posted
Is this the direction we're heading toward? I couldn't find this story elsewhere (although I didn't look too hard, I'll grant you) and I know that WND has ran at least one story before without fact checking... So..... What do ya'll think?
quote: "The concept," said Jones, "is that vehicle manufacturers will install a communications device on the vehicle starting at some future date, and equipment will be installed on the nation's transportation system to allow all vehicles to communicate with the infrastructure."
So your travel routes will be untrackable if you drive an older car?
Posts: 3771 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's very similar to some 50's-60's era experiments trying to make cars that drive themselves wherever you want to go, like in "Minority Report"
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
First, I am amazed that WND is running a pro-privacy article.
Second, this brings back the debate of how and when openness benefits society. Let's face it, by tracking cars' positions, you can do all kinds of things for the driver. Further, some people will argue, what's wrong with ticketing people when they break the law? If the law isn't supposed to be obeyed, why have it?
There is a middle ground in all of this where generic data is sent to wherever, such that people don't know which particular vehicle the data is being sent from. Encrypt the signal and make the evidence gotten by the computer in your car inadmissiable in court without heavy probable cause. Give people the chance to opt out of hte system if they so choose.
Done this way, I think it could be a good idea with a lot of benefits.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, this technology is much easier than that. It exists today: Hello, OnStar??? Many cellphones can now be tracked too. It IS a very scary time to be alive. Sure, theoretically the technology is in private hands, not those of the government, but in the era of the Patriot Act, how secure can you feel in that fact? Your library records aren't safe, why should your cell phone records be?
(Heck, OnStar can remotely unlock your doors and turn the car on or off. Can you imagine that technology in the government's hands?)
This isn't scary future crap, it's scary NOW crap.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
Storm, if the government's ability to enforce laws is flawless, then the government's ability to exceed its bounds is also limitless. You can't stop the march of technology, but I don't for a mooment trust the government to content itself with not having information that it could have.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm sorry, but I just don't understand the panic people seem to feel whenever they feel their privacy is threatened. I value privacy, but not to the point of fanaticism. Personally, I think it's highly overrated. I just don't believe there's very much danger in having either the government or private businesses know all kinds of things about us.
Posts: 1652 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, given my family background, I hope you will understand my lack of trust for governments when it comes to only using their power in fair and appropriate ways.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think a lot of people accept that the government tracks internet surfing habits, tracks phone conversations for "red-flag" words, and will completely gain access to library records, credit card information, et cetera in the near future. I wonder if they already have access to ALL our personal information.
I can see the government tracking us more and more as technology increases, and I don't think there will be a big enough outcry. Catching terrorists and criminals will be used as the justification for taking away civil liberties and “the innocent will never be prosecuted” will be used as a feel good rationalization.
It takes a great deal of faith to believe the government will only go after the bad guy. Who defines bad and what are the qualifications?
That being said, I would rather know what Uncle Sam is doing then pretending in certain civil rights that are being violated. Just some out and tell me if you are/can tracking/track my car or are violating my right to privacy.
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: It takes a great deal of faith to believe the government will only go after the bad guy. Who defines bad and what are the qualifications?
The law. Those that abide it have nothing to fear, those that break it have everything to fear, such as the loss of the freedoms they are abusing.
The government has tracked License plates for "years" which is the same thing but at a lower technology.
We track all planes in the sky with radar.
Just knowing where a car is at any given moment is not an invasion of privacy, it practice finally catching up with policy.
Could someone give me a reason why the tracking of cars is a bad thing given that we track them already with License plates and that we track "all" air traffic with Radar?
posted
It's the very question "Why is this a bad thing?" that bothers me. It means we as a society have effectively given up on privacy. Once the records exist, they will eventually become available in all kinds of civil suits and criminal proceedings.
It also makes it nice and easy to fake reports in order to frame someone.
