Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Wednesday June 19 2019, @12:51AM   Printer-friendly
from the it's-my-data-no-matter-*where*-it-was-stored dept.

Submitted via IRC for SoyCow4463

ACLU: Police must get warrants to obtain personal data from cars

You might not think of your car as a treasure trove of personal data, but it frequently is -- performance data, phone contacts and location info may be sitting under the hood. And the American Civil Liberties Union wants to be sure police can't just take it. The organization is appearing as a friend of the court in Georgia's Supreme Court on June 19th to argue that personal data on cars is protected by the US Constitution's Fourth Amendment and thus requires a warrant. The appearance is tied to a case, Mobley vs. State, where police used a car's "black box" to level more serious charges.

After a deadly car crash, Georgia police downloaded data from the Event Data Recorder on Mobley's car to determine his speed before the crash, using that to level more severe accusations against him. Georgia has contended that this was legal under the Fourth Amendment's "vehicle exception" allowing searches for physical items, but the ACLU believes this doesn't count for digital data. It likened this to requiring a warrant for phone data -- just because the device holding the data is obtainable without a warrant doesn't mean the data is also up for grabs.


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: 0, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 19 2019, @01:14AM (20 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 19 2019, @01:14AM (#857272)

    The car's speed is not personal data. Otherwise we have to outlaw police radar. In fact, any witness to your car's speed wouldn't be admissible.

    The car's speed is public. Fuck the driver.

    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by black6host on Wednesday June 19 2019, @01:27AM

      by black6host (3827) on Wednesday June 19 2019, @01:27AM (#857275) Journal

      Well, I have to agree with you on the point you made. Since the ACLU is involved, I have to assume that they see this as a slippery slope to something more nefarious. Or, if your not as cynical as I am, you can look at it from the point of view that anything the police do (and others) requires public scrutiny. I don't think that's a bad thing.

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Wednesday June 19 2019, @01:39AM (6 children)

      by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Wednesday June 19 2019, @01:39AM (#857277) Homepage Journal

      The car's speed is not personal data. Otherwise we have to outlaw police radar. In fact, any witness to your car's speed wouldn't be admissible.

      The car's speed is public. Fuck the driver.

      Certainly, the car's speed isn't someone's "personal papers and effects," so on the surface your reasoning would appear to be valid.

      And if that speed was externally recorded by radar or other means, there is no expectation of privacy for such *externally* collected data.

      However, since the data was recorded on and by the car owner's equipment, such data would seem to belong to the car's owner. Just as you need to get a warrant to search someone's computer (and a car's "black box" is certainly computer storage), it seems reasonable to require that of data storage in a car.

      I don't see it as a "slippery slope" argument either. It's data privately collected and owned by they owner of the car. As such, the driver (or the owner, if they are not the same person) of the car would need to either consent to a search of the data storage, or the police need to get a warrant for such a search.

      --
      No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 19 2019, @01:56AM (5 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 19 2019, @01:56AM (#857286)

        Everything about the vehicle's motion is public, or should be, no matter who records it. However, I really only mean that for forensics in an accident, not for your average fishing expedition in cop on black crime. In an accident, all info is valid, no matter how it is acquired. The truth must always take precedence.

        • (Score: 5, Insightful) by AthanasiusKircher on Wednesday June 19 2019, @02:16AM

          by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Wednesday June 19 2019, @02:16AM (#857296) Journal

          I'm not sure you are actually disagreeing with the parent post you replied to. You don't want police to go on "fishing expeditions" in most cases but believe police should have access to data in the case of an accident.

          That's NOT a "public record." That's a record you get under circumstances where you believe an illegal offense may have been committed. An accident where the car is question is clearly at-fault or where fault is uncertain would seem to constitute probable cause for a warrant to determine whether additional offenses or crimes were committed during the accident.

          That's the ACLU's point here -- the police shouldn't just be able to get the data, which might contain evidence of speeding an hour before the accident or other random stuff that could be incriminating. Instead, the police should obtain a warrant for very specific data relating to the accident -- IF there is cause. (Again, what about another driver who is clearly not at fault in the accident from an examination of basic physical evidence, but ends up being ensnared with random data that showed a connection to another unrelated crime or offense based on the data. No, the data shouldn't be public, but it should be made available to police only when circumstances warrant -- no pun intended.)

        • (Score: 4, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Wednesday June 19 2019, @02:35AM

          by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Wednesday June 19 2019, @02:35AM (#857301) Homepage Journal

          However, I really only mean that for forensics in an accident, not for your average fishing expedition in cop on black crime. In an accident, all info is valid, no matter how it is acquired. The truth must always take precedence.

          I don't (as AthanasiusKircher pointed out [soylentnews.org]) necessarily disagree with that.

          But remember, we're talking about a criminal investigation and potential criminal charges. This isn't just an insurance investigation or a civil lawsuit. The law is quite different for civil matters.

          My point is that the search of the "black box" is the same thing as searching your computer or your house.

          As such, police should either get consent for the search or a warrant from a judge. If the police don't have enough to convince a judge that they have "probable cause," then it *is* just a fishing expedition, IMHO.

