 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Ford / Ford Mustang / April 2007Do you know what an EDR is?
Not a single sales person knew what an EDR was not to speak of disabling it. an Event Data Recorder (EDR) is wired into your cars air bag system. In the event of an air bag deployment this litttle solid state spy will record your speed, seat belt usage for all passengers, brake and throttle position and some mfr's record even more parameters. I am told the 07 Mustang's "little spy" is located under the console. does anyone know how or who might be able to disable it? These little boxes are in most late models...the data in them is going to be a tort attorney's and insurance co's wet dream. Norm EDR is a relatively new acronym.... Event data recorders have been built into restraint contol modules for many years. The equipment to retrieve the data is still quite expensive and there are legal ramifications to the recovery of this data,,,, However, I refuse to be the cause of an accident if I can possibly avoid it.... However, if I drive like I can cause an accident, I would be worried that the EDR can hang me by the nuts. There is no way, at the dealership l;evel, for us to disable this event recorder.... Even if it were possible, I doubt that I would because of little peckerheads that think street racing or "getting frisky" are part and parcel of vehicle operation. Life's a bitch... deal with it. > Not a single sales person knew what an EDR was not to speak of disabling > it. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Norm Knock wood. I haven't had a speeding ticket in 29 years. That still doesn't make the little spy any more palatable. Even boring sane drivers such as myself are at risk. This is a way bigger deal than the NSA screening offshore telephone calls by computer for terrorist leaks. And here we have this little frankenstein spying on American citizens creating a little digital records. Right now, explain how this would deter street racing? It only records the last 20 seconds or so before air bag deployment. So idiots can race all over creation as long as they do not crash there will not be a trace. There will be ever more increasing parameters recorded. Speed. Average speed. GPS location. Percent of time driving after dark. Miles to work. Etc. Wait till GEICO figures out how to get their hands on this data. Want insurance? Let us download you little black box, then we'll tell you how much *extra* we are going to charge you....Won't give us the info...? No insurance. No insurance...no financing. Now suppose they start recording long periods. You take your car to a track day or drag strip for a sanctioned event...on the way home, under the speed limit, you get in an accident not your fault. The court gets its hands onthe box and WOW, look at that you had your foot flat on the floor 100 times in the last 24 hours (on the track)..."balif lock him/her up forever" > EDR is a relatively new acronym.... Event data recorders have been built > into restraint contol modules for many years. The equipment to retrieve the [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > > > Norm I wish I could have gotten the information off of my son's 1995 Camaro after he totaled it out. This is not so that I can punish him, is was so that I could prove to those dumbass cops that he wasn't horsing around when he was almost killed by a hit and run driver. The cops in this case just assumed that he was acting out because 1. he was a teenager 2. he was in a red Camaro, 3. he had two girls in the car. I was able to take evidence back to them to show that he was forced off the road and that their police report made no sense at all. In fact, it was impossible for the car to do what he says it would do in the police report. They were still not willing to change the report. I have has other similar experiences. You see, in cases like these, these event recorders expose the truth. The truth, should never be an issue. Like one of the author opined. If you are driving right and obeying the law, these types of devices are your friend. If you caused an accident, you caused an accident...period. This is an investigative tool not an invasion of privacy, that is why it's limited to 20 seconds. Since it's only recording automobile conditions, presumably on public streets, there is no expectation of privacy. > Knock wood. I haven't had a speeding ticket in 29 years. That still doesn't > make the little spy any more palatable. Even boring sane drivers such as [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > > > > > > Norm >I wish I could have gotten the information off of my son's 1995 Camaro after >he totaled it out. This is not so that I can punish him, is was so that I [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >recording automobile conditions, presumably on public streets, there is no >expectation of privacy. Since it's YOUR car you should have the right to have or not have the device. When you are on public streets would you agree that if the gvt wanted to they could make you run around naked because "presumably on public streets, there is no expectation of privacy." You sound like just another sheep.... >> Knock wood. I haven't had a speeding ticket in 29 years. That still >doesn't [quoted text clipped - 67 lines] >> > > >> > > Norm >>Like one of the author opined. If you are driving right and obeying the >>law, these types of devices are your friend. If you caused an accident, [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > You sound like just another sheep.... In Pennsylvania (at least), driving is a privilege, not a right. You may own the car, but you do not have an inherant right to drive it on public roadways. If you DO drive it on public roadways, you've got a TON of rules and regulations (plus optional common courtesies) that must be followed. If you've ever been a student of modern commuter traffic, you would marvel that it works at all (99.9% of the time). The first thing that happens in any plane crash, from a 747 to a Cessna, is the opening of the black box, to help in finding out exactly what happened to cause the crash. The hope here is NOT that the crash can be blamed on the pilot, but that the answers will help avoid future crashes in similar circumstances. Now, if the pilot DID screw up, I think we'd all like to know about it. A similar little black box in my car wouldn't bother me in the slightest. In fact, I welcome it; in the event that there IS an incident, I trust that it would back me up, not point a finger of blame. I'm not worried. Yes, I like to drive somewhat faster than posted speed limits, but how often is that single element the cause of a crash? But go ahead, disconnect your little black box. If you're all that worried about "government