I might be out driving on a PUBLIC ROAD, but I still retain a freedom
from unreasonable search and seizure. There are expectations of privacy which
are constitutionally protected, no matter how public the location
may be, and talk of anonymity is really talk of privacy. A police officer
can't pull me over and search my car merely because I am driving on a public
street. While walking down the street, they can't grab me and search my person
merely because I'm on a public sidewalk. If I am talking on a cell phone in
public, the police officer may be able to hear me speaking, but he cannot
electronically intercept the other side of the conversation, merely because
I'm in public. All actions in public are not public actions as
you define them, and even truly public actions do not deprive you of all privacy.
Your car is not your castle. We're not talking about what you do or what you
say within the car, but how do you DRIVE the car. The license plate outside
your car allows it to be identified from a distance, thus blowing any kind of
anonymity you believe you have. Likewise, the event recorder merely records
how you do DRIVE the car. So your privacy, within your car, and subject to what
is visible from without through the windscreen and windows, is still safe.
And, in any case, the event recorder is State property (just like your
licence plates), so they can damn well interrogate it at their whim, like anybody
can read your license plates.
Sure, you can say that; but a Driver's License, once granted, is still
subject to the protections of procedural Due Process guaranteed by the 14th
Amendment. Bell v. Burson, 402 U.S. 535, 539 (1971). Know what one of those
protections is? The protection against unreasonable search and seizure.
The event recorder is State property, thus granting it the same status as a
surveillance camera and therefore exempting it from the 14th amendment.
Think of the little black box as your little cop friend who never leaves
you...
Are you volunteering to have a cop monitor you physically, 24/7, to make
sure that you never do anything illegal? If not, then you are hypocrite, and
you should get off your horse.
When I'm on the road? Well, there, I don't have any expectation of privacy,
so I cannot lament the loss of something I never had. But in any case, I do
not drive a car (nor ride a horse). But I certainly will not whine about loss
of privacy if I'm being ticketed when I jaywalk...
Oh, and by the way: stalking is illegal, so it's your point that is invalid.
Not when done by law enforcement. In that case, it's called inquiring.
Oh, that's comforting. It's OK for everyone else to lose their privacy,
no big deal.
What privacy? There never, ever, was any privacy, nor any to be expected, when
publicly driving a car in plain public view in the middle of a street.
That very well may be, and probably is, but the possesion of that privilege
does not nullify a more fundamental right to privacy.
It most definitely **IS**.
There was never, ever, any kind of privacy in operating a vehicle on the road.
Uh, classic example of reading what you expected your opponent to say
rather then what they did say. Re-read that more closely.... or perhaps for
the first time. Your opponent never claimed that driving was anything but
a privilege.
So? I am merely restating that driving **IS** a privilege, because people think
it's a right.
Me, I'll submit that just because X is a privilege does not automatically
mean that the government can impose whatever the hell it feels like and issue
a like it or lump it directive.
Damn fine well they can. The State has the obligation to see to public safety,
and any hazard towards public safety shall be eradicated as swiftly as possible.
Moreover:
Abuse that privilege by driving recklessly, and you'll see it pulled
from you presto.
I'd say that sounds like a right you're describing.
Rights get retracted when abused, and are basically the natural order of things.
Licensing is a pretty minimal step, all things considered.
It is still **REQUIRED** to be allowed to drive a car. Just like one is **REQUIRED**
to be licensed to be called an engineer.
Priviledges, such as driving the BIG rigs, acquiring the right
to call oneself an engineer in states that require licensing to do so (and
those exams aren't pushovers), or exerting the powers of an elected office,
are earned.
Just like you have to ***EARN*** your driving license.
You just proven my point.
You might define right and priviledge differently...
but my point is you didn't at all. You labor mightily on a semantic point
you don't actually make, you just imply, as if we all agree what a right
is vs. a privilege. (I'd also submit it's a spectrum, not a dichotomy,
which incidentally preempts one of the points you're extremely likely to try
to make with regard to my previous paragraph.)
