Cars' `Black Boxes' Hold Crash Data, New Privacy Issues [manslaughter conviction on black box data]

When Edwin Matos killed the girls, he didn't know his car would become a witness for the prosecution.

Like millions of Americans, Matos had no idea his car contained an electronic device recording what he did just before the crash, but it was information that would help send him to prison.

Matos was driving the 2002 Pontiac Trans Am in a 30 mph zone of a suburb near Fort Lauderdale, Fla., when the car driven by a teenage girl pulled out of a driveway into his path.

Defense lawyer Robert Stanziale said Matos was going about 60 mph. Assistant State Prosecutor Michael Horowitz said that his accident investigator calculated Matos was traveling about 98 mph. The electronic data recorder in Matos' car showed his peak speed was 114 mph in the seconds before the crash.

Last month, the information from the EDR helped convict Matos of two counts of manslaughter and two counts of vehicular homicide.

Matos, 47, is scheduled to be sentenced this Friday. He faces a minimum of 22 years and a maximum of 30 years in prison.

While most people are familiar with the black boxes in aircraft, which also serve as event data recorders, few motorists know there are similar devices in their vehicles as part of the system that controls air bags. Only 36 percent of the 38,000 people surveyed by the Insurance Research Council were aware of EDRs.

But at least 10 million vehicles have them, estimated Philip W. Haseltine, president of the Automotive Coalition for Traffic Safety, a lobbying group in Arlington, Va.

The most sophisticated EDRs collect pre-crash information including the speed of the vehicle, whether the driver was accelerating or braking and whether the seat belts were buckled.

The collection of such information has excited a wide range of groups for different reasons, and EDRs have the potential to become one of the more controversial issues in the auto industry.

Safety researchers see EDRs as an excellent way to get more detailed information about real-world crashes so they can see how to improve safety.

Insurance companies see EDRs as a way to determine who is at fault in an accident and whether seat belts were used. One day they could also allow an insurance company to know who is naughty and nice in everyday driving.

The courts see EDRs as an new tool to determine the guilt or innocence of people involved in serious, criminal accidents.

Privacy groups see EDRs as electronic snoops and a threat to privacy. Consumers Union, the nonprofit group that publishes Consumer Reports, says "there are significant potential dangers" to motorists' privacy.

The prime role of EDRs has been to control air bags and to record information about how well they worked during a crash. General Motors Corp. took the lead in collecting more information.

Starting with the 1999 model year, all GM vehicles had EDRs programmed to record about five seconds of pre-crash information. That included whether the driver was accelerating or braking and the speed of the vehicle, according to a study by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

The idea was to learn more about how to improve crash performance. After selected, serious crashes, GM would collect the information with the permission of the owner of the vehicle, said Jim Schell, a GM spokesman.

GM routinely shared that information with the highway traffic safety administration.

While all vehicles with air bags use EDRs, other automakers have not been as quick to increase the amount of information recorded. Some are worried that consumers may resent having such personal information collected and they're waiting to see what happens to GM, Haseltine said.

Those include Ford Motor Co. and Chrysler Corp., where company officials say they generally have limited capability on their EDR systems.

"We don't want our vehicle owners thinking that their manufacturer is conspiring against them," said Rick Ruth, Ford's manager of design analysis.

So far, GM doesn't appear to have suffered any public backlash, said Haseltine, whose group is funded by major automakers. But he acknowledges that could be because relatively few people know about the devices and how they could be used.

During the Florida case, the accuracy of the EDR was challenged by Matos' lawyer, Stanziale, in several areas.

He argued that it was new technology and that it had not been accepted or proven. The judge dismissed that argument in the face of various studies by groups including NHTSA.

Stanziale also argued that Matos had modified his Trans Am, changing the size of the tires and even the engine's software to make it faster. That, he said, would have caused the EDR to make wrong calculations.

Horowitz contends the EDR played an important role in convincing the jury because it was part of the car's safety equipment and was simply recording the information. "It is not for the prosecution or defense," he said.

The devices can provide important information ranging from the force of the impact to how the air bag deployed. That all helps investigators to understand "the nuances of a crash," said Sean Kane, a partner in Strategic Safety, a safety research firm based in Alexandria, Va.

