# All cars should be required to have E-Z Pass/RFID technology **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 28, 2007, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-cars-should-be-required-to-have-e-z-pass-rfid-technology/424379 "2007-10-28T22:36:42Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 12
**Author:** ![Sarahfeena](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sarahfeena/32/519_2.png) [@Sarahfeena](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sarahfeena)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2007, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-cars-should-be-required-to-have-e-z-pass-rfid-technology/424379/221 "2007-10-31T15:55:04Z")
[QUOTE=Plan B] I agree 100%. [/QUOTE] But you think tracking cars with RFID is a good idea? I must say, I’m confused. ---
**Author:** ![Cartooniverse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cartooniverse/32/3084_2.png) [@Cartooniverse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cartooniverse)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2007, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-cars-should-be-required-to-have-e-z-pass-rfid-technology/424379/222 "2007-10-31T21:09:32Z")
[QUOTE=E-Sabbath] I estimated. The 55 version isn’t near me, it’s up north of where I go. I know the 35 on the Tappan Zee is about 10 feet above my car. It _is_ about twenty feet _long_, though, right? [/QUOTE] Yeah it is. I live further up than the T.Z. and I am trying to remember what bridge I did recently with a 55 mph E-Z reader. They are longer panels I guess to catch the reflection off of the tag. As to the replies to my post. I do not equate a passive tracking device like an E-Z Pass tag with being strip searched or physically assaulted in some manner. I understand that to some people there is zero difference. It is a personal view of life and I guess we have to respectfully agree to disagree. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2007, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-cars-should-be-required-to-have-e-z-pass-rfid-technology/424379/223 "2007-10-31T23:16:18Z")
[QUOTE=Sarahfeena] There is no reason to tag a car with RFID to replace a less intrusive method for doing the same thing. [/quote] That’s not true. For example, a tag might allow for more accurate parking tickets. > [@](#): > > The presence of RFID affords the government a much higher chance for abuse, and avoiding that is the prinicple. Earlier, you seemed to be arguing that you didn’t care about the possibility for abuse. You just objected as a matter of principle. It seems that the principle (and the goal posts) have shifted. > [@](#): > > For the situations to be analagous, they police wouldn’t NEED a warrant to collect the data. They could tap phones and monitor e-mail as a matter of policy, and not wait for a warrant. It’s been stated again and again that as part of the proposal, the authorities would need judicial approval to get access to the EZ-Pass data. Why do you keep ignoring this point? > [@](#): > > Let’s ask you this…what if a law was passed that ALL e-mail had to pass through a government server, to be placed in a database for use in crime detection/prevention. Would that be acceptable to you? Assuming that there were safeguards in place, I would have no problem in principle with such a law. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2007, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-cars-should-be-required-to-have-e-z-pass-rfid-technology/424379/224 "2007-10-31T23:19:48Z")
[QUOTE=Cheesesteak] Now I get your point. [/quote] No, you’re still missing the point. Please re-read the posts I was responding to. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2007, 11:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-cars-should-be-required-to-have-e-z-pass-rfid-technology/424379/225 "2007-10-31T23:23:55Z")
[QUOTE=Tuckerfan] No, and as I pointed out before, _those_ regulations weren’t so transparent that I knew when the CEO was going to the can to take a dump. [/quote] Then I don’t understand your position. You seem to be claiming that the pre-Sarbanes disclosure requirements don’t prevent fraud/misrepresentation. If that’s true, then why do you support having such requirements? > [@](#): > > As is your claim that they are affected. One man’s speculation is another man’s common sense. Personally, I’m pretty confident that there would be more murders if murder were legal. > [@](#): > > reading comprehension doesn’t seem to be one of your strong suits. Please take your personal attacks elsewhere. Thank you. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2007, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-cars-should-be-required-to-have-e-z-pass-rfid-technology/424379/226 "2007-10-31T23:29:05Z")
[QUOTE=Polycarp] You are technically right and substantively wrong here. First, every subpoena is issued in the name of a court, [/quote] How exactly am I substantively wrong here? My point is that in some situations, the authorities can get access to peoples’ personal information without approval from a judge. > [@](#): > > And whether or not a man voluntarily gives to charity has nothing to do with his right not to be forcibly robbed or stolen from. And what if a third party voluntarily gives away my money because the police ask him for it? Is that more like robbery or charity? > [@](#): > > And no judge in America who respects his oath of office would grant such approval as a matter of course. So what’s the problem then? ---
