Libertarian Librarian

I'm most uneasy. It's the machinery of oppression. All that's missing is a dictator at the controls.

There has been direct action against roadside cameras in the past, where it was felt that they were being used to raise money rather than improve road safety. I can see more of that coming.

The lack of outrage stems from two sources. Firstly, the majority of British citizens still trust their police, and will do until the new database gets abused. It'll be a bit late by then, because whoever's hacked in will also have access to all our politicians' cars' movements.

Secondly, who on earth are we going to vote for to stop this? I can't see the Conservatives (led by new guy David Cameron) cancelling this if they win the next election - traditionally, the Conservative party has been "tougher" on law and order issues.

There's a small chance of it getting cancelled if Blair is deposed and the old guard in the Labour party can organise a rebellion against their next leader.

I know of only one solution. Funnily enough, it's British, and over forty years old - revolving number plates.
 

Nick, I was going to start by blasting you for maintaining that there is no guarantee of right to privacy in the Constitution; but then I noticed that you did in fact admit that it was at least implied and certainly has been long interpreted that way. I do feel that the 4th explicitly describes a state of privacy and a citizen's right to it, but it's a quibble.

Not to support the British surveillance habit - I know they have long been much more proactive about watching everybody in the public realm- But I am going to say that it seems to me the road surveillance program is more supportable than the wholesale, widespread monitoring that Bush has been doing (allegedly. the extent of his illegal surveillance has not been determined, because he refuses to tell anyone who and what he's been monitoring)

the cars, at least, are in the public realm and being able to review accidents and the traffic around, to determine causality, seems to me to be a reasonable public safety goal. Not to mention being able to track down scofflaws who flee an accident or blow off a stop sign.

Certainly, tracking every journey by every vehicle is beyond the pale. But to use this as an rebuttal of the danger of Bush's unsupervised, unwarranted internal surveillance program is apologeia at best,

Britain's program got started just the way I described above, don't you suppose? portrayed as part of a safety program, designed to provide more safety for most of the people, it has encroached to the point where Britons do not protest, to a large part.

Bush's program is patently illegal and most likely unconstitutional; but he and Gonzales have defended by saying that they have the authority to do it, although they do not have to actally defend the legal principle they claim to have found, nor tell anyone what the program is, nor identify who has been montiored or what they are suspected of. In essence, they claim the ability to do anything they want, in the name of security.

Monitor you whetehr you like it or not? Nick, do you have any doubt that your blog here has turned up in a couple of searches of a government spider? Are you confident that you haven't been montored? Have you given your assent to any monitoring recently? I mean, besides voting for Bush in the first place? I suspect that if you check out The Little Red Book, your comfort is going to be the last thing the federal agents are concerned aobut.

I'll use the quote that you should have ended with, and the Brits should have borrowed when they started the surveillance: "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety"
 

where to start with this topic well lets start here:

THERE IS NO RIGHT TO PRIVACY either implied or otherwise in the constitution... the founders quite clearly spelled out our rights and privacy just aint one of them

now even if there was a right to privacy ...how can you argue that it exists on OUTDOOR PUBLIC HIGHWAYS?? ... whats next? the arguement that airplane manifests should be private? .. customs records? why not just open the borders and not keep any records because travellers have a right to privacy??

that quote about sacrificing liberty for safety is a very good one.... i watch west wing also so i know its ben franklin ..at least when the writers of west wing used it they were referring to wiretaps and racial profiling .... its a big leap from those things to keeping track of the movements of people in cars...again the part i dont understand is the part where being able to travel on a highway secretly is an essential liberty??
 

well, my jumpy friend-

Just what is that bit about the "RIGHT to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects?"

Just a bit of Boilerplate? or some kind of revolutionary-era EULA?

How can you be secure in your house and effects without having the ability to keep them private if you so choose? Is there a special elite force of Federal Housekeeping Commandos who come into your house, paw through your drawers, then put everything back? (now that I put it that way, it sounds an awful lot like the Underpants Gnomes, which would explain a lot, as well as being a decent name for a punk band) Or do they just peer through your windows (and Windows, for that matter)
 

typical liberal crap...only tell half the story........

our buddy costello (and maybe this is the temporary part of him) forgot to finish the sentence....

is actually says : the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES shall not be violated

a MONSTEROUS distinction that our friend fails to include..