Your papers please- DUI checkpoints now general purpose dragnets.

[Martini_Enfield]

@not_alice

Do you mean “gave up” in the sense of “tried, and is trying, again”?

They gave up that time and are having another go at it. As I’ve said, I don’t foresee this effort being any more successful than the last one.

It works in some authoritarian countries. It is not all that expensive on the scale of Telstra (with whom I used to work managing a partnership here in the US). The issue is, will the people put up with it? Your claim of unpopularity goes to that point. Are there local polls and protests that would lead us to believe this is dead in the water?

Australia is not nearly as politically active as the US at a grassroots level, unless you’re a [del]Commie[/del] Greenie (or a Uni Student :p)

I didn’t “just find out about it”. I just mentioned it on this thread as it seemed to be germane.

Seemed to be, but isn’t.

If someone made such a proposal here, our citizens would go berserk in shooting it down. Has that happened there?

No, because it’s not likely to happen. If it looks like it will actually happen, then you’ll start seeing more vocal opposition to it.

This is getting ever more disturbing. Where do you draw the line pray tell about what you accept the government deciding what you could see or not see, own or not own, build or not build, study but not study, who you could communicate with about what or not?

I’ll take it on a case-by-case basis.

Why would you allow your government to implement what you say is unworkable? What if it is not? What could the purpose be other than political control and consolidation? Has this sort of thing ever been proposed, let alone implemented, for any reason other than that?

I believe the semi-official version is “Won’t someone think of Families???”; ie parents know jack shit about The Internet but they know it’s full of nasty things that Little Billy And Susie probably shouldn’t see. So The Government is stepping in to provide a filter to block the worst of it out; again so that if people see That Sort Of Thing then they’ve really got to be looking for it.

So, I can understand the sentiment, but I don’t think it’s practical or workable and the money would be better spent on educating people about… pretty much anything.

I am just expecting you to provide quality cites. Goes with being at University,

And since this isn’t part of my university course and you’re not one of my tutors, you’re going to be disappointed, I’m afraid.

But you can’t google up anything?

I might, but I’m not going to. Because I have actual work to do- as in, things that bring in an income- and in general better things to do with my time. And I’ve already made an effort to find the sort of thing you’re talking about. You’ve just linked to Wire Service news stories and decided because of what you’ve read there that Australia is some sort of Communist Authoritarian Tyranny when that’s clearly not the case.

So it would be nice to see the actual study instead of a press release type page.

I’m sure you can find it if you’re so interested. I don’t have access to university journals atm and you evidently do.

And I don’t see anything that suggests roads are “safer for everyone”, let alone that RBTs do that. That is a horse of an entirely different color. I am sure it was not addressed in any of the studies this meta-study refers to. For example, RBTs don’t happen here, so how can our roads be safer as a result of your police policies?

It was a general study of something like 23 countries, not just the US. And you’re still dodging the facts that it’s been shown- by scientific studies, regardless of whether they’ve been linked to your satisfaction or not- that RBTs/Sobriety Checkpoints do work.

That is interesting! All of that kind of stuff ends up on google forever here. Does it not end up indexed in your country? I would be surprised, but then, your country wants to limit what you can read clearly, maybe they already have limited it somehow?

Oh, it’s probably there. I didn’t say it wasn’t. I just said it was entirely too much hassle to go and look for it, especially since you’ve got such exacting standards about what you’re prepared to accept as “proof”, from the sounds of it.

You are actually comparing ancient common law such as libel, with the proposed limitations on communications in your country? Of course there are limits here, we like to say you can’t yell fire in a crowded theater, or my individual right to speech ends where it harms you. Other than that, pretty much its a free for all. And so it is hard for Americans to understand the proposed limitations on speech, to be implemented by technical means, as proposed and tested, by your government.

Right now I’m struggling to think of anything that I can’t say in Australia that I could say in the US because of your Freedom Of Speech enshrinement, and the best I can come up with is things that might be qualified as Hate Speech and therefore restricted in parts of the US as well. What sort of things do you think you can say in the US that we can’t say here?

Remember, Political & Economic matters are two things that we do have freedom of speech about. So Government attempts to censor the internet can’t be for political consolidation because people have a legal right to criticise the Government and to discuss politics and economics.

Without knowing the full details of your laws, that was my general impression too, until this came up in the news. Why doesn’t Australia have something similar to our 1st Amendment’s speech clauses?

Because we peacefully became Independent from the UK in 1901 and, being a “Civilised” country modelled on the Westminster System who became independent for the “right” reasons (ie not by armed revolution) it Was Just Understood that there was no need for a Freedom Of Speech clause since it was felt existing Common Law and the de facto situation covered that anyway. Same reason there’s no right to bear arms in our Constitution either- it was just taken as read that people needed guns (what with most people living on farms and all that) and that there were penalties in place to deal with misuse of guns (ie shooting people), and that should be about it.

