Toyota acknowledges bug in 'black box' reader

[LS2JSTS]

"The AP reviewof lawsuits around the country found many in which Toyota was accusedof refusing to reveal EDR and other data, and not just in suddenacceleration cases.

In Kentucky, to cite one example, a recentlawsuit filed by Dari Martin over a wreck involving a 2007 Prius soughtinformation from Toyota to bolster his claim that the car's seatbeltwas defective. Toyota refused, contending there was no reliable way tovalidate the EDR data and that an engineer would have to travel fromNew Jersey or California at a cost of some $5,000 to retrieve it.

"There is simply no justifiable reason for Toyota not to disclose this information," Martin's lawyers said in a court filing."

 

[LS2JSTS]

I would be glad to read a few links to cases where Toyota has been helpful in any way.....Got any?

 

[LS2JSTS]

Originally Posted By: Spyder7
"Its policy is reportedly to download data only at the direction of law enforcement, NHTSA, or a court order."

I don't see a problem with that. To allow the data to be viewed otherwise would seem to conflict with property rights and right to privacy.

-Spyder


No problem with edited or blanked out data?
No problem with certain cases being refused access to the complete data?
No problem with a propritary system that requires Toyota as middleman?
No problem with the OWNER of the car or his attorney NOT being able to access the data? At least that is without sueing Toyota and forcing them to retrieve it under court order?

Doesn't the owner of the car hold the cars "property" rights? Does the owner of the car have any right to privacy or should he have to rely on Toyota to retrieve the data? Who has privacy rights here in your mind, the ownerr of the darn car or Toyota?

Did you notice the comment about how Toyota settles the cases where the data is ordered by the court and then fights those where they win the battle to NOT provide the data?

The point is that Toyota fights the order to retrieve the data until they are ordered to do so. With other companies, third party readers are made available so the manufacturer isnt involved at all. And they get the whole picture, not just what Toyota wants them to get.

 

[Spyder7]

There is already a long standing precedence for this as far as proprietary data systems go: PC software. Most of the software that people believe they bought and paid for and therefore "own", in fact do not own. The only thing they "own" is a license to use it. Ownership rests with the company that developed it. Similar thing with music and other forms of "intellectual property."

Toyota didn't invent this distinction between real property and intellectual property. They may be using a right they have in a way that you don't agree with, but as the intellectual property owner, it is their right. That right can be trumped by law enforcement, relevant governing body, or court owner; this is the case here and as those apply, they seem to be in compliance.

-Spyder

 

[LS2JSTS]

So I own my cars, but the manufacturer owns the program AND the data stored within the EDR?

Not buying it, this isn't some program that I bought to play a game or do number crunching. It's a component thats part of the car I own, the data is mine not Toyotas or anyone elses. I'm not looking to read or duplicate their program, just the data that the program I bought from them created. If I dont own the data, what the heck did I pay for?

You mention music, as a buyer of copyrighted materials you can duplicate them for your own use. There is no limit to the number of copies you can make of a title if you dont distribute them beyond your own personal use. How is the data contained in that EDR using their program not the same thing? It's data created by my driving habits in a car I own, the way I see it the data is far removed from the program itself. And the precedence you refer to acknolwedges that distinction as well.

I use licensed programs in my line of business, hundreds of files with important(to me) data. I acknowledge that I have no right to duplicate or distribute that licensed program....but I sure as heck own that data I've created with that program. Are you telling me my work product is now the property of the license holder? Isn't the data created in that EDR nothing but work product created as I drove my car?

If the privacy rights are in fact held by Toyota how are GM, Ford, Chrysler, Nissan and others able to use open systems that have readers built by third parties? Why is a GM owner able to access that data without a court order and a Toyota owner is not able to?

 

[Spyder7]

You don't create the work product - the EDR creates the data. That's the way I read it. Therefore intellectual ownership and rights belong to Toyota, and, barring a court order or legitimate request from law enforcement or a governing body, they have no requirement to make the data viewable to anyone.

If you use open source software, you obtain with it a license to view, modify, and redistribute the source within whatever - if any - restrictions the creator places upon it.

To use your argument that because you bought the car and therefore data created by it is your work product, apply that again to your PC. Presumably it came with Windows of some variety. Does your purchase of the PC and license of the Windows software give you the right to view the source code? No. It gives you the right to use the operating system. Microsoft holds the exclusive right to the operating system code and they decide who can and cannot see it - unless again a court order or legitimate request from law enforcement is made.

You are comparing the product of an EDR to that of a word processor when I think an operating system like Windows is a better analogy.

-Spyder

 

[LS2JSTS]

Who said anything about viewing the source code or the Toyota program....I'm talking about ownership of the data being seperate and distinct from the program itself. Accessing the data has nothing to do with reading or re-distributing the program does it?

No where did I say that the owner should have the right to redistribute the Toyota program or to copy it or read it for whatever purpose. Accessing and reading the data collected by the program is far from the same thing as accessing the program itself isn't it?

