Incentivized Vehicle Surveillance Implementation

[simonsez]

I was thinking to myself about all the technology currently present in many newer automobiles, such as the rearview camera and side cameras to help with merging.  Also, this link about a boat wipe-out made me think about it to the goings on inside the vehicle:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0MJVG_7-_k

Not many like privacy to be invaded but what if it meant free auto/boat insurance or some four figure tax credit?  For example, what if a car had unobtrusive rearview, frontview, sideview, and internal (maybe the internal is too much?) cameras linked up with the engine diagnostics protected in a sort of black box.  Cause of accident would be easier, those with the onboard system might tend to drive less recklessly.  I think there are many positive externalities associated with this. 

Maybe only the already-safe drivers would sign up for this, causing the insurance industry to lose its safest bets thus causing premiums to go up?

[Another Reader]

I'm a very safe driver and the level of surveillance you suggest is appalling.  It's straight out of a 1960's novel about the future.  Government would not be able to keep their hands out of the cookie jar and the nanny state would use this to full advantage.

[odput]

I'm a very safe driver and the level of surveillance you suggest is appalling.  It's straight out of a 1960's novel about the future.  Government would not be able to keep their hands out of the cookie jar and the nanny state would use this to full advantage.

Agree...my first reaction to this was that you would basically be selling your privacy for $X (whatever the incentive is)

No thank you

[rocksinmyhead]

I don't really like the camera idea--ESPECIALLY not an internal camera. I do, however, use one of those things that plug into your OBD-II port and track your driving so you can get a discount on your insurance... I know those creep some people out, but I don't really care.

[simonsez]

Haha, I guess the idea isn't as nearly as even as I thought.

For possible context, I should say I am a federal employee who deals with confidential data on a daily basis.  Disclosing data or misuse of any kind constitutes SERIOUS repercussions but also the data is inadmissible in court if it pertained to something.  For example, if I was working on a survey that polled respondents about their income and I see John Doe wrote $2,000,000, I can't get his IRS records to compare and if there is a discrepancy, use that information in any way to bring suit (or for others to do so).  That being said, I really just had in mind a system that could only be used in a court of law when dealing with accidents or in some situation where proof was needed.  I didn't intend for the government to note how often you pick your nose or even how often you text.  Maybe the internal camera is over the top but I didn't expect to have all the kinks worked out with a simple thought on a Tuesday morning at work.

Many buses and metro systems already have much of this in use.  In fact, my wife received a ticket in the mail due to a rooftop camera from a bus.  Also, this video became all the rage this past college football season (within the FSU football community) when the starting tight end for the Florida State Seminoles was injured on his motorcycle as caught on camera by this bus.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4TRoGPobMk

[dragoncar]

Not an inside camera, but I've been considering getting a dashcam anyways -- the amount of stupid shit people do in front of me makes me think it might help to have evidence in a crash.  If it gets me a discount, all the better!

[Midwest]

Haha, I guess the idea isn't as nearly as even as I thought.

For possible context, I should say I am a federal employee who deals with confidential data on a daily basis.  Disclosing data or misuse of any kind constitutes SERIOUS repercussions but also the data is inadmissible in court if it pertained to something.  For example, if I was working on a survey that polled respondents about their income and I see John Doe wrote $2,000,000, I can't get his IRS records to compare and if there is a discrepancy, use that information in any way to bring suit (or for others to do so).  That being said, I really just had in mind a system that could only be used in a court of law when dealing with accidents or in some situation where proof was needed.  I didn't intend for the government to note how often you pick your nose or even how often you text.  Maybe the internal camera is over the top but I didn't expect to have all the kinks worked out with a simple thought on a Tuesday morning at work.

Many buses and metro systems already have much of this in use.  In fact, my wife received a ticket in the mail due to a rooftop camera from a bus.  Also, this video became all the rage this past college football season (within the FSU football community) when the starting tight end for the Florida State Seminoles was injured on his motorcycle as caught on camera by this bus.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4TRoGPobMk

I vote no way.  The govt is already misusing the information.  See attached.  Not from a conspiracy website.  It's Forbes explaining how the dea uses info from the NSA .

