It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Big Brother To Decide If You Drive

page: 1
1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 21 2006 @ 10:05 PM
link   
Nothing can stop Big Brother of "ripping" his citizens freedom apart.
From now (if it will be approved) 245 milion americans must "ask a permit" from Big Brother in order to start their cars.
Under the guise of Mothers Against Drunk Drivers it's just started a campaign to pass the legislation for putting electronic devices for drunk drivers (read tracking devices). This attempt adds up to the other one propossed for forcible use of GPS devices in all the cars that will travel in the NAFTA superhighway.

 



www.prisonplanet.com
Big Brother To Decide If You Drive
245 million Americans to be forced to undergo "guilty until proven innocent" breathalyzer tests just to start their cars if plan proceeds
Just when you thought the Orwellian Big Brother society couldn't possibly accelerate further, it gets even worse. A move is afoot to force 245 million drivers in America to have alcohol breathalyzers fitted in their vehicles, ignition interlocks that prevent the vehicle from being started by an inebriant.

"The threat of arrest and punishment, for decades the primary tactic against drunken drivers, is no longer working in the struggle to reduce the death toll, officials say, and they are proposing turning to technology — alcohol detection devices in every vehicle — to address the problem," reports the New York Times.

In addition, Mothers Against Drunk Drivers today began a campaign to make all states pass legislation that mandates these devices be placed in all cars of drunk drivers, even if they are just a first time offender.

Mandatory breathalyzers in all vehicles is just one item in a veritable surveillance package that all drivers will be forced to accept if they wish to use America's roads and highways.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


When you hear about drunk driving and what causes around North America the most normal reactions are the rage against irresponsible drivers and pain for the victims. And something must be done to stop this madness. But instead of forcing the laws for the people who drink and drive they are propossing to come up with a tracking device?
And this tracking device has to be installed in each car, despite the fact who is being driven from?
That doesn't sound right at all. In the verge of the introduction of all other tracking devices RIF, ID, TAGS, etc... this new one just adds up to the already existing pile.
Is so horribly sinister and evil to use somebodys pain for the death of a loved one and pretending to take measures to prevent other disasters like that .
Is for real a Orwellian scenario.
What bothers me the most is the fact that the same tactic is being introduced in Canada too which means that is a continental wide scenario being applied at once.
Comments are futile, words and sentences too, there should be something else out there to prevent what is happening. It bothers me the indiference from the people around States and Canada, it bothers the way how they are being deceived and nobody seams to realize what is the price to pay.
I hope I'm wrong.

Related News Links:
www.nytimes.co m
www.madd.org

[edit on 21-11-2006 by Telos]




posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 12:07 PM
link   

From now (if it will be approved) 245 milion americans must "ask a permit" from Big Brother in order to start their cars.


This may come as a shock to you , but under current legislation you must already “ ask permission “. Your drivers license is required by law, and not having one is a criminal offence.

You have already surrendered your rights by submitting to mandated driver registration and medical / competence examinations.

You seem upset that this proposed system will be able to stop you breaking the law, why is that? Do you believe you should have the right to drive while intoxicated?

Also “ guilt until proven innocent “ also applied to drivers licenses too – you are presumed to be unfit to use a vehicle on the highway unsupervised until you have passed a government approved examination.

What is the difference?



posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 12:26 PM
link   
There's a problem with this, primarily as regards people with candida infections. There are alot of people in the world with candida. Some have massive infections of it, even in their blood and spinal fluid. These people crave starches and sugars, anything carbohydrate but especially yeast carbohydrates. Pizza, bread, beer, wine, rolls, biscuits, potatoes, etc. anything that grows below ground has a fairly high yeast content. A person with a bad candida infection can eat a piece of pizza and register as if they've been drinking booze because their body converts the yeasty carbs into low levels of some components of alcohol. They might register as if they've been drinking after a trip to the pizzaria.



posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 12:39 PM
link   
I know that I'll get your typical, "those who are willing to sacrifice...blah blah blah" will respond to this. But I for one appreciate the fact that people convicted of DUI are under watch while driving. I don't want myself, friends, or family on the road with people who think it's alright to recklessly disregard their own lives as well as others.


apc

posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 12:46 PM
link   
There is zero chance of breath tests being mandatory. Breath tests are expensive, invasive, intrusive, unreliable, and flat out stupid to place in every single vehicle. Won't happen. There are far more transparent and reliable methods of determining the alcohol content of the driver, such as skin sensors in the steering wheel.

Leave it to PrisonPlanet to get all hyped up over something that will never happen.



posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 12:50 PM
link   
honestly i dont care about it, untill they start restricting or making some better laws with ALCOHOL then i dont wanna hear it, i mean its like having cocain legal, its ok guy you can snort a half of gram before its illegal to drive, i mean thats pretty much what one beer limit is, its BS drinking is drinkin an being out of yer natural element is to not be able to drive. for the MOSTPART with MOST PEOPLE, now you johnny rockets out their who can drink a keg an drive on a dime, thats nice. go back to yer bottle, nap time is a couple hours away still.

so why do i have to hear people talk down old people driving when drinkin makes u just about as responsible.

drinking should be illegal in public. just like smoking crack is. an shooting people.

i just think this WORLD is Backasswards. full of money hungry idiots who will let one thing pass as long as their butt is rubed in a certain spot, just give it a bit more to get crappy before things really start to head south.



posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 03:18 PM
link   
friend of mine got her first DUI like 7 years ago and had to have one of these installed for the duration of her probation period. she was fine with it as it meant she didnt go to jail for the duration.

now if this was to be EVERY car on the road, i may have issues with it but if its just for people convicted of DUI...sure, go for it. i dont drink and drive what do i have to worry about?

sure sure accuse me of being "ok with people losing thier rights" but youve never had to help dig glass out of the face of a 10yo whos family got hit by a drunk driver.



posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 03:27 PM
link   
I think this is a good idea...I didn't notice where it said anything about "tracking devices", but just a breathalyzer that would cause your car not to start if you don't pass. I'm against any kind of tracking devices, but keeping drunk drivers off the road is necessary. Thousands of innocent people lose their lives every year because of drunk drivers, and I've always said they should put breathalyzers in cars. Although I'm sure people will find ways to get around it, if it is installed. There are just too many stupid and careless people out there to think that they won't mess up, and these people need to be monitored if they decide to drive drunk.



posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 03:51 PM
link   
Yeah on every car so you're guilty before proven innocent. Yeah democracy and due process.

Sorry but if it's gonna be in my car, I'll smash it and it won't work anymore. No Big Brother.

Is this law retro-active?

[edit on 22-11-2006 by Vitchilo]



posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by ignorant_ape

This may come as a shock to you , but under current legislation you must already “ ask permission “. Your drivers license is required by law, and not having one is a criminal offence.


I don't think so...it's considered a "privilege". It is not mandatory to have to have a driver's license. Blind people, people who are very ill and epilectics are only a few of the people who cannot legally drive.



posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 05:34 PM
link   
I for one applaud this kind of regulation.
I mean maybe not with this particular systewm, but some
sensor that detects if you are over the intoxication limit,
and does'nt allow you to drive.

It is by no means big brotherish or police stateish at all,
for it to be so, it would have to be sending info on whether
you were drunk or not all the time to the police.government,
which itr is'nt.

This is a positive technology, that will not only help to save
lives, but also keep people out of jail, which is a good thing,
since it costs money to keep people in jail, and will also take
away a key argument from the prohibitionist groups.



posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vitchilo
Yeah on every car so you're guilty before proven innocent. Yeah democracy and due process.

Sorry but if it's gonna be in my car, I'll smash it and it won't work anymore. No Big Brother.

Is this law retro-active?

[edit on 22-11-2006 by Vitchilo]


Hope you have access to public transportation then! Guilty before proven innocent....yes they were, it was proven in a court of law. Poor old Big Brother, one person that he can not monitor there alcohol levels.....I feel sorry for him.



posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 07:00 PM
link   
This is absurd.

MADD long ago mutated from a worthwhile organization fighting a real social problem to an organization that now has to continue "advancing it's agenda" regardless of all other considerations, in order to continue having a reason to exist.

This is a problem with "advocacy" organizations in genereal, regardless of their success, they still have to perpetuate their own existence. If somewhere down the road, MADD manages to get the death penalty passed for driving with an .001 BAC, they'll have to find something else to push for, probably death by slow torture


[edit on 11/22/06 by xmotex]



posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 07:07 PM
link   
Hey, that's nice...

I already posted about this here.... www.abovetopsecret.com...

But, anyway... I agree that something needs to be done against drunk drivers... hell, I'm drinking now... but I won't drive. I'm responsible.

But not to the extent that they describe in these links. That's BS.

However, the government is getting way too big. The general populous today is afraid of the government, and the government needs to be afraid of the general populous. They work for us, not the other way around.


Peace out, I need another beer.



posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 07:09 PM
link   
I don't see this happening.

If it does happen I know how i'll finally make my fortune. I'll stand in the parking lot of the fancy bars and clubs and charge ten dollars a pop to blow into somebodies detector and start their car


OK, actually I wouldn't do that, but plenty of other people would.

[edit on 22-11-2006 by mrwupy]



posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 07:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Infoholic
Hey, that's nice...

I already posted about this here.... www.abovetopsecret.com...


This is ATSNN though, there can be both an ATSNN and
general ATS article about the same thing.



posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 07:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by mrwupy
If it does happen I know how i'll finally make my fortune. I'll stand in the parking lot of the fancy bars and clubs and charge ten dollars a pop to blow into somebodies detector and start their car



Yes, but they should be careful how they word there advertisement,
since having a sign saying "Ten dollars fort a blow." would definately
have a very mixed message.



posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 07:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by iori_komei
This is ATSNN though, there can be both an ATSNN and
general ATS article about the same thing.


Ok, my apologies.
Carry on then.

[edit on 11/22/2006 by Infoholic]



posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 07:21 PM
link   
Good for us. If people are going to refuse to take some civil responsibility with their habits, then society will just have to convince them we don't like their arrogant irresponsible thinking. Simple as that. I also take solace in Arkansas legsilators banning smoking in a car with children 6 years or 60 pounds or under. As if that shouldn't already be common sense. The only thing that matters to some people is their "fix", and we can all thank them for this kind of legislation being proposed, and hopefully passed, which really does not bother me at all.



posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 07:26 PM
link   


Yes, but they should be careful how they word there advertisement,
since having a sign saying "Ten dollars fort a blow." would definately
have a very mixed message.


Ahaha, hahaha lol


Thta is just too damn funny. but seriously, You do not need a sign. Of course an undercover cop could do it just as easily and then arrest everyone who joins the crowd for conspiracy to circumvent Federal legislation. And he would be right in doing so.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join