Originally Posted by Quattroborn
I’ve been following the TD1 developments rather closely.* I find the entire ordeal is very fascinating (better than the Tuner Wars :-).* Clearly there’s a plethora of opinions on the topic, but I think it’s clear that Audi is trying to simply reduce warranty costs.* While this community may not like it; the fact remains it’s a valid business objective.* With that said, the lack of consistent information or direct communication to this audience (the mod crazy enthusiast) is very disappointing.* Let’s not waste time arguing about things we can’t control.
*
The real tangible variable in this entire argument is who owns the data.* It’s not the fact the data is captured that has everyone riled up; it’s that Audit is using it without our expressed permission for purposes other than diagnostics.* This brings me to the stupid Progressive Snapshot commercial.* This little device captures throttle position, lateral forces, % brake application, miles driven and other factors to determine how safe a driver you are.* The fact that I accelerate WOT leaving toll booths and threshold brake off ramps does not make me an unsafe driver.* My lack of accidents and tickets make me a safe driver.* Based on that, the point is that data out of context is just that. . . .out of context.
*
Car and Driver recently commented on the progress through the Senate of a legislation that would require “Black Boxes” in all vehicles.* While this is nothing new as many manufactures have been doing this for quite a while. . . .the purpose is to collect relevant metrics before and after collisions to provide additional evidence to the operators guilt or innocence in causing collisions.* Whether you are for or against the “Black Box” argument, the legal precedent is clear. . .
“What the Senate bill does make clear is that the data is owned by the car’s owner or lessee. But if the police or other agencies want to retrieve it without the owner’s consent, they’ll need a court order. First responders such as paramedics would also have access to the data—without a court order, even—in cases where it will help them respond to an emergency.
The sensitivity, of course, comes from the potential incrimination of drivers by using the data. Stuff like intake-manifold pressure and fuel mixture are of interest only to the hardest-core gearheads, but information on raw speed and pedal application could be used against a driver. While finding fault in a fatal accident—or, say, clearing an automaker of unintended-acceleration accusations—are noble causes, what’s stopping agencies from seeking court-mandated access to the box for simple speeding violations? A lot, as it turns out. The requirements for getting a court order for access are likely to be as stringent as they are for issuing a search warrant. Without a warrant, many states’ laws might make it illegal to use black-box data for issuing traffic tickets. In New York, for example, police are not allowed to issue tickets using EZ Pass toll data to calculate a driver’s average speed.”
Source: http://blog.caranddriver.com/senate-...ed-to-do-same/
While I’m no lawyer. . . I do play one on TV J.* I take this all to mean that the owner or lessee of a vehicle owns the data the car produces and collects.* Not only do I think this will change to landscape of what data is extracted from a vehicle, but I also think that customers will be allowed to simply opt out of diagnostic scans at dealerships or service facilities (or carefully select what data element to provide for service purposes).
There is no doubt that the road is long here. . . .but I see this as the end of TD1.* Debate on. . . .
*
The real tangible variable in this entire argument is who owns the data.* It’s not the fact the data is captured that has everyone riled up; it’s that Audit is using it without our expressed permission for purposes other than diagnostics.* This brings me to the stupid Progressive Snapshot commercial.* This little device captures throttle position, lateral forces, % brake application, miles driven and other factors to determine how safe a driver you are.* The fact that I accelerate WOT leaving toll booths and threshold brake off ramps does not make me an unsafe driver.* My lack of accidents and tickets make me a safe driver.* Based on that, the point is that data out of context is just that. . . .out of context.
*
Car and Driver recently commented on the progress through the Senate of a legislation that would require “Black Boxes” in all vehicles.* While this is nothing new as many manufactures have been doing this for quite a while. . . .the purpose is to collect relevant metrics before and after collisions to provide additional evidence to the operators guilt or innocence in causing collisions.* Whether you are for or against the “Black Box” argument, the legal precedent is clear. . .
“What the Senate bill does make clear is that the data is owned by the car’s owner or lessee. But if the police or other agencies want to retrieve it without the owner’s consent, they’ll need a court order. First responders such as paramedics would also have access to the data—without a court order, even—in cases where it will help them respond to an emergency.
The sensitivity, of course, comes from the potential incrimination of drivers by using the data. Stuff like intake-manifold pressure and fuel mixture are of interest only to the hardest-core gearheads, but information on raw speed and pedal application could be used against a driver. While finding fault in a fatal accident—or, say, clearing an automaker of unintended-acceleration accusations—are noble causes, what’s stopping agencies from seeking court-mandated access to the box for simple speeding violations? A lot, as it turns out. The requirements for getting a court order for access are likely to be as stringent as they are for issuing a search warrant. Without a warrant, many states’ laws might make it illegal to use black-box data for issuing traffic tickets. In New York, for example, police are not allowed to issue tickets using EZ Pass toll data to calculate a driver’s average speed.”
Source: http://blog.caranddriver.com/senate-...ed-to-do-same/
While I’m no lawyer. . . I do play one on TV J.* I take this all to mean that the owner or lessee of a vehicle owns the data the car produces and collects.* Not only do I think this will change to landscape of what data is extracted from a vehicle, but I also think that customers will be allowed to simply opt out of diagnostic scans at dealerships or service facilities (or carefully select what data element to provide for service purposes).
There is no doubt that the road is long here. . . .but I see this as the end of TD1.* Debate on. . . .
Reply With Quote
)
Bookmarks