Is this the direction we're heading toward? I couldn't find this story elsewhere (although I didn't look too hard, I'll grant you) and I know that WND has ran at least one story before without fact checking... So..... What do ya'll think?
quote: "The concept," said Jones, "is that vehicle manufacturers will install a communications device on the vehicle starting at some future date, and equipment will be installed on the nation's transportation system to allow all vehicles to communicate with the infrastructure."
So your travel routes will be untrackable if you drive an older car?
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
You know savvy mechanic-type people will be stripping out the equipment.. or better yet, hacking into it.
I highly doubt the government could stay ahead of the hackers...good hackers, that is.. not the posers who type like dorks.
-Katarain
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
It's very similar to some 50's-60's era experiments trying to make cars that drive themselves wherever you want to go, like in "Minority Report"
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
First, I am amazed that WND is running a pro-privacy article.
Second, this brings back the debate of how and when openness benefits society. Let's face it, by tracking cars' positions, you can do all kinds of things for the driver. Further, some people will argue, what's wrong with ticketing people when they break the law? If the law isn't supposed to be obeyed, why have it?
There is a middle ground in all of this where generic data is sent to wherever, such that people don't know which particular vehicle the data is being sent from. Encrypt the signal and make the evidence gotten by the computer in your car inadmissiable in court without heavy probable cause. Give people the chance to opt out of hte system if they so choose.
Done this way, I think it could be a good idea with a lot of benefits.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
Isn't On-Star already doing this?
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
No, this technology is much easier than that. It exists today: Hello, OnStar??? Many cellphones can now be tracked too. It IS a very scary time to be alive. Sure, theoretically the technology is in private hands, not those of the government, but in the era of the Patriot Act, how secure can you feel in that fact? Your library records aren't safe, why should your cell phone records be?
(Heck, OnStar can remotely unlock your doors and turn the car on or off. Can you imagine that technology in the government's hands?)
This isn't scary future crap, it's scary NOW crap.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Two of you posted while I was typing.
Storm, if the government's ability to enforce laws is flawless, then the government's ability to exceed its bounds is also limitless. You can't stop the march of technology, but I don't for a mooment trust the government to content itself with not having information that it could have.
Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
I'm sorry, but I just don't understand the panic people seem to feel whenever they feel their privacy is threatened. I value privacy, but not to the point of fanaticism. Personally, I think it's highly overrated. I just don't believe there's very much danger in having either the government or private businesses know all kinds of things about us.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Well, given my family background, I hope you will understand my lack of trust for governments when it comes to only using their power in fair and appropriate ways.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
I value privacy as well, but if you are that concerned about it, stay home close the shutters and don't go out into the "public".
That's why they are called "Public Roads".
The benefit to society heavily outweighs the light privacy issues IMHO.
If someone know specifically in what way this would harm someone, let me know.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
I think a lot of people accept that the government tracks internet surfing habits, tracks phone conversations for "red-flag" words, and will completely gain access to library records, credit card information, et cetera in the near future. I wonder if they already have access to ALL our personal information.
I can see the government tracking us more and more as technology increases, and I don't think there will be a big enough outcry. Catching terrorists and criminals will be used as the justification for taking away civil liberties and “the innocent will never be prosecuted” will be used as a feel good rationalization.
It takes a great deal of faith to believe the government will only go after the bad guy. Who defines bad and what are the qualifications?
That being said, I would rather know what Uncle Sam is doing then pretending in certain civil rights that are being violated. Just some out and tell me if you are/can tracking/track my car or are violating my right to privacy.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Icarus, I'm not arguing that the government should have access to this data. Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote: It takes a great deal of faith to believe the government will only go after the bad guy. Who defines bad and what are the qualifications?
The law. Those that abide it have nothing to fear, those that break it have everything to fear, such as the loss of the freedoms they are abusing.
The government has tracked License plates for "years" which is the same thing but at a lower technology.
We track all planes in the sky with radar.
Just knowing where a car is at any given moment is not an invasion of privacy, it practice finally catching up with policy.
Could someone give me a reason why the tracking of cars is a bad thing given that we track them already with License plates and that we track "all" air traffic with Radar?
[ October 07, 2004, 12:16 PM: Message edited by: CStroman ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
It's the very question "Why is this a bad thing?" that bothers me. It means we as a society have effectively given up on privacy. Once the records exist, they will eventually become available in all kinds of civil suits and criminal proceedings.
It also makes it nice and easy to fake reports in order to frame someone.
And "Those that abide it have nothing to fear, those that break it have everything to fear, such as the loss of the freedoms they are abusing" is tantamount to denying most of our rights under the 4th and 5th amendments. When enforced by the exclusionary rule, these rights generally keep relevant evidence with high reliability and high probative value out of court. They are only ever directly enforced in favor of the guilty, because the only practical enforcement is exclusion if damning evidence from trial. This policy is a tradeoff of truth-determination in favor of protection of privacy from government intrusion, and it's at the heart of our constitutional principles.
I'm not ready to give that away just yet.
Dagonee
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
quote: The law. Those that abide it have nothing to fear, those that break it have everything to fear, such as the loss of the freedoms they are abusing.
Oh my... You don't REALLY believe this, do you?
Tell that to all of the innocent people in prison, or if you don't think there are any innocent people in prison, how about the people who've spent years in prison, are proven innocent, and then let go?
-Katarain
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote: Tell that to all of the innocent people in prison, or if you don't think there are any innocent people in prison, how about the people who've spent years in prison, are proven innocent, and then let go?
