You say Police State, I say potato. Either way let's discuss surveillance and government overreach.

I love how they just assume a handgun must have been transferred when she hugged the grandma. The TSA treats people like terrorists until proven otherwise.

93_confirmed wrote:

I love how they just assume a handgun must have been transferred when she hugged the grandma. The TSA treats people like terrorists until proven otherwise.

To be fair (and I hate the TSA) that's what good security does.

SixteenBlue wrote:
93_confirmed wrote:

I love how they just assume a handgun must have been transferred when she hugged the grandma. The TSA treats people like terrorists until proven otherwise.

To be fair (and I hate the TSA) that's what good security does.

That's why my car doesn't start until I pass a breathalyzer test.

Minarchist wrote:
SixteenBlue wrote:
93_confirmed wrote:

I love how they just assume a handgun must have been transferred when she hugged the grandma. The TSA treats people like terrorists until proven otherwise.

To be fair (and I hate the TSA) that's what good security does.

That's why my car doesn't start until I pass a breathalyzer test.

I get your point but it's not comparable.

In the "allow no possibility for weapons to get past us" mentality the TSA has, requiring a modified pat-down of a child if they'd been screened but had contact w/ an unscreened person makes sense, but the attitude of the TSOs involved is what made this a problem. Well, that and I think that having that mentality is doing far more harm than good. I'd much rather have the TSA spend money on actually training their employees to be able to professionally and courteously interact with the general public than have them spend it on finding new and more intrusive ways to "improve" airport security.

Stengah wrote:

In the "allow no possibility for weapons to get past us" mentality the TSA has, requiring a modified pat-down of a child if they'd been screened but had contact w/ an unscreened person makes sense, but the attitude of the TSOs involved is what made this a problem. Well, that and I think that having that mentality is doing far more harm than good. I'd much rather have the TSA spend money on actually training their employees to be able to professionally and courteously interact with the general public than have them spend it on finding new and more intrusive ways to "improve" airport security.

Exactly. There's plenty wrong with TSA but being aware of the possibility of a weapon transfer between a screened person and an unscreened person is not one of them.

SixteenBlue wrote:
Minarchist wrote:
SixteenBlue wrote:
93_confirmed wrote:

I love how they just assume a handgun must have been transferred when she hugged the grandma. The TSA treats people like terrorists until proven otherwise.

To be fair (and I hate the TSA) that's what good security does.

That's why my car doesn't start until I pass a breathalyzer test.

I get your point but it's not comparable.

True enough, the mandatory breathalyzer would save a lot more lives.

93_confirmed wrote:

I love how they just assume a handgun must have been transferred when she hugged the grandma. Certain members of the TSA abuse their small amount of power in order to treat people like terrorists until proven otherwise.

With minor editing, that statement can be made true.

absurddoctor wrote:
SixteenBlue wrote:
Minarchist wrote:
SixteenBlue wrote:
93_confirmed wrote:

I love how they just assume a handgun must have been transferred when she hugged the grandma. The TSA treats people like terrorists until proven otherwise.

To be fair (and I hate the TSA) that's what good security does.

That's why my car doesn't start until I pass a breathalyzer test.

I get your point but it's not comparable.

True enough, the mandatory breathalyzer would save a lot more lives.

Other things that would ensure perfect security and safety.

#1 - Everyone flies naked. Flying is optional. If you fly naked there's nowhere to hide a gun. If you want to keep your dignity then drive your car to your destination.

#2 - When you drive said car, however, we'll need to install a GPS unit and a computer to monitor where you go. If you drive frequently to places that sell fertilizer your car will shut down. Sorry.

#3 - If this is too much, then walk. Walking, though, is a sign that you're trying to get away with something. So our drones will definitely keep an eye on you.

SallyNasty wrote:
93_confirmed wrote:

I love how they just assume a handgun must have been transferred when she hugged the grandma. Certain members of the TSA abuse their small amount of power in order to treat people like terrorists until proven otherwise.

With minor editing, that statement can be made true.

It's sadly pretty widespread. TSA agents do not have very good training.

