Re: [privacy] Highway safety

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

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