That post about the spending could mostly be about anything and everything else, and everything costs money what about the vehicles that don't have the manufacturer "recording boxes".
The car dealerships that put in those boxes are able to remotely disable your car if you don't make the payment. that still leaves the majority without such protection.
Also think about a Nation Wide scale changing every new vehicle to having another addition to them will cost.
Imo it's just another way for the vehicle to have a mechanical malfunction, and it's getting harder to work on your own vehicle besides taking it to the dealership to fix it up. More computer technology inside the vehicle.
Ok...
1) They just... won't not put them in. The car dealership will pay for them as they make new cars. New cars might cost more as a result, but we're talking 100-200 dollars in a 10,000 dolar or more vehicle. This law only applies to newly made vehicles. Older vehicles don't matter.. it's only a law to retrofit old cars.
2) No, that's not reasonably possible. That's not the scope of this law. These boxes record like 10-20 seconds of velocity, acceleration, and other data about the vehicle before a crash eg. were the brakes on, angle of the wheels... Upon a crash, they save the data and it's stored.
So these boxes do little more than record data about the vehicle they can't control it at all.
Statistics: Posted by Znath — December 21st, 2012, 11:35 pm
]]>
The car dealerships that put in those boxes are able to remotely disable your car if you don't make the payment. that still leaves the majority without such protection.
Also think about a Nation Wide scale changing every new vehicle to having another addition to them will cost.
Imo it's just another way for the vehicle to have a mechanical malfunction, and it's getting harder to work on your own vehicle besides taking it to the dealership to fix it up. More computer technology inside the vehicle.
Statistics: Posted by Arya — December 20th, 2012, 8:07 am
]]>
Black boxes are almost already industry standard.
*thunder*
Buick has been putting them in their cars since like...2000.
What does this law do?
Makes something into law that most cars already do.
The you think "ok why a law" because every single company uses a different format...... and then to analyze each crash, you'd need to go buy another reader for the box from that particular dealership.
So the law basically takes a look at the industry standard and say
"ok guys... these are valuable sources of information with infallible proof but it's killing the police budget buying 20 readers.. lets make one standard so we can protect people better"
Honestly, when I scrolled past the 100% irrelevant defense spending graph I figured I'd shut this down.
This law doesn't cost a ton of money, it just standardizes the recording boxes that most manufacturers already use. /thread]
Statistics: Posted by Znath — December 19th, 2012, 11:00 pm
]]>
The only risk is that it starts overriding any other evidence in the eye of the law, which is kind of what happened with DNA testing.
Works most of the time, but still has its drawbacks
Statistics: Posted by Arya — December 12th, 2012, 10:08 am
]]>
I think having a device that can allow for a better understanding of an accident is a good thing. The only risk is that it starts overriding any other evidence in the eye of the law, which is kind of what happened with DNA testing.
Obviously I'm against having tracking devices implemented into cars, but as far as I understand that's just speculation at this point.
Statistics: Posted by ZxC — December 11th, 2012, 10:42 pm
]]>
(for now).
Abc News wrote:
Lt. Gov. Timothy Murray of Massachusetts found out the hard way last year.
He crashed a car he was driving and told police that he was wearing a seatbelt and was not speeding at the time of the crash.
However the black box installed in his car revealed he was actually speeding at 75 miles per hour in a 65 mile per hour zone, before accelerating to more than 100 miles per hour.
According to Scott Ferson, a spokesman for the lieutenant governor's campaign, Murray believes he either fell asleep or hit black ice.
The lieutenant governor was not issued a ticket at the time of the accident. However, after police examined the vehicle's black box they handed Murray a $555 ticket for speeding in excess of 100 miles per hour.
Mandatory Black Boxes in Cars Spark Controversy Watch Video
Ferson says that Murray did not dispute the findings of the black box investigation and elected to pay the fine in full. He also said the lieutenant governor reimbursed the state for the cost of the vehicle he crashed, which was government owned.
The data recorders track a number of items, including vehicle speed, whether a driver tried to step on the brakes before a crash, information about engine throttle, air bag readiness before a crash, and whether seat belts were buckled.