interference in your private life," stay home. Once you take your privately-owned automobile out onto a public roadway, your actions behind the wheel are NOT your private concern, but a public risk. What you do as a driver could well impact MY health and happiness, none of us drives in a vacuum. And if all of these millions of little black boxes serve to make our roadways in any way safer, I'm all for it. dwight www.tfrog93.com Dwight hit the nail on the head... am I above making mistakes? No, that's part of the human condition..... Bad choices, however, are something I can avoid... At this point in time, Crash Data Recordings aren't ebing used a lot though I see a growing momentum. Analyzing this data makes accident reconstruiction easier, quicker and (in terms of manpower/hours) more economical.... Bad guys are bad guys... is it so bad that those of us that obey the rules be subject to some minor scrutiny? Only those with something to hide are afraid of examination.... >>>Like one of the author opined. If you are driving right and obeying the >>>law, these types of devices are your friend. If you caused an accident, [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > dwight > www.tfrog93.com >Dwight hit the nail on the head... am I above making mistakes? No, that's >part of the human condition..... Bad choices, however, are something I can [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >Bad guys are bad guys... is it so bad that those of us that obey the rules >be subject to some minor scrutiny? For those of us who still believe in the principles the US was founded on (this lets you out), yes, it is so bad to have the gvt subjecting us to MORE scrutiny. Every day there is more and more scrutiny by our more and more oppressive gvt. You people are like the frog in a pot of cold water that's put on the fire. You sit there without noticing that the cold water is getting hot till you wind up cooked. Our freedoms have never been under greater assault then they are at the moment and you and others sit on the sidelines cheering on the assault. >Only those with something to hide are afraid of examination.... > [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] >> dwight >> www.tfrog93.com Reconstructing an MVA can be an inexact science.... A CDR can remove doubt about some of the events... Here's the information available to those with the equipment to recover the data.... speed, throttle angle (position), brake applied (yes/no) amongst other non-judgemental information. Used to be (before ABS) they could judge your approxiamte speed and brake application by the length of the skid marks you left... Now, since ABS is doing it's best not to leave skid marks, there arises the opportunity that the scene may be "misread"..... If you were facing a vehicular manslaughter or criminal negligence charge, I'm willing to bet you would be more than happy to have this relatively benign information come along and save your a.s.... Unless, of course, you have something to hide.... For my part... if I did something wrong and admit to it, there is nothing recorded in my RCM that can make things worse.... If I didn't do something wrong, the data in my RCM can prove that I am telling the truth... > For those of us who still believe in the principles the US was founded > on (this lets you out), yes, it is so bad to have the gvt subjecting [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > moment and you and others sit on the sidelines cheering on the > assault. I think you're confusing the Constitution with your driver's manual. Where are your precious rights (or mine, for that matter), when you operate a motor vehicle on public roads? Please - point me to them. What is it? The so-called Right to Privacy? Non-existant in this situation. Maybe you want to plead the Fifth, to claim that your car should not be forced to testify against you? No, sorry, doesn't apply here. Do you own an EZPass? How about a cellphone? Ever drive through radar or a traffic camera? How is it that your every movement is tracked and has been tracked for years, but you rail about a little black box in new cars? You're worried about scrutiny? Do you have any idea how many video cameras point at you though the course of a day? What freedom is it, exactly, that is under attack by this little black box? I'd really like to know. Are there any legal scholars in this newsgroup that can help? dwight www.tfrog93.com The EDR keeps track of everything you do legal or illegal. If you all are so worried about getting caught for driving illegally don't do it? When you drive down the road you risk running into speed traps or getting caught on cameras. If this "black box" makes you so worried about getting caught then its the slow lane for you. If you speed and are worried about getting into an accident, maybe you should think about what you are doing instead of the other retards on the road. As long as this black box is only used when I'm in an accident, then I'm not worried. Now if it's gonna send in data every time I speed that's gonna suck. But mainly if you are worried about your data you should either grow a pair and be ready for the consequences or drive legally. Now I do realize that some people can't drive over 30 without crashing but what about all of us who live on an old county blacktop that like to open her up every once in a while? I've done my share of speeding and drag racing and the 2 times my car got hit it was parked. So as long as these black boxes are only used in the event of an accident I have no problem, but if they are gonna send in data continuously I'm gonna stick with older cars, they are better anyway! >The EDR keeps track of everything you do legal or illegal. If you all >are so worried about getting caught for driving illegally don't do it? [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >have no problem, but if they are gonna send in data continuously I'm >gonna stick with older cars, they are better anyway! I'm amazed you all think the black box is going to be infallible at determining your innocence. So if you elect to accelerate "out of trouble" as many in these newsgroups do, your black box is going to show how you maliciously and purposely accelerated right into the side of the innocent guy turning left. >>The EDR keeps track of everything you do legal or illegal. If you all >>are so worried about getting caught for driving illegally don't do it? [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > show how you maliciously and purposely accelerated right into the side > of the innocent guy turning left. You make no sense. If you "accelerate out of trouble", then you won't have a problem since no one will see your black box. However, if you "purposely accelerated right into the side of the innocent guy