Thin end of the wedge?

[WhoseGeneration]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... ys-EU.html
This possibly leading to the "Big Brother" scenario.

[jont]

Personally, I find the linked article more disturbing. I only hope the insurance companies drown in data (rendering it useless). I'm still yet to see any insurance company publish the thresholds and rules it uses for judging "safe" driving, and how those were reached.

[akirk]

if the state makes it compulsory, then I can see that as an issue, but driven by insurance companies, perhaps less of an issue - ultimately, drivers will be a mixture of risk levels, that is unlikely to change through installing a black box, so all this helps insurance companies know is where a driver sits in that risk level - as it doesn't necessarily suddenly make everyone no risk - the underwriting / actuarial calculations are still basically the same - which could provide an opportunity for a company to enter the market / promote themselves as the 'no telematics' company - push up premiums to manage the risk and take market share from those who don't wish to be tracked...

I think those articles demonstrate the simplicity of media reporting - reality is likely to be different

Alasdair

[trashbat]

On the face of it, eCall seems like a good idea to me.

[jont]

On the face of it, eCall seems like a good idea to me.

Yes, if the scope is contained to its original intended purpose. The problem is that once you have these devices required in all cars, it's very hard to prevent future scope creep.

Mind you, with the pervasive CCTV and ANPR in the UK, any idea of privacy about where a car goes is long since dead

[trashbat]

On the face of it, eCall seems like a good idea to me.

Yes, if the scope is contained to its original intended purpose. The problem is that once you have these devices required in all cars, it's very hard to prevent future scope creep.

Mind you, with the pervasive CCTV and ANPR in the UK, any idea of privacy about where a car goes is long since dead

IMO, intangible potential for misuse shouldn't be a barrier to implementing something for the right reasons. If you go down that route you soon end up in the company of Ned Ludd. Preventing misuse is a separate fight.

eCall has real potential to save lives in remote or off-peak accidents, especially single vehicle ones.

It does pose interesting questions about resources and infrastructure though. If my car autonomously reports that I might have crashed in the middle of the Scottish Highlands, who is going to investigate, and what if it's a false positive? And if I really have crashed but I'm in a mobile signal blackspot, I might die, whereas if the network coverage had been slightly better, I might live, which has always been the case of course but is now brought sharply into focus.

[jont]

eCall has real potential to save lives in remote or off-peak accidents, especially single vehicle ones.

It does pose interesting questions about resources and infrastructure though. If my car autonomously reports that I might have crashed in the middle of the Scottish Highlands, who is going to investigate, and what if it's a false positive? And if I really have crashed but I'm in a mobile signal blackspot, I might die, whereas if the network coverage had been slightly better, I might live, which has always been the case of course but is now brought sharply into focus.

You raise the problem yourself. The most likely situation in which eCall would be useful will be the one in which it doesn't work (because of the lack of phone coverage - or even inability to provide coverage for a car upside down sinking in a fen ditch).

And please don't give me the "but if it only saves one life it will have been worth it" argument...

/besides, won't all the autonomous technology being foisted on us by car manufacturers mean cars won't be crashing anyway, so it's all a huge waste of money? It's not being mandated as retrofit...

[trashbat]

And please don't give me the "but if it only saves one life it will have been worth it" argument...

You balance improved quality of life with potential for misuse all the time. Your mobile phone can be used to track your location, and worse, but you presumably accept that risk because it's of low value, because it's something we deal with later in a secondary battle over privacy, and because the benefits outweigh it. So it will be if enough people are saved or aided by this system.

/besides, won't all the autonomous technology being foisted on us by car manufacturers mean cars won't be crashing anyway, so it's all a huge waste of money? It's not being mandated as retrofit...

No, because even in your fancy robot car, you'll still crash into a meatsack-controlled lump of metal, or a deer, or a falling boulder, or a wheel will fall off or a stack will overflow and you'll tumble into a ravine, etc. - it'll just become less likely.

[Ancient]

And please don't give me the "but if it only saves one life it will have been worth it" argument...

You balance improved quality of life with potential for misuse all the time. Your mobile phone can be used to track your location, and worse, but you presumably accept that risk because it's of low value, because it's something we deal with later in a secondary battle over privacy, and because the benefits outweigh it. So it will be if enough people are saved or aided by this system.

If our governments tried to impose the conditions that Google Playstore imposes, we would hear huge outcries and probably street protests; because it is a commercial international conglomerate which can listen to or watch us at any time and use any of our personal information it holds for any purpose ... it becomes acceptable to most and a sign of ludditism to object. I personally find this modern attitude strange (it would not be strange to Orwell however).