In any event glad to see that Toyotas privacy is protected in your opinion. Meanwhile the car owner is left to sue Toyota to get the data and even then has no expectation that it is even accurate data....nice.

Meanwhile in the real world, almost all the other major players have no problem with including the owner of the vehicle and their attorney as rightful parties with access to that data. Why is it that Toyota refuses to include the owner of the car and their attorney alongside court orders and law enforcement?

Sounds like everybody including the government has a right to that owners data, EXCEPT the owner....No privacy left for him apparently....lol

 

[LS2JSTS]

Originally Posted By: Spyder7
You don't create the work product - the EDR creates the data.


This is chicken and egg gobbedly gook...wait, you may be right....yes, you are right. I just heard my HHR pull itself out of the garage to warm itself up and take a run around town. Must be that darn EDR of GM's taking the car for a spin to log some data.

 

[Spyder7]

If you sold your car, do you also sell the right to the privacy of the data recorded by the EDR while you were the original owner? How does the EDR distinguish this, and should the data be something the new owner is able to view at will? After all, its now his car, his property, and by your reasoning, his data.

-Spyder

 

[opus1]

Originally Posted By: Spyder7
You don't create the work product - the EDR creates the data. That's the way I read it. Therefore intellectual ownership and rights belong to Toyota, and, barring a court order or legitimate request from law enforcement or a governing body, they have no requirement to make the data viewable to anyone.

If you use open source software, you obtain with it a license to view, modify, and redistribute the source within whatever - if any - restrictions the creator places upon it.

To use your argument that because you bought the car and therefore data created by it is your work product, apply that again to your PC. Presumably it came with Windows of some variety. Does your purchase of the PC and license of the Windows software give you the right to view the source code? No. It gives you the right to use the operating system. Microsoft holds the exclusive right to the operating system code and they decide who can and cannot see it - unless again a court order or legitimate request from law enforcement is made.

You are comparing the product of an EDR to that of a word processor when I think an operating system like Windows is a better analogy.

-Spyder
Well, *I* think that the better analogy is that the computers running the car akin to Windows and the EDR is definitely akin to Word. And while the EDR may be creating the work product, it's doing so based on my input (presumably...

)

So in my opinion, your stance is like saying that if I happen to write a best seller using Word, since I used Word running on Windows, Bill Gates is entitled to my royalties and I have no rights at all.

No sale.

 

[opus1]

Originally Posted By: Spyder7
If you sold your car, do you also sell the right to the privacy of the data recorded by the EDR while you were the original owner? How does the EDR distinguish this, and should the data be something the new owner is able to view at will? After all, its now his car, his property, and by your reasoning, his data.

-Spyder

If Toyota's system works like other makers, I believe only 30 seconds or so of data is actually recorded at any moment, and stored to memory if an airbag deploys. So this issue would resolve itself about a minute or so after the new owner drives off....unless he hits a tree on your property 2 seconds after getting in the car...

 

[KrisZ]

Spyder7, I think you're grasping for straws, LS2JSTS is absolutely right, nobody is asking Toyota to provide the source code or algorithms on how the EDR is recording the data, we just want the "movie track". I can rent a movie camera, it's not mine, but the video I shot with it certainly is, this is the same case, except that the "movie" is just a bunch of numbers recorded from various sensors.

Also the EDR is not recording your whole life of your driving history, just the last 30 sec or so and then it's deleted. If you sell the car, your data is no longer there, therefore you cannot claim it as yours.

 

[oldmaninsc]

Originally Posted By: LS2JSTS
Originally Posted By: LS2JSTS
.... I merely believe that Toyota should do what the other manufacturers have been doing for years. That is provide the readers and data to third parties with cause to review the data without it going through Toyotas hands first. I ask you this, why is it that Ford and GM have done this for years and Toyota hasn't?


Hey oldmaninsc, just curious. What is "bashing" about expecting, or imploring Toyota to do the exact same thing as GM and Ford have been doing for years? What is "bashing" about pointing out how Toyota has fought releasing this data for years? Why do I get the sense you feel this is ALL about UA, when in fact that is merely a slice of reality....an aside to what the real problem is? Read what I quoted above, is that an unreasonable request of Toyota?

If you want to know the facts, then do some research. Look into Toyotas continual court battles over the EDR data(going back for years, long before UA was ever mentioned here in the US). I'm not making this stuff up, if you cant do the research yourself, let me know and I'll provide you some links.

If you think I'm bashing, report me.

No surprises here from any of the usual apologists....lol....why should I expect otherwise? After all, this is the board where certain Mods make fun of the fact that Toyota could even possibly be stupid enough to only have one EDR reader here stateside....refusing to belive it even when shown links to executives who said it under oath. Or how about the posters around here who still claim Toyota never had any UA concerns in other continents, only here where "stupid" Americans roam.....EVEN THOUGH, it is undeniable fact that Toyota was recalling cars in the EU for UA LONG before the North American recalls even began. If you dont believe me, read the NHTSA report and learn for yourself WHY they fined them so heavily. The facts ARE out there despite our useless media(and misinformation/misdirection posted on internet boards).