turning left", they should hang your a.s, black box or not. >>>The EDR keeps track of everything you do legal or illegal. If you all >>>are so worried about getting caught for driving illegally don't do it? [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > However, if you "purposely accelerated right into the side of the innocent >guy turning left", they should hang your a.s, black box or not. Let me try to be clearer. There are some accidents that you will not avoid. Having someone turn left in front of you is often one of them. When someone does that you have only a few options to try and avoid the inevitable. You can do nothing. You can brake. You can accelerate and hope to get clear before they hit you. In all of those cases the accident is the fault of the guy turning left in front of you. But in many cases the at fault driver is going to lie. So while you may have done nothing but try and avoid the crash by trying to accelerate AND NOT HAVE EXCEEDED the speed limit... your black box is only going to show that last few seconds. There will be more then one way to spin the black boxes showing of full throttle on your part just before the accident. >> For those of us who still believe in the principles the US was founded >> on (this lets you out), yes, it is so bad to have the gvt subjecting [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] >dwight >www.tfrog93.com You merely prove my point in the frog story. The MEN who founded this country would be turning over in their graves were they to see what sniveling serfs most of the citizens have allowed themselves to become as they kneel before their gvt and beg for their "privileges". The RIGHTS not expressly granted to the Fed gvt nor reserved to the states are the PEOPLE. Too bad no one cares anymore. >>> For those of us who still believe in the principles the US was founded >>> on (this lets you out), yes, it is so bad to have the gvt subjecting [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > RIGHTS not expressly granted to the Fed gvt nor reserved to the states > are the PEOPLE. Too bad no one cares anymore. Ah. In other words, you have no answer. You want to scream and pull your hair about how the Man is trampling over your precious Rights, but you don't know what precious Rights the Man is trampling. Me, I don't trust this whole internets thing. Just look at the one entity - Google. What an incredible undertaking it is to gather and retain all available information on all available users. Every post you've ever made is kept, just in case it can be used against you in the future. Now they entice you with gigabytes of storage, just to be able to track and file away your email. They dangle huge megabytes of online storage in front of you, hoping that you'll store your personal files in there, so that they can keep copies of everything. If you want to invent conspiracies, start there! dwight www.tfrog93.com >>>Like one of the author opined. If you are driving right and obeying the >>>law, these types of devices are your friend. If you caused an accident, [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >In Pennsylvania (at least), driving is a privilege, not a right. Driving is a right in every state. Like many rights the courts have ruled that there are legitimate reasons that there may be some controls as long as the basic underlying right remains. I doubt you can find any state where the issuance of a license is at the whim of the state and where a licence can be revoked for no articulated reason. Do you have a right to breathe the air? I'll assume you think you do yet the gvt has put many restrictions on that right including in many locations outlawing your right to exhale cigarette smoke in certain locations. SO does that make breathing a privilege? You may own >the car, but you do not have an inherant right to drive it on public >roadways. Yes I do. >If you DO drive it on public roadways, you've got a TON of rules and >regulations (plus optional common courtesies) that must be followed. If [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >circumstances. Now, if the pilot DID screw up, I think we'd all like to know >about it. Commercial use is a different part of the law. >A similar little black box in my car wouldn't bother me in the slightest. That's great, then get one. > In >fact, I welcome it; in the event that there IS an incident, I trust that it >would back me up, not point a finger of blame. I'm not worried. Yes, I like >to drive somewhat faster than posted speed limits, but how often is that >single element the cause of a crash? In most cases if you are found to be going faster then the limit it will be prima facie (probably spelled wrong) evidence that you are in the wrong. Yet you are ready to provide evidence against yourself. Strange. Sure, it could back you up, but will it be up to you whether it gets used or not against you? If they extend the recording time to 60 minutes and you have been dicking around and speeding for the first 50 minutes but drove at the limit at the time of the accident how will that look in court when they introduce as evidence you speeding JUST 10 minutes before the accident. >But go ahead, disconnect your little black box. If you're all that worried >about "government interference in your private life," stay home. Once you >take your privately-owned automobile out onto a public roadway, your actions >behind the wheel are NOT your private concern, but a public risk. That's a completely separate issue then whether I should be forced to provide a spy that might erroneously suggest I am at fault. No one is saying people aren't responsible for their actions. You are just creating a straw man having nothing to do with the question at hand. What you >do as a driver could well impact MY health and happiness, none of us drives >in a vacuum. See comment above. >And if all of these millions of little black boxes serve to make our >roadways in any way safer, I'm all for it. Well, then when are you getting a black box installed that limits your speed to nothing more then 60 mph, after all, that would make our roadways safer. >dwight >www.tfrog93.com >>>> Like one of the author opined. If you are driving right and obeying the >>>> law, these types of devices are your friend. If you caused an accident, [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > Yes I do. No you do not. In Louisiana the law specifically states driving is a privilege that may be removed at any time. I know a lot of states laws specifically read that way as well. In an IM someone tells me that Ohio is the same way, specifically called a privilege, not a right. What you all are missing in the "rights" discussion is that "...the people have the right to be secure in their papers and personal effects..." Data