Vehicle Tracking Bill introduced into US House. The EU is behind a similar move.

Run_to_da_hills

"A Member of US Congress proposes to use taxpayer money to fund the development of technology to track motorists as part of a new form of taxation.



US Representative Earl Blumenauer (D-Oregon) introduced H.R. 3311 earlier this year to appropriate $154,500,000 for research and study into the transition to a per-mile vehicle tax system.

The “Road User Fee Pilot Project” would be administered by the US Treasury Department. This agency in turn would issue millions in taxpayer-backed grants to well-connected commercial manufacturers of tolling equipment to help develop the required technology.

Within eighteen months of the measure’s passage, the department would file an initial report outlining the best methods for adopting the new federal transportation tax.

“Oregon has successfully tested a Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) fee, and it is time to expand and test the VMT program across the country,” Blumenauer said in a statement on the bill’s introduction.

“A VMT system can better assess fees based on use of our roads and bridges, as well as during times of peak congestion, than a fee based on fuel consumption. It is time to get creative and find smart ways to rebuild and renew America’s deteriorating infrastructure"
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/uncle-sam-eyes-vehicle-tracking-tax/

Only last March there were reports of the EU planning a similar move. :eek:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/audio/2009/mar/31/automotive-industry

With "carbon tax" being the latest buzz word from the authorities what a better way to monitor it by totting up exactly how much you use and how far you travell. Vehicle Kilometres Traveled (VKT) would be the correct EU phrase for its equivilant.

By having such a system motorists could be penalised for using their vehicles at peak times in certain areas. It would also facilitate in the catchment of cashless toll payments in congestion charge areas. Driving a car without tax or insurance could also be a thing of the past as this would show up instantly on a database.

Of course all this wonderful tracking technology this has its consequences, All movements of vehicles are tracked and stored for several years for future reference. With the sharing of information between the EU and US to track so called "terrorism" I would not think that such a system would be such a good idea.

humanji

Will they be monitoring who's using each vehicle? I didn't think so.

But it'd be bloody handy finding your car if it's stolen.

Wow just like the 10 other programs you said were are to be introduced and haven't actually come to pass in the slightest.

Oh and then there's all your usual problems like there's nothing in there about storing the information "for years" or this information will be used in law enforcement or be passed to other countries.

Personally I think it's a good idea.
It makes road tax more efficient and probably will save the average joe a bit of money.

Also I like your little propaganda picture.
No doubt you're using subliminal messaging to convince us Sarkozy is a Satanist.

weiss

it's valid to argue how it could save people money, no doubt.
and on the other hand you can see how it could be misused.

i'm not suggesting the intent of the system is to track people, but it certainly could be misused for tracking people, you can't deny that much atleast.

Run_to_da_hills

humanji wrote: »

Will they be monitoring who's using each vehicle? I didn't think so..

I am sure they could adapt an ignition system compatible with any state issued smart card. Renault has been using credit card keys for years. As with any vehicle on the road the registered owner is responsible for who ever drives it.

humanji wrote: »

But it'd be bloody handy finding your car if it's stolen.

The congestion charge CCTV network has already greatly assisted in tracking stolen cars, one of the selling points of this technology.

Run_to_da_hills

King Mob wrote: »

Wow just like the 10 other programs you said were are to be introduced and haven't actually come to pass in the slightest.
.

The fact that they are even proposed is enough to worry about it, It will only be a matter of time before such would be brought in. A heap of things has already been proposed and made law.

King Mob wrote: »

Oh and then there's all your usual problems like there's nothing in there about storing the information "for years" or this information will be used in law enforcement or be passed to other countries. .

I believe two years for the retention of digital data.

King Mob wrote: »

Personally I think it's a good idea.
It makes road tax more efficient and probably will save the average joe a bit of money. .

Exactly, the sheeple will buy it as a great idea, IE carbon saving, theft deterrant, time and money saving. Someone who rarely uses their car will pay the minimum.

