Data Recorders In Your Car - the information found on two black boxes used in court case in Florida

ktnv.com/ ^

[chance33_98]

Data Recorders In Your Car

Shawn Boyd reporting Last Updated: May 14, 2003

Data recorders that work like those on commercial airliners are now standard equipment on most cars, they have been for several years. Two court cases are putting the information found on two black boxes to work for prosecutors in Florida and right here.

Edwin Mantos' trial began Wednesday in Broward County Florida. He's accused of running his Trans-Am into two teenage girls last August killing them. Data downloaded from his car's black box showed he was going 114 mph just before he hit them.

Diana Santi was killed in a car accident and the other driver, Manuel Martinez, survived and now faces a number of charges including murder. Metro did its usual crash investigation, but this time they took it further.

Plugging into what's often called a black box, the event data recorder is underneath the front passenger seat console or dash, as many as 40 million cars on the road have one. It's the brain that monitors and controls the car's airbag. But it also holds a wealth of information that can be used in accident reconstructions, engine speed, gas pedal pressure, brakes, and vehicle speed.

The SUV that Manuel Martinez was driving had a black box that revealed electronic secrets to investigating officer Mario Alfonsi. The SUV accelerated to 78 mph one second before impact according to the black box. Chief deputy DA Gary Booker is prosecuting Martinez.

The SUV's black box is giving him the backing evidence he feels will help him put Martinez away. Booker is looking to place blame and this will be the first time this kind of evidence is used in trial in Clark County.

[dark_lord]

Maybe not. I can pick up radio waves on a personal radio in the car. I can shove that under the seat and still pick up radio. A strong enough RF pulse will get into the engine compartment via the dashboard. The question isn't really whether or not electromagnetic waves can get into the engine compartment, they can. The question really is -- can you engineer a properly formated EMP that will trigger the circuit for an airbag? My personal guess is that you cannot. I would think that if any circuit was totally shielded in its own little Faraday box it would be that one. But I was asking the question so that anyone who actually knew the answer might respond.

[Poohbah]

Maybe not. I can pick up radio waves on a personal radio in the car. I can shove that under the seat and still pick up radio. A strong enough RF pulse will get into the engine compartment via the dashboard. The question isn't really whether or not electromagnetic waves can get into the engine compartment, they can. The question really is -- can you engineer a properly formated EMP that will trigger the circuit for an airbag?

Not without being powerful enough to flash-cook you to about medium rare in your seat--and then you'd have siginificantly more urgent problems than your airbag firing.

[dark_lord]

I presume you're an electrical engineer with experience in this area?

[Poohbah]

I've studied the issue.

You have to have the pulse create a potent enough SGEMP within the circuitry that it jumps across a fairly wide air gap (the mechanical portion of the circuit that must be closed in order for the bag to fire--it consists of a heavy weight that only moves when subjected to VERY high decelerations--you could stick that thing in a jet fighter, yank and bank until you GLOC, and it won't move).

Air is a remarkably effective insulator, so you need enough voltage to turn the air in the air gap into a conductive plasma.

[Poohbah]

Part II--posted too soon.

To get that kind of plasma, you're going to need LOTS of flux on target--and since you'd be sitting in the target area, you'd get hit with it.

[dark_lord]

Okay, I'll buy that. How about just enough of a pulse to crash all those little computers that control useful things like fuel injection, etc.?

[Poohbah]

On an individual basis (run over the emitter lying on the road), it's easy.

On a mass basis: you're getting up to the intensities required to serious injuries to people at the maximum effective radius. And those closest to the emitter are going to get far more serious injury--again, you're talking flash-cooking (those closest to the emitter point would probably EXPLODE as the water in their bodies flashed to steam).

[chance33_98]

Latest hacking tool is a light - Novel way to break security systems

[chance33_98]

On the other hand, making it a standard practice to extract the data would, I think, be in violation of the 4th amendment. After all, if it is your car, then it is your data and they don't have a right to copy it.

Perhaps they will settle on something like, the data is only good for 24 hours, etc. One never knows...

[oceanview]

the european car companies, notably BMW, will never go for this unless mandated. and once they are mandated, that your cue to buy the best car you can afford and keep it until you die. the trial lawyers want this kind of stuff, and they will get it for sure.

[oceanview]

so when you get into an accident, you are going to have this code reader handy, and hook it up to zero out the codes before the police seize the car? i don't think so.

[Poohbah]

Let's put it this way...zeroizing the codes will be treated as "admission of fault" by the insurance companies.