Genearlly speaking it is due to privacy laws that innocent people ARE in prison and it is due to a REMOVAL of those privacy laws that once existed that have enabled those innocent to be let go. DNA testing is a prime example of an invasion of privacy but leads to exoneration.
I still am waiting for someone to tell me what "privacy" they loose by having their car tracked the same way an Airplane is tracked, or the same way YOU are tracked if you step foot on an airplane?
Anyone?
[ October 07, 2004, 12:44 PM: Message edited by: CStroman ]
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
Certainly there is no evidence in history of a government transforming into a political body that has a vested interest in antagonizing innocent people. Certainly educators/Jews/political dissidents have never been victims of ruthless governments. It is too rosy to think our government can not or will not abuse innocent people to either grow or change it’s power. The Bill of rights was partly/largely made to restrict the government from developing into something like Pre-WWII Germany. Anything that loosens government restriction should be looked at with a critical eye. I for one am worried.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
The privacy they lose is that they lost their privacy. There doesn't need to be a reason outside of that. We are free individuals and should go where we please when we please, and yes, in secrecy if we so choose. Innocent until proven guilty.
And this is just one more way that the government has to keep us in line. If someone is working against an unjust, unconstitutional government, I'd rather not have that government have all of the resources to stop that person. And if you don't think that could ever happen, then you are forgetting history.
I don't want to live in a police state. Big brother doesn't NEED to know when I go to the store.
-Katarain
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Genearlly speaking it is due to privacy laws that innocent people ARE in prison and it is due to a REMOVAL of those privacy laws that once existed that have enabled those innocent to be let go.
What on earth does this mean? What privacy laws kept Calvin Williams in jail?
The privacy reduction is obvious. If you drive on the road, you are essentially anonymous. You can be identified by officers on the scene who send in your tag number. Other than that, unless something happens that makes someone take note of your presence (an accident, a crime, etc.), there's no record of your movement available.
With the new system, every single movement you make would be available.
A significantly larger percentage of your movements are reproducible with the new than the old. If there were no reduction in privacy, there'd be no use for the new system. It's all about keeping track of movements that they can't keep track of now.
Could you at least attempt to recocile your statement with principles underlying the 4th and 5th amendment protections?
Dagonee
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Dagonee, what are the 4th and 5th amendments?
I've heard of the 5th... the one people plead when they don't want to answer a question that would incriminate themselves. I don't know what else there is to it, though.
-Katarain
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote: What privacy laws kept Calvin Williams in jail?
The ones that kept the DNA of the perpetrator from being accessible to law enforcement.
EDIT: You can't get more personal or private than someone's DNA.
[ October 07, 2004, 12:58 PM: Message edited by: CStroman ]
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
Can you reconcile the tracking of Airplanes and their passengers with the 4th and 5th ammendment?
I think it's pretty stupid to go out on a PUBLIC road and expect "privacy" or "anonymity".
It is a public road, it is not your private home.
Use of a car is a PRIVILEDGE and not a RIGHT. You must be licensed to drive and you must have a license plate (tracking number) on your vehicle.
Can you reconcile THOSE with the 4th and 5th ammendments?
Should we do away then with driver's licenses, license plates, radar, and airline passenger tracking?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Edit: to Katarain:
Ooh, complicated question. The 4th basically protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, and prescribes the requirements for obtaining a warrant. The 5th:
1. requires an indictment before facing a federal felony charge 2. prevents double jeopardy 3. guarantees the right against self-incrimination (what "taking the fifth" usually means) 4. guarantees the right to due process before deprivation of life, liberty, or property 5. guarantees just compensation when property is taken for a public use.
Interestingly, the right to an attorney is listed in the sixth amendment, but the Miranda warning is all about the fifth amendment right against self-incrimination. It's a very interesting, but minutely technical aspect of constitutional criminal law.
Dagonee
[ October 07, 2004, 01:05 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:The ones that kept the DNA of the perpetrator from being accessible to law enforcement.
EDIT: You can't get more personal or private than someone's DNA.
Of course, the DNA used in the case was LEFT AT THE SCENE. In fact, they don't know who the perpatrator is, so the protection of his privacy had nothing to do with the wrongful conviction.
There was no privacy reason for him being in prison. It was based on the unreliability of eyewitness testimony the unavailability of DNA testing, and the unwillingness to go back and test where possible now that DNA testing is available.
Dagonee
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
I pay taxes to drive on those darn roads. I have a RIGHT to privacy. Privacy is NOT a privilege.
And I also am upset about the lack of privacy if I want to fly on an airplane these days... AND I don't believe in the patriot act.
-Katarain
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Oh, and Dagonee, thanks for the explanation.
-Katarain
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Can you reconcile the tracking of Airplanes and their passengers with the 4th and 5th ammendment?
Sure - it's necessary for the proper functioning of the air traffic controller system, and it doesn't relay private information. Commercial trucks are already required to be registered and weighed quite often when travelling, for safety and commerce regulation reasons.
The passengers are tracked for business reasons, just like a grocery store tracks your purchases if you use a bonus card or a credit card to make a purchase.
quote:I think it's pretty stupid to go out on a PUBLIC road and expect "privacy" or "anonymity".
It is a public road, it is not your private home.
Privacy does not extend only to the home. There's less privacy on the road, certainly, but not none.
quote:Use of a car is a PRIVILEDGE and not a RIGHT. You must be licensed to drive and you must have a license plate (tracking number) on your vehicle.
Can you reconcile THOSE with the 4th and 5th ammendments?