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/feds-b ... Mdjr-Oe-YU
Statistics: Posted by Arya — December 11th, 2012, 11:02 am
]]>
Think about this: We have the right to go out to a store and purchase almost any kind of firearm and ammunition without requiring a license. We can, completely unlicensed, carry firearms with us in vehicles. You see, in legal terms, a license is permission to do something that you do not have a right to do, permission to break the law.
Have not thought about that
Boa wrote:
The idea of Liberty is the idea that you own yourself. You own your body, it is your property, and it is unlawful for anyone else to dictate to you what is appropriate as far as your own body and your own choices.
VERSUS
Applequest wrote:
a lot has changed since 1776. It just seems to me a very quaint idea that government should do THAT little.
Applequest wrote:
I am not a big government guy, but I expect my quality of life to be protected from stupid/malicious people, and I expect the government to meet that need.
You both are making a good point on what is constitutional and what has changed/ what they should be doing for us.
Statistics: Posted by Arya — December 11th, 2012, 10:00 am
]]>
]]>
Boa wrote:
I'd love to ask you if you would like that to be the situation we face here in America, and I'd go so far as to ask you: If the Chinese were occupying bases around our country, killing innocent people, occupying all major cities, taking over our government, assassinating our leaders, changing our laws and forcing us into agreements, do you think that a single American would stand up and fight back? Yes? Do you think some Americans would take the fight to the Chinese, no matter how crude the method? Do you believe that they'd be justified in doing so? And would you be part of the force that fights back, or one of the people who acquiesces? If you'd fight back, congratulations on living in the United States! Because if you were Ap al-Dekwest (get it?) of Baghdad, I think you'd be dead by now and labeled an insurgent.
I'm game ~.^.
Everyone I know would answer "Hell Yeah!" or "
Yeah!" to taking back our country if someone (Chinese in this case) is attempting to take over. We are not push overs. Also depending how far they go will determine just how far we would go to have what is ours. Every American would be justified in doing so, and yeah I would apart of it.The thing is that people don't seem to associate what we are doing overseas as aggressive invasion akin to the Chinese aggressively invading us. Live a day in those people's shoes and tell me our government is doing good things and protecting not just us but human rights on the whole.
Quote:
Furthermore, roads belong to the Government, and it's the Government's responsibility to keep road users safe. If you don't like they way they go about it, don't use them.
Nothing belongs to the Government except those things that belong to the body of the citizenry as a whole, but this is very different than being owned by the government. I can see how you might think this, living in a land owned entirely by one person. I can quote court cases where people have won regarding their right to travel using an automobile on the "government" roads without the obtaining of a Driver's License, because our country works differently and we have a fundamental right to travel in any way we please. The system of law our government is modeled on should mean that criminality is restricted only to cases where actual harm is done, not theoretical potential harm (as in the case of speeding, driving without a license, etc.; you have not technically committed an actionable crime unless you have harmed another person or infringed upon their rights. Malicious intent used to be a requirement for conviction, more or less).
What I'm saying is that our government does not legally have the option to say "My way or no highway" in this country so long as they adhere to the structure of their system of law that the states within set up to protect their sovereignty from the Federal Government. Your country must be pretty crappy about pleasing the people if your idea of a "solution" is "if you don't like it, don't travel". I can not legally be forced to give up any of my rights as a requirement to travelling, in an automobile or anything else. This is why the TSA is an assault on our freedom an unconstitutional. This is why highway checkpoints are an assault to our freedom and technically illegal. This is why I have the right to refuse to be tracked in any situation, and should I be in an accident I have the right to not give up information. If the other driver wants this system to protect themselves legally, great, maybe it should show in court that they were not at fault and successfully get "me" convicted. Regardless, the fact is that we have the right to know what information is gathered, for how long, for who, and most importantly the ability to halt this data collection at the judgment of the citizen. If you disagree, you fundamentally misunderstand common law, rule of law, and the US Constitution.
You must realize that even though they do not seem that different in their present manifestations, the very basis of our government is the antithesis to the way in which yours functions. You can't try to apply your world view, because even if public perception in the US is that the government owns and operates the roads and that highway checkpoints protect the innocent more than they harm the innocent the fact remains that both of these statements are blatantly untrue.
