Mandatory black boxes in all your cars by next month.....
- Thread starter Pokageek
- Start date
-
Sponsors (?)
mixednuts
New Member
I'm not pleased. Tracking me would surely be a violation of my rights as a citizen of this country. I hope. 
BlackVert
15 Year Member
big brother strikes again!
i can only imagine how hard and expensive it would be to retrofit a device like that into a car that was not originally designed for it.
i can only imagine how hard and expensive it would be to retrofit a device like that into a car that was not originally designed for it.
95riosnake
Member
Pretty ridiculous but not surprised. If you allow "Location" on your iPhone you can be tracked wherever you are by friends through Apps (Twitter, Facebook, etc.). I don't allow this on my phone but have friends that do. I don't care that your using the toilet at Panara Bread.
The vehicles of my children will contain a black box with tracking so long as they drive cars that I own. My vehicles however, even if originally equipped, may contain boxes but they will be disabled with extreme prejudice.
LOL. Yes, big brother strikes again. I've only heard of one case where Black Box data was downloaded from a car for use in prosecution. I'm not sure how this will pan out in America where most places aren't even aloud to have speed cameras. Airplanes do have two boxes for recording data. One is called the FDR, or Flight Data Recorder, and one is called the CVR, or Cockpit Voice Recorder. It is illegal to use any data from these devices for punitive action. However, it can be used for civil action after a crash. I hope I never crash an airplane, because then someone else will be listening to the CVR. Some of those conversations could be potentially embarrasing. I was flying with this chick captain not long ago who sells sex toys for a side business. we had a detailed discussion about how one of her dildo's worked.
Kurt
You just received my very first "like" on that one. Keep up the good work, I like your focus while on the job.
djdizzydave
Active Member
You just received my very first "like" on that one. Keep up the good work, I like your focus while on the job.
Don't tell me you don't converse with others while you work?
Kurt
ok say that they could even retrofit a black box into our cars what makes then think we will just come like sheep to a place to have them installed? And what if you refuse, what do they think they could do, arrest you? lol for what, for not allowing the government to install something into your own personal property. Good luck with that and screw them
It's not going to be for cars already on the road, just for new cars being made. You can just forget about them retrofitting black boxes into existing cars. It's just not going to happen. You're talking about redesigning every computer system for every car ever made. Impossible on a carbuerated car. So you would have to bring your car in, and have a new computer installed. Don't even worry about it. The cost would make this impossible.
Kurt
Kurt
Zero Signal
Active Member
Well, I totally support having black boxes for everyone but me 
. This is for new cars only. I'm not too worried since I guarantee there will be one or more websites out there to act as a guide on how to remove your surveillance box. It would have to be a non .com since of course the fed will hijack the .com url by quoting COICA.
Oh and don't thank Toyota, thank whoever you voted into office for not standing up against it. It's partially our fault.
. This is for new cars only. I'm not too worried since I guarantee there will be one or more websites out there to act as a guide on how to remove your surveillance box. It would have to be a non .com since of course the fed will hijack the .com url by quoting COICA.Oh and don't thank Toyota, thank whoever you voted into office for not standing up against it. It's partially our fault.
Well they could just say that they won't let you register your car if you don't have proof of the installation, similar to emissions tests in some states. That way you can still own your personal property, you just aren't allowed to drive it on public roads.
I am in no way supporting this idea, but some of you guys who are talking about your "rights" need to remember that driving is a priviledge not a right. Therefore the state can legally decide that in order to have the priviledge of driving your car on their public roads, you have to comply with their requirements by installing a black box.
I don't see it panning out this way anyways. Likely it will be a requirement for new cars only, think seat belts, airbags, etc... the government didn't mandate existing cars to suddenly be retrofitted with seatbelts and/or airbags.
There actually is some legal discourse on whether or not driving is a right or a privelage as well. I don't see this black box thing working out.
Kurt
^ I'm aware of the legal discouse, but the states still have the authority to decide whether or not an individual and/or their vehicle has a legal right to be on the road.
In other words, driving can be considered a right IF you comply with the law, meaning you must pass a drivers exam, keep your license renewed, have insurance on your car (not sure if all states require this), keep license tabs renewed (which means complying with anything the state mandates, including emissions testing, possibly a black box, etc...), and don't modify the catalytic converters.
In other words, driving can be considered a right IF you comply with the law, meaning you must pass a drivers exam, keep your license renewed, have insurance on your car (not sure if all states require this), keep license tabs renewed (which means complying with anything the state mandates, including emissions testing, possibly a black box, etc...), and don't modify the catalytic converters.
I'm not well versed on the details, but it has nothing to do with that. States currently consider driving a privelage. It does not become a right by maintaining any number of standards. They just can't discriminate against anyone for having a privelage. The discourse exists over the right to "travel," not "drive," and that the government has no constitutional authority to infringe on the rights of its citizens to travel. The argument is that the term "driving" is for commercial purposes.
Kurt
