Big Brother Is Already Watching Your Driving “¦ And It’s Your Fault

National Journal
Jason Plautz
Aug. 12, 2014, 1:11 a.m.

It has long been a night­mare scen­ario for pri­vacy ad­voc­ates: Every time you get in your car, a com­puter re­lays your loc­a­tion and tracks your trip from start to fin­ish. It can track how far you go, where you drive, how long the trip is, and even how much traffic you en­counter.

Tech­no­logy has made that scen­ario a real­ity — one drivers seem widely will­ing to em­brace. Urb­an­ites are flock­ing to ride-shar­ing pro­grams such as Zip­car or Car2Go, even though both ser­vices can see where their cars and users are. Even private-vehicle drivers have ad­op­ted E-ZPasses, which speed them through tolls but also cre­ate an elec­tron­ic re­cord of their toll­way trips.

Now, urb­an plan­ners hope pub­lic ac­cept­ance of track­ing will al­low them to ad­dress one of trans­port­a­tion policy’s most press­ing prob­lems: how to fund roads and high­ways.

For dec­ades, high­way and road main­ten­ance was fun­ded by a gas tax. But that rev­en­ue has dropped as cars have grown more fuel-ef­fi­cient and the tax has stayed stag­nant, leav­ing high­ways short on fund­ing. A tax on use, rather than gas con­sumed, could close that short­fall, ad­voc­ates say.

Un­der such a sys­tem, drivers would simply be charged for every mile driv­en (or some equi­val­ent). The tax would charge roads’ biggest users the most, lev­el­ing the play­ing field between fuel-ef­fi­cient cars and gas guzz­lers. It’s also an easy way to ac­count for use by the hy­brid and elec­tric cars that are passing up gas pumps — and it could even al­le­vi­ate con­ges­tion by char­ging drivers ex­tra fees for driv­ing in­to con­ges­tion.

A vehicle-miles traveled (VMT) fee, however, would re­quire track­ing drivers’ move­ments, and the as­so­ci­ated pri­vacy con­cerns have been enough to kill any such pro­pos­als.

When Ray La­Hood, Pres­id­ent Obama’s first-term Trans­port­a­tion sec­ret­ary, floated the pro­pos­al in early 2009, the ad­min­is­tra­tion hast­ily walked it back, say­ing it was off the table. And con­gres­sion­al sup­port has been mild — even a pro­pos­al to re­search a VMT sys­tem didn’t make the fi­nal ver­sion of the 2012 trans­port­a­tion reau­thor­iz­a­tion bill.

But VMT pro­ponents say the pri­vacy con­cerns are un­foun­ded, es­pe­cially in the era of big data.

“Lo­gic has not really entered in­to that dis­cus­sion,” said Joshua Schank, pres­id­ent of the Eno Cen­ter for Trans­port­a­tion. “People have had cell phones and private cell com­pan­ies know­ing where they travel for years, but some­how that doesn’t give them any more com­fort if the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment is go­ing to track their driv­ing.”

And loc­a­tion track­ing has moved bey­ond the smart­phone to the dash­board.

Private com­pan­ies have done plenty to al­low their drivers to be loc­ated, es­pe­cially as car-shar­ing mod­els have dis­rup­ted tra­di­tion­al fam­ily car own­er­ship. Take, for in­stance, the pop­u­lar Car2Go car-shar­ing sys­tem, which of­fers Smart cars in 26 cit­ies world­wide. Rides are tracked with con­nec­tions to in­tern­al sys­tems for loc­a­tion, speed, travel times, and oth­er in­form­a­tion for use on in­voices, check­ing to keep cars with­in a re­ser­va­tion area and pre­vent fraud, ac­cord­ing to the ser­vice’s pri­vacy policy. The start and fin­ish of each trip is also stored on in­voices.

Zip­car sim­il­arly has on-board mon­it­or­ing for its cus­tom­ers — ac­cord­ing to its pri­vacy policy, the lat­it­ude and lon­git­ude of Zip­cars is “trans­mit­ted to Zip­car and tem­por­ar­ily stored (in­clud­ing while it is hired to you)” so that em­ploy­ees can provide road­side as­sist­ance, en­sure it is re­stored to the right place, and loc­ate lost cars. The policy says Zip­car does “not act­ively track or mon­it­or vehicle loc­a­tion, and we do not story his­tor­ic­al GPS data re­gard­ing vehicle loc­a­tion.”

Uber, the ride­share and taxi ser­vice, like­wise uses GPS and geo­loca­tion through its mo­bile app to see where users and drivers are, but its pri­vacy policy says the data is not shared with third parties and is used only for pur­poses like cus­tom­iz­ing ser­vices, pro­mo­tions, and data ana­lyt­ics.

