Ok disturbing or not?

[Bet51987]

.

[Heretic]

This thread is about drunk driving deterents in automobiles which includes intersection cameras to determine fault (with a few related entries)

Bettina

It's pretty easy to determine fault without cameras. They were doing it way before the cameras at intersections. Yes it makes it easier with cameras but it was still easy to be determined before them too. Installing cameras hasn't deterred crashes has it? Most safety cameras now days lead to a prosecute for profit scheme. So how long before there will be no need to hire law enforcement personnel and just monitor people with electronics?

[CUDA]

Bee, You really should educate yourself

You would need probable cause. or a search warrant to be able to but one of those devices on a car. now if your convicted of a DUI thats a different senario. but putting them on every car would amount to a presumption of guilt. which is in violation of the 5th, 6th, and 14th Amendments

New technologies can also create new ways to gather private information. For example, in the U.S. it was thought that heat sensors intended to be used to find marijuana growing operations would be acceptable. However in 2001 in Kyllo v. United States (533 U.S. 27) it was decided that thermal imaging devices that can reveal previously unknown information without a warrant does indeed constitute a violation of privacy.

Concerning privacy laws of the United States, privacy is not guaranteed per se by the Constitution of the United States. The Supreme Court of the United States has found that other guarantees have "penumbras" that implicitly grant a right to privacy against government intrusion,

which includes intersection cameras to determine fault

that would be misinformation on your part. Intersection camera's main purpose would be a revenue device by the city. to catch people running red light's. not to see who is at fault in a traffic accident

[AlphaDoG]

Just curious. Since children learn from their parents, will you find it acceptable that your 16 year old daughter who just got her license is driving around without a seatbelt because she learned about individual freedom from you?

Shouldn't you be teaching your family safety and common sense? No offense intended.

Bettina

I'll teach my child to be responsible don't you worry Bee. What other people do to educate their children is none of my business, nor is it yours or the governments. I use my safety belt and have my daughter use her's as well before the car even leaves park.

No offense taken.

[Cuda68]

Just curious. Since children learn from their parents, will you find it acceptable that your 16 year old daughter who just got her license is driving around without a seatbelt because she learned about individual freedom from you?

Shouldn't you be teaching your family safety and common sense? No offense intended.

Bettina

I'll teach my child to be responsible don't you worry Bee. What other people do to educate their children is none of my business, nor is it yours or the governments. I use my safety belt and have my daughter use her's as well before the car even leaves park.

No offense taken.

X2 - Also this is way different than installing a black box to do checks on my person and record data - Your not making any kind of point here.

[Xamindar]

Just curious. Since children learn from their parents, will you find it acceptable that your 16 year old daughter who just got her license is driving around without a seatbelt because she learned about individual freedom from you?

Shouldn't you be teaching your family safety and common sense? No offense intended.

Bettina

Wow, do you always think in such an illogical way? Try reading that paragraph a few times until it sets in what you are saying.
So to you;
-freedom means being unable to use common sense
-freedom means unable to be safe (because government knows best what safe is)
-government needs to teach our children, not parents

It's thinking like this from the general uneducated (is stupid too far?) public who love all these new laws which erode our freedoms in the name of fighting terrorism and child pornography.

[Ferno]

While they are very good, they should also be options, not law. Seat belt's where originally options by the way. They became law in NY state in the early 80's to generate money like most ticket's. The rest of the country slowly followed suit once the politicians realized that ticket's where another money stream.

Half true. Seatbelts only became an option when the government told GM and other car manufacturers 'either put them in or you can't sell cars'. They also became law once they realized how effective they were at saving lives.


bet: stop. just stop. this has nothing to do with babies and abortion and you bloody well KNOW IT.

[Bet51987]

.

[Lothar]

this has nothing to do with babies and abortion and you bloody well KNOW IT.

Bettina dismissed "privacy" as a consideration, saying government intervention to save lives is the overriding consideration.

The primary decision in Roe v Wade was that the constitutional right to PRIVACY is broad enough to include the decision to terminate pregnancy.