          --
          No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
        • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 19 2019, @06:31AM (2 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 19 2019, @06:31AM (#857339)

          This is a little O/T but, given the tone of your comment, here's a bit of unsolicited advice:
          Never Talk To The Police [youtube.com]

          The police's job is to investigate crimes and gather evidence so a prosecutor can get a conviction. If they decide (or are trying to decide if) that's going to be you, you need to protect yourself.

          This includes not consenting to searches of your person or possessions. There are circumstances where police do not *need* a warrant to search [findlaw.com], but outside of those specific circumstances, the police may not search you or your home/car/possessions without your *consent* or a warrant signed by a judge.

          It also includes keeping your mouth shut other than to be polite ("with all due respect, I prefer not to speak with you, sir." "Am I being detained, sir?", etc., etc., etc.). Even answering seemingly innocuous questions like "What are you doing here?" can elicit a response that could later be used to make you *look* guilty, even if you're completely blameless in whatever they happen to be investigating.

          The police and prosecutors do *not* play fair. They have nearly unlimited resources, and will use them all against you if they decide you belong in an 8x10 box for some period of time.

          But don't take my word for it. Watch the video. Half is a criminal defense attorney/law school professor, and the other half is a police officer with ~20 years experience. And they both say exactly the same thing.

          • (Score: 5, Informative) by takyon on Wednesday June 19 2019, @09:38AM (1 child)

            by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Wednesday June 19 2019, @09:38AM (#857379) Journal

            James Duane's advice has been slightly updated:

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FENubmZGj8 [youtube.com]

            TL;DR: Ask for a lawyer. Insist on it repeatedly. That tends to shut down questioning.

            --
            [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
            • (Score: 3, Interesting) by NotSanguine on Wednesday June 19 2019, @02:04PM

              by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Wednesday June 19 2019, @02:04PM (#857435) Homepage Journal

              I just finished watching, and there is some updated, and extremely useful, information in the video you linked.

              However, I'd say that the original is still worth watching. I say this for a couple reasons:
              1. Duane isn't shilling for his book in the original, and is much more expansive on why you shouldn't talk to the police, instead of just saying "if you want to know the answer, read the book.";
              2. Having an experienced police officer agree with absolutely everything that Duane says is really powerful. What's more, the cop gives *concrete examples* of how the police routinely lie to people, from the point of view of the police. It's quite chilling, in fact;

              That said, it's definitely worth a look. Thanks for posting it!

              --
              No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
    • (Score: 5, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday June 19 2019, @01:40AM (4 children)

      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday June 19 2019, @01:40AM (#857278) Journal

      The car's speed is only one datum among many. Maybe you missed the "personal data" in the title. Cars get more and more sophisticated, incorporating entertainment and communications with the outside world. Do they, can they, incorporate navigation into the computer? Oh, well, they can get a detailed history, everywhere you've been, how much time you spent in any given location, and maybe even play back the conversations you had in those locations. Depending on the options, and just how sophisticated the car is, they might play back conversations you had after you exited the car to sit on a park bench. You have dashcam and rearview cam? Facial identification of the people you talked to, to go along with the conversation.

      Oh - you visited Lover's Lane? Now you've probably got a charge of public indecency to go along with all the actual traffic violations. Hell, you'll plea bargain anything they ask you to plead guilty to, to make that go away - you certainly don't want to go on the sex offender's list!

      I'm not a real fan of the ACLU, but in this case, I have to take their side.

      • (Score: 2) by Mykl on Wednesday June 19 2019, @01:45AM (3 children)

        by Mykl (1112) on Wednesday June 19 2019, @01:45AM (#857281)

        I would also be worried about the possibility of the police trawling through the last 12 months of data (speed, correlated with GPS co-ordinates vs speed limits on those roads) and potentially hit you with dozens of speeding charges for trips made months earlier. Double-concerned if this data is prone to error/interference/alteration.

        • (Score: 4, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday June 19 2019, @01:50AM (2 children)

          by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday June 19 2019, @01:50AM (#857284) Journal

          That fits with my objection to red-light cameras, and other automated ticket generation schemes. If no human was present to write the ticket, the ticket is invalid.

          • (Score: 4, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Wednesday June 19 2019, @02:26AM (1 child)

            by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Wednesday June 19 2019, @02:26AM (#857298) Homepage Journal

            That fits with my objection to red-light cameras, and other automated ticket generation schemes. If no human was present to write the ticket, the ticket is invalid.

            I'd say that isn't really an issue. Unlike the scenario in TFA, events were recorded on police/municipal equipment. As such, there's no Fourth Amendment issue, as there is in this case.

            Now you can argue that red light cameras are fucked up and geared toward revenue generation rather than safety and you won't get an argument from me. However, they don't raise the same 4th amendment issues as searching a car's "black box."

            --
            No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
            • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 19 2019, @05:34AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 19 2019, @05:34AM (#857334)

              Maybe not the same issues, but any and all forms of mass surveillance threaten freedom and democracy.

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by c0lo on Wednesday June 19 2019, @02:28AM

      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday June 19 2019, @02:28AM (#857299) Journal

      That's bullshit

      No, it is not!