A right is far more important than a privilege. You have the right to go free;
removing that right, by jailing you, is a pretty involved process. By contrast,
pulling your driving privilege is far more easier to do.
Finally, I appreciate your honesty in admitting you don't have a car and
don't intend to (bragging?), but I can't say I care much for the input of
a person who won't be affected by the laws in question, especially as combined
with your demonstrated lack of enough care to even read what people have to
say about it. It's like when Congress passes laws that they exempt themselves
from; it's damned easy to pass or promote regulations you won't be held to.
I would damn well be affected by such a law, because it would tremenduously
increase the road safety, and thus decrease the likelihood of me being hit by
a car whenever I'm walking (on the sidewalk) or riding my bicycle.
No, I don't give a flying fuck about what motorist say, I don't have to because
everything is done for them and they certainly never listen to others, and nothing
is done for pedestrians, public tr
You, as the driver, have to be in absolute control of your speed at
all times. If you are unable to do so, you are unfit for the road!!!
Have you ever actually driven? I don't know about you, but I like to occasionally
look at the road, instead of staring fixedly at my spedometer. This means
that my speed will, on occasion, drift slightly (even if I had absolute
control over every muscle in my body, there would be variations when
I, say, hit a pot-hole and am bounced slightly). This is true for everyone
else as well. Having absolute control over your speed is a physical
impossibility, especially when you are doing something else, like trying to
drive safely.
Owww. So you mean to say that driving safely distracts from the act of driving
itself?
Do you really espouse the complete desctruction of the idea of anonymity
in our society, in place of a big-brotheresque system that enforces total
accountability of everything?
There never was any kind of anonymity when addressing the PUBLIC ACTIONS
of an individual driving an automobile on PUBLIC ROADS. Those actions
are open to the scrutiny of everyone there, from bystanders wishing to avoid
being run-over by automobiles, to traffic police officers who are there to reprimand
drivers who do not obey the rules of the road.
So, no, I do not espouse the complete destruction of anonymity in the actions
of car drivers, because there was never any kind of anonymity in this in the
first place anyways.
The operation of your car is done on PUBLIC roads. So the public has
the RIGHT to know what you do with your private property while travelling
over public property.
BZZT Law enforcement has no right to use my private property to collect
information regarding my activities.
BZZZT! Thanks for playing! <bitchy limey voice>You're the weakest link</bitchy
limey voice>!!!
The event recorder is not be your property. It is the property of the State,
just like the license plates. You're not allowed to tamper or disconnect it
anymore than you are allowed to do the same with your license plates.
The Amendment preventing unwarrented search and seizure was created to
prevent a police body that suspected a subject of a particular crime from
searching, and continuing to search until they found him guilty of some crime
or other, whether it be the one he was accused of originally.
The amendment preventing unwarranted search and seizure was created to prevent
police from invading private property. While on the road, performing public
actions, you are not warranted any kind of privacy whatsoever in regards
to your public actions.
The event recorder is ALL ABOUT PUBLIC ACTIONS while driving your vehicle
on the road. Nothing else.
If they can collect evidence of my actions WITHOUT searching my PRIVATE
property, then fine.
This is why the event recorder is State Property...
Read the Constitution. Read the Bill of Rights.
My public actions are a matter of record if there is a WITNESS that is willing
to testify to them.
The witness is the event recorder.
My property is not a valid witness, without a WARRANT.
Worry not, it is not your property, it's the State's.
That's the law, according to the Constitution. Property does not specifically
mean House it means anything that I own.
You do not own the roads.
Getting a warrant does not restrict legitimate law enforcement.
It does hinder the repression of public safety-infolving traffic misdemeanors.
However, the car is my private property, and the contents of the computer
are not readily accesible to observers (who are not breaking the law). Just
as in my home, searching the computer in my car should be protected by the
4th Amendment.
The operation of your car is done on PUBLIC roads. So the public has the RIGHT
to know what you do with your private property while travelling over public
property.
And, just as your license plates are the property of the State,
the event recorder will be the State's property as well.