that you created is being stored without your consent and will be accessed without your consent. > >>>> Like one of the author opined. If you are driving right and obeying the > >>>> law, these types of devices are your friend. If you caused an accident, [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > specifically read that way as well. In an IM someone tells me that Ohio > is the same way, specifically called a privilege, not a right. > What you all are missing in the "rights" discussion is that "...the people > have the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > accessed > without your consent. Tsk, tsk. I would agree with that right. But whether or not it pertains explicitely to a new automobile that is operated on public roadways is best left to first year law students. The fact is, as has been pointed out elsewhere, that this data is NOT being stored without your consent, nor will be it accessed without your consent. You KNOW it's in new cars, you KNOW what it does, and you KNOW who's likely to look at it. Ergo, ipso facto and thus, when you buy a new car, you KNOW all about it. If you choose to NOT have such data collected and reviewed, then I have a lovely 1993 GT convertible that you can have for cheap. I guarantee that it has no little black box. dwight www.tfrog93.com >> >>>> Like one of the author opined. If you are driving right and obeying >> >>>> the [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] >> specifically read that way as well. In an IM someone tells me that Ohio >> is the same way, specifically called a privilege, not a right. >>>>> Like one of the author opined. If you are driving right and obeying the >>>>> law, these types of devices are your friend. If you caused an accident, [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] >specifically read that way as well. In an IM someone tells me that Ohio >is the same way, specifically called a privilege, not a right. If it's anything like Arizona law it's a purposely obtuse wording to make you think that way because the gvt wants you to think you are their serf. The plain fact is that the state MUST issue you a license if you simply fulfil a couple of trivial requirements. Below is the list of things that prevent the issuance of a licence in AZ. You will note that will it seems like it says a lot, what the thrust of it is, is this... unless you are underage or a convicted criminal, or some other small WELL DEFINED class of person, you WILL be issued a license if you apply for one. Yes, you may find the word privilege bandied about, but it's a meaningless use of the word as the state simply has no choice the the matter of giving you a license unless you are in the tiny aforementioned group of well defined people who can't have one. It has nothing to do with privilege and everything to do with keeping criminals and the underage from driving. And it fails at that anyway because the underage and the criminals drive anyway. So in the end, the gvt prevents virtually no one from using their right to drive. 28-3153. Driver license issuance; prohibitions A. The department shall not issue the following: 1. A driver license to a person who is under eighteen years of age, except that the department may issue: (a) A restricted instruction permit for a class D or G license to a person who is at least fifteen years of age. (b) An instruction permit for a class D, G or M license as provided by this chapter to a person who is at least fifteen years and seven months of age. (c) A class G or M license as provided by this chapter to a person who is at least sixteen years of age. 2. A class D, G or M license or instruction permit to a person who is under eighteen years of age and who has been tried in adult court and convicted of a second or subsequent violation of criminal damage to property pursuant to section 13-1602, subsection A, paragraph 1 or convicted of a felony offense in the commission of which a motor vehicle is used, including theft of a motor vehicle pursuant to section 13-1802, unlawful use of means of transportation pursuant to section 13-1803 or theft of means of transportation pursuant to section 13-1814, or who has been adjudicated delinquent for a second or subsequent act that would constitute criminal damage to property pursuant to section 13-1602, subsection A, paragraph 1 or adjudicated delinquent for an act that would constitute a felony offense in the commission of which a motor vehicle is used, including theft of a motor vehicle pursuant to section 13-1802, unlawful use of means of transportation pursuant to section 13-1803 or theft of means of transportation pursuant to section 13-1814, if committed by an adult. 3. A class A, B or C license to a person who is under twenty-one years of age, except that the department may issue a class A, B or C license that is restricted to only intrastate driving to a person who is at least eighteen years of age. 4. A license to a person whose license or driving privilege has been suspended, during the suspension period. 5. Except as provided in section 28-3315, a license to a person whose license or driving privilege has been revoked. 6. A class A, B or C license to a person who has been disqualified from obtaining a commercial driver license. 7. A license to a person who on application notifies the department that the person is an alcoholic as defined in section 36-2021 or a drug dependent person as defined in section 36-2501, unless the person successfully completes the medical screening process pursuant to section 28-3052 or submits a medical examination report that includes a current evaluation from a substance abuse counselor indicating that, in the opinion of the counselor, the condition does not affect or impair the person's ability to safely operate a motor vehicle. 8. A license to a person who has been adjudged to be incapacitated pursuant to section 14-5304 and who at the time of application has not obtained either a court order that allows the person to drive or a termination of incapacity as provided by law. 9. A license to a person who is required by this chapter to take an examination unless the person successfully passes the examination. 10. A license to a person who is required under the motor vehicle financial responsibility laws of this state to deposit proof of financial responsibility and who has not deposited the proof. 11. A license to a person if the department has good cause to believe that the operation of a motor vehicle on the highways by the person would threaten the public safety or welfare. 12. A license to a person whose driver license has been ordered to be suspended pursuant to section 25-518. 13. A class A, B or C license to a person whose license or driving privilege has been canceled until the cause for the cancellation has been removed. 