6 ms·

'Safety' is going to be the thing that kills personal liberty in this country.

by a2tech 4y ago

flenserboy 4y ago
Big Sister is always much, much worse than Big Brother, and he's bad.
throwaway0asd 4y ago
We could eliminate food inspection and driver's licenses. That would increase liberty, but I don't think most people would find the freedom worthy of the cost.
- pigeonhole123 4y ago
  Is anyone suggesting that?
  - kittiepryde 4y ago
    Some libertarians are -- but I think they were trying to employ the slippery slope argument
    - mwint 4y ago
      The slope we’ve slid down so far has been very slippery indeed.
  - Wowfunhappy 4y ago
    No, but I think GP’s point is that there will always be a tradeoff between personal liberty and safety. We can argue about where the line should be, but it needs to be drawn somewhere between the two extremes.
    - eternalban 4y ago
      But GP's OP is not saying there shouldn't be a line, rather that it is that line that will likely be crossed in guise of public safety to unburden us from the burden of having liberties. Food, water, stuff like that have potential to kill off everyone. Drunk drivers on the other hand are not likely to ever pose an existential threat. So I tend to agree with those who insist that, of course there must be regulation, there must be informed discussion, no we shall not consult the i-ching, but definitely loss of liberties require an exceptionally high public good threshold to be considered. tldr; to keep that line in an optimal space between the extremes, clearly two opposing forces are necessary.
  - polski-g 4y ago
    Oh such a classic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZITP93pqtdQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZITP93pqtdQ
- uup 4y ago
  Both you and the GP are suggesting slippery slopes. I think it’s reasonable to think that checking every single driver, every single time they drive, for alcohol use is an invasion of privacy, especially since the vast, vast majority of drivers are not driving drunk. That also doesn’t mean privacy is dead or that it’s time to end food inspection.
- fallingknife 4y ago
  What do driver's licenses add to safety? The only people they prevent from driving are someone who is crazy enough to drive a car without knowing how, but draws the line at driving without government approval.
  - TrueSlacker0 4y ago
    If you had to do continuing education to renew your license every X years then it may add to safety. But as it exists today it seems to be more of a form of ID than anything to do with a vehicle. When someone gets hired at a new job (USA) a drivers license can be used as a part to show citizenship, which has nothing to do with driving.
- lancepioch 4y ago
  People who want to drive and don't have licenses (whether by their choice or not) are currently driving on the roads right now. Also some of the worst drivers I've ever seen all do have their driver's license. While what you're saying does seem to make sense, sometimes the situation isn't always that simple.
micromacrofoot 4y ago
Ah yes, that old personal liberty of driving drunk. Who will save us from this nanny state.
skapadia 4y ago
Can you define "personal liberty", in the context of living in a society?
skapadia 4y ago
Would you be okay with a drunk driver killing one of your family members? What if that could be prevented with tech like this? Does your personal liberty outweigh the need to keep people safe from tons of metal hurtling at them at insane speeds?
- netr0ute 4y ago
  > Does your personal liberty outweigh the need to keep people safe from tons of metal hurtling at them at insane speeds? I don't see why not, as the US was founded on the principle behind this.
- david38 4y ago
  By your rationale why don’t you give up cars? If you care for your loved ones so much, Han them from using cars. Does your personal liberty outweigh the need to keep your family safe from tons of metal hurtling at them at insane speeds?
  - aeharding 4y ago
    Because in this country the options are 1. Buy a car because it’s required in order to literally feed yourself, or 2. Live in one of the highly desirable, expensive pre-war neighborhoods that remain walkable Many Americans can’t just “give up cars” even if they wanted to. Car dependency is literally codified in out zoning and street building (MUTCD) Maybe if car dependency wasn’t such a requirement in order to live, maybe if everyone could easily walk to the bar, we wouldn’t need alcohol detection in cars.
    - philipov 4y ago
      > Maybe if car dependency wasn’t such a requirement in order to live, maybe if everyone could easily walk to the bar, we wouldn’t need alcohol detection in cars. This is the goal that is worth spending political action on, not snake oil remedies designed only to advance the careers of politicians peddling them.
    - TrueSlacker0 4y ago
bluejekyll 4y ago
Don’t know why you put safety in quotes. You’re implying that this won’t make streets safer, by reducing drunk driving. But reducing drunk driving would in fact make streets safer. Our goal should be to have zero deaths related to common car usage and driving. For example, the backup camera is there to help reduce the number of people backing up over their own kids. This is a good thing. You can argue that this system may not be the correct implementation to reduce drunk driving. You can argue other things might actually be better. But don’t claim that personal liberty is at stake for people when 43,000 people lost their personal liberty when their lives ended. Why don’t you care about their personal liberty?
- Frost1x 4y ago
  I'm not aware of any technology reliable, trustworthy, affordable, and quick enough to accomplish said goal without regularly inconveniencing a significantly larger portion of drivers who may need their vehicles in other emergencies. If you could provide a mechanism that didn't infringe non-drunk drivers rights I'd be more apt to accept this idea. I'd also need to know an override mechanism exists because it seems like certain rare situations could arise where you need to operate a vehicle intoxicated, e.g. fleeing for your life in defense with a relatively low risk of injuring someone comparatively. I'm sitting at home sipping a scotch and hear an intruder come in who for some reason is an abusive person after me specifically in my life. I phone the police but also decide it's best if I can safely flee the area. Maybe the police could override it remotely, I don't know. Overall the edge cases seem difficult to deal with and infringe on others liberties. We start talking about the needs of the many outweighed the needs of the few and trolly problems with different counts of people on different tracks. I'm just throwing some hypothetical out, it may not be good, but my point is that rare situations can occur and because you were partaking in a legal activity like drinking, due to an emergency change in situation that wasn't predictable, you suddenly need to drive because the risk is now higher than drunk driving. Perhaps a tornado is approaching your house or abusive spouse is out to kill you...
  - Wowfunhappy 4y ago
    An override mechanism seems reasonable to me. How about: when you engage the override, a light on your car turns on, as a signal to everyone else on the road that you may be under the influence. Cops who see the light can consider it "reasonable suspicion" to pull you over.
ouid 4y ago
"trusted computing"