Think about this: We have the right to go out to a store and purchase almost any kind of firearm and ammunition without requiring a license. We can, completely unlicensed, carry firearms with us in vehicles. You see, in legal terms, a license is permission to do something that you do not have a right to do, permission to break the law. It's illegal for you to own a shotgun, but you can become licensed to have limited access to certain kinds of shotguns. In fact, to use anything but an air-gun you need a firearms certificate.
Let me re-apply this legal knowledge. Court cases have been won over here confirming that in states like Ohio and Pennsylvania the legal system recognizes that locomotion is an inalienable (can not taken away or given away in any measure) right and that therefore it is unlawful to require a license for the purpose of leisure travel (any travel that is not for commercial gain through the use of the public freeways). Feel different than what you experience over there?
Are you starting to understand the basis of liberty? The idea of Liberty is the idea that you own yourself. You own your body, it is your property, and it is unlawful for anyone else to dictate to you what is appropriate as far as your own body and your own choices. We have here a body of elected citizens who are (supposed to be) no different than any ordinary or average citizen, and have no more power than any citizen, but are merely there to represent our best interests. Liberty is like a bubble of rights around you that protects you from invasion by the government. The people are supposed to protect each other from the government penetrating this bubble, while the government protects people from having their bubble penetrated by others.
If I were required to have a tracking device in my vehicle in order to use a vehicle as my right on the roads belonging to my community, that is the government saying that my bubble's "travel layer" no longer applies to them - that I do not have to penetrate someone else's bubble in order to be considered a criminal, but that a facet of my bubble is no longer protected. They are breaking the contract that was signed between states as a condition for creating a central government to oversee interstate affairs. If I'm arrested for smoking pot, that is the government saying that it has the ability to dictate what decisions I make about what I ingest or what state of mind I am permitted to be in (thought police, anyone?). If I break current Federal Law by taking a bottle of Raw Milk across state lines, that's the government telling me which foods are and are not appropriate for me to eat or drink, and precluding my judgment on issues of health to say "No, trust us, THIS is what you want for your health".
It's starting to sound like slavery instead of freedom, and THAT is why I am taking the time to make sure that people understand not just the issue itself but what about it makes it an issue in the first place. I can spout off pages of examples just on how the FDA (the board of directors consisting mostly of ex-employees of the pharmaceutical industry), by being brought into existence with one law, has repeatedly failed to protect the people or serve their interests. In fact they've taken actions repeatedly that are direct public health dangers to the people for the profit of Monsanto and their buddies, and I'd contend it's because of the conflict of interest of the people running the agency.
(Applequest: HERE is where I would insert the slippery slope argument. I just listed one tiny set of legal developments over the past hundred years that paint a slope before your eyes and lube it up.)
[/epicrant]
Statistics: Posted by Boa — December 10th, 2012, 1:06 pm
]]>
Nate wrote:
Burks wrote:
Nate wrote:
If you do it on the street then you are willingly putting other people's lives at risk. If that's the case, I hope you get caught.
Oh the naive.....
I've evolved beyond wiping with my bare hand and racing on the streets. $15 gets me all the legal racing I (or should I say, my tires) can stomach and women in skimpy clothes. Yup, I'm content.
I don't understand what this is supposed to mean
Means he spends 15 bucks to race on that track and the women there are like the women you see on T.V. at Race tracks, or dressed like it at the least.
I'm not sure how it works in the US, but in the UK on private land you don't need insurance to drive, so it wouldn't be an issue. Though they understandably may be concerned that you race your car, I'm fairly sure they wouldn't be able to raise your bill as a result.
Furthermore, roads belong to the Government, and it's the Government's responsibility to keep road users safe. If you don't like they way they go about it, don't use them.
Statistics: Posted by Nate — December 10th, 2012, 12:00 pm
]]>
Just had my car slammed into in September by some kid who thought he was drag racing. My insurance said it was his fault, but because I didn't have collision coverage, his insurance company just decided to ignore the police report and put their own estimate on the kid's speed and place me at fault. I support this out of personal rage alone.