DSGamer wrote:

#2 - When you drive said car, however, we'll need to install a GPS unit and a computer to monitor where you go. If you drive frequently to places that sell fertilizer your car will shut down. Sorry.

Funny you should mention that...

Minarchist wrote:
DSGamer wrote:

#2 - When you drive said car, however, we'll need to install a GPS unit and a computer to monitor where you go. If you drive frequently to places that sell fertilizer your car will shut down. Sorry.

Funny you should mention that...

At that point I get rid of my car and go car-free. As much as I dislike the US being so car-centric I was always okay with the line of thinking that "America is a big nation of people who want to be free to go where they'd like". That argument is the only virtue I saw in our gas guzzling car culture and this bill would effectively kill that.

"Hey kids, let's pile in the car and go on a government approved and monitored road trip!"

DSGamer wrote:
Minarchist wrote:
DSGamer wrote:

#2 - When you drive said car, however, we'll need to install a GPS unit and a computer to monitor where you go. If you drive frequently to places that sell fertilizer your car will shut down. Sorry.

Funny you should mention that...

At that point I get rid of my car and go car-free. As much as I dislike the US being so car-centric I was always okay with the line of thinking that "America is a big nation of people who want to be free to go where they'd like". That argument is the only virtue I saw in our gas guzzling car culture and this bill would effectively kill that.

"Hey kids, let's pile in the car and go on a government approved and monitored road trip!"

A decent public transportation infrastructure and rethinking how we build our communities could maintain that 'freedom'.

nel e nel wrote:
DSGamer wrote:
Minarchist wrote:
DSGamer wrote:

#2 - When you drive said car, however, we'll need to install a GPS unit and a computer to monitor where you go. If you drive frequently to places that sell fertilizer your car will shut down. Sorry.

Funny you should mention that...

At that point I get rid of my car and go car-free. As much as I dislike the US being so car-centric I was always okay with the line of thinking that "America is a big nation of people who want to be free to go where they'd like". That argument is the only virtue I saw in our gas guzzling car culture and this bill would effectively kill that.

"Hey kids, let's pile in the car and go on a government approved and monitored road trip!"

A decent public transportation infrastructure and rethinking how we build our communities could maintain that 'freedom'.

I'm all for that, but I don't see that happening. Ever. Not in the US. When we start building that then we won't need cars. But right now outside of Washington DC, New York and a couple other cities you can't even commute WITHIN a city as easily as you can most major cities in Europe. And forget getting across the country.

DSGamer wrote:
nel e nel wrote:

A decent public transportation infrastructure and rethinking how we build our communities could maintain that 'freedom'.

I'm all for that, but I don't see that happening. Ever. Not in the US. When we start building that then we won't need cars. But right now outside of Washington DC, New York and a couple other cities you can't even commute WITHIN a city as easily as you can most major cities in Europe. And forget getting across the country.

Yep, at this point it's totally ingrained into our culture. It's considered perfectly normal to have to commute ~45 minutes each way to work, not including the 20 min. drive to drop the kids off to school. And walking to the store to get groceries? How am I supposed to carry a 20lb vat of mayo home from Costco?

Europe had a head start because alot of their towns and cities were built around town squares, long before the advent of motorized transportation. Same goes for the East Coast in the US. The further west you go, the less you see of that urban planning style.

So, self-parking cars, cars with impact avoidance systems and various warning/response systems already are on the market. These require the precise monitoring of position in the local environment, and the technology to do that has other uses as well. Google has had self-driving cars in traffic for a year or two now, in major urban traffic conditions, which requires GPS tracking of each car. There are several Federal and private tests of instrumented roads and vehicles which allow automated traffic flow control, which again requires precise tracking of vehicles. And of course with tracking, you have data records, both local and possibly remote.

Given this technology, which gives us the possibility of greatly reducing both traffic fatalities and congestion issues, should we give up on it entirely, because it requires technology that can be used to track us? If not, what methods and rules should be in place about the uses of this data, and how do we get that in front of Congress?

