Who owns the data in vehicle black boxes?
by Associated Press posted Sep 15, 2003
By Ann Job

Stephen Keating isn't sure he'd like "my car testifying against me."

The brave new world of automotive electronics makes him appreciate older cars all the more, he said. "I'm sticking with the old cars," the executive director of the Privacy Foundation in Denver said.

But millions of unsuspecting new-car buyers are likely unaware they may be getting vehicles that carry onboard recorders.

Known in the auto industry as sensing and diagnostic modules or Electronic Data Recorders (EDRs) but commonly referred to as black boxes, this equipment is found mostly on General Motors Corp. vehicles and a few Ford models. It's designed to tell if the air bag system operated properly during a crash.

But according to at least one California state lawmaker, today's laws don't make clear who exactly owns the recorded data.

The lawmaker, Tim Leslie, R-Tahoe City, has authored what many believe is the first legislation in the country that would require carmakers to tell consumers, in California, at least, they have a recording device in their vehicle. Leslie's bill, which is making its way through committee in the California Legislature, also states that EDR data is the property of the registered vehicle owner. This would mandate getting owner approval before anyone could tap the data.

The legislation comes as prosecutors are beginning to use the data in court cases. In a widely publicized case this year, a Florida man was sentenced to 30 years in prison for vehicular manslaughter after the black box in his 2002 Pontiac Trans Am said he was traveling between 104 and 114 mph before a deadly crash that killed two teens.

The assistant state prosecutor, Michael Horowitz, said it was his first use of the data in court, and he likened it "to where DNA was 10 years ago." Horowitz also questioned why a driver would have the expectation of privacy while in his car, speeding on a public roadway.

But privacy advocate Keating noted drivers have been accustomed to simpler cars over the decades. "It's one of the examples where technology has gotten ahead of the law. Data is collected on all of us all the time, but it only becomes an issue when it's used," he said. "That's why this is such a great issue."

To be sure, even without a clarifying law, GM engineers who tap the data for safety research get permission of the vehicle owner first, assured GM spokesman Jim Schell. And they work to ensure the confidentiality of the vehicle owner.

He added engineers access the data a lot, but he said he couldn't give specific numbers.

All it takes is your car, a technician or two, a link and a laptop with the right software to download and decode the information. Voila, someone has information about your crash and the few seconds leading up to it and immediately after it.

What kind of information?

The most sophisticated EDRs can tell, along with air bag operation, the speed of your vehicle before and up to the crash, whether you had your foot on the accelerator or the brake and whether you had your seat belt on.

The devices are hardly new.

GM vehicles dating back to the mid 1970s have had them integrated with the air bag system, Schell said, adding that all new GM vehicles have them.

Some Ford high-end models have begun adding them, too.

BMW spokesman Dave Buchko said the data gathered in BMWs is primarily for diagnostics and not robust enough for use in accident reconstruction or litigation.

DaimlerChrysler's Chrysler Group doesn't use EDRS and is still studying them, in part because of the privacy issues, according to spokeswoman Angela Spencer Ford.

Phil Haseltine, president of the auto industry-funded Auto Coalition for Auto Safety, said he favors legal clarification of who owns the data.

"I don't think there have been a lot of real world problems yet, but the potential is out there," he said. "Consumers need some confidence that this isn't Big Brother watching them."

Haseltine estimated some 10 million vehicles already on the road have EDRs.

Leslie's bill won't stop law enforcement from tapping EDR data, because a court order would allow access, just as a search warrant allows gathering of evidence in a criminal case, Leslie's press secretary said.

Assistant State Prosecutor Horowitz said authorities did get a search warrant for the Trans Am as well as the data recorder in the Florida case.

"It was an issue of speed, and this was a tool we used," he said. "It's just one more piece of evidence we can use."

He said he didn't consider EDR data infallible. But according to news reports, the defense attorney didn't convince jurors that because the driver had modified the car from its original condition, the EDR data might have been wrong.

Further, GM's Schell said the information is considered objective.

"It's more reliable than measurements or eyewitnesses," he said.

But Sally Greenberg, senior product safety counsel for Consumers Union, isn't sure all electronic data-gathering is infallible. And while she acknowledges it's beneficial not just for automakers but for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to have access to crash data and vehicle performance, she worries about future uses of the data.

"Some people wonder whether its a 'gotcha' for automakers to win lawsuits," she said.

Keating at the Privacy Foundation wonders whether insurers will want to use this data to settle claims, to provide selective discounts to drivers who agree to be monitored or to decide whether to continue to insure a driver at all.

All the more reason, he said, for consumers to become aware of what he calls "one of the more fascinating privacy issues out there."

 

You know it's a simple matter of the automakers tagging on one more piece of paper for you to sign when you purchased a new car.

Just like the computer software companies.. you get a "license" to use the software that makes that pcm operate the vehicle. They still own it.

But regardless of who owns it, a court order to subpoena that information is not picky about whether it goes to a private citizen or an automaker...

 

I own it BUT, just like anything else if they want it all they have to do is tell the judge and he will let them at it. So all it will do is make them wait another day before they get it. If your in a accadent and you kill someone your car is imponded and you cant touch it anyways so theres no way you could change it or get rid of it. So it really doesnt matter.

I like the bill because the car company cant tap into it when its in for service and use it against you becasue you didnt tell them they could look at it. (but I would read your service agreement really close from now on )

 

Ya I'm not cool with this BB crap. And just so ya'll with OBD1 LT1 car this lil tid bit. We have this last recorded info bit on our cars!
Hows that you say???
Well it's in there!!
I use a software data logging program called "DATAMASTER" and I don't have to be recording what I'm doing with the car to recover it!
As long as the program is running on the laptop with the patchcord connected to the cars data port , I just tap the spacebar on the laptop it pull's the previous 30 seconds of data from the ecm and saves it as a "AUTOLOG FILE"!
So all I'm say'n is theres a running continious 30 second loop of data from all of the ecm's activity that if they would have completed the bigbrother crap on obd1, would have been read and stored on a flash chip from a airbag going off as on the obd2 and 3 coming.

 

Well, being that they only record 30 seconds of data it isn't that bad, if someone is going 100 mph and hits someone they will probably be proven guilty by accident reconstructionists and not necessarily because of the computer. I do agree that they should not be on your computer without your consent, I think it would fall under illegal surveillance. Also I think a good attorney could get the evidence thrown out because it is merely speculative and not certain, it isn't reliable enough to meet the beyond a reasonable doubt requirement to convict someone of a crime, or is it? What would you guys say if you saw this evidence of the computer recorded speed before an accident and you wer on a jury? What if a cop pulled you over who had reasonable suspision that you were speeding, will the cop be allowed to tap into your computer to see how fast you were going? Will you be able to reprogram your computer so that it doesn't record data? Well with no law I guess we will just have to wait until someon fights the issue to the supreme court to see what precedent they set on the law. Until then just be careful and don't drive stupid, or keep your car running for 30 seconds after an accident.

 

I'm o.k. with it. I have enough confidence in my driving to not worry about a BB. If I do something stupid and cause an accident, I deserve the punishment.

In my opinion, it would help me more than hurt me because it could prove what the other driver did wrong as long as they had a BB in their car.

Dan