Point being, if Bee is willing to let government intervention to save lives override privacy, she's opening a much bigger can of worms than she realizes. Abortion is just one of many issues where the right to privacy overrides various government interests. Is she really willing to discard that over blood alcohol monitors in cars?

[Xamindar]

Geez.. are you following this thread or just picking and choosing sentences at random. Go back and read this part from AlphaDog...

"For children [seatbelts] should be mandatory, however, for free thinking adult human beings, it should be an option."

What's your point? I was replying to your post and what YOU said. AlphaDog's quote was fine. Making wearing a seatbelt an option doesn't mean no adults will wear them and teach their children that seatbelts are bad and shouldn't be used. I was looking for a further explanation on why you believe people are unable to make the right choice (wearing a seatbelt, not driving while drunk) or teach their children correctly without the government forcing them to.

I can see now that it is pointless trying to get you respond to anything. So far you have ignored anyones responses and tried to shift the topic elsewhere.

But I truly am curious to know more of why you believe what you do. So far it's a little scary.

[Bet51987]

.

[Will Robinson]

this has nothing to do with babies and abortion and you bloody well KNOW IT.

Bettina dismissed "privacy" as a consideration, saying government intervention to save lives is the overriding consideration.

The primary decision in Roe v Wade was that the constitutional right to PRIVACY is broad enough to include the decision to terminate pregnancy.

Point being, if Bee is willing to let government intervention to save lives override privacy, she's opening a much bigger can of worms than she realizes. Abortion is just one of many issues where the right to privacy overrides various government interests. Is she really willing to discard that over blood alcohol monitors in cars?

Lothar gets it and I'm betting Bee understood the point too but she doesn't want to question her position she only wants to see mine as wrong without thinking with an open mind.
No honest discussion with her...as usual...

[Bet51987]

.

[Foil]

Geez, folks...

You can disagree on this subject without throwing barbs.

Bet says lives saved overrides privacy issues.
Will (and others) say privacy issues override lives saved.

@Bet: You've been asked why you would override privacy, when it's a founding principle for things you support, like abortion rights.

@Will and others: Likewise, you've been asked why you would potentially sacrifice lives for the sake of privacy.

Those are both legitimate questions regarding where one 'draws the line', and I think those questions deserve better responses.

I'm curious to hear some reasonable answers about where people think the 'line' belongs.

[CUDA]

I'm curious to hear some reasonable answers about where people think the 'line' belongs.

it's illegal search and sezure. no probable cause. no search warrant. its a violation of the 4th, 5th and 14th Amendments. and why isnt the ACLU all over this???

[Heretic]

Well I think the whole thing falls down to committing or thinking about committing the crime. What we have here is before even a crime can be committed you have been punished. After all that is what they are trying to do is stopping a crime before it is committed. The crime of drinking and driving, DWI or DUI depending where you live. I'm sorry I thought in America it was presumed innocent until proven guilty. No it has to be your guilty until you prove yourself innocent in this case. You have to be tested to prove you haven't been drinking before your car will start.

[Bet51987]

.

[Spidey]

So, bottom line is that if lives can be saved at the inconvenience of someone's privacy, then I say make a law and do it.

Bee

WOW

And, she calls herself a “moderate” and me a “radical”.

Nuff Said

[Krom]

Eventually this entire debate will be moot when cars have accident avoidance systems that take automatic control of the vehicle to prevent collisions. Quite possibly the cars will have the option of driving a drunken driver home safely on autopilot. But if you make a law for it, the law will never go away even if the need for it does.

[Cuda68]

So, bottom line is that if lives can be saved at the inconvenience of someone's privacy, then I say make a law and do it.

Bee

It is not an inconvenience of someone's privacy - it is terminating a right guaranteed by the constitution. This particular argument aside once the constitution has been altered its very hard to go back when another issue arises. Thats why I argue any violation of the constitution for any reason even it appears good on the surface.