Also, it supposedly only records the last few minutes of a collision, only writing it to memory IF it senses a triggering flag. According to wikipedia, they are incapable of sending info on your driving habits to insurance company (for now). And I doubt they ever will be; I have no doubts the government will try to monitor that information in "potential terrorists", but if a private party ever pulled that crap there would be all sorts of court cases on it.
Sucks about him. I would have got out and kicked his ass. Someone attempted to clip my passenger door as my friend and his gf were getting in, and I would have caught up with them and we would have beat them, but his gf was getting scared so we took her home and then went to chill at his place.
Main point in the quote above... ( For Now )
Also if they have the "power" and technology to monitor "potential terrorists" why wouldn't they use it against you? They might in the near future take it upon themselves to figure out and decide when you break a law and then to use it against you later? Also what if they take the power themselves and even if you are not caught "red-handed" they go to you and then charge you with the crime that could have been an accident or you just break laws in general? It's one of those "You ruined it for everyone else moments".
Boa wrote:
I'd love to ask you if you would like that to be the situation we face here in America, and I'd go so far as to ask you: If the Chinese were occupying bases around our country, killing innocent people, occupying all major cities, taking over our government, assassinating our leaders, changing our laws and forcing us into agreements, do you think that a single American would stand up and fight back? Yes? Do you think some Americans would take the fight to the Chinese, no matter how crude the method? Do you believe that they'd be justified in doing so? And would you be part of the force that fights back, or one of the people who acquiesces? If you'd fight back, congratulations on living in the United States! Because if you were Ap al-Dekwest (get it?) of Baghdad, I think you'd be dead by now and labeled an insurgent.
I'm game ~.^.
Everyone I know would answer "Hell Yeah!" or "
Yeah!" to taking back our country if someone (Chinese in this case) is attempting to take over. We are not push overs. Also depending how far they go will determine just how far we would go to have what is ours. Every American would be justified in doing so, and yeah I would apart of it.Statistics: Posted by Arya — December 10th, 2012, 11:57 am
]]>
2. I do not share the fear of government. I feel our government is more of a bumbling idiot than any sort of malicious monster. I also think that the American people will stand up for themselves when lines are truly crossed. So I am just not worried at this point.
Well I suppose that our primary difference must be highlighted by Hanlon's Razor which states, "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." The difference being that you and I have different thresholds for adequate explanation!
I enjoyed this discussion so don't think I've been upset at you. As you accurately deduced, I am passionate about privacy issues. I would love to go into a longer discussion about how the attacks back in 2001 were predictable results of blowback from our military intervention overseas in the first place. I'd love to go on about Bradley Manning who (allegedly) leaked the famous "Collateral Murder" video from a US Heli-Gattling Gun where the Call of Duty scum going into the military these days beg repeatedly until they are permitted to open fire on a town full of reporters and children with no hostiles, running over their corpses with Bradleys after sending a civilian rescue vehicle with children inside up in flames.
I'd love to ask you if you would like that to be the situation we face here in America, and I'd go so far as to ask you: If the Chinese were occupying bases around our country, killing innocent people, occupying all major cities, taking over our government, assassinating our leaders, changing our laws and forcing us into agreements, do you think that a single American would stand up and fight back? Yes? Do you think some Americans would take the fight to the Chinese, no matter how crude the method? Do you believe that they'd be justified in doing so? And would you be part of the force that fights back, or one of the people who acquiesces? If you'd fight back, congratulations on living in the United States! Because if you were Ap al-Dekwest (get it?) of Baghdad, I think you'd be dead by now and labeled an insurgent.
Not to mention that we never even want after the country that the majority of the hijackers actually came from, our ally Saudi Arabia. 15 Saudis, 2 United Arab Emirates, 1 Egyptian and a Lebanese man (source: cia.gov (.PDF)). If you reply to this at all, I have only one request: Answer the question of why the hell did we ever go into Afghanistan or Iraq when not a single hijacker came from there? How did they manage to track these guys as Bin Laden's men in under a day? If you can figure that out so quickly, how does it take years to "find" the man? I could go over pages worth of anecdotal evidence to illustrate that we're engaged in harmful wars over political power and not self-defense, but I think that your position in relation to Hanlon's Razor will prevent you from accepting this as even a possibility.
