Spy in your car . . .

I was told that the data would and could not be used against you.

CNN reports otherwise.

http://www.cnn.com/video/partners/c...ideo/law/2006/11/26/kaye.car.black.boxes.wsvn

 

The reporter clearly stated that the data can be used against you.

The reporter clearly stated that the data can be used against your will.

The reporter clearly stated that the data will be used against you, even when the data is clearly wrong.

I still find it interesting to note that Americans that are so concerned about bugging known terrorists (evil purveyors or murder) are not concerned about the government placing in data recorders that are NOT (*) supposed to be used in a court of law and then are used in a court of law.

(*) The recorders do not meet the standards of evidence that other witnesses would have to meet. The accuracy of the devices is clearly questioned. The devices are being used not so much for 'guilt', but the devices are being used for adding on severity to the sentences . . . the devices are being used to play on the emotions of the jury even when they are known to be in error.

 

If is a mighty big word . . . and if you cover a multitude of error with an if . . . the error is just supposed to go away?

The government made the decision to have the edr's installed in all new cars . . . some manufacturers are ahead of schedule.

So IF you read the following, you might notice again that a government agency made the decision . . . In 1997 . . .

Using the pressure of future laws, the NTSB caused the manufacturers to make things happen.

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/departments/nrd-01/summaries/edr.html

 

Great post!

And your post goes to the heart of my contention . . . : If it is 'good' to bug Americans without their knowledge for 'safety', then it should be even 'better' to bug the known 'enemies' of our country as they propagate murder and terror.

Thank YOU!

Wayne

 

Yep

You're outta here 'cause the aliens got you again . . .

:wavey:

 

I did not 'equate', I pointed out the obvious. Some people are for protecting terrorists from being surveiled, and some of those same people support American citizens being surveiled.

It seems that you are still for protecting the foreign (and domestic) terrorists as they attack our country.

But, you have stated that you are for granting foreign companies the (mandated) invasion of privacy without a warrant.

I am obviously against any and all means of communication being used by the terrorists. Cut their tongues out . . . cut their hands off . . . and stick them in padded rooms. They have no (absolutely no) constitutional rights.

If we can surveil the average (including me) civilian in America, then we can surveil the average terrorist not in America.