      The car's speed is not personal data.

      As a matter about a fact, that data is not personal.

      As a matter about how you obtain that data and convert it to actionable information:

      1. if you used your equipment and your time to record my speed while on public road, that info may be public information (e.g. you obtained it using equipment bought on public funds and I raised a FOIA, or it was your personal equipment but you decide to make the information public)
      2. the car that I bought is personal property, with everything on board, including the "black box" and anything recorded on it.
        Accessing that information is no different by, for instance, accessing the video footage of my personal security cam installed at my home that records what happens in front of my door (a fact that may be public if also observable).
        If you want that data and I don't agree to provide it to you, you will need a warrant!

      The line that you are stepping on ("when it happens in public, a fact is public data") leads to something like: "You made a discovery about some peculiarities of laws of nature and you create a a technology around it. Fine, nature is public, so fuck you and your trade secret, you have to disclose it"

      --
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
    • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 19 2019, @03:19AM (4 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 19 2019, @03:19AM (#857312)

      In at least some cases, the speed recorded in the car is from a sensor on the driveshaft (or in the transmission) and the calibration may not be very good. For example, if aftermarket tires are fitted that are a different size than original, very few (no one?) will bother to update the speedometer calibration.

      I certainly would not like to have black box data that used this uncalibrated speed taken by the cops without a warrant. It could be off by 10% or more (in either direction) and factory cal tends to read high so that drivers are going slower than the speedometer reads (tends to save the driver from getting speeding tickets).

      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday June 19 2019, @01:54PM (3 children)

        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday June 19 2019, @01:54PM (#857429) Journal

        One note on automotive speedometers. The law REQUIRES that speedometers either be accurate, or they err on the high side. No prosecutor, judge, or whoever, will accept an argument that your speedometer is inaccurate, on the low side. That's a federal DOT requirement.

        Manufacturers can't be bothered to ensure that the speedometer is exactly right. That is, they do NOT calibrate every vehicle coming off the assembly line. You car is off by 3 to 6%, UNLESS you have fitted slightly larger tires on your vehicle.

        So, if you're cruising along right on the speed limit, and you spot a cop, there is zero reason to sweat it. You're not actually doing the speed limit when your car reports that you are doing so.

        Discussion here, with answers of varying quality - https://www.quora.com/Why-do-all-car-speedometers-read-2MPH-faster-than-the-car-is-travelling [quora.com]

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 19 2019, @10:42PM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 19 2019, @10:42PM (#857645)

          Further BS detected:

          Couldn't find the US reg for cars, but did find this for commercial vehicles, didn't you drive truck at some time?

          ยง393.82 Speedometer.

          Each bus, truck, and truck-tractor must be equipped with a speedometer indicating vehicle speed in miles per hour and/or kilometers per hour. The speedometer must be accurate to within plus or minus 8 km/hr (5 mph) at a speed of 80 km/hr (50 mph).

          [70 FR 48054, Aug. 15, 2005]

          Also found reference to a Euro reg that requires the speedometer to never read low, so you are correct on that continent.

          • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday June 20 2019, @01:46PM

            by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Thursday June 20 2019, @01:46PM (#857915) Journal

            Did you do the math, and figure out the percentages there? That particular regulation allows for 10% error, greater than the error rate that I mentioned.

            I'm not digging for the law, regulation, or whatever. I've read it often enough in the past, to be sure that it's for real. Speedo must be accurate, or it must read low, but it must be within 3 to 6%.

        • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Wednesday June 19 2019, @10:47PM

          by bob_super (1357) on Wednesday June 19 2019, @10:47PM (#857646)

          > Manufacturers can't be bothered to ensure that the speedometer is exactly right. That is, they do NOT calibrate every vehicle
          > coming off the assembly line. You car is off by 3 to 6%, UNLESS you have fitted slightly larger tires on your vehicle.

          As we reach the end of the 2010s, your speed is pretty accurately calculated by the computer by design (even those without GPS), based on the assumption that you have slightly over-inflated new tires of the recommended size in your empty car. Oversized and highly overinflated tires could result in undereporting of the speed, but almost everyone drives with degraded slightly underinflated tires, half a tank of gas and extra sunglasses even in the dark, making the car report going faster than it is.
          Manufacturers can't calibrate for real usage, which is ok since that increases the error in the optimal direction.

    • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday June 19 2019, @11:32PM

      by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Wednesday June 19 2019, @11:32PM (#857665) Homepage
      Yes, you're free to measure the speed.

      You are. Nobody said you weren't. That doesn't mean you're free to force the owner of an item to give you access to information that might incriminate him, without a warrant. You appear to be presuming guilt in all cases. Christ, policing would be so much easier were that the case - we wouldn't even need juries of our peers.

      You went in bold. I countered bold. Neither is a sane stance. A middle ground should be something along the lines of "Equipment that reasonably may have been involved with the incident may be examined without a warrant solely for the purpose of ascertaining to what extent it contributed to the incident. All other information discovered during such a search is to be considered fruit of a poisoned tree.".
      --
      Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(1)