Sure, the licensing and registration is part of a regulatory scheme necessary for the safety and functioning of the highways.
And, of course, privileges are protected by the Constitution as well. However, you're wrong to say it's a privilege. Driving is a right, which requires certain conditions to exercise. But if you are denied your right to a license for a reason not rationally related to the purpose of the regulatory scheme, you can sue in court to get your license, just like you can sue to enforce other rights.
quote:Should we do away then with driver's licenses, license plates, radar, and airline passenger tracking?
No. For the reasons given.
Dagonee
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
Calvin Willis was (falsely) convicted in 1982 of a crime which occurred the year before. DNA testing was not readily available (IIRC) until the early nineties, and it is still expensive -- much more so then.
Innocence Projects are generally pro bono work done by lawyers and law students to apply current forensic techniques to "closed cases;" i.e., they go back over old evidence using current scientific practice (usually DNA testing) to see if those sentenced to death or life without parole were wrongly convicted.
Correct me if I'm wrong, Dag or UULG.
[ October 07, 2004, 01:29 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
quote:Driving is a right, which requires certain conditions to exercise.
And, of course, we all are savvy enough to recall that not all rights of American citizens are enumerated in the US Constitution, as is noted in that very document itself.
quote:Amendment IX - Construction of Constitution (ratified 12/15/1791)
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
(knee-jerk head-off-at-the-pass response, excuse me )
[ October 07, 2004, 01:26 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
You guys have an awful lot of confidence in the government, too.
I'm taking a class this semester on terrorism, taught by the man in charge of the State Department's counterterrorism bureau (Middle East division). He's worked there 26 years, and he's taught these classes for the past six years. Our major project is to plan an terrorist attack and write communiques taking credit for the attack. We use primarily the internet which, as noted above, is supposedly tracked by the government.
No one in any of his classes has ever been contacted by the government in reference to 'illicit' activities on the web. I myself have visited numerous al-Qaida and terrorist websites....no knock on the door yet.
But my professor also emphasized that we have a heck of a lot of possibly misplaced trust in the government's ability to track what people are doing. The FBI has *thousands* of phone conversations on record from *suspected* terrorists that it just doesn't have time to listen to or deal with. Our government is overwhelmed with information -- just because the technology exists for them to get that information doesn't mean they are actually retrieving it or doing anything with it.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Around a hundred and twenty thousand hours of taped conversations which haven't been translated and/or listened to.
Posted by Tammy (Member # 4119) on :
quote:The FBI has *thousands* of phone conversations on record from *suspected* terrorists that it just doesn't have time to listen to or deal with. Our government is overwhelmed with information -- just because the technology exists for them to get that information doesn't mean they are actually retrieving it or doing anything with it.
Yeah, I was thinking "so what" if they tracked my vehicle. There are so many darn cars on the road these days that if my "paths" make some poor desk jockeys computer beep, then I'm not doing something right.
I’m not worried. I'd bet that my travel paths are among the most boring out there. *shrugs*
The only thing I'd be worried about is mistaken identity.
If a known felon was driving the exact make and model as I was, and the monitors in the vehicles blitzed, causing me to be the one chased down versus the bad guy. That’s of course if they used the “tracking” devices in that manner.
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
I participate on all sorts of activities that are legal, but border on average Americans' senses of squickiness. While I am protected currently by the law, there is no guarantee that this information could be used to make my life difficult either by someone illegally holding that information now, or changes in the future.
Posted by Lost Ashes (Member # 6745) on :
I think my biggest issue with it is the simple assumption that we no longer are innocent until proven guilty and that probable cause starts to go out the window.
These monitoring systems work under the auspice that people are already doing wrong, and that they just need to be caught. The old, as said before, those who aren't doing wrong have nothing to worry about line.
Honestly, has anyone who drives not, at some point, or in some situation, ever gone over the speed limit?
Should the government begin watching you closely after you buy a copy of the Koran? Or perhaps Voltaire's Candide?
Hey, if you aren't doing anything wrong, why should you worry? Perhaps the question should be, why are you so worried that I am doing something wrong?
Let's face it, we're all becoming the victims of profiling.
Posted by Tammy (Member # 4119) on :
quote:Honestly, has anyone who drives not, at some point, or in some situation, ever gone over the speed limit?
Okay, if they're tracking speed limits, I'm definitely screwed. Write me up!
quote: Let's face it, we're all becoming the victims of profiling.
Most definitely!
Posted by Olivetta (Member # 6456) on :
They are making things too complicated. Like electronic voting-- techies have proven that trained chimps could hack the vote if it's done how they have been planning to do it.
Of course, maybe trained chimps could make better choices.
There was an article about a guy who signed up for a beta testing of this thing. His insurance company siad they'd cut him a deal on insurance if he proved to be a safe driver. I think they measured speed and also the forcefullness of stops, among other things.
It seemed creepy to me.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I haven't read the last posts since I posted, because I'm at work. I have six minutes before my next class and I just wanted to comment on how the policies of the Bush administration make strange bedfellows of people. Republicans more than anyone else should be arguing against this idea, because it increases the size, scope, and power of government. In fact, this is why Cuban-Americans have traditionally voted Republican. But a Republican administration created the Patriot Act, so now you have to defend things Republicans ordinarily would not.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
Wow posts comming in faster than I can read them. Dagonee's arguments as to why it's ok for driver's licenses, license plates, etc. are all arguments for an updating of the "Automotive Tracking" policies of the country as described in the article.
