![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
An observation
Aug. 25th, 2003 11:00 amI find this sort of thing extremely interesting.
Basically, the idea is to put a chip in every car to identify it, and automate traffic law enforcement -- if you run a red light, the automated system notices and fines you, wherever you are.
Now, I can understand the privacy objection to this -- the idea that the system could be abused, and instead used to track people's movements, spy on them, etc. Let's set aside for a moment the notion of the system being abused.
What I find interesting is how strenuous the objections are to it being used exactly as intended. People are outraged that they might not be able to break traffic laws even when a cop isn't present.
Essentially, what this says is that everyone knows the laws are wrong. Everyone knows that normal behaviors are criminalized -- that they break the law every day, and so does everyone else, and that they rely on the fact that they can't get caught. What they're objecting to is the idea that they may not be able to evade legal enforcement anymore -- and so they think the technology must be stopped.
I think this is the wrong approach. If everyday people are objecting to a crime-stopping technology, then crime is defined too broadly. If people can't abide the idea of a law being enforced consistently and universally, with the guilty punished every time, then the law is probably wrong. The objection should not be to the technology, but to the law in question. To take traffic laws as an example (because they're the laws in question here), perhaps rather than laws with prescribed penalties, they should instead merely be rules for determining fault in an accident -- that is, it's not illegal to speed, or run a red light... but if you're speeding or running a red light and you cause an accident, then it's your fault by statute, and you pay the penalty (which may well include criminal, as well as civil liability, for reckless endangement or somesuch). Could anyone possibly object to people being punished for violating traffic laws every time that violation causes an accident? I doubt many sane (and non-anarchist) people would raise such an objection.
We as a society are too dependent on the government acting as a parent -- punishing infractions "because they say so". When victimless crimes are punished, everyone becomes a criminal, and evading the law becomes everyday practice. It destroys respect for the law -- it results in an obvious separation between what is legal and what is moral. People in general do not respect the law anymore -- because the law has ceased to deserve their respect.
Basically, the idea is to put a chip in every car to identify it, and automate traffic law enforcement -- if you run a red light, the automated system notices and fines you, wherever you are.
Now, I can understand the privacy objection to this -- the idea that the system could be abused, and instead used to track people's movements, spy on them, etc. Let's set aside for a moment the notion of the system being abused.
What I find interesting is how strenuous the objections are to it being used exactly as intended. People are outraged that they might not be able to break traffic laws even when a cop isn't present.
Essentially, what this says is that everyone knows the laws are wrong. Everyone knows that normal behaviors are criminalized -- that they break the law every day, and so does everyone else, and that they rely on the fact that they can't get caught. What they're objecting to is the idea that they may not be able to evade legal enforcement anymore -- and so they think the technology must be stopped.
I think this is the wrong approach. If everyday people are objecting to a crime-stopping technology, then crime is defined too broadly. If people can't abide the idea of a law being enforced consistently and universally, with the guilty punished every time, then the law is probably wrong. The objection should not be to the technology, but to the law in question. To take traffic laws as an example (because they're the laws in question here), perhaps rather than laws with prescribed penalties, they should instead merely be rules for determining fault in an accident -- that is, it's not illegal to speed, or run a red light... but if you're speeding or running a red light and you cause an accident, then it's your fault by statute, and you pay the penalty (which may well include criminal, as well as civil liability, for reckless endangement or somesuch). Could anyone possibly object to people being punished for violating traffic laws every time that violation causes an accident? I doubt many sane (and non-anarchist) people would raise such an objection.
We as a society are too dependent on the government acting as a parent -- punishing infractions "because they say so". When victimless crimes are punished, everyone becomes a criminal, and evading the law becomes everyday practice. It destroys respect for the law -- it results in an obvious separation between what is legal and what is moral. People in general do not respect the law anymore -- because the law has ceased to deserve their respect.