Just remember that while malice is not a necessity to commit atrocious acts and that perhaps sufficient levels of idiocy exist in in our government to go that far, to rule out malice or greed is short-sighted.
Visualize a stack of cash that represents 739 billion dollars. Find that to be difficult? Imagine a rectangular prism made up of 4090 dollar bills in each dimension (4090 stacks of 4090 dollar bills, then 4090 iterations of that line of stacks). Imagine a floor 40 inches thick made of dollar bills that stretches for 886 feet in one direction and 2079 feet (around half a mile) in the other direction. This is a volume of over six million cubic feet. And people are wondering why the "recovery" is going slowly? We spend nearly ten times as much on "Defense" as the Chinese do, and the 9 countries following the USA on this top ten list added together don't even meet our expenditures.
More or less, don't talk to me about terrorism or use it as some sort of excuse for the surveillance state infrastructure that is targetting American citizens constantly. The CIA admitted in congressional hearings that they armed the shoe bomber with his fake bomb and got him on the plane past the security checkpoint. The TSA hasn't stopped a single terrorist ever but they rip colostomy bags out of old women in wheelchairs, scream at wheelchair ridden people to get up for a pat down, and swab your stumps if you're an amputee. All without ever taking the oath our police officers and military take to protect and defend the Constitution (because, well, then they couldn't do their job). There have been huge controversies over the TSA strip searching old women and little kids. I am morally unable to go through a security checkpoint at the airport and must travel by train.
These posts must seem to skip from idea to idea at slightest provocation, but I have a LOT of information on topics like this. So much, in fact, that sometimes I can't distinguish a great supporting fact from a mediocre one that won't demonstrate what was intended.
Quote:
SPOILERS: The US accounts for 40% of all data requests at 8000-ish requests. Fun facts!
Ouch, not only that, but they also have the highest rate of being granted their requests, at 90%.
Statistics: Posted by Boa — December 10th, 2012, 11:00 am
]]>
Also, it supposedly only records the last few minutes of a collision, only writing it to memory IF it senses a triggering flag. According to wikipedia, they are incapable of sending info on your driving habits to insurance company (for now). And I doubt they ever will be; I have no doubts the government will try to monitor that information in "potential terrorists", but if a private party ever pulled that crap there would be all sorts of court cases on it.
Oh, and related: http://www.google.com/transparencyrepor ... arequests/
SPOILERS: The US accounts for 40% of all data requests at 8000-ish requests. Fun facts!
Statistics: Posted by bluecoat — December 10th, 2012, 10:54 am
]]>
Burks wrote:
Nate wrote:
If you do it on the street then you are willingly putting other people's lives at risk. If that's the case, I hope you get caught.
Oh the naive.....
I've evolved beyond wiping with my bare hand and racing on the streets. $15 gets me all the legal racing I (or should I say, my tires) can stomach and women in skimpy clothes. Yup, I'm content.
I don't understand what this is supposed to mean
Means he spends 15 bucks to race on that track and the women there are like the women you see on T.V. at Race tracks, or dressed like it at the least.
Also about this argument I believe in what Boa is stating and the argument that is occurring because of it.
Boa wrote:
The fact that you shall not be forced to self-incriminate is one of the most powerful guarantees in our court system and is the basis of past stances (though not our present stance) against torture (I'm sorry, "Advanced Interrogation Techniques").
To be forced to self-incriminate in order to exercise our personal liberty intended to be guaranteed us by our Constitution is a complete affront to the very spirit of our founding documents.
"I Plead the 5th" means nothing if they choose to moderate driving and what ever comes after this new change. The government may be trying to help us, but they are taking others' rights away. There are rights that are not listed, but the ones listed should be more thoroughly left alone.
Suppose it is mechanical failure due to wrecks how would they prove that the mishap did not just occur? There is always something that can happen. You can't prevent everything, but it does help if you pay attention to what you are doing.
My argument is based on the fact that I love driving. It's my one sanction when the world is too stressful to take head on, or it's just an escape from myself. I drive an 05 Chevy and I've probably put 8k miles on my truck the past 3 months, and I don't even work that far from where I live/go to school far away. People have learned through...unpleasant explanations that No One messes with my truck.