[dark_lord]

So...it is feasible. Could such a device be created with a conventional explosive - some kind of electromagnetic amp driven by a big ol charge of C4? After all, the terrorists don't care if they injure people with the pulse, that's a bonus. And the answer is...apparently, yes. (I did a little googling on this and found something called "the E-Bomb.") Here is a snippet:

The Poor Man's E-Bomb: a Flux Compression Generator is an astoundingly simple weapon. It consists of an explosives-packed tube placed inside a slightly larger copper coil, as shown below. The instant before the chemical explosive is detonated, the coil is energized by a bank of capacitors, creating a magnetic field. The explosive charge detonates from the rear forward. As the tube flares outward it touches the edge of the coil, thereby creating a moving short circuit. "The propagating short has the effect of compressing the magnetic field while reducing the inductance of the stator [coil]," says Kopp. "The result is that FCGs will produce a ramping current pulse, which breaks before the final disintegration of the device. Published results suggest ramp times of tens of hundreds of microseconds and peak currents of tens of millions of amps." The pulse that emerges makes a lightning bolt seem like a flashbulb by comparison.

And from the NewScientist.com: One unclassified approach to producing the required pulse is a device called an Explosive Pumped Flux Generator. In this a charged bank of capacitors energises a coil wrapped around a copper tube, which itself contains high explosives.
On detonation, the explosives expand the tube from the back and moves rapidly forward, forcing the tube to make progressive contact with the coil and causing a short circuit. This has the effect of crushing the magnetic field at the same time as reducing the coil's inductance.
The resultant spike lasts tens to hundreds of microseconds and can produce peak currents of tens of millions of Amps and peak energies of tens of millions of Joules. By comparison, a typical lighting strike produces around 30,000 Amps.

So the open question is -- would this crash the computers in modern cars during rush hour? I bet yes -- along with a lot of other stuff. Say goodby laptop, palm organizer, heart pacemaker, etc. What do you think? Is this for real?

[paulklenk]

Can mandatory human implants be far behind?

I would hate to have a human implanted in me, but if I had to, I guess the "behind" would be the most logical place. Most fun, too.

[Poohbah]

So...it is feasible.

Uh, no, it's not. It's expensive, it wastes a lot of energy at a point other than where you want the mayhem, and there's cheaper means of doing serious damage.

Could such a device be created with a conventional explosive - some kind of electromagnetic amp driven by a big ol charge of C4?

Nope. To do the kind of mass damage you're talking, you'd need a good-sized nuke. And then the victims would have somewhat worse problems to cope with.

After all, the terrorists don't care if they injure people with the pulse, that's a bonus.

It's extremely WASTEFUL.

It would be FAR cheaper and more destructive to detonate a tanker truck full of Astrolite G on the roadway.

[liberalnot]

i just bought a new 2003 pickup, so i imagine that i have this.

[dark_lord]

So then the "E-bomb" articles are blowing smoke? You can't do it with conventional explosives like they claim? Check out this link among others. It has different names but it looks like it can be pretty nasty and it does use conventional explosives. Here is an FAQ on the device:

(c) 2003, Carlo Kopp

1.Who invented the E-bomb?

The technology to build various types of electromagnetic bombs has been around since the 1950s. Early work on flux generator power sources which could be used in such weapons was performed by the Los Alamos National Labs in the US - a byproduct of research into high speed fusing systems for implosion based nuclear weapons. High Power Microwave (HPM) devices have been the subject of research for decades, primarily a byproduct of radar technology. There is no single `inventor' of the E-bomb - it is the result of the confluence of several technologies developed over the last five decades.

2.What is an E-bomb?

E-bomb is short for `Electromagnetic Bomb'. The definition is very broad, but essentially covers all bombs or warheads designed to damage targets with a very intense pulse of electromagnetic energy. The principal distinction is the wavelength of the energy produced by the weapon. Low frequency E-bombs approximate the effects of a close lightning strike, microwave or HPM E-bombs flood the target with a directional field of intense microwave illumination. The the latter is not unlike a microwave oven, but it is extremely short in duration and involves much higher power levels.

3.What effects are produced by an E-bomb?

An E-bomb which is well matched to it intended target set can cause electrical damage over a footprint which might be as large as hundreds of metres in diameter. Victim devices may suffer secondary damage from their power supply. Victim devices may also be `wounded' and experience failure minutes, hours, days or weeks later, from electrical overstress. If the weapon does not generate eneough power to produce permanent damage, it can cause computers to crash, hang or reboot, thus yielding a temporary disruptive effect.