[flip]

History shows us that all governments become more and more restrictive over time, these very debates we have here proving that. The choice should always be for the greater good and the majority. Saving the lives of children by putting cameras everywhere sounds appealing, until you realize that your also exposing \"every\" child born thereafter to the inherent risk of tyranny. Considering the state America is in now, and I remember being freer than I am now, I'd even go so far as to say that a true free society exists nowhere in this world now. Maybe in remote places still.

If my response seems callous, consider this. They estimate that between 60-80 million people died in WW2 to stop the tyranny of 3 individuals from spreading across the whole world.
Those people not only sacrificed their lives, they exchanged all the use of the world they were dieing for. They gave up having wives, jobs, growing old, children of their own, grandchildren, basically they gave up their own journey. I'd imagine a good portion were atheists too, so they did this thinking it was all they had and that it was still worth it to secure the future of those coming after them. So, I vehemently reject anyone's argument to tighten government restrictions in that light. Not thinking for yourself and then being led by your emotions is terribly short-sighted.

[CUDA]

So, bottom line is that if lives can be saved at the inconvenience of someone's privacy, then I say make a law and do it.

Bee

LOL hello. your such a Dichotomy

“Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.”
Benjamin Franklin quotes

[AlphaDoG]

Eventually this entire debate will be moot when cars have accident avoidance systems that take automatic control of the vehicle to prevent collisions. Quite possibly the cars will have the option of driving a drunken driver home safely on autopilot. But if you make a law for it, the law will never go away even if the need for it does.

Not true, your good government will still feel the need to tell you to sit down, stfu, and enjoy the ride.

[Heretic]

America is still a free police state. The rules are just getting tighter Just think Bee's generation is getting ready to take over and there are a lot more out there thinking like her. Thanks to the education system.

[Lothar]

I've been here long enough to know that the mere mention of abortion would derail this thread into yet another religious/baby killing argument that has nothing to do with privacy.

Weaksauce. We've raised a completely legitimate question regarding your position. Quit dodging the question; we're going to keep bringing it up until you answer.

You think it's OK for the government to override the right to privacy, for everyone who owns an automobile, to save 10,000 lives a year from drunk driving. The courts found, in Roe v Wade, that the right to privacy is what gives a woman the right to terminate her pregnancy -- which happens over a million times per year in the US, including about 16,000 per year on fetuses over 20 weeks.

So, here's the question: why do you think it's OK for the government to override every car owner's right to privacy to save lives, but not to override every pregnant woman's right to privacy to save even more lives? What's different or special about drunk driving that makes it OK for the government to override privacy in that case?

[Spidey]

I think she already gave the answer.

So, bottom line is that if lives can be saved at the inconvenience of someone's privacy, then I say make a law and do it.

Bee

[Xamindar]

But I thought she was against outlawing abortions?

[Will Robinson]

No honest discussion with her...as usual...

Your predictable as usual.

Bee

Well, OK, I'll concede you may be being honest but if you are then you are horribly inconsistent in your position.

You support privacy over saving lives in one area but the reverse in another. So your position on when to allow government to reduce our privacy isn't merit based. It is obvious just by doing some simple math that stopping abortions at the expense of womens privacy would have a net gain of more lives every year than the intersection cameras at the expense of everyones privacy would. So it isn't really the lives saved you are after.

Now don't bother trying to defend your position on being pro-abortion with me because in spite of your red herring ploy that debate isn't what I'm after so don't bother trying to follow Ferno down that rabbit hole. Remember, I'm not even sure I would outlaw abortion if the power to do so was granted solely to me!

I am very much interested in getting you to ...stop... and think about your logic (or lack thereof in my opinion) when you decide government is the sole arbiter of what privacy is good privacy and what privacy is expendable. None of our rights are safe if the Constitution and Bill of Rights become a door mat for who ever happens to control congress and the White House each election cycle.
Our privacy was ours before there even was a government and our government was specifically told at it's inception that it is forbidden to take it away in almost any scenario. Forfeit that right on behalf of yourself and your fellow citizens and you agree to forfeit the lives of so many more than will ever die from a drunk driver.

