billvon 3,111 #76 March 10, 2004 >Spoken like a true democrat. Interestingly, the current administration has done more to make big brother a reality than any previous adminstration. As I recall, they're not democrats. And in case I was unclear about how big brother will come about - YOU will invite him in. (You meaning the people complaining about big brother.) He will come in the form of Lojack systems that people spend their own money to buy, phones with GPS locators that people will pay extra for, and guaranteed-delivery shipments with queryable locators so the box literally can find itself if it gets lost. And then someone will complain "Big brother is everywhere; I can't understand how this happened!" as they drive their Lojack-equipped cars through an automated tollboth without slowing down while talking on their GPS-equipped phones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #77 March 10, 2004 QuoteThe Hybrid was once a concept car Big Brother is near. D Wrong - Big Brother is HERE already.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #78 March 10, 2004 QuoteQuotethere has been talk at state level of taxing people for actual interstate use, instead of evenly across the board. they were looking into GPS recorders or odometers that broadcasts trip meters, etc. I've heard of rental car companies that have GPS in their vehicles, and when you turn the vehicle in, they download the data to see if you've abused the vehicle by driving at high speeds. If so, an extra fee is tacked onto your bill, as specified in the fine print. Less high-tech is a speeding ticket technique I saw 20 years ago on the Florida turnpike. When you entered the restricted highway, you got a paper punch card showing your point of entry with a time stamp. When you exit further down the road, a cop would be standing by the exit toll booth. He would calculate the distance between your entry and exit points, and the time it took you to cover that distance. If the calculation indicated speeding, you got a ticket. Quote the Mean Value Theorem strikes again! Here's a thought for stopping high-speed car chases with criminals. Imagine a satellite signal being sent to the vehicle, killing the electronics and shutting down the engine. Just like the "OnStar" system which can do things like unlock doors by satellite signal. One year soon, I'll bet all cars will have such features. Could do something similar with guns too!... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #79 March 10, 2004 QuoteQuote Who knows. Clinton was a pollster in a president's body, and he stayed fairly popular, so maybe it'll work out in Pyle's favor. "Pyle", eh? Two way street there. Do you want to call GWB Bonzo?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Kennedy 0 #80 March 10, 2004 You can call him what you want, but I still say you can do better than that. I mean come on, your list of Dubya/bonzo pictures only had one or two funny ones. You're just upset because you were outdone.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites wallygator 0 #81 March 10, 2004 QuoteQuote One year soon, I'll bet all cars will have such features. And people like me will hack it and reverse engineer it. mh . isn't already law in quebec canada that any vehicle valued over 30k be equipped with a gps locater? -------------------------------------------------- who Jah bless Let no man curse. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #82 March 10, 2004 QuoteQuote One year soon, I'll bet all cars will have such features. And people like me will hack it and reverse engineer it. The the government will react by passing laws making it illegal to hack it, with stiff penalties... and require testing of the system in annual inspections... with a testing certification sticker which must be displayed on the windshield... with more penalties if the sticker is out of date... And so it goes... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #83 March 10, 2004 QuoteQuoteTo drive the car, a driver would have to enter a memory card into its console to turn on the engine. Card cracked and bogus information inserted Yep: forged memory cards to be sold on the black market, followed by more loss of civil rights as the government cracks down on forged memory cards... people going to jail for simply wanting to drive free without the government tracking their whereabouts... QuoteFrankly, I'm surprised the automobile performance computer (which is nothing more than a dumb-assed embedded controller) makers haven't sicced the DMCA on the after-market performance-enhancement chip makers/sellers. However, I'm sure someone will think of it eventually. I've got a friend who is into serious slalom racing of some kind. He has a race computer installed in his car which logs things like speed, acceleration and lateral G's, all of which can be downloaded and graphed. So I think that stuff already exists. It's just not standard on production cars, and patched into government computers. But as technology progresses, who knows? Such things may become commonplace, and mandatory. I never would have thought 20 years ago that an altimeter would be invented that is only four square inches, and records altitude and speed over time, and can be downloaded into a computer to produce a graph, all for just a couple hundred bucks... Maybe the FAA will figure out that they can put GPS stuff in our Dytters, correlate our freefall position data to radar data showing cloud cover, and then bust us for violating FAR cloud clearance requirements... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Amazon 7 #84 March 10, 2004 QuoteThe the government will react by passing laws making it illegal to hack it, with stiff penalties... and require testing of the system in annual inspections... with a testing certification sticker which must be displayed on the windshield... with more penalties if the sticker is out of date... There are lots of places in the EAST and SOUTH I have seen that crap already and it has been that way for many many years. The Government is not just the Feds.. but all the way down to local municipalities. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #85 March 11, 2004 QuoteQuoteHere's a thought for stopping high-speed car chases with criminals. Imagine a satellite signal being sent to the vehicle, killing the electronics and shutting down the engine. Just like the "OnStar" system which can do things like unlock doors by satellite signal. One year soon, I'll bet all cars will have such features. Could do something similar with guns too! I'm not interested in turning this thread into a gun debate, but your comment is true. The anti-gun folks want to mandate so-called "smart" guns which have chips implanted in them which would allow only the authorized owner to use it. And any such technology will only make guns less reliable, and possibly make them unusuable when they are needed most for self-defense. And of course, the sophisticated criminals will come up with radio jammers, to render the guns of the police inactive. They'll steal them from the police, who will certainly have that device to render guns of the citizens inactive... Technology is usually great, when it works. But it often doesn't. And when your life is at stake, I'll take a pure, simple mechanical device any day. Revolvers from a hundred years ago still work perfectly. Electronics need batteries, which wear out, and the electronics itself are delicate and prone to failure, especially when subjected to heat, moisture, dust and repeated jarring recoil. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Jimbo 0 #86 March 11, 2004 QuoteQuoteI have no doubt that big brother will be more in our lives in the future, but he will be there because we invite him in and discover that we like having him around. Spoken like a true democrat. Bill's statement has nothing to do with politics, and everything to do with people. We like what makes our lives easier, and more convenient. A lot of the new technology with potential for abuse by BB does just that. MOST people in the US would gladly trade a big scoop of privacy for a little extra convenience. That's hardly political. - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Aviatrr 0 #87 March 11, 2004 Quote That's the E911 requirement. It arose out of frustration from emergency services people, who would get calls along the lines of "Help! I'm being attacked! Aahhh! (click)" If the call came from a landline phone they would know the location, but for cellphones they're out of luck. The E911 system embeds a GPS position in any 911 call so emergency services can be dispatched. Yep...on my work phone, you can turn ALL GPS tracking on, or just 911 tracking. Mike Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites newsstand 0 #88 March 11, 2004 Quote"Let me make one thing perfectly clear" are the words that immediately precede "I am not a crook". I thought he used the perfectly clear line more often than that but I was a youngster at the time. "Truth is tough. It will not break, like a bubble, at a touch; nay, you may kick it about all day like a football, and it will be round and full at evening." -- Oliver Wendell Holmes Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jb092 0 #89 March 11, 2004 Sounds like a way for big brother to get into things What could possibly go wrong? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites peacefuljeffrey 0 #90 March 11, 2004 QuoteNawww, ya don't really have to worry about "Big Brother". Seriously. Big government has 260 or so million of us and there's really no way they can even keep track of the "evil doers" let alone anyone else. I far more fear "Little Brother". The weasle down the street with too much time on his hands and a grudge -- or maybe his lawyer. No? Computers can't keep track of 260,000,000 of something? Bullshit. If our cars were wired, via GPS and wireless internet, etc., to send the state DMV a little electronic beep every time we broke the speed limit, it would be nothing at all for the state DMV's computers to kick out a little present for you in the mail in the form of a traffic fine -- no summons or citation, since the computer knows you're guilty. Just a bill. Do you all remember the guy who made the news because the GPS in his RENTAL CAR told the company that he'd exceeded the speed limit? They fined him (PRIVATELY!) over $300!! Anyone who says "it can't happen here" should just be told to shut the hell up. Those are dangerous people. The kind who admonish us to sit back and not remain vigilant. The kind who say, "Aww, you're worried over nothing, they'll never pull that kind of crap!" That's a screwed up attitude that invites disaster. BTW it was Benjamin Franklin, not Thomas Jefferson, who said, "They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." It's absolutely true. --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,111 #91 March 11, 2004 >Those are dangerous people. The "dangerous" people are the ones that buy cellphones, cars with airbags, credit cards, supermarket club cards, and TIVO's - all of which can be used to monitor many details of your life, from your spending habits to the speed of your car. The technology is there. If people want it (and buy it) it will be used. If people don't use it, the technology will not be used. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites peacefuljeffrey 0 #92 March 11, 2004 QuoteQuote one step further and 3 words TATTOO BAR CODE Is this going to degenerate ina "Mark of the Beast" thread? Quade, when you belittle concerns that for the moment may seem far-fetched, you begin to fall into the category of people who think we will never have intrusions on our rights to worry about. If that was a joke, it was misplaced in a thread that is about legitimate short- and long-term concerns. The only thing nearly as dangerous as someone who wants to infringe on rights and privacy is a person who implores everyone that it's silly to be vigilant for such infringements. --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites peacefuljeffrey 0 #93 March 11, 2004 Quote>What's to stop technology from completely controlling and dictating >our lives? After all, it already does to a significant extent. Technology is a tool that lets you do more stuff; it doesn't control your life any more than a hammer controls your life (which, if you're a carpenter, just might control your life a bit.) We are willing to wear altitude recording devices when we jump because we like the protection the cypres affords and the information the protrack gives us. Should we hack them to disable their altitude sensing capabilities in case "the man" tries to "use them to control us?" I have no doubt that big brother will be more in our lives in the future, but he will be there because we invite him in and discover that we like having him around. The fallacy of what you are saying here is that YES, technology CAN force its way into unwilling lives. For example, do you have a choice of whether to speak with a human being when you call your credit card or cellular phone company for customer service? Often you do not. Often you have to wade through 5 to 10 minutes of automated menus before you get the option to get a service rep. It is not inconceivable that companies could mess around with adding surcharges to your bills if you don't pay them online. What if there was a 10% fee if you sent in a check instead of making an online payment to your power company? This is a way that technology can control your life. How about the cars that keep track of your speed? (Like the rental company that fined the renter.) Are you going to argue that "that's not technology controlling your life because you still have the choice not to speed"? That's sophistry. Any "choice" that produces a response based on aversion of an undesired result cannot be truly called free choice. So you could say, "Well, just don't buy a cellular phone that tracks your movement." The trouble is, what if all the phones sold do so? My only "choice" if I wanted to be untraced would be to not have a phone? That's not freedom of choice at all. --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites peacefuljeffrey 0 #94 March 11, 2004 QuoteI think the real issue is when people come to the realization of how insignificant they are and that "Big Brother" actually doesn't give a crap about them. If, Mr. Joe Average thinks for a second that "Big Brother" is out to get him then he's delusional -- giving his life far more importance than it really has. We are no more than replaceable cogs in a vast machine. If this is intended to assuage fears that Big Brother has it in for us in the sense of micro-controlling an increasing number of aspects of our lives, it falls flat. Just because we are numbers to the government does not mean that we are beneath its notice and it does not want to control us. It is doing just that every day, more and more. How does your claim that the government doesn't care about controlling us square, Quade, with your view (haven't I seen you express something like it) that the current administration is taking away your rights and privacy? How can that be going on at the same time that the government is ignoring you because you're beneath its notice? The two are mutually exclusive. --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites peacefuljeffrey 0 #95 March 11, 2004 Quote>Spoken like a true democrat. Interestingly, the current administration has done more to make big brother a reality than any previous adminstration. As I recall, they're not democrats. And in case I was unclear about how big brother will come about - YOU will invite him in. (You meaning the people complaining about big brother.) He will come in the form of Lojack systems that people spend their own money to buy, phones with GPS locators that people will pay extra for, and