'Safety' is going to be the thing that kills personal liberty in this country.

by a2tech 4y ago

'Safety' is going to be the thing that kills personal liberty in this country.

flenserboy 4y ago

Big Sister is always much, much worse than Big Brother, and he's bad.

throwaway0asd 4y ago

We could eliminate food inspection and driver's licenses. That would increase liberty, but I don't think most people would find the freedom worthy of the cost.

pigeonhole123 4y ago
Is anyone suggesting that?
- kittiepryde 4y ago
  Some libertarians are -- but I think they were trying to employ the slippery slope argument
  - mwint 4y ago
    The slope we’ve slid down so far has been very slippery indeed.
- Wowfunhappy 4y ago
  No, but I think GP’s point is that there will always be a tradeoff between personal liberty and safety. We can argue about where the line should be, but it needs to be drawn somewhere between the two extremes.
  - eternalban 4y ago
    But GP's OP is not saying there shouldn't be a line, rather that it is that line that will likely be crossed in guise of public safety to unburden us from the burden of having liberties. Food, water, stuff like that have potential to kill off everyone. Drunk drivers on the other hand are not likely to ever pose an existential threat. So I tend to agree with those who insist that, of course there must be regulation, there must be informed discussion, no we shall not consult the i-ching, but definitely loss of liberties require an exceptionally high public good threshold to be considered. tldr; to keep that line in an optimal space between the extremes, clearly two opposing forces are necessary.
- polski-g 4y ago
  Oh such a classic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZITP93pqtdQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZITP93pqtdQ
uup 4y ago
Both you and the GP are suggesting slippery slopes. I think it’s reasonable to think that checking every single driver, every single time they drive, for alcohol use is an invasion of privacy, especially since the vast, vast majority of drivers are not driving drunk. That also doesn’t mean privacy is dead or that it’s time to end food inspection.
fallingknife 4y ago
What do driver's licenses add to safety? The only people they prevent from driving are someone who is crazy enough to drive a car without knowing how, but draws the line at driving without government approval.
- TrueSlacker0 4y ago
  If you had to do continuing education to renew your license every X years then it may add to safety. But as it exists today it seems to be more of a form of ID than anything to do with a vehicle. When someone gets hired at a new job (USA) a drivers license can be used as a part to show citizenship, which has nothing to do with driving.
lancepioch 4y ago
People who want to drive and don't have licenses (whether by their choice or not) are currently driving on the roads right now. Also some of the worst drivers I've ever seen all do have their driver's license. While what you're saying does seem to make sense, sometimes the situation isn't always that simple.