It's really easy to react to a single reported threat to rights, but put them in context and the issues become a lot harder to solve.

Robear wrote:

So, self-parking cars, cars with impact avoidance systems and various warning/response systems already are on the market. These require the precise monitoring of position in the local environment, and the technology to do that has other uses as well. Google has had self-driving cars in traffic for a year or two now, in major urban traffic conditions, which requires GPS tracking of each car. There are several Federal and private tests of instrumented roads and vehicles which allow automated traffic flow control, which again requires precise tracking of vehicles. And of course with tracking, you have data records, both local and possibly remote.

Given this technology, which gives us the possibility of greatly reducing both traffic fatalities and congestion issues, should we give up on it entirely, because it requires technology that can be used to track us? If not, what methods and rules should be in place about the uses of this data, and how do we get that in front of Congress?

It's really easy to react to a single reported threat to rights, but put them in context and the issues become a lot harder to solve.

Off the top of my head, don't let the data be accessible outside of the black box in the car. Ever. Every example you gave is one where the car needs the data and no one else, so that sounds like a perfect solution.

Edit: Automated traffic flow is data outside of the car, I missed that. That said I don't think it should rely on the existence of GPS data from the cars. That seems too flaky to me. We've been measuring traffic for a lot longer than we've had easily accessible GPS, I don't see why that's required to accomplish that.

How do we get it in front of Congress? Good question. I'm cynical enough to think that even if we did it wouldn't matter. I don't think the idea of denying information to law enforcement will fly anymore.

Off the top of my head, don't let the data be accessible outside of the black box in the car. Ever. Every example you gave is one where the car needs the data and no one else, so that sounds like a perfect solution.

Edit: Automated traffic flow is data outside of the car, I missed that. That said I don't think it should rely on the existence of GPS data from the cars. That seems too flaky to me. We've been measuring traffic for a lot longer than we've had easily accessible GPS, I don't see why that's required to accomplish that.

So, insurance companies already offer black boxes to record the last half an hour or so of travel info and system status, thus being better able to determine actions and fault in an accident. That will help keep premiums down, by reducing false accusations, and also potentially help reduce civil court cases. Isn't that a societal good?

What I'm getting at is that surveillance very often stems from technologies that we accept for other reasons. It's a side effect of things we like a lot, in many cases. Is it possible somehow to remove those capabilities from modern technology? I don't think so.

The question comes back to how to raise awareness, to make people understand that some uses should be restricted. And that's *really* hard when they can't see it happening. If it's all in a database somewhere, and the issue is who gets access, the average person won't even give an article a second glance.

In my opinion, we need a constitutional amendment guaranteeing citizen control of information about themselves, with government access only via court order. But I don't see this as an issue on the left or the right. Until that happens, yeah, the NSA will slurp up the Internet and store it, and your car movements will be trackable by the police in the future. We have to work this stuff out; *some* safeguards have to be put in place, or we'll default to an open, no-privacy society, with privacy based only on trust (much like the US Postal system, actually, where we entrust financial documents and valuable packages to adhesive sealing and cardboard for safety). That does not have to end up as a bad thing, but it can also easily be abused.

Robear wrote:
Off the top of my head, don't let the data be accessible outside of the black box in the car. Ever. Every example you gave is one where the car needs the data and no one else, so that sounds like a perfect solution.

Edit: Automated traffic flow is data outside of the car, I missed that. That said I don't think it should rely on the existence of GPS data from the cars. That seems too flaky to me. We've been measuring traffic for a lot longer than we've had easily accessible GPS, I don't see why that's required to accomplish that.

So, insurance companies already offer black boxes to record the last half an hour or so of travel info and system status, thus being better able to determine actions and fault in an accident. That will help keep premiums down, by reducing false accusations, and also potentially help reduce civil court cases. Isn't that a societal good?

What I'm getting at is that surveillance very often stems from technologies that we accept for other reasons. It's a side effect of things we like a lot, in many cases. Is it possible somehow to remove those capabilities from modern technology? I don't think so.

