Toyota blocks access to 'black box' data
in [Technical]
|
Prev: Drivers report trouble with fixed Toyotas
Next: con ( Re: Go Green With a Homemade Electric Car - Top 3Reasons...
From: Jeff Strickland on 5 Mar 2010 16:57 "dsi1" <dsi1(a)humuhumunukunukuapuapa.org> wrote in message news:dpekn.4274$3D3.1562(a)newsfe19.iad... > On 3/5/2010 10:21 AM, Jeff Strickland wrote: > >> >> When MSoft or Apple develope products that can kill me while you are >> using >> them, then we can discuss whether the codesets they use should be >> proprietary or not. Right now, automakers are producing products that can >> kill you if used the way they are intended, and they are hiding behind >> the >> idea that the data stored is their data or your data. >> >> Soon or later is the problem. It should be sooner rather than later. >> > > It will happen sooner than later so consider your wish granted. There's no > doubt in my mind that the government will mandate that all cars shall have > this electronic monitoring using the rational that this product can kill > you as justification. Just remember that you asked for it. > > The truth is that soon, many consumer products will be recording our > behaviors and I don't much care for that. Even hearing aid are recording > data these days. That's modern life for you. :-) > I'm not arguing that there should or should not be data. I'm arguing that if there IS data, it's mine not the automakers'. I'm not here to call for Big Brother to hide under the back seat of my car. I'm here to say that if there is a window to what my car is doing AND that window is already in my car, then I should be allowed to pry the window open to see through it. The window ought not be locked shut in the name of protecting the automaker. Indeed, if there is anybody in the equation that needs to be protected, it's you and I not the automaker.
From: dsi1 on 5 Mar 2010 17:22 On 3/5/2010 11:57 AM, Jeff Strickland wrote: > "dsi1"<dsi1(a)humuhumunukunukuapuapa.org> wrote in message > news:dpekn.4274$3D3.1562(a)newsfe19.iad... >> On 3/5/2010 10:21 AM, Jeff Strickland wrote: >> >>> >>> When MSoft or Apple develope products that can kill me while you are >>> using >>> them, then we can discuss whether the codesets they use should be >>> proprietary or not. Right now, automakers are producing products that can >>> kill you if used the way they are intended, and they are hiding behind >>> the >>> idea that the data stored is their data or your data. >>> >>> Soon or later is the problem. It should be sooner rather than later. >>> >> >> It will happen sooner than later so consider your wish granted. There's no >> doubt in my mind that the government will mandate that all cars shall have >> this electronic monitoring using the rational that this product can kill >> you as justification. Just remember that you asked for it. >> >> The truth is that soon, many consumer products will be recording our >> behaviors and I don't much care for that. Even hearing aid are recording >> data these days. That's modern life for you. :-) >> > > I'm not arguing that there should or should not be data. I'm arguing that if > there IS data, it's mine not the automakers'. > > I'm not here to call for Big Brother to hide under the back seat of my car. > I'm here to say that if there is a window to what my car is doing AND that > window is already in my car, then I should be allowed to pry the window open > to see through it. The window ought not be locked shut in the name of > protecting the automaker. Indeed, if there is anybody in the equation that > needs to be protected, it's you and I not the automaker. > My guess is that in most cases, this data will be used against the driver because, in most cases, it's driver error that causes most accidents not a malfunctioning of the car therefore, making this information available will not be in the best interest of the consumer. Not to worry though - you're get what you wish for soon enough.
From: Jeff Strickland on 5 Mar 2010 17:35 "dsi1" <dsi1(a)humuhumunukunukuapuapa.org> wrote in message news:mufkn.69282$Ye4.2974(a)newsfe11.iad... > On 3/5/2010 11:57 AM, Jeff Strickland wrote: >> "dsi1"<dsi1(a)humuhumunukunukuapuapa.org> wrote in message >> news:dpekn.4274$3D3.1562(a)newsfe19.iad... >>> On 3/5/2010 10:21 AM, Jeff Strickland wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> When MSoft or Apple develope products that can kill me while you are >>>> using >>>> them, then we can discuss whether the codesets they use should be >>>> proprietary or not. Right now, automakers are producing products that >>>> can >>>> kill you if used the way they are intended, and they are hiding behind >>>> the >>>> idea that the data stored is their data or your data. >>>> >>>> Soon or later is the problem. It should be sooner rather than later. >>>> >>> >>> It will happen sooner than later so consider your wish granted. There's >>> no >>> doubt in my mind that the government will mandate that all cars shall >>> have >>> this electronic monitoring using the rational that this product can kill >>> you as justification. Just remember that you asked for it. >>> >>> The truth is that soon, many consumer products will be recording our >>> behaviors and I don't much care for that. Even hearing aid are recording >>> data these days. That's modern life for you. :-) >>> >> >> I'm not arguing that there should or should not be data. I'm arguing that >> if >> there IS data, it's mine not the automakers'. >> >> I'm not here to call for Big Brother to hide under the back seat of my >> car. >> I'm here to say that if there is a window to what my car is doing AND >> that >> window is already in my car, then I should be allowed to pry the window >> open >> to see through it. The window ought not be locked shut in the name of >> protecting the automaker. Indeed, if there is anybody in the equation >> that >> needs to be protected, it's you and I not the automaker. >> > > My guess is that in most cases, this data will be used against the driver > because, in most cases, it's driver error that causes most accidents not a > malfunctioning of the car therefore, making this information available > will not be in the best interest of the consumer. Not to worry though - > you're get what you wish for soon enough. > Be that as it is, Toyota is buying off claimants because the data apparently shows that the car was at fault, not the claimant. TODAY, the data is proprietary, and Toyota is keeping the secret and settling out of court because if it faces the plaintiff, the data will show Toyota is culpable.