micromacrofoot 4y ago

Ah yes, that old personal liberty of driving drunk. Who will save us from this nanny state.

skapadia 4y ago

Can you define "personal liberty", in the context of living in a society?

skapadia 4y ago

Would you be okay with a drunk driver killing one of your family members? What if that could be prevented with tech like this? Does your personal liberty outweigh the need to keep people safe from tons of metal hurtling at them at insane speeds?

netr0ute 4y ago
> Does your personal liberty outweigh the need to keep people safe from tons of metal hurtling at them at insane speeds? I don't see why not, as the US was founded on the principle behind this.
david38 4y ago
By your rationale why don’t you give up cars? If you care for your loved ones so much, Han them from using cars. Does your personal liberty outweigh the need to keep your family safe from tons of metal hurtling at them at insane speeds?
- aeharding 4y ago
  Because in this country the options are 1. Buy a car because it’s required in order to literally feed yourself, or 2. Live in one of the highly desirable, expensive pre-war neighborhoods that remain walkable Many Americans can’t just “give up cars” even if they wanted to. Car dependency is literally codified in out zoning and street building (MUTCD) Maybe if car dependency wasn’t such a requirement in order to live, maybe if everyone could easily walk to the bar, we wouldn’t need alcohol detection in cars.
  - philipov 4y ago
    > Maybe if car dependency wasn’t such a requirement in order to live, maybe if everyone could easily walk to the bar, we wouldn’t need alcohol detection in cars. This is the goal that is worth spending political action on, not snake oil remedies designed only to advance the careers of politicians peddling them.
  - TrueSlacker0 4y ago

bluejekyll 4y ago

Don’t know why you put safety in quotes. You’re implying that this won’t make streets safer, by reducing drunk driving. But reducing drunk driving would in fact make streets safer. Our goal should be to have zero deaths related to common car usage and driving. For example, the backup camera is there to help reduce the number of people backing up over their own kids. This is a good thing. You can argue that this system may not be the correct implementation to reduce drunk driving. You can argue other things might actually be better. But don’t claim that personal liberty is at stake for people when 43,000 people lost their personal liberty when their lives ended. Why don’t you care about their personal liberty?

Frost1x 4y ago
I'm not aware of any technology reliable, trustworthy, affordable, and quick enough to accomplish said goal without regularly inconveniencing a significantly larger portion of drivers who may need their vehicles in other emergencies. If you could provide a mechanism that didn't infringe non-drunk drivers rights I'd be more apt to accept this idea. I'd also need to know an override mechanism exists because it seems like certain rare situations could arise where you need to operate a vehicle intoxicated, e.g. fleeing for your life in defense with a relatively low risk of injuring someone comparatively. I'm sitting at home sipping a scotch and hear an intruder come in who for some reason is an abusive person after me specifically in my life. I phone the police but also decide it's best if I can safely flee the area. Maybe the police could override it remotely, I don't know. Overall the edge cases seem difficult to deal with and infringe on others liberties. We start talking about the needs of the many outweighed the needs of the few and trolly problems with different counts of people on different tracks. I'm just throwing some hypothetical out, it may not be good, but my point is that rare situations can occur and because you were partaking in a legal activity like drinking, due to an emergency change in situation that wasn't predictable, you suddenly need to drive because the risk is now higher than drunk driving. Perhaps a tornado is approaching your house or abusive spouse is out to kill you...
- Wowfunhappy 4y ago
  An override mechanism seems reasonable to me. How about: when you engage the override, a light on your car turns on, as a signal to everyone else on the road that you may be under the influence. Cops who see the light can consider it "reasonable suspicion" to pull you over.

ouid 4y ago

"trusted computing"