No, actually I started this thread because I was interested in evidence against my position. My point is that cherry picking is a waste of time. This is a big country with a long history. It’s no challenge to find some asshole cop who abused his power. That’s cherry picking. It’s a waste of time.
Well, I think I made my position on the matter pretty clear. The pre-Sarbanes Oxley disclosure laws were nowhere near as revelatory as what you’re proposing.
Great. When come back bring facts.
You know, if this is such a great idea, why don’t we test it out in Iraq? Seems to me that there’s a lot more vehicular related crimes there than there is here.
I provided a list of examples where government institutions and high-ranking officials carried out major abuses of government power over periods of decades. But you dismiss all these. On the other side, we’ve had one person say that a loss of our rights is acceptable even if only a single crime is prevented.
Who’s cherry picking here?
Cartooniverse said that the whole program is justified if it prevents one serious crime. But suppose one bad cop uses the RFID tracking records to track down some woman and kidnap her and then rape and kill her. Wouldn’t the fact that the RFID program caused one single crime be enough justification to shut it down? If the prevention of a single hypothetical crime was justification to start the program, then the prevention of a single hypothetical crime should be enough to stop the entire program.
In that case, your argument re: the purpose behind the law would seem to be without merit.
In other words, you have tried to argue that the EZ-Pass law is different from laws requiring license plates because of the purposes for which those laws were enacted. However, you would still object to an EZPass law even if it were enacted for the same purpose as a license plate law.
That’s a little bizarre, considering your earlier claim that it’s the “principle” that matters.
I hate to break it to you, but that stuff is already allowed, provided the authorities have a warrant.
Are you kidding? My proposal was to “force publicly traded companies to file audited financial statements with a central regulatory authority.” As you are aware, this is already required. However, you may not be aware that this was required before Sarbanes Oxley.
You are free to “bring facts” too.
Sounds okay to me.
You know, this just really sabotages your position as I pointed out that it was required before Sarbanes Oxley. Or have you forgotten that?
I have.
Well, then, why don’t you write your Kongress Kritter and suggest it to them, as well as various members of the Iraqi government?
It’s not bizarre at all, because you are only looking at half my argument. There is no reason to tag a car with RFID to replace a less intrusive method for doing the same thing. The presence of RFID affords the government a much higher chance for abuse, and avoiding that is the prinicple.
I hate to break it to you, but this destroys your argument. 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. 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?
Since you admit up front that the state cannot be trusted with the ability to easily monitor citizens, so much for your case…
Nope. A net increase in safety requires a reduction of threats from (freelance) criminals that is at least equal to the threat from out-of-control government.
Out-of-control governments have racked up an eight-figure body count during the last century. You’ve got a ways to go, methinks…
Mandatory tracking of specific individuals is equally acceptable with a warrant (or as a condition of parole).
Yes, but those are not democracies. Lumping the US, England, Canada, Australia on the one hand, with, on the other hand, Cuba, USSR, China, Venezuela doesn’t make sense.
Perhaps. Let me restate my question: Do you favor repeal of the disclosure requirements that were in effect pre-Sarbanes Oxley?
Not really. Your apparent claim that laws against murder don’t affect murder rates has been supported with what is basically speculation.
Now I get your point. The problem with it is that the license plate fulfills the need (identification of individual vehicles) better than EZ Pass technology, and is more difficult to abuse. Let’s suppose you’re suggesting replacing current plates with blank EZ Pass enabled plates, in order to allow identification of individual vehicles.
In that case, I suspect that the police would find it MUCH more difficult to do their jobs. Eyewitnesses would be completely unable to provide useful identification of cars involved in crimes/accidents. Police have to trust the blank box EZ Pass unit to tell them which car is which, and could never be entirely sure they’re not reading the car one lane over.
The only way EZ Pass improves things is to track all movements with millions of sensors, and that goes way beyond simple identification. Or you can have lettered EZ Pass plates, which doesn’t really provide any additional functionality beyond allowing tracking, which is not what the purpose of the law is.
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.
As is your claim that they are affected. I’m not going to bother digging out my anthropolgy textbook and begin quoting it to you at length about how societies quickly become self-regulating and adopt mechanisms in the forms of laws or customs to control things like murder as reading comprehension doesn’t seem to be one of your strong suits.
Or maybe some of us who object most vigorously don’t think we have anything that should necessitate being hidden, but are more than a little concerned that the sort of people who track our every movement might have a different view of what should be hidden.
Christ, I get tired of hearing this. Yes, I’ve got something to hide. From you, from the government, from everybody. And I’ve got a right to; that’s basic privacy, and basic liberty.
Sure, there are all sorts of ways we could probably catch more criminals. So what? Liberty requires accepting that sometimes people will do something naughty with it. And if you take away the liberty of ordinary people in an attempt to tighten the net, you’ll just drive the real criminals further underground (sorry for the mixed metaphor). You could turn the country into one big prison and people who really want to do Bad Things would still find a way. Heck, that happens inside actual prisons.
You are technically right and substantively wrong here. First, every subpoena is issued in the name of a court, and relative to a pending case. Where you’re correct is that once a case has been instituted, counsel for each side in most (but not all) jurisdictions have the right to issue subpoenas relative to that case as an officer of the court, to save the judge unnecessary paperwork. Fighting a subpoena is still heard before that judge. It is in the name of the court that they’re issued, and if someone disagrees that the subpoenaed information is relevant or admisible, then the judge needs to hear the arguments and rule on it. The usage of allowing the lawyers to write the subpoenas is simply so that a judge does not have to review every instance of discovery in every case.
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. There’s a large difference between a prudential voluntary act and a compulsory one.
And no judge in America who respects his oath of office would grant such approval as a matter of course. See the Fourth Amendment. Summarizing a massive amount of jurisprudence, warrantless searches of vehicles are constitutionally permissible, but only on probable cause.
Far from showing probable cause, you’re saying that the innocent must subject themselves to intrusions on their privacy in order that you may detect those of the guilty who have not mastered how to swap out chips.
Libertarianism isn’t just about avoiding taxes. It’s about limiting the influence and control the government has over peoples’ lives. High taxes are just one symptom of an out-of-control governement, and not even the worst symptom, for that matter.
I agree 100%.