And passenger names are not recorded and kept track of for business reasons, it's an actual FAA regulation that you have to divulge your name and identification to be able to fly.
You can't be a movie star and say your name is Mickey Mouse and fly on airplane without actually showing proof of ID of who you are.
The law actually requires that the person's name on the ticket is the only one who can use it.
So as you listed "safety" as a good excuse to invade or privacy for aircraft, it is also a good idea to invade or privacy for "safety" in automobiles.
Those worrying about the "flaws" inherent in the proposed system don't realize that there already exist flaws in the current system, but we aren't throwing those systems out the window because of them.
I don't think that tracking devices on automobiles (which is equivalent of Air Traffic control #'s and radar) if handled in the same way as our Commercial Air system is handled, can be decried as an invasion of privacy.
It would be the exact same thing. All you would know is what the car is and who owns it. You still have no way of proving who is driving it and who is in it, what music they are listening to or if they are or are not wearing pants.
I wholeheartedly support the institution of an automobile tracking system equivalent to the system used now in tracking Air Traffic.
Imagine our air traffic system without any sort of monitoring or tracking.
And that's completely leaving out "Black Boxes" which are another invasion of the privacy of Pilots and their Passengers as well.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote: Honestly, has anyone who drives not, at some point, or in some situation, ever gone over the speed limit?
So because people do it makes it ok?
The effect would be that people would slow down and go the speed limit which means that safety would be increased?
How many people are stupid enough to go 100mph when they can SEE the cop watching them?
Ever been behind someone speeding when they see the cop?
It's called a Flash of Red.
It's the same as when you know you are on a security camera.
Loss of Privacy? Monitoring Speeders is a loss of privacy, but we are willing to give it up because it saves lives.
Mr. Kidnapper steals a car and kidnaps some 13 year old girl and heads out to the mountains to rape her and kill her. You have the license plate #, but it is already reported as stolen.
In the current system, that girls dead.
How do you find the car? You track it and there it is in the mountains. You send in the police.
If it saves lives should be the priority over "I don't want people knowing where I am...that's makes me feel uncomfortable".
Just my opinion.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
The requirement to present an ID to fly is gone. (of course, you still need one to pass the security checkpoints). But the ID at gate requirement was struck down.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote: of course, you still need one to pass the security checkpoints
That's what I mean. You can't fly without identifying who you are. Which not only tells the government who you are, what flight you are on, but it also tells them where you are going.
Should we do away with it because it's an invasion of privacy?
Should we make it so that all passengers are anonymous and don't have to provide any ID of who they are?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:If it saves lives should be the priority over "I don't want people knowing where I am...that's makes me feel uncomfortable".
I can certainly come up with a policy that saves lives that you would consider unacceptbale.
For instance, a person is kidnapped and threatened with death. Should the police search every house to see if the person is in there?
Should we lower all the speed limits to 25 MPH? That would likely save lives.
Should we allow the police to demand DNA samples from all males when there's a serial rapist/killer on the loose?
Saving lives is only one of the factors taken into consideration, balanced against other considerations. Keeping track of vehicles traveling over 5 miles a minute with inadequate visibility to prevent collisions is very different than logging where every car is at every moment.
Exactly how would this save lives, anyway?
Dagonee
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
That's not an FAA regulation, that's a TSA regulation. Also, the checkpoint at the security location is not as invasive as the checkpoint at the gate. One can pass the security checkpoint showing one boarding pass, then use a different boarding pass to board a completely different airline, no ID shown. Nothing illegal about it.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote: For instance, a person is kidnapped and threatened with death. Should the police search every house to see if the person is in there?
If they have probable cause yes. It has happened before.
quote: Should we lower all the speed limits to 25 MPH? That would likely save lives.
Ever been on a street where a school is then built? Speed limit DROPS. Ever been on a street where a school just got let out? It drops even further.
SO yes that is the policy. Where a definate change means saving lives, it is done.
quote: Exactly how would this save lives, anyway?
In the same way tracking who is on a plane does and can.
In the same way a cop sitting on the side of the road with a speed gun does.
Or prosecuting DUI's when they haven't hurt anyone.
Or having Metal detectors and X-Ray at Airports if you want to get REAL personal.
It's the law, but a HUGE invasion of privacy.
So let's do away with Metal Detectors and X-Ray of "personal" baggage then right?
Or maybe you think those things do not save lives.
It's because of Invasion of Privacy that we KNOW who committed the 9/11 attacks and where they came from.
You listen to the privacy fanatics and we'd still be sitting around scratching our heads beause we would have NO idea who was on those planes.
I had to take off my SHOES at the airport to be able to get on a plane.
Wow. I was so "violated". I even had a "hole" in my socks.
Get over it. You want privacy? Buy a cabin in the woods with no windows and no electricity and have no contact with anyone.
You want to be a part of society and enjoy it's benefits, then be a part.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:If they have probable cause yes. It has happened before.
I'm talking about without probable cause. "We know the kidnapper went into this neighborhood. Let's search all the houses!"
quote:Ever been on a street where a school is then built? Speed limit DROPS. Ever been on a street where a school just got let out? It drops even further.
SO yes that is the policy. Where a definate change means saving lives, it is done.
Yes, but lowering all speed limits to 25 would save more lives. Why don't we do it?
quote:Get over it. You want privacy? Buy a cabin in the woods with no windows and no electricity and have no contact with anyone.
You want to be a part of society and enjoy it's benefits, then be a part.
Except this society was founded on the principle that one does NOT have to forfeit core freedoms to belong to society. You want to belong to THIS society, then you trade efficient prosecution of criminals for protection of privacy rights.