guaranteed-delivery shipments with queryable locators so the box literally can find itself if it gets lost. And then someone will complain "Big brother is everywhere; I can't understand how this happened!" as they drive their Lojack-equipped cars through an automated tollboth without slowing down while talking on their GPS-equipped phones. So please tell us whether you personally LIKE or DISLIKE the notion of Big Brother being invited to take care of all this stuff for us, Billvon. I myself am opposed to it. --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites peacefuljeffrey 0 #96 March 11, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuote One year soon, I'll bet all cars will have such features. And people like me will hack it and reverse engineer it. The the government will react by passing laws making it illegal to hack it, with stiff penalties... and require testing of the system in annual inspections... with a testing certification sticker which must be displayed on the windshield... with more penalties if the sticker is out of date... And so it goes... And then Democrats will insist on mandatory sentences for hacker-offenders who do this, which will result in room being made in prison by releasing more violent offenders, like what happens now with drug offenses (except that, for the most part, is because of Republican insistence on mandatory drug sentences, is it not?). --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,111 #97 March 11, 2004 >How about the cars that keep track of your speed? (Like the rental > company that fined the renter.) Are you going to argue that "that's > not technology controlling your life because you still have the choice >not to speed"? No, but you have the choice to not rent cars from that company. >Any "choice" that produces a response based on aversion of an >undesired result cannot be truly called free choice. So people who diet are not exercising free choice? We need a law to keep McDonald's from selling burgers, because people can't be trusted to forego Big Macs? >The trouble is, what if all the phones sold do so? My only "choice" if >I wanted to be untraced would be to not have a phone? That's not >freedom of choice at all. Use a payphone. Or choose to get a more convenient phone. You really want to pass laws to prevent phone companies from making more sophisticated phones because you're afraid that someone might trace you based on your cellphone signal? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,111 #98 March 11, 2004 >So please tell us whether you personally LIKE or DISLIKE the notion > of Big Brother being invited to take care of all this stuff for us, Billvon. I do not consider the ability to make a phone call anywhere in the world to be an aspect of big brother. If I want E911, I'll get a phone that supports it. If not, I won't. If the government does want to trace my position, I expect the "unreasonable search and seizure" provisions of the fourth amendment of the constitution to limit what they can do. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites slug 1 #99 March 11, 2004 Hi Jeff Have you read the book "Turner diaries" any thought's? BTW your not requird to respond. Big brother is listening. We're all Dooomed doooooomedR.I.P. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites peacefuljeffrey 0 #100 March 11, 2004 Quote>How about the cars that keep track of your speed? (Like the rental > company that fined the renter.) Are you going to argue that "that's > not technology controlling your life because you still have the choice >not to speed"? No, but you have the choice to not rent cars from that company. Any time a company comes out with a system like this, or starts doing business in a certain way, that clears the path for other companies to do the same. Soon ALL companies do the same, and you have no choice about using a company that does not. This is an easy revenue builder for car rental companies. There is no reason why they would not desire to do it. I'm surprised it's not standard policy already. And when the last of the companies get on-line with it, whose cars will the objectors be able to rent? Quote>Any "choice" that produces a response based on aversion of an >undesired result cannot be truly called free choice. So people who diet are not exercising free choice? We need a law to keep McDonald's from selling burgers, because people can't be trusted to forego Big Macs? I have no idea what that means. No, I'm saying that if they offer you a "choice" between something very unpalatable to you and something they want to drive you to "choosing," that's not really a choice. If I put a ferocious lion at your front door and you must leave the house, is it fair of me to say that I left you with the "choice" of going out the front door, or is it more accurate to say that I was really forcing you to go out an alternate exit like the back door, much as you may loathe leaving by the back door? QuoteUse a payphone. Or choose to get a more convenient phone. You really want to pass laws to prevent phone companies from making more sophisticated phones because you're afraid that someone might trace you based on your cellphone signal? That's exactly what I'm talking about. "Use a payphone." For one thing, haven't you read that payphones