With advanced modern car electronics, lots of things can be done these days that were never even thought of 20 years ago. From my viewpoint, some of these things are good and some not so good. For example, is your car spying on you? Yes, maybe it is. If it is, can you stop it? Probably not. How can a car spy on you? Let me tell you.
A long time ago, someone said, "if it can be done, someone will do it," and this applies to automotive electronics. With all the manufacturers, everything that is possible will eventually appear in some manufacturer's car. The issue of your car spying on you started in 1996.
1996 was the year that the federal government required manufacturers to implement the second version of On-Board Diagnostics or OBD-II. This standard required cars to spy on themselves so that emission devices would be monitored and the results could be examined by mechanics or government inspectors. A mechanic can use OBD-II date to more easily diagnose problems with emission and safety devices. Air bag systems, for example, have become very complex and now include accelerometers and other sensors to help deploy the air bags at the right time, and not do it at the wrong time. The original goal was that a history of the car's emission performance would be recorded, then possibly played back later.
At about this same time, General Motors decided that this device could also record other vehicle information so they expanded it to be an Event Data Recorder (EDR) in 1997. They have provided real-world data to improve emergency medical response, vehicle structural design, and even better road design. This same technology is being used to record even more data in race cars.
So now we have these EDRs being used in GM cars to make cars and roads safer, but then the car insurance industry woke up smelling money. Remember that the car insurance industry backs an organization called The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), which is one of those organizations that isn't what it seems from the name. All the advocacy and testing that this organizations does is for one reason -- making the insurance industry more profit. The IIHS wants the government to make these devices mandatory in all new cars. Why?
The reason is that the information from EDRs has been used in court by both prosecuting and defense attorneys to disprove or prove a driver's claims of innocence. EDR systems record several dozen inputs including speed, acceleration, driver input, seatbelt use, and the crash signature in the several seconds before and after a collision. It is very much like the "black box" on an commercial airplane. The information is constantly overwritten in the memory unless a crash occurs, in which case it is stored. Although EDR systems have been around for a while, their use by car companies has been voluntary so far. Ford began installing them in 2001, while the only European vehicle with one is the 2006-06 Saab 9-7x, which really is just a rebadged Chevrolet.
The real question with EDRs is whether you have the right to have the information to remain private in the case of an accident. To me this seems like you testifying against yourself in court. Unfortunately case law shows that courts don't feel this is true.
The use of EDR data in court cases immediately brought charges that Big Brother was illegally monitoring our driving activities. In 2004, California became the first state requiring car manufacturers to notify customers whether an EDR was installed in the car. The law also prohibits downloading of the data without a court order or permission of the vehicle owner. For 2008, NHTSA has proposed that all vehicles with EDR systems collect their data to a standard to be established by the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE). EDR systems won't be mandatory -- yet. The strong support by the insurance industry, however, makes this just a matter of time.
Where are we going from here? If your vehicle has a navigation system, then the car knows where it is at all times. GM's OnStar, for example, tracks vehicle location and communicates with the EDR. It doesn't seem like a big deal to imagine these systems being designed to automatically issue e-tickets to those who exceed the speed limit or drive recklessly, does it? The insurance industry would love that. What do you think?
Already some drivers are voluntarily submitting their driving to such inspection, in the interest of lowering their insurance premiums. Progressive Insurance's "Trip Sense" program started in Minnesota, but is now going nationwide. It provides a plug-in data recorder that attaches to the OBD-II port under the dashboard. Drivers record their driving habits for several months and then, after reviewing the data on their home computer, can upload the information to Progressive and receive discounts of up to 25 percent on their next insurance premium. Aha! Bribery will get the insurance companies the data they want.
The TripSense system monitors how much you drive fast, what time of day you drive, the number of sudden starts and stops you make, and how much time you spend driving faster than 75 miles per hour. Using this information, Progressive can offer an insurance discount if it approves of your driving habits. The company is adamant that any data from its TripSense program showing you to be an aggressive driver won't be used to raise your insurance premiums, also that the data you provide is private. There is an ominous note on their web site that says, "We may be legally obligated to provide such information in response to a subpoena or as otherwise required by law."
So the data will be used in lawsuits and could be used against you. I very much doubt that Progressive would fight any subpoena to supply your data for any reason. On the other hand, if you are allowed to review the data you send to Progressive, it would be your fault if you sent anything that would be damaging to your record. The next step, of course, would be for the data to be sent automatically to your insurance company without the possibility for you to review it.
Do you think I'm paranoid to suggest that the government can or would want to track your location and watch your driving? I hope not. The technology certainly is available now. You would think that the government would have better things to do than that, but it really would be pretty simple to automate the process with computers. People wouldn't need to be involved at all. On the other hand, with almost daily news reports of government surveillance and illegal wiretaps on telephones, it isn't hard to see why I am uneasy. It is already possible to track, with some accuracy, the locations of cell phones, and many new vehicles include Global Positioning Satellite (GPS) technology with navigation systems that can use this to very accurately determine their location. GM has made a point in numerous advertisements that the OnStar system continuously monitors their vehicles for airbag deployment. The OnStar system can assess the condition of a vehicle's safety system, remotely unlock doors, and even (the ads don't say this!) monitor sounds from inside the vehicle.
If you don't think the Big Brother approach will be used, consider the use of an EDS-like system by rental car companies. They use the system to identify customers who drive faster than posted speed limits and then charge them extra. Courts in several states have forbidden these practices, however, at least temporarily. On the other hand, commercial trucking companies use satellite uplink data system to make sure their drivers don't drive too long or too fast. The GPS positioning system also allows the companies to schedule trucks or locate them if they have been stolen.
Is it really a big step to consider a black box in your car to be a tattle-tale about your driving habits -- in detail? I can hardly wait for the navigation system in my new car to suddenly warn me with an audible message -- in a pleasant female voice, of course -- "You have been detected traveling at a higher rate of speed than conditions permit. A citation has been to you issued for $549." Or maybe even better (or worse?) having that same message played to the car's driver next to me while I am driving at the same speed my 1995 Toyota Camry next to him without the system and no citation.
