Nov 21, 2004 - 2:48 AM
|
|
![]() Enthusiast ![]() ![]() ![]() Joined Feb 16, '04 From San Diego Currently Offline Reputation: 0 (0%) |
Recently /.ed article. Black boxes in new cars huh? Sounds worse than the anti-crime cameras they put all over Oceania... I mean the UK.
http://www.cars.com/news/stories/111604_storyb_an.jhtml -------------------- ![]() |
![]() |
Nov 21, 2004 - 3:04 AM
|
|
![]() Enthusiast ![]() ![]() ![]() Joined Feb 16, '04 From San Diego Currently Offline Reputation: 0 (0%) |
1. The oft-used slippery-slope argument.
2. F ups in the system. (Hence the 1984 reference). 3. Corporations getting ahold of such information (insurance companies, etc.). Like having a black box in your car. I'm sure it reduces speeding quite a bit, but if your auto insurance company knows that you have a tendency to brake hard, finding a cheap rate could be difficult. -------------------- ![]() |
Nov 21, 2004 - 4:03 AM
|
|
![]() Enthusiast ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Joined Jul 12, '03 From Chatham, Ont Currently Offline Reputation: 0 (0%) |
QUOTE(mr_dude @ Nov 21, 2004 - 1:04 AM) 1. The oft-used slippery-slope argument. 2. F ups in the system. (Hence the 1984 reference). 3. Corporations getting ahold of such information (insurance companies, etc.). Like having a black box in your car. I'm sure it reduces speeding quite a bit, but if your auto insurance company knows that you have a tendency to brake hard, finding a cheap rate could be difficult. [right][snapback]209704[/snapback][/right] I can understand the argument against the auto one, but not really the public camera, though the arguments against both are one in the same, protecting your right to break the law |
mr_dude Big Brother Nov 21, 2004 - 2:48 AM
Uppitycracker Hey man why should you be worried about public cam... Nov 21, 2004 - 2:54 AM
carb0n_f1b3r [QUOTE]Uppitycracker Posted Yesterday, 07:54 AM
... Nov 21, 2004 - 7:53 PM
Coomer Man, that article is scary. Nov 21, 2004 - 8:38 PM![]() ![]() |
| Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: November 21st, 2025 - 9:29 PM |