DescentBB

Posted: **Tue Aug 10, 2010 10:00 pm**

That's the fear. How much power do you give authorities over the rights of individuals. It's a precarious balance that's hard to keep level is it? The problem is, how much power should government have over the commons and an individual's right to use that commons as they choose? We enjoy that freedom to the point that we will defend it against any perceived intrusion by any authority, but at the same time, we constantly mourn when someone abuses that freedom and takes away the rights of others, especially their lives.

How far should we go to protect people when we drive? We expect to be able to go out and drive to any location at any time and not have to worry about either drunk or impaired drivers, but it happens all the time, unfortunately. I refuse to drive after 10:00 PM in this little college town of ours because of the higher odds of encountering drunk drivers, mostly students, on the road. Laws that we now have against DUII do NOT seem to have stopped the practice totally, which would be ideal. So what do we do, accept the statistics as the cost of freedom or either enact more stringent laws against impaired driving (yes, the laws are too lax in most states or we'd see a bigger reduction of the problem) or make the vehicle unable to start if the driver is impaired? Should we have a car that won't move if a cell phone is on inside as well? With present technology, it could be possible soon.

Heavy-handed regulation forced on the auto industry has improved driving safety quite a bit in the last decade or so. Is that an infringement on our freedoms to drive any death trap we want or have some needed better protection for our fragile bodies when we drive a vehicle that can kill us or others if misused? Personally, I like the fact that cars are safer in a crash than they were a decade or 2 ago. Also, I wouldn't mind a car that wouldn't start if there was a technological way to KEEP it from being started by someone who is drunk or drugged up. I wouldn't mind a car that couldn't be put in DRIVE if a cell phone was on too. You don't know how many idiots I see driving and yakking on cell phones and are clueless with absolutely no situational awareness.

But I don't like the idea of some 'black box' that can record and tell the authorities what I was doing with my body BEFORE I even got into the car. The potential for abuse by the authorities is endless. I mean, should we all be wearing a monitor that keeps tabs on us when we go into a bar as a proactive measure to prevent potential accidents? When do you cross the line between protection of the public and overzealous control of the public?

Posted: **Tue Aug 10, 2010 10:30 pm**

Just as a side note:
It is probably inevitable that one day people with the means will be able to know far too much about us just by scanning our 'field'.
Our brains, and body to a lesser extent, transmit a whole lot of electrical and biochemical data on a very minute scale. Just as you can do an infrared and ultra violet scan now to see bodies at night one day we will most likely be able to read the electronic signature of our physiology in real time! Some one behind a monitor will be able to see from a distance if you are drunk or lying or scared or hungry or horny....

And you used to laugh at the guy with the tin foil hat didn't you? He's probably just someone who's escaped from the future, came back here to get some peace and privacy!
this idea is copywritten don't try and steal it

Posted: **Wed Aug 11, 2010 4:35 am**

null0010 wrote:
Heretic wrote:
null0010 wrote: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.

What's wrong you don't recognize sarcasm when you see it? That's why people left this comment alone. Any way the truly stupid will find a way to off themselves. ie Death resulting from texting while driving. Death by auto-erotic asphyxiation. Death from falling off a bull and subsequently being crushed by the beast.

just take look around you.

http://www.darwinawards.com/

Posted: **Wed Aug 11, 2010 2:27 pm**

Heretic wrote:What's wrong you don't recognize sarcasm when you see it? That's why people left this comment alone. Any way the truly stupid will find a way to off themselves. ie Death resulting from texting while driving. Death by auto-erotic asphyxiation. Death from falling off a bull and subsequently being crushed by the beast.

just take look around you.

http://www.darwinawards.com/

Well, you just listed several means of death that are caused by one's own actions. Stupid is as stupid does. But what about when someone ELSE does something stupid which then results in YOUR maiming or death, through no action of your own? Most drunken drivers survive the accidents they cause, many times without a scratch, but usually kill or maim the other person(s).

Posted: **Wed Aug 11, 2010 3:08 pm**

When it's my turn to go it's my turn to go there is nothing on the planet that will ever stop it. I still don't agree that I should have my privacy invaded by the government to stop some other stupid person from being stupid. Just ask any elitist and they will tell you that you are stupid and don't know how to take care of yourself.

Posted: **Wed Aug 11, 2010 3:27 pm**

On the original topic: I'd be perfectly okay with breathalyzers being installed in the vehicles of people who have been convicted of a DUI, especially as part of a probationary period.