Further and more to the specifics of your camera solution, have you bothered to consider that cameras are not particularly preventative? They will possibly show you who was involved in an act but they don't have any use until after the crime occurs. Any premeditated crime would quickly include a $5 ball cap and glasses like all those bank robbers that never get identified by the bank cameras....crook knows camera is there...crook takes simple measures to counter camera....police are always looking for the same two nondescript suspects after every robbery for the last 30 years since banks had cameras installed, a black guy or a white guy with a ball cap and dark glasses!
(/note to self: if cameras hit every intersection open corner stands everywhere selling nothing but hoodie sweatshirts, ball caps and cheap sunglasses)
Your cameras just won't save many lives at all, they will issue a lot of traffic tickets though...

Contrast that with how many more babies would be born and live life every year, if your disregard for privacy really was simply all about saving a life, then you should be able to see why I found your remarks ironic. I wasn't looking to go abortion debate #44548392, I was slapped in the face with the hypocrisy or really stray logic you displayed and decided to call you out on it, that's all.

I guess maybe you could have been being honest but just operating totally on feelings without questioning your own position. The first person to question your every stance should be you, long before anyone else gets a crack at your thoughts you should challenge them yourself. That means to look beyond your feelings about an issue and try to dismantle your stance to see if it still stands up under the test of logic and your understanding of the real world.

[Ferno]

this has nothing to do with babies and abortion and you bloody well KNOW IT.

Bettina dismissed "privacy" as a consideration, saying government intervention to save lives is the overriding consideration.

The primary decision in Roe v Wade was that the constitutional right to PRIVACY is broad enough to include the decision to terminate pregnancy.

Point being, if Bee is willing to let government intervention to save lives override privacy, she's opening a much bigger can of worms than she realizes. Abortion is just one of many issues where the right to privacy overrides various government interests. Is she really willing to discard that over blood alcohol monitors in cars?

yeah i know but why bring up abortion if it wasn't designed to hit a soft spot? I mean really. an appeal to emotion? it could have been done in a MUCH better way.

[Will Robinson]

this has nothing to do with babies and abortion and you bloody well KNOW IT.

Bettina dismissed "privacy" as a consideration, saying government intervention to save lives is the overriding consideration.

The primary decision in Roe v Wade was that the constitutional right to PRIVACY is broad enough to include the decision to terminate pregnancy.

Point being, if Bee is willing to let government intervention to save lives override privacy, she's opening a much bigger can of worms than she realizes. Abortion is just one of many issues where the right to privacy overrides various government interests. Is she really willing to discard that over blood alcohol monitors in cars?

yeah i know but why bring up abortion if it wasn't designed to hit a soft spot? I mean really. an appeal to emotion? it could have been done in a MUCH better way.

I'll jump on this since it is my motive you are asking about.
It was designed to hit home, be it a soft spot or not is irrelevant to me. It was a direct challenge to her logic using a known position of hers that showed her to be in conflict.
Juxtaposition.
It was effective.

Define better in the context you suggested it and tell me how I should have achieved my goal, we'll see if your way would have been "better".

[Bet51987]

.

[Heretic]

So, bottom line is that if lives can be saved at the inconvenience of someone's privacy, then I say make a law and do it.

Bee

Once the egg is fertilize it's life. So by what you say in the above quote we could save a lot more lives by disregarding the privacy of anyone to save lives. Than if we can putting scanners in a car to stop a potential drunk from killing. There is 1.37 Million deaths a year due to abortion vs 10,000 a year due to drunk driving seems logical to me that abortion does more harm than drunk driving.

If lives can be saved at the inconvenience of someone's privacy, then I say make a law and outlaw abortion.

[CUDA]

So would you be OK with a system that sends a signal to Law enforcement if you speed, because we have documentation that Excessive speed is a Major case of accidents in this country?
Or how about doing the same thing if you have an active cell phone in your car, because we have the facts that more people are killed each year by cell phone usage than by the Drunk drivers you are worried about. how about we raise the driving age to 30 since we know that teenagers are more apt to get into motor vehicle accidents than people over 30

where do you stop???

