Toys4RJill

Great idea. Why not expand on it a little big, what about a finger print sensor on the steering wheel with a breathalyzer or something along those lines. Licence gets uploaded to phone, that must connect to the car which needs a finger print sensor. The sky is the limit with current technology.

mmarshall

Not sure about Canadian law, but, with most jurisdictions in the U.S., breathalyzers can be installed by court order. As for fingerprint-sensors, that's fine for the primary driver, but what about valets, mechanics/technicians, or other family members who may occasionally drive the vehicle?

Toys4RJill

NFC with embedded fingerprint. If someone steals your phone, NFC does not work without fingerprint approval or face identification. Add in a breathalyzer on the steering wheel.

4TehNguyen

iTrader: (1)

you just told us that driving is a privilege therefore your civil rights are not protected. You obviously want these devices installed in vehicles by govt decree. Yet Govt cant compel you to incriminate yourself, against the 5A. Not only that it govt installing devices on your car to monitor speed, location, etc is an unreasonable search and seizure, against the 4A. Get a warrant.

its pretty sad how people will throw away their own civil rights for some "security"

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/24/u...itutional.html

mmarshall

A device does not (and cannot) compel one to break the law....or to incriminate one's self. It only records those actions of those who actually break the law....who incriminate themselves by their own actions, not because of the government. There is nothing unconstitutional about that. In fact, recording devices have been found useful, in court cases and accident investigations, to determine who is lying and who it telling the truth.

Och

iTrader: (3)

LOL, the government doesn't even have to require these devices. They can be required by insurance companies and avoid all the constitutional debacle.

Toys4RJill

4TehNguyen

iTrader: (1)

insurance companies arent this stupid, their customers would flee in mass to other companies not doing this. How much is this clap trap going to cost to install in the car? Whos going to pay for it, the customer or the insurance company? The car company itself wouldn't do it, it has no reason to. It would destroy their sales. Who the heck would willingly buy a car like this? The only way this would work if govt forced it en masse on everyone which it cant because of that pesky constitution. As with all knee jerk, reactions this isnt thought through well at all.

not an argument, we have a constitution the govt has to abide by. You dont get to dance around it because you "arent feeling it" You don't feel your civil rights? By all means you can give it up as an individual, but you arent making the rest of us give it our rights. If you let the govt put crap to monitor our cars, whats next? Our house, our employers?

did you even read what I posted in regards to that GPS tracker case when cops planted a device on a car without a warrant? It was unconstitutional (an unreasonable search and seizure) without a warrant. What is the probable cause on planting all these devices in everyone's cars? Planting these device is clearly classified as a search and police are required to have a search warrant. Guess what these recordings required to obtain - a search warrant. You think cops are legally allowed to just browse around peoples phones? Being useful in a case is not the metric of legality. Even useful evidence obtained illegally is thrown out in court.

Toys4RJill

mmarshall

With all due respect, that's not what you asked, though. Of course it is illegal without a warrant....that goes without saying. But you seem to be blaming the device, not an illegal use of it. The devices, themselves, are quite useful.....and have helped solve a number of both civil and criminal court cases.

mmarshall

Maybe I should let 4TehNguyen speak for himself, but what I think what he means is that it's usually easier to disable a device in one's car than something actually built into the city's infrastructure. Of course, cameras can easily be put out for action by one bullet from an angry motorist, but you don't actually hear of that happening very much, even in states where there are a lot of guns.

4TehNguyen

iTrader: (1)

the biggest thing is how does the camera know its "you". The camera cant positively identify whos driving most of the time. This is why red light cameras cant result in a criminal charge only a civil one. When its a civil penalty it only has to be "probable" that the owner of the car is driving not "beyond all reasonable doubt" which a criminal charge requires. You are free to admit that its you driving to authorities.

and how are these devices getting in peoples cars, no one has explained that. People sure as hell aren't going to do it willingly. It would be total suicide from a business perspective for any car makers and insurance to require them. So who's going to put them in? Not only that who's paying for it?

Sulu

No, driving is not a right; it is a privilege, but that does not mean that you should give up your democratic rights and freedoms, including the right not to be subject to constant, hidden surveillance.

And if the government allows hidden surveillance devices to be placed in personal cars, who places them there? Does the government (who are accountable to all people) do it or would the automakers (who are accountable to shareholders but not accountable to all people) do it? If automakers place these devices and collect the data, what data is collected, where does the data go, and what will that data be used for? Will confidential data be sold to third and fourth and fifth parties?

This is a slippery slope.

Be careful about giving up freedoms by allowing more and more surveillance. We who live in liberal democratic North America take our freedoms for granted. We do not realize how privileged we are to have true freedom of speech without Big Brother looking over our shoulders and slapping our wrists (or worse) every time we say something "wrong". I say "no thank you" to that.


Despite how guilty you may believe a perpetrator may be, if the evidence to be used against the accused was NOT properly collected -- no warrant, wrong warrant, hidden devices, sting operations, etc. -- the free courts in a rule of law society (including and especially Canada and the USA) will throw out that evidence and may very well throw out the case against the accused.

Toys4RJill

Sulu

While the numbers may seem small, racial profiling is real and a real threat to coloured people, whose only crime may be "driving while black (or coloured)".

It does not matter that there are individual police officers who do not believe in this, if you are doing something bad to one group of citizens but not other groups, that is discrimination; and if it is done by government agencies, that is systemic discrimination. And there are whole police forces that believe in racial profiling, even going to the extent of justifying this as reverse discrimination, saying they must collect data on coloured peoples to ensure that they are not being treated unfairly.