Nothing that can’t be taken care of with laptop and some crafty programing. Even with a hand held tuner, you can adjust the output of the VSS ,(to correct for changing out rear end gears). I’m sure some will, or already has come up with a way to spoof the data recorder.
The VAST majority of water buffalo will FOLLOW the one in front if it across a crocodile-infested river, but that DOESN’T make it a good idea.
You are obviously a FOLLOWER, not a LEADER.
Could you envision legislation making it illegal to spoof the data recorder?
When did I say it was good idea…I’m just showing you the absurdity of what you’re saying.
It would be GREAT if everyone ALL THE TIME OBEYED ALL THE LAWS…but then there’s reality. Sorry, but I live in the REAL world.
If insurance companies get their way…and these devices become MANDATORY…then a conservative number of denied claims by insurance companies based on the readings they got from the black-box is well over 50%. You think that’s acceptable…GREAT…I personally don’t.
You are obviously a FOLLOWER, not a LEADER.
Yup…I value my life. If you drive the speed limit on certain highways during rush hour…you’re far more likely get killed then if you kept up with the ILLEGAL flow of traffic…THAT’S A FACT…Like it or not.
Depends on how it’s done. I can create a data recorder…so it’s IMPOSSIBLE to run the car without it. If the recorder isn’t working…the car won’t run…And unless you know the 64 bit encryption key you’ll NEVER be able to override it. I’ve designed software like this…and believe me it’ll cost you more to break it then to design your own system.
I was thinking more on how this situation (some rule that your car must have a data recorder running and you are prohibited from spoofing it)would be recieved by the public.
Perhaps were already are at that point,what about retro fitting data recorders or no registration or insurance issued?
When we spoke earlier about “witheld car repair technical information” I certainly see this area being one that pressure would be applied to limit the publics knowledge on just how things work.
At least you admit you are a sheep. It explains a lot.
By the way, requiring an event recorder to be installed in a vehicle isn’t the same thing as making the information available. Whoever wanted that information would still need a court order to get it, ensuring none of your civil rights are violated.
Fortunately, you don’t have to be a constitutional scholar to know requiring an event recorder to be installed in a vehicle isn’t the same thing as making the information available. Whoever wanted that information would still need a court order to get it, ensuring a judge would have the opportunity to make sure none of your civil rights are violated.
Nissan swore up and down on a stack of bibles that the ECU for the GT-R was unhackable. They announced this on a Friday IIRC. The following Tuesday a tuning house in Japan said they were able to circumvent the “unhackable” ECU, and by the end of the week they were offering custom ECU tunes to GT-R owners. The big hoopla was over the fact that the Japanese GT-R’s were programmed to limit top speed to 110 MPH whilst on public roads. But when you took it to a track the ECU got a signal to from the sat nav that the car wasn’t on public roads anymore, and the top speed governor was lifted. This didn’t sit well with the Japanese driving enthusiasts.
The point is that nothing is unhackable.
Mike you know as well as I do, the recorder doesn’t need to be hacked to be defeated. All I have to do is fake out the sensor inputs to simulate the conditions I want the system to believe are real. When I was hacking software programs for the PC, I remember one protection package disclaimer; any sufficiently knowledgeable and determined individual will eventually defeat this protection.
I got a chuckle out of that “you must be a follower…” comment. One thing is certain, if you do the speed limit on 128, the last thing you’ll be is a leader! You’re right, you’ll be dead.
Because medical insurance companies have shown us that if they have the ability to deny your claim “for cause” they will abuse the privilege. Medical insurance can deny your claim if you have a pre-existing condition that you failed to report. On the surface, that’s fine. Why should they have to pay for your cancer treatment if you lied about not having cancer when you bought the insurance? But they’ve abused it by pulling stunts like denying cancer treatment to patients because they failed to disclose that they had acne as a teenager.
The same thing will happen with cars. Driving 56 in a 55 will not possibly effect the outcome of an accident. Having a burned out reverse light will not possibly effect the outcome of an accident. And yet they are both illegal and could therefore be used to deny your claim.
Plus, erratic driving may have a very good reason behind it. Maybe you floored it to avoid the semi that was about to rear end you, and in so doing you went over the speed limit. Maybe you swerved to avoid a moose and hit the ditch instead. Both of those actions are completely justifiable. But they’re also erratic driving and could be used to deny your claim.
The right to privacy.
The right to not be subjected to unwarranted search.
To name a couple.
You seem to want to live in an Orwellian society. That’s fine. If you wish to be monitored, I’m sure the insurance company will be happy to oblige you. Some of us prefer not to be gawped at 24 hours a day.