are rapidly disappearing since there is no money to be made from them (or need for them) since the advent of wildly popular cellular communications? You say that my "choice" is to "use a payphone." But what about my previous choice, which was to use a cellular phone that I was perfectly happy with BEFORE it had GPS in it to track me?! They changed the technology and now my choice is either be tracked or use a payphone (until there are no payphones, that is, or they're 100 miles away from each other), but I USED to be JUST FINE and HAPPY with the old-style phone -- the choice of which they will soon have taken away. And nice to put words in my mouth, Bill. I have voiced displeasure at the Big-Brotherizing of technology like cars and phones, but please cite for me where I said anything at all about passing a law preventing new technology from being developed and put into use. It really sounds like you advocate acquiescing to all the tracking and keeping-tabs-on that is in store for us. You sound like an appeaser, like the kind of Jew who must have gone around in Nazi Germany to other Jews and said, "If we just behave like they want, hopefully they won't turn TOO abusive!" Telling everyone that they're afraid of phantom fears, and that they're being silly or paranoid. I don't mean to offend anyone via that analogy. It's just how I see Bill's kind of argument here.-Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next Page 4 of 5 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
Kennedy 0 #80 March 10, 2004 You can call him what you want, but I still say you can do better than that. I mean come on, your list of Dubya/bonzo pictures only had one or two funny ones. You're just upset because you were outdone.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wallygator 0 #81 March 10, 2004 QuoteQuote One year soon, I'll bet all cars will have such features. And people like me will hack it and reverse engineer it. mh . isn't already law in quebec canada that any vehicle valued over 30k be equipped with a gps locater? -------------------------------------------------- who Jah bless Let no man curse. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #82 March 10, 2004 QuoteQuote One year soon, I'll bet all cars will have such features. And people like me will hack it and reverse engineer it. The the government will react by passing laws making it illegal to hack it, with stiff penalties... and require testing of the system in annual inspections... with a testing certification sticker which must be displayed on the windshield... with more penalties if the sticker is out of date... And so it goes... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #83 March 10, 2004 QuoteQuoteTo drive the car, a driver would have to enter a memory card into its console to turn on the engine. Card cracked and bogus information inserted Yep: forged memory cards to be sold on the black market, followed by more loss of civil rights as the government cracks down on forged memory cards... people going to jail for simply wanting to drive free without the government tracking their whereabouts... QuoteFrankly, I'm surprised the automobile performance computer (which is nothing more than a dumb-assed embedded controller) makers haven't sicced the DMCA on the after-market performance-enhancement chip makers/sellers. However, I'm sure someone will think of it eventually. I've got a friend who is into serious slalom racing of some kind. He has a race computer installed in his car which logs things like speed, acceleration and lateral G's, all of which can be downloaded and graphed. So I think that stuff already exists. It's just not standard on production cars, and patched into government computers. But as technology progresses, who knows? Such things may become commonplace, and mandatory. I never would have thought 20 years ago that an altimeter would be invented that is only four square inches, and records altitude and speed over time, and can be downloaded into a computer to produce a graph, all for just a couple hundred bucks... Maybe the FAA will figure out that they can put GPS stuff in our Dytters, correlate our freefall position data to radar data showing cloud cover, and then bust us for violating FAR cloud clearance requirements... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #84 March 10, 2004 QuoteThe the government will react by passing laws making it illegal to hack it, with stiff penalties... and require testing of the system in annual inspections... with a testing certification sticker which must be displayed on the windshield... with more penalties if the sticker is out of date... There are lots of places in the EAST and SOUTH I have seen that crap already and it has been that way for many many years. The Government is not just the Feds.. but all the way down to local municipalities. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #85 March 11, 2004 QuoteQuoteHere's a thought for stopping high-speed car chases with criminals. Imagine a satellite signal being sent to the vehicle, killing the electronics and shutting down the engine. Just like the "OnStar" system which can do things like unlock doors by satellite signal. One year soon, I'll bet all cars will have such features. Could do something similar with guns too! I'm not interested in turning this thread into a gun debate, but your comment is true. The anti-gun folks want to mandate so-called "smart" guns which have chips implanted in them which would allow only the authorized owner to use it. And any such technology will only make guns less reliable, and possibly make them unusuable when they are needed most for self-defense. And of course, the sophisticated criminals will come up with radio jammers, to render the guns of the police inactive. They'll steal them from the police, who will certainly have that device to render guns of the citizens inactive... Technology is usually great, when it works. But it often doesn't. And when your life is at stake, I'll take a pure, simple mechanical device any day. Revolvers from a hundred years ago still work perfectly. Electronics need batteries, which wear out, and the electronics itself are delicate and prone to failure, especially when subjected to heat, moisture, dust and repeated jarring recoil. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jimbo 0 #86 March 11, 2004 QuoteQuoteI have no doubt that big brother will be more in our lives in the future, but he will be there because we invite him in and discover that we like having him around. Spoken like a true democrat. Bill's statement has nothing to do with politics, and everything to do with people. We like what makes our lives easier, and more convenient. A lot of the new technology with potential for abuse by BB does just that. MOST people in the US would gladly trade a big scoop of privacy for a little extra convenience. That's hardly political. - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Aviatrr 0 #87 March 11, 2004 Quote That's the E911 requirement. It arose out of frustration from emergency services people, who would get calls along the lines of "Help! I'm being attacked! Aahhh! (click)" If the call came from a landline phone they would know the location, but for cellphones they're out of luck. The E911 system embeds a GPS position in any 911 call so emergency services can be dispatched. Yep...on my work phone, you can turn ALL GPS tracking on, or just 911 tracking. Mike Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
newsstand 0 #88 March 11, 2004 Quote"Let me make one thing perfectly clear" are the words that immediately precede "I am not a crook". I thought he used the perfectly clear line more often than that but I was a youngster at the time. "Truth is tough. It will not break, like a bubble, at a touch; nay, you may kick it about all day like a football, and it will be round and full at evening." -- Oliver Wendell Holmes Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jb092 0 #89 March 11, 2004 Sounds like a way for big brother to get into things What could possibly go wrong? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #90 March 11, 2004 QuoteNawww, ya don't really have to worry about "Big Brother". Seriously. Big government has 260 or so million of us and there's really no way they can even keep track of the "evil doers" let alone anyone else. I far more fear "Little Brother". The weasle down the street with too much time on his hands and a grudge -- or maybe his lawyer. No? Computers can't keep track of 260,000,000 of something? Bullshit. If our cars were wired, via GPS and wireless internet, etc., to send the state DMV a little electronic beep every time we broke the speed limit, it would be nothing at all for the state DMV's computers to kick out a little present for you in the mail in the form of a traffic fine -- no summons or citation, since the computer knows you're guilty. Just a bill. Do you all remember the guy who made the news because the GPS in his RENTAL CAR told the company that he'd exceeded the speed limit? They fined him (PRIVATELY!) over $300!! Anyone who says "it can't happen here" should just be told to shut the hell up. Those are dangerous people. The kind who admonish us to sit back and not remain vigilant. The kind who say, "Aww, you're worried over nothing, they'll never pull that kind of crap!" That's a screwed up attitude that invites disaster. BTW it was Benjamin Franklin, not Thomas Jefferson, who said, "They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." It's absolutely true. --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,111 #91 March 11, 2004 >Those are dangerous people. The "dangerous" people are the ones that buy cellphones, cars with airbags, credit cards, supermarket club cards, and TIVO's - all of which can be used to monitor many details of your life, from your spending habits to the speed of your car. The technology is there. If people want it (and buy it) it will be used. If people don't use it, the technology will not be used. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #92 March 11, 2004 QuoteQuote one step further and 3 words TATTOO BAR CODE Is this going to degenerate ina "Mark of the Beast" thread? Quade, when you belittle concerns that for the moment may seem far-fetched, you begin to fall into the category of people who think we will never have intrusions on our rights to worry about. If that was a joke, it was misplaced in a thread that is about legitimate short- and long-term concerns. The only thing nearly as dangerous as someone who wants to infringe on rights and privacy is a person who implores everyone that it's silly to be vigilant for such infringements. --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #93 March 11, 2004 Quote>What's to stop technology from completely controlling and dictating >our lives? After all, it already does to a significant extent. Technology is a tool that lets you do more stuff; it doesn't control your life any more than a hammer controls your life (which, if you're a carpenter, just might control your life a bit.) We are willing to wear altitude recording devices when we jump because we like the protection the cypres affords and the information the protrack gives us. Should we hack them to disable their altitude sensing capabilities in case "the man" tries to "use them to control us?" I have no doubt that big brother will be more in our lives in the future, but he will be there because we invite him in and discover that we like having him around. The fallacy of what you are saying here is that YES, technology CAN force its way into unwilling lives. For example, do you have a choice of whether to speak with a human being when you call your credit card or cellular phone company for customer service? Often you do not. Often you have to wade through 5 to 10 minutes of automated menus before you get the option to get a service rep. It is not inconceivable that companies could mess around with adding surcharges to your bills if you don't pay them online. What if there was a 10% fee if you sent in a check instead of making an online payment to your power company? This is a way that technology can control your life. How about the cars that keep track of your speed? (Like the rental company that fined the renter.) Are you going to argue that "that's not technology controlling your life because you still have the choice not to speed"? That's sophistry. Any "choice" that produces a response based on aversion of an undesired result cannot be truly called free choice. So you could say, "Well, just don't buy a cellular phone that tracks your movement." The trouble is, what if all the phones sold do so? My only "choice" if I wanted to be untraced would be to not have a phone? That's not freedom of choice at all. --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #94 March 11, 2004 QuoteI think the real issue is when people come to the realization of how insignificant they are and that "Big Brother" actually doesn't give a crap about them. If, Mr. Joe Average thinks for a second that "Big Brother" is out to get him then he's delusional -- giving his life far more importance than it really has. We are no more than replaceable cogs in a vast machine. If this is intended to assuage fears that Big Brother has it in for us in the sense of micro-controlling an increasing number of aspects of our lives, it falls flat. Just because we are numbers to the government does not mean that we are beneath its notice and it does not want to control us. It is doing just that every day, more and more. How does your claim that the government doesn't care about controlling us square, Quade, with your view (haven't I seen you express something like it) that the current administration is taking away your rights and privacy? How can that be going on at the same time that the government is ignoring you because you're beneath its notice? The two are mutually exclusive. --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #95 March 11, 2004 Quote>Spoken like a true democrat. Interestingly, the current administration has done more to make big brother a reality than any previous adminstration. As I recall, they're not democrats. And in case I was unclear about how big brother will come about - YOU will invite him in. (You meaning the people complaining about big brother.) He will come in the form of Lojack systems that people spend their own money to buy, phones with GPS locators that people will pay extra for, and guaranteed-delivery shipments with queryable locators so the box literally can find itself if it gets lost. And then someone will complain "Big brother is everywhere; I can't understand how this happened!" as they drive their Lojack-equipped cars through an automated tollboth without slowing down while talking on their GPS-equipped phones. So please tell us whether you personally LIKE or DISLIKE the notion of Big Brother being invited to take care of all this stuff for us, Billvon. I myself am opposed to it. --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #96 March 11, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuote One year soon, I'll bet all cars will have such features. And people like me will hack it and reverse engineer it. The the government will react by passing laws making it illegal to hack it, with stiff penalties... and require testing of the system in annual inspections... with a testing certification sticker which must be displayed on the windshield... with more penalties if the sticker is out of date... And so it goes... And then Democrats will insist on mandatory sentences for hacker-offenders who do this, which will result in room being made in prison by releasing more violent offenders, like what happens now with drug offenses (except that, for the most part, is because of Republican insistence on mandatory drug sentences, is it