But for the complete crash picture, EDR information must be considered along with other crash investigation techniques, Kane said.

Generally, EDRs have been found to be accurate, but not perfect, according to studies by groups like NHTSA and its Canadian counterpart, Transport Canada.

There is a need to use caution, warned one Transport Canada study. "It is evident that, in certain situations, the stored data may not correspond to the actual situation in the vehicle."

Automakers say the information collected by EDRs belongs to the owner or the person who leased the vehicle and they will not download it without permission. But that doesn't mean others can't get it.

In the Matos case, a judge issued a search warrant allowing the prosecution to harvest the information.

Criminal court cases involving EDRs have been rare, but industry observers expect them more often as the number of vehicles with EDRs increases.

That may make many people unhappy. Fewer than half of the 38,000 surveyed by the Insurance Research Council favored the use of EDRs to investigate accidents and determine fault.

But the insurance industry maintains EDRs are a good idea because the information can help determine what really happened, said Sean McManamy, a spokesman for the American Insurance Association, a lobbying group.

Consumers Union has warned the NHTSA that without regulations to limit the disclosure of such information, there is the potential for abuse, such as insurance companies requiring consumers to have EDRs and make the information available as a condition for providing insurance.

Such electronic devices also raise the possibility of routine monitoring of how customers drive.

Perhaps Ford only does this on Police Cars, but I would doubt it.

It's possible - the police have other recording devices in their cars such as video cameras. I can give Ford the benefit of the doubt. But I tend to agree with you.

Thank you for filling in the details. Again, a case of where the box was helpful in figuring out the cause of a crash, not used to "spy" on us. Good grief.

I wonder how many of these alarmists use credit cards. There's a ton of information being given out about you when you make a charge purchase. Or how about when you visit a website and records are kept as to where you go and what transactions you make. No one seems to care too much about *that* infringement of privacy. But a 5-second recording device? The sky is falling!

These black boxes can also trace your vehicle, and stop it dead in its tracks. With the easy credit recently, our friends from the south have been running up charges, buying trucks, and so forth and going home with the bounty.

Hence they can locate these $50,000 trucks and cars and escort them back to the good ol' USA...

"If you change the tire diameter, how does the EDR know? There's no possible way."

The EDR has an accelerometer in it—that's how it knows when to deploy the airbag. If that accelerometer (which in this application is accurate to within 4.5 MPH) shows you slowing down by 100 MPH in the collision, then that's how fast you must have been going. In fact, if the accelerometer were hooked into your dashboard computer, you wouldn't need the traditional speedometer at all. They keep them separate for testing and reliability reasons, since the EDR and accelerometer are safety devices.

If I do not break the law and I stay within the limits of safety then I have no reason to be against this data that is being taken..

The problem I see is this: inevitably, the "limits of safety" will be cranked down until everyone's a violator. Red light cameras started as a great idea; now they are turning into devices to eliminate the yellow cycle. There is now a movement toward a new DUI standard of .05

"We still have the 4th Amendment which requires "probable cause" for a search warrant. "

No, I'm afraid that's gone out the window with the advent of the Patriot Act.

And the mere act of being in a traffic accident is not "probable cause" to believe a crime has been committed.

Besides that's not the issue; the issue is, I don't want to be filmed, recorded, and spied upon. Even if I'm not doing anything wrong, I consider it an invasion of my right to peacefully conduct my business and my life without surveillance.

I won't buy a car with a 'black box.'

"Although he had several accidents against him, no insurance, and a suspended license, the judge ruled that none of that could be brought up in court."

As frustrating as that seems, that was the correct legal ruling. Prior bad acts are not admissible in a civil case to show that the defendant acted in the same manner in an earlier instance.

Yes, you are right about those kill boxes, but the other exists. My files were dumped, so I cannot produce the articles on what all they actually do.

There are also reports that any product bought can be tracked from above, such as a TV or jeans or something placed on a charge-card. Not real sure I buy that yet, for that might been along the lines that sat. dishes and cable lines can watch you as well...

From what I read about the Ford Crown Vic police car case I have posted about here, the "black box" records something like 20 to 30 different items (for the last 5 seconds) -- not just speed or whether or not the air bag has deployed. With them all, being cross referenced, you can calculate a lot of different stuff (or at least those who do this kind of thing can).