“There’s really a lot less pri­vacy with those sys­tems be­cause they know at least where you are picked up and dropped off and someone’s keep­ing track of that,” said Rob Atkin­son, pres­id­ent of the In­form­a­tion Tech­no­logy and In­nov­a­tion Found­a­tion. “I have no reas­on to doubt that these com­pan­ies are trust­worthy and it’s pos­sible that as people be­come more com­fort­able with that, they’ll see that there are less pri­vacy con­cerns.”

Even the private cars that those com­pan­ies are look­ing to re­place have a de­gree of mon­it­or­ing. Elec­tric cars like the Nis­san Leaf and the Chev­ro­let Volt have be­come data sources for car com­pan­ies and oth­ers look­ing for stats on how clean cars are used. The EV Pro­ject — backed by the En­ergy De­part­ment, Nis­san, Chev­ro­let, and oth­ers — of­fers up free char­gers in ex­change for per­mis­sion to col­lect data on vehicle use, char­ging pat­terns, and en­ergy use.

They’ve even be­come a badge of hon­or for some drivers — the web­site Volt Stats lets drivers up­load their en­gine use data, en­abling a not-so-subtle com­pet­i­tion to see who can drive the farthest with the least gas­ol­ine.

Demo­crat­ic Rep. Earl Blumenauer of Ore­gon, a long­time VMT sup­port­er, has even poin­ted to E-ZPass toll sys­tems and traffic cam­er­as as proof that the pri­vacy con­cerns are over­blown.

“I don’t think that means we should be any less con­cerned about the gov­ern­ment do­ing something like this,” said Gau­tum Hans, an at­tor­ney with the Cen­ter for Demo­cracy and Tech­no­logy.

Hans said that in­di­vidu­als may be more com­fort­able with a private com­pany us­ing loc­a­tion track­ing for busi­ness or re­search use — “as we like to say, a private com­pany can’t put you in jail,” he said — but even that may be lessen­ing amid the out­cry over re­search pro­jects done by Face­book and OK Cu­pid. And there are par­tic­u­lar con­cerns that come with the po­ten­tial for the gov­ern­ment to watch where and when cit­izens are driv­ing.

“Re­search is un­der­stood by in­di­vidu­als. You can un­der­stand why a ride-shar­ing app would want to do re­search as long as its ag­greg­ated and takes steps to pro­tect your pri­vacy,” Hans said. “With the gov­ern­ment, there are reas­ons you would be con­cerned, wheth­er it’s the First Amend­ment and the free­dom of as­so­ci­ation or how the in­form­a­tion is kept and how.”

“It seems odd to me that there would be a solu­tion that is so ex­pens­ive and car­ries so many ques­tions,” he ad­ded.

It’s still an open ques­tion what sort of tech­no­logy would be em­ployed with a VMT. A pi­lot pro­gram in Ore­gon of­fers the 5,000 vo­lun­teer par­ti­cipants a vari­ety of op­tions, in­clud­ing a smart­phone app, self-bought GPS sys­tems, or even a flat fee that would re­quire no track­ing at all. Ex­perts say a “black box” is un­likely — it’s ex­pec­ted that, at most, the sys­tem would rely on a one-way GPS sys­tem that simply re­layed the dis­tance traveled to al­le­vi­ate the big­ger driv­ing con­cerns.

For Atkin­son, who chaired a fed­er­al com­mis­sion that re­com­men­ded a VMT sys­tem in 2009, said that he sees “move­ment” to­ward a VMT, with sup­port grow­ing among con­ser­vat­ives and en­vir­on­ment­al­ists alike for a more equit­able trans­port­a­tion fund­ing sys­tem.

“A full-steam-ahead ef­fort to de­vel­op a stand­ard, man­dat­ing every car comes equipped with an on-board GPS, that’s go­ing to be a while,” he said. “As cars be­come smarter, you’ll end up with more that have the cap­ab­il­ity to do this. I think if you start with a vol­un­tary sys­tem, you’ll see it grow.”

MOST READ
What We're Following See More »
1.5 MILLION MORE TUNED IN FOR TRUMP
More People Watched Trump’s Acceptance Speech
1 days ago
THE DETAILS

Hillary Clinton hopes that television ratings for the candidates' acceptance speeches at their respective conventions aren't foreshadowing of similar results at the polls in November. Preliminary results from the networks and cable channels show that 34.9 million people tuned in for Donald Trump's acceptance speech while 33.3 million watched Clinton accept the Democratic nomination. However, it is still possible that the numbers are closer than these ratings suggest: the numbers don't include ratings from PBS or CSPAN, which tend to attract more Democratic viewers.

Source:
×