Those black boxes don't need GPS info though, as far as I know. They just need to know status of the cars internal systems, right?

Robear wrote:
Off the top of my head, don't let the data be accessible outside of the black box in the car. Ever. Every example you gave is one where the car needs the data and no one else, so that sounds like a perfect solution.

Edit: Automated traffic flow is data outside of the car, I missed that. That said I don't think it should rely on the existence of GPS data from the cars. That seems too flaky to me. We've been measuring traffic for a lot longer than we've had easily accessible GPS, I don't see why that's required to accomplish that.

So, insurance companies already offer black boxes to record the last half an hour or so of travel info and system status, thus being better able to determine actions and fault in an accident. That will help keep premiums down, by reducing false accusations, and also potentially help reduce civil court cases. Isn't that a societal good?

I don't see the harm in exactly *THAT*. But that will always be abused. What next? Monitors to tax you based on your food choices? GPS implants so that "just in case" you commit a crime we know where you actually were when the crime was committed?

DSGamer wrote:
Robear wrote:
Off the top of my head, don't let the data be accessible outside of the black box in the car. Ever. Every example you gave is one where the car needs the data and no one else, so that sounds like a perfect solution.

Edit: Automated traffic flow is data outside of the car, I missed that. That said I don't think it should rely on the existence of GPS data from the cars. That seems too flaky to me. We've been measuring traffic for a lot longer than we've had easily accessible GPS, I don't see why that's required to accomplish that.

So, insurance companies already offer black boxes to record the last half an hour or so of travel info and system status, thus being better able to determine actions and fault in an accident. That will help keep premiums down, by reducing false accusations, and also potentially help reduce civil court cases. Isn't that a societal good?

I don't see the harm in exactly *THAT*. But that will always be abused. What next? Monitors to tax you based on your food choices? GPS implants so that "just in case" you commit a crime we know where you actually were when the crime was committed?

_EVERYTHING_ can be abused. That's what we have regulations for, right?

Kannon wrote:

_EVERYTHING_ can be abused. That's what we have regulations for, right?

When we're watching those regulations not be enforced, why would we want to rely on that safety net that doesn't exist?

SixteenBlue wrote:
Kannon wrote:

_EVERYTHING_ can be abused. That's what we have regulations for, right?

When we're watching those regulations not be enforced, why would we want to rely on that safety net that doesn't exist?

Then that's the problem, isn't it? Fix that, not hold everything else back out of fear.

Kannon wrote:
DSGamer wrote:
Robear wrote:
Off the top of my head, don't let the data be accessible outside of the black box in the car. Ever. Every example you gave is one where the car needs the data and no one else, so that sounds like a perfect solution.

Edit: Automated traffic flow is data outside of the car, I missed that. That said I don't think it should rely on the existence of GPS data from the cars. That seems too flaky to me. We've been measuring traffic for a lot longer than we've had easily accessible GPS, I don't see why that's required to accomplish that.

So, insurance companies already offer black boxes to record the last half an hour or so of travel info and system status, thus being better able to determine actions and fault in an accident. That will help keep premiums down, by reducing false accusations, and also potentially help reduce civil court cases. Isn't that a societal good?

I don't see the harm in exactly *THAT*. But that will always be abused. What next? Monitors to tax you based on your food choices? GPS implants so that "just in case" you commit a crime we know where you actually were when the crime was committed?

_EVERYTHING_ can be abused. That's what we have regulations for, right?

Regulators never fail / are corrupt, right?

- The sex scandal with the agency monitoring the work on the oil platform in the gulf that exploded

- Pink slime

- The FDA in general

- The SEC being in the building with Lehman Brothers as they broke laws and collapsed

- The entire Bush and Obama administrations breaking the law on illegal surveillance and wiretapping and never being touched

Regulation is only as good as the enforcement of it.

Those black boxes don't need GPS info though, as far as I know. They just need to know status of the cars internal systems, right?

For now. Look at Google's autodriving car project. I guarantee this will be a temporary state of affairs; as more and more traffic automation comes online, position monitoring will be essential.

