Linked by David Adams on Wed 19th Mar 2008 10:41 UTC
Privacy, Security, Encryption The technologies we rely on, both new and old, are now very effective tools that both governments and private firms are using to gather, analyze, store, and sell information about our private lives, habits, purchases, whereabouts, and even thoughts and beliefs. But some of this invasion of privacy pays a welcome dividend in convenience and power in our own lives. Where do we draw the line, and how can we use this potentially-invasive technology for our benefit, without sacrificing our private lives to commerce?
Thread beginning with comment 305675
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Comment by l3v1
by l3v1 on Wed 19th Mar 2008 14:53 UTC
l3v1
Member since:
2005-07-06

more time a driver spends on the road, the more likelihood of an eventually accident


Which is of course not true. Inexperienced drivers can much easily cause an accident since they run into situations they haven't seen before more easily and they don't have the experience to deal with the situation properly. Spending more time on the road in itself can mean exactly nothing if one wants to get some estimate about the likelihood of an accident. Even having spent a long time on the road without accidents can mean nothing if one doesn't take into consideration what type of car has that person been driving during those years and currently. Also, age in itself can mean nothing either, without complementing with other information about driving experience, fine history, type of car driven, etc.

[edit: added the following]

There would eventually be a presumption that people who didn't want to be monitored were reckless drivers, and the price for privacy would be punitive insurance rates.


This is the same smelly argument that's so fashionable to use in the US if you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear. It's not sympathetic, beacuse it's a twisted argument and it can easily make innocent people look like being guilty, forcing them to prove their innocence, which is really not OK, to say the least.

I wouldn't argue against having to pay a somewhat higher price if one wouldn't want to have the tracking device, but going any further than that just calls for trouble.

Edited 2008-03-19 14:58 UTC

Reply Score: 5

RE: Comment by l3v1
by Treza on Wed 19th Mar 2008 15:31 in reply to "Comment by l3v1"
Treza Member since:
2006-01-11

It reminds the story about the fact that most accidents happens near home and some argue that it is because people become careless as they know the area.

The twist is that you spend more time near home, so you will statistically have more accident there.

(Disclaimer: I didn't read the article yet. I know I'm off topic)

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE: Comment by l3v1
by Treza on Wed 19th Mar 2008 15:35 in reply to "Comment by l3v1"
Treza Member since:
2006-01-11

Another stuff is that "Law abiding citizens deserve to have the right to wear a gun"

All criminals were law abiding citizens before becoming criminals.
(till a 'crime' DNA sequence is discovered...)

(Disclamer2: Still off-topic, sorry)

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE: Comment by l3v1
by David on Wed 19th Mar 2008 18:27 in reply to "Comment by l3v1"
David Member since:
1997-10-01

Inexperienced drivers can much easily cause an accident since they run into situations they haven't seen before more easily and they don't have the experience to deal with the situation properly. Spending more time on the road in itself can mean exactly nothing if one wants to get some estimate about the likelihood of an accident.


Perhaps I was unclear in the point I was trying to make. I mean that every mile/hour driven is more opportunity for a driver to be in an accident (be hit by a careless driver, or fall victim to a road hazard, for example). Experienced drivers will of course have less likelihood for an accident, but people who only drive for 30 minutes per week are less likely to be in an accident than people who commute 2 hours per day. Currently, insurance companies must ask prospective clients how much they drive, and have to way to verify.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE: Comment by l3v1
by komrade on Wed 19th Mar 2008 19:13 in reply to "Comment by l3v1"
komrade Member since:
2008-02-28

This all, of course, presumes you have a car that contains a tracking device. Another reason for keeping that old car!

If the tracking device is associated with the body, the concept makes more sense. Does this person engage in risky behaviours? Go to dangerous places, travel fast at low altitude regardless of what seat in the car he/she is in, go past dangerous places, or consort with other known felons...oops...gone too far maybe...

Edited 2008-03-19 19:14 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: Comment by l3v1
by stestagg on Thu 20th Mar 2008 01:06 in reply to "Comment by l3v1"
stestagg Member since:
2006-06-03

more time a driver spends on the road, the more likelihood of an eventually accident


Which is of course not true. Inexperienced drivers can much easily cause an accident since they run into situations they haven't seen before more easily and they don't have the experience to deal with the situation properly....


Actually, technically, it is true.
The probability of having an accident can be seen as an integration of probability over time. Since the probability of having an accident at any time is always positive, and never zero, the longer you spend driving, the more likely you are to have an accident.

Reply Parent Score: 2