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: 3
1
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

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

Originally posted by xmotex
Any form of authority will always seek to increase it's power, that's simply the nature of the beast. Laws against drunk driving are quite strict already, but increasing the power of law enforcement & increasing penalties exponentially still is not going to eliminate the problem - there's the law of diminishing returns to worry about.

Public safety arguments for any new police powers all seem reasonable at first - until you realize that the only way to create a state of perfect public safety is to have one cop for each citizen, monitoring their activities at all times - maybe two just to be totally safe


Noone here is sticking up for the right of drunks to drive impaired.
What we're sticking up for is the right of everyone else not to be constantly hassled by the police simply for driving down the street.


That's why we pick and choose which legislation we want.

For instance, If this was put up to vote, I'd vote for it, but if something like a tracking system, even fro offenders was being considered, I'd not vote for it.




posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 10:19 PM
link   
And I'd vote against it.

The whole idea is based on a presumtion of guilt - you are presumed to be guilty, and then have to prove your innocence to get your car to start. It's crazy. It goes against the basic precept of our legal system.



posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 10:32 PM
link   
I'm not sure I understand the proposed legislation. The original article states :


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.


but then it goes on to say




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.



So do they want to have these installed in all cars or just those of previously convicted drunk drivers???


I also think we should look at the economics of it since I would imagine there is a lot of money to be made. Will drivers have to pay to buy or lease/rent the device and have it installed? Will it be OEM equipment from the factory? Will federal funding be used to purchase and install them? We should find out who the manufacturers of the devices are and what they have done to help push the legislation or even donate money etc...

Once again I have to ask whats to stop someone from shooting compressed air into the device like the canned kind to clean PCs? Whats to stop someone from having someone else thats sober blow into the machine?

I'm somewhat ignorant to my next question which is why I'm asking it
I've heard that diabetics can act drunk like if they don't keep their blood glucose under control, but does their breath smell like alcohol and can they fail a breathalyzer from it too


What about old cars? I think it would be pretty difficult to retrofit say a 60's muscle car with one and make it so it can't be easily bypassed. Will police and government vehicles have them? how about the members of congress will they have them in their cars



posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 10:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Diseria
Dude, if I *really* wanted to kill someone on an airplane, I've got all the tools necessary. I'm given plastic-ware to eat with.. that's more than ample. Nevermind the headphones with nice long cords, or my pen/cil....

Seriously. How far do we go in this idea of 'safety'??

Plastic wrap the curbs?


Hmm, yeah.
The point was not whether or not you could find a way to kill someone on an airplane, or about airplanes at all. It was just to illustrate that it is a socially accepted norm to allow slight violations of our personal rights, in order to ensure the safety of people in public. No one thinks twice about walking through the metal detector or even being patted down, or having a suitcase searched. Because we would rather do that than have some nutjob blow up our plane. And I think most people wouldn't mind to spare 5 seconds of their time to blow into a tube, if it means that the roads are more safe for all.



The whole idea is based on a presumtion of guilt - you are presumed to be guilty, and then have to prove your innocence to get your car to start. It's crazy. It goes against the basic precept of our legal system.


No. In matters of public safety, the courts have always been in favor of keeping public places safe for all, even if measures need to be taken that might cause some people inconvenience. If you want to drive on our public roads, you need to be sober and licensed, obeying the rules. We don't need to wait for you to get drunk and kill someone before we bring you to justice. We can simply keep you from using the roads in the first place. Like metal detectors before football games or in schools, security cameras, or other means of ensuring public safety. When you are in a position to harm the general public, you give up some of your rights in order to keep the people safe. Car crashes, specifically caused by drunks, are one of the leading causes of death in this country. It's time we get these people off the road, and the laws certainly don't work. Many people have multiple DUIs and continue their habits. We don't have enough cops to patrol every road and pull over possible drunk drivers. We easily have technology to stop them from getting on the road. So I don't see how anybody could be against this legislation, unless they are planning to drive drunk.