**Author:** ![Plan\_B](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3ec8ea/32.png) [@Plan\_B](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Plan_B)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2007, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-cars-should-be-required-to-have-e-z-pass-rfid-technology/424379/227 "2007-11-01T00:27:03Z")
[QUOTE=Sarahfeena] But you think tracking cars with RFID is a good idea? I must say, I’m confused. [/QUOTE] I’ll try to explain. Not all libertarians agree on every point any more than all statists agree on every point. But from what I’ve read most libertarians would agree that the primary purpose of the state is to protect the citizens. Some might even word it as: protect our freedoms. I agree with that idea. So it’s OK with me to have police, courts, prisons, laws against violence and threats, etc. But, for the record, I’d love to reduce or minimize or even eliminate government involvement in just about every other area: schools, trade, drugs, health care, etc. And I’d like to eliminate a lot of laws. Now back to RFID. If I believe that we need police to protect us, then I can advocate for doing so in what I believe is a more efficient manner. Let’s imagine that in the US we have a law that says police may not carry guns. Then someone says: “I think we would be safer if the police had guns.” No doubt there would be extremists who would go nuts about what a terrible threat to our civil liberties this would be. You could take many of the posts from this thread and just substitute guns for RFIDs and you’d be halfway there. And I’d say this has NOTHING to do with libertarian vs. statist rantings. It’s just about efficiency. Or to put it briefly, would you favor a law that takes the guns away from the police tomorrow? If the answer is no, does that make you a statist? Could you imagine that some people who would oppose the law - i.e. support police having firearms - are not statists? Hope this explains it. I’ll check back in to see if I missed some obvious errors. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2007, 1:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-cars-should-be-required-to-have-e-z-pass-rfid-technology/424379/228 "2007-11-01T01:45:37Z")
I have a brilliant idea. Let’s get rid of this “brazil84” and “PlanB” crap. After all, our government is completely benevolent, right? So you to are going to post with your full name and home address showing. After all, you have nothing to hide, right? Oh, and your SDMB fee will be increased to cover the cost of maintaining a database that contains all pertinent personal information about each member, and reproduces it in the annotations of every post they make. No privacy options allowed; full disclosure. If you can see why a reasonable man might find objections to this idea – even ifyou might not object to it yourself – then you may be able to get a handle on why some of us are so vehemently in objection to your plans. I’d also like to see a doper-at law – especially **Bricker** or **Gfactor** – comment on the constitutionality of what you propose. ---
**Author:** ![Sarahfeena](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sarahfeena/32/519_2.png) [@Sarahfeena](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sarahfeena)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2007, 2:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-cars-should-be-required-to-have-e-z-pass-rfid-technology/424379/229 "2007-11-01T02:00:02Z")
[QUOTE=brazil84] That’s not true. For example, a tag might allow for more accurate parking tickets. [/QUOTE] I didn’t say there was no benefit to having RFID technology vs. license plates. If the purpose of them is for traffic/parking enforcement, then there probably would be a benefit in terms of accuracy/consistency of citations. But the point is they would still be USED for the same thing, even if one would do a better job than the other. And, IMO, the benefit derived is not worth the loss of privacy to citizens. > [@](#): > > Earlier, you seemed to be arguing that you didn’t care about the possibility for abuse. You just objected as a matter of principle. It seems that the principle (and the goal posts) have shifted. No, it hasn’t. The principle is that the government shouldn’t have any more access to information about the lives of citizens than is strictly necessary. One of the reasons for that is because of possibility of abuse…that is part of the principle that is at work here. > [@](#): > > It’s been stated again and again that as part of the proposal, the authorities would need judicial approval to get access to the EZ-Pass data. Why do you keep ignoring this point? I’m not ignoring it at all. I get it, totally. But in my mind, it’s the same thing as government agencies periodically sweeping your house, just to gather data on you to keep in a database somewhere. Or logging your phone calls or e-mail. Currently, the government needs probable cause to even gather that data, and I see no reason for movements in a vehicle to be any different. > [@](#): > > Assuming that there were safeguards in place, I would have no problem in principle with such a law. Well, you are finally giving me a good idea of what you do or don’t consider a government restriction on personal liberty. If this is your opinion, then, really, I don’t know why we’re even bothering to discuss this, because we are never, ever, going to come to a meeting of the minds. ---
**Author:** ![Plan\_B](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3ec8ea/32.png) [@Plan\_B](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Plan_B)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2007, 2:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-cars-should-be-required-to-have-e-z-pass-rfid-technology/424379/230 "2007-11-01T02:32:37Z")
[QUOTE=Polycarp] I have a brilliant idea. Let’s get rid of this “brazil84” and “PlanB” crap. After all, our government is completely benevolent, right? So you to are going to post with your full name and home address showing. After all, you have nothing to hide, right? Oh, and your SDMB fee will be increased to cover the cost of maintaining a database that contains all pertinent personal information about each member, and reproduces it in the annotations of every post they make. No privacy options allowed; full disclosure. If you can see why a reasonable man might find objections to this idea – even ifyou might not object to it yourself – then you may be able to get a handle on why some of us are so vehemently in objection to your plans. I’d also like to see a