funsec mailing list archives
Re: [privacy] Highway safety
From: "Dmitry Chan" <dmitry.chan () gmail com>
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 18:52:16 -0500
On 10/23/06, Brian Loe <knobdy () gmail com> wrote:
On 10/23/06, Dmitry Chan <dmitry.chan () gmail com> wrote: > ...because their intoxication may lead to the loss of innocent life, no? Yes, the loss of innocent life who have entrusted those lives in the PROFESSIONAL knowledge and experience of the driver/captain/pilot. > 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. 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.
> > Not truck drivers or tanker ship captains. All of those folks are subject > to company policies and government > > regulations. > > And, what's the distinction? Civilian drivers of automobiles are subject > to government laws and regulations as well. Why choose one set of laws to > be arbitrarily more anti-privacy than the other? Or, is it because you > happen to be affected by the one and not the other? 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.
> I guess the loss of privacy rights - even on the privacy list - isn't > > of much concern to anyone. > I still don't see any privacy violations in taking crippled drivers off the > road and punishing them for stupidity...but, maybe you have a bone to grind > with this particular law or your ankle locator is too tight and you're just > cranky. 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. You, apparently, think they should be allowed to drive until they actually hurt someone. That, imo, is truly shortsighted. Never mind
that we could all, including yourself, be criminals tomorrow if the government happened to pass a law that, for instance, made it a crime to use cryptography software...etc..
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. 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. -- !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
Current thread:
- Re: [privacy] Want a beer at the pub? Have your prints taken, (continued)
- Re: [privacy] Want a beer at the pub? Have your prints taken Brian Loe (Oct 23)
- Re: [privacy] Want a beer at the pub? Have your prints taken Bryan (Oct 23)
- Re: [privacy] Highway safety Richard M. Smith (Oct 23)
- Re: [privacy] Highway safety Brian Loe (Oct 23)
- Re: [privacy] Highway safety Richard M. Smith (Oct 23)
- Re: [privacy] Highway safety Brian Loe (Oct 23)
- Re: [privacy] Highway safety Dmitry Chan (Oct 23)
- Re: [privacy] Highway safety Brian Loe (Oct 23)
- Re: [privacy] Highway safety Dmitry Chan (Oct 23)
- Re: [privacy] Highway safety Brian Loe (Oct 23)
- Re: [privacy] Highway safety Dmitry Chan (Oct 23)
- Re: [privacy] Highway safety Brian Loe (Oct 24)
- Re: [privacy] Highway safety Dmitry Chan (Oct 24)
- Re: [privacy] Highway safety Brian Loe (Oct 24)
- Re: [privacy] Highway safety Dennis Henderson (Oct 24)
- Re: [privacy] Highway safety Brian Loe (Oct 24)
- Re: [privacy] Highway safety Dennis Henderson (Oct 24)
- Re: [privacy] Highway safety Drsolly (Oct 24)
- Re: [privacy] Highway safety Brian Loe (Oct 24)
- Re: [privacy] Highway safety David Lodge (Oct 24)
- Re: [privacy] Highway safety Drsolly (Oct 24)