Big Brother wants Alcohol Detection System in every car

[Quantum Windbag]

Irrelevant argument as the fourth amendment protects people not places. Thats why wiretapping a public phone booth (do those still exists?) without a warrant would still be an unconsitutional invasion of privacy.

I think the argument here (as RetiredGySgt has been pointing out) is that driving and making use of those public roads is a privilege granted by the state. You have to be licensed by the state to do it and if regulations were put in place requiring you to get some kind of futuristic laser breathalyzer test to get behind the wheel (which doesn't really follow from the OP) it doesn't seem that would violate Fourth Amendment rights.

Would it a violation of the 4th amendment to require people to be strip searched to use a public sidewalk?

 

[Zander]

I saw a lady talking on her cell phone, while putting on make-up, sipping her coffee, and driving on the freeway. Is there a device that can stop that?

 

[Dr Grump]

I saw a lady talking on her cell phone, while putting on make-up, sipping her coffee, and driving on the freeway. Is there a device that can stop that?

A cop....

 

[Zander]

I saw a lady talking on her cell phone, while putting on make-up, sipping her coffee, and driving on the freeway. Is there a device that can stop that?

A cop....

Nope - she was driving the speed limit, safely in her lane, and she was using a bluetooth headset in her cell phone. What did she do wrong? If you think distraction is the answer think again - we have a million distractions while driving.....the stereo or radio, billboards, signs, bumper stickers, cell phone calls, passenger conversations, drinking coffee, eating, etc....

 

[Greenbeard]

Would it a violation of the 4th amendment to require people to be strip searched to use a public sidewalk?

You're missing the point. The issue here is that you're dealing with a state-regulated privilege whose misuse has public safety implications. Try another example. When you want to fly commercially, you're consenting to the rules of the game: shoe removal, bag searches, metal detectors and pat downs if necessary, and potentially more invasive procedures in extreme circumstances. You don't enjoy the presumption that you're not carrying a bomb and you have to consent to a search to play.

Walking on the sidewalk isn't analogous to what's being discussed here.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Would it a violation of the 4th amendment to require people to be strip searched to use a public sidewalk?

You're missing the point. The issue here is that you're dealing with a state-regulated privilege whose misuse has public safety implications. Try another example. When you want to fly commercially, you're consenting to the rules of the game: shoe removal, bag searches, metal detectors and pat downs if necessary, and potentially more invasive procedures in extreme circumstances. You don't enjoy the presumption that you're not carrying a bomb and you have to consent to a search to play.

Walking on the sidewalk isn't analogous to what's being discussed here.

No, you are missing the point. If an attempt to mandate these devices is made it will be an invasion of privacy. Even people convicted of DWI can only be required to use these devices as part of their probation, and they can remove them after their sentence is over, so the courts seem to think that the state does not have an unlimited right to regulate driving.

Just as a general rule of thumb, anything that gives the state more power is bad. There are exceptions to it, but unless something like the analogy I spouted to you about being searched for no reason works in your head, you need to accept that the state is almost always wrong.

 

[Dr Grump]

I saw a lady talking on her cell phone, while putting on make-up, sipping her coffee, and driving on the freeway. Is there a device that can stop that?

A cop....

Nope - she was driving the speed limit, safely in her lane, and she was using a bluetooth headset in her cell phone. What did she do wrong? If you think distraction is the answer think again - we have a million distractions while driving.....the stereo or radio, billboards, signs, bumper stickers, cell phone calls, passenger conversations, drinking coffee, eating, etc....

I have a problem with the putting on the makeup...not the bluetooth. Using a mobile phone and drinking will get a citation down here. Not bluetoothing though.

That aside, do we really have to dredge up stats on the mayhem drunk driving causes?

 

[Dr Grump]

No, you are missing the point. If an attempt to mandate these devices is made it will be an invasion of privacy. Even people convicted of DWI can only be required to use these devices as part of their probation, and they can remove them after their sentence is over, so the courts seem to think that the state does not have an unlimited right to regulate driving.

Just as a general rule of thumb, anything that gives the state more power is bad. There are exceptions to it, but unless something like the analogy I spouted to you about being searched for no reason works in your head, you need to accept that the state is almost always wrong.

Yeah, well your right to privacy ends when you decide to get drunk and drive on the same road I'm on....

 

[JBeukema]

A government-auto industry program that is trying to develop a device to detect drunken drivers, which would be installed in all new vehicles, is on track to get a six-fold increase in funding.
The device, which would automatically sniff the driver’s breath or use a light beam to test the alcohol content of tissue, would prevent drunken operators from starting the vehicle. There is no plan for the device to be mandatory. Those working on the project hope consumers will accept the alcohol interlock voluntarily because of the safety advantages.

...

​

Regardless of the amount of money, the idea of a federal agency developing a device with automakers that they can sell back to consumers is wrong, said Joan Claybrook, a member of the board of directors at Public Citizen and former head of the safety agency.
“The purpose of N.H.T.S.A. is not to manufacture and develop air bags or seat belts or drunk-driving devices,” she said. “N.H.T.S.A’s role is of a regulator.”