King Mob wrote: »

Also I like your little propaganda picture.
No doubt you're using subliminal messaging to convince us Sarkozy is a Satanist.

That little man has a lot too say about the democracy within the EU. :rolleyes:

weiss

weiss wrote: »

it's valid to argue how it could save people money, no doubt.
and on the other hand you can see how it could be misused.

i'm not suggesting the intent of the system is to track people, but it certainly could be misused for tracking people, you can't deny that much atleast.

But you see RtdH is suggesting the intent of the system is to track people despite the lack of evidence.

And even if it can be misused doesn't mean it will be misused.
There are such things as regulations and laws preventing a system like this from being misused.

But that might be because I don't think politicians are satanic supervillians unlike RtdH apparently.

Run_to_da_hills

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

The fact that they are even proposed is enough to worry, It will only be a matter of time before such would be brought in, Look at what else has been proposed and made law.

How long has it been "only a matter of time" exactly?
You and others have been making these claims for ages and nothing ever comes of them.
Why is this one going to be different?

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

I believe two years for the retention of digital data.

Ok you when you make claims you have to back them up.
What evidence do you have that this information will be stored for any length of time?
(I'll bet money you won't answer this question.)

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Exactly, the sheeple will buy it as a great idea, IE carbon saving, theft deterrant, time and money saving. Someone who rarely uses their car will pay the minimum.

Oh god the horror.
Convenience for the average person and for the people enforcing the law?

We should not consider these benefits because of a shadowy evil you can't show any evidence of?

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

That little man has a lot too say about the democracy in the Union, "Ireland must vote again" :rolleyes:

So then it's perfectly ok for you to use subliminal messaging?
As long as it's for the greater good?

And yea one out of context quote is the exact same as destroying democracy.

Run_to_da_hills

King Mob wrote: »

But you see RtdH is suggesting the intent of the system is to track people despite the lack of evidence.

Why else would they have such a system, why have the Metropolitan Police got such an interest in the live useage of the London Congestion Charge CCTV network. A similar system that currently uses ANPR but is soon to change over to RFID http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/6902543.stm

weiss

King Mob wrote:

And even if it can be misused doesn't mean it will be misused.There are such things as regulations and laws preventing a system like this from being misused.

It's not a crime unless someone finds out

There is a system already called onstar where the police need a warrant to access the gps data.

With VMT, a warrant is no longer required.

It has other potential uses, we could suggest some.

Run_to_da_hills

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Why else would they have such a system, why have the Metropolitan Police got such an interest in the live useage of the London Congestion Charge CCTV network.

To make taxing easier and more efficient?

There are much much easier ways to track people than by collecting and saving masses of useless information then having to sift through it.

In fact you'd get the same effect by hiring more police officers.
Why are you so opposed to them enforcing the law?

weiss

weiss wrote: »

With VMT, a warrant is no longer required.

And what evidence do you have to support this?

Run_to_da_hills

King Mob wrote: »

So then it's perfectly ok for you to use subliminal messaging?
As long as it's for the greater good?.

There is a big difference. I am blatantly oppose the EU Constitution being forced on the Irish population when they already rejected it. On the other hand the Government is not suppose to be when advising public on Lisbon with its propaganda rag. This corrupt document which is riddled with subliminal messages is supposed to be non biased but is in fact it is totally biased towards the Yes campaign.

That picture dose depict that man giving a satanic gesture, similar gestures have been captured from other heads of state.

Again back on topic, this system will creep out of Parliament as a good measure, just like the smoking ban. People will be duped that it will save the whales but all at the expense of losing their civil liberties.

weiss

that's pretty silly question, King Mob.

since the government already have free access to the data, why would they need a warrant?

Run_to_da_hills

King Mob wrote: »

To make taxing easier and more efficient?

There are much much easier ways to track people than by collecting and saving masses of useless information then having to sift through it.

In fact you'd get the same effect by hiring more police officers.
Why are you so opposed to them enforcing the law?

