Re: [privacy] Highway safety

["Brian Loe" <knobdy () gmail com>]

On 10/23/06, Dmitry Chan <dmitry.chan () gmail com> wrote:

> > > And, isn't that the same case with the drunk behind the wheel of an
> > > automobile who is *sharing* a highway with other drivers.
> >
> > No.
>
>  I don't agree.  When I drive, I'm in a social contract with the other
> drivers on the road.  I'm not free to nut up and neither are they.

THAT I agree with. Venturing anywhere in public means you have
accepted your end of a social contract.

>  If one
> of those other drivers is drunk, then they deserve a DUI.  I don't think the
> cops should wait until they actually harm someone before arresting them.
> But, we disagree I'm guessing.

Yes, we do. Perhaps we could agree if we could agree on what
constitutes a DUI and probable cause for testing such. For now, the
unintended consequences of current laws are far too great and the laws
themselves too broad.



> > I would hazard to guess that I'm affected by both - but until I've
> > committed a crime, I don't believe I need to deal with the police.
>
>  In a perfect world, yes.  In a world with criminals, it's not realistic.

Sure it is, I'm not a criminal and only criminals - and those in need
of help - should have to deal with police.


> > Uhmm...no. Not only have I never gotten a DUI/DWI, I've never
> > committed a crime that would award me an ankle bracelet - but that's a
> > common tactic of shortsighted folks. I believe it comes form a
> > failure, on your part, to understand how anyone could possibly have a
> > problem with a criminal law without first breaking the law.
>
>  Nonsense. Drivers who are drunk are impaired and should not be driving.

Agreed.

> You, apparently, think they should be allowed to drive until they actually
> hurt someone.  That, imo, is truly shortsighted.

Well, allow me to rephrase then, they should be allowed to drive until
they show obvious signs of being too intoxicated - and the proof of
such should be on tape. Laws should bow to rights at every turn and as
much as you may wish for it, you do not have a right to a safe life -
no one can guarantee it.

>  Apples and oranges.  There is no good reason (outside the outlier
> 'hostage-type' situation) where Crypto should be outlawed.  There is a very
> good reason why drunks shouldn't be allowed to drive.

What about child porn? Or many other criminal acts that would
certainly benefit form encryption - hell, terrorists, especially those
who tend to leave their laptops behind when they leave their caves.

I'm not disagreeing that drunks shouldn't drive.

> > ONE unintended consequence: DUI checkpoints. If you can't figure it
> > out from there, well, go with god, I don't know. No one can help
> > you...
>
> An inconvenience?  Yes.  Worthwhile?  Yes, imo.  But, I'm sure you disagree.

Yeah, absolutely. It's a violation of your 4th and 5th Amendment rights.
_______________________________________________
privacy mailing list
privacy () whitestar linuxbox org
http://www.whitestar.linuxbox.org/mailman/listinfo/privacy