All cars should be required to have E-Z Pass/RFID technology

Sure. There are already laws requiring cars to display a unique identifying registration number and for that number to be illuminated at night.

As far as I know, none of those laws has been struck down as unconstitutional.

As far as the Constitution goes, I don’t see how requiring cars to carry an EZ-Pass-like device would be any different.

You just want an example?

I concur with brazil on this. Unfortunately, the current Supreme Court has shown it’s willing to rule in favor of the government rather than the Constitution (or at least to stand aside while the government does something unconstitutional).

If you don’t see the difference, I really don’t know how to explain it to you. Let me try to illustrate it:

Today I left my house, stopped at McDonald’s to get coffee, stopped at a gas station, dropped my son off at daycare, dropped my daughter off at preschool, and went to work. These movements can’t be tracked via my license plate. The only reason for anyone to record my plate along the way would be if there was some kind of incident that required it…for instance, if I were in an accident or if I was caught speeding. At that point, all that would be known is where I was at that moment in time…but not where I had been, or where I was going next.

On the other hand, if they were tracking my movements via I-Pass, they would not only know everywhere I went, but what route I took to get there and how fast I was going.

Do you really not see the difference in these two scenarios?

I can’t speak for brazil but I’m guessing he’s making a distinction between the government passively monitoring your actions (a violation of privacy) and the government actively controlling your actions (a violation of liberty). An example might be the taking of the census, where the government ask for information about who lives where but doesn’t tell people where they should live.

But generally, I see any loss of privacy to be at best one small step away from a loss of liberty. There is the natural tendency for the government to use information if it has it. And there is the inhibiting effect of knowing that your actions are being wathced and recorded. And finally, this is all a moot point - the OP is explictly talking about the government taking action based on the information it gathered from RFID technology.

Sure. Give me one example of what you would consider the government violating individual liberty, just so we can see what premise you are arguing from.

Sure they could. It would just be a matter of setting up surveillance cameras. Already, many parking lots and toll plazas have ability to keep track of peoples’ license plates.

Similarly, an EZ-Pass-like device could only be used to track your movements if the proper receiving equipment were to be set up.

Anyway, if you think that such a requirement is unconstitutional, I would ask you to tell me which part of the Constitution would be offended.

I’m happy to do that: Will you promise not to interpret my example as a claim that less extreme actions would NOT be violations of peoples’ liberty?

I’ve got to run to a meeting, so I don’t have time to answer your previous question just now. As far as this question goes, why don’t you just give us your least extreme example?

But isn’t this information already available to the police? All they have to do is set up a few cameras on public roads to capture license plates. I think that’s already legal to do, and if so, how is a mandatory EZ-Pass any different?

The Court isn’t that simple. Even old Scalia has come out with some opinions that are pretty pro-defendant and anti-use of new technology to spy on people.

I don’t think there is a chance a court would approve of mandatory tracking devices in every vehicle.

Extremely low numbers of abuses? I don’t know where you are from, Plan B, but we seem to live under very different judicial systems.

I would repeat my request. Let’s give this discussion some focus:

Please give me a few examples from the last 10 or 20 years in which the government abused it’s ability to keep track of private citizens and the result was a serious detriment to the citizen.

That’s ok, I’ll wait.

The problem is that I could always think a little longer and come up with an example that is a little less extreme.

Thank you for your patience. If the government put up enough cameras to allow for them to track my every movement, I would consider that equivilant to tracking me with an EZ-Pass. A camera at a toll booth is functionally the same as tracking my movement through the toll using an EZ-Pass, which they already do. And if I want to avoid that, I can choose not to take the tollway. Putting cameras in parking lots is the equivilant of the bank records, etc. that you were talking about before…if a private organization wants to survey their property, that is their perogative. The government would still have to subpoena that evidence if they wanted to use it to prosecute me for something.

OK. I promise.

Considering that the only “evidence” in the case was the Liar’s statement(s), of which there were at least seven mutually exclusive ones, including being suspended in mid-air while she was being raped, I seriously doubt that she would ever have taken the stand. If she had, Joe Cheshire would have completely eliminated her credibility on cross.

At any rate, the electronic evidence consisted of cell phone pictures and ATM video. What has the government to do with these?

Sure. And I’m not aware of any cases holding it unconstitutional for the government to install surveillance cameras and/or to keep track of cars’ license plates. Thus, my educated guess is that the courts would not stop the government from from requiring cars to have EZ-Pass-like units, assuming that the requirement was otherwise constitutional.

I’m not sure what your point is here. Do you believe that as a matter of principal, the government should not be able to track peoples’ comings and goings?

Ok, one example of interfering with peoples’ liberty would be to put them in jail.

The government can typically obtain this sort of information by subpoena or by voluntary compliance by the business in question.

That seems like a major assumption, based on information you aren’t sure of.

I believe I have already said that, yes.

OK. I guess I know what premise you are arguing from, then.

I think that brazil84 sees no difference between data gathered by private organizations in the interest of business that the government can subpoena, and information the govenment gathers itself for purposes of survelliance.