Re: OBD3, have you heard about it? This blew me away.This is a rape of your privacy in your own car.

That being said, read this even if it seems complex, just look to how government is in your car at every second, even every millisecond.

For those interested to read it here, here it is after the link, if you are lazy and want to read it later, the link follows. But this is a rape of your rights and privacy in your own car.

Have You Heard About OBD III?

With the recent approval of regulations governing on-board diagnostics (OBD) information availability, the Automotive Service Association (ASA) has been pleased with the cooperation of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the development of information transfer to repairers. ASA was a strong advocate of independent service shop owners and technicians having access to the same information accessible to new car dealers. The EPA protected these rights in its draft information availability rule and in the final rule published last summer.
One area of concern has been the recent discussion surrounding a waiver of federal preemption to permit California to implement its own OBD regulations. The serious question for independent repairers has been whether our rights will be protected as strongly as in the federal regulations. This is an issue ASA is discussing with regulators and other members of the aftermarket. ASA will make a decision in the near future as to a California strategy on the waiver.
As the OBD II (federal OBD uses the same basic technical standards as California OBD II) debate comes to a close, speculation is already mounting about an OBD III concept in California. OBD III is being discussed as a program to minimize the delay between the detection of an emissions malfunction by the OBD II system and the actual repair of the vehicle. This includes a reading of stored OBD II information from in-use vehicles and the direction to owners of vehicles with fault codes to make immediate repairs. In this concept, faults are picked up by a monitoring technology and reported to a regulator, and the vehicle owner is then directed to get further testing and possible repairs. The debate over controlling vehicle emissions may soon move from what type of testing facilities and test methods are most effective to the complete on-board cycle of fault detection, notification and follow-up testing and repair being discussed in the OBD-III concept.
What types of technology can be used to detect and relay data pertaining to emissions malfunctions? Options include roadside readers, local station networks or satellites. The roadside reader has been tested by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) since 1994. It is capable of reading eight lanes of bumper-to-bumper traffic at 100 miles per hour. It can be used from a fixed location with portable units or a mobile unit. If a fault is detected by a reader unit, it has the capability of sending the vehicle identification number (VIN) plus the fault codes to the regulator. (The term regulator is used broadly here--patrol officers, private contractors or others could be involved, depending on how a program is structured.) The local station network has not been tested by CARB, but would allow a location and monitoring service.
The satellite system can be used with a cellular phone hookup or location monitoring technology. The vehicle would receive an alert via a cellular phone or the monitoring technology. The location, date, time, VIN and OBD II data would be returned to a satellite beacon.
Several issues surround the OBD III concept. From a regulatory perspective, all of the technologies used, other than roadside technology, require a Federal Communications Commission (FCC) license. The possibility of interference with other signals in the same band is of concern. The issues of commercial operators, law enforcement, jurisdiction among state agencies, Intelligent Vehicle Highway Systems, etc., have to be addressed before OBD III is a reality.
How would an OBD-III program prompt further testing and possible repair? An OBD-III program could be incorporated into the current inspection and maintenance (I/M) program. OBD III might also be used to generate an "out-of-cycle" inspection. Once a fault is detected, a notice could be mailed to the vehicle owner requiring an out-of-cycle inspection within a certain number of days or at the next registration or resale, or a citation would be issued. Penalties might include court appearances or fines related to vehicle registration.
A roadside pullover might work this way: the monitoring technology detects a fault, a law enforcement officer stops the vehicle with the fault code, and a technician working with the officer at the scene verifies that a code is set. A citation is then issued requiring testing at a test center, with a time limit for the vehicle owner to do this before a penalty is incurred.
What legal issues arise under OBD III? There seems to be some question as to the "suspicionless mass surveillance" of private property. There is no opportunity to confront or rebut the results; no notice that the vehicle will be tested. Fourth Amendment search and seizure issues tend to arise.
There are obviously technologies and enforcement procedures available to support the OBD III concept. Do the public health arguments as to controlling the severity of air pollution override the constitutional privacy questions involved? What about consent? These are questions that will undoubtedly arise, and could bring a court challenge.
After several court battles with OBD II, the issues are still unsettled as to the California waiver. I/M programs are still to be finalized in several states and the threat of congressional action looms. The concept of bringing all the issues under one program will certainly be controversial, but is being discussed as far as a long-term policy. Independent repairers need to prepare for the next waive of emissions and information issues as they continue to participate in the current debate involving the same.
ASA is working with regulators and other members of the aftermarket to ensure that the independent repairers' interests are included as long-term policies are developed.
--Bob Redding is ASA's Washington representative. He holds a law degree from the George Washington University School of Law.
To find more information on OBD, use the ASA Search Engine.