So, as long as you'll be driving over public roads, you can shove your private
property into your goatse.
It's not like law enforcement CANT get a court order when necessary. It
will just discourage them from routinely snooping where it's not warrented.
Want to search my home? get a warrent. Want to search my computer? do the
same. If you don't have justification, you won't get a court to allow it.
In the case of a high speed crash, I don't see the court having a problem
with issuing a warrant.
What you do in the privacy of your home is your business. However, it's a totally
different matter when you are in a public road, handling a heavy mass of metal
hurled at a great rate of speed that has the potential to do a lot of damage.
The RIGHT to privacy you enjoy in your home has a much higher legal standing
than your driving privileges, so it is normal that RIGHTS enjoy a higher
level of legal protection (warrants, court orders) than the mere exercise of
a privilege that is, in fact, legally, an attractive
nuisance.
Driving may not be a right, but freedom from unwarranted search and seizure
still is, as far as I'm aware.
As long as you are on your private property. However, your PUBLIC ACTIONS
(let's not be mistaken, the even recorders allow unrestricted search of your
PUBLIC ACTIONS) always have been under the scrutiny of your peers.
Being able to move from place to place in the manner that fits the time
(walking, horse, car, plane) is definitely not a privelege, but rather a right.
Especially if I'm paying half my income to build the needed infrastructure.
Okay, show me the article in the US constitution or in the bill of rights that
grants you the right to drive an automobile or ride on a plane...
We have the right to travel freely. Driving is a form of transportation.
Is it realistic to say that someone does not need to drive in society today
in general? For a large percentage of us, driving is something we need to
be able to do.
Okay. Show me where in the Bill of Rights or the Constitution where car driving
is deemed to be an inalienable right, and I'll buy you a beer.
Not being able to drive is a pretty serious limit on ones freedom to travel.
Not my problem. If you have decided to gut public transit or simply abolish
it, you have to live with the consequences, that is, being enslaved to your
automobile.
If driving is indeed a right, by nature, why then do we license it? Safety.
Those that do drive have a reasonable expectation of safe roads and qualified
drivers. Driving is a right that can be lost if exercised irresponsibly just
as many other rights can be.
You have the right to go about, fine, but to use a car to do so, you have to
abide by the rules laid down to do so. And when you show your willingness and
knoledge of those rules, you are GRANTED the PRIVILEGE of driving a car.
Abuse that privilege by reckless driving, and wou'll see it revoked.
Let me put it this way. If someone demonstrates they are qualified to
drive, is there a reason why they should not get a license?
None at all. Unless, of course, they do not pay the required licensing fees...
Do they have any expectation such denial will occur? Of course not because
everyone has a right to drive provided they do not abuse other people rights
while exercising theirs. (Hitting someone with your car infringes on their
right to live and prosper for example.)
You still don't have the right to drive. You are bestowed a privilege. A right
is something that is granted to you by natural law; nowhere in any natural or
organic law do you see the right to drive an automobile.
We deny someone their ability to drive as punishment for poor execution,
not because we can. Same for other rights. You might lose your right to move
freely if you use that right to kill someone for example. 'nuff said about
that, either we agree or not, but I wanted to have the other view present
on this thread.
What other view? The sick view that might is right
that is so prevalent in the USA? The sick view that whatever the State does
is wrong and should be opposed at all cost?
I agree with you regarding driving being a public act, however that does
not, in itself, support your idea that law enforcement should be able to access
this device at a distance. I think it does support the traffic accident reporting
particularly when people are killed. The survivors or other interested parties
need to know what happened so the correct decisions can be made. Nothing but
good there.
So, you say that it is only important to enforce traffic laws when people are
killed. If you near-miss other peoples, all is well?
The idea is to remove bad drivers (those who have a lot of near-misses) from
the road, in order to insure that there will be no accidents.
The main problem I have with your distance query is the same problem I
have with automated speed detectors; namely, that we should be judged by our
peers. That is how the law is written and it is one of the founding principles
of this country.