I thought you were aware about the pulse system, It is totally digital and dose not require any "sifting", the days of filing cabinets are long gone. :rolleyes:.

Run_to_da_hills

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

That picture dose depict that man giving a satanic gesture, similar gestures have been captured from other heads of state.

So then it's not subliminal your just accusing him of being a Satanist with no evidence at all.
I get ya now.

Bet he uses magic spells too.

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Again back on topic, this system will creep out of Parliament as a good measure, just like the smoking ban. People will be duped that it will save the whales but all at the expense of losing their civil liberties.

And what civil liberaties will this proposed system infringe on?
You have no evidence to suggest that this information will be used to track people.
You have no evidence to suggest that this information will be accessible to anyone other than tax officers.
You have no evidence to suggest that this information will be stored for any length of time.

It's just your usual scaremongering.

Oh and I was right you ignored that question where I ask you to back up your claim.

weiss wrote: »

that's pretty silly question, King Mob.

since the government already have free access to the data, why would they need a warrant?

Why do they need a warrant to access the Onstar system like you claimed?

weiss

King Mob wrote:

Why do they need a warrant to access the Onstar system like you claimed?

OnStar is a private company holding the GPS data, the police would require a warrant in order to obtain it.

I can give you example of where laws and regulations were completely ignored.

Read the full story here

Police use of GPS tracking of suspects faces court challenge


WATERBURY — Although they don't often advertise the fact, police are using GPS tracking devices to keep tabs on suspects by attaching the gadgets to their cars.

But that clandestine technique is under fire.
Civil liberties advocates are challenging a New York court ruling that police aren't required to obtain court warrants before they secretly affix the devices to cars. Six nonprofit associations, including the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, are appealing that decision, the outcome of which is expected to set a precedent for privacy rights.

GPS tracking devices are inexpensive and take less than a minute to affix underneath a car. They are becoming more popular among police as a way to track suspects. An officer doesn't have to tail a car for hours to know where the suspect has been; the suspect's movements can be traced on a desktop computer.

The debate now before the New York Court of Appeals centers on the case of 41-year-old Scott C. Weaver, who was arrested after police attached a battery-powered device under the bumper of his van while it was parked on a public street.

For about two months, police tracked and recorded his movements. Eventually they charged him with burglarizing a Kmart and a meat market near Albany based on the tracking data provided by the GPS unit, which showed his van was near the stores during the thefts.

Weaver's attorney argued that GPS data should be suppressed by the court because police didn't obtain a warrant before attaching the device. A court disagreed with that argument and convicted him in 2007 of third-degree burglary and attempted second-degree grand larceny based on the data provided by the unit.

Now I can see the argument "he's a criminal" but this is just an example of where police ignored laws and regulations.

weiss

weiss wrote: »

OnStar is a private company holding the GPS data, the police would require a warrant in order to obtain it.

So what evidence do you have that information from this system can be obtained without a warrant?

weiss wrote: »

I can give you example of where laws and regulations were completely ignored.

Read the full story here

Now I can see the argument "he's a criminal" but this is just an example of where police ignored laws and regulations.

Except the court decided that the police weren't in breach of any laws.
Can you show the exact law or regulation they broke?

And it's kind of important that this was planting a device without a warrant not accessing information. They're completely different matters.

weiss

King Mob wrote:

So what evidence do you have that information from this system can be obtained without a warrant?

So what evidence do you have, information from this system cannot be obtained without a warrant?

Perhaps you can give me just 1 example of where the government are required a warrant to access data on their own computers today?

Please answer honestly.

I await your response, King Mob

weiss

weiss wrote: »

So what evidence do you have that information from this system cannot be obtained without a warrant?

You do know what the burden of proof is right?

weiss wrote: »

Perhaps you can give me just 1 example of where the government are required a warrant to access data on their own computers today?

Please answer honestly.

I await your response, King Mob

You are the one who made the claim that they don't need a warrant.
What are you basing this on?

weiss

King Mob wrote:

You do know what the burden of proof is right?

