and was running pretty rich for his new turbo he put in. Exhaust smelled like gas when he drove around. Passed emissions. Just ran a false map that said everything was cool for emissions. Yep.

Not really. Cars computer systems get modified all the time for racing purposes. In the end, a car doesn't even need a computer to run, really. If you wanted, you could chop up your intake manifolds and run carburetors and juryrig up a points distributor (well only need a points distributor to make it EMP proof) or some other kind of more crude ignition module than the computer system currently in place. In the end, you must remember it's not the computer running the car, it's the pistons and valves in the engine, as long as those pistons get the air, fuel, and spark from somewhere, computer controlled or not, the car will run.

You also forget the option of just using a different computer. There's hundreds of different types of standalone car computers around, now the car won't pass ODB-II emissions with them, but all that requires is plugging the stock computer back in for your emissions test. You can drive it around the next few years with your standalone proprietary computer. There's a really popular standalone ECU coming out now, that's basically a homemade ECU. http://www.megasquirt.info/ That's it.

So no, you don't need "advanced hacking" skills that any racing mechanic won't have.

Did I say I thought the state was conspiring against me? What I said was that giving the state blanket surveillance powers with little restriction makes it easy for someone looking for a reason to prosecute to find one. You want I should link to cases of police and other state employees abusing databases and confidential material for personal gain or to settle scores? It's sadly no fantasy.

But out of the hundreds of thousands of drivers out there, why would they want to focus on just you?
If you're afraid, then buy an older car without all the computerized bells and whistles. Works for me.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

I shouldn't have to drive an older car just because I don't want my movement to become a matter of public record. As to why someone might target me, it could be for any reason at all. Maybe one of the people I argued with on WP is a cop or works in the DMV and wants revenge, again I can point you to actual examples of this scenario at work.

I admit, anything's possible. But dwelling on the possibility will just make you crazy.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

I'm not dwelling, I'm taking steps to minimize the possibility.