Indeed you oughta be judged by your peers. But that does not apply while exercing
a privilege, such as driving a car.
Getting a ticket for doing 5 miles over by an automated machine is simply
a tax, nothing more. Think about it. What is punishment wi
Driving a vehicle on a public road is an eminently public act
True, it is an eminently public act. HOWEVER, to abuse your Fifth Ave
analogy, picking your nose at 0237 is a more or less private act because you
have a reasonable expectation that no one will see you do it.
So, basically, it's okay to break the law when you don't get caught?
You are therefore advocating lawlessness?
Certainly AFTER THERE HAS BEEN AN ACCIDENT. Which is what this California
law is intended to protect. Your remote download proposal leads down the slippery
slope of downloading your logs and fining you based on infractions that it
recorded.
This is precisely the idea: to download your driving data, and fine
you for every infraction you did to the law. The idea is to get rid the
road of careless drivers who have no regard for the law and the safety of others.
Yes, there are traffic laws. But the fact is nearly everyone pushes them
to one extant or another. Whether it's 5 miles an hour over - or 15 over because
that's how fast traffic is going. Most traffic laws are in place to guard
the public safety. It's been shown in numerous studies (look them up) that
it's the DIFFERENCE in speed between vehicles, not the absolute speed that
matters.
You don't understand. The idea is to get rid of the rampant lawlessness that
is so prevalent on the roads nowadays. Errant drivers should simply be removed
from the road, and by consistenly punishing bad behaviour, you go towards that
goal.
There's a reason the California Highway Patrol will cruise merrily past
a pack of cars travelling at 72 in a 65 zone. They are all technically speeding,
but none of them are posing a hazard.
(Of course, CA doesn't use Highway Patrol fines as a major revenue stream
as some other states do.)
That is a reason why California's deficit is so disastrous...
What this law should do is prevent municipalities and insurance companies
et al from abusing the data gathered with the cars onboard systems. Your suggestion
reeks of Big Brother.
Indeed it is, but posting cops on every streetcorner would not be viewed as
such. As I said before, there is no expectation of privacy when you are on a
public space, especially when you are exercing your PRIVILEGE of moving
about in several tons of metal, a most lethat weapon if you ask me.
Regretably, unless more people stand up for their civil liberties, we'll
see just the kind of invasive data collection you propose.
What kind of civil right shield offenders from the prying eyes of the law?
According to you, traffic cops ought to be blindfolded!!!
Shall we also say again that driving a car is a mere PRIVILEGE and far
from being a right????
No argument there. But I won't go into my argument about why it should
be considerably more difficult to get a license in the first place. Simple
fact is that if drivers were better trained, traffic incidents would drop
dramatically.
Indeed. It's woefuly easy to get a driver's license nowadays. Not only that,
but driver should pass driving tests every other year or so in order to renew
their licenses.
Despite having good reasons for doing these things, they're
still unsafe and illegal.
" Rien ne sert de courir, iil faut partir point ".
(It is useless to run, you have to leave on time) One's lateness is no excuse
to break the law.
If you speed and/or don't wear your seatbelt, that information SHOULD
be accessable in the case of an accident because they are quite relevant to
who is at fault, and why injuries were sustained. This information is essential
in determining true and fair damages. There's not always a witness around,
and a lot of the times it turns into a he-said, she-said deal
where it's impossible to tell who was at fault.
Not in case of an accident, but for law enforcement purposes. The goal being
the total eradication of delinquent road behaviour. Let's not forget that road
casualties far exeeds the other kinds of casualty, INCLUDING WARS.
I'm not sure I agree with the whole video/audio thing. I can see where
external video would come in handy, but I can also see the potential for misuse.
If it could be made so that the video was encrypted and password protected
by the owner (with courts being able to subpoena the password when a dispute
arises), I would be more supportive.
Your point is invalid because the information collected would be identical
to someone following you and filming everyone of your moves, which is far from
being illegal.
