It's Baaaack. Oregon, Once Again, Pursuing GPS Driving Tax
from the bad,-bad-idea dept
It's been well over five years since we first heard about a plan in Oregon to attach GPS devices to cars and tax drivers based on how much they drove and the idea hasn't become any better in the intervening years... but apparently it's still being pushed. Against Monopoly points us to the latest report that Oregon's Governor is trying to move forward with the plan. One of the reasons behind the bill has nothing to do with a more efficient way to tax drivers, but because the state is gaining less revenue from its gas tax since there are more fuel efficient cars on the roads these days. Of course, rather than reward drivers for driving more fuel efficient cars, this sort of tax punishes them, and actually encourages the use of less fuel efficient vehicles. And, of course, that doesn't even begin to get into the potential (and likely) privacy problems brought about by any system whereby the government has full access to a GPS system on your car.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: driving tax, gps, oregon, privacy
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
I've said it before...
"that doesn't even begin to get into the potential (and likely) privacy problems brought about by any system whereby the government has full access to a GPS system on your car."
If you use GPS, you're being tracked. Accept it and move on.
This also means, just like anything else in an open environment, you risk having the information used against you.
Don't want to take this risk? Don't use open environment systems such as: The internet, cell phones, and debit cards.
Otherwise, don't complain if your "privacy" was violated.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I've said it before...
I get that you are being tracked if you have GPS in your phone, or you use a device that is connected to a service.
BUT, you are going to have to explain you my
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I've said it before...
---
"If you use GPS, you're being tracked. Accept it and move on."
I get that you are being tracked if you have GPS in your phone, or you use a device that is connected to a service.
BUT, you are going to have to explain you how my sub-$200 Garmin Nuvi - WHICH HAS NO RADIO TRANSMITTER - is capable of sending any data back to anyone without my knowledge. Maybe there's a secret black-box log data file you could grab by hooking the physical unit up to a PC, but that's about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What tracks and what not
/cyc
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I've said it before...
If that isn't a big government left winger talking, I don't know what it is.
Why don't you and your ilk move to a country like, oh, say North Korea? where you are watched all the time and all thought is regulated. Do you really want this in your life or do you think you're somehow above it all?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I've said it before...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I've said it before...
Unless your GPS has someway to communicate to record, you are NOT being tracked.
GPS calculates your position based on signals it recieves from a series of satellites orbitting the earth. It RECEIVES signals and then triangulates your position based on 4 or more satellite signals.
Basically... it's like a radio. A radio receives radio signals and then translates them into music, voice, etc.
A GPS Receiver receives GPS signals and translates that into a position.
In this case, I'm assuming each car would need to be fitted with a gps that records and/or transmits that information back to some home office.
This is an INCREDIBLE violation of privacy as they would literally know exactly where you were and when. Since it's a government, that data could easily become public data... now EVERYONE knows when you were and when.
Of course... it might cut down on the number of affairs...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I've said it before...
I do, but apparently you do not.
Take data received from satellite. Take map data stored on your GPS device. Let GPS unit display proper location of map.
The GPS data is stored (and some systems will keep a history).
Give me your GPS receiver and I'll show you the last 3+ places you've been.
So while a GPS system can't be actively tracked, it most certainly can be used against you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I've said it before...
Your argument for a standard GPS unit being capable of tracking people is beyond flimsy and trying to support it by saying that the physical device keeps a history certainly isn't helping you prove your point. All you're doing is grasping at straws now.
The privacy arguments are all focused on devices that actively send information back, like a GPS system that reports where you went to another agency. Garmins, TomToms, and similar devices do not fall under that category just because they might have a deletable, recorded history as a convenience feature.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I've said it before...
All that is being talked about is being able to "Ping" the car and getting a readout of its current mileage (as opposed to constant monitoring).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I've said it before...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I've said it before...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I've said it before...
I'm just asking because that's such a bad attitude for an American to have. Why should anyone simply accept that they're being tracked? Why shouldn't we fight back through legal means, like protesting these initiatives and the people and companies who support them? If no one fights or protests, if we all just 'accept it and move on', it'll be 1984 before it's 2024 and it will be entirely our own damn fault.
I'm assuming that you think that's an acceptable way to live but I certainly don't and your fatalistic musings don't really help anyone. Baaaaaa.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I've said it before...
You assume that everyone openly accepts open, insecure systems.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I've said it before...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
oDOMETER
they can do a safty check and also TEST for CO2..ALL in 1 shot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Duh!
"... the ODOT official in charge of the project, tried to assure the public that tracking people’s travels was not in the plans."
But plans change depending on the desire of those in control.
“...no travel location points are stored within the vehicle or transmitted elsewhere. Thus there can be no ‘tracking’ of vehicle movements.”
So, why use GPS? What's wrong with the odometer? eca is right. This is a scheme Rube Golberg would be proud of.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Americans pay a pittance on gas compared to other western states, and higher gas prices would help encourage more people to go green.
Win/Win.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's not the US's fault other Western States pay more. We WERE paying $4 or more for gas until this mess happened. Now the price is down (here it's $1.36 - $1.49, depending on where you go) to where it really should be, but could be lower IMNSHO.
