ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 21st October 2019, 12:31 PM   #281
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 19,674
Originally Posted by plague311 View Post
Which is where it starts to become an issue for me because I see this as being a slippery slope.

What would stop drunk person A from having their friend blow into the thingie? Well, to prevent that, we're just going to get a little bit of your DNA to make sure it's you. Just to be extra sure, we're going to take a little picture of you while you blow into it. Just to make sure everyone is safe.

Well, since we have that information, and your car has wifi we'll just upload it to a database. After all, we don't want you getting in trouble if something wasn't recorded.

Then a whole scale of other issues. I just don't see this as needed or necessary, and I also don't see it passing through the court system either. There are multiple counties\cities\states that are reversing red light cameras because they're overreach and don't function properly all of the time. This would be a car manufacturers nightmare.
Yes, I happen to have a minor spinal curvature issue I inherited from my father (thanks dad). This results in cars that have built in fatigue detectors deciding that I actually am fatigued and should stop for a rest. Currently, I can happily tell those systems to go take an unlikely anatomical excursion, but what happens when that decision is removed from my right to override it? Shall I consult a chiropracter in order to be allowed to drive?
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2019, 12:34 PM   #282
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 19,674
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
Maybe if you have Onstar or a similar service, but I don't think that's generally true.
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Cars in general? Or a very few luxury models?
Oh, sorry, I totally forgot. American cars are a generation behind everyone else. My bad.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2019, 12:35 PM   #283
plague311
Great minds think...
 
plague311's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: North Dakota
Posts: 7,774
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Cars in general? Or a very few luxury models?
Really? Very few luxury models? My second car is a 2015 Chevy Malibu and it has built in wifi, etc. It's not exactly a luxury model.

Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Yes, I happen to have a minor spinal curvature issue I inherited from my father (thanks dad). This results in cars that have built in fatigue detectors deciding that I actually am fatigued and should stop for a rest. Currently, I can happily tell those systems to go take an unlikely anatomical excursion, but what happens when that decision is removed from my right to override it? Shall I consult a chiropracter in order to be allowed to drive?
I'm sure you're not the only one that gets flack from their vehicle because of things like that either.

Mine isn't health related, but if I put my cell phone on the passenger seat of my car it thinks someone is sitting on it and starts chiming.

Cars and electronics are touchy. Recently there were a couple of guys that hacked into Dodge's system. They could reach out to any vehicle that had their version of software on it and do anything they wanted. Increase speed, hit the breaks, kill the engine, etc.

I don't see this breathalyzer thing working at all, and I hope it never gets implemented for any reason.
__________________
"Circumcision and death threats go together like milk and cookies." - William Parcher

ďThere are times when the mind is dealt such a blow it hides itself in insanity. While this may not seem beneficial, it is. There are times when reality is nothing but pain, and to escape that pain the mind must leave reality behind.Ē - Patrick Rothfuss
plague311 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2019, 01:14 PM   #284
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 19,674
Originally Posted by plague311 View Post
Really? Very few luxury models? My second car is a 2015 Chevy Malibu and it has built in wifi, etc. It's not exactly a luxury model.



I'm sure you're not the only one that gets flack from their vehicle because of things like that either.

Mine isn't health related, but if I put my cell phone on the passenger seat of my car it thinks someone is sitting on it and starts chiming.

Cars and electronics are touchy. Recently there were a couple of guys that hacked into Dodge's system. They could reach out to any vehicle that had their version of software on it and do anything they wanted. Increase speed, hit the breaks, kill the engine, etc.

I don't see this breathalyzer thing working at all, and I hope it never gets implemented for any reason.
Of course, add in to the mix that an over-ride would be trivial to implement and the entire thing is moot.

And I don't say that lightly, I say it from professional knowledge. I have in the past engaged in reverse engineering software. Nothing illegal, I am not a hacker, nevertheless, from time to time one inherits some software written by someone who has long since disappeared into the long grass leaving no source code whatsoever. At that point, one can either write it all again from scratch, which is bloody expensive, or one can reverse engineer it. From my point of view, once I am satisfied the client owns it then they can give me permission to do as I wish to achieve the end goal. It that means using something like SoftICE to reverse engineer it, then so be it. They own it and are free to grant me permission to do so.

Nevertheless, using such tools makes me acutely aware that the very same could be used to hack other software illegally. And the software in a car is no different than the software in your PC or MAC or Phone or any device one cares to mention.

No I could tell you that I am signed up to a code of professional ethics. I meant it then and I still mean it. That does not mean everyone else does.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2019, 01:25 PM   #285
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 42,047
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Oh, sorry, I totally forgot. American cars are a generation behind everyone else. My bad.
We were having a conversation. No need to start being a dick about it.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2019, 02:18 PM   #286
luchog
Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist
 
luchog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Emerald City
Posts: 16,201
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
I can if I have a lisence.

