What autopilot systems? Would the autopilot systems be required? Why require the car to have a transponder? Just put one in yourself if you want to use the autopilot.
I’m not talking just about Sarbanes-Oxley. I’m talking about disclosure rules that go back a lot further.
I don’t know what you mean by “predisposed.” In my opinion, a lot more people would commit murder if they thought they would get away with it. Would those same people agree in principle to a law banning murder? Possibly, but I don’t see how it’s relevant.
Nope. You appear to be missing my point.
That’s not what I’m saying.
But I’m not saying it’s the same thing. I’m saying it’s the same as far as the principle is concerned. There is a difference which I don’t think you are facing.
No, the principle is different. The purpose of a license plate is not to spy on every movement a car makes.
Ok, so if a law was passed requiring EZ-Pass-like devices on every car, and the purpose of the law was to aid in toll collection as well as traffic enforcement (just like license plates), you wouldn’t have any objection, in principle, to the law?
Is traffic enforcement the purpose of a license plate?
I can’t think of any other reason to require that the plate be illuminated (and not obstructed). Can you?
So that it can be read?
Read by whom and for what reason?
The license plate shows that car has been registered by the state and the appropriate fees paid. It is also used to identify the owner of the car. Are you suggesting that the police would be unable to apprehend drivers who violate traffic laws if they simply removed the license plate? It seem counter intuitive.
For the sake of argument, let’s assume that your reasons are the correct ones.
Now suppose that the legislature passes a law requiring EZ-Pass-like devices be mounted on cars for the exact same reason that license plates are required. Would you have any objections in principle to such a law?
No.
An RFID would be an equally effective way of doing the same, no?
In certain situations, yes. Red light cameras, speed cameras, eyewitnesses at hit-and-run accidents, civilians phoning in complaints about erratic driving, one police officer relaying information to another, etc. all rely on the license plate.
The problem is that your hypothetical involves the federal government, which, as far as I know, is not in the business of traffic control.
Having said that, I don’t see how they could serve the same purpose. would every tow truck driver, meter maid, highway patrolman, etc. have a monitoring device? Would they only activate it when there was a suspicion of a violation? As has been pointed out ad nauseum, it is the passive collection of individual ID information in the absence any connection with a suspected crime, and the correlation of that with a specific location, that is offensive.
What you are suggesting, to use an analogy of yours, is exactly what Nifong did when he requested DNA from everyone on the LAX team, whether they fit the witness ID or not. Absent reasonable suspicion of a crime, the state has no interest in how and where I spend my time. So, unless your EZPass hypothetical only involves retrieving and correlating the information after reasonable cause has been established, which ASAIK is not how EZPass works, then yes, I would object in principle.
Only for those who have a monitoring device.
I assume the RFID would supplement a conventional license plate.
But the state has the right and responsibility to regulate road usage, does it not? Use of the highway is not a right, it’s a privilege granted to you by the state under certain conditions.
Why, if it is only equally effective? What would be the point?
The state does. The federal government does not. And it does not need to know where I am every minute I am driving in order to “regulate road usage.” That is exactly the point I and others have been trying to make.
Thanks for the update. Have I asserted otherwise, Or are you just feeling expansive? I am unclear what this has to do with all cars sold in America being required to have an EZPass device installed.
OK, so what if the RFID was issued by the state?
And it doesn’t need to issue license plates either, but it helps. If the RFID helps regulate road usage more efficiently, I’m all for it.
I reminded you because you were making comparisons with DNA testing of certain groups. There’s a huge difference between tracking individuals and tracking automobiles.
If you honestly believe this, then I fear that a meeting of the minds will be difficult.
So, in your mind, a roadside camera that captures the license plate of every car passing by is equivalent to a road block where every occupant of every vehicle is required to present a photo ID?