This would allow us to trace what cars were in a certain location at a certain time.
This would be a tremendous blow to several criminal groups. First of all hit and run drivers, all of whom use motor vehicles to commit their crimes, would have a hard time getting away and staying uncaught. Actually just about any violent criminal who uses a car to get away would be more likely to get caught. Quickly. Kidnappers, burglars, robbers, etc. could be tracked. The murderers in the Maryland/DC area a few years ago would have been picked up within a few days, saving several lives.
The incident that got me to post this was reading that California police are looking for a white van that might have been involved in starting the fires around San Diego.
I anticipate that some civil libertarians will object. I can see the theoretical point, I even agree that it’s generally dangerous to give the government more power. But when you consider the hundreds of years of allowing the government court-ordered intrusive powers in criminal cases, and the extremely low numbers of abuses of that power, I’d say it’s worth doing. Not just in the US, but in all democracies.
I’d be interested in debating if this would be a net gain for our society. If any disagree on the basis of civil liberties I’d like to understand the thinking. Is it a case of advantages vs. disadvantages? Possible slippery slope effects? Theoretical arguments?
IMO, schemes like this subvert the concept of “innocent until proven guilty”. I shouldn’t have to drive around with a tag to prove my innocence.
I also have a hard time trusting any large-scale governmental IT project to be secure and well built - a necessary quality if the intended purpose is for tracking and providing evidence against potential criminals.
Can an RFID detection device detect that a car doesn’t have a RFID transmitter, or has it shielded? Wouldn’t it be trivial for the criminal element you mentioned to disable the RFID devices on the car, meaning that the extreme expense to outfit every mile of road would only be used to track law abiding citizens?
We already have such a identification device on each registered car, actually in most states 2, the license plates. There is already the technology to read them electronically and some cop cars are equipped with such readers, along with stationary ones on certain roads.
That’s exactly right. I have one for convenience’s sake, but I kind of resent it. Not only because I’m sure that at some point, the government will try to use them this way, but also because here in Illinois we were coerced into using it when they doubled the toll for cars paying with cash.
I think it’s a really good idea. It would also help protect innocent people from false accusations a la Reade Seligmann.
Obviously you would need to put protections into the system. For example, by keeping a record each time that the authorities access the database, by whom, and for what reason.
The fact is that peoples’ movements and transactions are monitored and recorded much more thoroughly today than 30 years ago, and the country hasn’t turned into 1984. Crime is down and corrupt public officials are more likely to be held accountable for their actions. And it’s easier for innocent people to establish alibis.
I look forward to the day when we get rid of paper cash and do all transactions electronically.
Thanks, but no thanks.
Oh, and just glossing over the crushing of civil liberties by handwaving away the protests of civil libertarians does not change the fact that the government does not have a right to know where you are at all times. if I want to pay double the toll and wait in line just to keep my freedom, I should be entitled to.
The government can make it worlds easier for me to go along with its scheme, but it can’t force me to do so.
What the heck, Happy Scrappy, why don’t we just agree to have chips implanted right under our skin? It would make it so much easier to catch criminals! What? You don’t want the government tracking your every move? Why not? Do you have something to hide?
If you were caught speeding because a cop came up behind you and monitored his speedometer, or used a radar gun, or RFID was used, I don’t see what the big difference is. If you don’t feel the state has a right to regulate the speed limit, we can talk about that on a different thread. But if you accept that they can do it, then if anything, the case you cite is probably more fair to the motorist in that the speed is monitored over a longer time period. Can’t get someone for speeding at the bottom of a big hill that way.
As far as I know, they don’t ticket people on that basis. Besides, if they did start ticketing people using that method, it might be a lot fairer than the current system, where state police can choose who gets a ticket; who gets a warning; and who doesn’t get pulled over at all.
The state does not have the right to know where I am going, when I am going there, and how long I spent there.
And, if I do the speed limit all the way from point A to point B, but am forced to suddenly accelerate and sustain that speed for a time in order to avoid a dangerous situation, pushing my total time under the accepted total time for my journey, then I get a ticket regardless of whether my actions were those of a safe motorist or not.
I guess I shouldn’t have been so tongue-in-cheek; had I known the humor would be lost, I’d have stated this unequivocally the first time.
I’m not saying this DOES happen, I’m saying it COULD happen.
And even without all the practicalities, the American Way is well expressed my first sentence. We don’t sacrifice liberty and privacy for expediency.
It’s not just you that calls it the “slippery slope” line of reasoning.
In fact, many Supreme Court justices have used those exact words to stop the government from doing exactly what you’re suggesting, in one form or another.
I agree with this too. Besides, I would argue that part of the reason that the speed limit is too low on some roads is that rich and powerful people don’t have to abide by it.