And "Those that abide it have nothing to fear, those that break it have everything to fear, such as the loss of the freedoms they are abusing" is tantamount to denying most of our rights under the 4th and 5th amendments. When enforced by the exclusionary rule, these rights generally keep relevant evidence with high reliability and high probative value out of court. They are only ever directly enforced in favor of the guilty, because the only practical enforcement is exclusion if damning evidence from trial. This policy is a tradeoff of truth-determination in favor of protection of privacy from government intrusion, and it's at the heart of our constitutional principles.
quote: The law. Those that abide it have nothing to fear, those that break it have everything to fear, such as the loss of the freedoms they are abusing.
Oh my... You don't REALLY believe this, do you?
Tell that to all of the innocent people in prison, or if you don't think there are any innocent people in prison, how about the people who've spent years in prison, are proven innocent, and then let go?
quote: Tell that to all of the innocent people in prison, or if you don't think there are any innocent people in prison, how about the people who've spent years in prison, are proven innocent, and then let go?
Genearlly speaking it is due to privacy laws that innocent people ARE in prison and it is due to a REMOVAL of those privacy laws that once existed that have enabled those innocent to be let go. DNA testing is a prime example of an invasion of privacy but leads to exoneration.
I still am waiting for someone to tell me what "privacy" they loose by having their car tracked the same way an Airplane is tracked, or the same way YOU are tracked if you step foot on an airplane?
posted
Certainly there is no evidence in history of a government transforming into a political body that has a vested interest in antagonizing innocent people. Certainly educators/Jews/political dissidents have never been victims of ruthless governments. It is too rosy to think our government can not or will not abuse innocent people to either grow or change it’s power. The Bill of rights was partly/largely made to restrict the government from developing into something like Pre-WWII Germany. Anything that loosens government restriction should be looked at with a critical eye. I for one am worried.
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The privacy they lose is that they lost their privacy. There doesn't need to be a reason outside of that. We are free individuals and should go where we please when we please, and yes, in secrecy if we so choose. Innocent until proven guilty.
And this is just one more way that the government has to keep us in line. If someone is working against an unjust, unconstitutional government, I'd rather not have that government have all of the resources to stop that person. And if you don't think that could ever happen, then you are forgetting history.
I don't want to live in a police state. Big brother doesn't NEED to know when I go to the store.
quote:Genearlly speaking it is due to privacy laws that innocent people ARE in prison and it is due to a REMOVAL of those privacy laws that once existed that have enabled those innocent to be let go.
What on earth does this mean? What privacy laws kept Calvin Williams in jail?
The privacy reduction is obvious. If you drive on the road, you are essentially anonymous. You can be identified by officers on the scene who send in your tag number. Other than that, unless something happens that makes someone take note of your presence (an accident, a crime, etc.), there's no record of your movement available.
With the new system, every single movement you make would be available.
A significantly larger percentage of your movements are reproducible with the new than the old. If there were no reduction in privacy, there'd be no use for the new system. It's all about keeping track of movements that they can't keep track of now.
Could you at least attempt to recocile your statement with principles underlying the 4th and 5th amendment protections?
posted
Dagonee, what are the 4th and 5th amendments?
I've heard of the 5th... the one people plead when they don't want to answer a question that would incriminate themselves. I don't know what else there is to it, though.
posted
Can you reconcile the tracking of Airplanes and their passengers with the 4th and 5th ammendment?
I think it's pretty stupid to go out on a PUBLIC road and expect "privacy" or "anonymity".
It is a public road, it is not your private home.
Use of a car is a PRIVILEDGE and not a RIGHT. You must be licensed to drive and you must have a license plate (tracking number) on your vehicle.
Can you reconcile THOSE with the 4th and 5th ammendments?
Should we do away then with driver's licenses, license plates, radar, and airline passenger tracking?