You can even without a license, so long as you are driving it exclusively on private roads.

The only time a license is required is for travelling on publicly-funded-and-maintained roads. And even then, the entire purpose of licensing is to demonstrate proficiency with the vehicle, and familiarity with the regulations governing public roadways.

Licensing agencies are not permitted to deny a license to anyone who is capable of meeting the standardized testing, and has not been legally prohibited from doing so as a due-process finding of violation of certain of those regulations. Which makes it sound a whole lot less like a privilege, and a whole lot more like a regulated right. A privilege can be denied to any person, at any time, for any reason. That's practically the definition of a privilege. That is not true for driving on public roads.
__________________
When you say that fascists should only be defeated through debate, what you're really saying is that the marginalized and vulnerable should have to endlessly argue for their right to exist; and at no point should they ever be fully accepted, and the debate considered won.
luchog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2019, 02:20 PM   #287
luchog
Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist
 
luchog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Emerald City
Posts: 16,201
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
A freedom is something that I can do without government involvement or interference, and something I don't have to earn the ability to do.

Which means that none of us have any real freedoms, since nearly everything we do in nearly every society on earth is subject to some sort of government involvement or interference. Even just being alive subjects one to numerous governmental regulations.
__________________
When you say that fascists should only be defeated through debate, what you're really saying is that the marginalized and vulnerable should have to endlessly argue for their right to exist; and at no point should they ever be fully accepted, and the debate considered won.
luchog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2019, 02:24 PM   #288
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 19,674
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
We were having a conversation. No need to start being a dick about it.
Nommed for the abject. Once I respected you. I am disappoint. Try not to make it worse.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2019, 02:31 PM   #289
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 88,482
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
We were having a conversation. No need to start being a dick about it.
Now, now. It's no one's fault that American cars suck now. Just buy Japanese. You'll never go back.

Originally Posted by luchog View Post
You can even without a license, so long as you are driving it exclusively on private roads.
Yes, indeed.

Quote:
Which makes it sound a whole lot less like a privilege, and a whole lot more like a regulated right.
Interesting point. I hadn't thought about it that way.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2019, 02:40 PM   #290
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 9,729
Originally Posted by plague311 View Post
Really? Very few luxury models? My second car is a 2015 Chevy Malibu and it has built in wifi, etc. It's not exactly a luxury model.
....
It's certainly becoming more available, but it's still an extra-cost option, right? And more important, you can turn it off when you want, right? And it's not continuously reporting about you to Big Brother Inc. as you drive, right?
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2019, 03:29 PM   #291
xjx388
Philosopher
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 7,856
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
Incorrect. You can file an appeal, and only then would you be granted a hearing. The suspension is automatic and immediate. No due process is required for it to take effect.
im not sure exactly where your misunderstanding begins...

The fact that they need reasonable suspicion to pull me over and probable cause to ask me to take a breathalyzer is all part of due process. The fact that I can request a hearing quickly is part of due process.





Quote:
I'm thinking that driving is not a right, because it's not.
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
That's because it's not a right.
Repetition doesnít make something correct.
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2019, 03:34 PM   #292
Mumbles
Philosopher
 
Mumbles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 7,462
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
Nobody does. That's abundantly obvious from the general standard of driving on the roads. At least, where I live.

And it's not my point. Anyone stating that driving is a 'right' is just, well, just wrong. You don't have to take a test to exercise a right. Anything you have to takie a test for isn't a right.
Part of the problem is that, like health care, it's not seen as a "right" (in the US at least), but it's very clearly a necessity for many people. This is in part why many states began giving licenses to immigrants regardless of documentation - the alternative from the state perspective was "lots of unlicensed drivers".

(This also happened when Boston allowed insurance companies to charge freely based on zip code - price shock in overpoliced black and Hispanic neighborhoods shot through the roof, and the end result was a lot of uninsured drivers.)

Frankly, if they were accurate long-term (they currently are definitely not), cheap, and wouldn't interfere with repairs done by amateur mechanics (think this can't be a problem? Look into how equipment manufacturers, seed sellers, and the like, have brutally manipulated family farms over the past decade or two.) I'd likely be okay with breathalyzers in every new car.

But don't kid yourselves - these systems would have monitoring of some type or other built in - because there will be people caught driving drunk that courts, DMVs, and so on want to monitor. And major insurance firms, employers, and so on *will* want to get their hands on these readings as well - forget some evil fascist government, short-term perceived financial gain is what you're actually up against.

ETA:

Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Oh, sorry, I totally forgot. American cars are a generation behind everyone else. My bad.
Now this is something I find interesting. Any info on the sort of system you're thinking of?

