Practically, the government may be able to spy on us with our license plates. In principle, however, that is not the purpose of a license plate, it will have been co-opted for that use.
RFID, OTOH can be used to track us, and tracking is the ONLY reason it would be added to licensing requirements. It will not have been co-opted for an unfortunate purpose, it was implemented entirely for that purpose. That makes it different, in principle, if not in practice.
Fine, but you have offered essentially nothing of your own.
Ok, and why are license plates ok with you? (Assuming that they are ok with you?)
After all, license plates too could be used to track the movements of innocent citizens.
I don’t want to speak for Sarahfeena, but I would bet that the reason is the one explained very well by Cheesesteak at the top of this page. (It summed up my view pretty well, anyway.)
LilShieste
You seem to be missing a very obvious point here. One that **Cheesesteak **tried to make above. The OP is suggesting that two things happen. 1) That transmitters be placed by law in all motor vehicles, and 2) that a nationwide system of detectors be set up to monitor the movement of every motor vehicle. IOW, the sole purpose of the system is track such movements.
You may know better than I, but it seems to me that the only way to use license plates as a tracking system is to photograph them, retrieve the photo, and do a search on the number. Whereas with the abovementioned system, all one needs to do is enter the ezpass ID and every movement is instantly available.
If someone were to suggest that a nationwide system be set in place that could somehow ID and record every license plate that passed, with automatic retrieval of pertinent info, then maybe you would have a valid analogy. But since such a system does not exist, and would likely face exactly the same objections raised in this thread, it is difficult to take your point seriously.
I’m having a tough time keeping up with this today…combine Cheesesteak and Contrapuntal’s posts, and that covers pretty much anything I would say in response.
Well, suppose that a law was proposed that required everyone to get an EZ-Pass-like unit so that toll collection could be automated and so that police would make fewer errors identifying cars.
Would you have any objections, in principle, to such a law?
So one method would be much more cumbersome than the other, right?
One is more cumbersome, the other is more loathsome.
From the Supreme Court:
Now, this is all related the home, but the general principle appears to be that unless you have a well defined reason for any search beyond naked eye, you need to specify probably cause to a judge first.
I would have very few objections to the toll aspect of that law. Toll roads are generally limited access highways, and often have toll related traffic issues. Universal EZ Pass use on those highways would significantly ease traffic during peak times, I have no objection to requiring them, for toll road use. It’s technology designed for a purpose, easing traffic and toll collection, it accomplishes that purpose. I accept that the police will be able to subpoena the records for investigating crimes.
I don’t think the police need EZ Pass to help in identifying cars, so I would object to that side of it. I would consider it a vanishingly small percentage of the time that police are unable to do their jobs because they couldn’t identify a car electronically.
Exactly why is it more loathsome?
One method uses the visible portion of the spectrum. The other method uses higher frequency signals.
In many cities, it happens regularly that parking enforcement people make out tickets incorrectly. I suspect that the tickets would have fewer errors if an EZ-Pass-like system were used.
Because it involves the government spying on the citizenry.
If the government set up a system to photograph peoples’ license plates and put them in a database, would that be “spying” in your view?
Except that wasn’t Plan B’s statement, was it?
He or she stated:
The argument was that giving the government intrusive power in the past several hundred years has only led to “extremely low numbers of abuses.” You are now trying to alter the playing field. This is a NEW power being proposed for the police - the power to track you wherever you drive. It isn’t surprising such a power has not been abused in the past because the police have not had it.
There is some interesting case law you might want to read up regarding the use of heat detectors in drug busts. The courts seem to think there is a difference in the method used to gather evidence of allegedly criminal activity.
Kyollo v. U.S. Justice Scalia himself found that to point a heat detector at a private house needs a warrant. Looking though a window on the other hand would not need a warrant.
How? I’m just asking for a few examples to give the discussion some focus.
Sure they have. You think the authorities have never obtained somebody’s bank records? credit card records? cell phone records?
That’s interesting. What about intercepting the signal from a cordless phone? I recall reading somewhere that was ok. So ultraviolet emissions are fair game?
Maybe I missed it, but a system like this already exists (though not nationwide).
As stated, perhaps not. But as I stated previously? Yes.