4 ms·
You’re forgetting a step - which, being a hardware designer instead of a lawyer, is understandable. The fourth amendment means that there should never be a sit
by exsomet 1y ago
You’re forgetting a step - which, being a hardware designer instead of a lawyer, is understandable.
The fourth amendment means that there should never be a situation where you are arbitrarily required to provide the government access to, or information about, the ways that you use or modify private property like a vehicle.
- steveBK123 1y agoMaybe. But driving is not a constitutional right. Break the law enough and you can be provided two options - revocation of license or installation of limiter.
- atoav 1y agoNo I did not forget it, I was responding to an technical argument with an technical answer. And I am the type of person who wouldn't design such a system if you held a gun up to my head. Of course there is a legal layer to this as well. But given how the US legal system treats other constitutional rights that ought to be valid for everybody on American soil at the moment, I thought I'd skip that for now, because apparently something being a constitutional right doesn't make it so.
- sroussey 1y agoYou mean, like, AT&T and phone calls?
- toomuchtodo 1y agoWe already require breathalyzer interlocks be installed for habitual DUI drivers in a majority of states. This is an extension of that same legal principle. Road access is a privilege (as evidenced by the requirement to have a driver’s license and vehicle tags). https://www.ncsl.org/transportation/state-ignition-interlock-laws https://www.ncsl.org/transportation/state-ignition-interlock...
- bigbacaloa 1y ago[dead]