All Cars Should Be Tracked and Locked

[Kaboomlandia]

Another IM thread? Ugh.

[The Two Jerseys]

I'm still waiting for Kefka to explain exactly how actively tracking the movements of people without obtaining a search warrant isn't considered an unreasonable search.

Or how we're supposed to have complete faith in a speed monitoring system using the same GPS system that often can't tell whether a car is driving on an urban freeway or on the surface street running along the freeway.

Or how allowing a machine to enforce laws without having any human oversight is even legal, much less a good thing.

The last thing you should be worried about is the law. If the current constitutional law doesn't allow it, then just change it. But we don't even have to do that; the language is so vague that all it takes is for the SC to say ''Well this isn't covered under 'Unreasonable' search and seizure'' and then justify it using legalese. The law is completely malleable and its just rhetoric to justify whatever the political tide happens to be at the time.

If its the right time for segregation to end, the court's will read things so that it does end. If its the wrong time for slavery to be overturned, it won't.

If its the right time for us to expand the definition of what could count as reasonable and shrink what could count as unreasonable... then I'm sure the SC will help. It's all political.

This is the least of our concerns. The Constitution doesn't provide ironclad protection for anything; only the illusion of ironclad protection for those who don't have a long-term view of history. The SC decides what the law is and what the reach of each and every vague word in the Constitution covers and doesn't cover; there is no permanent legal obstacle to anything.

The police using a tracking device to follow people even though there isn't even reasonable suspicion of them having committed a crime, much less having enough probable cause to obtain a search warrant, is by definition an unreasonable search.

You clearly don't understand American constitutional law.

[The Republic of American Freedom]

The last thing you should be worried about is the law. If the current constitutional law doesn't allow it, then just change it. But we don't even have to do that; the language is so vague that all it takes is for the SC to say ''Well this isn't covered under 'Unreasonable' search and seizure'' and then justify it using legalese. The law is completely malleable and its just rhetoric to justify whatever the political tide happens to be at the time.

If its the right time for segregation to end, the court's will read things so that it does end. If its the wrong time for slavery to be overturned, it won't.

If its the right time for us to expand the definition of what could count as reasonable and shrink what could count as unreasonable... then I'm sure the SC will help. It's all political.

This is the least of our concerns. The Constitution doesn't provide ironclad protection for anything; only the illusion of ironclad protection for those who don't have a long-term view of history. The SC decides what the law is and what the reach of each and every vague word in the Constitution covers and doesn't cover; there is no permanent legal obstacle to anything.

The police using a tracking device to follow people even though there isn't even reasonable suspicion of them having committed a crime, much less having enough probable cause to obtain a search warrant, is by definition an unreasonable search.

You clearly don't understand American constitutional law.

He probably thinks it is irrelevant and should be repealed for the “Greater Good".

[Galloism]

Except reports indicate interlock devices actually cause accidents, so rolling out required devices that cause accidents on all vehicles is a pretty risky idea.

Do you happen to know the reasoning behind their issues, or have a link to the sources discussing said issues?

EDIT: Reading into the thread a little more, there's been some suggestion that the problem is that they activate spontaneously or something like that? Easy solution is to use breathalyzers that affect your ability to unlock the car doors, instead of to start the car. A sort of "iMask", perhaps.

Except that requiring their use at point while driving is an intended feature. This is because otherwise the car can easily be started (or opened) by a third party and then the drunk person get in and drive away.

[Imperium Sidhicum]

Freedom of movement and privacy aside, such a scheme would be impractically expensive to implement in anything larger than a single city.

[The Two Jerseys]

The police using a tracking device to follow people even though there isn't even reasonable suspicion of them having committed a crime, much less having enough probable cause to obtain a search warrant, is by definition an unreasonable search.

You clearly don't understand American constitutional law.

He probably thinks it is irrelevant and should be repealed for the “Greater Good".

And that the Supreme Court is just going to reject 200 years worth of precedents and say that putting a tracking device on Average Joe's bumper and waiting to nail him when it catches him speeding is a-ok.

[Galloism]

Explain.

I am sure you are familiar with Nation States' description of a Father Knows Best State as a state ruled by a mostly-benevolent dictator, who grants the populace the freedom to live their own lives but watches carefully for anyone to slip up.

That sounds like a relatively good government to have.

Actually, a father knows best state is often interfering with people's choices, ostensibly for their own good. Skydiving? Bad - people sometimes die, therefore illegal. Dogs? Sometimes people get bit, therefore bad and illegal. Video games and television? Sometimes people get sedentary from them and become overweight and suffer bad health, therefore bad and illegal. Sugar? Bad, but necessary. Limited quantities allowed to be purchased per individual.

Etc etc etc.

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

I'd also like to ask (as has been asked already I'm sure) how any of this would be paid for? Since Kefka doesn't like taxes, the money has to come from somewhere.

