Lil4X

Like the transponder on an aircraft, The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is proposing a mandate for a device that will continuously report a car's GPS location, direction of travel, and speed. Of course, NHTSA is promising to protect the "privacy" of American drivers, but we all know how that worked out with the FBI, NSA, IRS, etc.

The agency, part of the Department of Transportation, published last week an "advanced notice" of proposed rulemaking on "vehicle-to-vehicle communications". . . . this document indicates the agency will propose to create a new Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard, FMVSS No. 150, to require vehicle-to-vehicle communication capability for light vehicles," In other words, Uncle Sam is wants to sit in the back seat of your car wherever you go.

NHTSA is calling it a "Basic Safety Message" - in bureau-speak, and it will provide 2-way communications to advise and warn drivers, for example entering a blind intersection with speeding cross-traffic. There is an opening here for the V2V communications system to actually take control of your car, using currently available collision avoidance systems, or later "driverless car" technology to actively participate in your control of your car.

While that all sounds good in Big Brother's world, the implications of a federal nanny in your backseat with access to both your police record and bank account could have some real-time effects on your bank balance - especially when "nanny" becomes "Judge Dredd".


http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/te...tion-and-speed

bagwell

oh the humanity.......I could care less if they know where I drive.....

no idea why you included bank account info...has nothing to do with the story.

mmarshall

As usual, there are two sides to the issue. Yes, there are some privacy concerns, and we don't want too much government data from our comings and goings. But one must also remember that, legally, driving is a privilege, not a right. Parents have a right (not a privilege) to know where and how their teenage sons and daughters use the family car. It can verify whether those applying for auto-insurance premiums are telling the truth about how many miles they drive each year. And, of course, it sometimes serves the cause of justice in trials where one (or both) parties lie under oath about what happened in vehicle accidents and/or routine police driver-stops.

Hoovey689

iTrader: (16)

<Insert laugh here>

FrankReynoldsCPA

Then parents should invest in tracking the cars themselves. The government ought not have any role in this.

Why don't we just get rid of warrants if we're just going to accept that the government needs to know everything?

The Constitution MUST trump all other considerations in law-making, Mike. You can't just say "But law x has important benefits". If it is unconstitutional, it does not fly.

It's better that a few guilty go unpunished than all be subjected to government infringement of freedom.

Hoovey689

iTrader: (16)

Mods I feel this belongs in the Clubhouse as it's not directly about a car. We're talking about laws.

FrankReynoldsCPA

Probably the debate section too. It's going to go that way.

doge

If this happens don't expect me to buy a new car anytime soon.

mmarshall

IMO, they already have enough bills to pay. Raising a kid costs real money....especially for those parents who take the time and care to do it right.

Warrants are often issued based on evidence and probable-cause. GPS data helps provide that evidence....just as it does with many other needs in law enforcement.

The Constitution itself, though, within certain 4th-Amendment boundaries/limits, actually gives police and law enforcement the powers they have. State/Federal Courts (which rule on Constitutional issues) have allowed some of the GPS data to be used as evidence.....not others.

I would agree......except that the use of vehicles in and support of crimes is not just a matter of a few. We're talking a heck of a lot of cases each year....particularly in high-crime areas in and around big cities.

mmarshall

if you think that's bad, we may be eventually be looking at cars that drive themselves, possibly on electronic roads, with little or no driver action at all. (we've had a couple of Car Chat threads on that lately). I hope I'm dead and gone when that happens.

Lil4X

Have you considered an automatic deduction from your account whenever you exceed the posted speed limit? There are several agencies that already know your bank and routing number, local speed limits are in your GPS map data, and speed calculated from the rate of change of your position. Easy money.

Lil4X

Uh, the original post involves new automotive technology, not the law. That's not in question. My point concerns the potential availability of a device that can not only monitor your driving, but also one day intervene in your control of your car.

bagwell

...they'll never find me.....

mmarshall

Probably right on the borderline.......some of both. Could wind up in either forum.

Maybe.....until they try and screw with someone's Swiss bank account.

FrankReynoldsCPA

If your resources are to scarce, and you can't trust your child, then perhaps they ought not to be driving. It's hardly worth implementing a nanny state tracking system on all cars.


Warrants are also issued to obtain evidence. Based on your reasoning anything that can be useful evidence should be available to police pre-warrant.


It does give them their powers, but it also limits them. They don't have carte blanche to be omnipresent in our lives. When every movement and every thought become subject to the observation and review of the police, you've gone too far.

Those numbers are still a huge minority of drivers. You would infringe upon the right to privacy of the many just to catch the few.