It starts

The end of one whisker on the proverbial camel's nose has slipped under the tent, and I'm honestly uncertain about what to think of it.  I'm not sure whether to be suspicious of the uses that this relatively new technology will be put to, or to be confident that we will keep our civil rights front and center.  But when I'm uncertain, suspicion trumps confidence every time.

You know about the so-called "black boxes" that come in many new cars, right?  They're basically data acquisition and recording devices, similar in principle to the "black boxes" (that aren't really black) in commercial airliners.  They continually record information about how your car is being driven—how fast you're driving, how hard you're braking, how you're steering, how far you drive, how long you drive, what day it is, essentially everything except possibly where you are (and some GPS-equipped vehicles will be capable of that, such as GM cars with OnStar).

There's a lot of justifiable concern over just exactly how this data could be used and by whom, and under what circumstances.  People nowadays tend to take their privacy seriously, and are aware today more than they were, say, ten years ago about how technology can facilitate the invasion of their privacy.

Now, Progressive Insurance (free registration or BugMeNot required), the nation's third-largest insurer of automobiles, is going to use a similar recording device—not the one that comes from the car's manufacturer, but a different one of their own choosing—to help identify high-risk drivers.  And this will be done on a "completely voluntary" basis, of course.

We'll address this "voluntary" business in a moment.  For now, believe it or not, I actually have no problem with Progressive's plan if taken at face value. 

If I am a safer driver than the average 49-year-old male in SC, and if my insurance company offered to let me prove that I was, and reward me with lower premiums if I could do so, then that would be a good thing.  I believe in meritocracy.  I'm happier when my wages are based on my actual value to my employer rather than on some arbitrary standard such as how long I've worked for him.  And I'd rather be judged as a driver based on my actual performance behind the wheel rather than on some statistical guesswork about how I might drive.  And if this indeed is all that happens with these data recorders, this is actually an improvement over the status quo for that very reason.

But I have serious doubts that this is all that will happen, and history backs me up, I think.

When someone wants to use this data for other purposes, Progressive's study will be cited as a precedent, and it will be noted that "no civil rights violations occurred." 

Those of you old enough will recall that Social Security cards used to have the words "Not to be used for identification purposes," or something to that effect, printed along the bottom of the card.  Part of the opposition to issuing S.S. numbers to begin with was that these cards would end up being used for identification, essentially becoming a national ID card.  We were all assured that there was no legislation, either federal or state, in mind along that line.

We were silly to fall for that, of course, because no one can guarantee what a future Congress will or won't do with the law.  But S.S. cards are already being "voluntarily" used for identification.  It's strictly "voluntary."  When you meet with a mortgage loan officer, if you object to giving him your S.S. number, you don't have to do so.

You won't get the loan, either, of course.  But, technically, no one is forcing you to give your S.S. number to anyone.

This is the sort of "usage creep" that I suspect will occur with driving data as well.  The steps that expand its use will be slow enough to avoid alarming most of the population, but they will probably still occur.

If the data is contained in a device that is part of my car, and the car belongs to me, then the data likewise belongs to me, and forcing me to give it up as part of a legal investigation amounts to making me testify against myself.  Of course, many people lease their cars rather than buying them outright—who does their data belong to?  And in any case there is a stigma associated with "taking the fifth" which is similar to confessing guilt.  Anyone who resists handing over their black box data will immediately be under greater suspicion, and "full cooperation" will probably be required to maintain your insurance coverage.

If this scenario is to be avoided, there must be a severe backlash against the use of such data in such a way that the cost to a company, in lost business, is greater than its potential rewards for using it.  This will require that we all let our insurance companies and congressional representatives know where we stand.

UPDATE:  If you don't usually read comments, read these.