[Great Nepal]

Those whom advocated self-driving cars, but were against tracking...
...Ought self-driving cars communicate and/or track telemetry of nearby other self-driving cars, so they can better prepare for road conditions?

They ought to be able to communicate with neighbouring vehicles, and able to acess information about traffic and road conditions - assuming it is technically possible and this should all be anonymised so you (or rather your car) knows there's been an accident M25 so it'd be faster to get a side road but not which cars were in accident or which ones are stuck there.
Of course people may allow tracking voluntarily, it'd be interesting area for personalised marketing so perhaps cars are subsidised by an advertising agency in return for 5 year contract to allow tracking and data gathered from thereof to be used for adverts but that's out of current scope.

[Dakini]

I'd also like to ask (as has been asked already I'm sure) how any of this would be paid for? Since Kefka doesn't like taxes, the money has to come from somewhere.

Trees.

[The Two Jerseys]

I'd also like to ask (as has been asked already I'm sure) how any of this would be paid for? Since Kefka doesn't like taxes, the money has to come from somewhere.

Trees.

The town of Greenback, home of the world's only money tree orchard.

[Roelandia]

I agree with the OP's assesment that drunk and irresponsible driving can be (not necesserally is in some countries) a problem.
However I completely dissagree with the OP's solution. It is repressive and contrary to freedom of movement and other democratic principles that I personally hold very dear.
A beter solution would be a sensiblisation campaign and/or gradually switching over to self driving cars. This way the problem will dissapear by itself and the personal freedoms and dignity of the public does not have to be violated.

I know what you are going to say. It's for the public safety, to save lives and so forth. But consider this. If these kinds of repressive policies take over the routine of everyday life than living in this kind of society would be like hell. What is the point of safety and saving lives when that life is dreary and repressive of practically anything a person does?

[Gauthier]

I'd also like to ask (as has been asked already I'm sure) how any of this would be paid for? Since Kefka doesn't like taxes, the money has to come from somewhere.

Trees.

Dog Fights.

[Fartsniffage]

I am sure you are familiar with Nation States' description of a Father Knows Best State as a state ruled by a mostly-benevolent dictator, who grants the populace the freedom to live their own lives but watches carefully for anyone to slip up.

That sounds like a relatively good government to have.

Actually, a father knows best state is often interfering with people's choices, ostensibly for their own good. Skydiving? Bad - people sometimes die, therefore illegal. Dogs? Sometimes people get bit, therefore bad and illegal. Video games and television? Sometimes people get sedentary from them and become overweight and suffer bad health, therefore bad and illegal. Sugar? Bad, but necessary. Limited quantities allowed to be purchased per individual.

Etc etc etc.

Game of Thrones books may inspire dissident thought. Banned.

[Ifreann]

Actually, a father knows best state is often interfering with people's choices, ostensibly for their own good. Skydiving? Bad - people sometimes die, therefore illegal. Dogs? Sometimes people get bit, therefore bad and illegal. Video games and television? Sometimes people get sedentary from them and become overweight and suffer bad health, therefore bad and illegal. Sugar? Bad, but necessary. Limited quantities allowed to be purchased per individual.

Etc etc etc.

Game of Thrones books may inspire dissident thought. Banned.

And all that swordplay on the TV show is dangerous. Banned.

[Gauthier]

Game of Thrones books may inspire dissident thought. Banned.

And all that swordplay on the TV show is dangerous. Banned.

Promoting incest. Banned.

[Lockdownn]

You're just really wanting me to get the hell out of this crap hole country aren't you?

[Ifreann]

And all that swordplay on the TV show is dangerous. Banned.

Promoting incest. Banned.

Anti-government revolts, incessant incest, inappropriate boy/tree relationships, cruelty to animals, children, and ice zombies. We'd be saving thousands of lives.

[Thermodolia]

Trees.

Dog Fights.

No it comes from magic, but I think IM already said they would have to raise taxes.

[San Lumen]

Infected Mushroom you post all these ideas yet you never want to do anything to actually make them happen. Proposing an idea on here won't make it happen. Why don't you run for office and propose these ideas of yours?

[The Two Jerseys]

Here's a fun idea: we all buy older cars and flip the bird to Kefka's Big Brother government.

[Glorious KASSRD]

No. I live around Houston, where basically everyone speeds.Trying to implement these ideas would be a disaster.

[Thermodolia]

Infected Mushroom you post all these ideas yet you never want to do anything to actually make them happen. Proposing an idea on here won't make it happen. Why don't you run for office and propose these ideas of yours?

Oh NO! God no! Please don't give them that idea, IM needs to be as far away from political office as possible!

[Khadgar]

IM's style really reminds me of an older poster but I can't place who it is.

[Dominated Earth]

Infected Mushroom you post all these ideas yet you never want to do anything to actually make them happen. Proposing an idea on here won't make it happen. Why don't you run for office and propose these ideas of yours?

Oh dear god no.