Over the last century, the Land of the Free has slowly transformed into a land governed by endless laws, largely by cracking down on vices instead of actual crimes, creating a society that would render us all criminals if our behavior were constantly observed. Meanwhile, the state has steadily expanded its use of mass surveillance, largely under the pretext of fighting “terror.”
This is a toxic mixture.
Your entire argument forgets one thing. Presumed innocence. You are right. You can’t drive a car if you’re convicted of driving intoxicated. However, anything prior to that conviction is an allegation. You can’t take away peoples rights and privileges based on allegations, including forcefully stopping their car under the suspicion of intoxicated driving. There is a reason they must pull you over first and conduct the test.
Once suspicions of their intoxication are confirmed people are still only arrested for being allegedly intoxicated. That’s why those vehicular impairment devices are only installed under court order and after a conviction.
To reemphasize what others have said, I’m sorry but I’m not giving the government access to my private property let alone the fucking police. Are you out of your god damn mind?
Have you ever heard of undue search and seizure? What would be the legal framework required in order to forcefully stop someone’s car via kill switch? Lastly, what stops s government official from just poking the red button because a cutie with too little clothing darted on by and they wanted to chat her up for a few minutes?
The entire thing is rife with legal implications and I’m only scratching the surface with this comment. This is one of those “good initiative bad judgment” ideas.
You’re right about the undue search and seizure. For me, it isn’t the politicians I fear in this hypothetical scenario. I fear the corporations and police that would be the case-by-case adjudicators.
Your entire argument forgets one thing. Presumed innocence. You are right. You can’t drive a car if you’re convicted of driving intoxicated. However, anything prior to that conviction is an allegation. You can’t take away peoples rights and privileges based on allegations, including forcefully stopping their car under the suspicion of intoxicated driving. There is a reason they must pull you over first and conduct the test.
Once suspicions of their intoxication are confirmed people are still only arrested for being allegedly intoxicated. That’s why those vehicular impairment devices are only installed under court order and after a conviction.
To reemphasize what others have said, I’m sorry but I’m not giving the government access to my private property let alone the fucking police. Are you out of your god damn mind?
Have you ever heard of undue search and seizure? What would be the legal framework required in order to forcefully stop someone’s car via kill switch? Lastly, what stops s government official from just poking the red button because a cutie with too little clothing darted on by and they wanted to chat her up for a few minutes?
The entire thing is rife with legal implications and I’m only scratching the surface with this comment. This is one of those “good initiative bad judgment” ideas.
You’re right about the undue search and seizure. For me, it isn’t the politicians I fear in this hypothetical scenario. I fear the corporations and police that would be the case-by-case adjudicators.