(I'll point out that I'm well aware of, say, Russia's mandatory front-facing cameras - which is why so many "wacky driver" Youtube compilations use footage from there - and my own 2015 car has limited satcom capabilities - mostly GPS and SiriusXM reception, which was part of the electronics package - along with the usual stored driver info)

Last edited by Mumbles; 21st October 2019 at 03:54 PM.
Mumbles is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2019, 04:05 PM   #293
xjx388
Philosopher
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 7,856
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
One doesn't ever need to be deemed competent to enter a cinema.



One needs to be deemed competent to drive a car.



People are literally not allowed to drive cars until they've proven they're capable of doing so.
Ok, all that means is that, due to the public safety issue, there needs to be regulations on the exercise of that right



Quote:
This is literally not a discussion of 'freedom' or 'right'. That's unless there are many more people driving without a license than I would suspect.





Nobody has to ever take a test to be allowed
to exercise a 'right'. Driving a car isn't a 'right'.

Do you also think that there is no right to education? No right to a job?

Anyone can get a license. The government must issue one if a person demonstrates safe driving and understanding of the rules. They canít set arbitrary conditions. They canít discriminate. If you didnít have a right to drive, none of that would be true.
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2019, 04:09 PM   #294
luchog
Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist
 
luchog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Emerald City
Posts: 16,201
Originally Posted by Mumbles View Post
But don't kid yourselves - these systems would have monitoring of some type or other built in - because there will be people caught driving drunk that courts, DMVs, and so on want to monitor. And major insurance firms, employers, and so on *will* want to get their hands on these readings as well - forget some evil fascist government, short-term perceived financial gain is what you're actually up against.

That was briefly mentioned earlier; but definitely needs to be reiterated. Anyone who thinks that the megacorps who actually run this country (look up ALEC legislation) will allow something like this to be implemented without remote monitoring capability are hopelessly naive. The insurance corps alone would wet themselves to have this in every vehicle.
And, naturally, those of us still driving older vehicles are going to see our premiums shoot up, with substantial "discounts" offered for having said vehicles retrofitted with interlocks.

Employers who run large fleets of vehicles, or who are otherwise required to insure their drivers, will certainly be 100% behind the implementation of interlocks.
__________________
When you say that fascists should only be defeated through debate, what you're really saying is that the marginalized and vulnerable should have to endlessly argue for their right to exist; and at no point should they ever be fully accepted, and the debate considered won.
luchog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2019, 04:28 PM   #295
luchog
Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist
 
luchog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Emerald City
Posts: 16,201
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
Ok, all that means is that, due to the public safety issue, there needs to be regulations on the exercise of that right

In the USA, we consider the ownership and carry of firearms to be a right. It's enshrined in our Constitution. But we have substantial regulations and restrictions on who can own, what they can own, and when and where they can carry.

We have a right to eat in order to survive. But there is a great deal of licensing and regulation on what we can eat. Now, one can say that we have no "right" to produce, sell, or purchase food commercially, but that would be plain stupid; because there is no possible way that people could all produce their own food. Not without essentially clear-cutting the entire continent, eliminating any large urban centers, and doing practically nothing else. We would have to return to being an agrarian culture instead of an industrialized one. And there are plenty of regulations regarding even raising and butchering your own livestock at home, even if you have sufficient land to do so.

Freedom of expression and freedom of the press are widely considered a good thing; but there are regulations on that as well, limitations on the use of said expression to commit fraud, harassment, slander, or libel. And using said freedom to violate those regulations can result in punishments and restrictions being imposed. No inciting riots, no advocating criminal activities, no making false statements about other people intended or likely to cause them serious physical, financial, or social harm.

All in the interests of public safety.

Quote:
Anyone can get a license. The government must issue one if a person demonstrates safe driving and understanding of the rules. They canít set arbitrary conditions. They canít discriminate. If you didnít have a right to drive, none of that would be true.

It isn't so much that we have a right to drive, but that we have a right to travel; and driving motorized vehicles is the most effective method of travel. The courts have ruled in other arenas that restricting the method of exercising a right, even if there are other methods of exercising said right, still amounts to unreasonable and unlawful restriction on the exercise of that right; unless there were equivalent alternative methods available without placing undue burden on the exercise of that right.

That is why we do not restrict the rights of people to drive unless and until they have have been proven to present an unacceptable danger to the general public when doing so. And then, the restriction is typically proportionate to the danger that they present.
__________________
When you say that fascists should only be defeated through debate, what you're really saying is that the marginalized and vulnerable should have to endlessly argue for their right to exist; and at no point should they ever be fully accepted, and the debate considered won.
luchog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2019, 04:41 PM   #296
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 19,674
Originally Posted by Mumbles View Post
Now this is something I find interesting. Any info on the sort of system you're thinking of?
Try Skoda. Yeah, even Skoda has that in Europe. Just not in the third world of trump, ya'll. I can recall the first time I had a car with auto-park. Pretty freaky the first time or two watching the wheel spin like a dervish on it's lonesome. Now it's de riguer. All round screens on every seat? Ho hum. Been there done that. It isn't a luxury anymore. It's expected as bog standard.