Im waiting for my dear friend on here.
https://www.nairaland.com/1875436/2001-grand-cherokee-needs-reprogramming/3#25949589

more info can be found on here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On-board_diagnostics

Big Brother On Board
June 1, 1998
Share on linkedin

PrintPrint
EmailEmail


The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) seems bent on becoming the country’s most intrusive government agency, a distinction most agree is currently held by the Internal Revenue Service.

In the name of reducing auto emissions, EPA is said to be “improving” the on-board pollution control system it requires under the hoods of American vehicles. While unlikely to improve air quality, the new Big Brother devices will make it much easier for EPA to know who’s driving what vehicles, and where they’re going.



The Little Black Box . . .

The heart of EPA’s on-board pollution control system is a collection of sensors and computers called OBD2 (OBD1 if your car is more than a couple years old). It senses a wide variety of engine problems that can result in the emission of pollutants such as ozone. When an OBD senses that a vehicle’s engine has developed a pollution-generating defect, it turns on a warning light that instructs the driver to have the vehicle repaired.

The OBD does not, however, tell the driver what is wrong. Only a qualified mechanic, with a scanning device that can be connected to the vehicle’s computer (for an average charge of between $50 and $60), can make that determination. Often--how often no one at EPA knows--the OBD “senses” a problem when none exists.

Though OBD devices have been installed in cars for years, at an average cost of $300 per vehicle, EPA has never conducted a real-world study of their reliability. According to Ed Gardetto of the EPA’s Emissions Program Group, the agency only recently began a two-year study of 200 vehicles to determine how well OBD2 devices function in detecting pollution-causing defects.

Bob Brooks, editor of Ward’s Engine Update, says the study might not be necessary “if EPA had a better relationship with the repair industry.” “The repair trade could tell EPA most of what it what it needs to know at little cost,” he adds.



. . . That Could Become a Spy

What may replace OBD2 is, naturally, OBD3. EPA officials flatly state they are not working on such a device, nor are they interested in doing so. Semantically, the “not working on” is correct. OBD3 is being developed by the California Air Resources Board (CARB), which has already let a contract for the device’s preliminary development. That said, sources at EPA acknowledge they are “following California’s development of OBD3.”

When asked, both EPA and CARB officials cited only one difference between OBD3 and the unproven OBD2: the former includes a transponder--a tiny radio transmitter that relays emissions information about your vehicle, including its Vehicle Identification Number (VIN), to remote receiving stations.

The purpose of OBD3, according to CARB’s Allan Lyons, is to reduce the number of costly vehicle emissions tests. In California, for example, every vehicle is tested for emissions every two years. Over 75 percent pass the test. Had it been known in advance that their pollution emissions were within permissible limits, those cars would not have had to be tested.

With OBD3 transponders transmitting emissions data to remote sensing stations, government officials would always know which vehicles are emitting an excess of pollutants and which are not.

Sounds good . . . except that OBD3 is identical, in all respects but the transponder, to OBD2--a system about which many questions remain unanswered. Moreover, OBD3 positively identifies every vehicle and can easily have sensors added to it to determine your vehicle’s speed and location. While all this sounds a little paranoid, even Lyons admits there are Big Brother concerns. “You can’t even discuss the subject without the issue of Big Brother coming up,” he acknowledges.



The Testing Mess

Paranoia aside, OBD3 may be nothing worse than simply more of a bad, or at least unproven, technology. But there seems to be little doubt that EPA’s current program of emission testing and “mandatory” repair is seriously flawed.

Testing and repair programs are required in many geographic areas out of compliance with EPA air-quality standards for ozone, carbon monoxide, and other gases. Those so-called “nonattainment” areas are primarily, though not exclusively, metropolitan areas.

Vehicle emissions testing, like OBD technology, has been with us for years, yet EPA has never studied whether vehicles in a “test and repair area” are less polluting than vehicles in other parts of the country to a degree that would justify the program’s cost. There are many reasons to believe that the test and repair program has little impact on vehicle emissions.

Permissible emission levels are set so high that many vehicles pass even though they are emitting a great deal more pollution than they would if properly maintained. “Old technology” vehicles--those built prior to today’s sophisticated pollution-control devices--are permitted to emit up to 900 parts per million of hydrocarbons, and new cars are permitted to emit up to 220 ppm. But emissions tests have shown that a well-maintained 1971 automobile can emit less than 30 ppm. Many drivers whose automobiles pass emissions test are led to believe their vehicles are non-polluting, when in fact they could be polluting much less (and burning fuel more efficiently) if they were even better maintained.