It should be optional for the government to be able to track you ( you know that's the first thing they will check ), or to moderate your speed. What if you're rushing to the hospital, late for work/school,or...or... there are many reasons people would break laws for. You see it everyday, but I agree most of those people just break the laws because they are impatient little
. They should enforce the rules/ laws already in place before they "try" to protect us anymore. People should be able to decide if they want the government to be able to prove what caused the wreck or mishap. The easiest thing to avoid that much government involvement.
Applequest wrote:
Dont cause an accident and youll have nothing to worry about. It cracks me up when people get all bent out of shape about so-called privacy infringements. Remember how the Patriot Act was supposed to ruin our lives? Oh wait, unless you are doing terrorist things you have nothing to worry about. The more things that make life easier for good, law-abiding citizens the better. I'm sorry you wont be able to go drive around at 100 MPH, get into an accident, and be able to lie about how fast you were going anymore.
Statistics: Posted by Arya — December 10th, 2012, 10:28 am
]]>
1. As for the Patriot Act, if there have been a handful of people who have had their lives negatively impacted without cause, I do feel sorry for that fact. But I will counter with the fact we have not had any real attack on US soil in 11+ years, which is remarkable. I dont know how much, if any, of that is attributable to the Patriot Act, but altogether the government seems to be protecting us. I would gladly trade a 1 in a million chance of my life being affected by the Patriot Act for the assurance my life wont be affected by a terrorist. Ben Franklin lived in a very different world, though I appreciate his sentiment.
2. I do not share the fear of government. I feel our government is more of a bumbling idiot than any sort of malicious monster. I also think that the American people will stand up for themselves when lines are truly crossed. So I am just not worried at this point.
Statistics: Posted by Applequest — December 10th, 2012, 9:31 am
]]>
Nate wrote:
If you do it on private property with the owners permission, you have nothing to worry about. Insurance companies won't put up your premiums without solid proof of dangerous activities.
Yup, it's called a dragstrip or raceway. I'm sure you've seen a few. Who is to say what the insurance companies will allow? I'm sure they can prove I was at X, Y coordinates at the time of an accident, but if they somehow upload my data and find I was doing 130mph+, bet they can't show I was at a dragstrip at that time. Illegal activities......insurance......denied.
Laws exist for a reason. Does the Government violate people's rights by enforcing a ban on drink driving?
Burks wrote:
Nate wrote:
If you do it on the street then you are willingly putting other people's lives at risk. If that's the case, I hope you get caught.
Oh the naive.....
I've evolved beyond wiping with my bare hand and racing on the streets. $15 gets me all the legal racing I (or should I say, my tires) can stomach and women in skimpy clothes. Yup, I'm content.
I don't understand what this is supposed to mean
Statistics: Posted by Nate — December 10th, 2012, 8:00 am
]]>
I appreciate your passion, but this is pretty much a slippery slope argument, which I absolutely detest (if we allow gay people to marry, next thing you know people will be marrying their cats, AMIRIGHT?). I dont believe this is an invasion of privacy. If you want to operate a machine with the potential to kill other people, I think a device that can monitor how its being used is a step forward. Think instant replay in football, we now have more information about who is in the right.
As for insurance, because of adverse selection and asymmetric information, safe drivers are essentially subsidizing the insurance rates for unsafe ones. If you haven't seen already, insurance companies are offering discounts to those who let them monitor their driving. Its a great thing. I cant speak for what your insurance policy is Burks, but I wouldn't blame them for being nervous about insuring a drag racer. Again, I don't see how these black boxes are a bad thing if you are a good driver, unless you paranoid about big brother.
The difference between the gay marriage argument and the security argument in terms of a slippery slope is that the gay marriage argument is baseless and has no evidence of precedent to back it up, whereas the US government has incrementally taken rights away, and continues to do so.
Statistics: Posted by Aragorn Ix — December 10th, 2012, 7:18 am
]]>
I appreciate your passion, but this is pretty much a slippery slope argument, which I absolutely detest (if we allow gay people to marry, next thing you know people will be marrying their cats, AMIRIGHT?). I dont believe this is an invasion of privacy. If you want to operate a machine with the potential to kill other people, I think a device that can monitor how its being used is a step forward. Think instant replay in football, we now have more information about who is in the right.
