Big Brother wants Alcohol Detection System in every car

[Quantum Windbag]

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

See my previous post, you think a psychic would be better at simple understanding of English.

 

[JBeukema]

You're going on and on about a violation privacy.

Nobody's advocated making these things mandatory, so stfu already.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You're going on and on about a violation privacy.

Nobody's advocated making these things mandatory, so stfu already.

Nobody is advocating it because they do not exist. I bet you also beleive that no one was mandating airbags before they were made. You should check with your precognition friends and see if they can tell you what will happen when they actually have one of these that can be installed by manufacturers.

 

[JBeukema]

They don't exist?


Really?


They're not reinventing the wheel here. There already exist technologies to achieve these ends and they're already in vehicles on the road. The devices they're discussing are evolutionary, not revolutionary.

 

[syrenn]

You're going on and on about a violation privacy.

Nobody's advocated making these things mandatory, so stfu already.

Nobody is advocating it because they do not exist. I bet you also beleive that no one was mandating airbags before they were made. You should check with your precognition friends and see if they can tell you what will happen when they actually have one of these that can be installed by manufacturers.

Air bags are standard now but you didn't need them to actually turn you car on if you didn't have them. Nor did you have to take and "air bag" test to allow you to start you car. Totally different things.

I think this is a good thing for known offenders and should be made a lifetime sentence/requirement to drive.start you car. For the average citizen who has done nothing wrong i do think it would be an evasion of privacy.

 

[JBeukema]

For the average citizen who has done nothing wrong i do think it would be an evasion of privacy.

If they were planning to make it mandatory.


But they're not.


So there's nothing to discuss.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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?

Strawman. The State has ABSOLUTE Authority to determine what QUALIFIES you to drive. They have no such authority over you walking in public.

That absolute authority means they would simply need to pass a law requiring a breathalizer on the ignition as a condition of the licensing process to ALLOW you to drive. No violation of anyones rights. This has nothing to do with searching a car or even arresting anyone, it simply has to do with the conditions the State establishes as reasonable to ALLOW you to drive. You have no RIGHT to drive, the State grants the authority for you through a licensing procedure.

 

[Immanuel]

I think it would be easy to prove it would be considered constitutional. Next time you get in your car what is the first thing most of you do? That is right, buckle up because Uncle Sam says you have to and so far it seems to be constitutional.

I would prefer that auto manufacturers did this automatically rather that big brother forcing it upon us, but, I must say if it keeps me from getting drunk and getting behind the wheel and killing myself or someone else or keeps someone else from getting drunk and getting behind a wheel and killing me or my family, I can handle it.

I don't drink and drive. When we go out we decide which one of us is drinking and the other one is driving... which is pretty easy for me because if I want my wife to get drunk, I practically have to pour it down her throat, so I drink, she drives.

Like I said, I don't really like the idea of big brother forcing it upon us, but, if it keeps someone from killing themselves or others, I can live with it.

Immie

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

YOU HAVE NO INHERENT RIGHT to drive. NONE, NADA, ZIPPO. The State controls under what conditions you will be ALLOWED to drive. If they require a breathalizer on the ignition as a condition for receiving a license all they need do is pass such a law and it VIOLATES NO portion of the US Constitution.

Further if the State wanted to they could change the law on drunk drivers and require them to use a breathalizer for ever if they wanted. IT IS SOLELY up to the individual States what conditions must be met to legally drive in that State.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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

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.

I have neither said it was good or bad, I have simply pointed out, legally the State determines under what condition you may drive, you have no right to drive, none. It is solely at the discretion of the State under what condition you are ALLOWED to drive. The Federal Constitution has nothing to do with your ability to drive, nor the right of the States to dictate under what rules and conditions you will be ALLOWED to drive.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

They don't exist?


Really?


They're not reinventing the wheel here. There already exist technologies to achieve these ends and they're already in vehicles on the road. The devices they're discussing are evolutionary, not revolutionary.

If they exist why is the government spending millions of dollars to develop one? What exists now is the equivalent to comparing seat belts to air bags. Current breathalyzer systems look like this:

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/tle/bat/images/Guardian installed.jpg

What they want is a system that will test everyone who sits behind the wheel automatically, never makes a mistake, and cannot be fooled. Do you think that qualifies?

