Would you pay an extra $1,500 for a new motorcycle, in addition to sales taxes, so your bankrupt insurance company can avoid claims, and police can arrest you, and Big Brother can tax you by the mile? Or will you just keep the bike you have, forever? Big Brother has already cut motorcycle sales by 85% in 2012, time to kill that final 15% and give Harley another billion to export factories to Commie China with Govt Motors and Cadillac...
View Poll Results: Black Boxes for Cars and Motorcycles
Yes..Will help determine cause of accident -- 20.83%
No..Just another way for Big Brother to watch us -- 79.17%
Your Motor Vehicle Set To Become Part of ‘The Internet of Things'
A bill already passed by the Senate and set to be ratified by the House not only mandates black box tracking devices in all new cars, it also orders the deployment of ‘vehicle to infrastructure’ communication systems, in other words your vehicle will become part of ‘the Internet of things’ and will be open to constant real-time tracking, eavesdropping and surveillance.
Although introduced and promoted by Democrats Harry Reid and Barbara Boxer, Senate BIll 1813, entitled ‘Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act’ (MAP-21), is expected to be passed by the Republican-controlled House because of its numerous revenue generating provisions.
However, the bill is stuffed full of nightmare big government regulations, including empowering the IRS to revoke passports of accused tax delinquents(without trial nor conviction) as well as mandating the installation of black box tracking devices, eventually designed to be used in a tax-by-the-mile system, in all new vehicles from 2015.
Yet another Big Brother measure that is contained deep within the bill appears in Section 53006 – the “Vehicle-to-vehicle and vehicle-to-infrastructure communications systems deployment.”
‘(a) In General- Not later than 3 years after the date of enactment of this section, the Secretary shall submit a report to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate, the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives, and the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives that–In simpler terms, this lays the framework for vehicles to be installed with communications systems that constantly beam information about location and other diagnostics both to other vehicles, potentially police cars, as well as infrastructure. Given the fact that light poles are now being fitted with computers that both receive and broadcast wireless Internet signals, this would be the easiest method of connecting all vehicles to the ‘Internet of things’ in the future. Alternatively, 3G or 4G signals would also do the same job.
‘(1) defines a recommended implementation path for dedicated short-range communications technology and applications;
‘(2) includes guidance on the relationship of the proposed deployment of dedicated short-range communications to the National ITS Architecture and ITS Standards; and
‘(3) ensures competition by not preferencing the use of any particular frequency for vehicle to infrastructure operations.
Not only would this open the door to total surveillance of Americans’ traveling habits as well as constant real time eavesdropping of what is happening inside their vehicle, including audio sensors to record conversations (which are already embedded in the new ‘Intellistreets’ light poles), it would also grease the skids for a carbon tax system whereby drivers are charged by the mile.
As we reported last month, the Internet of things is the process of manufacturing every new product with a system that broadcasts wirelessly via the world wide web, allowing industry and the government to spy ubiquitously on every aspect of your existence.
CIA chief General David "BetrayUS" Petraeus has hailed the “Internet of things” as a transformational boon for “clandestine tradecraft”. In other words, it will soon be easier than ever before to keep tabs on the population since everything they use will be connected to the web, with total disregard for privacy considerations. The spooks won’t have to plant a bug in your home or your vehicle, you will be doing it for them.
The ‘Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act’ represents nothing less than a full frontal assault on the mobility rights of Americans, as well as codifying into law mandatory surveillance technology that will allow the government to both spy on drivers as well as taxing them directly under any future CO2 emissions tax system.
Forbes Writer Scoffs at Infowars “Freak Out” On Mandatory Black Boxes
Forbes writer Kashmir Hill responds to our report about black box data recorders becoming mandatory in all new cars under a bill set to be passed by the House by accusing Infowars of engaging in a “freak out” and claiming the legislation is “good for privacy” when in reality it destroys privacy.
“The big news in automotive privacy this week is that Congress is on the verge of passing a transportation bill that will make “big brother” black boxes mandatory in all new cars. InfoWars is encouraging drivers to freak out about the horrific invasion of privacy represented by the government’s insisting that all Americans have event data recorders that reveal exactly what happened before and after a crash. But the truth of the matter is that most Americans already have black boxes in their cars. They’ve been around since 1996, are found in at least 60 million vehicles, and are a feature in 85% of new cars every year,” writes Hill in a piece entitled Hate To Break It To You, But Your Car Likely Has A Black Box ‘Spying’ On You Already.
