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: 5
1
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 23 2006 @ 09:54 PM
link   
Lex, sorry but the constitution is for everyone in the country, not just citizens. Please point me in the constitution where it is stated that it only applies to citizens?




posted on Nov, 23 2006 @ 10:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shoktek

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.


Yeah, and my point was that all those searches are pointless.

And, actually, I do mind. I minded very much being searched at the airport. I minded going thru the metal detector twice because they didn't believe my baggy pants weren't holding anything. I minded standing in that 'bomb detector' that blew air from every which direction. I minded very much the thought of a complete stranger going through my belongings, free to take what they will, and completely mess up my packing job (what's the point of folding a shirt if it's going to be messed up?) All that searching, and the lady next to me had toothpaste that no one found! (This was right after that whole deal in london..)

I mind.

If I *really* wanted to incur damage on a plane, or in a car, or walking, I could -- regardless of their pre-emptive searches/checks.

So, no. I do not feel safer. In fact, I feel more insecure because of being considered a 'possible criminal/bomber/murderer' with absolutely no history to back up their automatic assumption.

They tell me that I must have one of these to start my car, I will mind. This is punishment for those who did not do anything wrong! ...some weird preventative measure against human stupidity instead of teaching people correctly from the start.



We don't need to wait for you to get drunk and kill someone before we bring you to justice.


So, wait. Were going to bring people to 'justice' before they've even done anything wrong?? Where, exactly, is the logic in that?

Here's an idea: Let's close all the bars. People have to drive to the bars anyhow, which means they'll most likely drive back. If we're taking preventative measures, then let's go all the way.



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.


Multiple DUI's? Then the public is simply allowing the drunk drivers to continue with their bad habits!

I don't see how anyone could be for this 'trade in your freedom for the illusion of safety' legislation! Why not teach people WHY the rules need to be followed? And if they cannot.. then haul away their car with their licenses in the glove box. If they have no car, then they cannot drive drunk, right? Would that not solve the problem?

A better solution would be to instill values and respect and civility. (Of course, that wouldn't be profitable.... it'd only make for a better society.)

[edit on 23-11-2006 by Diseria]



posted on Nov, 23 2006 @ 10:13 PM
link   
Vitch, may I call you Vitch ?
Illegal is just that. Please point out where people that are here illegally have the full rights of citizenship.
School me.

Lex



posted on Nov, 23 2006 @ 10:15 PM
link   
Personally, having a Big Brother wouldn't be so bad afterall. Especially when theres someone there who is always concerned of the driver. Thank you. I hope everyone is kept a close eye on, and must have permission to drive there own vehicle. Its a thousand some pound speeding bullet, you drive, with lives in your hand.

7A



posted on Nov, 23 2006 @ 10:21 PM
link   
7A,
Thanks.
Gotta love when a bro runs interference for one of my sarcastic comments !

Seriously, I always have a dez driver. I rent a limo. Chicks dig it.


Lex



posted on Nov, 23 2006 @ 10:27 PM
link   
Did I say that they have a full right of citizenship? No. I agree that we must do something about the illegals but withdrawing habeas corpus is not one of them.

In the constitution:

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.


So it says the accused... nor US citizen nor person. So a tourist have the right to a speedy trial, an illegal alien too and a US citizen too. Now, with current legislation, illegal aliens or people working for a foreign power in the US don't have any Habeas Corpus.

If you have complains, you should first go to Texas where banks give free loans to illegals, you know why? To help them, because it would be racist to not do it! Not helping someone in an illegal action is racist? Holy crap!



posted on Nov, 23 2006 @ 10:34 PM
link   
Vitch,
I may call ya Vitch, yes ?
Racism is an area I rarely discuss. It brings hostility just as fast as religion and politics.

Anyway, I agree that casting racism as a means to justify illegal aliens is pure-d
wrong. ( Yes, I'm Southern )

Lex



posted on Nov, 23 2006 @ 11:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by DYepes
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.


Is that your answer to everything? You tried to argue me before about how the monetary end was the means... c'mon..

www.cia.gov...

According to the CIA World FactBook (and we all know how well we can trust the CIA)...


