Do you know what an EDR is?

I think you're confusing the Constitution with your driver's manual.

Where are your precious rights (or mine, for that matter), when you operate a motor vehicle on public roads? Please - point me to them.

What is it? The so-called Right to Privacy? Non-existant in this situation. Maybe you want to plead the Fifth, to claim that your car should not be forced to testify against you? No, sorry, doesn't apply here.

Do you own an EZPass? How about a cellphone? Ever drive through radar or a traffic camera? How is it that your every movement is tracked and has been tracked for years, but you rail about a little black box in new cars?

You're worried about scrutiny? Do you have any idea how many video cameras point at you though the course of a day?

What freedom is it, exactly, that is under attack by this little black box? I'd really like to know.

Are there any legal scholars in this newsgroup that can help?

dwight

The EDR keeps track of everything you do legal or illegal. If you all are so worried about getting caught for driving illegally don't do it? When you drive down the road you risk running into speed traps or getting caught on cameras. If this "black box" makes you so worried about getting caught then its the slow lane for you. If you speed and are worried about getting into an accident, maybe you should think about what you are doing instead of the other retards on the road. As long as this black box is only used when I'm in an accident, then I'm not worried. Now if it's gonna send in data every time I speed that's gonna suck. But mainly if you are worried about your data you should either grow a pair and be ready for the consequences or drive legally. Now I do realize that some people can't drive over 30 without crashing but what about all of us who live on an old county blacktop that like to open her up every once in a while? I've done my share of speeding and drag racing and the 2 times my car got hit it was parked. So as long as these black boxes are only used in the event of an accident I have no problem, but if they are gonna send in data continuously I'm gonna stick with older cars, they are better anyway!

You merely prove my point in the frog story. The MEN who founded this country would be turning over in their graves were they to see what sniveling serfs most of the citizens have allowed themselves to become as they kneel before their gvt and beg for their "privileges". The RIGHTS not expressly granted to the Fed gvt nor reserved to the states are the PEOPLE. Too bad no one cares anymore.

I'm amazed you all think the black box is going to be infallible at determining your innocence. So if you elect to accelerate "out of trouble" as many in these newsgroups do, your black box is going to show how you maliciously and purposely accelerated right into the side of the innocent guy turning left.

If it's anything like Arizona law it's a purposely obtuse wording to make you think that way because the gvt wants you to think you are their serf. The plain fact is that the state MUST issue you a license if you simply fulfil a couple of trivial requirements. Below is the list of things that prevent the issuance of a licence in AZ. You will note that will it seems like it says a lot, what the thrust of it is, is this... unless you are underage or a convicted criminal, or some other small WELL DEFINED class of person, you WILL be issued a license if you apply for one. Yes, you may find the word privilege bandied about, but it's a meaningless use of the word as the state simply has no choice the the matter of giving you a license unless you are in the tiny aforementioned group of well defined people who can't have one. It has nothing to do with privilege and everything to do with keeping criminals and the underage from driving. And it fails at that anyway because the underage and the criminals drive anyway. So in the end, the gvt prevents virtually no one from using their right to drive.

A. The department shall not issue the following:

1. A driver license to a person who is under eighteen years of age, except that the department may issue:

(a) A restricted instruction permit for a class D or G license to a person who is at least fifteen years of age.

(b) An instruction permit for a class D, G or M license as provided by this chapter to a person who is at least fifteen years and seven months of age.

(c) A class G or M license as provided by this chapter to a person who is at least sixteen years of age.

