Slashdot Mirror


California Wants GPS Tracking Device in Every Car

HTS Member writes "California has a new excuse for more taxes. Claiming losses due to fuel-efficient cars, such as Gasoline/Electric Hybrids, California is cooking-up a new system to punish people who aren't using enough gasoline. They want to tax commuters by the mile. How would this be accomplished? By requiring everyone to install a GPS device in their vehicle, and charge them their "taxes" every time they fuel-up. From the article: 'Drivers will get charged for how many miles they use the roads, and it's as simple as that.. [a] team at Oregon State University equipped a test car with a global positioning device to keep track of its mileage. Eventually, every car would need one.'"

21 of 1,351 comments (clear)

  1. Patriot Act by BWJones · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They want to tax commuters by the mile. How would this be accomplished? By requiring everyone to install a GPS device in their vehicle,

    I am hardly a tin foil hat wearing type but, the problem with this is that like every other means to create databases that track/document individuals or groups, they will eventually end up being mined for data that will likely violate your right to privacy. Just remember, Bush is pushing for the Patriot Act again and databases like this will simply be folded into devices like the Patriot Act.

    As an aside: gawd, I hate their use of "patriot" that way, does anybody know the etymology of the word "patriot" with respect to this legislation? Whose idea was it to use "patriot" and why? It seems like the worst/most transparent type of label possible for such a group of laws that seek to strip away personal freedoms and rights to privacy.

    --
    Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
    1. Re:Patriot Act by FalconZero · · Score: 5, Funny

      Well at least they'd be able to inforce the speed limits easily....
      I can see it now, you get to the petrol pump and it says

      Welcome to Texaco
      -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
      Your total bill including fuel, taxes and fines is $600.
      Please insert your credit card here.

      --
      Windows in 6 Bytes (IA-32) : 90 90 90 90 CD 19
    2. Re:Patriot Act by Tsiangkun · · Score: 5, Funny

      I thought it was the "Useless State-sponsored Action Purporting to Attack Terror While Really Initiating an Oligarchic Takeover" -- Monroe Rabin

    3. Re:Patriot Act by Erwos · · Score: 5, Informative

      I'm confused as to how you track people with a GPS device. GPS is _passive_. All GPS satellites do is emit a signal. They can't track anyone - the Pentagon has zero idea of how many people are using GPS at any particular time, let alone who they are.

      The state could conceivably rig the _device_ to remember where you were, which is a problem, but properly designed, the state could simply have it remember mileage. GPS is very good at determing velocity (and acceleration).

      Additionally, if this was a self-reporting tax (ie, show the number on the LCD to the tax man), potential for abuse would also be minimized.

      This is not to say CA's idea is a good one, but I get annoyed when people see "GPS" and assume that means they are being tracked.

      -Erwos

      --
      Plausible conjecture should not be misrepresented as proof positive.
  2. Written warning for violating Slashdot dupe law! by garcia · · Score: 5, Funny

    I am instituting use of the Slashdot search feature to accurately track Slashdot duplicates and tax appropriately:

    November 17, 2004 was your first offense. A warning was sent via email prior to the story posting on February 15th, 2005 at 2:39pm CST but daddypants ignored our notification.

    Please note that future violations will result in a hefty fine! ;-)

  3. Never happen by Cyberglich · · Score: 5, Interesting

    what are the smoking!!! I have a GPS and I can tell you this will NEVER work. 1. GPS is useless in areas with lots f tall buildings like Boston for example (my last trip there my gps was a total joke. Jamming the receiver would be a piece of cake do to the low power nature of it and if they try to get clever and make it so my car won't go with out a signal there going to be a lot of cars stuck in parking structures.

  4. This is so ABSOLUTELY DUMB!! by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Claiming losses due to fuel-efficient cars, such as Gasoline/Electric Hybrids,

    After decades of pushing for more fuel efficient cars, now they want to punish you for owning them.

    And the next logical step will have to be requiring drivers to have them just to drive in from out of state.

    Then the Federal government will have to standardize the units so that Oregon units cross-operate with California units.

    Followed by insurance companies using them to determine not only how much you drive now (which is often done by the odometer), but do you drive in more dangerous areas, and hence should be charged more.

    It will never end, except the the consumer will pay and pay and pay for something they never wanted in the first place!

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
  5. Obviously by blackmonday · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is just stupid. What if you own a large ranch and drive around in it, not on public roads? What if you drive on (private) toll road freeways, like the one we have in Southern California? What about the people who will obviously find a hack for the system? What if you pick up your gas in a large plastic tank and avoid paying fees? This is ridiculous, and whoever thought this up should face electoral consequences.

    1. Re:Obviously by duranaki · · Score: 5, Funny

      Goon1: We're going to start losing money from gas tax with all these damn hybrids... and don't get me started on electrics.
      Goon2: Right you are. Let's start taxing based on mileage instead.
      Goon3: Well that just sucks. You could drive half your miles in Arizona and get taxed in CA for that.
      Goon1: Good point. Any solution to that?
      Goon2: Well, I own stock in this company that has a lot of IPR in GPS equipment...
      Goon3: How can I get in on that?
      Goon1: Hold it! Let's *all* call our brokers before we go any further. We'll meet back next week.
      Week passes...
      Goon1: Ok. I propose we force everyone to install GPS modules into their cars.
      Goon3: I second!
      Goon4: Really? Isn't that just adding a horrendous one time tax to all car buyers? Increasing the number of goons needed to police the system...
      Goon5: Hey! I'm one of those goons.
      Goon4: Oh yeah. Sorry 5.. I know you'd never make it in the private sector. I guess I'll vote for it.
      Goon3: Anyone worried about the people getting pissed?
      All Goons: Laughter...