On the subject of consistency & the government crapping all over our \"privacy\": Last I checked, driving was considered a privilege, not a right, and we're all willing to subject ourselves to their scrutiny to get licensed. I think it'd cost-prohibitive to install these things on all cars, but I don't see it as a large step in the government's breach of our privacy. Like people have mentioned, it's an odds things. Licenses make sense because it does something to increase the chances that drivers will actually know how to drive properly; which applies to all drivers. People always bring up the snowball- I think that it's already happening, just that the steps have to be small to avoid raising alarms. I'm beginning to think that it's simply going to be the way that the US is going to age. I'll fight the progress, but I think it's inevitable; and I imagine I'd find myself leaving for a different country if I lived to be 300 (long enough for the progression to get out of my tolerance zone.)

I'm bothered by a number of things: social security (as brought up in another post) is increasingly a form of identity tracking. State-issued ID cards is another form of identity tracking. Income tax filing is another one. Generally, I can't find a comfortable ideal, because on one hand I want the government to protect me; but at the same time, I don't want them snooping into my business to see if I'm hurting others or not.

I think the ideal that I'd aim for would be much-stricter law enforcement along with a large-scale culling of the current laws. I'd hold to a philosophy of letting a whole lot go by not addressing it, but when it is addressed by law, enforce it like you really mean business. Also, once you become a convicted criminal, you have forfeited a lot of your privacy- I.E. install the crazy detectors for people convicted of DUI- that's part of your punishment.

Posted: **Wed Aug 11, 2010 3:32 pm**

Heretic wrote:When it's my turn to go it's my turn to go there is nothing on the planet that will ever stop it. I still don't agree that I should have my privacy invaded by the government to stop some other stupid person from being stupid. Just ask any elitist and they will tell you that you are stupid and don't know how to take care of yourself.

You're right. You can't legislate smartness into stupid people. All we can do is try to protect ourselves from those stupid people. That's where laws come into play. But we also can't let those laws be used to infringe upon our freedoms either. I guess it comes down to how MUCH of your freedom you are willing to lose in order to be kept safe from stupid people. A hard choice isn't it?

Posted: **Wed Aug 11, 2010 3:42 pm**

snoopy wrote: I'm bothered by a number of things: social security (as brought up in another post) is increasingly a form of identity tracking. State-issued ID cards is another form of identity tracking. Income tax filing is another one. Generally, I can't find a comfortable ideal, because on one hand I want the government to protect me; but at the same time, I don't want them snooping into my business to see if I'm hurting others or not.

You know what's funny about that one? In the late 1970's, the social security number was commonly used as a student ID number at Oregon State University, as well as other colleges, I'm sure. There was NEVER any problem with identity theft back then either. So why is it a problem NOW? Does it have to do with lawmaking that hasn't keep up with modern technology, lax enforcement of existing laws or sloppy banking practices that no one has passed any regulations to address?

Posted: **Wed Aug 11, 2010 8:20 pm**

Posted: **Thu Aug 12, 2010 7:56 am**

Bet51987 wrote:...
Will wrote: ...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?!?
It's sad, but yes.

Bee

Maybe I'm missing something here but I can't follow your logic. On the one hand you are wanting to sacrifice the privacy concerns of people to achieve the saving of lives demonstrating a calculated merit based reasoning but on the other you are willing to support the "premeditated murder" of millions to achieve a goal that in my mind certainly doesn't come close to balancing the loss of millions dead?
How does the importance of the emergency contraceptive trump the lives of millions you say are premeditated murder victims?!?

I would think you could be in favor of, and push for, the emergency contraceptive goal but not be willing to support the murders just to advocate the goal. Why are they mutually exclusive for you?

On your cars/privacy analogy:

There once were cars built like death traps until the government began to invade "privacy" and now they're a lot safer. Story goes that the auto industry fought quite a battle to prevent the mandatory installment of seatbelts which work and work well so I can't buy that "meddling" argument.

Bee

Having the government insist on manufacturing standards include higher safety capability isn't really an invasion of privacy, it's the installation of a box that divulges data regarding your behavior that would cross the line into privacy invasion.

Posted: **Thu Aug 12, 2010 1:29 pm**

According to you Bett, everyone of the authors of the constitution were a bunch of paranoids. The whole thing reeks of paranoia.

Posted: **Thu Aug 12, 2010 2:36 pm**

If history has taught us anything, it is that it is necessary to be paranoid about government.

Posted: **Thu Aug 12, 2010 2:50 pm**

Will Robinson wrote:Having the government insist on manufacturing standards include higher safety capability isn't really an invasion of privacy, it's the installation of a box that divulges data regarding your behavior that would cross the line into privacy invasion.

