And maybe she wouldn’t have been kidnapped at all, if there was a government appointed nanny that followed her around everywhere. :dubious:
LilShieste
Excuse me, but you made your bold assertion first. You then requested that I offer case law to back up my opinion, but you hadn’t offered any yourself, and still haven’t done so. While I am not a lawyer, and therefore can’t cite relevant decisions, I have attempted to show you why your examples of situations that apparently are allowable (such as cameras photographing license plates at toll booths) are fundamentally different from the OP’s proposal. Happy Scrappy’s point is that you continue to ignore these arguments I and others have made, and apparently insist that the situations are the same, when it seems pretty clear that they are not. If you care to rebut those arguments, then this conversation might hold some interest for me, but as of right now, I’m getting rapidly bored with it.
Again, there seems to be this inability to make subtle distinctions, like between an ant hill and Mt. Everest.
There seems to be some concensus that we accept license plates, they could be monitored and recorded and the info could be archived, and RFID doesn’t do much more. And the same horrible police state types who somehow have been held in check by the courts and legislators and haven’t done much to screw us with warrants or wiretaps, also would not be able to screw us with RFID.
Here’s my question to the people who oppose the plan: Could you name any way in which you would give the government even .0000001% more power if it would make us safer?
And remember, as I said in the OP, I’m pretty much a libertarian. I don’t like giving the government more power in general. And if we were talking about Venezuela or Cuba, I’d be against it. There I’d say let’s take our chances with the kidnappers and killers. But in an Anglo democracy, where there have been almost no cases of abuse - I’ve asked for cites, none have appeared - the bad cops just will not be able to hurt us with this tiny increase in information. And the ratio of benefit to risk is astronomical.
You ain’t kidding. Especially when you go on to say:
Haven’t you seen the posts in this thread that explain the difference between the two? The RFID approach does a lot more, and it has a lot more implications.
LilShieste
Maybe you should go back and read the thread. Check out my post on no-fly lists. Then explain how a secret list that the government can put anybody on without any known restriction and use to forbid them to fly isn’t an abuse of power. You’ll want to use this as a warm-up because the main routine will involve warrantless wire-tapping, the suspension of habeus corpus, Guantanamo, Manzanar, Watergate, Iran-Contra, RICO, COINTELPRO, Nixon’s Enemy List, the CIA’s family jewels, the Indian Removal Act of 1830, and the Alien and Sedition Acts.
You do realize that RFID doesn’t work for tracking things? Even Wal-Mart is having serious problems with their in-store tracking systems.
http://management.silicon.com/itdirector/0,39024673,39119625,00.htm
Can’t detect 'em from more than 5 feet away, anyhow.
Oh, and implanting them in animals can cause cancer.
IANAL so someone needs to explain why tracking your car on a PUBLIC street would be unreasonable?
Cops do it all the time; following a suspicious person and running their plate. Is it the fact that they can track you without a suspicion? Well they can stop you and breathalyze you at a drunk-driving checkpoint without suspicion (as long as it’s random). The can follow you even if you are not breaking any laws. Is it the fact that they can track 100s, 1000s, or 1000000s of cars? Then it’s the magnitude that makes it illegal.
COINTELPRO, actually, Final Report of the Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities. United States Senate, 94th Congress, 2nd Session, April 26 (legislative day, April 14), 1976. [AKA “Church Committee Report”]’ and The CIA’s Family Jewels.
CMC+fnord!
I’m familiar with the terms, Crow. That’s why I brought them up.
Seriously, what’s your point?
“Irony” is not the term I would use.
Now that’s an unproveable assertation, isn’t it?
Apparently not, as murders still occur.
And there’s no way to give this a factual answer. Either choice yields the possibility for someone to say, “Bullshit!” with no way to come to a definitive conclusion on the matter.
Again, this is unproveable, but I find it ironic that someone who’s apparently so untrusting of the police would think that enabling them to track your every movement was a good idea.
As I’ve said again and again, I made it very clear that I was not certain. I simply said the following:
When you asked me to explain my reasoning, I did so.
My statement, and my defense of it, were perfectly reasonable.
You are the one who made a “bold” statement.
I asked you the following:
Your response:
You made that statement without any uncertainty.
I didn’t ignore your arguments. I responded to them. True, I didn’t agree with them – but that’s what debating is all about. It doesn’t mean I am ignoring them.
In principle, it could be tested. Can I take it you are in favor of repealing these sorts of disclosure laws?
One can use common sense. It seems pretty obvious to me that if murder were legal, there would be more murders.
Given that the majority of businesses find them to be onerous, and just because someone’s signed a piece of paper doesn’t mean that they’re telling the truth, or even paying attention to what their signing, yes, I am. I’m all for transparency in how a business conducts it’s affairs, but Sarbanes-Oxley doesn’t do that, and hinders the operation of businesses. And I don’t need corporate transparency to the point where I know every time the CEO goes to take a dump.
Only if you start with the presumption that humans are predisposed to murder one another. That’s clearly not the case, since no sane person objects to murder being a crime.
Links for the historically (and Google) challenged!
But in a nutshell,
ANYONE who thinks giving more power of this kind to the US government’s Executive branches, Federal, State, and Local, (with, checks and balances, and Congressional and Judicial oversight) is no threat to the legal and Constitutional rights of it’s citizens is either woefully or willfully uneducated about the actual history of how these programs have been, and are now continuing to be, used both illegally and unconstitutionally (even with, checks and balances, and Congressional and Judicial oversight).
CMC+fnord!
I was just getting to the end of the thread and saw the need to link to those very incidents, but you posted first, alls I had left was the links 
You want me to install a piece of equipment in my car so that a meter maid, who’s standing there, staring at the fucking thing, doesn’t dork up writing down the license plate number?
You want to track my movements, provide a compelling reason. The fact that it might help solve specific crimes undertaken by dimwits who don’t disable the system, isn’t quite compelling enough for me.
I have to say, if you believe in giving the authorities the power and right to track the wearabouts of every driver in the US, at any time, without probable cause or a warrant, then you aren’t pretty much a libertarian.
And just what would count as a cite for abuse? How many cites, for example, of evidence getting tossed because it was acquired illegally do you want? For a particularly serious case of recent police abuse, try Tulia, TX. Or does that not count as abuse because the courts eventually figured it out.
Or are you looking for specific types of abuse? Let me know.
Try speeding in the state of South Dakota with an out of state license plate. I lived there for one year and noticed that all but a few cars pulled over were out of state. I asked about this of the locals and they laughed and said that it was common knowledge that the state derived income from out of staters.
Heck, When I lived in WY I noticed the same thing…except they had county identifiers on their plates.
Given opportunity, it will be abused sooner or later. If you trade freedom for security you will get neither.
I’m not going to bother nesting all these quotes, so it’s going to be really tough for anyone else to follow this conversation.
If what you are saying is that all you have to do around here to avoid defending your opinion with facts is to qualify your opinion with a statement indicating that you have no idea what you’re talking about, then you haven’t really picked up on the culture of the board.
And, I don’t believe you have offered any argument to rebut explanations of why tagging a car with a license plate is not the same as tagging it with RFID technology.
It is getting harder and harder to take you seriously. What does following a criminal suspect have to do with tracking the movements of every car owner? Here’s my answer. About as much as picking an apple has to to with razing an orchard.
What if cars were required to be outfitted with a transponder that identifies them as a car? For use with autopilot systems so I could let the computer drive me wherever I was going. Would that intrude upon civil liberties?