The US has the largest and most technologically powerful economy in the world, with a per capita GDP of $42,000. In this market-oriented economy, private individuals and business firms make most of the decisions, and the federal and state governments buy needed goods and services predominantly in the private marketplace. US business firms enjoy greater flexibility than their counterparts in Western Europe and Japan in decisions to expand capital plant, to lay off surplus workers, and to develop new products. At the same time, they face higher barriers to enter their rivals' home markets than foreign firms face entering US markets. US firms are at or near the forefront in technological advances, especially in computers and in medical, aerospace, and military equipment; their advantage has narrowed since the end of World War II. The onrush of technology largely explains the gradual development of a "two-tier labor market" in which those at the bottom lack the education and the professional/technical skills of those at the top and, more and more, fail to get comparable pay raises, health insurance coverage, and other benefits. Since 1975, practically all the gains in household income have gone to the top 20% of households. The response to the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001 showed the remarkable resilience of the economy. The war in March-April 2003 between a US-led coalition and Iraq, and the subsequent occupation of Iraq, required major shifts in national resources to the military. The rise in GDP in 2004 and 2005 was undergirded by substantial gains in labor productivity. Hurricane Katrina caused extensive damage in the Gulf Coast region in August 2005, but had a small impact on overall GDP growth for the year. Soaring oil prices in 2005 and 2006 threatened inflation and unemployment, yet the economy continued to grow through mid-2006. Imported oil accounts for about two-thirds of US consumption. Long-term problems include inadequate investment in economic infrastructure, rapidly rising medical and pension costs of an aging population, sizable trade and budget deficits, and stagnation of family income in the lower economic groups.
...but it says the US is the strongest economy of the world... so I think that would shoot down your "it's too big of a financial burden" issue.

source



posted on Nov, 23 2006 @ 11:17 PM
link   
Lets get back on topic here, this thread is'nt to dsicuss
the legality of illegal immigrants and any rights they
may have under the constitution.

Let's get back to the topic of the technology originally
talked about.



posted on Nov, 23 2006 @ 11:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by iori_komei
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.



You probably need to read it over a few more times. It's really simple if you understand it.

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

Let me help you
the word effects means: goods; movables; personal property.Dictionary

"Effects" is clearly related to your car........



Originally posted by iori_komei
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.


Yes it's a search, it would be the federal government placing their sensors in your car, searching your body for substance. It doesn't need to be recorded in memory or sent anywhere. It's the government sitting in your car, violating your body.

It simply goes against the 4th Amendment.....



posted on Nov, 24 2006 @ 09:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by XPhilesIt simply goes against the 4th Amendment.....

XPhiles... I agree. I do not think it is right that "Big Brother" (the government body) should be granted the ability to "seat" themselves into anyone's vehicle.

I am by no means saying that drunk driving is ok. I, myself, enjoy drinking beer, but never would I set foot behind the wheel while intoxicated. That would simply be irresponsible. I know for myself what could happen.

I don't know, but maybe the "repeated drunk driver" has a mental problem. Whether that be depression, or hate, or whatever... but that gives no right to the government to invade our personal space...and yes that includes our vehicles.

If they were to "crack down" on the drunk driving issue, maybe they need to look at the option of "punishment by psychological evaluation". Regardless of the steps they take in the "Big Brother" aspect... that won't stop the crime. It will only displace it. They are only using the "safety" aspect to get their claws into our personal freedoms.


Don't let them!


Here's a link to a thread I started. www.abovetopsecret.com...

Cheers.


apc

posted on Nov, 24 2006 @ 10:48 AM
link   
The argument that this is an warrantless search is valid. However, if we wish to go by the letter, the decisive element would be if this technology would be considered reasonable.

Would this be reasonable 10 years ago? Most likely not. Will this be reasonable 10 years from now? Most likely. What is the big difference? Technology.

Our US Constitution is going to weaken in influence over the next half century. That is an unavoidable inevitability. The primary reasons for this being the rapid advancement of technology, globalization, and dangerous population growth.

The world is reaching a major stress point, and it will either break or adapt. I prefer adapt, as fewer people have to die.



posted on Nov, 24 2006 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by apc
The argument that this is an warrantless search is valid. However, if we wish to go by the letter, the decisive element would be if this technology would be considered reasonable.
The technology does not change the fact that the warrantless search should not be carried out.


Originally posted by apc
Would this be reasonable 10 years ago? Most likely not. Will this be reasonable 10 years from now? Most likely. What is the big difference? Technology.
Again, technology doesn't change the constitution.


