The potential intrusion into my activity by this device is totally unacceptable. I'm not doing anything illegal or untoward, but,,, even if I were.........its none of their (the government OR any private concern) business where I go or how I get there, unless they have a warrant for it . The constitution guarantees the right against unreasonable search and seizures, and the issuance of a warrant before either a search or a seizure can occur. And this appears, to me anyway, ultimately, to be a search, and a seizure, conducted by the government. (Amendment IV of the Bill of Rights)
So.. if the government wants to go to a judge and get a warrant for each and every car they want information from, then go ahead. THEN it might be legal. IMHO....layman's opinion.
A little disagreement........Speaking of the constitution.....I have to disagree slightly with MNboxster. The constitution, and the bill of rights, don't explicitly guarantee the right to privacy. (Go read, or remember if you're old enough
, the transcripts of the Bork Supreme Court hearings if you think otherwise, or those of any of several other recent nominees.) The inalienable rights you're referring to are "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are
Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. ", not privacy. I've had this discussion with several attorney friends........and they agree, rather adamantly in fact, that the right to privacy doesn't exist, explicitly anyway, and questionably in the abstract. Hence, the occasional "discussion" in congress about this issue. It generally comes up in Supreme Court nominee hearings.
And on a similar note, the taping of the taco drug dealer was most certainly done with a warrant, and you happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong trime. Why would you feel intruded upon in this situation? You were taped buying a taco, by a legal surveillence. They weren't interested in YOU,, they were interested in the taco stand and its drug dealing customers. You didn't buy any drugs from him, as evidenced by the tape, which, in and of itself clears you of any illegal activity. Yes, you are on tape, but, fortunately, or unfortunately, depending on your point of view I guess, it was legal. Was it disturbing to find out you were on a surveillence tape??? SURE!!!!! BUT... what if your friends hadn't told you? (hmmmm if a tree falls in the forest....) You'd be none the wiser, and nothing, absolutely nothing, would result from it, as is the case now. Forgive me, but, personally, I'd forget about it, or tell a really interesting story to the grandkids.
(oops.. sorry. I forget, everyone isn't as,, ummmm "experienced" as I am)
I absolutely agree with you that we have to defend to the utmost, our rights and liberties. They have been won, and kept, with blood and honor over several hundred years, and its our responsibility to keep those rights and liberties as envisoned by Thomas Jefferson, et al. And this black box proposal is certainly a case of potential intrusion on both of those guarantees. It is, as someone stated, a slippery slope we've undertaken here and its best not to put a foot on it, lest we find ourselves at the bottom of the hill.
I'm sure the attorneys out there will have differing, and certainly more studied, opinions
Bob
Not looking for a fight.. just an observation or two