[Will Robinson]

...
First of all, lets get something straight. To me, terminating a fetus is nothing short of premeditated murder and before you jump to a conclusion that I've changed my position, I haven't. I have always thought that and always will. However, because of you and especially you and everyone who has an extreme and uncompromising position on emergency contraceptives, I will defend a womens right to choose no matter how much I hate myself for it. It's an area that I now look for in a political candidate and I've told you that countless times before.

I find this position very odd. You feel abortion is murder but you are willing to condone/legalize the murder of millions to make sure emergency contraceptives are available for the very few?!?

[CUDA]

TURNING INTO ANOTHER ABORTION DEBATE GUYS
while I understand the hypocracy of her stance
lets try and stay on topic.

[Fusion pimp]

Sadly, I think Bet is a solid representation of America's youth and not an anomaly. They just don't 'get it'.

[Lothar]

to answer your specific question, it's not OK for the government to override a womens right to privacy because there are too many individual variables and circumstances that warrant a prevention of pregnancy.

For the sake of argument, I'll concede emergency contraceptives. There are many circumstances in which you think prevention of pregnancy is warranted, so let's take those off the table. A girl who was just raped can go to the doctor and get the morning after pill or whatever. Let's talk about termination of pregnancy after that period.

Let's say the government could install hormone (hCG) sensors in every toilet in the country, which would detect if a woman was pregnant (6-12 days after fertilization, which is after the period in which emergency contraceptives would be useful.) If so, they would send a signal to the local police, who would make sure she had her child instead of having an abortion. This results in saving 10,000 lives every three days, but still allows the girl in your scenario access to emergency contraceptives. Would having a hormone sensor implanted in your toilet, my toilet, and my grandpa's toilet be an acceptable invasion of privacy to save so many lives?

Why do you give a much greater protection value to a single cell than you do to the family in the middle of the intersection?

Don't make the mistake of thinking I'm only talking about single cells. There are over 16,000 abortions a year of fetuses over 20 weeks gestation (which is quite developed; my son was kicking and swimming around by that point.) Would invasion of privacy be OK just to save those? You said above that it's nothing short of premeditated murder, which would seem to be much worse than accidental manslaughter as a result of drunk driving.

Both groups deserve protection. I just think installing a breathalyzer in every car in America is a stupid way to grant that protection.

It's already illegal to drive drunk. There are already patrols out there looking specifically to stop that, and I think that's a great idea. When people see a drunk driver, they call the cops, and that's good too. But I think it's stupid to install sensors in hundreds of millions of people's cars just to stop the small percentage of drunk drivers. If we were talking about installing sensors in the cars of people with DUIs or DWIs on their records, I might be on board with that, but I don't want the government setting up a system that lets them monitor or block my use of my car, because they have no probable cause.

[Xamindar]

Wow, best post in this thread! ^^^ You should be over there debating this issue.

[Cuda68]

Bee, you said ---

However, it is OK to override privacy to prevent that 12 year old girl from getting killed by a low life at an intersection because there are no variables or circumstances in the case of a drunk.

Your point is well taken, and I understand what you say here. BUT, once politicians start invading personal privacy, weather he be a dem, rep or lib - they will not stop. What ever there personal belief is they will start imposing it where they see fit. This cannot be a personal view point on a particular issue, it is about personal privacy period. Can a politician invade some one's personal privacy regardless of the issue.

[null0010]

Predicted response: stupid people deserve to die.

How else are we going to thin the herd? If a person doesn't want to wear a seat belt fine let's thin the herd. There will be less of the strain on the environment and sociality. The government should never protect the stupid to take freedoms away from the people let the stupid die. Protecting the stupid has increased the population to where the planet is on the verge of not being able to support them. Before you people attack this statement remember some of you comments on the health bill. Where should we as a sociality or collective decide how much we should spend to keep a person alive?

I don't drink so I shouldn't have to be tested by my car to see if I have been. So how about the people who use hand sanitizers. Should their car not be able not to let them drive because it detects alcohol? I see people always using that never washing their hands.

I cannot believe y'all're jumping all over Bee but you left this insanity alone.