So if YOU want to pay more, by all means, pay more, but don't tell US that WE have to pay a higher tax. Fruit your hole!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: SteveD missed the real point
Car renewal tags already track mileage every two years (tags that the Oregon officials want to raise).
ODOT is the speed bump in the road to success!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Americans pay a pittance on gas compared to other western states, and higher gas prices would help encourage more people to go green.
Thats what created this problem. The state is upset so many people bought hybrids or are scaling back on their driving, so they are getting less taxes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I doubt it ever went away
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The equipment alone would most likely cost hundreds of dollars per vehicle plus whatever the cell phone carriers would charge to ferry the data. What happens when you drive out of state? Still paying Oregon mileage tax?
This is the equivalent to installing toll booths every mile on every road in America.
Well, if this ever gets through the legislature and all of the court challenges I'm going to patent a magnetic metal cap to cover the GPS antenna.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We already had higher gas prices. Remember? People did go green or didn't you live here in July?
Stop with the "hike the gas tax" argument. First, I don't care what people in other western countries pay in taxes to support their bloated socialist economies. This is America. We are much larger geographically and have much less of a mass transit infrastructure. $4.00 gas and its trickle-down effects directly contributed to our recession and the only respite has been lower energy costs due to reduced global demand. So, now, those who feel we don't pay enough taxes already, want to hike the gas prices back up again. Why? Demand is down. We got rid of our Hummers and drastically reduced our driving. We know in the back of our minds that oil is going back up sooner or later. Conservation is still "in". Our mindset has changed. Here's a novel idea: How about the government do its part and reduce, re-use, recycle and most importantly, downsize. How about they learn to operate on a budget like the rest of us?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Has anyone considered that road repair has to be paid for?
A Fuel Efficient car is going to do just as much damage to the roads surface as a gas guzzler......
Noone wants to see gas taxes go up, but facts are roads need repaired and the money has to come from somewhere.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Has anyone considered that road repair has to be paid for?
Not... The weight of the vehicle is the most significant factor in road wear. A semi-tractor-trailer is taxes so heavily, because it puts so much wear on the road. When you see the sign on the back door proclaiming " this vehicle pays $4000 per year in road tax" or whatever number, keep in mind that is fair considering how much maintenance & increased load capacity costs to new roads that heavy trucks cause.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Has anyone considered that road repair has to be paid for?
Noone wants to see gas taxes go up, but facts are roads need repaired and the money has to come from somewhere."
How about investing tax-payers' money on roads that take much longer to wear out?
http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=1G1GGLQ_ENUS240&=&q=long+la sting+road+surface&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
seems pretty efficient to me
monitor road usage, usage trends, and time of day statistics without human intervention (can't get that info from an odometer)
efficiently tax based on actual use of a resource
I didn't realize there were a bunch of Luddites on this forum
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: seems pretty efficient to me
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: seems pretty efficient to me
monitor road usage, usage trends, and time of day statistics without human intervention (can't get that info from an odometer)
except that is not why the Oregon government is pushing for it, they want higher taxes.
Also, all of the above could be solved some other way than installing prohibitively expensive and intrusive GPS/cell phone equipment in everyone's car.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not fully buying the argument
I don't see how this tax encourages the use of fuel efficient vehicles. If we leave the intelligence of this idea aside, drivers will still pay less in gas by buying fuel efficient cars. Even if the gas tax is completely removed, there is always an inherent cost for the gas and owners of more efficient cars will pay less per mile driven. I agree with your overall sentiment, but that sentence doesn't hold up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gas taxes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Gas taxes
Not necessarily. Weather takes a big toll on roads in northern states. Salt, weather take a toll whether the road is being driven on or not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Higher Gas in Oregon?!?!
I went on a business trip there and wasn't aware of the gas pumping law. I was literally almost tackled by the attendant when I started to try and pump my own gas....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Higher Gas in Oregon?!?!
Yes, we do have that law. But I dont think it makes a big difference in the price of gas. In Washington state you can pump your own gas, and if I drive right across the border, gas isnt higher, sometimes its cheaper.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Do you know how GPS works?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Do you know how GPS works?
http://www.trimble.com/gps/dgps-how.shtml
http://www.howstuffworks.com/gps.htm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just because its high tech doesnt make it better
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And that, my friends ...
Besides: Oregon cannot enforce this on anyone but Oregon citizens. So, the most populous portion of the state is right across the Columbia from Vancouver, Washington. This is an open invitation to move to Washington and continue to work and shop in Oregon.
Oh, and this is the state which BANS pumping your own gas, forcing gas stations to charge higher prices to pay for full service; Legalized assisted suicide, so you can pay someone to off you when you get too depressed (hint: this is sarcasm); Instituted vote-by-mail for the whole state, thus robbing voters of the ability to make last-minute changes to their vote.
I love the state dearly. I miss the mountains, the hidden trout lakes and streams, the tall trees and clean air. And I will never move back.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Do they mind pollution there?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hunh?
How do get this? I mean, you are still paying taxes on the gas, so driving a less fuel efficient vehicle would make that go up as well.