As for insurance, because of adverse selection and asymmetric information, safe drivers are essentially subsidizing the insurance rates for unsafe ones. If you haven't seen already, insurance companies are offering discounts to those who let them monitor their driving. Its a great thing. I cant speak for what your insurance policy is Burks, but I wouldn't blame them for being nervous about insuring a drag racer. Again, I don't see how these black boxes are a bad thing if you are a good driver, unless you paranoid about big brother.
Quite frankly my post was far more centered on your dismissive comments about the effects of the Patriot Act, but you hand-waved all of that away without so much as a "Hummm, interesting research you've done there". I was not making an argument related to my initial post but presenting facts intended to show you that your comments were uninformed and baseless.
Hyped or not, it's caused untold emotional, financial, and mental damage to a significant number of people through the direct revocation of their Constitutionally guaranteed rights. You know, that system that makes sure we're guilty until proven innocent and have the freedom to take almost any action that does not harm another person? The "Nothing to hide" argument doesn't really work when they can actually imprison you without an end date without ever taking you to trial or gathering a scrap of evidence that can be verified by the public.
I also took offense at the implication that I may speed on the public freeways, but chose to address it the way you addressed *every point* in my post - by not addressing it and instead trying to make a point of my own. I am curious - I daresay doubtful - as to whether you could actually justify the statement that this is a "Slippery Slope" argument.
I can't always expect to get in-depth or thoughtful responses, but I know you're capable of engaging in this discussion more deeply. I'm hoping to modify your viewpoint that considers the State to be benevolent rather than self-serving. If not self-serving, at least so obsessed with the letter of the law that the spirit of our Rule of Law legal system has been shredded.
Whistleblowers who leak footage of the US committing heinous war crimes go to jail. That doesn't sound like enforcement of the law. Legal Medical Marijuana dispensaries are regularly raided, with over ten times the raids during Obama's first term than in both of Bush's. That doesn't sound like enforcement of the law. Your phone calls are recorded and stored without your permission and handed over to the police with nearly no questions asked; only a handful of the tinier cell phone companies even ask for a warrant before giving the police a record of every call you've made. None of this is right and none of this makes sense if we wish to call ourselves a society of free and sovereign individuals.
Despite the related-but-slightly-off-topic transgressions of our government against its people who elect to give it its power, I think that at the end of the day this sums up exactly how I feel:
Quote:
"There are important safety concerns here and they shouldn't be ignored, but there are also pressing privacy concerns," said Chris Calabrese of the American Civil Liberties Union. "Chiefly, who's going to access this information and how long is it going to be collected? I'd make sure that the owner of the vehicle controls the data."
Statistics: Posted by Boa — December 9th, 2012, 11:40 pm
]]>
As for insurance, because of adverse selection and asymmetric information, safe drivers are essentially subsidizing the insurance rates for unsafe ones. If you haven't seen already, insurance companies are offering discounts to those who let them monitor their driving. Its a great thing. I cant speak for what your insurance policy is Burks, but I wouldn't blame them for being nervous about insuring a drag racer. Again, I don't see how these black boxes are a bad thing if you are a good driver, unless you paranoid about big brother.
Statistics: Posted by Applequest — December 9th, 2012, 11:13 pm
]]>
If you do it on private property with the owners permission, you have nothing to worry about. Insurance companies won't put up your premiums without solid proof of dangerous activities.
Yup, it's called a dragstrip or raceway. I'm sure you've seen a few. Who is to say what the insurance companies will allow? I'm sure they can prove I was at X, Y coordinates at the time of an accident, but if they somehow upload my data and find I was doing 130mph+, bet they can't show I was at a dragstrip at that time. Illegal activities......insurance......denied.
Nate wrote:
If you do it on the street then you are willingly putting other people's lives at risk. If that's the case, I hope you get caught.
Oh the naive.....
I've evolved beyond wiping with my bare hand and racing on the streets. $15 gets me all the legal racing I (or should I say, my tires) can stomach and women in skimpy clothes. Yup, I'm content.
Statistics: Posted by Burks — December 9th, 2012, 11:02 pm
]]>