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
Ooh, complicated question. The 4th basically protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, and prescribes the requirements for obtaining a warrant. The 5th:
1. requires an indictment before facing a federal felony charge 2. prevents double jeopardy 3. guarantees the right against self-incrimination (what "taking the fifth" usually means) 4. guarantees the right to due process before deprivation of life, liberty, or property 5. guarantees just compensation when property is taken for a public use.
Interestingly, the right to an attorney is listed in the sixth amendment, but the Miranda warning is all about the fifth amendment right against self-incrimination. It's a very interesting, but minutely technical aspect of constitutional criminal law.
quote:The ones that kept the DNA of the perpetrator from being accessible to law enforcement.
EDIT: You can't get more personal or private than someone's DNA.
Of course, the DNA used in the case was LEFT AT THE SCENE. In fact, they don't know who the perpatrator is, so the protection of his privacy had nothing to do with the wrongful conviction.
There was no privacy reason for him being in prison. It was based on the unreliability of eyewitness testimony the unavailability of DNA testing, and the unwillingness to go back and test where possible now that DNA testing is available.
quote:Can you reconcile the tracking of Airplanes and their passengers with the 4th and 5th ammendment?
Sure - it's necessary for the proper functioning of the air traffic controller system, and it doesn't relay private information. Commercial trucks are already required to be registered and weighed quite often when travelling, for safety and commerce regulation reasons.
The passengers are tracked for business reasons, just like a grocery store tracks your purchases if you use a bonus card or a credit card to make a purchase.
quote:I think it's pretty stupid to go out on a PUBLIC road and expect "privacy" or "anonymity".
It is a public road, it is not your private home.
Privacy does not extend only to the home. There's less privacy on the road, certainly, but not none.
quote:Use of a car is a PRIVILEDGE and not a RIGHT. You must be licensed to drive and you must have a license plate (tracking number) on your vehicle.
Can you reconcile THOSE with the 4th and 5th ammendments?
Sure, the licensing and registration is part of a regulatory scheme necessary for the safety and functioning of the highways.
And, of course, privileges are protected by the Constitution as well. However, you're wrong to say it's a privilege. Driving is a right, which requires certain conditions to exercise. But if you are denied your right to a license for a reason not rationally related to the purpose of the regulatory scheme, you can sue in court to get your license, just like you can sue to enforce other rights.
quote:Should we do away then with driver's licenses, license plates, radar, and airline passenger tracking?
posted
Calvin Willis was (falsely) convicted in 1982 of a crime which occurred the year before. DNA testing was not readily available (IIRC) until the early nineties, and it is still expensive -- much more so then.
Innocence Projects are generally pro bono work done by lawyers and law students to apply current forensic techniques to "closed cases;" i.e., they go back over old evidence using current scientific practice (usually DNA testing) to see if those sentenced to death or life without parole were wrongly convicted.
Correct me if I'm wrong, Dag or UULG.
[ October 07, 2004, 01:29 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Driving is a right, which requires certain conditions to exercise.
And, of course, we all are savvy enough to recall that not all rights of American citizens are enumerated in the US Constitution, as is noted in that very document itself.
quote:Amendment IX - Construction of Constitution (ratified 12/15/1791)
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
(knee-jerk head-off-at-the-pass response, excuse me )
[ October 07, 2004, 01:26 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
You guys have an awful lot of confidence in the government, too.
I'm taking a class this semester on terrorism, taught by the man in charge of the State Department's counterterrorism bureau (Middle East division). He's worked there 26 years, and he's taught these classes for the past six years. Our major project is to plan an terrorist attack and write communiques taking credit for the attack. We use primarily the internet which, as noted above, is supposedly tracked by the government.
No one in any of his classes has ever been contacted by the government in reference to 'illicit' activities on the web. I myself have visited numerous al-Qaida and terrorist websites....no knock on the door yet.