They don't have any plans to eliminate the gas tax do they?
And even if they did, you'd still be paying for more gas! Anyone that would be encouraged to go with a less efficient vehicle because of this tax is an idiot, plain and simple.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
LIBERAL GIRLYMEN JUST WANT YOUR MONEY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It'll cost you 285% more to die in Oregon
Perhaps those GPS devices are to track businesses and people leaving Oregon for better economic conditions.
There must be something with the names:
Kulongoski
Blagojevich
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You misinterpret its affects on fuel efficient vehicle usage.
"Of course, rather than reward drivers for driving more fuel efficient cars, this sort of tax punishes them, and actually encourages the use of less fuel efficient vehicles."
Think about it this way, when the per gallon cost of gas goes up, so does the demand for more fuel efficient cars. The lower the fuel efficiency of your car, the more you spend PER MILE to drive it. Thus, anything that raises the per mile cost will also raise demand for more fuel efficient vehicles AND lower the number of miles driven on average. The cost per mile for the more fuel efficient cars will be lower than the less fuel efficient cars because you spend less on gas per mile. Since they can't change the distance traveled tax people will want to cut back on the things they can control, which is the distance they drive and fuel inefficiency.
I have to say that cutting back on both would actually be better for the environment anyway. That said this really just punishes companies and individuals that drive a lot to make money more than anyone else. The pizza delivery guy, the construction worker, the UPS driver, and the big rig drivers will all be punished the most. That is what really makes this a horrible idea, because the grunt workers of our society will be affected the most by this and they usually make a little more than enough to make ends meet. This could lead to more job losses. Way to go Oregon.
On the privacy issue, unless the GPS unit has the ability to transmit data wirelessly there is no real privacy concern. Actually a GPS device would be easier for people to tamper with than an odometer and would be costlier to implement. There is probably nothing smart about this law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This would also help out ..
http://features.csmonitor.com/environment/2008/07/28/pay-as-you-drive-insurance-catching-o n/
This way they wouldn't have to have their customers send in their little data trackers, they could just ask the government for the info and force everyone to use this service.
I fear privacy is a thing of the past.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In all fairness...
Though I do agree this is not an optimal solution to the problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I am a subject in a study on this very issue
http://www.roaduserstudy.org/
I let them install a GPS and transmitter in my car. In general I am against the idea of this sort of tax but I am in favor of having some actual data to prove or disprove the effectiveness of it and what it means to drivers.
I have quizzed the people who built the device and conduct the study at the University of Iowa. The device in the study occasionally transmits how many miles you drive in which counties. It also transmits the fuel level. I input how much fuel I put into the gas tank on a little keypad when I fill up so they can determine how much fuel I use. If this ever went into production I'm sure the fuel gauge would be integrated into the system so manual inputs would be unnecessary.
It does not transmit any lat/long nor does it constantly transmit. If I had a mistress or robbed a bank or whatever the device would be of no use in any investigation. In the equipment installed in my car I could actually plug into the GSM transmitter and see the actual data being transmitted if I wanted to although I don't because I don't want to disturb their equipment and mess up the study.
As for why couldn't they just use the odometer: They cited fraud and people turning back the odometer. I don't know if I really believe that is going to happen much but maybe I underestimate the lengths people will go to.
If this form of tax ever came into use (and I really doubt it will due to all of the misunderstandings of how GPS works as demonstrated by posts on this page) many will will insist that the hardware and software be 100% open source so that we can audit it and ensure that it is doing the right thing. Otherwise we will end up with a Diebold-style disaster for sure.
I suspect that this is an overly complicated solution to a simple and already solved problem (fuel tax). If more efficient cars are causing us not to be able to maintain our roads due to less income increase the tax. But I would like to see some numbers indicating that this is really the case. I see a ton of SUV's on the roads. Just as many as ever. This study has been in the works for YEARS and is finally only now happening. It has nothing to do with the recent economic problems or the price of gas.
I look forward to the results of the study.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How Long Before
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
oregon drive tax
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
GPS Jammer
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
1. We are in an era where we want to encourage fuel efficiency. Its a no brainer to increase the gas tax. And no I am not advocating European style rates, just enough to pay for needed for road maintenance.
2. For all you right wingers out there - what about oil and energy security. Don't we want to consume the least amount of oil possible? National security....patriotism.... Or does driving a hummer take priority over saving the country???
3. Using a gas tax is much cheaper and simpler than GPS. Why introduce new gadgets with new potential problems?
4. As was said above there tends to be a correspondence between the weight of a car and its fuel efficiency and thus it is fair that a huge tractor trailer ends up paying a lot more gas tax.
5. Talk about loss of privacy.
a) A GPS road navigator will let you know where you are but not let anyone else know where you are. It is NOT a two way GPS.
b) A cell phone GPS is only checked when someone makes the effort to find out where the phone is in real time. The system that Oregon is proposing would always track where you went ALL the time and then record the data. It's taking government monitoring to the next level.
6. I am sure the state government will use the system to give traffic tickets for everything: speeding, stop signs, traffic lights etc. This is government run amuck.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
gas tax
[ link to this | view in chronology ]