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: 4
1
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 23 2006 @ 01:57 AM
link   
Wouldn't be better to force the people in hospitals to wash their hands? It would save 98.000 lives a year in the US... much more than reducing the 18.000 drunks drivers with big brother technologies.

[edit on 23-11-2006 by Vitchilo]




posted on Nov, 23 2006 @ 03:06 AM
link   
Big brother technologies is worthless, I have found a way to defeat the system.
You can buy these for 5 cents apiece. For a $1.00 a whole month supply.



ƒ*(|[ 7|-|3 P0£1(3 $7473



posted on Nov, 23 2006 @ 06:53 AM
link   
I have two points to make , what happens when a driver who acts responsibly taking friends out who drink but he or she does not. I take it with occupants in the vehicle it wont operate because of the passengers who have imbided alcoholic beverages. That does not seem right when people are acting in a responsible manner.

2. I think it was last year there was a landmark case going through the French courts, A man had wiped a family out in an RTA, he'd been drinking heavily with friends. The friends had tried to stop im driving but could not. Anyway they are being charged with manslaughter as they did not stop their friend from driving his car and they supplied him with drink, I'm not sure of the outcome.



posted on Nov, 23 2006 @ 09:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vitchilo
Wouldn't be better to force the people in hospitals to wash their hands? It would save 98.000 lives a year in the US... much more than reducing the 18.000 drunks drivers with big brother technologies.


Your paranoia of "big brother", and constant ability to rant on about things completely off-topic is astounding. Once again, a completely worthless argument. If you don't wash your hands in a hospital it's your own fault. It's not the same as innocently driving around, and then being murdered by a drunk driver. You seem to really be against this though...do you like to hit the 12 oz curls while cruising the town?

[edit on 23-11-2006 by Shoktek]



posted on Nov, 23 2006 @ 10:29 AM
link   
It is getting crazy in OHIO, they stop you for a couple miles over the speed limit, then conjecture your behavior leads them to believe you are hiding something and ask if they can search your car or they will have a dog over there in a few minutes or tow the car to where they can tear it to pieces.

They also have gone to tagging every thing that is even marginally wrong w/ your car or driving (license plate light, changing lanes w/o using blinkers,etc). Some cities have passed no cell phone laws where the state doesn't have this law.



posted on Nov, 23 2006 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by bodebliss
It is getting crazy in OHIO, they stop you for a couple miles over the speed limit, then conjecture your behavior leads them to believe you are hiding something and ask if they can search your car or they will have a dog over there in a few minutes or tow the car to where they can tear it to pieces.


Cops do this everywhere...behavior alone usually is not enough for probable cause to search your car (unless you are obviously intoxicated or violent/agressive). Most people automatically give consent because of how the cops word it, or because they think they are required to consent to a search. You should always refuse a search if they ask you, because if they had enough cause to search that they know would actually hold up in court, then they wouldn't ask. Remember, it's your 4th ammendment right...

[edit on 23-11-2006 by Shoktek]



posted on Nov, 23 2006 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by magicmushroom
I have two points to make , what happens when a driver who acts responsibly taking friends out who drink but he or she does not. I take it with occupants in the vehicle it wont operate because of the passengers who have imbided alcoholic beverages. That does not seem right when people are acting in a responsible manner.


It does'nt matter if you have drunk friends in the car, the sober
person has to blow into the apperatus, and it determines if that
person is drunk.

Personally I'm more for biometric skin/sweat scan pads built
into the steering wheel myself, much less obtrusive.



posted on Nov, 23 2006 @ 02:40 PM
link   
In Finland (a nation full of teatotalers - NOT), if you're caught drunk driving you lose your license for life. That works. In El Salvador, they shoot you at the side of the road, that works too.

Breathalyzers in every car sort of deters from the deterent quality of breathalyzers in cars for offenses. It does appear to be another incursion into the realm of civil liberties which will do nothing to address the relapse nature of the disease of addiction.

The jails should be running an even brisker business soon, on the backs of the sick and downtrodden.



posted on Nov, 23 2006 @ 07:09 PM
link   
Here is the way Americans should see it.... Your 4th Amendment.... This is Big brother probing your body, searching for substance.... it would violate the "Bill of Rights" or Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.


If this goes, before you know it they will have all kinds of sensors probing your body....blood pressure, cholesterol levels, family history ext....

Don't let them destroy your Bill of Rights




Amendment IV: Warrants and searches.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.



posted on Nov, 23 2006 @ 07:20 PM
link   
Exactly XPhiles. If you don't like the constitution the other, move from the USA. It's a violation of the 4th amendment.

Deaths from drunk driving will always happen, bottom line, you can try to reduce the number, but by other means than big brother, like consciousness of people and friends of drunk drivers.



Your paranoia of "big brother", and constant ability to rant on about things completely off-topic is astounding. Once again, a completely worthless argument. If you don't wash your hands in a hospital it's your own fault. It's not the same as innocently driving around, and then being murdered by a drunk driver. You seem to really be against this though...do you like to hit the 12 oz curls while cruising the town?


No, you didn't read the article, it's not the people that don't wash their hands, it's the doctor, nurses and other medical staff, not the patients. They are supposed to make the maximum to save you, not killing you because they don't wash their hands. A little more following of those issues in hospitals could save 10.000s of lifes and it would not be big brother, it would be professional behavior. Just show the numbers to the hospitals personnal, and maybe they will understand, that only would save lives.

[edit on 23-11-2006 by Vitchilo]

[edit on 23-11-2006 by Vitchilo]



posted on Nov, 23 2006 @ 07:25 PM
link   


This is Big brother probing your body, searching for substance.... it would violate the "Bill of Rights" or Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.


Oh for chrissakes.