[edit on 22-11-2006 by Shoktek]



posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 10:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shoktek
I think most people wouldn't mind to spare 5 seconds of their time to blow into a tube, if it means that the roads are more safe for all.


and potentially lower insurance rates for all, but I doubt that would happen since the insurance companies just love to lower rates



posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 10:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by warpboost
Once again I have to ask whats to stop someone from shooting compressed air into the device like the canned kind to clean PCs? Whats to stop someone from having someone else thats sober blow into the machine?

I'm somewhat ignorant to my next question which is why I'm asking it
I've heard that diabetics can act drunk like if they don't keep their blood glucose under control, but does their breath smell like alcohol and can they fail a breathalyzer from it too


What about old cars? I think it would be pretty difficult to retrofit say a 60's muscle car with one and make it so it can't be easily bypassed. Will police and government vehicles have them? how about the members of congress will they have them in their cars


I'm sure that the machine would also register other components of breath, in order to make sure that the levels present are in the right range for a human body...similar to how they know if the urine in your urine test is real urine. There could easily be a pressure switch, or motion detector (like an auto-flush toilet) in place with the device which could determine if/when a person switches places with the driver, which would require another blow into the machien.

Diabetics might have a similar effect going on in their brains, but no, they will not have alcohol in their system, or anything that would be detected in any drug test...

It would be pretty easy to just equip all new cars with this system, but yea, getting it into older ones would be difficult, and a real pain, as well as probably expensive. I don't know how that would be handled, maybe it could just be required in all motor vehicles by a certain date, and paid by the state...surely it will pay itself off in the long run in court fees, prison space, accident clean up, police activity, and everything else that comes along with the rampant drunk driving in this country.



posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 11:07 PM
link   
What's wrong with all you? Giving more power to the government until you can't do anything without their consent?

Look at history, when a government take a little, they take EVERTHING. Then all of you will say... oh crap, now we have to fight with arms to come back to the US we loved...

You have to pre-emptive those bastards, deny them every inch of land. Because they try to take everything.

If you give your liberties one after another, you don't have any respect for all those who dies for those same liberties, those who died at WW1, WW2, civil war... the founding fathers would be ashamed that you even accept the patriot act, the patriot act 2, the military comission act! The founding fathers warned the people... don't trust your government because they want to grab more power! Don't count on the next brainwashed generation to know what freedom is!

Aside... is this law retroactive?

And read this article if you say that you don't have anything to hide... or you want something to answer to those blind people.

How many times is it relevant to say "this will not erode your liberties" about another form of surveillance? Because there's not many times left on the counter...

The government destroy our rights everyday, and they grant them power everyday... Authoritarian you say? Exactly.

And doing the ``wrong`` thing that you don't have to hide... The meaning of the word wrong change over the years you know.

And remember, they are our government, not the other way around.

You trust your government? You trust Big Brother? Here's what they have in stock for you.

[edit on 22-11-2006 by Vitchilo]



posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 11:22 PM
link   
It wouldn't stand in California because it would be considered racist.

Why? Because in the local hispanic population you are considered mui macho, cabron! if you can drive while drunk. If the government is going to pass a law like this, or institute these devices then the government would be suppressing the Machismo society.

Yep, very definitly racist.


apc

posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 11:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex

Originally posted by apc

xmotex: They aren't your roads. They belong to the state. If you wish to use the states' roads, it's under the conditions it sets.


And the state itself belongs to us, not the other way around.
Thus, they are my roads, they are your roads, they are everyone's roads.

So can I go urinate behind the tree in front of my City Hall? The tree belongs to me, right?

Wrong. The state consists of our elected officials and those they appoint. If you want to change something at the state level, you don't walk out and start dictating... there is a system. And that system is the same that sets the terms of usage for the roads. The State and the civilian populus are two seperate entities, neither belonging to the other. The civilians decide who runs the state, but we do not "own" them. Nor do they own us.



