4 ms·

This is one of these "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" type bills. People won't understand how important it is to fight these things unti

This is one of these "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" type bills. People won't understand how important it is to fight these things until it's too late.

jrootabega 4y ago
Separation of mechanism and policy is an important concept relevant to that. Proponents will think that is just execution of the policy of preventing drunk driving, which is relatively accepted. But it's a mandate for a mechanism to enforce such a policy. At some point, someone will likely push for that mechanism to be used to enforce other policies, citing the mechanism's existence as an argument that it's not really changing anything.
- Mountain_Skies 4y ago
  I'd rather this be handled at the insurance level. Insurers already have a pretty good model of risk if you've been driving for a while. This type of monitoring might be good for inexperienced drivers for whom the insurance company doesn't understand the risk at a fine grained level yet. If you don't want to use the device to reduce that risk, your premiums are based on what they already know about you. If you're a long time driver, it doesn't make much of a difference but for those without much of a driving history, it could save them on premiums because of the lowered risk. Making this a government mandate for everyone when they get a new car reeks of power hunger authoritarians seeing yet another way to insert themselves into everyone's daily lives.
  - jrootabega 4y ago
    But couldn't an insurance company mechanism be used for a law enforcement policy? Or would the ubiquity of an insurance company mechanism keep law enforcement from getting their hands on it? Instead of the potential for conviction, people would just pay increased premiums? Kinda like the idea that you need to spend your money in your local economy so people are incentivized to participate in it rather than mug you?

This is one of these "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" type bills. People won't understand how important it is to fight these things until it's too late.

jrootabega 4y ago

Separation of mechanism and policy is an important concept relevant to that. Proponents will think that is just execution of the policy of preventing drunk driving, which is relatively accepted. But it's a mandate for a mechanism to enforce such a policy. At some point, someone will likely push for that mechanism to be used to enforce other policies, citing the mechanism's existence as an argument that it's not really changing anything.

Mountain_Skies 4y ago
I'd rather this be handled at the insurance level. Insurers already have a pretty good model of risk if you've been driving for a while. This type of monitoring might be good for inexperienced drivers for whom the insurance company doesn't understand the risk at a fine grained level yet. If you don't want to use the device to reduce that risk, your premiums are based on what they already know about you. If you're a long time driver, it doesn't make much of a difference but for those without much of a driving history, it could save them on premiums because of the lowered risk. Making this a government mandate for everyone when they get a new car reeks of power hunger authoritarians seeing yet another way to insert themselves into everyone's daily lives.
- jrootabega 4y ago
  But couldn't an insurance company mechanism be used for a law enforcement policy? Or would the ubiquity of an insurance company mechanism keep law enforcement from getting their hands on it? Instead of the potential for conviction, people would just pay increased premiums? Kinda like the idea that you need to spend your money in your local economy so people are incentivized to participate in it rather than mug you?