Re: [privacy] Highway safety

[Blanchard_Michael () emc com]

<poor attempt at humor>
I'll go out... I don't have any cavities in my teeth to search or fillings that were cavities (good old fashioned US 
dental practices, Austin Powers should take note!).....

 Oh wait a minute....  You mean Body Cavity Searches don't you!  Well that changes everything, well.... Unless I can 
choose who performs the searches I guess :-)

</poor attempt at humor>


Michael P. Blanchard 
Antivirus / Security Engineer, CISSP, GCIH, CCSA-NGX, MCSE
Office of Information Security & Risk Management 
EMC ² Corporation 
4400 Computer Dr. 
Westboro, MA 01580 
 

-----Original Message-----
From: Crissup, John (MBNAP it) [mailto:John.Crissup () us millwardbrown com] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2006 3:29 PM
To: Blanchard, Michael (InfoSec); knobdy () gmail com; dmitry.chan () gmail com
Cc: privacy () whitestar linuxbox org
Subject: RE: [privacy] Highway safety

  Next it will be "Cavity Search Check Points".  I think I'll just stay home on those days.  ;-)

--
John



-----Original Message-----
From: Blanchard_Michael () emc com [mailto:Blanchard_Michael () emc com] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2006 9:07 AM
To: knobdy () gmail com; dmitry.chan () gmail com
Cc: privacy () whitestar linuxbox org
Subject: Re: [privacy] Highway safety

 DUI checkpoints are unconstitutional if you ask me.  It's one thing to SEE a drunk driver on the road and pull them 
over for driving erratically, but to make EVERYONE on the road stop and submit to a breathalyzer or even a rudimentary 
"check to see if the driver is drunk" is WRONG....   This is different from stopping everyone on the street looking for 
illegal drugs/weapons/whatever how?

Mike B


Michael P. Blanchard
Antivirus / Security Engineer, CISSP, GCIH, CCSA-NGX, MCSE Office of Information Security & Risk Management EMC ² 
Corporation 4400 Computer Dr. 
Westboro, MA 01580 


-----Original Message-----
From: Brian Loe [mailto:knobdy () gmail com]
Sent: Monday, October 23, 2006 5:08 PM
To: Dmitry Chan
Cc: privacy digest mailing list
Subject: Re: [privacy] Highway safety

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.

>  > 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.

> > 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. 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..

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


==================================================== 
This email is confidential and intended solely for the use of the 
individual or organization to whom it is addressed. Any opinions or 
advice presented are solely those of the author and do not necessarily 
represent those of the Millward Brown Group of Companies.  If you are 
not the intended recipient of this email, you should not copy, modify, 
distribute or take any action in reliance on it. If you have received 
this email in error please notify the sender and delete this email 
from your system. Although this email has been checked for viruses 
 and other defects, no responsibility can be accepted for any loss or 
damage arising from its receipt or use. 
==================================================== 

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