  6. Ultra-hypocritical by StateOfTheUnion · · Score: 5, Insightful
    So the same government that is mandating zero emission and reduced emission car sales is now trying to take away the consumer incentive for high efficiency vehicles? This is blatantly hypocritical . . .

    I would be in favor of jacking up the gasoline tax instead. This would put more pressure on the enviromental offenders that drive SUV's and other inefficient vehicles. Afraid that this will punish businesses? Give them a tax credit or tax rebate for business vehicles that are legitimately needed for the business.

  7. Hype? Sensationalism? by EnronHaliburton2004 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This article smells of Sensationalism. Note the lack of detail in the article.

    Officials in car-clogged California are so worried they may be considering a replacement for the gas tax altogethe

    Who are these "Officials"? The Governor of California? A low-level bereaucrat? There are plenty of low-level bereaucrat in sector 7-G who consider ideas which never really materialize.

    Changing the tax structure at this level in California or Oregon would require some approval by the State sentate and legistlature.

    Smells of sensationalism ...

  8. Re:Tin Foil Hat for the GPS by |/|/||| · · Score: 5, Funny
    You don't ever fill up your car. You fill up your "gas can."

    Yeah? So I mow the lawn a lot.

    --
    [javac] 100 errors
  9. Re:A lot less invasive by anonicon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You're new around here, aren't you? ;-)

    Actually, given state governments' needs for more funds since federal funding is drying up, I wouldn't be surprised if California wanted to tax people on every mile they drove, then make its residents *prove* they didn't drive those miles in California.

    Chuck

  10. Re:A lot less invasive by soft_guy · · Score: 5, Funny

    I wouldn't be surprised if California wanted to tax people on every mile they drove, then make its residents *prove* they didn't drive those miles in California.

    But how would that allow them to accomplish their real goal of tracking you everywhere you go?

    --
    Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
  11. Re:A lot less invasive by Marvelicious · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What worries me here is that everyone is arguing about the invasivness of this (don't get me wrong, it IS invasion of privacy of the worst kind), but no one is considering how dumb the idea is in the first place! Punishing people for buying fuel efficient cars? What a load of shit! You know this one has been proposed by people who drive SUV's the size of aircraft carriers.

    I'm not a small car person. I buy larger more comfortable vehicles, and I buy more gas because of it. It is worth it to me. People that are willing to cram themselves into a Metro to save money should sure as hell be allowed that choice!

    --
    Send whiskey and fresh horses!
  12. Re:A lot less invasive by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As an owner of a Hybrid, yes I use a good bit less gas.

    If they are worried about losing money due to Hybrid's how about 'raising' the gas tax a few pennies to compensate, thus encouraging the use of efficient cars, and taxing more heavily the polluting Hummers/SUVs people seem so fond of driving?

    Oh wait...my fault...that damned logic/common sense thing again, sorry CA I forgot!


    --
    People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
  13. Re:That already happens in MA! by Colgate2003 · · Score: 5, Informative

    MA does not track your speed using Fastlane. I work in Massachusetts and talk about RFID as part of my job. However, you can get a ticket for speeding through a toll booth if you have a Fastlane tag. There are RADAR guns next to the lanes, and if you exceed the 15mph limit, you get a ticket in the mail. In this case the Fastlane tag is only used to identify you, while the RADAR is measuring your speed.

  14. Re:A lot less invasive by Jeremi · · Score: 5, Insightful
    a mile in a small little hybrid, solar, or electric cars is the same mile driven by the huge hulking SUV


    Not at all -- as you yourself point out directly afterwards. The reason you see those "no trucks over XXX pounds" signs is exactly because the amount of wear and tear on the road is proportional to vehicle weight.


    where the electric doesn't pay *anything* in gas taxes.

    ... and given that we want to reduce the amount of gas consumed, that's a good thing. Once everybody is driving gasoline-free vehicles, then it will be time to revisit our tax base; but we're nowhere near that point.

    --


    I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
  15. Re:A lot less invasive by danheskett · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The problem is, like tobacco taxes, is that it will cause people to consume less, and then, eventually, lead to lower taxes.

    The State of Maine had a problem like this. The State needed more revenue, so they hiked the tobacco tax drastically. By the next year, smoking/tobacco sales had dropped to a level so that revenue would be flat or almost flat, instead of higher. They expected that since people were addicted, they'd keep buying. So they raised the taxes again, which will very likely reduce smoking again.

    The bottom line? The same-ish number of people smoke and cause themselves harm, but smoke somewhat less than before, maybe about 20% fewer cigarettes.

    Now the State is in a death spiral of taxes. They raise them, people cutback. Eventually the income will stop staying flat, and will actually fall.

    And then what? They'll want to *cut* taxes to encourage smoking to *raise* revenues, but it'll be all politically incorrect to do so, and the State will have to solve its funding problem on something other than peoples addiction.

    The same thing will happen with gas. People will drive less, buy less gas, car pool more, buy black market gas more, and generally, find ways around the tax. That's it, the bottom line. Then CA will have to address the real issue. How to raise revenue in an even fair way.

  16. Re:A lot less invasive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    "Punishing people for buying fuel efficient cars? What a load of shit!"

    Are you a terrorist? All that time we spent crushing innocent women and children heads in Iraq to steal their oil, now you should have the goddamn decency to buy that fucking fuel, at the price of our choosing. Why do you hate our troops?

  17. You're being duped by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 5, Insightful
    The scheme has so many flaws (apart from the privacy one), that I hunch they're using this as a scam to soften the blow when they add a new gas tax.

    CA (think): "Need to get more gas tax". CA (says): " We're going to track your asses with GPS". People (yell):"WAAH WAAH WAAH priivacy! Why not just raise the gas tax"

    CA:"The people have spoken they want us to raise the gas tax."

    --
    Engineering is the art of compromise.