doper-at law – especially **Bricker** or **Gfactor** – comment on the constitutionality of what you propose. [/QUOTE] Let me try to explain. I have no problem at all making my real name available as long as you need a court order to get at it. In fact, that’s what you and I have agreed to in order to post on SDMB. If you don’t believe me, just make a few posts saying that you’re going to kill the POTUS and see how long it takes for the Secret Service to find you. I’m betting on less than 48 hours before they come knocking on your door. 24 hours if you live in an urban area. As I said in the post above yours, I’m very sensitive to too much government power. But this isn’t about libertarian vs. statist. It’s about efficiency. I don’t feel like repeating again, but there are big differences between democracies and tyrannies. If the US or Australia gets a little more power I’m not going to lose sleep over it. They’ve shown they can be trusted to use it wisely. But if we’re talking about a tyranny, then anything we can do to keep the police weaker is a great idea. If I were Cuban I’d sooner takes my chances with kidnappers or robbers than the police. I recommend reading R.J. Rummel’s work on democracies and pacifism. He articulately makes the case that democracies are good; tyrannies are bad. > **[Freedom, Democide, War: Home Page](http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/)** ---
**Author:** ![Plan\_B](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3ec8ea/32.png) [@Plan\_B](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Plan_B)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2007, 2:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-cars-should-be-required-to-have-e-z-pass-rfid-technology/424379/231 "2007-11-01T02:35:45Z")
Oh, and I forgot to mention. I wouldn’t bet on this being unconstitutional. In theory it’s the same as having surveillance cameras. Just more efficient. And even if it is unconstitutional that wouldn’t make it wrong. We could still debate it. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2007, 1:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-cars-should-be-required-to-have-e-z-pass-rfid-technology/424379/232 "2007-11-01T13:59:31Z")
[QUOTE=Plan B] Let me try to explain. I have no problem at all making my real name available as long as you need a court order to get at it. In fact, that’s what you and I have agreed to in order to post on SDMB. If you don’t believe me, just make a few posts saying that you’re going to kill the POTUS and see how long it takes for the Secret Service to find you. I’m betting on less than 48 hours before they come knocking on your door. 24 hours if you live in an urban area. [/QUOTE] How about, for example, surveillance cameras in your bedroom to catch pedophiles? I mean, they would not be allowed to actually use/view the constant footage without a court order, but the camera would be running continuously? Or, to take it outside the home setting, given the possibility of abuse by a doctor, or the chance the doctor is involved in illegal pharmaceutical sales, every medical examination you undergo must be videotaped, with the tape only being usable by the government after receiving court approval. The difference between this and a phone tap is that with your RFID scheme, the data is generated, and then arguably not used without court permission. With a phone tap, there is no data gathering until the court has granted permission. You’d have a lot fewer constitutional issues with a device in a car that could be tracked, but that required being activated for it to function. ---
**Author:** ![Tuckerfan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/eada6e/32.png) [@Tuckerfan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tuckerfan)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2007, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-cars-should-be-required-to-have-e-z-pass-rfid-technology/424379/233 "2007-11-01T14:17:35Z")
[QUOTE=brazil84] Then I don’t understand your position. You seem to be claiming that the pre-Sarbanes disclosure requirements don’t prevent fraud/misrepresentation. If that’s true, then why do you support having such requirements? [/quote] Uh, maybe because I’d like to know what a company’s doing? Given that the _majority_ of businesses are **not** guilty of the kinds of transgressions Enron, et. al are, then it seems to me that the previous system was effective. Sarbanes Oxley has long since crossed the threshold of diminishing returns. > [@](#): > > One man’s speculation is another man’s common sense. Personally, I’m pretty confident that there would be more murders if murder were legal. Great, when you can prove this let us know. > [@](#): > > Please take your personal attacks elsewhere. Thank you. Let’s see, people have thrown out multiple cites which refute your claims and you refuse to acknowledge them, and I’m some how being insulting? :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![Sarahfeena](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sarahfeena/32/519_2.png) [@Sarahfeena](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sarahfeena)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2007, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-cars-should-be-required-to-have-e-z-pass-rfid-technology/424379/234 "2007-11-01T14:39:24Z")
[QUOTE=villa] The difference between this and a phone tap is that with your RFID scheme, the data is generated, and then arguably not used without court permission. With a phone tap, there is no data gathering until the court has granted permission. You’d have a lot fewer constitutional issues with a device in a car that could be tracked, but that required being activated for it to function. [/QUOTE] **brazil84** has claimed that I’m “ignoring” the fact that the data would only be available by court order. I have made the same point you make here a couple of times, and **brazil** has made no effort to explain how the two scenarios are the same (maybe because he can’t, because they are clearly different?) Maybe Plan B could help us by explaining why it’s ok to take the leap from “no data gathering until the court has granted permission” to “gather the data now and worry about court orders later.” ---