First of all this would'nt be "Big Borhter" searching you, as it
would'nt be a search, and secondly it's not like it would be
sending the data to some government agency, or anywhere
for that matter.


The fourth ammendment means police can not barge into
your house looking for something without probable cause
and a court warrant.

It has been decided before that a car does not constitute home,
and is thusly not protected by the fourth ammendment warrant
wise, though they would need probable cause to actively search
your car.

[edit on 11/23/2006 by iori_komei]



posted on Nov, 23 2006 @ 07:29 PM
link   



The fourth ammendment means police can barge into your
house looking for something without probable cause and a
court warrant.

It has been decided before that a car does not constitute home,
and is thusly not protected by the fourth ammendment warrant
wise, though they would need probable cause to actively search
your car.


What do you don't understand in



Amendment IV: Warrants and searches.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


So yes, a scan of your body for alcohol is a unreasonable search of you, a person unless a warrant or a probable cause.



posted on Nov, 23 2006 @ 07:33 PM
link   
The first thing was a typo, I meant to type can't, but it
came out can.

I understand the American constitution quite well, as I've
studied it intensively in my government class, and have
read the full thing three times in the last year.


And as I said, it's not a search, since there's no one doing
any searching, and the results are'nt being sent anywhere,
they are'nt even recorded in any memory banks.



posted on Nov, 23 2006 @ 07:50 PM
link   


And as I said, it's not a search, since there's no one doing
any searching, and the results are'nt being sent anywhere,
they are'nt even recorded in any memory banks.


In the constitution, it's not specified as a human search but a search, so a machine doing a search is violating the 4th amendment anyway. How do you know the results aren't being sent anywhere? They listen to your phone(US), track and record every car(UK, in the US soon), but you say they wouldn't keep a record of this information? They want the more information about everyone so they can see if your a terrorist... I hope you don't agree with that.

[edit on 23-11-2006 by Vitchilo]



posted on Nov, 23 2006 @ 08:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vitchilo
In the constitution, it's not specified as a human search but a search, so a machine doing a search is violating the 4th amendment anyway.


It's still not a search, a search would be seeing if you have any alcoholic beverages in your car, or on your person.

This is simply a check to make sure you are fit to drive.




How do you know the results aren't being sent anywhere?


Because that would require the device to be connected to
a wireless modem, which apart from being costly to do in
all those cars, would be a lagistics nightmare and would
overload any computer system they would try and use.

And all you'd really need to do to check is find a mechanic
that you can trust to check.




They listen to your phone(US), track and record every car(UK, in the US soon), but you say they wouldn't keep a record of this information? They want the more information about everyone so they can see if your a terrorist... I hope you don't agree with that.


There is no credible proof of that happening.
Add to that the fact that you'd need a huge amount of incredibly
powerful computers and near sentiernt computer programs
to do all that.

No ones going to track if you try and drive when intoxicated,
and there certainly not going to think that that would have
anything to do with terrorism.


apc

posted on Nov, 23 2006 @ 08:08 PM
link   
Don't expect this technology to hit the mainstream anytime soon. However, I would fully expect alcohol sensing pads be built into biometric ignition systems, once available.

And remember, what we know as personal automobiles as our primary means of transportation will end within fifty years. What will assume the role will most likely make Big Brother look like a fetus.



posted on Nov, 23 2006 @ 08:18 PM
link   


They listen to your phone(US), track and record every car(UK, in the US soon), but you say they wouldn't keep a record of this information? They want the more information about everyone so they can see if your a terrorist... I hope you don't agree with that.


There is no credible proof of that happening.
Add to that the fact that you'd need a huge amount of incredibly
powerful computers and near sentiernt computer programs
to do all that.

No ones going to track if you try and drive when intoxicated,
and there certainly not going to think that that would have
anything to do with terrorism.


No credible proof of that happening? Look at what the US was in 2000, look now. In just 6 years, the US became the second biggest police state in the world after UK. Militarize police, no pose comitatus, no habeas corpus for aliens, patriot act, ect... In UK and the US, there is 1000s of cameras, micros to listen and see you by the FEDs. They track what you do on internet, what you say on your phone, and you say that two more things (recording how many times you use your car, where you go and if your drunk) is hard to do? HAHAHAHA.

They already track if your a good driver.

So try to say again that it's impossible. I know it have anything to do with terrorism, but are this couple terrorists? No, and they are being charged with 20 years with the Patriot Act... the government isn't looking for terrorists, they are looking for bad US citizens that don't bow in front of Big Brother.

[edit on 23-11-2006 by Vitchilo]



posted on Nov, 23 2006 @ 08:23 PM
link   


There is no credible proof of that happening.
Add to that the fact that you'd need a huge amount of incredibly
powerful computers and near sentiernt computer programs
to do all that.

No ones going to track if you try and drive when intoxicated,
and there certainly not going to think that that would have
anything to do with terrorism.


May I provide a bit of input to this subject...

For those that feel there's no credible proof of "tracking" going on... I encourage you all to view these video clips of a documentary from CNBC news.

www.infowars.net...

[edit on 11/23/2006 by Infoholic]



posted on Nov, 23 2006 @ 09:21 PM
link   
Whatever the case, the high cost makes this unlikely. I mean how often does the entire population of the USA and its territories purchase new vehicles annualy? Whole segments of our populations simply continue to refurbish cars as old as twenty years. I don't mind it, I just do not see it as a reality.



posted on Nov, 23 2006 @ 09:46 PM
link   
Vitchilo said..no habeas corpus for aliens,.
Oh my God, Becky...
Aliens ? Referring to ILLEGAL aliens ? In our country, ILLEGALLY ? The HORROR !
There is no /sarcasm off, here.
They are here illegally. Sorry. My legal system is for legal residents.

Lex



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join