That whole “pre-existing condition” thing is now illegal, thanks to the now-passed healthcare reform bill. Say what you want to about its other provisions, but one thing it does is resolve the “pre-existing condition” issue.
If you want common sense provisions in the law, that makes sense.
Why do you think they can get their hands on it without a warrant or some other kind of court order? If that was the case, I can see why you would think it is unconstitutional. Nonetheless, driving isn’t a right. It’s a privilege, and it can be taken away from you at any time. You can own a gun. You can criticize the government. You can’t, however, show me where your “right” to drive (unmonitored or otherwise) is guaranteed in the Constitution.
If you want provisions in the law that protect your rights, that is fine with me. Requiring an event recorder to be installed in a vehicle isn’t the same thing as making the information available. Whoever wanted that information would still need a court order to get it.
By the way, requiring an event recorder to be installed in a vehicle isn’t the same thing as making the information available. Whoever wanted that information would still need a court order to get it, ensuring none of your civil rights are violated.
NO…you waived that when you bought insurance. I suggest you read your insurance policy. You gave them the right to gather all data from any source on any accident you were involved in. Sorry but no court order is needed.
I really suggest you get your drivers license and actually drive on the highway. It’s obvious you have little or no driving experience and you THINK you know what’s going on. You don’t.
To solve the “Big Brother” issue, here’s an idea. Give heavy insurance discounts for people who volunteer to have these devices installed. This way, if you are willing to pay extra for your insurance, you can keep your freedom. Freedom has never been free, so why not continue to pay for it?
Agreed. And the same things will one day need to apply to health insurance. If you are 10% or more overweight, NO coverage for weight-related health issues. Ditto for smoking, heavy alcohol abuse, couch potato-dom, risk taking behavior such as mountain climbing and sky-diving, and so on. Why should the rest of us have to pay for YOUR idiocy, foolishness, and negligence?
This really is a seperate issue from the other big brother thread. One has to deal with a safety system that can actually save lives, whereas this is orwellian big brother and/or insurance meddling. If there is going to be my driving information transmitted wirelessly regardless of if I crash or not, people better start either actively killing this bill or collecting chip bags to put over the transmitters. What is to follow? Road mile tolls, average speed tickets, targeted marketing (worst of all!), etc etc. I disagree whole heartedly with ron-man. There is no upside to this. Unless every speed limit in the country is raised 20 mph (and still even then) this is going to be a cluster-___k. And if Ron-man is alright with his driving habits being monitored, there are a few other aspects of his life I bet he wouldn’t mind being monitored, tracked, and used by the government, and therefore also discoverable by the public. Amount and location of alcohol consumed (ankle bracelet), web-site history (tracking programs), calories eaten (“hello sir, we recently saw you ate a bloomin’ onion, and we were wondering if you’d be interested in joining our gym”), phone calls made, location, medical condition, hair loss, incidents of ED, purchases, credit card charges, etc. etc. etc. Hell you’ve got nothing to worry about as long as your doing everything legally right? I’ll bet in those million miles of open road trucking you claimed to have, you’ve never run more than your alloted road hours, sped, over-rode a white line, made an illegal pass, failed to signal, illegal cellphone call/texted, etc. How many of those are you allowed before you lose your license? I bet you could rack that up in a week of careful driving if every action you took was monitored.
In order to agree with that argument, you have to buy into the “slippery slope” way of thinking. I don’t. I also don’t buy into your apples to oranges comparison between driving and healthcare.
Many (as a matter of opinion) consider healthcare a guaranteed right. I don’t think this right is mentioned in our Constitution, but it is mentioned in our Declaration of Independence (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness), so it is a matter for debate, but not here. Driving isn’t mentioned anywhere in our Declaration of Independence or in our Constitution. It isn’t a protected right by any stretch of the imagination.
I am not going to debate healthcare reform, especially since I don’t think the things you most fear are ever going to happen. Those types of measures would be as unpopular as increased gasoline taxes, and would be political suicide.
An insurance agrement that didn’t pay out when the vehicle was operated “in an illegal manner” wouldn’t be worth the paper it was printed on.
Consider: mosts states have a “careless and reckless” law as a “catch-all” for driving behavior that doesn’t fit elsewhere. Now, assume you had an at-fault accident. You’re almost certainly guilty of (at least) violating “C+R” because, if you weren’t being “careless and reckless,” you wouldn’t crashed into something, would you?
So, if you allow insureres to back out of payments for “illegal driving,” they could theoretically deny 95+% of claims.