funsec mailing list archives
Re: [privacy] Highway safety
From: "Brian Loe" <knobdy () gmail com>
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 11:18:09 -0500
On 10/24/06, Dmitry Chan <dmitry.chan () gmail com> wrote:
On 10/24/06, Brian Loe <knobdy () gmail com> wrote:
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.
In many areas, that wouldn't be a valid stop because he was casing the bar. Regardless, I would prefer he stop the guy BEFORE he gets in the car and breaks the law. You can lock him up for a 20 hour "investigation" so that he can sober up. A couple weekends wasted like that and he might get the idea. Of course, perhaps your county should lighten up and allow the neighborhood drunks go to their neighbood bar and walk back home.
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.
Thank you. _______________________________________________ privacy mailing list privacy () whitestar linuxbox org http://www.whitestar.linuxbox.org/mailman/listinfo/privacy
Current thread:
- Re: [privacy] Highway safety, (continued)
- 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)
- Re: [privacy] Highway safety Dennis Henderson (Oct 24)
- Re: [privacy] Highway safety Blanchard_Michael (Oct 24)
- Re: [privacy] Highway safety Blanchard_Michael (Oct 24)