Originally Posted by Mumbles View Post
(I'll point out that I'm well aware of, say, Russia's mandatory front-facing cameras - which is why so many "wacky driver" Youtube compilations use footage from there - and my own 2015 car has limited satcom capabilities - mostly GPS and SiriusXM reception, which was part of the electronics package - along with the usual stored driver info)
The Russian not-a-road-system is bonkers. Where else could one buy the blues and twos for a price?
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2019, 05:27 PM   #297
mgidm86
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 5,976
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
Ok, all that means is that, due to the public safety issue, there needs to be regulations on the exercise of that right






Do you also think that there is no right to education? No right to a job?

Anyone can get a license. The government must issue one if a person demonstrates safe driving and understanding of the rules. They canít set arbitrary conditions. They canít discriminate. If you didnít have a right to drive, none of that would be true.

If people don't pay child support they can have their licenses revoked. Nothing to do with ability to drive safely.
__________________
Franklin understands certain kickbacks you obtain unfairly are legal liabilities; however, a risky deed's almost never detrimental despite extra external pressures.
mgidm86 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2019, 05:29 PM   #298
mgidm86
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 5,976
Originally Posted by luchog View Post
In the USA, we consider the ownership and carry of firearms to be a right. It's enshrined in our Constitution. But we have substantial regulations and restrictions on who can own, what they can own, and when and where they can carry.

We have a right to eat in order to survive. But there is a great deal of licensing and regulation on what we can eat. Now, one can say that we have no "right" to produce, sell, or purchase food commercially, but that would be plain stupid; because there is no possible way that people could all produce their own food. Not without essentially clear-cutting the entire continent, eliminating any large urban centers, and doing practically nothing else. We would have to return to being an agrarian culture instead of an industrialized one. And there are plenty of regulations regarding even raising and butchering your own livestock at home, even if you have sufficient land to do so.

Freedom of expression and freedom of the press are widely considered a good thing; but there are regulations on that as well, limitations on the use of said expression to commit fraud, harassment, slander, or libel. And using said freedom to violate those regulations can result in punishments and restrictions being imposed. No inciting riots, no advocating criminal activities, no making false statements about other people intended or likely to cause them serious physical, financial, or social harm.

All in the interests of public safety.




It isn't so much that we have a right to drive, but that we have a right to travel; and driving motorized vehicles is the most effective method of travel. The courts have ruled in other arenas that restricting the method of exercising a right, even if there are other methods of exercising said right, still amounts to unreasonable and unlawful restriction on the exercise of that right; unless there were equivalent alternative methods available without placing undue burden on the exercise of that right.

That is why we do not restrict the rights of people to drive unless and until they have have been proven to present an unacceptable danger to the general public when doing so. And then, the restriction is typically proportionate to the danger that they present.

Not entirely true, see my previous post.
__________________
Franklin understands certain kickbacks you obtain unfairly are legal liabilities; however, a risky deed's almost never detrimental despite extra external pressures.
mgidm86 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2019, 06:20 PM   #299
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 44,989
Just to deflect from the “evil government taking away my rights” theme for a moment.

Can it be conceded by all that drunk driving is a major problem in the US:

https://www.madd.org/press-release/n...ighway-deaths/

Quote:
Drunk driving claimed the lives of almost 11,000 people in 2017 and 2016, according to new data released today by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) that shows drunk driving remains the leading cause of deaths on our nation’s roads.
Seems inarguable.

Can it also be accepted that these devices will save lives? Let’s say half will survive with the minor inconvenience of blowing in a tube. A pretty decent reductions in needless deaths.

Those who oppose breath test devices in cars will need to argue that the current loss of lives to drunk drivers is justifiable because it preserves the right not to blow into a tube.

I hope someone can come up with a decent argument because I can’t.
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill
lionking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2019, 09:16 PM   #300
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 9,729
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
.....
Anyone can get a license. The government must issue one if a person demonstrates safe driving and understanding of the rules. They can’t set arbitrary conditions. They can’t discriminate. If you didn’t have a right to drive, none of that would be true.
You are confusing a right to seek and obtain a license under fair and non-discriminatory conditions with a "right" to drive. Many activities are licensed, but there is no "right" to be a barber, a cosmetologist, a roofing contractor, etc., let alone a "right" to be a doctor, a lawyer, a civil engineer etc., unlike the unlicensed right to vote, to travel, to worship, to peaceably assemble, etc.
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2019, 03:35 AM   #301
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 19,249
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
Ok, all that means is that, due to the public safety issue, there needs to be regulations on the exercise of that right

I disagree for the reasons already stated.
__________________
Up the River!