But my professor also emphasized that we have a heck of a lot of possibly misplaced trust in the government's ability to track what people are doing. The FBI has *thousands* of phone conversations on record from *suspected* terrorists that it just doesn't have time to listen to or deal with. Our government is overwhelmed with information -- just because the technology exists for them to get that information doesn't mean they are actually retrieving it or doing anything with it.
Posts: 1784 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Around a hundred and twenty thousand hours of taped conversations which haven't been translated and/or listened to.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:The FBI has *thousands* of phone conversations on record from *suspected* terrorists that it just doesn't have time to listen to or deal with. Our government is overwhelmed with information -- just because the technology exists for them to get that information doesn't mean they are actually retrieving it or doing anything with it.
Yeah, I was thinking "so what" if they tracked my vehicle. There are so many darn cars on the road these days that if my "paths" make some poor desk jockeys computer beep, then I'm not doing something right.
I’m not worried. I'd bet that my travel paths are among the most boring out there. *shrugs*
The only thing I'd be worried about is mistaken identity.
If a known felon was driving the exact make and model as I was, and the monitors in the vehicles blitzed, causing me to be the one chased down versus the bad guy. That’s of course if they used the “tracking” devices in that manner.
Posts: 3771 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I participate on all sorts of activities that are legal, but border on average Americans' senses of squickiness. While I am protected currently by the law, there is no guarantee that this information could be used to make my life difficult either by someone illegally holding that information now, or changes in the future.
Posts: 1261 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think my biggest issue with it is the simple assumption that we no longer are innocent until proven guilty and that probable cause starts to go out the window.
These monitoring systems work under the auspice that people are already doing wrong, and that they just need to be caught. The old, as said before, those who aren't doing wrong have nothing to worry about line.
Honestly, has anyone who drives not, at some point, or in some situation, ever gone over the speed limit?
Should the government begin watching you closely after you buy a copy of the Koran? Or perhaps Voltaire's Candide?
Hey, if you aren't doing anything wrong, why should you worry? Perhaps the question should be, why are you so worried that I am doing something wrong?
Let's face it, we're all becoming the victims of profiling.
Posts: 472 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
They are making things too complicated. Like electronic voting-- techies have proven that trained chimps could hack the vote if it's done how they have been planning to do it.
Of course, maybe trained chimps could make better choices.
There was an article about a guy who signed up for a beta testing of this thing. His insurance company siad they'd cut him a deal on insurance if he proved to be a safe driver. I think they measured speed and also the forcefullness of stops, among other things.
It seemed creepy to me.
Posts: 1664 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I haven't read the last posts since I posted, because I'm at work. I have six minutes before my next class and I just wanted to comment on how the policies of the Bush administration make strange bedfellows of people. Republicans more than anyone else should be arguing against this idea, because it increases the size, scope, and power of government. In fact, this is why Cuban-Americans have traditionally voted Republican. But a Republican administration created the Patriot Act, so now you have to defend things Republicans ordinarily would not.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow posts comming in faster than I can read them. Dagonee's arguments as to why it's ok for driver's licenses, license plates, etc. are all arguments for an updating of the "Automotive Tracking" policies of the country as described in the article.
And passenger names are not recorded and kept track of for business reasons, it's an actual FAA regulation that you have to divulge your name and identification to be able to fly.
You can't be a movie star and say your name is Mickey Mouse and fly on airplane without actually showing proof of ID of who you are.
The law actually requires that the person's name on the ticket is the only one who can use it.
So as you listed "safety" as a good excuse to invade or privacy for aircraft, it is also a good idea to invade or privacy for "safety" in automobiles.
Those worrying about the "flaws" inherent in the proposed system don't realize that there already exist flaws in the current system, but we aren't throwing those systems out the window because of them.
I don't think that tracking devices on automobiles (which is equivalent of Air Traffic control #'s and radar) if handled in the same way as our Commercial Air system is handled, can be decried as an invasion of privacy.
It would be the exact same thing. All you would know is what the car is and who owns it. You still have no way of proving who is driving it and who is in it, what music they are listening to or if they are or are not wearing pants.
