Yep. I guess the irony didn’t come through in my posting.
Nope, but I think it’s pretty likely that they prevented other fiascos.
Look at it this way: Murder is illegal in 50 states. Do you think laws against murder prevent murder from taking place?
If murder were not illegal, do you think there would be more murders or the same number?
I respectfully disagree. For example, I bet it was a lot more common in the days before videocameras for the police to beat the (&)( out of people for no good reason.
What do you think would have happened if the Duke 3 had not had electronic and DNA evidence on their side? I bet the case would have gone to trial and they might have even been convicted.
The government can already track a person’s movements pretty well by obtaining cell phone; credit card; and other records. Either by subpoena or by voluntary cooperation.
To give this discussion some focus, I would ask for a few examples where this movement tracking ability has been abused to somebody’s serious detriment.
Getting a subpoena means that the action has to be JUSTIFIED to a different branch of government. The police must come up with a REASON why they need this information and then PETITION for it. That’s entirely different than just walking down to the next room and reading it off.
Are you missing the issue or deliberately ignoring it?
I might not, but the CONSTITUTION does.
Your failure to grasp these points is distressing, doubly so if you are an American. Then it’s frightening.
You are failing to grasp the point. The point is not whether an infringement on basic liberty would work in practice. Hell, it might.
Even if it worked flawlessly, however, you are missing the point that the founding principle of this nation is not expediency but liberty. And it is a violation of individual liberty of the highest order for the government to be able to passively monitor the comings and goings of its citizens.
This is not a question of feasibility. Singapore is much cleaner than the United States; that does not make their system of government and enforcement preferable to everyone.
Read Happy Scrappy’s posts #46 and 47. Especially this quote:
See, whether or not the government will do good or evil with the information is not the point…it’s that it’s unConstitutional for them to gather it in the first place.
I don’t see why it’s a violation of liberty for the government to know what people are up to. In some cases, it might be a violation of peoples’ privacy however.
Let me ask you this: Do you think that the government should be prohibited from issuing subpoenas to obtain surveillance tapes; bank and atm records; credit card records; cell phone tower records; etc?
Do you think the government should be prohibited from issuing subpoenas to obtain surveillance tapes; bank and atm records; credit card records; cell phone tower records; etc?
I don’t. But there is a fundamental difference between those records, and records kept by the government specifically for the purposes of survelliance. Do you really not see that?
Do you understand the concept of separation of powers? The GOVERNMENT does not issue subpoenas.
Do you understand the concept of liberty? The privacy interest is an individual liberty, one which is guaranteed by the Constitution.
Seriously, where are you from and how old are you that you haven’t explored or been taught these concepts? I don’t mean to sound insulting, but you are arguing a position that is contradicted by even the most basic civics classes.
All of which are very much voluntary acts taken by the person, using services that must, by their very nature, maintain a log of usage. That log is only made available to the gov’t via court order. EZ Pass must maintain a similar log, but it is not required by the gov’t, and only tracks/logs you when you cross a toll plaza. One of the reasons HSHP’s ticket idea isn’t used, is that drivers would drop EZ Pass like a hot potato if these tickets became standard.
In the US, it is unreasonable to expect folks to conduct their personal and private business without the use of some sort of car. You can get away with it in an urban environment, with good mass transit, but nowhere else. An EZ Pass requirement gives the government knowledge over your comings and goings, and doesn’t even need a court order, it would be directly available to the police.
I’d also like to point out that you’d have to be aggressively, deliberately, stupid to let the RFID tag remain operational whilst going on your crime spree.
I have no problem with the principle that the government can investigate crimes and criminals and has the power to call up records if it shows a direct need. But going from there to the OP’s proposal is a huge leap. The OP’s idea is for the government to monitor everybody’s movement, the vast innocent majority along with the small guilty minority.
And this is where we differ. I do see this as a violation of my liberty. What I am up to is no business of the government’s.
Do you agree that subpoenas can sometimes be issued without judicial approval?
So what? If your position is that the government should not be able to track peoples’ movements, don’t you have a problem with the fact that the government can and does track peoples’ movements?
Anyway, it seems like you are ignoring part of my point:
Plan B specifically stated that he would require judicial approval for the authorities to gain access to the records.
Why don’t you tell us what you think a violation of “liberty” would be, if you don’t think that a good example of it would be the government “knowing what people are up to.”