And requiring every driver to blow into a tube to get their vehicle to start is simply absurd.

Agreed. If you refer to my first post in this thread on page 1, I named a reasonable alternative. As far as "presumed guilty until innocent", the line is a sketchy one. But, a problem exists that must be solved. Changes in punishment has had little effect. We already have to prove that we are capable of driving every time we renew our licenses.

What this idea is essentially doing is shortening the intervals between exams. Instead of proving you can still drive every 5 or 6 years, you would be expected to prove it every time you sit behind the wheel. If the system were completely transparent, so your typical routine weren't affected unless you were intoxicated, then there is no problem.



posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 11:24 PM
link   
If the founding fathers knew that we would have 15,000+ deaths each year because of alcohol-related collisions, I'm sure they would want to use our technology to stop it. This has nothing to do with "the man" taking away rights. It has to do with keeping the roads safe for everyone. It's taking the right to drive away from criminals, before they kill someone with their vehicle. The government wouldn't receive anymore power by stopping drunk drivers...I really think that you all are incredibly paranoid about your own rights being taken away, and yet do not care about the rights of OTHERS when it comes to keeping people safe in the act of driving, or using public property. By allowing drunk drivers to get on the road in the first place, we take the rights away from the innocent people who want nothing more than to drive somewhere in their car, safely.

It is the government's responsibility, before anything else, to protect the people and the general public. It's interesting...a good number of those people fighting for our freedom in world war 2 were actually killed by fellow soldiers who were driving drunk. If you think that our wars were fought to protect the rights of criminals, allowing them to endanger the people of this country, you are very wrong. You might be allowing "freedom" to drivers by not forcing them to use the breathalyzer before driving, but you are condemning thousands of innocent people to death at the same time by looking the other way when you could have done something. This is an easy solution. It's not a tracking device, it probably wouldn't collect or store any information, or have any effect whatsoever on your driving habits or rights, unless you are a person who likes to drink and drive.


That steering wheel skin sensor looks pretty good...much more practical than a breathalyzer, and less of a chance for someone to "fake it", as they need to have hands on the wheel while driving of course.

[edit on 22-11-2006 by Shoktek]



posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 11:34 PM
link   
People die in the real life, FACE IT. Enough said. And i'm sure a lot of people will bypass the system anyway, so again, it's like protection on video games like Starforce, it's just making angry honest people, not the criminals, criminals bypass it.

I can see you, you're drunk!

[edit on 22-11-2006 by Vitchilo]


apc

posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 11:37 PM
link   
So if someone you cared about were killed tomorrow by a drunk driver... a death that could have been prevented... you would just shrug it off with "people die. oh well." Ignorance is bliss.

We can never eliminate the problem. But we can do many things to minimize it.



posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 11:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vitchilo
People die in the real life, FACE IT. Enough said.


Yea, so then it's fine to go out on killing sprees, drive recklessly, give dangerous drugs to the masses, as well as allow drunk people to drive. Natural death and vehicular homicide are very different things. There is no logic in what you are trying to imply. Death is natural, so who cares what happens...


Long ago, people determined that death by the hands of others is wrong...I bet you've never read stories, or known anyone who has been killed by a drunk driver. If you did, you would be singing a different tune. If you get into a car drunk, and you kill someone, that is murder, in my opinion. Because you know that a car is a lethal weapon, and you know that you are not fit to operate it. So let's just forget this big issue and let drunks go out and kill innocent people, because people "die in real life" anyway. Good argument.
Wait until it happens to you.

[edit on 22-11-2006 by Shoktek]



posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 11:52 PM
link   
Ok, it was a very bad argument, but you're always complaining that there's not enough security blablabla. People die, face it. Yes you can lower the numbers, but I believe this crap is not a good way at all.

The war on terror is a crappy thing to save lives, it don't save anything... why not do a REAL war on drugs, war on diseases, war on cigarettes, war on weapons industries? That would save 10000X more lives than a war on drunk driving!

