3 ms·

I understand what you are saying but are the people who lost loved ones to drunk driving or text driving any more understanding? You could argue it is even more

I understand what you are saying but are the people who lost loved ones to drunk driving or text driving any more understanding? You could argue it is even more senseless violence. We could easily make car connected breathalyzers mandatory in all cars. This would save 10K lives in the US alone. Are those thousands of lives not worth it in your mind? I agree that government has a role in protecting people. We are both free to vote for representatives that are either for spying on citizens or against spying on citizens. We can also move if the other side wins.

shadowgovt 7y ago
Are we arguing financial cost or privacy cost? I personally think the financial burden of retrofitting all US cars with breathalyzers is burdensome. If they already had such equipment, I'd 100% be in favor of gating starting the car on their use, especially if it was a completely passive, foolproof system. You're right on the number of deaths to drunk driving in the US; it's atrocious. This wouldn't even be the first time in US history a policy change to improve safety and corresponding enforcement occurred; seatbelt laws exist, and enforcement of such laws allows the police to glance in your window to see if you're wearing one and fine you if you aren't. We aren't too far away from cars refusing to be driven if the seatbelt is unclipped. To swing us back around from this analogous hypothetical to the UK's situation: the cameras are already sunk cost and the question on the table is to improve their utility via software. We aren't talking installing breathalyzers; we're talking about upgrading the existing breathalyzers' firmware to work better at the task they were intended for, so to speak. We can argue whether the software will technically work (separate question, and I'm not in favor of installing something that just doesn't work), but if it does work I'm in favor of passive mass surveillance of public spaces to find persons of interest. It bothers basically nobody and greatly improves the utility of a system that is already installed for the purpose of aiding in stopping crime.

shadowgovt 7y ago

Are we arguing financial cost or privacy cost? I personally think the financial burden of retrofitting all US cars with breathalyzers is burdensome. If they already had such equipment, I'd 100% be in favor of gating starting the car on their use, especially if it was a completely passive, foolproof system. You're right on the number of deaths to drunk driving in the US; it's atrocious. This wouldn't even be the first time in US history a policy change to improve safety and corresponding enforcement occurred; seatbelt laws exist, and enforcement of such laws allows the police to glance in your window to see if you're wearing one and fine you if you aren't. We aren't too far away from cars refusing to be driven if the seatbelt is unclipped. To swing us back around from this analogous hypothetical to the UK's situation: the cameras are already sunk cost and the question on the table is to improve their utility via software. We aren't talking installing breathalyzers; we're talking about upgrading the existing breathalyzers' firmware to work better at the task they were intended for, so to speak. We can argue whether the software will technically work (separate question, and I'm not in favor of installing something that just doesn't work), but if it does work I'm in favor of passive mass surveillance of public spaces to find persons of interest. It bothers basically nobody and greatly improves the utility of a system that is already installed for the purpose of aiding in stopping crime.