I understand that, but don't like it. Basically, it was his word against mine. I would have liked having a black box that would have said what was truly going on. It would not have said who had the green light, but there were BIG differences in the story he told (speed, braking, etc) and what really happened. The "black box" would have shown him doing 60mph or so in a 35mph zone with no braking.

"There's a ton of information being given out about you when you make a charge purchase. Or how about when you visit a website and records are kept as to where you go and what transactions you make. No one seems to care too much about *that* infringement of privacy. "

I think the issue for me and other privacy-sensitive people (and I will generously ignore your derisive comment) is that we want to KNOW when we are being monitored, and for what reason.

There are some purchases for which I do not use credit cards. If I don't want my internet activity tracked, I use Anonymizer software. But I can't change my behavior if I don't know I'm being monitored, and I think people have the right to know this information.

Say, for example, the system keeps a data point for the highest speed ever logged, and the date and time. If there was no cop to catch me and give me a ticket, that would certainly be evidence for one to be issued.

Nonsense. Ever hear of private property? Or Montana?

While I certainly wouldn't like that, is there a right for me to get away with something merely because I didn't get caught?

The reason we have public safety laws (supposedly) is to deter behavior that creates a risk to public safety. If you drove fast (perhaps even in violation of one of those venerable signs) and hurt no one, then public safety does not require your being punished. German autobahns are as safe per vehicle mile as our Interstate highway system, tied for the two safest road systems on the planet.

Don't believe all the nanny-state claptrap you hear about speed limits.

German autobahns are as safe per vehicle mile as our Interstate highway system, tied for the two safest road systems on the planet. Don't believe all the nanny-state claptrap you hear about speed limits.

The Germans are some of the most courteous drivers on the planet, with excellent lane discipline (i.e. no cruising in the left lane) and an abhorrence to tailgating. Their freeways are also much better built that ours, using thicker, higher quality concrete, wider lanes, and more conservative grade and curve limits. Finally, the German's make it difficult and expensive to get licensed, and then impose steep fines and jailtimes on those who get stupid behind the wheel (a friend was pulled over doing about 95MPH through a construction zone outside of Stuttgart (he should have only been doing about 30MPH), and ended up with the equivalent of a $1,000 fine and a license suspension. Here, that would net you a $200 fine and a stern lecture.

The Autobahn system would never work here without spending billions to upgrade our roads, nationalising our licensing system, and dramatically reducing our tolerance of "violators". It'll never happen.

And the mere act of being in a traffic accident is not "probable cause" to believe a crime has been committed.

When 2 otherwise healthy people die, a criminal act has been committed. That is sufficient probable cause.

Besides that's not the issue; the issue is, I don't want to be filmed, recorded, and spied upon.

I agree. But, that means that you can't come to any major city in the US. The cameras are on 24/7. I don't like it - I plan on leaving metro Atlanta as soon as I am able, but I live with it because for now I am stuck here *and* I have nothing to hide.

I won't buy a car with a 'black box.'

Fine. From what I'm reading here, then, you might as well join an Amish community. It appears to me on the face of things that any car with airbags will have such a device if they don't already have it. That is, those that truthfully admit up front that the car has such a device.

We still have the 4th Amendment which requires "probable cause" for a search warrant. "

No, I'm afraid that's gone out the window with the advent of the Patriot Act.

Prove it. Unless you are an illegal alien of terrorist origins your right to protection under the 4th Amendment is still very much intact. Just ask Scott Peterson. His 4th Amendment right to protection might just get him an acquittal.

I think the issue for me and other privacy-sensitive people (and I will generously ignore your derisive comment) is that we want to KNOW when we are being monitored, and for what reason. .

My comments are derisive? You are the one flinging about the notion that the 4th Amendment is dead and the police can come into my home any time they damn well please. When you come up with the facts to back up such a charge, let me know. I know of no Supreme Court decision that has nullified the 4th Amendment.

And forget about bandying about the Patriot Act. That was designed to protect us from terrorist crimes, not hassle the average joe blow citizen.

I'm so sick and tired of all of the "sky is falling" banter carelessly thrown about.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.