I'm afraid that's the rub here Bee. It's the difference between mandating safety standards to a corporation that sells a product to everyone and mandating a feature that can potentially be used to pry into our private lives. You never want to give a government, or a corporation, any more power than they can take.

The only way this feature would be acceptable, at least to me, is if it was a passive mechanism. For example, it physically kept the car from being started when the driver was impaired or drunk, but not record that fact in some accessible memory location. But, I'm afraid that's a technological pipe dream right now.

What I find really funny about most people's comments here is that they are very paranoid of government intrusion, rightly so, but you guys don't seem to harbor that same paranoia about corporate intrusion. They can both abuse information and power for nefarious purposes.

Posted: **Thu Aug 12, 2010 3:21 pm**

Oh I have a problem with corporations invading my privacy. Hell I have problems with my neighbors looking over my fence and seeing what I'm doing.

Posted: **Thu Aug 12, 2010 3:54 pm**

tunnelcat wrote:What I find really funny about most people's comments here is that they are very paranoid of government intrusion, rightly so, but you guys don't seem to harbor that same paranoia about corporate intrusion. They can both abuse information and power for nefarious purposes.

That paranoia is exactly why I float to the left side of libertarian.

Posted: **Thu Aug 12, 2010 4:12 pm**

tunnelcat wrote:...

What I find really funny about most people's comments here is that they are very paranoid of government intrusion, rightly so, but you guys don't seem to harbor that same paranoia about corporate intrusion. They can both abuse information and power for nefarious purposes.

The one big difference is, with a private corporation, you aren't forced by the police to accept the intrusion. When the corporation is a monopoly or when they sneak the intrusion into the product or service is the only time you can't simply buy from a provider that doesn't build in the intrusion. So at least it is largely voluntary on the corporate side.
A relevant and current example would be, as much as I hate my health insurance providers bull★■◆● I'm confident that once Obamacare becomes the only provider available to me it will suck even more and with my current provider I have the option to drop them outright, Obama will fine me or put me in jail if I refuse his monopoly...

It's like, do I resent the annoying loudmouth punk on the subway? Sure, but I can move to another car. Do I resent the annoying loudmouth punk on the subway who is sticking a gun in my face holding me hostage a hundred times more...you bet! Which one would you be vocal about?

Posted: **Thu Aug 12, 2010 8:23 pm**

Posted: **Thu Aug 12, 2010 11:48 pm**

Bet51987 wrote:...

With conservatives unwilling to compromise, and what I said in my previous post, I have no choice but to stay with the victims and take an equally extreme view ....

What have you done personally to further the cause of emergency contraceptive distribution/acceptance that couldn't have been done if not for your support for what you consider to be premeditated murder? I think the answer must be that you simply support the pro-abortion movement and that is the full extent of your effort. You have dutifully accepted the false premise that all forms of abortion are necessary for there to be emergency contraceptives available. You site conservatives as being unwilling to consider any alternative yet even right here in this thread Lothar, who is no friend to abortion, concedes that there is a difference so your argument that you have no choice seems really way off.

I won't push the issue any more, you are right it is a sidetrack so consider what I've just said as rhetorical, food for your thought, no response necessary.

Posted: **Thu Aug 12, 2010 11:55 pm**

Bet51987 wrote:....
TC wrote:The only way this feature would be acceptable, at least to me, is if it was a passive mechanism. For example, it physically kept the car from being started when the driver was impaired or drunk, but not record that fact in some accessible memory location. But, I'm afraid that's a technological pipe dream right now.
Records aren't needed for sensors to detect alcohol. So, you would be ok then with the passive system that prevents the car from starting but not keep any record?. I would buy that.

Bee

I would consider the anti-drunk-starter-device a nanny state expense but not an invasion of my privacy. As a person who hardly ever drinks (maybe one beer per Steeler game) I wouldn't enjoy knowing I was paying extra for it but in the grand scheme of things at least it would have more value per-capita than many many government regulations/expenditures.

Posted: **Fri Aug 13, 2010 11:38 am**

Will Robinson wrote: The one big difference is, with a private corporation, you aren't forced by the police to accept the intrusion. When the corporation is a monopoly or when they sneak the intrusion into the product or service is the only time you can't simply buy from a provider that doesn't build in the intrusion. So at least it is largely voluntary on the corporate side.
A relevant and current example would be, as much as I hate my health insurance providers ***** I'm confident that once Obamacare becomes the only provider available to me it will suck even more and with my current provider I have the option to drop them outright, Obama will fine me or put me in jail if I refuse his monopoly...

