Re: [privacy] Highway safety

["Dmitry Chan" <dmitry.chan () gmail com>]

On 10/24/06, Brian Loe <knobdy () gmail com> wrote:
> > 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.


I would add "probable cause" to this as well.  I live in a 'dry' county.
The drunks all drive about 14 miles to a little honky tonk and tie one on.
The bar is within sight of the county line and the county sheriff usually
sits at the county line watching the folks come out of the bar.  If the
Sheriff sees someone tottering to their car, dropping their keys, etc. then
I wouldn't have a problem with them turning on the lights and pulling the
person over.


>  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.


encryption is a tool that can be used for good or bad.  If it's ever
outlawed, the criminals will still use it because the penalty for using
crypto will likely be less than the penalty if their terrorist (or
pedophile) act is discovered.


--
!Dmitry
http://blogs.securiteam.com/index.php/archives/author/dmitryc/

_______________________________________________
privacy mailing list
privacy () whitestar linuxbox org
http://www.whitestar.linuxbox.org/mailman/listinfo/privacy