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jennifergranick/2013/08/14/nsa-dea-irs-lie-about-fact-that-americans-are-routinely-spied-on-by-our-government-time-for-a-special-prosecutor-2/

[Shor]

Voted Yes.
It's not that I don't enjoy my right to pick my nose while driving, or to shout along with my screamo music... but the government Really Really does not care about these things. Like at all. How about if you add on that any activity caught on the camera can't be used to incriminate the owner of the car, and what is the downside?
There are a lot of good things that could come out of such a policy.

We could sit around all day (okay, I'm sitting at least..) and draw up conjecture on what the government could abuse vehicle surveillance. Is that the only argument against?

[Dulcimina]

Not an inside camera, but I've been considering getting a dashcam anyways -- the amount of stupid shit people do in front of me makes me think it might help to have evidence in a crash.  If it gets me a discount, all the better!

Agreed.  A dashboard and maybe a side view cam.  I was in a bad accident last year.  A hit-and-run where a semi came into my lane at 65 mph and hit my car so that it spun out across three lanes of traffic and flipped over into the median.  I went through my uninusured motorist policy.  They said it was partly my fault based on the police report and so they wouldn't pay.  The police report said there were no witnesses (not true) and that both drivers had made an unsafe lane change.  The police officer never returned any of my phone calls. 

I went to the ER assuming that he was taking witness statements. I think he got lazy and put in the minimum information to get the report out of his hair. 

[dragoncar]

Not an inside camera, but I've been considering getting a dashcam anyways -- the amount of stupid shit people do in front of me makes me think it might help to have evidence in a crash.  If it gets me a discount, all the better!

Agreed.  A dashboard and maybe a side view cam.  I was in a bad accident last year.  A hit-and-run where a semi came into my lane at 65 mph and hit my car so that it spun out across three lanes of traffic and flipped over into the median.  I went through my uninusured motorist policy.  They said it was partly my fault based on the police report and so they wouldn't pay.  The police report said there were no witnesses (not true) and that both drivers had made an unsafe lane change.  The police officer never returned any of my phone calls. 

I went to the ER assuming that he was taking witness statements. I think he got lazy and put in the minimum information to get the report out of his hair.

It's sad, but the police apparently can't be relied on to gather evidence:

http://sf.streetsblog.org/2013/08/23/sfbc-finds-what-sfpd-didnt-video-of-crash-that-killed-amelie-le-moullac/

[BlueMR2]

I put "depends"...  As a major car clown, I really wouldn't have an issue doing that with the car I use to get for the boring drive to work.  However, I don't want it on a vehicle I'm taking a trip on or doing any other fun activity.  That's just begging for misuse of data.  1 bad apple can get in and figure out that I'm 500 miles from home and then my house is going to get broken into.  No thanks.

[rockstache]

I put no, definitely no. I get that "the government" and President Obama do not care what I am doing in my car, and probably never will. But I have also worked a confidential job for the government before, and I know how easy it is for confidential information to become public due to misuse, bad handling, or apathy. And then this:

1 bad apple can get in and figure out that I'm 500 miles from home and then my house is going to get broken into.  No thanks.

[Shor]

I know when my neighbor leaves: when the car leaves the driveway.
It really doesn't matter if you're 5 miles away or 5000 miles away. Smash and grabs are so ridiculously straightforward there's no reason it would reach the Mission Impossible level your paranoia is imagining it out to be..

[GuitarStv]

I'm on board.  My car is used as infrequently as possible to get me from point A to point B.  I could care less about some shadowy government agency secretly watching me scratch my ass and sing to the radio, but I would like the extra cash.

I've been in two accidents that were deemed 100% not my fault in the past 10 years.  Both times I relied on witnesses to corroborate my story.  It would be nice to have a permanent witness in the vehicle all the time.

[Jamesqf]

I think it depends on what you mean by 'surveillance'.  I wouldn't consider having your own dash cam &c as surveillance.

[somepissedoffman]

voted yes.  I despise the idea, so much so that it would reduce the little driving I already do.  Would probably end up just selling the car, which would save me any more money!