Equally deceiving is the notion that owners repair all vehicles that fail emissions tests. In fact, repairs are often avoided, both illegally and legally. Automobile owners in many states are able to illegally avoid repairs because the states have very poorly functioning procedures for correlating test failures and repairs with vehicle licensing. Those states unknowingly relicense polluting cars, putting them right back on the road.

Increasingly, though, polluting vehicles go unrepaired legally because of EPA policies. If a vehicle costs more than $450 to repair in such a way as to meet EPA standards, it gets a waiver--it can be legally driven without being repaired. A study conducted in 1994 by Sun Oil Company found that engines had become so complex that 60 percent of those failing emissions tests could not be fully repaired for $450. Moreover, the cost of repairs has increased dramatically in the last four years, primarily because of increased engine complexity brought on by tighter EPA limits on new car emissions.

A second problem caused by increased engine complexity, which results in higher new car prices, is a dramatic increase in older vehicles on the road. Ward’s Auto World has estimated that the number of cars ten years old or older on the nation’s roads increased from 10 million in 1975 to over 50 million in 1996 (trucks push the total to 80 million). On average, those older vehicles emit more pollutants than their newer counterparts. They also tend to be owned by persons of lower income. In California, where air-quality problems are legendary, low-income residents are allowed to take up to two years to make needed repairs.



The Maintenance Solution

A relatively simple solution to the upward spiral of costs, and its attendant negative effect on vehicle emissions, seems readily available. Unfortunately, it is a solution EPA is unlikely to promote.

“A good case can be made for calling a halt to complexity, which has counter-productive aspects, and focus instead on durability, maintainability and serviceability,” says Ward’s Brooks. “The underlying problem is that the public is deceived by regulators into thinking the answer to the pollution problem is tighter emissions standards applied to new vehicles.”

To prove his point, Brooks proudly points to the test results for his wife’s 1971 MG. The car continues to emit only about 5 percent of the hydrocarbons EPA standards allow for new, current-technology cars--or at least it did, before EPA-mandated reformulated gas came into use, pushing the MG’s hydrocarbon emissions to about half new-technology car limits.

Source :http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/1998/06/01/big-brother-board

more
Originally Posted by Slalom4me
From the 'Beyond OBDII' link above
The same basic approach could also be used with existing
cellular phone links (local station networks) and/or satellite
systems. To keep motorists from tampering with or disabling
their telemetry systems, vehicles could be interrogated randomly
or on a scheduled basis to monitor their condition. The OBDIII
telemetry could also be combined with global positioning system
(GPS) technology to document or monitor the whereabouts of
vehicles.
Orbiting 11,000 miles above the earth's surface are 24
military satellites that make up the Navstar global positioning
system. By timing radio signals from these satellites, the
position of a vehicle, boat or plane anywhere on the earth can be
fixed within a few meters. The GPS system is currently used by
many fleets for tracking the whereabouts of their vehicles as
well as by onboard navigation systems for pinpointing a vehicle's
location on an electronic map.
The advantages of using a satellite based telemetry system
for OBDIII rather than a roadside system are:
* Greater coverage of the entire vehicle population for more
accurate surveillance. Vehicles could be monitored and queried
no matter where they were, even while sitting in a garage or
driveway. There'd be no way to avoid the watchful eye of the
emissions police.
* Being able to locate vehicles that are in violation of
clean air statutes, either for "demographic studies" or to track
down and arrest violators.
* Being able to monitor the whereabouts of vehicles for
purposes other than emissions surveillance such as recovering
stolen vehicles (like today's LoJack anti-theft system), keeping
tabs on suspected drug dealers, gang members and other
undesirables.
* Being able to disable vehicles that belong to emission
scofflaws by transmitting a secret code. Law enforcement
officers might also be able to use such a code to disable a
vehicle fleeing from a crime scene or one that belonged to
someone with a backlog of unpaid traffic violations.
Source:http://www.corvetteforum.com/forums/autocrossing-and-roadracing/1278467-lets-talk-obd3.html

hi, with regard to the OBD III issue, maybe it is too old story but is it become a real?
which cars already use it? thanks

yayaelul:
hi, with regard to the OBD III issue, maybe it is too old story but is it become a real?
which cars already use it? thanks

Not yet, but Im sure not too far it would be used i n the Uk and US, it might even be in use now but we do not know.

There are lots of rumors floating around about OBD3 scanner features and releases.

OBD3 could be primarily focused on electric vehicles that provide information about toxic gases released during the chemical reaction.
OBD3 may come with a wireless feature where you don't need to plug in the adapter.
It may come with a satellite connection feature that automatically informs the concerned authority about emission checks.
It's rumored that OBD3 will automatically inform the Overspeed to the concerned department.

Source- OBD For Car