Yet the very ones implementing these tactics are the very same ones committing the worst atrocities of all. Yet my speeding is something the planet as a whole should fear!
Wars for profit (murder, pillage, rape, slaughter, massacre,etc)
False flag attacks on the civilian population
The Internally (only what they wish to release) audited federal reserve (not federal, privately owned).
The stripping of the constitution, freedom of speech, etc
NDAA, SOPA, PIPA, CIPA, patriot act, etc
" The hardest thing in the world to understand is the Income Tax." Albert Einstein (lol, yeah, this guy said it!)
Just to name a few off the top of my head. Open your ears and eyes....
There's a war going on, and it's against you! It's just paced slowly so the dumb people fall back on their right to forgetfulness.
More then 95% of car accidents on the road is the result of speeding, personally all I see having black boxes in cars is it keeps retards from lying about what caused their accident
In which case, yes, put black boxes in cars, make people accountable for driving like idiots.
[H]exx;1038630211 said:**Warning** I read the first few posts and jumped to reply **Warning**
This has probably already been said, if not, great. Most new cars already have black boxes in their cars. I think it was in '96 that they started putting them in. Look under your passenger side seat...it's most likely there.
Stop freaking out Internet!
SEC. 31406. VEHICLE EVENT DATA RECORDERS.
(a) Mandatory Event Data Recorders-
(1) IN GENERAL- Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall revise part 563 of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, to require, beginning with model year 2015, that new passenger motor vehicles sold in the United States be equipped with an event data recorder that meets the requirements under that part.
(2) PENALTY- The violation of any provision under part 563 of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations--
(A) shall be deemed to be a violation of section 30112 of title 49, United States Code;
(B) shall be subject to civil penalties under section 30165(a) of that title; and
(C) shall not subject a manufacturer (as defined in section 30102(a)(5) of that title) to the requirements under section 30120 of that title.
(b) Limitations on Information Retrieval-
(1) OWNERSHIP OF DATA- Any data in an event data recorder required under part 563 of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, regardless of when the passenger motor vehicle in which it is installed was manufactured, is the property of the owner, or in the case of a leased vehicle, the lessee of the passenger motor vehicle in which the data recorder is installed.
(2) PRIVACY- Data recorded or transmitted by such a data recorder may not be retrieved by a person other than the owner or lessee of the motor vehicle in which the recorder is installed unless--
(A) a court authorizes retrieval of the information in furtherance of a legal proceeding;
(B) the owner or lessee consents to the retrieval of the information for any purpose, including the purpose of diagnosing, servicing, or repairing the motor vehicle;
(C) the information is retrieved pursuant to an investigation or inspection authorized under section 1131(a) or 30166 of title 49, United States Code, and the personally identifiable information of the owner, lessee, or driver of the vehicle and the vehicle identification number is not disclosed in connection with the retrieved information; or
(D) the information is retrieved for the purpose of determining the need for, or facilitating, emergency medical response in response to a motor vehicle crash.
(c) Report to Congress- Two years after the date of implementation of subsection (a), the Secretary shall study the safety impact and the impact on individual privacy of event data recorders in passenger motor vehicles and report its findings to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate and the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives. The report shall include--
(1) the safety benefits gained from installation of event data recorders;
(2) the recommendations on what, if any, additional data the event data recorder should be modified to record;
(3) the additional safety benefit such information would yield;
(4) the estimated cost to manufacturers to implement the new enhancements;
(5) an analysis of how the information proposed to be recorded by an event data recorder conforms to applicable legal, regulatory, and policy requirements regarding privacy;
(6) a determination of the risks and effects of collecting and maintaining the information proposed to be recorded by an event data recorder;
(7) an examination and evaluation of the protections and alternative processes for handling information recorded by an event data recorder to mitigate potential privacy risks.
(d) Revised Requirements for Event Data Recorders- Based on the findings of the study under subsection (c), the Secretary shall initiate a rulemaking proceeding to revise part 563 of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations. The rule--
(1) shall require event data recorders to capture and store data related to motor vehicle safety covering a reasonable time period before, during, and after a motor vehicle crash or airbag deployment, including a rollover;
(2) shall require that data stored on such event data recorders be accessible, regardless of vehicle manufacturer or model, with commercially available equipment in a specified data format;
(3) shall establish requirements for preventing unauthorized access to the data stored on an event data recorder in order to protect the security, integrity, and authenticity of the data; and
(4) may require an interoperable data access port to facilitate universal accessibility and analysis.
(e) Disclosure of Existence and Purpose of Event Data Recorder- The rule issued under subsection (d) shall require that any owners manual or similar documentation provided to the first purchaser of a passenger motor vehicle for purposes other than resale--
(1) disclose that the vehicle is equipped with such a data recorder; and
(2) explain the purpose of the data recorder.
(f) Access to Event Data Recorders in Agency Investigations- Section 30166(c)(3)(C) of title 49, United States Code, is amended by inserting , including any electronic data contained within the vehicles diagnostic system or event data recorder after equipment.
(g) Deadline for Rulemaking- The Secretary shall issue a final rule under subsection (d) not later than 4 years after the date of enactment of this Act.
Why are people flipping out about this?
It's a big deal because a mandatory black box in a car can be used for a LOT MORE than what you want it to be used for, and once it's mandatory by law, the capabilities that are added to it, and what they will be used for, will be totally out of your control or even the control of legislators.
Corporations and government are in bed with each other. It's MANDATES that you should be most worried about.
They can only do so with the blessing of government. Government IS a monopoly on the legal use of force. They can selectively prosecute others who use force or violence of course, but the entire point of government - for good or ill - is to serve as a monopolistic source of and enforcement tool for "the law."
Which is only corrupted when corporations buy the government out. We have options to fix this, but they offend conservatives so much (because they want to buy it to crush labor and get their bigot on) we can't.
Here's exactly what I did over the last 20 minutes:
"Um, okay, I should probably read the actual bill proposal."
*Reads bill proposal*
*Reads article, again*
"I have no f%$#ing clue where they got that conclusion from."
The author misread the bill proposal, took it to an illogical extreme (and completely disregarded parts of the bill that effectively defang his argument, like the part that says, "Unless asked for by a court justice in a legal proceeding, the data collected by the recording device belongs to the owner of the vehicle") and then spent the second half of the article on a rambling conspiracy jaunt in the same vein (even the part about revoking passports makes sense in the proper context - if I owed someone $50k, I'd sure as hell try leaving the country... but I can't if I don't have a passport).
But, hey, InfoWars is the property of Alex Jones, self-described libertarian paleoconservative, so effectively anything that doesn't protect property rights, encourage decentralization, or keep our country firmly rooted in the late 1700's (despite the fact paleoconservatism espouses exactly the opposite idealism of our country's foundation, and is in fact a form of neo-liberalism) is essentially 'big government'.
Or, in short: Way to over-react, folks.
Judges are not incorruptible.
And I didn't hear much about the ending to the warrantless searches (or i forgot it), but since you brought it up, in that context, I'm guessing it ended badly for the people who did it. Still, this seems to be a different case, while those are plainly unlawful, this bill seems like they can be "interpreted" in a different way.
driving is a privilege, not a right, in the end it wont be a matter of privacy, just a requirement for your ability to drive.
like submitting to a breathalyzer, you can refuse, but lose your license for a period of time, even if you are stone cold sober.
Confirming that there is currently a bill under consideration to revise the constitution to remove the freedom of speech part.The stripping of the constitution, freedom of speech, etc.
Eh, I guess this is another reason for my next car to be a classic. Always wanted some Detroit Muscle.
Just one more reason to organize the masses.