Another thing, it has to be unobtrusive so that it looks good in new cars. We ain't even close.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You're going on and on about a violation privacy.

Nobody's advocated making these things mandatory, so stfu already.

Nobody is advocating it because they do not exist. I bet you also beleive that no one was mandating airbags before they were made. You should check with your precognition friends and see if they can tell you what will happen when they actually have one of these that can be installed by manufacturers.

Air bags are standard now but you didn't need them to actually turn you car on if you didn't have them. Nor did you have to take and "air bag" test to allow you to start you car. Totally different things.

I think this is a good thing for known offenders and should be made a lifetime sentence/requirement to drive.start you car. For the average citizen who has done nothing wrong i do think it would be an evasion of privacy.

Which is why this is worse, even if most people don't see it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

Strawman. The State has ABSOLUTE Authority to determine what QUALIFIES you to drive. They have no such authority over you walking in public.

That absolute authority means they would simply need to pass a law requiring a breathalizer on the ignition as a condition of the licensing process to ALLOW you to drive. No violation of anyones rights. This has nothing to do with searching a car or even arresting anyone, it simply has to do with the conditions the State establishes as reasonable to ALLOW you to drive. You have no RIGHT to drive, the State grants the authority for you through a licensing procedure.

They can determine licensing, but this is not about licensing.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I think it would be easy to prove it would be considered constitutional. Next time you get in your car what is the first thing most of you do? That is right, buckle up because Uncle Sam says you have to and so far it seems to be constitutional.

I would prefer that auto manufacturers did this automatically rather that big brother forcing it upon us, but, I must say if it keeps me from getting drunk and getting behind the wheel and killing myself or someone else or keeps someone else from getting drunk and getting behind a wheel and killing me or my family, I can handle it.

I don't drink and drive. When we go out we decide which one of us is drinking and the other one is driving... which is pretty easy for me because if I want my wife to get drunk, I practically have to pour it down her throat, so I drink, she drives.

Like I said, I don't really like the idea of big brother forcing it upon us, but, if it keeps someone from killing themselves or others, I can live with it.

Immie

Uncle Sam doesn't require me to buckle up, there are no seat belt laws in New Hampshire. Only half of the states allow an officer to pull you over solely because you are not wearing a seat belt. I use a seat belt because I think it makes me safer, not because the law says to, but nice try.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

YOU HAVE NO INHERENT RIGHT to drive. NONE, NADA, ZIPPO. The State controls under what conditions you will be ALLOWED to drive. If they require a breathalizer on the ignition as a condition for receiving a license all they need do is pass such a law and it VIOLATES NO portion of the US Constitution.

Further if the State wanted to they could change the law on drunk drivers and require them to use a breathalizer for ever if they wanted. IT IS SOLELY up to the individual States what conditions must be met to legally drive in that State.

How can they enforce a breathalyzer as a condition of getting a license? My state requires me to have insurance in order to get a license, yet I have never had to show proof of insurance to get that license. How can they require everyone who owns a car to have one of these devices? Most states Constitution are even better at protecting the right to privacy than the US Constitution, which means it would have to be mandates on a federal level. That would strain even the liberal judicial system.

 

[blu]

more statist bullshit. the first time someone is harmed b/c their breathalyzer broke or a woman is raped b/c she couldn't get the car away due to this bullshit I will personally pay all her lawyer fees as he/she sues the government for millions. get the fuck out of my life government

 

[blu]

also, the car engine will still work without the breathalyzer, the dayy i get a car with one mandated I won't move it out my driveway until I figure out a way to get the car running with out it. Then i will post it all over online and completely end their big brother bullshit.

 

[blu]

Stupid idea...

Can't wait to see the first lawsuit when it fails in an emergency...

I made my post with the same train of though before seeing this

 

[blu]

Stupid idea...

Can't wait to see the first lawsuit when it fails in an emergency...

Cops and emergency service vehicles will of course be exempt as well as legislators vehicles of course.

and when YOU are in an emergency?

 

[blu]

quantum windbag and RSG are putting on a show. A great thread