Hill’s attitude seems to stem from the mind set that the state has already eviscerated our privacy, so why should we bother fighting back to salvage what’s left of it? She brazenly dismisses fourth amendment rights as “roadkill” simply because having a black box in your vehicle might help the authorities work out who was responsible for an accident.
The most chilling aspect of this approach is that Hill bills herself as a privacy expert yet she has no idea about the ‘slippery slope’ principle and has seemingly failed to read the ‘Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act’ (MAP-21), on which her article is based.
The point of our original story was not that the black boxes will merely be in all new cars from 2015 onwards if this bill passes, it’s that it will be mandatory to activate them and anyone who attempts to deactivate them will be hit with civil penalties under section 31406 of the bill. This is about creating the groundwork for a future tax by the mile system which has been aggressively promoted by the Obama administration.
Sinking further into the depths of idiocy, Hill claims that both the mandatory black boxes and the entire bill itself are “actually good for privacy in a few ways,” because the legislation establishes “that the data in the recorder belongs to the owner (or lessee) of a vehicle.”
Just like every other piece of data was originally owned by us – web history, phone calls, library records, until the government demanded ISPs, cell phone companies and libraries turn them over in the name of security.
In addition, the empty-headed notion that the bill is “good for privacy” completely ignores the other sections of it which Hill has obviously failed to read.
Section 53006 of the bill – the “Vehicle-to-vehicle and vehicle-to-infrastructure communications systems deployment,” creates the framework for all vehicles to be connected wirelessly to other vehicles and infrastructure (such as the new street lights which are being installed with “Homeland Security applications” and can listen in on conversations), greasing the skids for constant real-time tracking, eavesdropping and surveillance.
Presumably, Hill thinks that all vehicles being connected to the ‘Internet of things’ – a transformation which CIA chief David Petraeus recently hailed as making it much easier for the government to spy on you – is also “good for privacy”?
The legislation also includes a provision that allows the federal government to revoke passports of Americans accused of owing back taxes, a measure slammed by legal experts as anathema to the constitution.
Presumably Hill thinks the IRS sharing information about your financial situation with the TSA and US Immigration authorities is also “good for privacy” too?
Is it any wonder that people are turing away from the mainstream media in droves when columnists like Hill, who grandstand as privacy experts, praise legislation like MAP-21, a bill that is brimming with horrendous measures that will destroy privacy, as being “good for privacy”?
Big Brother & Your Bike
Motorcycle.com
Not too long ago, a panel of transportation experts convened in Michigan to discuss the emerging controversy involving vehicle data recorders (VDRs). The panel's focus was on yet another "little black box" being installed on most new vehicles made by Ford and General Motors. It's a fairly innocuous thing, about the size of a cigarette pack, that digitally records about five seconds of data when the vehicle's airbag is activated. Information recorded involves recent speed changes, throttle position, braking application and seat belt use.
Sounds fairly sensible, and quite probably it's even a very useful device for determining the cause of an accident. But stop and think for a moment.
Who owns that information? And what about our constitutional protection against self-incrimination? Does the state, or perhaps your insurance company, have the right to use that information against you to raise your insurance rates, or to prosecute you and perhaps even send you to jail? The consensus among the panel was that, legally, the information belongs to the owner of the vehicle and can't be used without his permission, but... read on.
So, what about your right to privacy or freedom from self-incrimination?
First of all, if you're wondering what this has to do with motorcycling, I couldn't find a single expert in the industry who doesn't believe that VDRs will soon be mandatory on every motor vehicle sold in the US, which, of course, will include our motorcycles. Secondly, it is also worth noting that these devices are capable of recording tons more information than what they currently capture. And, I am told that it would be a simple matter for the NHTSA to require the collection of any data from these devices that they might deem useful to them.
The Michigan panel also noted that under some new laws passed recently, the Department of Homeland Security and the Attorney General's office can also access that data. So, what about your right to privacy or freedom from self-incrimination?
According to the National Motorists Association (NMA), even if Homeland Security or the AG isn't interested in your "private" information, you have probably already waived your right to privacy by way of a clause in your insurance policy, promising that you will "cooperate" with your insurance company by granting access to any information that could conceivably help settle a claim....you have probably already waived your right to privacy by way of a clause in your insurance policy, promising that you will "cooperate" with your insurance company by granting access to any information that could conceivably help settle a claim.
You might be able to secure a court order to stop them, but don't bother, because I'm also told that virtually any state agency could still access your data, under the "implied consent" clause that is standard in most states as part of your being issued a driver's license.
You might be thinking at this point that at least you're safe from this invasion unless and until you break the law, or get involved in an accident. Wrong again. Already, certain models of cars with on-board GPS systems can transmit your data to anyone with a receiver and an access code -- hopefully, that would be a legally-recognized law enforcement agency.