[jont]

And please don't give me the "but if it only saves one life it will have been worth it" argument...

You balance improved quality of life with potential for misuse all the time. Your mobile phone can be used to track your location, and worse, but you presumably accept that risk because it's of low value, because it's something we deal with later in a secondary battle over privacy, and because the benefits outweigh it. So it will be if enough people are saved or aided by this system.

If our governments tried to impose the conditions that Google Playstore imposes, we would hear huge outcries and probably street protests; because it is a commercial international conglomerate which can listen to or watch us at any time and use any of our personal information it holds for any purpose ... it becomes acceptable to most and a sign of ludditism to object. I personally find this modern attitude strange (it would not be strange to Orwell however).

Google at least has a commercial interest in keeping our private data to itself. The government has an incentive to re-sell it as widely as possible. (and that's without even getting into relative incompetence of data security/handling by the respective organisations)

[trashbat]

If our governments tried to impose the conditions that Google Playstore imposes, we would hear huge outcries and probably street protests; because it is a commercial international conglomerate which can listen to or watch us at any time and use any of our personal information it holds for any purpose ... it becomes acceptable to most and a sign of ludditism to object. I personally find this modern attitude strange (it would not be strange to Orwell however).

Most people perceive their relationship with Google as a direct exchange in which they personally accept some terms and make some concessions in exchange for specific personal benefit. The magic of the free market (ahem) is that if you don't like it, you can just go elsewhere.

Most people perceive their relationship with the state or authority as a vague, indirect one in which they mostly just make concessions, and have no alternative to it.

In reality, they're pretty much the same.

[jont]

And please don't give me the "but if it only saves one life it will have been worth it" argument...

Unfortunately that's how politicians have to work. Or as it was put to me "Which mother are we going to tell her son died because the technology wasn't there?" Politician don't give a stuff about personal freedom if they can save a life and, reduced to brass tacks, that's what most of us think. Or to put it another way "How many people are you prepared to kill (or let die if that offends your sensibilities) because your personal data is stored somewhere and sold to the highest bidder."

Which is a curious story, because if politicians genuinely cared, they would do far more to get bad drivers off the roads (extra roads policing, compulsory re-testing etc). So I don't buy that argument.

[revian]

And please don't give me the "but if it only saves one life it will have been worth it" argument...

Unfortunately that's how politicians have to work. Or as it was put to me "Which mother are we going to tell her son died because the technology wasn't there?" Politician don't give a stuff about personal freedom if they can save a life and, reduced to brass tacks, that's what most of us think. Or to put it another way "How many people are you prepared to kill (or let die if that offends your sensibilities) because your personal data is stored somewhere and sold to the highest bidder."

I'm not sure that's how politicians do work. They certainly don't like being embarrassed on TV or risk being seen as uncaring. So they give knee jerk solutions which don't necessarily fit the bigger picture. To change the law or to react to one case isn't necessarily the solution. It migh not even address the real problem. Someone once said (I can't recall who) that the good can be the enemy of the best.

"How many are you prepared to kill?" You might one day kill a pedestrian with your car because of a driving error on your part. It's a real risk. So are you easy in your conscience about that or should you stop driving now?

Ian... Who has literally buried a few 'statistics'.

[TripleS]

Thin end of the wedge? I don't think so.

It seems to me we passed that point some years ago, and every time we go a little further, (always for perfectly plausible reasons, of course!) there's more detailed monitoring and control over our lives and we lose a bit more freedom.

If this process continues unquestioned, unchallenged, and without determined resistance, we shall in due course cease to be human beings, effectively. Instead we'll be like components in a machine where we do what is required by other components to which we relate, and the thoughts, feelings, and preferences of the individual will mean nothing.

An extreme and wild viewpoint? You might think so today, but see where all this is heading. It's not a system in which I want to live my life; well, what remains of it.

If I thought the Conservative party could be relied upon to veto this nonsense, they might have a chance of receiving my vote next week, but I expect they will be largely in support of it, in which case my 50 years of Conservative support will end.

[jont]

If I thought the Conservative party could be relied upon to veto this nonsense, they might have a chance of receiving my vote next week, but I expect they will be largely in support of it, in which case my 50 years of Conservative support will end.

The tories were one of the key proponents behind the snoopers charter. It was only the LibDems that managed to kill it (for now).