**Author:** ![scr4](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/59ef9b/32.png) [@scr4](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scr4)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2007, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-cars-should-be-required-to-have-e-z-pass-rfid-technology/424379/235 "2007-11-01T14:46:15Z")
[QUOTE=villa] Or, to take it outside the home setting, given the possibility of abuse by a doctor, or the chance the doctor is involved in illegal pharmaceutical sales, every medical examination you undergo must be videotaped, with the tape only being usable by the government after receiving court approval. [/quote] Actually that sounds like a good idea, although perhaps not cost-effective for the results it would get. I don’t see any moral problem with that, a lot of places I go to already have surveillance cameras. > [@](#): > > The difference between this and a phone tap is that with your RFID scheme, the data is generated, and then arguably not used without court permission. With a phone tap, there is no data gathering until the court has granted permission. What about Internet access records? Your ISP probably has a record of every web site you visit. Your credit card company too, they have a record of when and where you spent your money. The only reason these are not a violations of your privacy is because you trust them not to divulge the information without a court order. ---
**Author:** ![Telemark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/telemark/32/372_2.png) [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2007, 3:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-cars-should-be-required-to-have-e-z-pass-rfid-technology/424379/236 "2007-11-01T15:10:53Z")
[QUOTE=scr4] The only reason these are not a violations of your privacy is because you trust them not to divulge the information without a court order. [/QUOTE] You also missed the important distinction that these are private companies, not the government. I can choose not to do business with private companies, I can’t choose not to do business with the government. ---
**Author:** ![scr4](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/59ef9b/32.png) [@scr4](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scr4)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2007, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-cars-should-be-required-to-have-e-z-pass-rfid-technology/424379/237 "2007-11-01T15:21:19Z")
[QUOTE=Telemark] I can choose not to do business with private companies, I can’t choose not to do business with the government. [/QUOTE] But some of those business records are required by law. I don’t think you can choose a credit card company that doesn’t keep a record of your transactions. Is that any different than a government agency keeping records that are only released with a court order? ---
**Author:** ![Sarahfeena](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sarahfeena/32/519_2.png) [@Sarahfeena](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sarahfeena)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2007, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-cars-should-be-required-to-have-e-z-pass-rfid-technology/424379/238 "2007-11-01T15:25:43Z")
[QUOTE=scr4] But some of those business records are required by law. I don’t think you can choose a credit card company that doesn’t keep a record of your transactions. Is that any different than a government agency keeping records that are only released with a court order? [/QUOTE] In answer to this, I’ll quote the second sentence in **Telemark’s** post: [QUOTE=Telemark] I can choose not to do business with private companies, I can’t choose not to do business with the government. [/QUOTE] ---
**Author:** ![scr4](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/59ef9b/32.png) [@scr4](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scr4)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2007, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-cars-should-be-required-to-have-e-z-pass-rfid-technology/424379/239 "2007-11-01T15:58:18Z")
[QUOTE=Sarahfeena] In answer to this, I’ll quote the second sentence in **Telemark’s** post: “I can choose not to do business with private companies, I can’t choose not to do business with the government.” [/QUOTE] I read it the first time, I’m still trying to understand it. If the government requires RFID in your car, you can still choose not to own a car. In the same way you can choose not to own a credit card at all, if the gov’t regulations regarding credit cards are objectionable. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2007, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-cars-should-be-required-to-have-e-z-pass-rfid-technology/424379/240 "2007-11-01T16:10:41Z")
[QUOTE=scr4] Actually that sounds like a good idea, although perhaps not cost-effective for the results it would get. I don’t see any moral problem with that, a lot of places I go to already have surveillance cameras. [/QUOTE] I guess bottom line we just have fundamentally different expectations of privacy. [QUOTE=scr4] What about Internet access records? Your ISP probably has a record of every web site you visit. Your credit card company too, they have a record of when and where you spent your money. The only reason these are not a violations of your privacy is because you trust them not to divulge the information without a court order. [/QUOTE] I don’t really buy the whole argument that because my privacy is invaded in one area, I should bend over and take it every other time someone wants to invade my privacy. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-cars-should-be-required-to-have-e-z-pass-rfid-technology/424379.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-cars-should-be-required-to-have-e-z-pass-rfid-technology/424379.md?page=13)