14. A class A, B or C license or instruction permit to a person whose state of domicile is not this state. B. The department shall not issue a driver license to or renew the driver license of the following persons: 1. A person about whom the court notifies the department that the person violated the person's written promise to appear in court when charged with a violation of the motor vehicle laws of this state until the department receives notification in a manner approved by the department that the person appeared either voluntarily or involuntarily or that the case has been adjudicated, that the case is being appealed or that the case has otherwise been disposed of as provided by law. 2. If notified pursuant to section 28-1601, a person who fails to pay a civil penalty as provided in section 28-1601, except for a parking violation, until the department receives notification in a manner approved by the department that the person paid the civil penalty, that the case is being appealed or that the case has otherwise been disposed of as provided by law. C. The magistrate or the clerk of the court shall provide the notification to the department prescribed by subsection B of this section. D. Notwithstanding any other law, the department shall not issue to or renew a driver license or nonoperating identification license for a person who does not submit proof satisfactory to the department that the applicant's presence in the United States is authorized under federal law. For an application for a driver license or a nonoperating identification license, the department shall not accept as a primary source of identification a driver license issued by a state if the state does not require that a driver licensed in that state be lawfully present in the United States under federal law. The director shall adopt rules necessary to carry out the purposes of this subsection. The rules shall include procedures for: 1. Verification that the applicant's presence in the United States is authorized under federal law. 2. Issuance of a temporary driver permit pursuant to section 28-3157 pending verification of the applicant's status in the United States. > If it's anything like Arizona law it's a purposely obtuse wording to > make you think that way because the gvt wants you to think you are > their serf. I'm sorry... too many words. Are you going to argue that "driving is a right" because it's too ridiculously easy to get a driver's license? Are you going to make that argument before a bunch of posters who have COMPLAINED previously about how ridiculously easy it is to get a driver's license? Regardless... Us serfs have to "ask" for a driver's license. The Big Brother usually "grants" our request, so long as we are not overtly retarded and/or have been punished for our transgressions against the Man in the past (i.e.: felony). And, so long as we play nice in Big Brother's sandbox and get along with all the other serfs, we are allowed to keep that driver's license. If driving were a "right", we could all become New York drivers, the roads would become MadMax territory, and there would be no recourse, nothing we could do about it, and the police (state or local) would not be able to set up their bimonthly collection plates (speed traps). The more I think about it, the more UTTERLY SATISFIED I am with the idea that driving should be a privilege. dwight www.tfrog93.com >> If it's anything like Arizona law it's a purposely obtuse wording to >> make you think that way because the gvt wants you to think you are [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >If driving were a "right", we could all become New York drivers, the roads >would become MadMax territory, Which is exactly why I previously said that the courts have ruled that it's reasonable to put modest requirements on the exercise of inherent rights given by the constitution. The license requirement is one of those. It provides a means of putting some order on what would otherwise be chaos. That's the case with many of our basic rights, can't yell fire in a crowed theatre, etc, yet we still more or less have free speech rights. Why do you think it has to be completely black or white, that it can only be a "right" if it is 100% uncontrolled and if there is even a tiny bit of control it immediately becomes a privilege? I don't see it. Nor is the law written that way. Read it and it's hard to see anywhere that the gvt has any discretionary power in issuing licenses. There are a few rules intended to prevent chaos and the gvt can't ignore them on a whim and deny a license. and there would be no recourse, nothing we >could do about it, and the police (state or local) would not be able to set >up their bimonthly collection plates (speed traps). > >The more I think about it, the more UTTERLY SATISFIED I am with the idea >that driving should be a privilege. If it were really a privilege the gvt could just come to you for NO reason and take you licence. They can't. You have a RIGHT to a license, the gvt MUST issue you a licence, subject to a few trivial hoops to jump thru. Do you have kids (or were you a kid)? Think about how kids really do just have privileges and very few rights, their parents can withhold those privileges for any reason or no reason, the kids don't have a "right" to much of anything other then not to be abused. Is that how you view your relationship to the gvt???? >dwight >www.tfrog93.com > If it were really a privilege the gvt could just come to you for NO > reason and take you licence. They can't. You have a RIGHT to a > license, Uhhh, no. Nowhere at any time was it ever decided that anyone has a right to a driving license. > the gvt MUST issue you a licence, subject to a few trivial > hoops to jump thru. Do you have kids (or were you a kid)? Think [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > not to be abused. Is that how you view your relationship to the > gvt???? Again, just because it's too easy to GET a license does not translate into a RIGHT. And, please remember, rules and regulations are a two-way street. Just as my privileges have been abridged through innumerable regulations, so, too, has the government's own authority been restricted. It's all about trying to keep the playing field level. The war on your personal rights has seen far greater gains than just a little black box in the past few years. And those are gains into your ACTUAL rights, not just perceived rights. That box is the least of your worries right now. dwight www.tfrog93.com >> If it were really a privilege the gvt could just come to you for NO >> reason and take you licence. They can't. You have a RIGHT to a [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] >dwight >www.tfrog93.com You never answered the question that I think