...
​

A major question for the project is whether the public would voluntarily accept – and possibly pay extra for – such a system. Last year the insurance institute surveyed 1,004 people — two-thirds of whom drink alcohol — and found support for such devices. Having alcohol detection devices in all vehicles was seen as a “good” or “very good” idea by 64 percent. Thirty percent said it was a bad idea for reasons including privacy concerns and governmental interference.

Congress Considers Funding for In-Car Alcohol Detection System - Wheels Blog - NYTimes.com

Diverting taxes from highway safety and invasion of privacy, what could possibly go wrong?

right... developing technology for optional features to prevent drunk driving is an invasion of privacy and has nothing to do with highway safety...

 

[JBeukema]

I'm not sure I buy the argument that getting behind the wheel drunk is subject to privacy protections. Can you elaborate?

If you don't view being forced to take a BAT every time you get into your car as a privacy issue I have no idea what you think is private.

If you're too stupid to read your own post, you really should just kill yourself

A government-auto industry program that is trying to develop a device to detect drunken drivers, which would be installed in all new vehicles, is on track to get a six-fold increase in funding.
The device, which would automatically sniff the driver’s breath or use a light beam to test the alcohol content of tissue, would prevent drunken operators from starting the vehicle. There is no plan for the device to be mandatory. Those working on the project hope consumers will accept the alcohol interlock voluntarily because of the safety advantages.

...

​

Regardless of the amount of money, the idea of a federal agency developing a device with automakers that they can sell back to consumers is wrong, said Joan Claybrook, a member of the board of directors at Public Citizen and former head of the safety agency.
“The purpose of N.H.T.S.A. is not to manufacture and develop air bags or seat belts or drunk-driving devices,” she said. “N.H.T.S.A’s role is of a regulator.”

...
​

A major question for the project is whether the public would voluntarily accept – and possibly pay extra for – such a system. Last year the insurance institute surveyed 1,004 people — two-thirds of whom drink alcohol — and found support for such devices. Having alcohol detection devices in all vehicles was seen as a “good” or “very good” idea by 64 percent. Thirty percent said it was a bad idea for reasons including privacy concerns and governmental interference.

Congress Considers Funding for In-Car Alcohol Detection System - Wheels Blog - NYTimes.com

Diverting taxes from highway safety and invasion of privacy, what could possibly go wrong?

 

[JBeukema]

If they would just put drunk drivers in jail and keep them there, driving drunk would not be a problem in this country and there would be no need for stupid ideas like this one.

Driving drunk should be subject to the same penalties as discharging a firearm in a mall whilst blindfolded

 

[JBeukema]

I agree with RGS. Driving on public roadways is a privilege. If a citizen has not been drinking, what is the problem with proving that as a condition of being able to exercise that privilege?

How about cameras too so any other illegal activities that go on in the car can be captured on film ?

We already have cameras watching a growing portion of the roads themselves...

 

[JBeukema]

This could also protect drunks from themselves. If I were facing a third strike and still couldn't control myself, I might pay extra for this option.

Just don't use Listerine before going out on a date...

 

[JBeukema]

I saw a lady talking on her cell phone, while putting on make-up, sipping her coffee, and driving on the freeway. Is there a device that can stop that?

a foot up her ass?

 

[JBeukema]

Would it a violation of the 4th amendment to require people to be strip searched to use a public sidewalk?

You're missing the point. The issue here is that you're dealing with a state-regulated privilege whose misuse has public safety implications. Try another example. When you want to fly commercially, you're consenting to the rules of the game: shoe removal, bag searches, metal detectors and pat downs if necessary, and potentially more invasive procedures in extreme circumstances. You don't enjoy the presumption that you're not carrying a bomb and you have to consent to a search to play.

Walking on the sidewalk isn't analogous to what's being discussed here.

No, you are missing the point. If an attempt to mandate these devices is made it will be an invasion of privacy.

No worries, then

A government-auto industry program that is trying to develop a device to detect drunken drivers, which would be installed in all new vehicles, is on track to get a six-fold increase in funding.
The device, which would automatically sniff the driver’s breath or use a light beam to test the alcohol content of tissue, would prevent drunken operators from starting the vehicle. There is no plan for the device to be mandatory. Those working on the project hope consumers will accept the alcohol interlock voluntarily because of the safety advantages.

...

​

Regardless of the amount of money, the idea of a federal agency developing a device with automakers that they can sell back to consumers is wrong, said Joan Claybrook, a member of the board of directors at Public Citizen and former head of the safety agency.
“The purpose of N.H.T.S.A. is not to manufacture and develop air bags or seat belts or drunk-driving devices,” she said. “N.H.T.S.A’s role is of a regulator.”

...
​

A major question for the project is whether the public would voluntarily accept – and possibly pay extra for – such a system. Last year the insurance institute surveyed 1,004 people — two-thirds of whom drink alcohol — and found support for such devices. Having alcohol detection devices in all vehicles was seen as a “good” or “very good” idea by 64 percent. Thirty percent said it was a bad idea for reasons including privacy concerns and governmental interference.