So, insurance companies already offer black boxes to record the last half an hour or so of travel info and system status, thus being better able to determine actions and fault in an accident. That will help keep premiums down, by reducing false accusations, and also potentially help reduce civil court cases. Isn't that a societal good?

I don't see the harm in exactly *THAT*. But that will always be abused. What next? Monitors to tax you based on your food choices? GPS implants so that "just in case" you commit a crime we know where you actually were when the crime was committed?

You are kind of missing the point here. I'm not saying that this will lead to unpleasant technologies that will be forced on us against our will. I'm talking about alternate uses of devices that make our lives easier, safer and even more pleasurable. It's pretty easy to fend off intrusive technologies, until the functions come in packages that people *want* to intrude into their lives.

How would the NSA monitor communications if everyone used snail mail instead of email? These capabilities arise as a function of *good* and *useful* technologies much more often than of deliberately bad technology. No company ever made landline phones with wiretaps pre-installed for law enforcement use. But they *did* build phone switches, which the government learned they could access out of the knowledge of citizens. And that was regulated after it was better understood, and then *deregulated* over the last decade, deliberately.

So how do we make the erosion of rights an issue, without going all the way to "it's all immoral, it can never be done, nothing is worth it, shut it all down"? That's what's needed. A system of limits and monitoring that actually works.

Kannon wrote:
SixteenBlue wrote:
Kannon wrote:

_EVERYTHING_ can be abused. That's what we have regulations for, right?

When we're watching those regulations not be enforced, why would we want to rely on that safety net that doesn't exist?

Then that's the problem, isn't it? Fix that, not hold everything else back out of fear.

What's being held back? Robear listed a number of advancements that could be benefit society without allowing law enforcement (or anyone, for that matter) access to them. Win/win. There's more in the middle betwee "do nothing" and "allow all info to be accessible by law enforcement."

SixteenBlue wrote:

What's being held back? Robear listed a number of advancements that could be benefit society without allowing law enforcement (or anyone, for that matter) access to them. Win/win. There's more in the middle betwee "do nothing" and "allow all info to be accessible by law enforcement."

There is. And I wasn't aiming at you, or anyone in particular. I apologize if it read that way. It's 90f in here, my brain is a little melty.

I guess I just think we're missing the point with the is/not a police state. The question we should be asking is "How can we increase and better protect individual liberties, in an increasingly connected world". It's an interesting question, with actionable points.

Besides, I do like the idea of built in GPS and so on. I would just like it worded that my personal permission is required to release the GPS data, and it's protected under the 5th amendment.

That'd also give you the ability to use the GPS traces to prove your innocence. Bogus speeding ticket? "Sorry officer, my GPS has me going at this speed. Your radar gun may need to be calibrated."

Kannon wrote:
SixteenBlue wrote:

What's being held back? Robear listed a number of advancements that could be benefit society without allowing law enforcement (or anyone, for that matter) access to them. Win/win. There's more in the middle betwee "do nothing" and "allow all info to be accessible by law enforcement."

There is. And I wasn't aiming at you, or anyone in particular. I apologize if it read that way. It's 90f in here, my brain is a little melty.

I guess I just think we're missing the point with the is/not a police state. The question we should be asking is "How can we increase and better protect individual liberties, in an increasingly connected world". It's an interesting question, with actionable points.

Besides, I do like the idea of built in GPS and so on. I would just like it worded that my personal permission is required to release the GPS data, and it's protected under the 5th amendment.

That'd also give you the ability to use the GPS traces to prove your innocence. Bogus speeding ticket? "Sorry officer, my GPS has me going at this speed. Your radar gun may need to be calibrated."

That's another good solution. I would be in favor of that.

I bet this argument would bear as much weight with a traffic cop as just saying "well, my speedometer was showing that I was going well below the speed limit!".

Gorilla.800.lbs wrote:

I bet this argument would bear as much weight with a traffic cop as just saying "well, my speedometer was showing that I was going well below the speed limit!".

With the cop, sure. With a judge maybe not. You can't bring your speedometer data to court.