would be most interesting. What OTHER privileges do you enjoy at the pleasure of your gvt. Things that the gvt can simply wave their hand and make you stop doing? Anything of similar significance as your right to travel freely by driving your self around? >>> If it were really a privilege the gvt could just come to you for NO >>> reason and take you licence. They can't. You have a RIGHT to a [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > stop doing? Anything of similar significance as your right to travel > freely by driving your self around? The so-called Right to Privacy. There's one that went away with a simple governmental wave of hand. And I would consider that of more importance. dwight Dwight, weren't you the guy following a Shelby at 100mph? The fact that they are only recording 20 seconds and a few parameters now, does not mean that they won't record lots of other things for longer periods of time. I have a solid state box at work that records certain parameters for up to 3 months! Maybe in the future someone will call in your tags as going 100mph on some stretch and the police or GEICO will download all your "flight data" for the last month and issue you a ticket(s) and drop your insurance. > >>Like one of the author opined. If you are driving right and obeying the > >>law, these types of devices are your friend. If you caused an accident, [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > dwight > www.tfrog93.com > Dwight, > weren't you the guy following a Shelby at 100mph? [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > for > the last month and issue you a ticket(s) and drop your insurance. We already have speed traps, both physical and electronic. And any citizen can make a simple call and report a black Mustang doing 100mph. So what? I know I'm doing 100. If I were all that worried about a little black box ratting me out, I'd stick to the speed limit and probably drive a Civic. I'm a firm believer in personal responsibility, and if I screw up, everyone "should" know about it. dwight (By the way, some concerned citizen dropped a dime when I flicked a cigarette butt out the car window. I got a "stern warning" from the state. I no longer flick my cigarettes out the window. That was some 12 years ago.) >>>Like one of the author opined. If you are driving right and obeying the >>>law, these types of devices are your friend. If you caused an accident, [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] >dwight >www.tfrog93.com We have the right not to incriminate ourself We have the right to face our accuser (Ok, that one I got from Star Trek) -- lab~rat >:-) Do you want polite or do you want sincere? >>I wish I could have gotten the information off of my son's 1995 Camaro >>after [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > You sound like just another sheep.... No, it's called a 'social contract'... just like it's your body, I can't just walk over and beat the f**k out of you (as much as I'd like)...I agree to a social contract that says I can't do that if I want to live in this society. If you agree to drive on public roads, you agree to the conduct set down by society, in this case, gov't, acting on behalf of the people. You don't like it, get off the public roads and build your own set of roads where you alone can dictate what is acceptable behaviour. Doesn't mean these things are 'right', just that when you are on public roads you agree to their use if you drive a car that has one. Don't want one, buy a 1967 Mustang. B >>>I wish I could have gotten the information off of my son's 1995 Camaro >>>after [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > >B Social contracts don't over rule the constitution. Unfortunately, ignorant courts sometimes do, and ignorant legislators often do. If you are capable of reading then you can read and pretty much understand what the constitution provides in the way of rights. It is very restrictive in what it allows the federal gvt to do, delineates a few things that the states have the right to do, and reserves all other rights to the citizens/the people. >>>>I wish I could have gotten the information off of my son's 1995 Camaro >>>>after [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] > few things that the states have the right to do, and reserves all > other rights to the citizens/the people. There's a concentric circle at work here... As to you in your home, there should be no encroachment. You should be able to do whatever you want in the privacy of your own home (within reason, of course). Because SOME folks took things a little too far, you cannot host beer parties for minors or show gay porn movies to the local young lads. As time goes on, I'm sure MORE folks will screw up and there will be MORE things we are no longer able to do behind closed doors. As the circle expands, it includes relations between you and your neighbors. Now, I'm sorry to report that SOME folks out there had problems with their neighbors that could not be resolved in a gentlemanly fashion, so the courts had to be involved. Today, we have an entire system of agreements that relate to you and your neighbors, and what rights and responsibilities you share. The circle expands to your neighborhood, and tries to encompass the whole struggle of "individual rights v. concerns of the public." It is this struggle that probably creates most of the "problems" you see with the courts and legislature. Social contracts (or the millions of rules and rulings that govern the way we interact with each other) are an attempt to MAKE SENSE out of the human condition. When most people complain about the "ignorant courts" (?), it's usually because the courts try to consider MY concerns vs. YOURS. When it's the other way around, hey, no complaints. So, as you step outside your Castle and prepare to mount your Steed, please remember that (thanks to the millions of folks before you who SCREWED THINGS UP), the more distance between you and your front door, the more "ignorant rules" you have to face... Here's another thought: the U.S. Constitution (long may it wave) was not the END of the process. You cannot selectively ignore over 200 years of jurisprudence, two centuries in which the three bodies of our government have struggled to apply the "roadmap" to a growing country, a growing population, a growing demographic, a growing body of ethics, a growing technology, and on and on and on. The Constitution is not the Bible (although, talk about a book overly subject to interpretation...). The Constitution didn't end with the period on that particular piece of paper. The Bill of Rights was added, and then every subsequent law and ruling was and is added to it, up to and including today. In this sense, the Constitution is a living, breathing