1. A class D, G or M license or instruction permit to a person who is under eighteen years of age and who has been tried in adult court and convicted of a second or subsequent violation of criminal damage to property pursuant to section 13-1602, subsection A, paragraph 1 or convicted of a felony offense in the commission of which a motor vehicle is used, including theft of a motor vehicle pursuant to section 13-1802, unlawful use of means of transportation pursuant to section 13-1803 or theft of means of transportation pursuant to section 13-1814, or who has been adjudicated delinquent for a second or subsequent act that would constitute criminal damage to property pursuant to section 13-1602, subsection A, paragraph 1 or adjudicated delinquent for an act that would constitute a felony offense in the commission of which a motor vehicle is used, including theft of a motor vehicle pursuant to section 13-1802, unlawful use of means of transportation pursuant to section 13-1803 or theft of means of transportation pursuant to section 13-1814, if committed by an adult.
2. A class A, B or C license to a person who is under twenty-one years of age, except that the department may issue a class A, B or C license that is restricted to only intrastate driving to a person who is at least eighteen years of age.
3. A license to a person whose license or driving privilege has been suspended, during the suspension period.
4. Except as provided in section 28-3315, a license to a person whose license or driving privilege has been revoked.
5. A class A, B or C license to a person who has been disqualified from obtaining a commercial driver license.
6. A license to a person who on application notifies the department that the person is an alcoholic as defined in section 36-2021 or a drug dependent person as defined in section 36-2501, unless the person successfully completes the medical screening process pursuant to section 28-3052 or submits a medical examination report that includes a current evaluation from a substance abuse counselor indicating that, in the opinion of the counselor, the condition does not affect or impair the person's ability to safely operate a motor vehicle.
7. A license to a person who has been adjudged to be incapacitated pursuant to section 14-5304 and who at the time of application has not obtained either a court order that allows the person to drive or a termination of incapacity as provided by law.
8. A license to a person who is required by this chapter to take an examination unless the person successfully passes the examination.
9. A license to a person who is required under the motor vehicle financial responsibility laws of this state to deposit proof of financial responsibility and who has not deposited the proof.
10. A license to a person if the department has good cause to believe that the operation of a motor vehicle on the highways by the person would threaten the public safety or welfare.
11. A license to a person whose driver license has been ordered to be suspended pursuant to section 25-518.
12. A class A, B or C license to a person whose license or driving privilege has been canceled until the cause for the cancellation has been removed.
13. A class A, B or C license or instruction permit to a person whose state of domicile is not this state.

B. The department shall not issue a driver license to or renew the driver license of the following persons:

1. A person about whom the court notifies the department that the person violated the person's written promise to appear in court when charged with a violation of the motor vehicle laws of this state until the department receives notification in a manner approved by the department that the person appeared either voluntarily or involuntarily or that the case has been adjudicated, that the case is being appealed or that the case has otherwise been disposed of as provided by law.
2. If notified pursuant to section 28-1601, a person who fails to pay a civil penalty as provided in section 28-1601, except for a parking violation, until the department receives notification in a manner approved by the department that the person paid the civil penalty, that the case is being appealed or that the case has otherwise been disposed of as provided by law.

C. The magistrate or the clerk of the court shall provide the notification to the department prescribed by subsection B of this section.

D. Notwithstanding any other law, the department shall not issue to or renew a driver license or nonoperating identification license for a person who does not submit proof satisfactory to the department that the applicant's presence in the United States is authorized under federal law. For an application for a driver license or a nonoperating identification license, the department shall not accept as a primary source of identification a driver license issued by a state if the state does not require that a driver licensed in that state be lawfully present in the United States under federal law. The director shall adopt rules necessary to carry out the purposes of this subsection. The rules shall include procedures for:

1. Verification that the applicant's presence in the United States is authorized under federal law.
2. Issuance of a temporary driver permit pursuant to section 28-3157 pending verification of the applicant's status in the United States.

Social contracts don't over rule the constitution. Unfortunately, ignorant courts sometimes do, and ignorant legislators often do. If you are capable of reading then you can read and pretty much understand what the constitution provides in the way of rights. It is very restrictive in what it allows the federal gvt to do, delineates a few things that the states have the right to do, and reserves all other rights to the citizens/the people.

Ah. In other words, you have no answer. You want to scream and pull your hair about how the Man is trampling over your precious Rights, but you don't know what precious Rights the Man is trampling.

Me, I don't trust this whole internets thing. Just look at the one entity - Google. What an incredible undertaking it is to gather and retain all available information on all available users. Every post you've ever made is kept, just in case it can be used against you in the future. Now they entice you with gigabytes of storage, just to be able to track and file away your email. They dangle huge megabytes of online storage in front of you, hoping that you'll store your personal files in there, so that they can keep copies of everything.

If you want to invent conspiracies, start there!

dwight

I'm sorry... too many words.

Are you going to argue that "driving is a right" because it's too ridiculously easy to get a driver's license?

Are you going to make that argument before a bunch of posters who have COMPLAINED previously about how ridiculously easy it is to get a driver's license?

Regardless... Us serfs have to "ask" for a driver's license. The Big Brother usually "grants" our request, so long as we are not overtly retarded and/or have been punished for our transgressions against the Man in the past (i.e.: felony). And, so long as we play nice in Big Brother's sandbox and get along with all the other serfs, we are allowed to keep that driver's license.

If driving were a "right", we could all become New York drivers, the roads would become MadMax territory, and there would be no recourse, nothing we could do about it, and the police (state or local) would not be able to set up their bimonthly collection plates (speed traps).

