1984 all over again, the spread of the automotive black box

In recent times, automotive companies have been incorporating a device that has been tracking your driving; this device can be used against you if you are in an accident. The device I mention of is an Event Data Recorder or an E.D.R. The E.D.R. is called the automotive black box because it monitors certain aspects of driving and can record information up to five seconds before an accident, or event.

Nearly every car produced since the late 1980ís has some form of an E.D.R. The purpose for modern E.D.R.s is for there to be a means to control the features of newer cars, such as Anti-Lock Braking Systems, Traction Control and Air Bags. The more advanced our cars become, the more advanced E.D.R.s become. Some features in current cars are Electronic Brake Force Distribution, which distributes braking forces to different wheels to help improve braking performance. Active Body Control, which helps reduce body roll by actuating pneumatic devices to keep the body of the car as stable as possible when cornering or going over bumps. All of these devices are being controlled by the E.D.R which monitors yaw, pitch, acceleration, braking, wheel spin, wheel speed, and even seat belt usage.

It is estimated that there are at least thirty million cars on the road with some form of an E.D.R. and nearly sixty-five to ninety percent of all new cars made today will have an E.D.R of some sort installed.

The history of the E.D.R starts in the 1970ís with General Motors being the first to incorporate the E.D.R in their cars to defend them selves from lawsuits about possible defects with the automobiles. The first documented court case in which an E.D.R. is used as evidence was in 1992 when the family of the late N.F.L. player Jerome Brown sued General Motors for thirty million dollars claiming that the wreck that killed Mr. Brown was caused by the airbag in his Corvette sports cars going off after hitting a pothole, causing him to hit a tree. The E.D.R pulled from Mr. Browns car showed that the airbag had deployed when it should have, after hitting the tree. This court case started the growing trend of putting the car on the witness stand.

Other notable cases include State of Florida versus Edwin Matos. This case made mainstream media pay attention when the E.D.R. from his 2002 Pontiac showed that he had been going one hundred and fourteen miles per hour in a thirty-five miles per hour zone seconds before striking a car occupied by two teenage girls and killing them. One other case that was main stream news fodder was the case against Congressional Representative William Janklow. In this case, Rep. Janklow struck a motorcyclist and killed him while driving drunk. The E.D.R from his car showed that he had not attempted to slow down five seconds before the wreck, which was contrary to what he had been saying.

Now, you might be wondering why I am angry about these devices, which I am not, I am against the laws pertaining to the ownership of these devices. There are not any federal laws pertaining to them. There is no law saying who owns them, so the question that is arising is, is a warrant needed to obtain the information in the E.D.R? In a case against a person who hit a truck driven by a Kentucky Game and Wildlife officer and killed him, the court subpoenaed Ford Motor Company for the information from the E.D.R. from the truck of the person who hit the officer.

The only law concerning the ownership of E.D.R.s is in California, where the law is that, information can only be downloaded from the chip with owners consent or a warrant. The other part of the law states that E.D.R.s should be mentioned in ownerís manuals, to alert the owner to their presence. What I find the scariest about E.D.R.s is how the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is considering making them mandatory in cars, just like airbags. This, I feel, is a very major step in the wrong direction. What they essentially want to do is mandate an information recording device in every car, when the device requires no warrants, in 49 of the 50, states to access the information.

This I feel is a major infringement on my rights. The mandating of these devices without any protection for the masses lets big brother check up on you when he suspects you might have done something wrong in an accident. In todayís society where everything is now being monitored, the last thing we need is the government using our cars against us. But on the other side of the coin, E.D.R.s can be used to our aide. When trying to prove a case in which you know that you were not at fault, you can now have your case prove your point. One thing I wish to make known is that I do not object to the E.D.R., I object to the government wanting to mandate something that it does not need a warrant to access. I feel that this is an issue of great importance, and should be brought to the attention of everyone. The only way to fix this issue is for the government to stand up, to protect us, and create a law requiring either a warrant or permission from the owner to download information from the chip.