I said “legislature” not “Congress,” and anyway I don’t see why the distinction is important. Moreover, the federal government does play a role in traffic control.
Nonsense. It costs a lot of man-hours to follow somebody around, and the department has to justify its use of resources.
Making sure that government surveillance is an expensive PITA (and thus must be limited in its use) and readily detectable (so that abuses can be caught) is essential to the preservation of privacy.
Since you declare up front that you will not listen to evidence against your position, why on earth should anyone take you seriously? :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Yeah, maybe they should get rid of computerized motor vehicle records. That would make it much more of a PITA to check somebody’s plates and protect everyone’s privacy.
This I agree with to a certain extent. Generally speaking, if the cops can watch us AND we can watch the cops, then we are all better off.
A good example of why government monitoring needs to remain an expensive, manpower-intensive PITA for the government’s agents. The cheaper it gets, the more incentive the government has to play these gotcha games.
Am I in the twilight zone? Someone on the lefty leaning SDMB has lasted 4 pages advocating government monitoring of EVERYWHERE WE DRIVE and hasn’t been unanimously pitted?
Remember when G.W. Bush was eavesdropping on terrorists talking to their buddies without a warrant? Outrage! How dare he do that! An American has a constitutional right to speak and plan attacks with terrorists at any time!
RFIDs in cars? A reasonable plan that needs to be debated? WTF? Brazil, have you even read the 4th amendment? Does it mean anything to you?
Do you understand how a license plate which doesn’t track your movement, unless you commit some sort of irregular behavior that would make a person write it down, is different from an RFID chip in the car which tracks everywhere you go?
The key phrase there is “without a warrant”. I don’t recall anybody arguing that the government has no right to tap phone lines. The issue is whether the President has the right to do it without authorization from the court.
I think it’s the same with RFID on cars, the real issue is in what way the information is available. Using it for traffic enforcement is perfectly legitimate, IMO. That includes issuing speeding tickets based on average travel time determined by RFID records. It can also be used to ticket those who run red lights, made an illegal turn, etc. These uses don’t violate your right of privacy.
But I agree it can be easily abused. I think a court order should be necessary to use RFID records for anything other than traffic enforcement. Like criminal investigations (e.g. getting a list of cars that were near a crime scene). That way it’s no more intrusive than, say, credit card records retained by businesses you deal with.
What part of ‘no’ were you missing? EZ-Pass tags require special scanners that work at 5 MPH at a distance of about 10 feet. There are specialvery expensive ones that do up to 35 MPH at a distance of 10 feet. There are really long and expensive ones that do 60 MPH at a distance of 10 feet.
License plates can be read at the limit of visual acuity if the car is moving or stopped, without special equipment.
You would literally have to roof every road to do this RFID scheme.
OK, my mistake there, I was careless. I agree an RFID is not an effective replacement for a license plate (and have said so already). I do think using it in addition to the license plate has real benefits.
Why wouldn’t the police need probable cause that you were speeding, red light running, or making an illegal turn in order to access your EZ pass records?
You say that these uses don’t violate my privacy? Why? Just because I would only get a small fine versus a long term in prison, under your situations? It is still a violation of my 4th amendment rights…
OK, IANAL so maybe I’m wrong. Does a speed trap need probable cause to measure the speed of my car? Does a police officer need probable cause before he looks in my direction to see if I’m making an illegal turn?
Seems to me that anyone who objects most vigorously has something to hide.
I have had an E-Z Pass in my car for … gosh, almost 10 years? Something like that. As I’ve nothing to hide and am not a criminal, it matters not who knows where I drive and when.
–shrug-- How could I object to expanding the use to every motor vehicle if it would mean being able to track and capture criminals? You recover one kidnapped child before they die, capture one criminal who otherwise would have gotten away and the entire program is worth it, IMHO.
Excellent idea, I say.
EDTA: E-Sabbath, in the last month alone I’ve driven through E-Z Pass scanners with posted speeds of 55. The scanners were ( to be conservative ) 30-40 feet above the roof of my car. Hardly 10 feet away.
Yes, I would, actually. I don’t believe such an intrusive device is warranted either for toll collection (what if I never drive on tollways?), nor for traffic enforcement (I don’t think that making law enforcement of misdemeanors a little easier in any way justifies having to track every driver every minute they are on the road).
I don’t see the huge difference. As I pointed out way back on the first page of this thread, I essentially drive my car everywhere I go, and it’s a rare occasion that I’m not within 50 yards of it. If they tracked my car, they would know exactly where I am all day long.
Of course, you can say that about having your phone tapped, your e-mail monitored, your house searched, being strip searched at the airport, etc. etc. Only someone with something to hide would object to any of that, right?
I have one, too. For me, the benefit outweighs the drawbacks. However, if they decided to start issuing speeding tickets or other moving violations based on data gathered from them, I would stop using it in a minute. I think that every citizen should be allowed to assess the benefit/risk ratio for themselves, and decide whether or not they want the thing.
As far as I’m concerned, you might as well then allow phone tapping and e-mail monitoring. Why not catch all the criminals the easy way?
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?
Surprise, I agree with you. Now we might or might not agree on what exactly constitutes “iron-clad evidence” but we are starting off agreeing in principle. I’d say that if you look at the number of criminals that use cars or trucks when committing their crimes and you look at RFID efficiency that’s about as close to iron-clad as I can imagine. If it’s not good enough for you tell me what it would take for any new program.
And as I said before I’m a libertarian, I’d love to say, put a limit on how much taxes the government can collect, in exchange for this program. Or force the government out of the health care industry. Or the housing industry, etc.