Originally posted by apc
Our US Constitution is going to weaken in influence over the next half century. That is an unavoidable inevitability. The primary reasons for this being the rapid advancement of technology, globalization, and dangerous population growth.
Our US Constitution will only be weakened by those that wish to allow it to be weakened. It was put there to protect us. Technology, globalization, and population growth do not effect the fact we are still free citizens, and it sure the hell isn't reason to take away freedoms and liberties.


Originally posted by apc
The world is reaching a major stress point, and it will either break or adapt. I prefer adapt, as fewer people have to die.
I forsee it will break, because I for one will not adapt to "control to the contrary of the US Constitution." I'm sure there are enough "free" citizens that will refuse to give up their liberties, as well.

[edit on 11/24/2006 by Infoholic]


apc

posted on Nov, 24 2006 @ 11:37 AM
link   
It remains to be seen if the majority will feel this is contrary to the Constitution. As I said, it depends on if this is seen as "reasonable". If it is, then it is not unconstitutional.



posted on Nov, 24 2006 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by apc
It remains to be seen if the majority will feel this is contrary to the Constitution. As I said, it depends on if this is seen as "reasonable". If it is, then it is not unconstitutional.
I understand what you are saying by "if the majority" feel it to be contrary... only viable argument to that point is whether or not there are "enough educated" persons.

"Person is smart. People are dumb."

I, for one, do not see that any "technology" could render a warrantless search constitutional... because, the technology used to take the "sample" and record results, would in fact be read by a human being at one point or another. That would be the same as a law enforcement officer reaching into your car and swiping the sweat from your palm, looking at your eyes, or placing a breathalizer unit into your mouth without probable cause. (all the forementioned acts taking place inside your car)

IMO, there needs to be a different way to enforce the "no drunk driving" issue. Taking the steps to add these technologies is/are not the answer, because they compromise the 4th Amendment.


apc

posted on Nov, 24 2006 @ 01:05 PM
link   

I understand what you are saying by "if the majority" feel it to be contrary... only viable argument to that point is whether or not there are "enough educated" persons.

That's why Democracy is so great. If you successfully manipulate the moronic masses, you can do anything.

Problem is things like this are right on the edge and can fall either way. Compare it to the proof of age requirement to purchase alcohol in the first place.

A person must prove they are of legal age to purchase the product. Is our privacy violated when the cashier asks to see ID (being 24 this actually applies to me... obviously to everyone it does not)? Absolutely. But it is a reasonable breach. They can not take our word for it. We have to prove it.

In the case of testing prior to operating a vehicle, a person would prove they are of legal mindset to operate the product. Would this violate our privacy? Again, absolutely. But is it a reasonable breach? Can they take our word for it? Or should we prove it?

A slippery slope indeed... one which I doubt we will have to teeter on just yet. But, as I speculated, as technology evolves so will the law, albeit slowly.

[edit on 24-11-2006 by apc]



posted on Nov, 24 2006 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by apc
A person must prove they are of legal age to purchase the product. Is our privacy violated when the cashier asks to see ID (being 24 this actually applies to me... obviously to everyone it does not)? Absolutely. But it is a reasonable breach. They can not take our word for it. We have to prove it.

In the case of testing prior to operating a vehicle, a person would prove they are of legal mindset to operate the product. Would this violate our privacy? Again, absolutely. But is it a reasonable breach? Can they take our word for it? Or should we prove it?

A slippery slope indeed... one which I doubt we will have to teeter on just yet. But, as I speculated, as technology evolves so will the law, albeit slowly.


Hang on. The issue you are going to now does not fit under the same text as breaching the constitution from within your vehicle. The 4th Amendment is not violated when you are asked to provide your age (any source derived) in order to prevent the "private establishment" or "public building" (whichever you wish to call it) from being incarserated for selling to minors. There is a big difference between the two issues. Which to satisfy your curiousity, no, it is not a "reasonable" breach of your privacy. With that being said, yes, you should prove it.

Secondly, being incarserated for a DUI does not constitute the government being able to require all or anyone to prove they are of rightful mindset to operate a vehicle.

Third, that wonderful little slippery slope you mention... unfortunately we are already teetering on it. Hense, the discussion.