Think of the little black box as your little cop friend who never leaves you...:):):)
Well, haven't you ever been late to a critical meeting and gone 10mph
above the limit? Haven't you ever forgotten to buckle your seatbelt?
Do not cast the first stone, O sinner, for I am totally sinless in that respect;
I do not have a car, nor ever intend to have one. And I cannot stand being in
a car without wearing a seat-belt.
And don't even get me started on video/audio data collection... My conversations
within a car are indeed private, and should not be accesible by the police,
the SS or DHS, or what ever. Especially not at-a-distance-we-don't-have-to-tell-you-PATRIOT-AC
T-style.
Oh, I'm not talking about recording what you DO, but recording what you SEE
from the windscreen... The idea is to see whether you drive like a fool or you
simply avoided the other fool who drives like one.
Shall we also say again that driving a car is a mere PRIVILEGE and far
from being a right????
That very well may be, and probably is, but the possesion of that privilege
does not nullify a more fundamental right to privacy.
It most definitely **IS**. You can't drive without a license, and you
can't have a license without displaying a minimal amount of understanding of
the traffic laws and how to handle your vehicle. Abuse that privilege by driving
recklessly, and you'll see it pulled from you presto.
Driving a vehicle on a public road is an eminently public act, and those who do it shall have no more expectations of privacy than someone picking his nose in front of Sack's Fifth Avenue on the morning rush-hour.
The collection of vehicle control evidence is a crucial step in the investigation of traffic accidents. Sheltering that information from the authorities has only one purpose, to shield delinquent drivers from retribution for their unlawful acts.
Even moreso, vehicular event recorders should hold at least 30 minutes of data, including video data, and be downloadable at distance by law enforcement.
Shall we also say again that driving a car is a mere PRIVILEGE and far from being a right????
Sorry, but you obviously do not work in banking as a lot of new ATM's
do have a TCPIP stack on them. That was the big push from finance institutions
in order to play along with current network configurations. I am looking at
a diebold ATM right now that is based on TCPIP.
You're forgetting that there are actaully some smart people in the banking
industry that will realize that having your ATM's running windows hooked up
to the internet is a bad idea. The people that make these kinds of decisions
are not fools.
Perhaps, but what about their MBA bosses???
After all, THEY run the show, no matter how clueless they are...
Extremely uninteresting without a chart of who's in what place. Or maybe I'm just
blind today and can't find the link.
I think the main reason for adoption of broadband in Canada. is the effective
monopolies that cable and telecom companies have in much of the country.
In most places in Canada, cable television (and if you are lucky, internet)
is supplied by a single provider. The same is often true of telecom (and thus
DSL). With this effective monopoly, the cable and telecom companies set their
rates at whatever level they feel like, since they have no competition to drive
down prices. Usually this price is around the $cdn 50 per month range or more,
which for your average user is simply just about right.
How about the fact that I don't want CATV, I just want Internet. They
are apparently tied and it costs MORE to have just Internet than both basic
cable and Internet??!?! How does that make sense?
Same way that a round-trip flight is 1/4 the cost of a one-way.
This, my friend, is the kind of logic you get when a Marketing Executive
fucks a MBA (or vice-versa).
The problem in the States is a fragmented industry (too many small players),
The problem in the states is a frighteningly high number of fuckingly clueless
moronic MBAs who make companies do all sorts of incredibly stupid unproductive
stuff.
Why don't you yankees revolt and kill all those MBAs????
Slashdot Mirror
Your car is not your castle. We're not talking about what you do or what you say within the car, but how do you DRIVE the car. The license plate outside your car allows it to be identified from a distance, thus blowing any kind of anonymity you believe you have. Likewise, the event recorder merely records how you do DRIVE the car. So your privacy, within your car, and subject to what is visible from without through the windscreen and windows, is still safe.
And, in any case, the event recorder is State property (just like your licence plates), so they can damn well interrogate it at their whim, like anybody can read your license plates.
The event recorder is State property, thus granting it the same status as a surveillance camera and therefore exempting it from the 14th amendment.
