It’s not a perfect counterargument, but I would say that not owing a credit card is less restrictive to a specific right than not owning a car would be, given the constitutional protection afforded to interstate travel.
I haven’t hashed this one out fully, but the argument would be along the lines that for many, a car is the only practical way of interstate travel, and requiring willingness to be surveilled is an unconstitutional condition to place on the practice of the right to interstate travel.
Well, there’s a few differences depending on the situation. For instance…
In some cases, data may be required to be gathered & kept by the government as a watch on the company, to keep consumers from being defrauded, not as a way to keep the government abreast of what individual citizens are up to.
In other cases, data may be gathered & kept by a company for their own convenience. In this case, the consumer has at least a theoretical amount of control over it by using market forces to influence whether or not the company will gather the data. For instance, say that car companies start offering RFID technology to be built into a car. Some people may consider that a benefit, and some people may object to it. The objectors will not buy that car. If enough people object, and it affects sales, then fewer cars will be built with that technology. If the government requires it, then that removes that consumer choice.
And part of the reason I might have fewer problems is that I CAN trust the private company more. Not because they are better or more noble than the government, but because I can sue the living bejeezus out of them if they violate my privacy absent court order.
If the government does it absent court order, I run into the issue of sovereign immunity. The government also has a lot more bully power available to it to get said court order, including, but not limited to, waving the national security flag.
I guess so. But I do understand the objection to intrusive and extensive surveillance of individuals, and I do think security cameras in private homes is going too far.
However, I still do not understand the objection to monitoring and regulation of motor vehicles. The government already has a tight control on how motor vehicles are designed and maintained, and who can operate them. And for good reason: motor vehicles are powerful and dangerous pieces of machinery. They kill over 40,000 Americans every year. The government should do everything possible to make sure they are operated in a safe and responsible manner.
It was the fact that you would have no problem with government cameras in teh doctor’s office that made me think we had different views of the importance of privacy.
This isn’t about the regulation of motor vehicles. It’s about the regulation of travel. The two are fundamentally different things.
If that is the prevailing opinion in the US, perhaps we should consider privatizing the highway system. (And I don’t mean the freeway/motorway system, I mean all public roads.) The owner of the road can issue their own RFIDs and operate their RFID readers, so the info is kept safely by a private company. The police never need to get this information, because the road operator would have their own security personnel to enforce traffic regulations, and their own billing department. Would you be more comfortable with this idea?
I might go for that. I’m not entirely against privatizing the roads, anyway. The main problem I would have is that it would be difficult to exert control via market forces, because there are very limited options in terms of which roads to use. It’s not a situation where, if you don’t like the way the roads are being run, you can get someone to build another one for you to use, instead.
Keeping track of everywhere you go in your car IS regulating travel.
Could be anyone… They wouldn’t be able to tell from the RFID.
Although I believe the owner of the vehicle has certain responsibilities on what the vehicle does (e.g. parking tickets), even if he/she is not the operator at the time.
Obvious Error #1: Libertarianism is not defined by the notion that the purpose of the state is to protect the citizens. Hell, King Jong-Mentally-Ill probably believes in all sincerity that the North Korean state does that.
Libertarianism is defined by the notion that the reach of the state should be limited to the minimum necessary to protect the citizens. The OP proposal fails that test on the face of it.
Oh, well, then. Why didn’t you tell us that you were changing the proposition under discussion to “People should be able to choose either a traditional license plate or an RFID device, based on their judgment of which is more efficient”?
That’s the only way to remove libertarian vs. statist from a discussion of RFID tagging of vehicles (while stipulating that there are legitimate grounds for requiring some sort of vehicle identification for users of public roads).
So the pre-Sarbanes Oxley disclosure rules did prevent Enron type situations then?
And when you can prove that murder laws have no effect on murder rates, let us know.
That’s nonsense, but anyway, I have reported your post to the mods as a personal attack. If they do not agree with me, I will be responding to you in kind.
This “principle” of yours is quite the moving target. Earlier, it seemed like you didn’t care about the possibility of abuse. It didn’t seem like you were interested in balancing pros and cons.
That’s not even true. Do a google search on “telephone” “database” and “nsa.”
Who knows? You might start seeing things my way. I might even switch back to being a privacy freak. Believe it or not, 10 years ago I was more privacy-obsessed than anyone I knew.
I’ve thought a lot about these things since then. I have read The Transparent Society by David Brin. My opinion has changed.
Let’s keep the comments focussed on the argument and leave observations about the poster out of this.
Let’s also avoid junior modding and displaying the resolutely tough hide of an onion skin.
Making a public issue of reporting a post is a childish game. Threatening other posters with rude retaliation (particularly for rather minor infractions) warrants an admonition to behave oneself. Get a grip. No one has cast aspersions on your mother’s virtue or called you nasty names. Publicly reacting as though every mildly snide comment is a direct, personal affront of the utmost gravity merely indicates that you may not have the personality to successfully participate in this Forum.
You know what’s interesting? A privately held company doesn’t have to tell me diddly, however, when it’s a publicly held company different rules apply. In your situation, even if the car sits in my driveway, it can still be scanned for information.
Obviously not, but we cannot conclusively say that Sarbanes Oxley has prevented Enron-type scandals, only that none of them have happened yet. Remember, absense of evidence doesn’t mean evidence of absence. Let’s not forget that what the folks at Enron et. al. were doing was already illegal. This is not a case like when it was found that people were hauling toxic chemicals one way in a tanker and then hauling milk in the same tanker the other way and people realized that there was no way to completely clean the tanker out so the milk wouldn’t be contaminated by the toxic chemicals. In order to prevent it from happening, a law was passed making it illegal.
You mean like in Iraq, where there’s a higher death rate than in the US?
Ok, so you favor repealing the pre-Sarbanes Oxley disclosure laws, right?
What exactly does the example of Iraq prove? Murder is illegal there; murder is illegal in the US. Iraq has a higher murder rate. Therefore . . . there are other factors besides the legality of murder that affect the murder rate? That’s true, but so what?
No, the principle hasn’t changed, and since you insist on either not trying to understand what I am saying or deliberately misrepresenting my statements, I think I’m not going to bother going over it again.
What exactly does the example of Iraq prove? Murder is illegal there; murder is illegal in the US. Iraq has a higher murder rate. Therefore . . . there are other factors besides the legality of murder that affect the murder rate? That’s true, but so what?