Brit License Plates Get Chipped

Paul · 08-10-2005, 03:51 AM

The British government is preparing to test new high-tech license plates containing microchips capable of transmitting unique vehicle identification numbers and other data to readers more than 300 feet away.

What bothers me about the whole thing is, they are looking to implement it State side evenutally and read what this Lee Tien guy says at the end:

Quote:

Civil libertarians don't object to an RFID automatic toll-collection system that "anonymizes" vehicles in databases once a transaction is completed. But they doubt the government -- given its thirst for intelligence -- will use such privacy-protection measures. From a law-enforcement perspective, "there is no reason to have privacy for anything," said Lee Tien, senior staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

http://www.wired.com/news/privacy/0,1848,68429,00.html

Am I the only one who's scared by statements like this?

Duke · 08-10-2005, 03:56 AM

This is only the devil you know.

matthewmurcia · 08-10-2005, 05:37 AM

This sort of thing is shocking. Any excuse to intrude more and collect more data on us. It wouldn't be so bad but then they don't know what to do with it and every time something bad happens it's the fault of bad intelligence. I've also heard about satellite traking for every car in the US and toll systems.

Merika · 08-10-2005, 11:36 AM

If someone doesn't have anything to hide....who cares? Just the cameras put up in banks and stores have not only curbed crime...but it has helped to solve other sorts of crimes and see where people were before they committed them.

If they want to put a chip on my car and it ends up helping them catch an criminal...I'm all for it.

matthewmurcia · 08-10-2005, 11:44 AM

But that depends on what you consider to be criminal or not. Tony Blair's new terrorism laws are going to try and outlaw understanding of terrorism, depending on how you interpret the wording. One man's terrorist has always been the other man's freedom fighter.

Merika · 08-10-2005, 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by matthewmurcia

One man's terrorist has always been the other man's freedom fighter.

But it always comes down to survival of the fittest. The boys with the best toys win. If we want to preserve who we are and what our way of life is....we have to be prepared to defend it. Right or wrong....it's just the way things are. This is what separates third world countires from countries who aren't.

matthewmurcia · 08-10-2005, 12:03 PM

But ask yourself who has the biggest toys? Britain and the US. They go around using them all the time which causes all the problems in the first place. Whoever has the most power wins. Corruption is everywhere, it's just covered up in different ways. I completely disagree with your definition of a third world country

Merika · 08-10-2005, 12:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by matthewmurcia

But ask yourself who has the biggest toys? Britain and the US.

Actually Canada and Australia are both good to go. They are very well financed military speaking. The best global intelligent comes from Norway....who has an awesome satellite network. Most European countires also have a decent defense budget... they just don't have an offensive budget....but would impliment it if they saw they needed to.

If they didn't all work together...we would all be speaking Chinese and carrying communist cards. Out only real threat would come from the Asian area.

In the Mid East......we just need to sort out the crazy ones. Other than that... I don't consider them that much of a global threat other than their capacity to harm Israel...which is our responsibilty to stop. We can make it without their oil....but Europe can't. Protecting it is a financial decision.

Russia is always a wild card....but their own economy keeps them beat down.

India is good. South America is disjointed....but good for oil for the US. Mexico should just be another US state since we support and feed them anyway.

The rest are third world countries and have seldom showed the where-with-all to govern or feed themselves. They are nothing but a liability. If it wasn't for the rest of the world...they wouldn't have a clue what electricity, vehicles or running water was all about.

That's my personal global wrap up.

matthewmurcia · 08-10-2005, 12:54 PM

Hmmm that's an interesting world view. I'm trying really, really hard not to wirte 'that's typically American and what has caused a lot of problems in the first place' cause I really, really hate to generalise, but it looks like it slipped out anyway

It'll take me a while to answer this properly.

Duke · 08-10-2005, 01:06 PM

I always find it interesting to hear both sides of the military debate because there's always two sides only. The US and the rest of the world. Please don't stone me for this little comment, it just seems that when it comes to political opinion, it usually turns to war on something, which usually translates to American doctrine versus the remainder of the planet. It makes for an interesting read.

BTW, Canada has a pretty meager defense budget unless you stack it up per capita against other countries (even then I'm not sure we rate too high), however, we don't put that money into armament, more toward R&D and helping those in need I believe.

Merika · 08-10-2005, 10:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by matthewmurcia

I'm trying really, really hard not to wirte 'that's typically American and what has caused a lot of problems in the first place'

HAHA.... it's perfectly ok for you to say that! Only liberals and Democrats try to redeem themselves..... the rest of us are quite happy with our crustly conservative Republican selves.

I really don't know what makes a person one way or the other. I have a family which is mixed in opinion over any number of issues. As far back as I can remember though...I've always felt exactly like I do now about almost everything and I doubt very seriously I will ever change.

To make it worse....I'm southern. Not only do we not care what the world thinks....but we aren't all that fond of the rest of America either.

At least I'm honest!

Merika · 08-10-2005, 10:28 PM

Canada Defense Budget....Not too shabby!

$12.8 billion over the next five years for Canada's military, the biggest increase in defence spending in two decades.

About $3 billion will go to boosting the strength of the Canadian Forces by 5,000 troops and the reserves by 3,000 soldiers and another $3.2 billion to bolster training, improve medical care, cover supply and repair shortages, and repair infrastructure.
--------------------------------------

I don't particularly like the color of their Navy ships...but they are just awesome inside! They run exercises with our ships (here where I live) and have quite an excellent navy.

Duke · 08-10-2005, 10:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Merika

Canada Defense Budget....Not too shabby!

$12.8 billion over the next five years for Canada's military, the biggest increase in defence spending in two decades.

About $3 billion will go to boosting the strength of the Canadian Forces by 5,000 troops and the reserves by 3,000 soldiers and another $3.2 billion to bolster training, improve medical care, cover supply and repair shortages, and repair infrastructure.

Thats peanuts really. Yes it's a big chunk to go to the military, but when you consider the fact that we don't really have anything of relavence other than adding foot soldiers, the amount is pretty meager indeed. We're not fighters, we're lovers and play support roles but that's pretty much it. Also, much of these troops are usually used for helping out in disaster relief situations. We don't see a lot of actual combat.

matthewmurcia · 08-11-2005, 05:36 AM

They must be getting ready to fend off all those hairy southern americans from mistaking Toronto for Tehran. I've always wondered why so many girls seem to be anti-war but then go all gooey as soon as they see a guy in a smart uniform in a shiny ship.

Meanon · 08-11-2005, 10:44 AM

Ask merika to explain it to you, matthew. Mind you at least she's consistent in that she's not anti-war. From memory, it has something to do with big guns, swamps and stamina

I must admit, I've not read about why this is necessary but assume it's part of the new package of mesures in reponse to 7 July attacks. Any new technology like this needs to be introduced with safeguards in place to prevent abuse and with it's implementation subject to regular, public scrutiny. It is a slow erosion of civil liberties, but the risk of abuse is small compared to say, the risk of terrorism. I thinik it's a necessary evil. We also have the right not to be blown up on the way to work, that's more fundamental than the right not to have anonymised data collected about our movements.