Dagonee
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
I don't have a problem with the government hypothetically keeping tabs on every activity. What I do have a problem with is the proposal that only the government is allowed access to those records.
Irrespective of what one thinks of the government -- personally, I think government employees are less corruptible as a whole than private individuals as a whole -- the monitoring activities will be screened by individuals. And not all individuals-hired-by-the-government are incorruptible. Besides selling governmentally-held "private" information to commercial databanks/etc, the type of information gathered is too easily correlated into information that could be used for blackmail and extortion.
Not too long ago, one could long-distance travel anywhere within US without proof-of-identity if one paid cash: now one can do so only in private transportation (I think even commercial buslines require IDs). One could check into hotels under assumed names if one paid cash: now one must provide identification. One could use credit cards and checks with a fair amount of certainty that only ones bank and/or credit card provider would have full access to the records: now we can't.
Take a hypothetical married businessman/woman. He travels from home to eg NewYorkCity for a meeting. Naturally, he needs a hotel room. Now what does it imply if he pays for double-occupancy when he is "traveling alone" as far as his business is concerned? Or if he has a charge on his card for a strip joint, a "sexy advertizing" massage parlor, or an escort service? And it is easy to check via her credit/checking account activity whether his wife is in NYC at the time of these activities. Voila, perfect material to "lean" on the businessman if an individual-screening-for-the-govenment chooses to do so.
Doesn't take direct blackmail or extortion. All it takes is just a hint, a favor done "I noticed [such and such] on your records, and buried it. You should be more careful." After many such favors to many businessmen/women, the corruptible government employee might decide to resign/retire, and look for a higher-than-expectable-income job in private industry. Now guess who is gonna provide strong "scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" recommendations in favor of hiring her/him.
If it were only businessmen/women, we might be willing to accept it as the cost of doing business; like we accept business entertainment ala bars, discos, strip clubs, escorts, etc. But any professional-who-is-less-than-totally-upright-in-personal-behaviour is susceptible: whether s/he be a physician, a police/FBI/etc officer, a bureaucrat, a lawyer, a prosecutor, a judge, or a politician/lawmaker. And along with folks who just wanna be better off than they deserve, there are "empire builder"s within any bureaucracy. Want an "unlikely to recover from this coma" changed to a "brain-dead: persistent vegetative state"? A witness (or a "witness" that ain't) to testify, to self-censor testimony in a manner more favorable to your case? A close legal/regulatory decision nudged your way? The wording of a law or regulation slightly closer to that which you desire, or to that which would grant you more power?
So if individuals-working-for-the-government have access, the (nearly) same access should be granted to all citizens. Otherwise, government-employee shenanigans are gonna increase both quantitatively and qualitatively. It's a lot harder to "lean" on someone with publicly available information than with "private" secrets.
[ October 07, 2004, 04:11 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
I don't think the government will be the one to track our cars. I forsee a near future where car tracking devices will be required to obtain private insurance. Since insurance is required to drive, it will be as good as being tracked by the government.
[ October 07, 2004, 04:05 PM: Message edited by: lem ]
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote: I'm talking about without probable cause. "We know the kidnapper went into this neighborhood. Let's search all the houses!"
That's probable cause. The police do searches that way all the time.
"The suspect entered this apartment complex which is surrounded. Let's go door to door until we find him"
Even seen cops? I don't know HOW many yards (personal PRIVATE property) they run through in persuit of their suspect. "hey that dude's hiding in that person's privately owned shed". That's invasion of privacy as well. Happens all the time thank God.
quote: Yes, but lowering all speed limits to 25 would save more lives. Why don't we do it?
Not necessarily, the bottleneck it would create would not allow ambulences to get to and from crimes, nor firefighters, nor police cars. Nor have any studies shown that the difference would be that big if they were lowered. The fact that speed limits exists contradict your whole argument however.
quote: Except this society was founded on the principle that one does NOT have to forfeit core freedoms to belong to society.
It was also founded on a belief in God, that adultery is wrong and that women shouldn't vote, but as anyone will tell you, things change.
Having your car tracked is absolutely NOT a "core freedom" as evidenced that you have to be a certain age, have a license and have your vehicle licensed.
The "core freedoms" you speak of are the ones given at birth.
[ October 07, 2004, 04:06 PM: Message edited by: CStroman ]
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote: I don't think the government will be the one to track our cars. I forsee a near future where car tracking devices will be required to obtain private insurance. Since insurance is required to drive, it will be as good as being tracked by the government.
I agree. That or the insurance premiums for those who refuse to be tracked would be HUGE.
Heck they can pull a Credit Report on you now when trying to apply for a job...
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:That's probable cause. The police do searches that way all the time.
It is not probable cause. Not even close. And if they do searches like that, the evidence they gather and statements made after arrest are not admissible.
quote:"The suspect entered this apartment complex which is surrounded. Let's go door to door until we find him"
If there were 3 apartments in the complex, maybe. 300, absolutely not. It wouldn't hold up in court.
quote:Even seen cops? I don't know HOW many yards (personal PRIVATE property) they run through in persuit of their suspect. "hey that dude's hiding in that person's privately owned shed". That's invasion of privacy as well. Happens all the time thank God.
Hot pursuit, when the police already have probable cause about the person they're pursuing, is an entirely different matter than monitoring people for whom no probable cause exists.
Dagonee
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
C what Dag is asking is if there is a serial killer in the city do we do a thorough search of every home in that city?
Here is my problem with tracking cars.