Fourth, as I've stated... technology is no excuse nor a reason to widdle away at our constitutional rights and liberties. The technologies are a tool to aid in the law enforcement, not to bend the law... and the backbone of the law is the Constitution of the United States of America.


apc

posted on Nov, 24 2006 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Infoholic
Hang on. The issue you are going to now does not fit under the same text as breaching the constitution from within your vehicle. The 4th Amendment is not violated when you are asked to provide your age (any source derived) in order to prevent the "private establishment" or "public building" (whichever you wish to call it) from being incarserated for selling to minors. There is a big difference between the two issues. Which to satisfy your curiousity, no, it is not a "reasonable" breach of your privacy. With that being said, yes, you should prove it.

Just isolating one specific aspect of the issue... and your opinion of what is and is not reasonable is just that, an opinion. You aren't expected to provide your age for the benefit of the retail establishment... You are expected to do so because the Government has ruled that persons under a certain age are not allowed posession of alcohol. The Government has decided who can and can not make the purchase, and expects every person to prove their validity at each occurance. That is why this is comparable.

Right or wrong, this is something we are going to be dealing with.



Secondly, being incarserated for a DUI does not constitute the government being able to require all or anyone to prove they are of rightful mindset to operate a vehicle.

Pretty sure you have to prove you are capable of safely driving every time you renew your license.



Fourth, as I've stated... technology is no excuse nor a reason to widdle away at our constitutional rights and liberties. The technologies are a tool to aid in the law enforcement, not to bend the law... and the backbone of the law is the Constitution of the United States of America.

No, not an excuse. But the future is fast approaching. There is no avoiding it. All our fates may already be sealed. I for one would rather adapt and survive than die trying to cling to an irrelevant past that will be quickly forgotten.



posted on Nov, 24 2006 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by apc
Just isolating one specific aspect of the issue... and your opinion of what is and is not reasonable is just that, an opinion. You aren't expected to provide your age for the benefit of the retail establishment... You are expected to do so because the Government has ruled that persons under a certain age are not allowed posession of alcohol. The Government has decided who can and can not make the purchase, and expects every person to prove their validity at each occurance. That is why this is comparable.

Correction, apc... read the constitution and the amendments. The law placed to prevent minors from possessing alcohol, is in fact a state's law... not a federal law.

The Twenty–first Amendment grants the States virtually complete control over whether to permit importation or sale of liquor and how to structure the liquor distribution system.

Congress may condition receipt of federal highway funds on a state’s agreeing to raise the minimum drinking age to 21, the Twenty– first Amendment not constituting an “independent constitutional bar” to this sort of spending power exercise even though Congress may lack the power to achieve its purpose directly.

source


Originally posted by apc
Pretty sure you have to prove you are capable of safely driving every time you renew your license.
Nope, you just have to test your knowledge of "road rules". There is a difference. You're not going into the licensing facility and taking a drug/alcohol test. You are not going in to take a breathalyser. You are not going in to make certain you are in a "proper mindset" as defined in this discussion (under the influence).


Originally posted by apc
No, not an excuse. But the future is fast approaching. There is no avoiding it. All our fates may already be sealed. I for one would rather adapt and survive than die trying to cling to an irrelevant past that will be quickly forgotten.

Your "the past is the past" approach doesn't hold any water. Every single Supreme Court case is in fact ruled on by the S.C. Judge's referencing the Constitution. And there never has been, and never will be a Judge's ruling to say, "Hmm... the future holds new technologies... so let's change the law to suit the incoming technology."

Get real.




And finally, apc..


Originally posted by apc
No, not an excuse. But the future is fast approaching. There is no avoiding it. All our fates may already be sealed. I for one would rather adapt and survive than die trying to cling to an irrelevant past that will be quickly forgotten.


You stance here in it's own makes me sick.


An irrelevant past!!! How dare you!!!!!!! I have lost family members that have died protecting the freedoms that we all share. There are many other families that have lost a family member. You have just slapped the face of everyone that has lost someone, who was protecting your right to argue in this thread. Our past will never be forgotten. And you, sir, will never be forgiven for that comment.

[edit on 11/24/2006 by Infoholic]


apc

posted on Nov, 24 2006 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Infoholic
Correction, apc... read the constitution and the amendments. The law placed to prevent minors from possessing alcohol, is in fact a state's law... not a federal law.


How is that different from what I said?

And when you renew your license, you have your vision checked.

I guess I am just more accepting that many things in this world are going to be changing. For better or worse, it is inevitable. It is quite real.




top topics



 
1
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join