Your right to privacy? Fail.

[scaeagles]

I've heard about the tax by the mile plan.

Oregon started messing with this idea in 2001 and ran a pilot program in 06 and 07 - here is a run down of that test. And yeah....I hate it, too. Driving is like smoking - taxing a behavior will slow down that behavior, and if the taxes are high enough, the behavior eventually will stop all together. Then the government complains that they don't get the money they used to get from the behavior they taxed out of existance and begin taxing other behaviors. SUCKS.

Two year log of internet usage? Commie pigs. Next the House will want to limit free speech on radio....oh, wait.....

Surveillance cameras on every corner, though, doesn't bother me. One has no reasonable expectation of privacy in a public place.

[Moonliner]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Surveillance cameras on every corner, though, doesn't bother me. One has no reasonable expectation of privacy in a public place.

Really? So it would be OK with you if the local police set an officer with a video camera to follow you around all day? Record everywhere you drive, where you stop and for how long, who you talked with, etc.... That's all good for you?

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Moonliner

Really? So it would be OK with you if the local police set an officer with a video camera to follow you around all day? Record everywhere you drive, where you stop and for how long, who you talked with, etc.... That's all good for you?

Well, then we come to harrassment and equal protection under the law. What you describe is harrassment and targeted surveillance. The cameras on every corner, at least to me, is not the same thing. That's a broad and general thing that affects everyone in the same way. While I don't necessarily like it, I don't think there is any constitutional issue with it.

[Moonliner]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Well, then we come to harrassment and equal protection under the law. What you describe is harrassment and targeted surveillance. The cameras on every corner, at least to me, is not the same thing. That's a broad and general thing that affects everyone in the same way. While I don't necessarily like it, I don't think there is any constitutional issue with it.

To me the difference is that with complete video coverage, they can individually target you for surveillance anytime they want without you ever knowing, without cause, without a warrant of any kind.

[Kevy Baby]

Originally Posted by Moonliner

To me the difference is that with complete video coverage, they can individually target you for surveillance anytime they want without you ever knowing, without cause, without a warrant of any kind.

I doubt anyone is that interested in what I do.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by Moonliner

1. The fed are now looking to tax drivers by the mile. Which means they get to put a little black box transceiver in your car.

This doesn't really bother me as a broad concept. But right now it is just people talking about the idea, I'd have to see how it is going to be implemented if ever passed. And I'm not sure why it would involve putting a little black transceiver in your. All cars manufactured already are required by law to include a little device that tracks how many miles you have driven and has it be illegal to tamper with that device.

That will encourage the adoption of more fuel efficient vehicles better than a flat rate per mile.

True. But building and maintaining the highway system does not get any cheaper just because the vehicles driving on them use less gas.

A bill that will require YOU (yes you) to keep a two year log of all your Internet usage.

I agree this would be a horrible law if implemented down to the home/non-commercial network level. Iffier call at the commercial network provider level.

So I oppose it, but I am not too worked up about it yet. Stupid laws get submitted in congress all of the time. If it survives committee then I'll start to get more aggravated.

3. Chicago mayor vows to "Put a surveillance camera on every corner".

I'd argue that it is not a great use of money since early returns indicate such efforts have little impact on crime or crime solving but I don't have any issue with it on privacy grounds. We are, de facto, approaching this point anyway. If I walk from one end of Downtown San Francisco to the other I'm probably on 50+ camera feeds and most of them won't even request a warrant or subpoena if the police ask to look at them.

Originally Posted by Moonliner

Really? So it would be OK with you if the local police set an officer with a video camera to follow you around all day? Record everywhere you drive, where you stop and for how long, who you talked with, etc.... That's all good for you?

This is already allowed. But yes, I'd be annoyed. Because they're wasting their time (and therefore my money).

Originally Posted by Moonliner

To me the difference is that with complete video coverage, they can individually target you for surveillance anytime they want without you ever knowing, without cause, without a warrant of any kind.

Again, this is already generally allowed. So long as they aren't intruding into visually blocked private spaces (such as inside private residences) or listening in on certain forms of communication I'm not aware that a warrant or even cause is required to perform surveillance on people in public places.

I'm sure it will all slowly create a pain-in-the-ass level of new evidentiary rules, however, for what is admissable and when they can be used. So it will be a great law review jobs program.