not?). --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,111 #97 March 11, 2004 >How about the cars that keep track of your speed? (Like the rental > company that fined the renter.) Are you going to argue that "that's > not technology controlling your life because you still have the choice >not to speed"? No, but you have the choice to not rent cars from that company. >Any "choice" that produces a response based on aversion of an >undesired result cannot be truly called free choice. So people who diet are not exercising free choice? We need a law to keep McDonald's from selling burgers, because people can't be trusted to forego Big Macs? >The trouble is, what if all the phones sold do so? My only "choice" if >I wanted to be untraced would be to not have a phone? That's not >freedom of choice at all. Use a payphone. Or choose to get a more convenient phone. You really want to pass laws to prevent phone companies from making more sophisticated phones because you're afraid that someone might trace you based on your cellphone signal? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,111 #98 March 11, 2004 >So please tell us whether you personally LIKE or DISLIKE the notion > of Big Brother being invited to take care of all this stuff for us, Billvon. I do not consider the ability to make a phone call anywhere in the world to be an aspect of big brother. If I want E911, I'll get a phone that supports it. If not, I won't. If the government does want to trace my position, I expect the "unreasonable search and seizure" provisions of the fourth amendment of the constitution to limit what they can do. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
slug 1 #99 March 11, 2004 Hi Jeff Have you read the book "Turner diaries" any thought's? BTW your not requird to respond. Big brother is listening. We're all Dooomed doooooomedR.I.P. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #100 March 11, 2004 Quote>How about the cars that keep track of your speed? (Like the rental > company that fined the renter.) Are you going to argue that "that's > not technology controlling your life because you still have the choice >not to speed"? No, but you have the choice to not rent cars from that company. Any time a company comes out with a system like this, or starts doing business in a certain way, that clears the path for other companies to do the same. Soon ALL companies do the same, and you have no choice about using a company that does not. This is an easy revenue builder for car rental companies. There is no reason why they would not desire to do it. I'm surprised it's not standard policy already. And when the last of the companies get on-line with it, whose cars will the objectors be able to rent? Quote>Any "choice" that produces a response based on aversion of an >undesired result cannot be truly called free choice. So people who diet are not exercising free choice? We need a law to keep McDonald's from selling burgers, because people can't be trusted to forego Big Macs? I have no idea what that means. No, I'm saying that if they offer you a "choice" between something very unpalatable to you and something they want to drive you to "choosing," that's not really a choice. If I put a ferocious lion at your front door and you must leave the house, is it fair of me to say that I left you with the "choice" of going out the front door, or is it more accurate to say that I was really forcing you to go out an alternate exit like the back door, much as you may loathe leaving by the back door? QuoteUse a payphone. Or choose to get a more convenient phone. You really want to pass laws to prevent phone companies from making more sophisticated phones because you're afraid that someone might trace you based on your cellphone signal? That's exactly what I'm talking about. "Use a payphone." For one thing, haven't you read that payphones are rapidly disappearing since there is no money to be made from them (or need for them) since the advent of wildly popular cellular communications? You say that my "choice" is to "use a payphone." But what about my previous choice, which was to use a cellular phone that I was perfectly happy with BEFORE it had GPS in it to track me?! They changed the technology and now my choice is either be tracked or use a payphone (until there are no payphones, that is, or they're 100 miles away from each other), but I USED to be JUST FINE and HAPPY with the old-style phone -- the choice of which they will soon have taken away. And nice to put words in my mouth, Bill. I have voiced displeasure at the Big-Brotherizing of technology like cars and phones, but please cite for me where I said anything at all about passing a law preventing new technology from being developed and put into use. It really sounds like you advocate acquiescing to all the tracking and keeping-tabs-on that is in store for us. You sound like an appeaser, like the kind of Jew who must have gone around in Nazi Germany to other Jews and said, "If we just behave like they want, hopefully they won't turn TOO abusive!" Telling everyone that they're afraid of phantom fears, and that they're being silly or paranoid. I don't mean to offend anyone via that analogy. It's just how I see Bill's kind of argument here.-Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