I wholeheartedly support the institution of an automobile tracking system equivalent to the system used now in tracking Air Traffic.
Imagine our air traffic system without any sort of monitoring or tracking.
And that's completely leaving out "Black Boxes" which are another invasion of the privacy of Pilots and their Passengers as well.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Honestly, has anyone who drives not, at some point, or in some situation, ever gone over the speed limit?
So because people do it makes it ok?
The effect would be that people would slow down and go the speed limit which means that safety would be increased?
How many people are stupid enough to go 100mph when they can SEE the cop watching them?
Ever been behind someone speeding when they see the cop?
It's called a Flash of Red.
It's the same as when you know you are on a security camera.
Loss of Privacy? Monitoring Speeders is a loss of privacy, but we are willing to give it up because it saves lives.
Mr. Kidnapper steals a car and kidnaps some 13 year old girl and heads out to the mountains to rape her and kill her. You have the license plate #, but it is already reported as stolen.
In the current system, that girls dead.
How do you find the car? You track it and there it is in the mountains. You send in the police.
If it saves lives should be the priority over "I don't want people knowing where I am...that's makes me feel uncomfortable".
posted
The requirement to present an ID to fly is gone. (of course, you still need one to pass the security checkpoints). But the ID at gate requirement was struck down.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: of course, you still need one to pass the security checkpoints
That's what I mean. You can't fly without identifying who you are. Which not only tells the government who you are, what flight you are on, but it also tells them where you are going.
Should we do away with it because it's an invasion of privacy?
Should we make it so that all passengers are anonymous and don't have to provide any ID of who they are?
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:If it saves lives should be the priority over "I don't want people knowing where I am...that's makes me feel uncomfortable".
I can certainly come up with a policy that saves lives that you would consider unacceptbale.
For instance, a person is kidnapped and threatened with death. Should the police search every house to see if the person is in there?
Should we lower all the speed limits to 25 MPH? That would likely save lives.
Should we allow the police to demand DNA samples from all males when there's a serial rapist/killer on the loose?
Saving lives is only one of the factors taken into consideration, balanced against other considerations. Keeping track of vehicles traveling over 5 miles a minute with inadequate visibility to prevent collisions is very different than logging where every car is at every moment.
posted
That's not an FAA regulation, that's a TSA regulation. Also, the checkpoint at the security location is not as invasive as the checkpoint at the gate. One can pass the security checkpoint showing one boarding pass, then use a different boarding pass to board a completely different airline, no ID shown. Nothing illegal about it.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:If they have probable cause yes. It has happened before.
I'm talking about without probable cause. "We know the kidnapper went into this neighborhood. Let's search all the houses!"
quote:Ever been on a street where a school is then built? Speed limit DROPS. Ever been on a street where a school just got let out? It drops even further.
SO yes that is the policy. Where a definate change means saving lives, it is done.
Yes, but lowering all speed limits to 25 would save more lives. Why don't we do it?
quote:Get over it. You want privacy? Buy a cabin in the woods with no windows and no electricity and have no contact with anyone.
You want to be a part of society and enjoy it's benefits, then be a part.
Except this society was founded on the principle that one does NOT have to forfeit core freedoms to belong to society. You want to belong to THIS society, then you trade efficient prosecution of criminals for protection of privacy rights.
posted
I don't have a problem with the government hypothetically keeping tabs on every activity. What I do have a problem with is the proposal that only the government is allowed access to those records.
Irrespective of what one thinks of the government -- personally, I think government employees are less corruptible as a whole than private individuals as a whole -- the monitoring activities will be screened by individuals. And not all individuals-hired-by-the-government are incorruptible. Besides selling governmentally-held "private" information to commercial databanks/etc, the type of information gathered is too easily correlated into information that could be used for blackmail and extortion.
