You seem to be a clever one. Maybe you can answer the question I asked, with links to specifics.
Wow, why isn't there this huge opposition to black boxes in airplanes?
Great, now I will have proof I'm innocent.
Is it really that "Big Brother"? The article you linked states that many cars already contain some kind of accident data recorder. If it only records data for, say, up to 5 minutes and has no position information kept and the data is only accessible if someone has physical access, is it that big a deal?
Someone please explain to me.
Obviously, if it's providing a full suite of information heading straight into government databases, then we have a problem. I see nothing to indicate that scenario though.
You more than likely already have it in your car. They're already installed in 92% of all vehicles. They would be accessed by your dealer if you had to bring it in for a problem and would help in accessing safety issues.
I don't believe they could even be accessed for accidents without you giving someone access to your vehicle. The black box isn't something that can beam data to anybody wirelessly.
I hope all of those complaining about it, remove them from your vehicle today b/c you more than likely already have one.
Privacy and all that.
The government can't make a reasonable argument for having the device or collecting the data.
Sure they can, if you want to use your car on any public roads.
No, they can't. Simple use of publicly funded roads is not a reasonable excuse to collect and monitor data in a vehicle by the government.
Privacy and all that.
The government can't make a reasonable argument for having the device or collecting the data.
Sure it is. Explain why it wouldn't be.
You don't have warrants for wiretaps, you have no right to privacy for anything you upload to the internet, you can be locked up for being accused as a terrorist without legal representation or charges and the government needs a good reason for using a gizmo? Don't bogart that joint.
No, it isn't and that isn't how the law works. You need to make your case FOR the law and why it's reasonable.
I edited my post with an example.
To your example. Have you ever taken a private chartered airline flight? Hint, there is no TSA, no body scanners and no x-ray machines.
You need to understand how the TSA works. The TSA exists at airports at the request of the airport and some airports do NOT have the TSA, Sanford-Orlando is one example.
But you're missing the fact that TSA COULD be at any and all airports if they so desired.
No, by law, they cannot - their presence or lack of presence is 100% at the purview of the airport. Airports are, believe it or not, priveatly owned facilties - even the big ones (yes, being owned by a municipality counts).
Like I said, you don't understand how the TSA works, your example is null.
No, that link doesn't prove your point. Next.
Uh, O.K. then....
All commercial airports are regulated by TSA whether the actual screening is performed by TSA or private companies. So TSA’s policies – including advanced imaging technology and pat downs – are in place at all domestic airports.
That quote you posted explains to you WHY you don't understand and why you're wrong.
Really? What part of "All commercial airports are regulated by TSA" am I not understanding?
The part you just bolded.
Seriously, you are far too stupid to converse with. The list just grows and grows.