4.What kind of targets are most vulnerable?

High density digital electronics using CMOS and NMOS are most vulnerable since their transistor sizes are smallest and require the least energy to destroy. However, recent radio-frequency electronics especially microwave band hardware can also be vulnerable.

5.How does an E-bomb couple energy into its target?

Low frequency or broadband E-bombs will produce `spikes' or electrical surges in electrical grid wiring and telephone or communications wiring. These propagate until they encounter an attached piece of equipment like a computer, which is exposed to an electrical overload and damaged. Microwave or HPM E-bombs produce electrical standing waves in electrical grid wiring and telephone or communications wiring - the microwave energy then couples into the target device via the cable connector and may cause internal damage. This is termed `backdoor coupling'. Another way in which microwave weapons can effect `backdoor coupling' is via cooling and ventilation grilles, which might act as a `slot antenna' permitting energy to penetrate into an otherwise shielded case. Radio frequency equipment can also be damaged via `frontdoor coupling' effects where the microwave energy penetrates through the victim equipment's antenna.

6.How large is the damage footprint of an E-bomb?

This depends on both the design of the E-bomb and the `hardness' of its target. There are no simple answers to this question, and the magnitude of the footprint against any class of equipment can only be determined by comprehensive testing of an existing weapon.

7.What collateral damage might be produced by an E-bomb?

That depends on the design of the bomb. A bomb which is powered by an explosive device, like a flux generator, might produce some blast and shrapnel/spalling effects consistent with a high velocity explosive charge of several kilograms of weight (even a `small' GBU-12 250 kg laser guided bomb for comparison carries 87 kg of explosive filler which is roughly ten or more times the explosive effect of an E-bomb of similar size). However, a well designed spall absorbing jacket placed around the flux generator in the E-bomb could inhibit much of the mechanical collateral damage produced by the E-bomb. Exposure to microwave radiation from HPM E-bombs may be hazardous at ranges of several metres, but it is unlikely to produce any tissue damage at distances of hundreds of metres or kilometres. Consumer electronics and computers, medical electronics and other non-military electronic hardware within the footprint of the weapon is likely to be electrically destroyed or damaged. The E-bomb therefore qualifies as a `non-lethal weapon' under most conventions.

8.How can E-bombs be deployed?

Guided and unguided aerial bombs, cruise missiles, glide bombs, artillery shells and guided or unguided ballistic missiles could be used to deliver an E-bomb warhead. The larger the delivery weapon, the larger the volume and power rating of the E-bomb carried.

9.Which military forces maintain inventories of E-bombs?

No government has formally disclosed the ownership of an inventory of E-bombs. Leaks to `Aviation Week & Space Technology' suggest that the US Air Force and Royal Air Force have experimented with microwave E-bombs, however neither service has made any public disclosures in briefings. In principle, any nation with a 1950s technology base capable of designing and building nuclear weapons and radars will have the capability to design and build an E-bomb.

10.What is Carlo Kopp's contribution to the E-bomb?

Dr Carlo Kopp wrote several strategy papers during the early and mid 1990s which described the strategic importance of the E-bomb, its possible military effects, applications and side effects, and outlined some of the available design strategies for these weapons. The first of these papers was published by the Royal Australian Air Force in 1993, the largest and most important paper was published by the US Air Force in 1995:

http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/kopp/apjemp.html (Oct, 1996).

Subsequent papers and articles dealt with design techniques and strategies for protecting computer equipment from E-bomb attacks:

http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~carlo/archive/MILITARY/EBOMB/harden.pdf (previously on http://www.infowar.com/CLASS_3/harden.html-ssi (March, 1997)).

Dr Carlo Kopp has not been involved in the development of any operational E-bomb designs and has not published any new work in the area since 1997.

[Poohbah]

So then the "E-bomb" articles are blowing smoke?

If the damn things were as effective as described, and as cheap and easy to build as they allegedly are, they'd be used by terrorists far more often than they actually have--which is ZERO times.

You can't do it with conventional explosives like they claim?

The electronic-lethal footprint of an E-Bomb would be saturated with everything-lethal shrapnel.

You might as well use more explosives and shrapnel instead--it's cheaper.

[Badray]

". . .LOTS of flux on target. . ."

No problem. Use the flux capacitor and accelerate to 90 mph and you can generate 88,000 gigawatts.

[Poohbah]

But only if you use plutonium as the power source.