Anyone that wraps themselves in the Union Flag and also lives in tax exile is a [redacted]
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2019, 03:36 AM   #302
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 19,249
Originally Posted by luchog View Post
That was briefly mentioned earlier; but definitely needs to be reiterated. Anyone who thinks that the megacorps who actually run this country (look up ALEC legislation) will allow something like this to be implemented without remote monitoring capability are hopelessly naive. The insurance corps alone would wet themselves to have this in every vehicle.
That would seeem to suggest that the problem is not with this suggestion but lies elsewhere.
__________________
Up the River!

Anyone that wraps themselves in the Union Flag and also lives in tax exile is a [redacted]
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2019, 04:24 AM   #303
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 88,482
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
Just to deflect from the ďevil government taking away my rightsĒ theme for a moment.

Can it be conceded by all that drunk driving is a major problem in the US:

https://www.madd.org/press-release/n...ighway-deaths/

Seems inarguable.
As I argued earlier you could save a lot of lives by putting everybody in a box and linking our brains via the internet. But just because something saves lives doesn't mean it's automatically a good idea.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2019, 05:45 AM   #304
xjx388
Philosopher
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 7,856
Alcohol Detectors in Cars

Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
You are confusing a right to seek and obtain a license under fair and non-discriminatory conditions with a "right" to drive. Many activities are licensed, but there is no "right" to be a barber, a cosmetologist, a roofing contractor, etc., let alone a "right" to be a doctor, a lawyer, a civil engineer etc., unlike the unlicensed right to vote, to travel, to worship, to peaceably assemble, etc.


As Iíve said, I disagree with the entire concept of having to be given permission by the government to do something. I can accept licensing schemes as necessary regulations of my right to drive and right to pursue a vocation in the interest of public safety.

Once we start thinking the government has such privilege-granting power over We the People, the very idea of freedom and liberty becomes meaningless.

And please note: I have never argued that the SC would agree with me. I would hope they would but who knows?
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2019, 05:48 AM   #305
xjx388
Philosopher
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 7,856
Originally Posted by mgidm86 View Post
If people don't pay child support they can have their licenses revoked. Nothing to do with ability to drive safely.


Yes.and I think thatís problematic. However, such a suspension isnít automatic; the obligor in such cases get plenty of warning and opportunity to fix the problem. There is some due process and it does meet a compelling need of the State to ensure financial responsibility for oneís children.
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2019, 05:51 AM   #306
DuvalHMFIC
Graduate Poster
 
DuvalHMFIC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 1,490
I didn't read through the whole thread, but have any of you actually had to use one of these devices? They are a pain in the ass, and in the instance of my wife having one, it killed her battery every 2-3 months. Sure, they said it wasn't the device. But as soon as she had it removed, her battery problems went away.

Also, after having drove us in her car some 8 hours away, the thing beeping every 15 to 20 minutes to have you blow again, is in and of itself a distraction. I wouldn't be surprised to find out someone had a wreck while trying to blow into the thing in a busy intersection. You have to blow at the right pressure and HUM while doing it. I'm by no means saying it's hard, but it's definitely a distraction while you're driving.

FWIW if anyone is wondering, my wife certainly made a poor decision and I had no issue with her having the device due to that decision. But after I had to use it, I think it's ridiculous to make someone use it on the presumption that they may at some point drink and drive. I can only imagine a 16 year old who is just learning how to drive having to blow into that thing while merging onto the freeway.
__________________
Ben is sick ladies and gentlemen, thats right, Ben is sick.
DuvalHMFIC is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2019, 06:11 AM   #307
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 19,249
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
As I argued earlier you could save a lot of lives by putting everybody in a box and linking our brains via the internet. But just because something saves lives doesn't mean it's automatically a good idea.

You don't need to be that extreme.

A half metre tunsten spike under the driver's seat which would be explosively powered upwards upon the detection of any collision over 10mph would drastically improve road safety.
__________________
Up the River!

Anyone that wraps themselves in the Union Flag and also lives in tax exile is a [redacted]
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2019, 06:46 AM   #308
plague311
Great minds think...
 
plague311's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: North Dakota
Posts: 7,774
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
It's certainly becoming more available, but it's still an extra-cost option, right?
I don't know, probably. I haven't bothered looking because I don't need wifi in my car.

Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
And more important, you can turn it off when you want, right? And it's not continuously reporting about you to Big Brother Inc. as you drive, right?
You could turn the voice recognition off on your samsung TV as well, that doesn't mean it stopped collecting data.

