Opposing incremental threats to privacy is one thing. Opposing something that is no threat to privacy at all but might potentially become one in the future is completely different. A breathalyzer in your car does not, by itself, invade your privacy in any way whatsoever.
The government already mandates that you operate your car in certain ways; you aren't allowed to drive on the left side of the road, you aren't allowed to go 100 mph, and you aren't allowed to drive while intoxicated. And we all accept those laws. So what exactly is the big difference with more high-tech requirements? Just like those other things that we accept, they infringe on your "freedom" to be reckless in order to protect other motorists and pedestrians.Originally Posted by Ikari
Hopefully self-driving cars will soon make it a moot point. Then we can ban human drivers altogether. And that will be a great thing.Originally Posted by Ikari
What "liberty" would you be giving up? The liberty to operate your car while intoxicated? Why should you have that liberty?Originally Posted by Ikari
You don't have the liberty to threaten the safety of others with your motor vehicle, and you never have. The only difference is that the technology has not existed to PREVENT you from doing so, until recently. The point of contention is to what DEGREE you should have the freedom to be a menace to society, not whether or not such a line exists.
Auto fatalities are responsible for about 40,000 deaths per year. If they were their own category (the CDC lumps them in with all "accidents"), then they would be the 10th leading cause of death in the United States.Originally Posted by Ikari