President of the US is up for re-election.
Joe Schmoe disagrees with the President on several issues, and has been extremely outspoken about it.
Suddenly all the efforts of the federal tracking system are following Joe Schmoe, not seeing if he is doing anything illegal, but seeing where he goes. What other cars meet with him. Who those owners are.
These people are placed under surveilance, blackballed, fired from their present politically sensitive jobs. One is having an affair--not illegal--and this is reported to the media, and to his family. Another has a friend borrow his car who stops at a porn store. Suddenly he is being reported as a purchaser of smut. All those opposing the President, or more likely, the head of this organization, are smeared based on facts obtained by this system.
Don't think it could happen? Instead of using the FBI to track down Organized crime, Hoover used it to keep track of Martin Luther King's mistresses, and JFK's, and others.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
I think you contradicted yourself. You said that someone hiding in a 300 room apartment complex that is sealed off is NOT probable cause, but that police chasing people through peoples yards and looking in their sheds and jumping their fences, etc. is probable cause...
Is it because of location? Lack of Walls? What is it that leads to a police officer being able to enter a yard at will, or a shed in persuit of a suspect, but does not allow him to enter a domicile in the same persuit?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I haven't contradicted myself at all. Someone runs into an apartment complex. You know he's in one of 300 apartments. A search of each separate residence requires particularized probable cause for that residence. At best, you know there's a 1 in 300 chance the suspect is in that apartment.
Someone whom you are chasing hops a fence. You need probable cause to violate the curtilage of the residence. You have it, because you saw him jump the fence.
Dagonee
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Oooh.. about the checking the credit thing... I HATE that. I hate it hate it hate it. It's never happened to me--yet, but I hate that it COULD. I know they need to have my permission first, but I know if they want to check my credit, I won't get the job.
I used to have GOOD credit, then I became unemployed, couldn't find another job, and am behind on many bills. And several medical bills that we can NOT pay have gone into collections.
So, I need money. And in order to get money, I must have a JOB. And in order to get a job, they'll check my credit?? WHY?? To make sure I really don't need the job?
I know some businesses that are financially-related might need to check credit, but from the research I've done, that's not the only reason they check it.
A large sample of data such as a track of all automobile movements creates the perfect opportunity for this kind of problem to crop up. Suppose someone robs 10 banks in LA over the course of a year. I'd almost guarantee that at least one person other than the bank robbers drove within 5 blocks of each bank the day before each bank was robbed. It sounds like pretty damning evidence, but it's not.
Now, this isn't in itself a reason not to support the database. But it's a good example of the kind of problems that can arise, and why it's not as useful as some might think.
Dagonee
I can't get the link to format correctly - just cut and paste it. Sorry.
[ October 07, 2004, 04:38 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote: These people are placed under surveilance, blackballed, fired from their present politically sensitive jobs. One is having an affair--not illegal--and this is reported to the media, and to his family
No offense but you jumped from law enforcement record to public record, which are two different things.
Ever heard of the married men who sneak out to the local parks to have homosexual sex in public, and get caught by the police, but their wives never find out about it?
Why do you think that is?
quote:Don't think it could happen? Instead of using the FBI to track down Organized crime, Hoover used it to keep track of Martin Luther King's mistresses, and JFK's, and others.
And what was the harm in their actions or the repurcussions? These were people who purposely put themselves in the public spotlight.
Both of the Men you mention are dead, were never charged with crimes associated with their actions because none of it was illegal, as you stated.
Are you saying they did things that they didn't want anyone else to know? Like Nixon in the Oval Office? Is THAT an invasion of privacy?
You are assuming that a person driving their car on the road is a private matter. Do you ever look at another car while driving? Do the Police? Why? Why invade my privacy by watching me on the road. Or by watching my driving skills to see if I'm drunk. Or follow me to see where I am going.
It seems to me that people doing stupid things in public places are the ones that are the most concerned.
"Hey I want all the publicity possible when I'm doing something good. Over here camera. But WHOA! when I'm doing something I'm ashamed of, I don't want anyone to know about it."
Public figures are the worst when it comes to this.
No offense, but when just about anyone that wants can pull a credit report on you regarding hooking up your power or water or cable....or even a job application...
Car Tracking is sublimely trivial.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote: It sounds like pretty damning evidence, but it's not.
No it sounds like "This person might have seen the bank robbers, let's go ask him/her for their help to see if they can remember what they may have seen"
It's the exact same as asking a neighboor about the murder that happened the night before. Is the neighbor guilty? No, but you'd be a pretty stupid cop to not go ask, "Did you hear anything last night? Did you see anything? Did you know the victim? When was the last time you saw him/her".
quote: But it's a good example of the kind of problems that can arise, and why it's not as useful as some might think.
Those problems exist already in our CURRENT techniques, but we still use them. Because a system has flaws doesn't mean to throw it out. Otherwise our democracy should have been overthrown ages ago and our legal system wouldn't have lasted a decade.
It's an advanced tool that if used correctly and protected from abuse, can save lives and help fight crime.
Having a Car Tracked doesn't assume Guilt at all in the same way putting a License plate on your car doesn't assume guilt.
It's a tool. Nothing more and nothing less.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Except this society was founded on the principle that one does NOT have to forfeit core freedoms to belong to society. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It was also founded on a belief in God, that adultery is wrong and that women shouldn't vote, but as anyone will tell you, things change.
Really? Which God? I can't seem to find his name in the Constitution....or the Bill of Rights....
Or any mention of a prohibition of Adultry either..