All of that is a red herring anyway, since these would be going in new cars. Wifi or a quick data upload takes next to no bandwidth

Quote:
A new push is underway for federal legislation that would require new U.S. vehicles to have alcohol-detecting devices that stop drunk drivers before they get on the road.
New cars have wifi, the dealership adds in a paper for you to sign that you don't read the fine print on. You consent, and boom. It's done. Seriously, this isn't some far fetched scheme, almost every electronic hides something similar in their EULA
__________________
"Circumcision and death threats go together like milk and cookies." - William Parcher

ďThere are times when the mind is dealt such a blow it hides itself in insanity. While this may not seem beneficial, it is. There are times when reality is nothing but pain, and to escape that pain the mind must leave reality behind.Ē - Patrick Rothfuss
plague311 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2019, 07:10 AM   #309
Thermal
Philosopher
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 9,707
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
Just to deflect from the ďevil government taking away my rightsĒ theme for a moment.
It is not a question of taking away rights; it is a question of unnecessary invasiveness. As abbadon said, there is a creepy element of telling people to do what they are told, and to docilly accept orders.

Quote:
Can it also be accepted that these devices will save lives? Letís say half will survive with the minor inconvenience of blowing in a tube. A pretty decent reductions in needless deaths.

Those who oppose breath test devices in cars will need to argue that the current loss of lives to drunk drivers is justifiable because it preserves the right not to blow into a tube.

I hope someone can come up with a decent argument because I canít.
Sure, they would save lives. No doubt. So would prohibition. So would banning cars. Doesn't mean it is a good idea.

99% of the time, alcohol is not a factor in driving. Think of how many times, starting from morning coffee and driving to work, that alcohol has nothing to do with operating the vehicle.

I would propose simpler measures, if saving lives are the goal. At any public establishment serving alcohol, require the person parking the car to check in at the door, and this person is served no alcohol. Mandate that at any private property that a person serving alcohol to someone who will be driving be charges as an accessory to DUI, with identical penalties, including loss of license and fines.

Much simpler, and directly effective, and without the nuisance applied to 99% of vehicle operation. Objections? Based on how you want to save lives, not about how you want to drink a little and still drive. That's a cop out argument.
__________________

Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect -Mark Twain

Truth is not what you want it to be; it is what it is, and you must bend to its power or live a lie -Miyamoto Musashi
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2019, 07:45 AM   #310
luchog
Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist
 
luchog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Emerald City
Posts: 16,201
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
Can it also be accepted that these devices will save lives? Let’s say half will survive with the minor inconvenience of blowing in a tube. A pretty decent reductions in needless deaths.

Limited all vehicles on every road, including freeways, to a top speed no more than 35mph (56kph) will save a lot more lives. Why don't we do that? 60mph (97kph) is obviously far more dangerous a speed. I'm sure a lot of us in the US remember the "55 Saves Lives" campaign, but why stop there? Reducing speed further would increase safety and cut way down on traffic fatalities. Speed governors with a maximum of 35mph for all vehicles that aren't law enforcement or emergency services would greatly cut down on the numbers of freeway fatalities and major injuries, and likely the total number of collisions as well. Time for "35 Saves Lives!" Who's with me? Can you think of any good reason not to do this?

There's a principle you may not be aware of, it's called the "Law of Diminishing Returns". In this case, it's a simple matter of comparing the cost and inconvenience of amelioration methods with the actual results they are likely or demonstrated to produce. Would they save enough lives to be worth the social and economic effects on traffic and drivers?

Quote:
Those who oppose breath test devices in cars will need to argue that the current loss of lives to drunk drivers is justifiable because it preserves the right not to blow into a tube.

I hope someone can come up with a decent argument because I can’t.

Would they have enough of an impact to justify the costs? The jury is still out on that.

Given what I've seen, even if I did support the concept in principle, the technology simply isn't there yet. It's too primitive, too problematic, to intrusive, too prone to failure, and most importantly of all, too easy to bypass.

The only way to make such a program at all effective would be to mandate retrofitting all vehicles on the road with such a device. And it would have to be effectively tamper-proof. Otherwise, what you will see is a whole lot more older cars on the road, sales of new cars slump, and a black market for interlock bypass technology grow up rapidly.

Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
That would seeem to suggest that the problem is not with this suggestion but lies elsewhere.

Which is, again, a pointless truism. Even assuming the technology is perfect and tamper-proof, this is still a very important consideration. It doesn't matter who takes advantage of this technology to use it in unintended ways, or why they would do so, all that matters is that it will happen. Guaranteed. In every single case in history where a technology could be abused, it has been abused. This is not a "slippery slope" argument, this is an argument from observable reality. Given what we already know about human nature, any process or technology that can be abused, will be abused by someone, somewhere, either for profit or power. We have already seen glaring examples of both in many, many arenas.

At the very least, given what we already know about current wi-fi technology, and the ability for bad actors to hack automobile computerized control systems remotely as a result, this is just one more avenue that said bad actors could use to their advantage, or simply to cause mayhem. Either a terrorist doing so for political or religious reasons, a criminal gang doing so for profit, or a sociopath doing so for the lulz. The Internet is already rife with all three.

Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
As I argued earlier you could save a lot of lives by putting everybody in a box and linking our brains via the internet. But just because something saves lives doesn't mean it's automatically a good idea.

Precisely. The Law of Diminishing Returns, as noted above; plus the introduction of yet another Point of Failure into the system, as demonstrated by DuvalHMFIC. Without a drastic change in technology and implementation, I have a hard time seeing this as anything other than trading one hazard for another. What happens when the interlock ****s itself on the freeway and cuts the engine? Build in a safeguard to prevent that? Congratulations, you've just introduced a method of bypassing the interlock entirely.

Originally Posted by plague311 View Post
New cars have wifi, the dealership adds in a paper for you to sign that you don't read the fine print on. You consent, and boom. It's done. Seriously, this isn't some far fetched scheme, almost every electronic hides something similar in their EULA

And even if it's not in the EULA, the capability is still there, *cough* Cambridge Analytica *cough*. And they are far from the only ones. Do you like the idea of having megacorps track anything and everything you do, even when you attempt to opt out of said tracking? Are you comfortable with having a whole horde of strangers watching and listening to everything you do and say, without your knowledge? And using that data to not only advertise things to you, but to decide what your automobile insurance premiums are going to be, what political tactics will be used to not only attempt to influence your vote but to stop you from voting at all?

This is not paranoia or "slippery slope" thinking, this is something that is happening right now, as we speak.
__________________
When you say that fascists should only be defeated through debate, what you're really saying is that the marginalized and vulnerable should have to endlessly argue for their right to exist; and at no point should they ever be fully accepted, and the debate considered won.

Last edited by luchog; 22nd October 2019 at 07:58 AM.
luchog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2019, 08:09 AM   #311
Joe Random
Master Poster
 
Joe Random's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,237
I've had far too many near-misses due to people chattering away on their cell phones, and I'm willing to bet a month's wages that a vanishingly small percentage of those people were on their phones to try and get directions to where they were headed at the time, or what have you. Hell, I've been a passenger with people who felt the need to carry on nonessential conversations whilst driving (wouldn't even let me hold the phone for them - insisted on driving with one hand and holding the phone in front of them with speakerphone turned on in the other hand). Unfortunately those trips were work related, so refusing to travel wasn't an option and I tried to just work through the high pucker factor and hope we didn't get into an accident.

How many accidents would be avoided if all cars came equipped with some sort of cell signal nullification field to where you couldn't use your phone while the car was in motion? And yet we don't push for that, we instead have laws about 'hands free only' (which I'm lead to understand doesn't really improve attention to the road much, but that's a separate issue).

So arguing from the position of 'behavior <x> causes accidents and death, therefore anything which curtails behavior <x> is justified' is a non-starter. The curtaining factors must individually be judged on their own merits, and weighed against personal freedoms and other considerations. In my opinion mandatory breathalyzers for every car on the road fails to be justified
Joe Random is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2019, 08:41 AM   #312
xjx388
Philosopher
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 7,856
For the passive breath technology I can think of one work-around -a small handheld fan that blows a little more fresh air into the system diluting the breath with clean ambient air.
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2019, 08:50 AM   #313
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 42,047
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
Just to deflect from the ďevil government taking away my rightsĒ theme for a moment.

Can it be conceded by all that drunk driving is a major problem in the US:

https://www.madd.org/press-release/n...ighway-deaths/



Seems inarguable.

Can it also be accepted that these devices will save lives? Letís say half will survive with the minor inconvenience of blowing in a tube. A pretty decent reductions in needless deaths.

Those who oppose breath test devices in cars will need to argue that the current loss of lives to drunk drivers is justifiable because it preserves the right not to blow into a tube.

I hope someone can come up with a decent argument because I canít.
You could potentially save a lot of lives, and prevent a lot of other crime, and generally make society a much more civil and productive place, if you started subjecting everyone to random stops and searches, and regular mandatory psych evals.

Your proposal doesn't deflect from the "taking away my rights" argument. It gets straight to the heart of it. You want to detain people, and search them, not with any probable cause, not to mitigate any serious risk, but "just in case". And you want to deflect and dismiss the obvious human rights problem with this, because it's a real problem for your proposal, and you don't have any solution for it.

But you don't have to dismiss the problem. We actually have a rubric for addressing this problem. You don't have to merely appeal to "wouldn't it be nice" and leave it at that.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2019, 08:51 AM   #314
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 42,047
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
You don't need to be that extreme.