When I'm on the road? Well, there, I don't have any expectation of privacy, so I cannot lament the loss of something I never had. But in any case, I do not drive a car (nor ride a horse). But I certainly will not whine about loss of privacy if I'm being ticketed when I jaywalk...
Not when done by law enforcement. In that case, it's called inquiring.
What privacy? There never, ever, was any privacy, nor any to be expected, when publicly driving a car in plain public view in the middle of a street.
There was never, ever, any kind of privacy in operating a vehicle on the road.
So? I am merely restating that driving **IS** a privilege, because people think it's a right.
Damn fine well they can. The State has the obligation to see to public safety, and any hazard towards public safety shall be eradicated as swiftly as possible.
It is still **REQUIRED** to be allowed to drive a car. Just like one is **REQUIRED** to be licensed to be called an engineer.
Just like you have to ***EARN*** your driving license.
You just proven my point.
A right is far more important than a privilege. You have the right to go free; removing that right, by jailing you, is a pretty involved process. By contrast, pulling your driving privilege is far more easier to do.
I would damn well be affected by such a law, because it would tremenduously increase the road safety, and thus decrease the likelihood of me being hit by a car whenever I'm walking (on the sidewalk) or riding my bicycle.
No, I don't give a flying fuck about what motorist say, I don't have to because everything is done for them and they certainly never listen to others, and nothing is done for pedestrians, public tr
Owww. So you mean to say that driving safely distracts from the act of driving itself?
There never was any kind of anonymity when addressing the PUBLIC ACTIONS of an individual driving an automobile on PUBLIC ROADS. Those actions are open to the scrutiny of everyone there, from bystanders wishing to avoid being run-over by automobiles, to traffic police officers who are there to reprimand drivers who do not obey the rules of the road.
So, no, I do not espouse the complete destruction of anonymity in the actions of car drivers, because there was never any kind of anonymity in this in the first place anyways.
BZZZT! Thanks for playing! <bitchy limey voice>You're the weakest link</bitchy limey voice>!!!
The event recorder is not be your property. It is the property of the State, just like the license plates. You're not allowed to tamper or disconnect it anymore than you are allowed to do the same with your license plates.
The amendment preventing unwarranted search and seizure was created to prevent police from invading private property. While on the road, performing public actions, you are not warranted any kind of privacy whatsoever in regards to your public actions.
The event recorder is ALL ABOUT PUBLIC ACTIONS while driving your vehicle on the road. Nothing else.
This is why the event recorder is State Property...
The witness is the event recorder.
Worry not, it is not your property, it's the State's.
You do not own the roads.
It does hinder the repression of public safety-infolving traffic misdemeanors.
The operation of your car is done on PUBLIC roads. So the public has the RIGHT to know what you do with your private property while travelling over public property.
And, just as your license plates are the property of the State, the event recorder will be the State's property as well.
So, as long as you'll be driving over public roads, you can shove your private property into your goatse.
What you do in the privacy of your home is your business. However, it's a totally different matter when you are in a public road, handling a heavy mass of metal hurled at a great rate of speed that has the potential to do a lot of damage. The RIGHT to privacy you enjoy in your home has a much higher legal standing than your driving privileges, so it is normal that RIGHTS enjoy a higher level of legal protection (warrants, court orders) than the mere exercise of a privilege that is, in fact, legally, an attractive nuisance .
As long as you are on your private property. However, your PUBLIC ACTIONS (let's not be mistaken, the even recorders allow unrestricted search of your PUBLIC ACTIONS) always have been under the scrutiny of your peers.
Okay, show me the article in the US constitution or in the bill of rights that grants you the right to drive an automobile or ride on a plane...
Okay. Show me where in the Bill of Rights or the Constitution where car driving is deemed to be an inalienable right, and I'll buy you a beer.
Not my problem. If you have decided to gut public transit or simply abolish it, you have to live with the consequences, that is, being enslaved to your automobile.