I would post about 20 links disproving this:
quote: Not necessarily, the bottleneck it would create would not allow ambulences to get to and from crimes, nor firefighters, nor police cars. Nor have any studies shown that the difference would be that big if they were lowered. The fact that speed limits exists contradict your whole argument however.
But I feel I have already done too much of your homework on threads before this one.
If lowering speed limits doesn't make driving safer, why are there limits at all, ever? Duh.
Why did the Federal Goverment mandate lower speed limits (no faster than 55) for years, even after the oil embargo was lifted?
Because the faster you go, the more fatal accidents (and accidents in general) there are.
Google is your friend...as is factcheck....
Keep in mind that one of the freedoms you refuse to defend here is your right to say what you want, when you want to say it. Your right to privacy extends far past your shuttered windows and doors, Chad.
Our roads don't need radar, unlike air traffic. They can operate well without it, and have for decades.
Without radar, air travel wouldn't be possible, so it is worth it...and security in the plane has taken a much greater importance since 9/11, so we all have to live with the hightened security measures.
We don't have to live with this much intrusion though....even if, in YOUR opinion we should have to.
Kwea
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
If you really think that the FBI and CIA were justified in spying on MTK and JFK, while they were in private residences going about their own business, then there is nothing further to say to you.
BTW, there WAS some harm in their actions....they treid to blackmail MLK with the information.
The same standards apply to everyone, Chad...but if the politicions and police are the only ones with the access to this type of info (Inforcement vs. public record, remember?) who do you think would be at a loss?
There is too much at risk for this to be allowed to happen, and I don't think it will become widespread pratice.
I can see it in rental cars, but not in private vehicles.
Although if you want it, Chad, feel free to participate in it....
As long as anyone who doesn't want to can opt out.
Kwea
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
They're watching YOU, Chad. Better be a good boy.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Those problems exist already in our CURRENT techniques, but we still use them. Because a system has flaws doesn't mean to throw it out. Otherwise our democracy should have been overthrown ages ago and our legal system wouldn't have lasted a decade.
Hmm. I seem to remember writing, "Now, this isn't in itself a reason not to support the database."
Do I take it you are now admitting I did not contradict myself about probable cause in the two different chase situations.
Dagonee
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:No it sounds like "This person might have seen the bank robbers, let's go ask him/her for their help to see if they can remember what they may have seen"
People are convicted on evidence like this all the time. There's a SIDS convict in England who was convicted on statistical evidence and later freed when they realized that a correct analysis revealed a 50% chance she had smopthered the babies.
Happens here all the time, usually based on the misunderstanding of how low-probability events interact with each other to create probability of guilt.
Dagonee
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
I am. (or at least I try to be) But when I'm not....that's my fault for doing it, not someone else's fault for finding out about it.
I think it will inevitably happen. Insurance companies will have a right to require them on your vehicles in order to get insurance.
The same with seatbelts.
The same with warehouses and buisinesses without fire sprinkler systems.
I personally would much rather have it be the government with some oversight and taxpayer say in it, than private companies initiating it (which has already begun and is probably the way it will go) and dictating how it is going to be employed and distributed.
If the government did it, I think it would be tracking of just the Car only.
WHEN the insurance companies insist on it (and we are all obliged to because of cost) it will be monitoring of the car, it's speed, whether the oil has been changed and the status of the breaks.
Basically everything a car can tell it's owner will be what it tells the insurance company, and they'll have the data and studies to prove it's necessary and affects their cost.
If they can charge teenage boys more than teenage girls because studies show they are more of a risk, they most definately will charge a TON more for people who don't have the tracking device on their car.
I would much rather have the government be the sole accesser of that information than have it reside with a private company. Because if it resides with a private company, not only can the government get at it, but there are no state or federal oversight in how it is used or distributed.
I don't think it's a matter of IF, it's a matter of when for insurance companies.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
I don't know about you guys, but I'm keeping my brilliant red Barchetta; the one my old uncle's holding on to for me, out on his farm in the country-side. Except the damned crack-pot keeps it under a pile of old debris, like someone's actually going to spy on it, or something. He's already scratched the paint in two places!
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
Dagonee, I meant if the police chase a guy into a neighborhood and the neighborhood is sealed off so they know the guy is in there, I have seen them "look over fences", and "open storage sheds", "shine lights in car windows and under cars" and other things WITHOUT seeing the suspect enter directly into any of those places.
I've even seen helicopters shine bright spotlights into peoples "personal and private" back yards searching for a suspect that just may have entered into the neighborhood.
All of those are invasions of people "privacy".
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Searches from the air are not considered invasions of privacy, because the public can go there.
Curtilage (the area immediately surrounding a house) has less protection than a residence, including an apartment.
Dagonee
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
What about when they shine lights THROUGH the window looking for them. They are looking INSIDE the apartment. Is that ok as well?
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Don't forget that there is a cost to building the network for these things with all the concomitant costs of storage, bandwidth, support, oversight. Tanstaafl and all that. For a private entity, even an insurance company, to build and maintain such a network without an equal resultant value for their investment isn't going to happen.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:What about when they shine lights THROUGH the window looking for them. They are looking INSIDE the apartment. Is that ok as well?
If it's visible from a place the public may legally be, it's not private. Even with shining lights.
Dagonee
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
The value is already there. Proof in court proceedings and an justified opportunity to raise rates.
"As you can see, my insured client did in fact have his signal on"
"Yes, as per the tracking on the car, my client did apply the breaks"
"No indications were lit on the car that maintenance needed to be done on ______"
"According to the tracking records my client was going the speed limit"
Alot of consumers will want it as well.