From: dsi1 on 5 Mar 2010 17:47 On 3/5/2010 12:35 PM, Jeff Strickland wrote: > "dsi1"<dsi1(a)humuhumunukunukuapuapa.org> wrote in message > news:mufkn.69282$Ye4.2974(a)newsfe11.iad... >> On 3/5/2010 11:57 AM, Jeff Strickland wrote: >>> "dsi1"<dsi1(a)humuhumunukunukuapuapa.org> wrote in message >>> news:dpekn.4274$3D3.1562(a)newsfe19.iad... >>>> On 3/5/2010 10:21 AM, Jeff Strickland wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> When MSoft or Apple develope products that can kill me while you are >>>>> using >>>>> them, then we can discuss whether the codesets they use should be >>>>> proprietary or not. Right now, automakers are producing products that >>>>> can >>>>> kill you if used the way they are intended, and they are hiding behind >>>>> the >>>>> idea that the data stored is their data or your data. >>>>> >>>>> Soon or later is the problem. It should be sooner rather than later. >>>>> >>>> >>>> It will happen sooner than later so consider your wish granted. There's >>>> no >>>> doubt in my mind that the government will mandate that all cars shall >>>> have >>>> this electronic monitoring using the rational that this product can kill >>>> you as justification. Just remember that you asked for it. >>>> >>>> The truth is that soon, many consumer products will be recording our >>>> behaviors and I don't much care for that. Even hearing aid are recording >>>> data these days. That's modern life for you. :-) >>>> >>> >>> I'm not arguing that there should or should not be data. I'm arguing that >>> if >>> there IS data, it's mine not the automakers'. >>> >>> I'm not here to call for Big Brother to hide under the back seat of my >>> car. >>> I'm here to say that if there is a window to what my car is doing AND >>> that >>> window is already in my car, then I should be allowed to pry the window >>> open >>> to see through it. The window ought not be locked shut in the name of >>> protecting the automaker. Indeed, if there is anybody in the equation >>> that >>> needs to be protected, it's you and I not the automaker. >>> >> >> My guess is that in most cases, this data will be used against the driver >> because, in most cases, it's driver error that causes most accidents not a >> malfunctioning of the car therefore, making this information available >> will not be in the best interest of the consumer. Not to worry though - >> you're get what you wish for soon enough. >> > > Be that as it is, Toyota is buying off claimants because the data apparently > shows that the car was at fault, not the claimant. > > TODAY, the data is proprietary, and Toyota is keeping the secret and > settling out of court because if it faces the plaintiff, the data will show > Toyota is culpable. > I think it's likely that there is some electronic glitch causing problems with their cars and that Toyota is completely in the dark about how to solve this problem. When this all blows over, we'll be able to give a proper analysis of the situation and in hindsight, what Toyota should have done. Today I'm not going to worry about it. :-)
From: Steve W. on 5 Mar 2010 19:02
Scott Dorsey wrote: > Steve W. <csr684(a)NOTyahoo.com> wrote: >>> No car company give up the EDR data unless they have to so nothing new >>> here. >> Not sure what your saying. Toyota and Honda are the only two mentioned >> who DON'T allow the data to be read easily. You can buy the reader and >> the software NOW for most of the others. > > Mostly that's because people have put a lot of effort into reverse-engineering > the interfaces. And even then, the information is sometimes doubtful. > > The BMW dealer can get a lot more information out of the box than you can > get with even the most expensive third-party scan tools. They are probably > the worst of the set in that regard, really. > > But even GM doesn't make all the information available, and while folks have > pretty well reverse-engineered the GM tools, there's still a lot of stuff > you just can't see. > --scott No reverse engineering required. The tools used to read the GM data are available to anyone who wants to spend the money. Same with BMW. GM has had EDRs in vehicles since 1980, They updated the units and the data retrieval system in 1995, If your GM vehicle has an airbag in it, it has an EDR. The public unit to pull the data that would be useful in an accident has been on the market since 1999. The unit used by the GM engineers to pull ALL the data is also available to dealers, police, insurance companies(if the standard data set isn't enough, it usually is MORE than enough). http://www.gm.com/corporate/responsibility/safety/event_data_recorders/ -- Steve W. |