A half metre tunsten spike under the driver's seat which would be explosively powered upwards upon the detection of any collision over 10mph would drastically improve road safety.
This. The Darwinist approach to saving lives arguably saves a lot of lives in the long run - the very best lives.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2019, 08:53 AM   #315
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 53,778
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
This. The Darwinist approach to saving lives arguably saves a lot of lives in the long run - the very best lives.
Eventually humans would evolve powerful armor plating, and they'd still drive terribly.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2019, 09:06 AM   #316
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 88,482
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
Eventually humans would evolve powerful armor plating, and they'd still drive terribly.
Of course they would, since they'd be impervious to the consequences.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2019, 10:08 AM   #317
Mumbles
Philosopher
 
Mumbles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 7,462
Originally Posted by DuvalHMFIC View Post
I didn't read through the whole thread, but have any of you actually had to use one of these devices? They are a pain in the ass, and in the instance of my wife having one, it killed her battery every 2-3 months. Sure, they said it wasn't the device. But as soon as she had it removed, her battery problems went away.
This is the sort of issue that could easily be worked out, pretty easily, by nature of the lockout device being built in by the auto manufacturer, rather than as an aftermarket hack. Think of it as a car with built-in cameras or Bluetooth, versus a FM transmitter for music or a Bluetooth earpiece for calls - only worse. There's *much* more incentive to get it right if it's mandatory rather than a punishment, particularly given our absurdly punitive justice system (in the US)

This is actually a pretty major upside to requiring them in every car.

Quote:
Also, after having drove us in her car some 8 hours away, the thing beeping every 15 to 20 minutes to have you blow again, is in and of itself a distraction. I wouldn't be surprised to find out someone had a wreck while trying to blow into the thing in a busy intersection. You have to blow at the right pressure and HUM while doing it. I'm by no means saying it's hard, but it's definitely a distraction while you're driving.
Here's where I think the problems would start. "Oh, 'you' failed the breath test twice in a row. for the next month this car is switching to 'blow every 15 minutes' mode. And we don't care much if it was your wife/friend/teen child driving instead of you, by the way." It's not that blowing every 15 minutes is the default, but that it'd be a fail mode - and one that could be activated remotely. We could, say, activate it for *every* car registered to a household or insurance policy if one car experiences two failures in a row. For example, your kid goes to college and stupidly fails twice - and now your car is in fail mode, even though your kid is attending college in another state.

"But facial recognition!" We've seen some rather distinct failures based entirely on programmers not testing different groups - iPhones that think Chinese people all look the same,"racist" HP laptops, and so on.

Also, you (general "you", not Duval in particular) sure you want this potentially hackable system that could fail on it's own randomly, to *also* upload your face to police, court systems, and the like? Do you think that every cop and judge will listen to stories about how "the system just failed!", or that they'll listen to *everyone*, even if they present strong evidence that the failure was caused by the car rather than the driver? Regardless of race, sexual orientation, prior alcohol use, and so on?

Because I don't know about other countries, but that's not how the US works.

And that's in addition to the compilation and sale of breathalyzer data, illegal workarounds, and hacking opportunities, which as luchog says is not a "slippery slope", but a very easy prediction based on what we already have seen again and again, or a simple "What would *I* do with this if I were an insurance company/car company/judge/black hat hacker" thought process.

It's not much different than the fancy internet-connected fridge at Best Buy that suddenly starts playing amateur porn.

Or the street sign that gets set to warn about the Ninja attacks.

Or the website that "lets you connect to your old friends" by telling it about where you lived when, where you ate yesterday, where you went to school and work over the years, and the like.

*Or* the company that tells you your ancestry via shaky DNA analysis - and also sells their data to local police because they're just helping to catch rapists what could possibly go wrong? Wait, major police departments have compiled DNA databases of people they've harassed or beaten, even though the vast majority of these people were never so much as given a ticket for anything? Wonder why...

I doubt many people will speak out in favor of driving under the influence of any sort of drug, or even while sleep-deprived. But my view is more "This won't go the way proponents think it will."

Quote:
FWIW if anyone is wondering, my wife certainly made a poor decision and I had no issue with her having the device due to that decision. But after I had to use it, I think it's ridiculous to make someone use it on the presumption that they may at some point drink and drive. I can only imagine a 16 year old who is just learning how to drive having to blow into that thing while merging onto the freeway.
Given the stories I've heard over the years, both from friends and from addiction groups, I agree with this as well - even for the teen that fails a breath test (and around here, that means anything above a 0.02 estimated BAC as I recall).
Mumbles is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2019, 10:18 AM   #318
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 42,047
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
Eventually humans would evolve powerful armor plating, and they'd still drive terribly.
When you think about it, that's what crumple zones and airbags are. And leathers and helmets, for motorcyclists. With exactly the results you've predicted: More accidents, less fatalities.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2019, 10:19 AM   #319
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 88,482
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
When you think about it, that's what crumple zones and airbags are. And leathers and helmets, for motorcyclists. With exactly the results you've predicted: More accidents, less fatalities.
*fewer.

__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2019, 10:22 AM   #320
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 42,047
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
*fewer.
Thank you for making an effort to understand my terminology. It's much appreciated. Also, successful. Good job!
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:40 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.