So that is sufficient grounds in your view to allow police suspicionless searches?

Also, how is Breathalysing someone a “search”? Anything the police can find during an RBT they could find by pulling up next to your car at the traffic lights, or walking past as you park on the side of the road. I think that’s a key component in our disagreement- I don’t consider an RBT a “search”, and even if it was, I certainly don’t think it’s an unreasonable one.

Perhaps “principles” does not mean what you think it means, or at least what I think you think it means?

In this context I’m translating it as “Theories On Ways In Which To Do Things”.

In the old days, no one had bombs and automatic guns in their houses too, but that has happened many times now. So should we allow suspicionless searches in our homes?

Firstly, there’s this thing known as the Castle Doctrine (“A Man’s Home Is His Castle…”) which dates from the 1600s and is the entire reason why the police need a warrant to search someone’s house. Said doctrine does not state “And Iffe a Manne Is Out Rydinge In His Carte Or Trap Or Uponne Hif Horfe Or Ox Or Other Beaft of Burden Whilft Under Ye Influence Of Spirituouf Liquorf; It Too Shall Be Confidered Hif Caftle And Shalt Not Be Subject To Interference By Ye Police Without Good Caufe In Ye Forme Of A Search Warrant”.

Also, your house can’t drive around. They’re not even close to comparable. Does it count as a search if you’ve got a glasshouse visible from the footpath and you’ve got barrels of radioactive waste (for example) clearly visible within said glasshouse?

Maybe all our data should not be private either? Why not allow the government to look at anything anytime, for any or no reason at all?

That’s patently absurd and you know it. There are countless reasons why the Government shouldn’t have access to citizen’s private data. The only reasons I can see for not wanting RBTs are “Because I drink and drive a lot and I might get caught” or “Being A Paranoid Crazy Person Who Thin”. I don’t think you’re either of those, but surely you can see how your viewpoint looks to… I don’t know, all the members from the Commonwealth?

Maybe we can just apologize to the Queen about that 18th Century kerfuffle with her predecessor, and ask back in, because it turns out what was important to us then is no longer applicable in the modern world?

The reality is that the world when the US Constitution was written is vastly different to the one we live in now. That doesn’t mean it should be screwn up and thrown away, but I think a lot of people need to understand that times have changed and what worked for guys in powdered wigs and buckskins doesn’t necessarily work for the realities of life in the 21st century. Just as we’re discovering that perhaps someone should have put a “Free Speech” clause in the Australian Constitution, there’s nothing that says you guys can’t discover (for example) that perhaps someone should have clarified the Second Amendment a bit more clearly at the time (to pick one example).

Even if we wanted to, it doesn’t work so simply here. We have 2 hundred years of legal precedence. You can’t simply legislate that away, even if you wanted to.

Australia was settled about the same time the US became Independent. We too have around 200 years of Common Law and Legal Precedents yet we managed to come

No, it would not only not solve the problem, it would create new ones.

Such as? Assuming that the “plain sight” rule stays (ie, if you can see it through the windows, it’s not a search) I struggle to think what those new problems might be.

[quote]
I don’t have to give a breath test now if I don’t want to. In my state, as mentioned upthread, implied consent does not kick in until after I am arrested. Then, the penalties I would risk are both administrative (loss of license) and criminal. I don’t consent, and I am not drunk, it makes the case hard to prosecute. See how it goes? Not advocating that as a legal strategy, readers, but the point is, I don’t have to give the test now, so how would you justify forcing someone to give it under your new law? [/qupte]

Make it against to refuse to provide a breath test. That’s how it works here- the penalties for refusing to provide a breath test are the same as DUI.

In fact, what you are proposing is even further down the slippery slope that Dinsdale described than what we have now. I understand that the illusion or hope of safety is the appeal, but can’t you think of another way?

I can - maybe no one is allowed out during some set of weekly hours that account for 20% of drunk driving incidents. That could work just as well. What could be wrong with that? Everyone gets to spend more time with family, or at work making money, or whatever? It is perfect, no police searches, no nothing.

AIUI There’s a freedom of movement clause in our Constitution that would make such an idea Unconstitutional, nevermind patently silly.

The reality- as several people from outside the US have said- is that RBTs do not make a Police State.

Have you ever actually been to Australia? If you had, you’d see that the country is just as Democratic and Free- for all intents and purposes- as the US is. Working with Telstra doesn’t count- complaining about Telstra is one of Australia’s national sports, you know.