But who knows? You won't even know when it's being done. And even if your vehicle isn't equipped with GPS, don't worry, they've got that covered, too. Soon, all the VDRs will be equipped with wireless Internet capability, so that State Trooper following you can simply tap your license plate number into his keyboard, and download your every move for the past several weeks. Not to mention he won't need radar anymore to clock your speed -- your car or bike will do it for him, and even tell him if you were speeding last Tuesday.
If all this sounds futuristic to you -- hang onto your helmets. In Europe, they're working on a similar system, with GPS, to be used for charging road tolls. The tolls vary by the road used and the time of day, and are calculated by a computer that attaches a per-mile fee. Toll meters at gas stops then automatically charge your credit card or bank account for your road-use tolls when you stop for gas.
The computer also knows the speed limit on each road you took, and whether or not you exceeded it, and will automatically add your speeding fines onto your tolls. Isn't technology wonderful?
"It'll never happen!" you say? Surprise! The toll-meter boxes are already a reality in Swiss and German commercial trucks, and Deutsche-Telekom, together with Daimler-Chrysler, have a government contract in hand to install them in all trucks in Germany very soon.
The toll-meter boxes are already a reality in Swiss and German commercial trucks... How much longer before they make their way into private vehicles?How much longer before they make their way into private vehicles? In answer to my own question, Australia seems to think it can't come soon enough. In New South Wales, the Road and Traffic Authority has looked at our VDRs, and Germany's GPS-enabled toll meters, and decided that not only are they a good idea, but they should be taken one step further. The plan being considered there would include another wrinkle -- mandatory engine governors that would make sure that your vehicle could never exceed the posted speed limit of wherever you're driving at the time. The RTA General Manager is promoting this plan, and has the backing of a powerful organization called "Staysafe," which claims the system could reduce traffic accidents by as much as 50%.
Now, I don't believe that Americans will ever stand still for the speed governors, but then again, I don't believe anyone in the US is even considering that option. What they're pushing for here, instead, is the automated fine system, so you can basically speed all you want, so long as you're prepared to pay for it. After all, that is the American Way, isn't it? But don't think you might get away without paying, because our government, though not interested in making the system capable of physically slowing us down, is in favor of adding a "start inhibitor," that would simply immobilize your vehicle if you have unpaid traffic fines.
A neat solution, and one that clearly points out that though the proponents of these systems will beat their collective breasts and cry "safety" when extolling the plan, they are not quite so interested in public safety as they are in "revenue generation." The Federal, State and local governments, and especially the insurance companies, will win big. And we, the motoring public, will lose. They will console us with their mantra that it makes the world a safer place.
Maybe I sound like a wild-eyed conspiracy theorist, but when in our history has our government ever opted for less regulation on our motoring? And the systems I describe here aren't science-fiction, they're already here, and in use in several places. And quite frankly, I doubt that there is a damn thing we can do about it.
Would you let your ins. co. monitor you?
Progressive, one of the nation's largest auto insurers, today launches a nationwide ad campaign for its "Snapshot" program, in which drivers can elect to install a small data recorder in their cars that tracks how hard they brake, how far they drive and whether it's day or night driving. Based on the results, drivers can save up to 30% on their insurance. Average savings: $150 a year.
Progressive is one of a growing list of insurers with discounts for monitoring:
Although the programs are voluntary, they've raised the eyebrows of privacy advocates. One worry is that the insurers eventually will make the monitoring mandatory.
And while insurers say they information will only be used for discounts — not punitively — there is little to prevent them from "changing the rules down the line" says Robert Ellis Smith, publisher of Privacy Journal. And, he notes, some states have privacy laws that might ban such programs even if drivers are willing to opt in.
Progressive says it is trying to protect privacy while delivering discounts. It notes that its device, for instance, doesn't have GPS tracking, so it doesn't know where a participant is driving. It also doesn't monitor speed. "We know that privacy is a big issue for consumers," says CEO Glenn Renwick.
He predicts the program, now available in 32 states, will appeal to drivers who feel they aren't getting the discounts that their safe driving habits deserve. Insurance companies typically set rates based on accidents or tickets, but also on such factors as age, gender and ZIP code.
Insurers see the programs as a better way to identify the safest drivers who should get the biggest discounts. "Snapshot provides the first tangible way for you to tell the insurance company 'This is who I am' as a driver," says Renwick. "Now, we have an opportunity to have data we never had before."
No comments:
Post a Comment