TTQ B4U Posted October 22, 2009 Report Share Posted October 22, 2009 The right to confront your accuser. Unless we're really going to consider an object a person, then that's cool. The box isn't the accuser...it's hard evidence in a court of law. Good as being caught on tape robbing 7/11. The camera isn't an accuser, it's the proof showing your actions. How would their speed even matter at that point? They commited vehicular manslaughter because they were drunk. She could have gone ten miles an hour and caught the poor guy bending over with a fender to the dome. He's still dead she's still drunk. I don't recall all the details, I just remember what I shared. However, in the case of a car accident, it would completely matter. If my 17yr old turned up in a wreck dead and his buddy was found to have been speeding or driving reckless, then that box would most certainly matter. My point was it's just another technology and it all has a good and bad side. I personally think the good is negated. You can decide on your own. I see your point, but don't hold the fact that "big brother" can and will now hold someone accountable for their actions as a bad thing. It's the lack of accountability and people using "rights" and "loopholes" to get out of accountability that's bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miller Posted October 22, 2009 Report Share Posted October 22, 2009 The box isn't the accuser...it's hard evidence in a court of law. Good as being caught on tape robbing 7/11. The camera isn't an accuser, it's the proof showing your actions. I don't know how that would differentiate in court but I will take a gander and say it will. By hearing an audio tape or watching a video you are experiencing something pretty much first-hand. A box converting code into a readable text/graph/whatever witnessed that action - you are interpreting it as best you can. And I'm speaking for an incident that involves no witness but the box, just to clarify. I don't recall all the details, I just remember what I shared. However, in the case of a car accident, it would completely matter. If my 17yr old turned up in a wreck dead and his buddy was found to have been speeding or driving reckless, then that box would most certainly matter. Understandable, that is one of the reasons I would be pro-for. I see your point, but don't hold the fact that "big brother" can and will now hold someone accountable for their actions as a bad thing. It's the lack of accountability and people using "rights" and "loopholes" to get out of accountability that's bad. And I see yours, good argument. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KennyFKINPowerz Posted October 25, 2009 Report Share Posted October 25, 2009 Today its a black box. Tomorrow its something else. I think the point is that little by little we are being tracked more and more with the guise of saftey features or whatever. When do you say ok that is enough? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerTurbo Posted October 25, 2009 Report Share Posted October 25, 2009 As much as I don't want to give anyone the ability to "check in" on me doing anything, I can't really argue against OnStar. Driving isn't a right; monitor it all they need... I guess But, as long as there are other manufacturer cars that don't do this, I'll shop elsewhere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thorne Posted October 26, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 26, 2009 I loved on star on the monte., my wife locked her keys in the car, call and they unlock it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.