The more I think about it, the more UTTERLY SATISFIED I am with the idea that driving should be a privilege.

dwight

Which is exactly why I previously said that the courts have ruled that it's reasonable to put modest requirements on the exercise of inherent rights given by the constitution. The license requirement is one of those. It provides a means of putting some order on what would otherwise be chaos. That's the case with many of our basic rights, can't yell fire in a crowed theatre, etc, yet we still more or less have free speech rights. Why do you think it has to be completely black or white, that it can only be a "right" if it is 100% uncontrolled and if there is even a tiny bit of control it immediately becomes a privilege? I don't see it. Nor is the law written that way. Read it and it's hard to see anywhere that the gvt has any discretionary power in issuing licenses. There are a few rules intended to prevent chaos and the gvt can't ignore them on a whim and deny a license.

and there would be no recourse, nothing we

If it were really a privilege the gvt could just come to you for NO reason and take you licence. They can't. You have a RIGHT to a license, the gvt MUST issue you a licence, subject to a few trivial hoops to jump thru. Do you have kids (or were you a kid)? Think about how kids really do just have privileges and very few rights, their parents can withhold those privileges for any reason or no reason, the kids don't have a "right" to much of anything other then not to be abused. Is that how you view your relationship to the gvt????

Uhhh, no. Nowhere at any time was it ever decided that anyone has a right to a driving license.

Again, just because it's too easy to GET a license does not translate into a RIGHT.

And, please remember, rules and regulations are a two-way street. Just as my privileges have been abridged through innumerable regulations, so, too, has the government's own authority been restricted. It's all about trying to keep the playing field level.

The war on your personal rights has seen far greater gains than just a little black box in the past few years. And those are gains into your ACTUAL rights, not just perceived rights. That box is the least of your worries right now.

dwight

Baaaaaa.

You never did cite any source or reference that bestowed on any of us the right to operate a motor vehicle...

dwight

You never answered the question that I think would be most interesting. What OTHER privileges do you enjoy at the pleasure of your gvt. Things that the gvt can simply wave their hand and make you stop doing? Anything of similar significance as your right to travel freely by driving your self around?

Yes I did way back. The constitution grants to the federal gvt specific powers. The constitution then grants to the state some other powers and the constitution goes on to say that those powers not granted to teh feds, nor to the states, are the rights of the people. Since driving is not listed in the constitution as something the Fed gvt is in control over, nor is it listed as something the state gvts are in control of, it therefore becomes one of the MANY rights that simply flow to the citizens. Now don't get all tied up in the fact that we have to put some rules in place to prevent chaos, that's just housekeeping.

Now, how about for once telling us what you view as your relationship to your gvt. In particular your reaction to the gvt just up and deciding one day out of the blue that it was tired of all these personal vehicles cluttering up the streets and said NO MORE DRIVING by anyone except police and some other specifically designated gvt agents. Since you keep saying driving is a privilege, I'd like to see a clear statement from you that should that scenario ever happen you would be cool with it because, as you have said, YOU have no right to drive.

Further, how about listing some other things you regularly do but that you can't find listed somewhere as your "right" to do, like eat catfish, or eat sugar, or go camping, and let us know if you think all those things are simply things you actually have no RIGHT to do but are simply allowed to do them at the sufferance of the gvt giving you the privilege.

The so-called Right to Privacy. There's one that went away with a simple governmental wave of hand. And I would consider that of more importance.

dwight

How about this? Name ONE of your precious rights that is free and clear of any legislation, rule, regulation, or abridgement.

Hah! Got ya.

dwight

"dwight" wrote in news:mpKdnZB-zIJLVofbnZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@comcast.com:

Do we have a right to breathe? Just wondering...

That probably fits under "Right to Life," which, as you know, is still being discussed.

Breathing was not specifically mentioned in the Constitution, so it passes to the State. The States haven't yet regulated breathing, itself, so the local municipalities have the ball.

WHAT you breathe has, indeed, been regulated, and where you exhale and how it impacts those around you is being legislated more and more every day.

So, while you still maintain the right to breathe, it is not entirely unregulated.

dwight

"dwight" wrote in news:0ImdnV0hu9BAdofbnZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@comcast.com:

Well that kinda sucks, eh?

No you don't. I have said all along that it's understood that some housekeeping rules are needed so exercising our rights doesn't result in chaos. Why won't you answer the simple question - which I will repeat below...

Now, how about for once telling us what you view as your relationship to your gvt. In particular your reaction to the gvt just up and deciding one day out of the blue that it was tired of all these personal vehicles cluttering up the streets and said NO MORE DRIVING by anyone except police and some other specifically designated gvt agents. Since you keep saying driving is a privilege, I'd like to see a clear statement from you that should that scenario ever happen you would be cool with it because, as you have said, YOU have no right to drive.