Big Brother will be Watching

[Paul F]

Originally Posted by bobcowan

No, I don't want to break the law or do something bad. I just want to live my life without some gov't funtionary tracking what I do and coming up with something to do with all this new data.

Agreed. No one wants a camera following them 24 hours a day.

Originally Posted by bobcowan

The gov't wants your car to download data to colelction points, so they can moniter what you do, where you go, and how long it takes you to get there. Can you imagine what would happen with this information?

The article didn't say anything of the kind.

Originally Posted by bobcowan

For example, your cell phone probably has a GPS tracking device. The ostensable reason is for your own safety, so 911 can find you in an emergency. But, they also planned to seel that data to advertisers. As you neared the next burger king, they would call you with a recorded add: "Hungry? There's a juicy Whopper waiting for you at exit 159!" How many calls would it take before you threw the phone out the window?

I don't own a cell phone. The government is not going to give data to advertisers. Advertisers don't need the governments help to pester you with ads. They have their own means. But we're talking about a black box that records data in your car, not cell phones.

Originally Posted by bobcowan

Cops have a license plate reading device. It's a camera that's attached to a computer that recognizes license plates. Cops would drive down the street, scane every plate on that street, and record the location of every car, and therefore the general location of every driver. If your car was parked in a "drug Zone", you were automatically labeled as a supicious person. Does this sound familier, "Let me see your papers, old man"?

Yes, they have that today. And once again, that has nothing to do with a black-box recorder. Your making my point. Tom posted a link with a catch-phrase title. He makes no comment. It's just a fear-mongering post. I'm disappointed that Tom would post it and let everyone else assume that there is something to fear here and that big brother is once again intruding on our lives. But I don't see anything here related to big brother. Recording data for crash incidents could be useful.

Originally Posted by bobcowan

Statements such as yours usually indicate a flaming liberal, who believes the gov't knows best, and we should never interfere.

Please be specific Bob. I'd like to know what statements make me a flaming liberal. The fact is, that I grew up a hard right-winger. I very much understand the right. I don't understand the left; never have. Their logic (I don't think they have any) never makes sense to me.

Originally Posted by bobcowan

Or it often indicates someone under the age of 25, who just hasn't been around long enough to see the excesses of our own gov't.

Bob, you're not reading my post very well. I said "We hated seatbelt laws when they came out and refused to wear them." That was 1968. I had to be at least 16 years old back then.

Originally Posted by bobcowan

Given the choice, I would eliminate the seatbelt law for all adults. Here in CO, we do not have a helmet law for motorcycle riders over the age of 18. Every once in a while, the bill manages to get on the ballot. I vote against it every time. Given the chance, I would also vote against the seatbelt law for adults.

Yes, I agree.

Originally Posted by bobcowan

But who am I to tell you what you have to do? Maybe you don't want to wear a helmet or a seatbelt, and you're willing to accept the additional risk. I don't think that's a smart decision. But I do think it's your decision, not mine. You're an adult, and you have a right to be foolish of you want to. As long as you're only putting yourself at risk, have at it.

Yes, I have the same thoughts. I'm not sure where we as a country are with this. I don't care if people are stupid and die or get injured of their own foolishness. But I do wonder if we are ahead of the game with all of these regulations to keep costs down with regards to us paying for their mistakes. So while I don't like the intrusion, if it keeps costs to the taxpayer down, then it is a good thing.

But what does any of this have to do with recording data for the intent of examining it afterwards to help determine what happened in an accident? If the black box had a transmitter on it so that the government could collect data on you, then yes, of course I would object to it.

Tom, I'm still waiting for you to speak up. What is this post about, but fear mongering?

.... and speaking of fear-mongering, remember, the government can monitor every post you make and is putting a profile of you together.

YouTube - ‪Every Breath You Take - Sting & The Police‬‏

[4RE KLR]

The comment above about computer integrated cameras is true.

I have an integrated camera on my computer. When it is "on" the is a window that comes up on my screen ( via settings) and a light comes on beside the camera. I was attending an Insurance training seminar the other day and the light comes "on" and I could tell they were watching me. I covered the camera with a sticky note and let them know I did not care for the intrusion.

Their comment was they needed to see if I was actually at my desk watching the webinar. I told them it was a voluntary seminar and I would not be attending any more from them.

_____________________
Ferrari Killer
Steve

Must Sell Right Now

[Jamo]

The mind explodes with the opportunities that presents.

[bobcowan]

Originally Posted by Paul F

Agreed. No one wants a camera following them 24 hours a day.

But what does any of this have to do with recording data for the intent of examining it afterwards to help determine what happened in an accident? If the black box had a transmitter on it so that the government could collect data on you, then yes, of course I would object to it.

These are all examples of excesses of our own gov't. Give them an inch.....

That black box is not a really new idea. It has come up in the US before - and I remember that very clearly. It has been proposed to include a transmitter. The purpose was that you would drive past a collection/query point, and the data would be downloaded for use by your gov't. Guess what they planned on doing with that data? In the UK, they already have that transmitter and collection point. Guess what they do with it?

That raised a lot of hackles, and got squashed pretty quickly. It was clearly a violation of your civil liberties.

Now, it's back. With no mention of the transmitter. Do you really think they've forgotten about it? Or will it just be on the QT?

The same thing happened with cell phones. When the first plan included a GPS tracking device, there was a lot of upraor. So, that was removed from the features list, but not from the device. No way to turn it off, except by turning off the phone. Now it's just accepted.

The trick here, is not to look at just what is proposed. But look ahead to what comes next; often based on past performance. Then decide if that's the road you want to be on. If not, you need to speak up now, or forever hold your peace.

[mreid]

When I lived in London, they implemented something called a "congestion zone" in certain areas of the city during certain high commuting times. They painted double red lines and placed signs around to let you know when you were in one of these areas. At the time, it was £8 (about $15) a day. You paid via the Internet and they used traffic cams and mobile vans to read plates and enforce the charge. It was supposed to discourage travel in those areas, thus reducing congestion. Amost everyone I knew who commuted received a ticket in the mail at some point and most admitted they were guilty. This black box would have certainly made enforcement much easier. However, the amount of government bureaucracy, complexity, and cost was ridiculous. It never paid for itself, the charge was eventually doubled, and it was yet another big government move in the land of the nanny state. I hear some politicians here want to do the same thing.

My point is that history shows that when something is introduced with a single intention, politicians later see all sorts of handy uses for it and next thing you know, the minor encrouchment on our freedom becomes full repression. This is a scary thing and must be fought.

[Maurice Johnson]

Originally Posted by Hydramada

Who is John Galt?

I'd settle for a photo of Dagny in the dress she wore to Rearden's party.