Congress Considers Funding for In-Car Alcohol Detection System - Wheels Blog - NYTimes.com

Diverting taxes from highway safety and invasion of privacy, what could possibly go wrong?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No, you are missing the point. If an attempt to mandate these devices is made it will be an invasion of privacy. Even people convicted of DWI can only be required to use these devices as part of their probation, and they can remove them after their sentence is over, so the courts seem to think that the state does not have an unlimited right to regulate driving.

Just as a general rule of thumb, anything that gives the state more power is bad. There are exceptions to it, but unless something like the analogy I spouted to you about being searched for no reason works in your head, you need to accept that the state is almost always wrong.

Yeah, well your right to privacy ends when you decide to get drunk and drive on the same road I'm on....

Since I don't drink it never ends, therefore any attempt to put one of these in my car would violate my privacy.

 

[JBeukema]

any attempt to put one of these in my car would violate my privacy.

*yawn*

a government-auto industry program that is trying to develop a device to detect drunken drivers, which would be installed in all new vehicles, is on track to get a six-fold increase in funding.
The device, which would automatically sniff the driver’s breath or use a light beam to test the alcohol content of tissue, would prevent drunken operators from starting the vehicle. there is no plan for the device to be mandatory. those working on the project hope consumers will accept the alcohol interlock voluntarily because of the safety advantages.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

A government-auto industry program that is trying to develop a device to detect drunken drivers, which would be installed in all new vehicles, is on track to get a six-fold increase in funding.
The device, which would automatically sniff the driver’s breath or use a light beam to test the alcohol content of tissue, would prevent drunken operators from starting the vehicle. There is no plan for the device to be mandatory. Those working on the project hope consumers will accept the alcohol interlock voluntarily because of the safety advantages.

...

​

Regardless of the amount of money, the idea of a federal agency developing a device with automakers that they can sell back to consumers is wrong, said Joan Claybrook, a member of the board of directors at Public Citizen and former head of the safety agency.
“The purpose of N.H.T.S.A. is not to manufacture and develop air bags or seat belts or drunk-driving devices,” she said. “N.H.T.S.A’s role is of a regulator.”

...
​

A major question for the project is whether the public would voluntarily accept – and possibly pay extra for – such a system. Last year the insurance institute surveyed 1,004 people — two-thirds of whom drink alcohol — and found support for such devices. Having alcohol detection devices in all vehicles was seen as a “good” or “very good” idea by 64 percent. Thirty percent said it was a bad idea for reasons including privacy concerns and governmental interference.

Congress Considers Funding for In-Car Alcohol Detection System - Wheels Blog - NYTimes.com

Diverting taxes from highway safety and invasion of privacy, what could possibly go wrong?

right... developing technology for optional features to prevent drunk driving is an invasion of privacy and has nothing to do with highway safety...

Explain to me how using public funds to develop a device that private industry will be selling is a valid use of tax dollars. Use really small word while you are doing it because i am going to have a real hard time grasping the concepts.

 

[JBeukema]

Use really small word while you are doing it because i am going to have a real hard time grasping the concepts.

Well, that post belongs in every thread you've ever posted in

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I'm not sure I buy the argument that getting behind the wheel drunk is subject to privacy protections. Can you elaborate?

If you don't view being forced to take a BAT every time you get into your car as a privacy issue I have no idea what you think is private.

If you're too stupid to read your own post, you really should just kill yourself

A government-auto industry program that is trying to develop a device to detect drunken drivers, which would be installed in all new vehicles, is on track to get a six-fold increase in funding.
The device, which would automatically sniff the driver’s breath or use a light beam to test the alcohol content of tissue, would prevent drunken operators from starting the vehicle. There is no plan for the device to be mandatory. Those working on the project hope consumers will accept the alcohol interlock voluntarily because of the safety advantages.

...

​

Regardless of the amount of money, the idea of a federal agency developing a device with automakers that they can sell back to consumers is wrong, said Joan Claybrook, a member of the board of directors at Public Citizen and former head of the safety agency.
“The purpose of N.H.T.S.A. is not to manufacture and develop air bags or seat belts or drunk-driving devices,” she said. “N.H.T.S.A’s role is of a regulator.”

...
​

A major question for the project is whether the public would voluntarily accept – and possibly pay extra for – such a system. Last year the insurance institute surveyed 1,004 people — two-thirds of whom drink alcohol — and found support for such devices. Having alcohol detection devices in all vehicles was seen as a “good” or “very good” idea by 64 percent. Thirty percent said it was a bad idea for reasons including privacy concerns and governmental interference.

Congress Considers Funding for In-Car Alcohol Detection System - Wheels Blog - NYTimes.com

Diverting taxes from highway safety and invasion of privacy, what could possibly go wrong?

Can you read at all? Point to any place in this thread where I said the plan is to install these things by mandate. Whenever I talk about that I always say if, which is a conditional. Other people are defending this as a good idea, even if mandatory, and I am challenging them to defend their positions. You, in your typical lack of ability to understand nuances in conversation, think I am saying it is going to happen.

I guess I shouldn't expect much more than that from someone who believes in telepathy and facilitated communication, but I keep hoping.