Big Brother getting Bigger... again...

[MNBoxster]

Originally Posted by Bob O

...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)


Bob

Not looking for a fight.. just an observation or two

Hi,

You're absolutely correct. Law Enforcement had prior permission in the form of a warrant to do what they did. I merely recounted the story to show how an innocent person can end up on the bad end of a stick through no fault of their own. That a device like this further increases that potential, such as only the car, not the driver is identified, but the owner would be cited.

But what if a tree falls in the forest... Scenario: I'm looking for a Gov't. job, or any job for that matter. Someone sees this tape and is acquainted with the person who decides whether I get it or not. He casually says "I saw that guy on a Drug Surveillance tape..." Farfetched? Perhaps, but stranger things have happened.

This EDR device will increase this potential, to say nothing of simple error. Suppose your insurance is denied because of faulty information derived from one of these boxes? Ever try to fix an error on your Credit Report or Credit Card statement? Will we now have to audit the files kept to insure that it contains no errors? How do we prove that we weren't going such and such speed on such and such day and time - 6 mos. ago? We're soon going to have to spend all our leisure time making sure that our lives as represented in the various data banks truly reflect who we are...

Happy Motoring!... Jim'99