You have the right to go about, fine, but to use a car to do so, you have to abide by the rules laid down to do so. And when you show your willingness and knoledge of those rules, you are GRANTED the PRIVILEGE of driving a car. Abuse that privilege by reckless driving, and wou'll see it revoked.
None at all. Unless, of course, they do not pay the required licensing fees...
You still don't have the right to drive. You are bestowed a privilege. A right is something that is granted to you by natural law; nowhere in any natural or organic law do you see the right to drive an automobile.
What other view? The sick view that might is right that is so prevalent in the USA? The sick view that whatever the State does is wrong and should be opposed at all cost?
So, you say that it is only important to enforce traffic laws when people are killed. If you near-miss other peoples, all is well?
The idea is to remove bad drivers (those who have a lot of near-misses) from the road, in order to insure that there will be no accidents.
Indeed you oughta be judged by your peers. But that does not apply while exercing a privilege, such as driving a car.
So, basically, it's okay to break the law when you don't get caught?
You are therefore advocating lawlessness?
This is precisely the idea: to download your driving data, and fine you for every infraction you did to the law. The idea is to get rid the road of careless drivers who have no regard for the law and the safety of others.
You don't understand. The idea is to get rid of the rampant lawlessness that is so prevalent on the roads nowadays. Errant drivers should simply be removed from the road, and by consistenly punishing bad behaviour, you go towards that goal.
That is a reason why California's deficit is so disastrous...
Indeed it is, but posting cops on every streetcorner would not be viewed as such. As I said before, there is no expectation of privacy when you are on a public space, especially when you are exercing your PRIVILEGE of moving about in several tons of metal, a most lethat weapon if you ask me.
What kind of civil right shield offenders from the prying eyes of the law? According to you, traffic cops ought to be blindfolded!!!
Indeed. It's woefuly easy to get a driver's license nowadays. Not only that, but driver should pass driving tests every other year or so in order to renew their licenses.
" Rien ne sert de courir, iil faut partir point ". (It is useless to run, you have to leave on time) One's lateness is no excuse to break the law.
Not in case of an accident, but for law enforcement purposes. The goal being the total eradication of delinquent road behaviour. Let's not forget that road casualties far exeeds the other kinds of casualty, INCLUDING WARS.
Your point is invalid because the information collected would be identical to someone following you and filming everyone of your moves, which is far from being illegal.
Think of the little black box as your little cop friend who never leaves you... :) :) :)
Do not cast the first stone, O sinner, for I am totally sinless in that respect; I do not have a car, nor ever intend to have one. And I cannot stand being in a car without wearing a seat-belt.
Oh, I'm not talking about recording what you DO, but recording what you SEE from the windscreen... The idea is to see whether you drive like a fool or you simply avoided the other fool who drives like one.
It most definitely **IS**. You can't drive without a license, and you can't have a license without displaying a minimal amount of understanding of the traffic laws and how to handle your vehicle. Abuse that privilege by driving recklessly, and you'll see it pulled from you presto.
The collection of vehicle control evidence is a crucial step in the investigation of traffic accidents. Sheltering that information from the authorities has only one purpose, to shield delinquent drivers from retribution for their unlawful acts.
Even moreso, vehicular event recorders should hold at least 30 minutes of data, including video data, and be downloadable at distance by law enforcement.
Shall we also say again that driving a car is a mere PRIVILEGE and far from being a right????
Does this apply to dial-a-pr0n lines???
The terrorists have won!
Yeah, we're very proud of our implementation of RFC UP-844, IP over rails.
I think the main reason for adoption of broadband in Canada. is the effective monopolies that cable and telecom companies have in much of the country.
In most places in Canada, cable television (and if you are lucky, internet) is supplied by a single provider. The same is often true of telecom (and thus DSL). With this effective monopoly, the cable and telecom companies set their rates at whatever level they feel like, since they have no competition to drive down prices. Usually this price is around the $cdn 50 per month range or more, which for your average user is simply just about right.
$15,300,000??? This sounds like a ***MASSIVE STOCK FRAUD***.
Why don't you yankees revolt and kill all those MBAs????