LS2JSTS if I said the grass was green you would argue that no it isn't and that it's Toyota's fault! It's obvious from the NUMEROUS post here and in other threads that you have an agenda against Toyota. You are attempting to hold them to a higher standard than any OTHER company. I could state a lot of instances of things other companies have done some more outrageous but you would dismiss them with your ramblings - so why bother?
I've leaving this thread - I'm tired of reading your rantings. Enjoy!

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: LS2JSTS
On a side note, do you think NHTSA reviewed the program that Toyota wrote or did they just trust the data that the program provided them. I don't know whats in that program or how it is written, or how it is designed....and neither does NHTSA I'm willing to bet.

Corporations have exactly two obligations:

1. Make money.
2. Obey the law.

That's it. That's capitalism.

Most companies will act amorally and opportunistically. Again, that's capitalism. If we like capitalism, we should expect them to act this way -- as they all do when they think they can get away with it.

To compensate, we have regulatory bodies to keep them in check. That's their job.


Now, back to the current topic.

If there is any REAL reason to suspect the quality of the data, it's the NHTSA's job to investigate. If they fail in this, that is THEIR failure, not Toyota's. Simple as that.

If you are truly interested in finding the truth here, you should be pressing the NHTSA or some other independent body to investigate. Instead you are making bald claims (and repeating those of lawyers and reporters, as if they have any reputation for scientific accuracy) that Toyota is at fault -- as if the investigation has already been performed. You shouldn't be surprised that people are accusing you of Toyota bashing.


Originally Posted By: LS2JSTS
I'm not worried....honest....think Alfred E Neuman saying "What, ME drive a Toyota?" No worries here friend.

Your post count in this thread -- especially from this post on, ironically -- indicates otherwise.

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: LS2JSTS
You really dont see a relationship between a company that alleged in sworn testimony and court documents for years that their EDR data was unreliable, and now that same company claiming that the same EDR data absolves them of blame in the UA incidents?

This thread wasn't about the EDR data absolving them of blame. It was about a flaw in the software used to read EDR data producing post-crash anomalies.

If you want to discuss something else, I strongly suggest a new thread.

 

[Hokiefyd]

Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Originally Posted By: LS2JSTS
I'm not worried....honest....think Alfred E Neuman saying "What, ME drive a Toyota?" No worries here friend.

Your post count in this thread -- especially from this post on, ironically -- indicates otherwise.

This was my thought exactly. I'd join you and others in suggesting to him a different venue for his apparent frustration. Like the NHTSA, etc.

 

[brianl703]

Originally Posted By: Spyder7

I don't see a problem with that. To allow the data to be viewed otherwise would seem to conflict with property rights and right to privacy.


What if I as an owner of the vehicle want access to the EDR data?

 

[brianl703]

It took me about 15 seconds to find this answer from IIHS:


http://www.iihs.org/research/qanda/edr.html

Quote:
9 Who owns the data and who has access?

EDRs and the data they store belong to vehicle owners. Police, insurers, researchers, automakers, and others may gain access to the data with owner consent. Without consent, access may be obtained through a court order. For example, in a Florida criminal case involving a vehicular manslaughter charge, the police obtained a warrant to access the EDR data.5

For crashes that don't involve litigation, especially when police or insurers are interested in assessing fault, insurers may be able to access the EDRs in their policyholders' vehicles based on provisions in the insurance contract requiring policyholders to cooperate with the insurer. However, some states prohibit insurance contracts from requiring policyholders to consent to access.8,9

 

[LS2JSTS]

Originally Posted By: oldmaninsc
...... You are attempting to hold them to a higher standard than any OTHER company.


Hey oldman, maybe if you spent a bit of time reading my posts rather than just tabulating their raw numbers you would have clearly seen that you completely missed my point if this above is what you think.

I have stated in this thread and elsewhere that Toyota should be doing the exact same thing GM, Ford, Chrysler and Nissan have been doing for years. Could you explain to me how Toyota being held to the SAME standard as the D3, makes me "holding them to a higher standard"

State your misinformation, label me a basher, provide absolutely no evidence to back up your claims and then take your ball and go home.....typical.

 

[LS2JSTS]

Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Originally Posted By: LS2JSTS
You really dont see a relationship between a company that alleged in sworn testimony and court documents for years that their EDR data was unreliable, and now that same company claiming that the same EDR data absolves them of blame in the UA incidents?

This thread wasn't about the EDR data absolving them of blame. It was about a flaw in the software used to read EDR data producing post-crash anomalies.

If you want to discuss something else, I strongly suggest a new thread.


As I pointed out in PM, and you seemingly agreed with me, this issue cannot be discussed intelligently in a vacuum. It doesn't exist on it's own without the ancillary topics that surround it. The context of Toyota claiming the data either good OR bad takes on a different light when viewed in the comlete light of their previous statements.

If my post count of quotes from lawyers and those familiar with Toyotas court practices is out of line...then report me. Or you can join the oldmaninsc and just put me on iggy.