There is a crash every 5 seconds, an injury every 15 seconds and a death every 13 minutes in the United States.

Back on May 3-5, 1999, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) conducted an International Symposium on Transportation Recorders at Arlington, Virginia. I presented a paper titled Proactive Use of Highway Recorded Data via an Event Data Recorder (EDR) to Achieve Nationwide Seat Belt Usage in the 90th Percentile by 2002.

In this paper I wrote about the legal implications of crash recorder data.

"The Office of Technology (OTA) assessment (1975) "Automobile Collision Data: An Assessment of Needs and Methods of Acquisition" cites the following:

On the question of whether crash recorder data should be admitted, the main point is whether the recorder is reliable, properly read out, and provides a record of the particular event in question. The data of itself is not dispositive of liability, but merely serves as certain evidence of the event. As indicated earlier in this report, there is good correlation between crash severity a recorder might measure and the extent of crash deformation to the vehicle in which it was installed; and it would be difficult to refuse evidence on the crash severity magnitude as interpreted from vehicle deformation. Thus if the recorder provides good evidence of the event, it seems appropriate that the evidence should be admitted. It may be possible to restrict through legislation the admissibility of crash recorder evidence, particularly if the recorders are government-owned and the records are retrieved and interpreted by government employees. Consider, however, the objective of a very simple and widely used integrating accelerometer that is conveniently and readily read by any police accident investigator without special training. It would appear difficult to prevent testimony by a layman - say a tow-truck operator or an auto mechanic - as to what he saw immediately after the accident. In summary, we believe that (1) the data from a crash recorder would be admissible, if it meets necessary qualifications, in a court of law; 2) the data should be admitted if it is good evidence; (3) it will be difficult to prevent admitting crash recorder data, even by Federal law, if the record can be easily read by an untrained person...

I included a section on Respect for Ownership of the Data:

Privacy is the most important issue regarding the success or failure of implementing the SB/EDR. In a position paper presented to the NHTSA EDR Working

Group entitled Information Privacy Principles for Event Data Recorder (EDRs) Technologies (Kowalick) 1998 noted individual motorists or others within motor vehicles have an explicit right to privacy. Although this right to privacy is not explicitly granted in the Constitution, it has been recognized that individual privacy is a basic prerequisite for the functioning of a democratic society. Indeed an individual's sense of freedom and identity depends a great deal on governmental respect for privacy. Therefore all efforts associated with introducing future EDR technologies must recognize and respect the individuals interests in privacy and information use. Thus, it is imperative to respect the individual's expectation of privacy and the opportunity to express choice. This requires disclosure and the opportunity for individuals to express choice, especially in regards to after-market products.

OEM EDR technology limits an individual's expression of both privacy and choice. After-market value added EDR products permit free market competition and sense of ownership. Several stand-alone after market technologies can easily be combined to produce an after-market EDR virtually independent of the vehicle architecture thereby readily permitting a common standard for retrofitting to a vehicle fleet. Since individuals will operate and occupy vehicles equipped with EDRs that record data elements, subsequently it follows that information is created regarding both individuals and vehicles. Individuals should have the means of discovering how the data flows. A visible means of the type of data collected, how it is collected, what its uses are, and how it will be distributed is basic to consumer acceptance. Consumers should also have a choice in making this data available for post-crash analysis.

Responsibility for disclosure should be high priority and may be achieved through methodologies via print-material formats, etc. Disclosure must be constant and consistent. Any data collected via EDR technologies should comply with state and federal laws governing privacy and information use. All data collected and stored should make use of data security technology and audit procedures appropriate to the sensitivity of the information.

EDR technology data storage should include protocols that call for the purging of individual identifier information respectful of the individual's interest in privacy. Information collected should be relevant to the purpose and mission statement associated with the EDR disclosure statement. Consumers should have the reasonable assumption that they will not be ambushed by information they are providing. Information derived from EDR technologies absent personal identifiers may be used for other purposes clearly stated in the disclosure statement. Information including personal identifiers may be permissible if individuals receive effective disclosure and have a friendly means of opting out.

Personal information should only be provided to organizations that agree to abide by the privacy principles stipulated in the disclosure statement. Should the EDR technologies be maintained in a government database Federal and State Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) obligations require disclosure. Such databases should balance the individual's interest in privacy and the public's right to know. Permanent or temporary storage of data should preclude the possibility of identifying or tracking either individual citizens or private firms and should follow the principles suggested to the EDR Working group.