You're being watched at ATMs, department stores, even on the automated postage machines at the Post Office. But motorists are under surveillance even more than they think. Many new cars are equipped with an event data recorder, a device similar to the "black box" in an airplane that records data from a few seconds prior to a car crash, including the vehicle's speed, pre-crash system status, driver inputs, seatbelt usage and airbag deployment status. Most motorists don't even know their car has a black box, according to Rep. Brenda Ferland (D-Charlestown), a fact that state lawmakers are trying to change.

Ferland is the primary sponsor for HB 599, a bill that would require dealers to disclose to consumers the presence of an EDR in a car. It's a "consumer protection issue," Ferland said. About 30 million cars are equipped with the device, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. The House approved the bill in March, and the Senate Transportation and Cooperation Committee is currently looking at it. If it makes it out of the committee, the Senate will vote on it sometime this month.

"We had to take a good look at what (an EDR) does and doesn't do," Ferland said. "It wasn't so much a privacy issue as a consumer issue. We want to make sure people are aware what this thing is doing and whether or not it's in their car."

The question for Ferland is who owns the information and who has access to it. Initially the bill's main objective was to disconnect EDRs completely. Law enforcement officials objected because of the device's use in accident investigations.

"Then that opened the door to insurance agents, who wanted access to anybody's information anywhere near an accident, in which case we're saying no," Ferland said. "That's what we're trying to get away from."

If passed, Ferland's bill would also limit who can access the data. The vehicle's owner would have ultimate ownership of the data; however, law enforcement and insurance companies could access the data, but only for use in accident investigations and statistical data.

The legislation has met with some minor opposition from the state's car dealers, who believe that requiring dealers to inform customers about the presence of an EDR is unnecessary.

"To me, it's a little bit ridiculous, because every car has one form or another of this black box," said Dan McLeod, president of the New Hampshire Automobile Dealers Association. "If they want us to give a written disclosure, we'll just kill a bunch of trees. I don't think it's necessary, it's just an added burden."

Instead of forcing dealers to disclose the presence of an EDR, McLeod thinks state lawmakers should focus on clearly defining who controls the data.

"The question is, if there's an accident, could the other attorney require you to provide that information, and that, I think, is the key part the Legislature has to deal with," he said. "The issue is, can someone use it against you, and if New Hampshire makes a policy ... that it can't be, they've solved the problem."

But according to some privacy advocates, that's not the only problem.

Chris Hoofnagel, director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center's West Coast office, thinks that EDRs could potentially be used for more active surveillance.

"The privacy risk is that the storage could obviously increase, and there's a risk the devices may start communicating more actively," he said.

Hoofnagel pointed to the OnStar system as an example of an actively communicating EDR. If an airbag goes off in an OnStar-equipped car, the sensors in the car tell the system to place a call to 911. From there, Hoofnagel said the device could evolve to record other data, including driving habits and in-car conversations. Systems like OnStar could also be used to eavesdrop on motorists. This potential application for OnStar and its brethren made headlines in 2003, when the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that law enforcement agencies could not use vehicle tracking systems to monitor the conversations of passengers. OnStar, only available in luxury cars a few years ago, is now appearing in more and more vehicles.

"(EDRs) are already being used to weigh accountability or to make judgments about accidents," he said. "The question is whether (EDRs) could be turned into a platform for ubiquitous surveillance."

In 2005, 15 states introduced legislation dealing with EDRs. Most of the proposed laws would require dealers to tell customers about the black boxes. California became the first state to pass such a law in 2004, though it does not say definitively who owns the data.

"I'm not really sure that helps because it's a matter of time before your standard insurance contract says you have to grant access (to the data) to get coverage," Hoofnagel said.

It's not just insurance companies that are interested in the data, according to Hoofnagel. Divorce attorneys looking to get information on an errant spouse's location are typically interested in the kind of information EDRs record.

"People often wave their arms and yell 'Big Brother' at these types of systems, but the people after this data are just typically divorce attorneys."

Despite concerns about privacy, Hoofnagel thinks EDRs are a great resource that can help speed along product recalls.

"There are great safety benefits to EDRs. The question is, can we craft policy so we can get the benefits without creating invasive surveillance systems, and I think the answer is yes," he said. This problem can be solved by legislation that, like HB 599, has provisions that severely limit who can access the data.