[simonsez]

I think it depends on what you mean by 'surveillance'.  I wouldn't consider having your own dash cam &c as surveillance.

I'll just use wiki then.

Surveillance (/sərˈveɪ.əns/ or /sərˈveɪləns/)[1] is the monitoring of the behavior, activities, or other changing information, usually of people for the purpose of influencing, managing, directing, or protecting them.

I would consider your own personal dash cam as surveillance.

[dragoncar]

I think it depends on what you mean by 'surveillance'.  I wouldn't consider having your own dash cam &c as surveillance.

I'll just use wiki then.

Surveillance (/sərˈveɪ.əns/ or /sərˈveɪləns/)[1] is the monitoring of the behavior, activities, or other changing information, usually of people for the purpose of influencing, managing, directing, or protecting them.

I would consider your own personal dash cam as surveillance.

Plus, OP pretty clearly defined what we are talking about:

what if a car had unobtrusive rearview, frontview, sideview, and internal (maybe the internal is too much?) cameras linked up with the engine diagnostics protected in a sort of black box

[sheepstache]

Is the data being transmitted?  Or does the black box have to be physically recovered?

If it's a non-transmitting system, that deletes footage and stats after a month, that you would just download data from via usb on the dash or, if the car's been totaled, recovered from the protected black box thing, I think people would be more in favor of it.  And it would be helpful for determining causes of accidents for insurance purposes.  This way people would know when it was being accessed and it would be accessed on a need-to-know basis.

[simonsez]

Is the data being transmitted?  Or does the black box have to be physically recovered?

If it's a non-transmitting system, that deletes footage and stats after a month, that you would just download data from via usb on the dash or, if the car's been totaled, recovered from the protected black box thing, I think people would be more in favor of it.  And it would be helpful for determining causes of accidents for insurance purposes.  This way people would know when it was being accessed and it would be accessed on a need-to-know basis.

I thought a non-transmitting system would be better.  It is there if you (you could be literally you or an insurance company or some legal body or whatever) need to go back and review something.  I don't think a live feed would be optimal for myriad reasons (as some have already pointed out some of these in this thread).  Like I was saying earlier, I don't have every detail worked out and was more curious about the principle of the matter if it was an option drivers would consider if there was a financial incentive to do so.

[Jamesqf]

Plus, OP pretty clearly defined what we are talking about:

what if a car had unobtrusive rearview, frontview, sideview, and internal (maybe the internal is too much?) cameras linked up with the engine diagnostics protected in a sort of black box

[/quote]

Not in the poll question.  Besides, I stand by my opinion that it's not properly surveillance if you're doing it yourself, and it's up to you whether you allow anyone else access to it.  It's the difference between you taking videos of yourself, and someone putting a hidden camera in your house.

[simonsez]

Plus, OP pretty clearly defined what we are talking about:

what if a car had unobtrusive rearview, frontview, sideview, and internal (maybe the internal is too much?) cameras linked up with the engine diagnostics protected in a sort of black box

Not in the poll question.  Besides, I stand by my opinion that it's not properly surveillance if you're doing it yourself, and it's up to you whether you allow anyone else access to it.  It's the difference between you taking videos of yourself, and someone putting a hidden camera in your house.
[/quote]

Sorry.  Next poll I do I'll put my entire first post explaining the details directly into the poll question to be clearer.

[dragoncar]

Sorry.  Next poll I do I'll put my entire first post explaining the details directly into the poll question to be clearer.

See subject

[sheepstache]

Like I was saying earlier, I don't have every detail worked out and was more curious about the principle of the matter if it was an option drivers would consider if there was a financial incentive to do so.

I think what we're seeing is that the execution determines what principle is at stake.

[BlueMR2]

I know when my neighbor leaves: when the car leaves the driveway.
It really doesn't matter if you're 5 miles away or 5000 miles away. Smash and grabs are so ridiculously straightforward there's no reason it would reach the Mission Impossible level your paranoia is imagining it out to be..

I have a garage.  You'd have to put in the effort of staking out my house to observe my patterns.  The new electronic version you can just kick back, set an alert for any car leaving, then go for it.