I really detest trying to have a conversation with you about anything on these forums...

Basically you want me to say "I don't know" then you think you've won the argument, yet can't answer the question yourself....i don't know why I bother giving your posts any attention, I really don't...have you seen my signature lately? :P

You are the one who made the claim that they don't need a warrant.
What are you basing this on?

So you don't have any answer, fine.
I think i've just about run long enough with your stupid questions.

weiss

weiss wrote: »

I really detest trying to have a conversation with you about anything on these forums...

Basically you want me to say "I don't know" then you think you've won the argument, yet can't answer the question yourself....i don't know why I bother giving your posts any attention, I really don't...have you seen my signature lately? :P

So you don't have any answer, fine.
I think i've just about run long enough with your stupid questions.

So you made the claim that this information would be accessible without a warrant.
You not only can't back it up your asking me to disprove your claim.

So what did you base your claim on?

And why is asking you to back up your claim a stupid question exactly?

Run_to_da_hills

King Mob wrote: »

So you made the claim that this information would be accessible without a warrant.
You not only can't back it up your asking me to disprove your claim.

So what did you base your claim on?

And why is asking you to back up your claim a stupid question exactly?

Live access to any CCTV/ANPR network would not require a warrent. :rolleyes:

Run_to_da_hills

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Live access to any CCTV/ANPR network would not require a warrent. :rolleyes:

Any chance of a source?
Or do I just have to take your obviously unbiased word for it?

Run_to_da_hills

King Mob wrote: »

Any chance of a source?
Or do I just have to take your obviously unbiased word for it?

All here

Run_to_da_hills

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

All here

Ok that article refers to plans to be introduced not plans in place at the time.
That was from 2007.

Can you show that these plan are currently in effect?

Are you just googling for "ANPR" and "No warrant"?

6th

King Mob, it looks like you're just arguing because you enjoy it.

RtdH has put forward an "idea" which could be possible. It may never happen but as far as CT (T stands for theory btw) that almost doesnt matter.

We're discussing possibilities here and if you cant discuss possibilities in a CT forum then maybe a CT forum isnt the place for you.

Run_to_da_hills

I'm not asking for proof that this particular bill is going to go through. All I'm doing is asking for claims to be backed up by evidence like they are in a rational discussion.

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Of course all this wonderful tracking technology this has its consequences, All movements of vehicles are tracked and stored for several years for future reference. With the sharing of information between the EU and US to track so called "terrorism" I would not think that such a system would be such a good idea.

weiss wrote: »

With VMT, a warrant is no longer required.

These claims were made as if they are fact.
I'm asking for evidence to support them.

I doubt any is forthcoming.

indough

theories are supposed to be about explaining observations, youre not supposed to decide the outcome then look for anything resembling evidence

i dont personally see how police effectively being found not guilty of breaking the law can be seen as evidence of a conspiracy

weiss

King Mob wrote:

These claims were made as if they are fact.
I'm asking for evidence to support them.
I doubt any is forthcoming.

Never stated anything as fact, i merely said the VMT system could be misused.

And as for the warrant...

I'm not aware police require a warrant to access information on computer systems which are property of the government.

To me, that seems highly unlikely, but feel free to correct me with some evidence and not just your opinion.

If i'm mistaken, provide examples of where a warrant is required.

King Mob wrote:

And even if it can be misused doesn't mean it will be misused.
There are such things as regulations and laws preventing a system like this from being misused.