And if you hate the constitution or you find it so old, move from the country and find a country where you like the constitution. War on constitution haters!


[edit on 22-11-2006 by Vitchilo]



posted on Nov, 23 2006 @ 12:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vitchilo
The war on terror is a crappy thing to save lives, it don't save anything...


This topic has nothing to do with the WOT.




why not do a REAL war on drugs, war on diseases, war on cigarettes, war on weapons industries? That would save 10000X more lives than a war on drunk driving!


Because a person should have a right to take whatever drug
they want as long as they realize the negatives as well as
the positives.

We do fight a war on diseases, it's called doctors and medical
research.

Because people have the right to smoke if they want to.

Because very few people want to get rid of weapons, and it
would be a foolish and treasonous thing to do.




And if you hate the constitution or you find it so old, move from the country and find a country where you like the constitution. War on constitution haters!



I don't hate the constitution, I think a few parts need revisions,
but regardless the constitution does'nt give you the righ to drive
well intoxicated, nor does it guaranteee you the right to drive.

[edit on 11/23/2006 by iori_komei]



posted on Nov, 23 2006 @ 12:08 AM
link   


Because a person should have a right to take whatever drug
they want as long as they realize the negatives as well as
the positives.


In a big brother society, you won't be able to take any drug because you will be watched.



We do fight a war on diseases, it's called doctors and medical
research.

Yeah right. With a budget of ? Put the 350 billions and + of the Iraq war and put it in the research domain, you'll save much more lives. And 300.000 people a year in the US dies because they take the wrong medication... and nothing is being done for that. It's not about saving people it's about control. Because if life would be important, they would do steam research, no Iraq war nor Afghanistan, nor financing and supporting dictatorships... It's all bullcrap. They lied about everything and you still believe they want to protect you? You'll never learn don't you?


Because people have the right to smoke if they want to.

In a big brother, you won't be able if the government decides otherwise.


Because very few people want to get rid of weapons, and it
would be a foolish and treasonous thing to do.

Yeah but at least try to fight making new weapons to kill more people in less time... How human and stupid. Costa Rica don't have an army and they are doing great, I mean, the people are happy there and they don't wage wars everywhere to do $$$ and they don't get invaded and nobody hates them.

[edit on 23-11-2006 by Vitchilo]


apc

posted on Nov, 23 2006 @ 12:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vitchilo
Ok, it was a very bad argument


At least you're consistent. Could you maybe stick to the issue at hand instead of injecting all these hypotheticals and political agenda based rants? Proving drivers are sober has nothing to do with Costa Rica... unless something is horribly, horribly wrong with this alternate universe I have somehow managed to wander in to.



posted on Nov, 23 2006 @ 12:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vitchilo


You trust your government? You trust Big Brother? Here's what they have in stock for you.



I don't want to get the thread anymore offtopic, but that has to be one of the most annoying videos ever! I understand the message but between the music and the annoying voice and things flashing by its really bad



posted on Nov, 23 2006 @ 01:02 AM
link   
The way I see it, technology will let you down.
I don't know much about these devices themselves but know enough of technology to know it will let you down.

Because of the nature of the task there would be no override to the system. So there you are a days journey to civilisation and the sensor fails. You cant start your automobile you wait around the desert (or wherever) to die.

Yes I know the above scenario could be caused by the failure of other electronic and mechanical systems. But each system you add is just a component that can fail added. If its not there it cant fail.

Anyway it would just create a lucrative black market for a means of defeating it.

Besides as has been said there are medical conditions that would prevent legal under limit drivers from driving. Technology ain't foolproof...

Just ban alcohol or automobiles



posted on Nov, 23 2006 @ 01:55 AM
link   
In Australia police have an ability to turn Holdens engines off from there headquarters. They can also lock the doors!

They've captured lots of car theifs that way, and it's been really usefell. However, often it's to late...



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join