document, subject to rewrite and revision according to the needs of the times. And it all comes down to the simple fact that you and I see things differently... dwight www.tfrog93.com >>>>>I wish I could have gotten the information off of my son's 1995 Camaro >>>>>after [quoted text clipped - 108 lines] >And it all comes down to the simple fact that you and I see things >differently... Some things. But I would be interested in hearing what other things you think you "have" that are not *rights* but merely privileges allowed you by your oh so benevolent gvt. Aside from driving, what other things are you allowed to do not because you have a right to do them but merely because your gvt has seen fit to allow you the privilege of doing them? And that at any time the gvt can simply take away that privilege and you have no recourse. Remember, if you have a right to something that means there is a legal basis in law giving you that right. You say there is no legal basis giving you the right to drive, merely that the gvt has decided, not because you have any inherent right to drive, but merely decided that they, the gvt, will be nice to you and allow you to drive. Meaning that if tomorrow the gvt decided none of us ought to be allowed to drive but gvt agents, you'd be perfectly agreeable to that because you have already accepted that you have no right to drive and only do so at the sufferance of your gvt. Are you really that much a sheep? >>And it all comes down to the simple fact that you and I see things >>differently... [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > only do so at the sufferance of your gvt. Are you really that much a > sheep? Baaaaaa. You never did cite any source or reference that bestowed on any of us the right to operate a motor vehicle... dwight www.tfrog93.com >>>And it all comes down to the simple fact that you and I see things >>>differently... [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] >dwight >www.tfrog93.com Yes I did way back. The constitution grants to the federal gvt specific powers. The constitution then grants to the state some other powers and the constitution goes on to say that those powers not granted to teh feds, nor to the states, are the rights of the people. Since driving is not listed in the constitution as something the Fed gvt is in control over, nor is it listed as something the state gvts are in control of, it therefore becomes one of the MANY rights that simply flow to the citizens. Now don't get all tied up in the fact that we have to put some rules in place to prevent chaos, that's just housekeeping. Now, how about for once telling us what you view as your relationship to your gvt. In particular your reaction to the gvt just up and deciding one day out of the blue that it was tired of all these personal vehicles cluttering up the streets and said NO MORE DRIVING by anyone except police and some other specifically designated gvt agents. Since you keep saying driving is a privilege, I'd like to see a clear statement from you that should that scenario ever happen you would be cool with it because, as you have said, YOU have no right to drive. Further, how about listing some other things you regularly do but that you can't find listed somewhere as your "right" to do, like eat catfish, or eat sugar, or go camping, and let us know if you think all those things are simply things you actually have no RIGHT to do but are simply allowed to do them at the sufferance of the gvt giving you the privilege. >>>>And it all comes down to the simple fact that you and I see things >>>>differently... [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > are simply allowed to do them at the sufferance of the gvt giving you > the privilege. How about this? Name ONE of your precious rights that is free and clear of any legislation, rule, regulation, or abridgement. Hah! Got ya. dwight >>>>>And it all comes down to the simple fact that you and I see things >>>>>differently... [quoted text clipped - 60 lines] > > dwight Do we have a right to breathe? Just wondering... >>>>>>And it all comes down to the simple fact that you and I see things >>>>>>differently... [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] > > Do we have a right to breathe? Just wondering... That probably fits under "Right to Life," which, as you know, is still being discussed. Breathing was not specifically mentioned in the Constitution, so it passes to the State. The States haven't yet regulated breathing, itself, so the local municipalities have the ball. WHAT you breathe has, indeed, been regulated, and where you exhale and how it impacts those around you is being legislated more and more every day. So, while you still maintain the right to breathe, it is not entirely unregulated. dwight >>>>>>>And it all comes down to the simple fact that you and I see >>>>>>>things differently... [quoted text clipped - 79 lines] > > dwight Well that kinda sucks, eh? >>>>>And it all comes down to the simple fact that you and I see things >>>>>differently... [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] > >Hah! Got ya. No you don't. I have said all along that it's understood that some housekeeping rules are needed so exercising our rights doesn't result in chaos. Why won't you answer the simple question - which I will repeat below... Now, how about for once telling us what you view as your relationship to your gvt. In particular your reaction to the gvt just up and deciding one day out of the blue that it was tired of all these personal vehicles cluttering up the streets and said NO MORE DRIVING by anyone except police and some other specifically designated gvt agents. Since you keep saying driving is a privilege, I'd like to see a clear statement from you that should that scenario ever happen you would be cool with it because, as you have said, YOU have no right to drive. >>How about this? Name ONE of your precious rights that is free and clear of >>any legislation, rule, regulation, or abridgement. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > you would be cool with it because, as you have said, YOU have no right > to drive. What kind of crap is this? You're going to grill me on hypotheticals? Hey, what if the Pope decreed tonight that the whole world had to be Catholics? How would that make you feel? I have enough problems with what IS, let alone what IFs. dwight >>>How about this? Name ONE of your precious rights that is free and clear of >>>any legislation, rule, regulation, or abridgement. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > >What kind of crap is this? You're going to grill me on hypotheticals? It would explore the depth to which you actually believe driving is merely a privilege. Why are you afraid to answer it? If, as you have said, you believe driving is merely a privilege, they you would not object to having that privilege arbitrarily taken away. Yet you will not say so. So if you DO object, how do you explain your objection to the loss of something you have no RIGHT to? >Hey, what if the Pope decreed tonight that the whole world had to be >Catholics? How would that make you feel? I wouldn't care because the pope has no power insofar as my right to be any particular religion. You claim the state does have the right to control your basic right to drive. So it's not the same thing at all. It seems to me that you wish to have it both ways, you want to tell others that they only have a privilege to drive, yet when you are asked if you would have any objection if the state arbitrarily took away your privilege you lose your voice on the subject. >I have enough problems with what IS, let alone what IFs. That's a sure recipe for serfdom. >dwight >>>>How about this? Name ONE of your precious rights that is free and clear >>>>of [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > not say so. So if you DO object, how do you explain your objection to > the loss of something you have no RIGHT to? This is really getting boring. Driving is a privilege. Period. Read all you want into that statement, take your conspiracy theory as far as it will go, and driving will still be a privilege. >>Hey, what if the Pope decreed tonight that the whole world had to be >>Catholics? How would that make you feel? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > asked if you would have any objection if the state arbitrarily took > away your privilege you lose your voice on the subject. Again, let me be very clear: driving is a privilege. Who controls the privilege? The state. Now, if you want to sit and fantasize about just how far the state could push that privilege, knock yourself out. But remember when the state decided that alcohol could be regulated out of existence? >>I have enough problems with what IS, let alone what IFs. > > That's a sure recipe for serfdom. That makes no sense whatsoever. You were probably just desperate to work the word "serfdom" in there somewhere. You haven't used it in the last post or two and it was overdue. dwight >>>>>How about this? Name ONE of your precious rights that is free and clear >>>>>of [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > >>>I have enough problems with what IS, let alone what IFs. And the reason the state gets away with regulating alcohol out of existence is because of people like you who abdicate their rights because they believe the lie that they are mere privileges doled out to them by the state. Unfortunately, those who believe otherwise tend to be in a minority and get screwed by those who snivel and grovel under the state's heel. At least you can count yourself in the majority, the group who hold so little regard for their rights that they no longer even claim to have any. > And the reason the state gets away with regulating alcohol out of > existence is because of people like you who abdicate their rights [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > majority, the group who hold so little regard for their rights that > they no longer even claim to have any. Driving is a priviliege. Driving was a privilege before I was born. It's not my fault that driving is a privilege. dwight The risks outweigh the benefits. > I wish I could have gotten the information off of my son's 1995 Camaro after > he totaled it out. This is not so that I can punish him, is was so that I [quoted text clipped - 87 lines] > > > > > > > > Norm This has been an interesting conversation. Many of you understand that the black box constitutes nothing more than a data recorder for events to get to the truth and other see it as in invasion. I think most of you know where I come down on this. I'm in favor of the truth. Sometimes that is good sometimes it's not. It depends on your perspective. I would agree that a device such as a GPS locator built into your car that can track your presence without your knowledge is a clear invasion of your privacy, even if you are driving on public streets. Likewise if it was recording video or audio of conversations and broadcasting that without my consent, that would be a clear violation of my rights. This box, which gathers driving parameters for use in a post mortum event is not. Why? Because that data is yours, it does not belong to the government. It does not belong to the state, if your insurance pays out a claim, then it becomes the property of the insurance company. Having made that point, no one can have access to that data without due process, i.e. a court order. This oversight is your protectection against unlawful search and seizure. In the case of your insurance company, this becomes a contractural issue between you and the company. If you feel that the information is dangerous to your case, and you attempt to destroy it, you may be guilty of obstruction, since destroying evidence is what constitutes that kind of a charge. For me, I bought a 1969 Mustang to do my playing in. This way I can do what I want and I don't have the state telling me what I cannot do to it. I don't have to worry that some mfg's gadget is activated and spying on me. I'm not as paranoid as some of the respondants on this, but I do understand both sides of the issue. And if some clown runs a red light and injures a member of my family and that little black box will prove they sped up instead of slowing down, then I will want that information to be available. > The risks outweigh the benefits. > [quoted text clipped - 89 lines] > > > > > > > > > > Norm >I wish I could have gotten the information off of my son's 1995 Camaro after >he totaled it out. This is not so that I can punish him, is was so that I [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >recording automobile conditions, presumably on public streets, there is no >expectation of privacy. But wouldn't it be nice to know where it was? Like if you caused an accident using bad judgement, you could smash it with a hammer to 'reset' it? ;) -- lab~rat >:-) Do you want polite or do you want sincere? It is just one more hammer for big brother to hit you over the head with. Furthermore, those of you who think that you own the data because you created it, couldn't be further from the truth. Certain authorities already have complete access to this without your consent and without notifying you per enabling legislation, for everyone else it might take a day to get a court order to gain access. And IF you did actually own it, you should be able to turn it off. > Not a single sales person knew what an EDR was not to speak of disabling > it. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Norm |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.