Not too long ago, one could long-distance travel anywhere within US without proof-of-identity if one paid cash: now one can do so only in private transportation (I think even commercial buslines require IDs). One could check into hotels under assumed names if one paid cash: now one must provide identification. One could use credit cards and checks with a fair amount of certainty that only ones bank and/or credit card provider would have full access to the records: now we can't.
Take a hypothetical married businessman/woman. He travels from home to eg NewYorkCity for a meeting. Naturally, he needs a hotel room. Now what does it imply if he pays for double-occupancy when he is "traveling alone" as far as his business is concerned? Or if he has a charge on his card for a strip joint, a "sexy advertizing" massage parlor, or an escort service? And it is easy to check via her credit/checking account activity whether his wife is in NYC at the time of these activities. Voila, perfect material to "lean" on the businessman if an individual-screening-for-the-govenment chooses to do so.
Doesn't take direct blackmail or extortion. All it takes is just a hint, a favor done "I noticed [such and such] on your records, and buried it. You should be more careful." After many such favors to many businessmen/women, the corruptible government employee might decide to resign/retire, and look for a higher-than-expectable-income job in private industry. Now guess who is gonna provide strong "scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" recommendations in favor of hiring her/him.
If it were only businessmen/women, we might be willing to accept it as the cost of doing business; like we accept business entertainment ala bars, discos, strip clubs, escorts, etc. But any professional-who-is-less-than-totally-upright-in-personal-behaviour is susceptible: whether s/he be a physician, a police/FBI/etc officer, a bureaucrat, a lawyer, a prosecutor, a judge, or a politician/lawmaker. And along with folks who just wanna be better off than they deserve, there are "empire builder"s within any bureaucracy. Want an "unlikely to recover from this coma" changed to a "brain-dead: persistent vegetative state"? A witness (or a "witness" that ain't) to testify, to self-censor testimony in a manner more favorable to your case? A close legal/regulatory decision nudged your way? The wording of a law or regulation slightly closer to that which you desire, or to that which would grant you more power?
So if individuals-working-for-the-government have access, the (nearly) same access should be granted to all citizens. Otherwise, government-employee shenanigans are gonna increase both quantitatively and qualitatively. It's a lot harder to "lean" on someone with publicly available information than with "private" secrets.
posted
I don't think the government will be the one to track our cars. I forsee a near future where car tracking devices will be required to obtain private insurance. Since insurance is required to drive, it will be as good as being tracked by the government.
quote: I'm talking about without probable cause. "We know the kidnapper went into this neighborhood. Let's search all the houses!"
That's probable cause. The police do searches that way all the time.
"The suspect entered this apartment complex which is surrounded. Let's go door to door until we find him"
Even seen cops? I don't know HOW many yards (personal PRIVATE property) they run through in persuit of their suspect. "hey that dude's hiding in that person's privately owned shed". That's invasion of privacy as well. Happens all the time thank God.
quote: Yes, but lowering all speed limits to 25 would save more lives. Why don't we do it?
Not necessarily, the bottleneck it would create would not allow ambulences to get to and from crimes, nor firefighters, nor police cars. Nor have any studies shown that the difference would be that big if they were lowered. The fact that speed limits exists contradict your whole argument however.
quote: Except this society was founded on the principle that one does NOT have to forfeit core freedoms to belong to society.
It was also founded on a belief in God, that adultery is wrong and that women shouldn't vote, but as anyone will tell you, things change.
Having your car tracked is absolutely NOT a "core freedom" as evidenced that you have to be a certain age, have a license and have your vehicle licensed.
The "core freedoms" you speak of are the ones given at birth.
quote: I don't think the government will be the one to track our cars. I forsee a near future where car tracking devices will be required to obtain private insurance. Since insurance is required to drive, it will be as good as being tracked by the government.
I agree. That or the insurance premiums for those who refuse to be tracked would be HUGE.
Heck they can pull a Credit Report on you now when trying to apply for a job...
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