King Mob argues it won't be misused because of laws and regulations, yet is unable to specify exactly what those laws and regulations would be.

indough

weiss wrote: »

To me, that seems highly unlikely, but feel free to correct me with some evidence and not just your opinion.

for the sake of argument, putting both scenarios on equal footing means that you cant make an assumption either way, that means both assumptions are wrong until either provides the evidence

constance tench

it seems we're no stranger to the 'dual use item':(

The
Regulation, which has direct effect in all Member States of the Community,
defines dual-use items as “items, including software and technology, which can
be used for both civil and military purposes” and includes “all goods which can be
used for both non-explosive uses and assisting in any way in the manufacture of
nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices” (Article 2 (a)).
The Council Regulation establishes a regime under which the export of dual-use
goods is subject to authorisation by the relevant designated national authority
(the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment in Ireland). Dual-use items subject to export authorisation are set out in Annex I to the Council
Regulation and fall into 10 broad categories, including Nuclear Materials,
Facilities, and Equipment (Category 0), Materials, Chemicals, Micro-organisms
and Toxins (Category 1), Navigation and Avionics (Category 7) and Propulsion
Systems, Space Vehicles and Related Equipment (Category 9). The export of
software or technology which is required for the development, production or use
of the goods listed in Annex I, including the transmission of such software or
technology by electronic media, fax or telephone (intangible transfers), is also
subject to export authorisation. The Council Regulation further provides (Article
4, paragraph 1) that an “authorisation shall be required for the export of dualuse
items not listed in Annex I if the exporter has been informed by the
competent authorities of the Member State in which he is established that the
items in question are or may be intended, in their entirety or in part, for use in
connection with the development, production, handling, operation, maintenance,
storage, detection, identification or dissemination of chemical, biological or
nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or the development,
production, maintenance or storage of missiles capable of delivering such
weapons.” The list of dual-use items set out in Council Regulation
1334/2000 has been updated by Council Regulation 1504/2004.

http://www.interpol.int/Public/BioTerrorism/UnRes1540Laws/Ireland.pdf

[??]

weiss

indough wrote:

for the sake of argument, putting both scenarios on equal footing means that you cant make an assumption either way, that means both assumptions are wrong until either provides the evidence

KM was arguing there would be laws and regulations in place to prevent misuse of data collected by VMT, yet acknowledged himself that no laws or regulations currently exist to prevent the practice today.

No Warrant Required for GPS Tracking

At least, according to a Wisconsin appeals court ruling:

As the law currently stands, the court said police can mount GPS on cars to track people without violating their constitutional rights -- even if the drivers aren't suspects.

Officers do not need to get warrants beforehand because GPS tracking does not involve a search or a seizure, Judge Paul Lundsten wrote for the unanimous three-judge panel based in Madison.

That means "police are seemingly free to secretly track anyone's public movements with a GPS device," he wrote.

since a warrant is required for search or seizure of private property, why would police need a warrant to search government computers?

6th

weiss wrote: »

I really detest trying to have a conversation with you about anything on these forums...

Basically you want me to say "I don't know" then you think you've won the argument, yet can't answer the question yourself....i don't know why I bother giving your posts any attention, I really don't...have you seen my signature lately? :P



So you don't have any answer, fine.
I think i've just about run long enough with your stupid questions.

Attack the post not the poster. Banned for 1 week.

indough

weiss wrote: »

KM was arguing there would be laws and regulations in place to prevent misuse of data collected by VMT, yet acknowledged himself that no laws or regulations currently exist to prevent the practice today.

No Warrant Required for GPS Tracking

At least, according to a Wisconsin appeals court ruling:

As the law currently stands, the court said police can mount GPS on cars to track people without violating their constitutional rights -- even if the drivers aren't suspects.

Officers do not need to get warrants beforehand because GPS tracking does not involve a search or a seizure, Judge Paul Lundsten wrote for the unanimous three-judge panel based in Madison.

That means "police are seemingly free to secretly track anyone's public movements with a GPS device," he wrote.

since a warrant is required for search or seizure of private property, why would police need a warrant to search government computers?

thats fair enough but i dont see how that would indicate a greater conspiracy. i thought the argument was being made that police were able to just go into an existing gps system and track the movements, which is completely different to whats basically an updatedn method of those old tracking devices youd see in movies

im not sure id disagree with that either to be honest, theyd never have the time to just go around doing it for anyone regardless of if they were up on charges or a suspect in a case or whatnot