"Officer I swear I wasn't speeding"
You get the Insurance company to pull the tracking results for that moment and in court:
"Yes your honor per the tracking results I was only going 37 instead of 49."
Also many cars are insured against theft. How'd you like to be able to recover your car with a phone call. I bet insurance companies would.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
But being on someone's lawn or private property and looking through their windows is not a legal stance, yet I've seen cops walk up to a house and shine lights into it.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
We'll see. The scope of the data the article is talking about isn't miniscule. Transmitting that amount of data over a wireless network in real time is not negligible. Think of the costs just using a cell phone, then throw that into the cost of operating a car. At least 50 bucks a month, maybe more, for what comes down to emergency situations for the private individual. Most people are just going to pay the 100 dollar speeding ticket every couple of years rather than fork out another 500 bucks plus more a year. And that doesn't even factor in the nightmare of repair for this integrated system.
Maybe private companies will jump on it. Maybe the benefits will outweigh the costs, but the cost to build the network, install all the recievers and transponders in the cars and around the country and maintain it...expensive. And *forcing* people to pay for it? That's going to go over like a lead balloon for most people, unless definite benefits can be shown, not just 'maybe' situations.
[ October 07, 2004, 07:36 PM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote: Think of the costs just using a cell phone, then throw that into the cost of operating a car. At least 50 bucks a month, maybe more, for what comes down to emergency situations for the private individual. Most people are just going to pay the 100 dollar speeding ticket every couple of years rather than fork out another 500 bucks plus a month a year. And that doesn't even factor in the nightmare of repair for this integrated system.
You will if your insurance premiums are thousands more than that if you don't have it.
And remember that OnStar is already out there sucessfully.
The gates already open, it's just awaiting a partnership.
Watch for a strategic partnership between OnStar and Insurance Companies.
Not if....but when.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:But being on someone's lawn or private property and looking through their windows is not a legal stance, yet I've seen cops walk up to a house and shine lights into it.
And that evidence wouldn't be admissible.
Dagonee
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
There are quite a few homicides discovered that way, and when the murderer is tried, I don't think I've ever seen them discount evidence from the Victim's home.
If they look in and see a crime being committed, their testimony of such is admissible in court.
As far as I have seen anyways.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
And with the ability to control cars remotely (as people have said--you can stop the car remotely. How much harder is it, in these days of "fly by wire" to actually be able to start, accelerate, brake and steer the car), you could conceivably be thinking you're playing nothing more than a video game (Grand Theft Auto 2008), when in actuality you're driving a physical car, with people in it, into buildings and through plate glass windows in East L.A.
Nah. Too farfetched. No one would ever buy it.
[ October 07, 2004, 07:35 PM: Message edited by: ssywak ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:There are quite a few homicides discovered that way, and when the murderer is tried, I don't think I've ever seen them discount evidence from the Victim's home.
If they look in and see a crime being committed, their testimony of such is admissible in court.
You keep conflating the idea of general surveillance and searches where there is probable cause.
If there's been a murder, or the cops have reason to believe someone inside is hurt, they have probable cause.
That doesn't translate into making full-time surveillance acceptable.
Dagonee
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
OnStar is already out there and does open doors that are locked and monitor Air Bag deployment.
You are the offender in a hit and run, your airbag deploys, you're darn right that the record of the time that deployment is going to be brought up and used.
IMHO it's not if, but when and it's going to be privately moderated.
So look at E-mail and how it's abused, and that's the future without government oversight.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Just out of curiosity, Chad, are you arguing your point as a devil's advocate, to explore all its ramifications, or do you truly believe what you're typing? I ask not to condemn or anything, but because the arguments that you are making are very much on the 'fascist' side of things.
I'm not using hte word fascist to call names, merely to point out that if you haven't considered looking into that philosophy, that you might want to. You could be Hatrack's very own resident fascist. It would be cool. Posted by Allegra (Member # 6773) on :
quote: Anyone who sacrifices liberty for security deserves neither. -Thomas Jefferson
I don't think that is an exact quote, but reading this thread made me think of it.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
OnStar is voluntary, Chad...that is the difference.
I don't think the insurance industry would survive all the lawsuits.
Well, one can hope not, anyway...
Kwea
[ October 07, 2004, 08:47 PM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
Jefferson is both right and wrong...I think I've made this argument somewhere before. And it's worth noting that the actual quote referred to "essential liberty" and "temporary security".
There is a certain degree of mutual dependence between liberty and security--you can't have one without some degree of the other. If you have no freedom, what exactly is your security protecting, and what does the "life" you have really mean? But if you lack security, what freedom do you really have--triple-locked in your apartment with a gun under your couch cushions, you may as well be in jail.
I think Jefferson knew that and was talking in relative terms--thus his use of "temporary" and "essential". Unfortunately, people quoting him have a tendency to speak in terms of absolutes.
Something I forgot--a description of anarchy I found somewhere. "If all your gun-toting neighbors disapprove of what you are doing, it is effectively illegal!"
[ October 07, 2004, 08:57 PM: Message edited by: Mabus ]
Posted by Allegra (Member # 6773) on :
I was remembering it from World Geography class in 9th grade. It is hard to remember the adjectives 3 years later.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Also, I don't hear anyone here arguing against all security, or completely against liberty (except for Chad, of course... ).
I think that quote was completely in context here, in this particular discussion.
Kwea
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Just as an aside, the actual quote is:
quote:They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)