It's like, do I resent the annoying loudmouth punk on the subway? Sure, but I can move to another car. Do I resent the annoying loudmouth punk on the subway who is sticking a gun in my face holding me hostage a hundred times more...you bet! Which one would you be vocal about?

That's the probelm we have now. Our government is essentially being RUN by corporations. So what's to stop corporations from using the power of the government above and beyond the Free Market playbook? We've already got the Obama Administration and BP saying that the nasty dispersant and oil's all gone away and they claim much of the gulf's seafood is now clean and safe to eat! Yeah sure, and I've got a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn.

And what about that PRIVATE prison that's contracted out by the state of Arizona, that allowed 3 prisoners to escape right under their noses, who then proceeded to murder several people after their escape! You can bet this private prison will not be held to any accountability for it either.

You gripe about Obamacare, well it's essentially using government to force us to BUY private health insurance, which is owned and administered by multiple PRIVATE corporations. Where do you get this ONE provider idea of Obamacare? He's essentially given the health care industry the gift of a few more saps that now have to pay for overpriced health insurance! Unless you're referring to the monopolistic tendencies of unregulated markets to conglomerate into single companies when they get large, greedy and fat, which will THEN be the one provider for us all.

Posted: **Fri Aug 13, 2010 4:00 pm**

Posted: **Fri Aug 13, 2010 4:04 pm**

Posted: **Fri Aug 13, 2010 4:13 pm**

Bet51987 wrote:Unfortunately that's true. I'm in a tough spot where I can't hold up a sign in front of my church, or stand on a street corner with a sign, or start petitions around town and get away with it

Bettina

Just why can't you do any of these things? This is America you have the right to do each and every one of things you mention. So do it. What are you afraid of you already don't believe that there is a God so why be afraid of what the people in the church think? What gives them the right to judge you or your actions? Do I just have to believe you are a coward to stand up in public in your own town for what you believe? You sure don't have that problem here so why do you have it there? You have to become active in what you believe or it will never happen. Don't blame conservatives if you are the one who won't get off your butt and do what needs to be done to get what you want.

Posted: **Fri Aug 13, 2010 7:22 pm**

\"Big Brother in the form of an increasingly powerful government and in an increasingly powerful private sector will pile the records high with reasons why privacy should give way to national security, to law and order, to efficiency of operation, to scientific advancement and the like.\" - William O. Douglas 1898-1980), U. S. Supreme Court Justice

Posted: **Sun Aug 15, 2010 7:56 am**

Heretic wrote:Oh I have a problem with corporations invading my privacy. Hell I have problems with my neighbors looking over my fence and seeing what I'm doing.

Something else I have a problem with.

http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/08/ ... -stalk-you

Posted: **Sun Aug 15, 2010 7:59 am**

Heretic wrote:Something else I have a problem with.

http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/08/ ... -stalk-you

It is amazing how much of that you can block/disable with the proper browser add-ons in Firefox.

Posted: **Sun Aug 15, 2010 8:37 am**

Krom wrote:
Heretic wrote:Something else I have a problem with.

http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/08/ ... -stalk-you
It is amazing how much of that you can block/disable with the proper browser add-ons in Firefox.

True then you got this going on.

http://www.dotsauce.com/2008/02/27/how- ... -software/

Posted: **Sat Sep 18, 2010 5:30 pm**

Bet51987 wrote:
Lothar wrote: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.
I still find it puzzling that on one hand you will fight to protect possible life no matter what the inconvenience may be to her but on the other hand, where a fully developed human sits, you balk because it "might" be an inconvenience to you.

I haven't been arguing about "inconvenience". I've been arguing that the idea is stupid, a poor use of resources, and an invasion of privacy that should not be undertaken without probable cause. There are good ways to protect against drunk drivers; putting a sensor in my car is not one of them.

If you want to change the law regarding DUI or DWI convictions to include ignition cutoff switches in all cars with their name on the title, and to furthermore require people with DUI/DWI convictions to only drive such cars, go for it. But don't go trying to pass a law that says I have to pay for one in my car (directly or through taxes), especially not if the thing is going to be capable of spying on me.

Posted: **Sat Sep 18, 2010 9:54 pm**

This kind of gadgetry is unnecessary, simply because all they have to do is change the law to include a person having their license revoked for five years and car confiscated on their third offence.

DescentBB

Ok disturbing or not?

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re: