GPS Tracking Coming to a DMV Near You

In article <%Bksf.4482$Q73.1487@trnddc03>, DaveW wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>> In article <lHhsf.4075$Q73.2059@trnddc03>, DaveW wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Sounds like yet another good argument for private, as opposed to
>>>government roads.

>> Which will become corporate controlled roads, and corporations are some
>> of the biggest backers of tracking. Haven't you noticed how corporations
>> have been attempting to track and log everything people buy, do, etc with
>> their products?
>>
>> Broad band over power lines has been considered a good thing by
>> corporations because it will allow them to monitor the entire life cycle
>> of products that are plugged into electrical outlets.
>>
>> A private controlled road will be about as untracked as going to a large
>> chain grocery store and being forced to choose between having your
>> purchases tracked and paying very high prices.
>>
>>
>
>
> Drivel.
>
> First you make the assumption that privately owned means corporate owned,

I wrote 'will become corporate controled roads'. How long do you think a
benevolent group of private citizens will retain control of a large
expensive enterprise such as roads?

And two words for you CHICAGO SKYWAY. There's your prototype "private"
road.

> Second, you assume that Corporations (limited liability companies)
> themselves are not creations of government.

Made no such comment. BTW, corporations often buy government.

> Third, and mostly correct, you assume that ordinary people will gladly
> give up privacy and freedom to save a few bucks.

They obviously have since large chain grocery stores are still in
business despite people like me not shopping there any more.

> That's how we got into the mess in the first place.

And I've seen no let up on people accepting tracking. I've seen no let up
at people thinking anyone who objects to it as a paranoid.

On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 13:20:18 -0500, "Mike T." >
wrote:

>> Look for public transit usage to explode if anything like this is ever
>> enacted.
>
>Highly unlikely . . . at least in the U.S. Even THAT (gps tracking of all
>vehicles) wouldn't be enough to push people onto mass transit in the U.S.

Yeah, you're probably right. The sheeple who see nothing wrong with
allowing some goombah to search their bags as they exit MicroCenter or
Circuit ****ty will probably welcome GPS vehicle tracking with open
arms.

>Even if it did, they'd start scanning your ID when you enter and leave each
>station.

Oops! Forgot my ID at home!!

On 27 Dec 2005 20:24:47 GMT, (John F. Carr) wrote:

>In article >, Scott en Aztlán wrote:
>>
>>Look for public transit usage to explode if anything like this is ever
>>enacted.
>
>They have that covered. The Boston Herald reports today
>that the MBTA's new electronic fare collection system
>will keep use records for two years. You can pay extra
>to have a pass that is harder to automatically link to
>you. New York has been using passes to track subway users
>for years.

So you're saying they charge you extra to buy the passes with cash?

On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 14:27:44 -0600,
(Brent P) wrote:

>In article >, Scott en Aztlán wrote:
>
>> Look for public transit usage to explode if anything like this is ever
>> enacted.
>
>They'll have you carrying an indentifiable tracking fare card.
>Here's the prototype:
>http://www.chicago-card.com/cc/

According to the page, I can buy a ChicagoCard at Jewel, Dominick's,
and Osco. Last time I was in Chicago (a couple of months ago), those
places still accepted cash.

Scott en Aztlán wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 14:27:44 -0600,
> (Brent P) wrote:
>
>
>>In article >, Scott en Aztlán wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Look for public transit usage to explode if anything like this is ever
>>>enacted.
>>
>>They'll have you carrying an indentifiable tracking fare card.
>>Here's the prototype:
>>http://www.chicago-card.com/cc/
>
>
> According to the page, I can buy a ChicagoCard at Jewel, Dominick's,
> and Osco. Last time I was in Chicago (a couple of months ago), those
> places still accepted cash.

And there is still at least one turnstyle lane at each CTA station that
accepts coins, the last time I was there.

--
___________________________________________ ____ _______________
Regards, | |\ ____
| | | | |\
Michael G. Koerner May they | | | | | | rise again!
Appleton, Wisconsin USA | | | | | |
___________________________________________ | | | | | | _______________

In article >, Scott en Aztlán wrote:

>>Here's the prototype:
>>http://www.chicago-card.com/cc/

> According to the page, I can buy a ChicagoCard at Jewel, Dominick's,
> and Osco. Last time I was in Chicago (a couple of months ago), those
> places still accepted cash.

Then you have to activate it. One can get an IPass at Jewel too. Jewel
doesn't give a flying f who you are when buying an Ipass, only if you're
buying toilet paper, meat, cheese, or some other thing they are selling
with their savers card. However, using the I-Pass without activating it
(IE telling the IL toll road authority who you are) is a crime and it
won't work anyway.

In article >,
Scott en Aztlán <newsgroup> wrote:
>On 27 Dec 2005 20:24:47 GMT, (John F. Carr) wrote:
>
>>In article >, Scott en Aztlán wrote:
>>>
>>>Look for public transit usage to explode if anything like this is ever
>>>enacted.
>>
>>They have that covered. The Boston Herald reports today
>>that the MBTA's new electronic fare collection system
>>will keep use records for two years. You can pay extra
>>to have a pass that is harder to automatically link to
>>you. New York has been using passes to track subway users
>>for years.
>
>So you're saying they charge you extra to buy the passes with cash?

Regular users pay extra if they buy short term passes instead
of monthly passes. Monthly passes bought with cash probably
have a video record of the purchase.

--
John Carr )

>>
>>Highly unlikely . . . at least in the U.S. Even THAT (gps tracking of all
>>vehicles) wouldn't be enough to push people onto mass transit in the U.S.
>
> Yeah, you're probably right. The sheeple who see nothing wrong with
> allowing some goombah to search their bags as they exit MicroCenter or
> Circuit ****ty will probably welcome GPS vehicle tracking with open
> arms.
>
>>Even if it did, they'd start scanning your ID when you enter and leave
>>each
>>station.
>
> Oops! Forgot my ID at home!!
>

I guess you are walking to work, with dark-suited "gentlemen" pacing you at
10 yards the whole way. -Dave

Scott en Aztlán wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 13:20:18 -0500, "Mike T." >
> wrote:
>
>
>>>Look for public transit usage to explode if anything like this is ever
>>>enacted.
>>
>>Highly unlikely . . . at least in the U.S. Even THAT (gps tracking of all
>>vehicles) wouldn't be enough to push people onto mass transit in the U.S.
>
>
> Yeah, you're probably right. The sheeple who see nothing wrong with
> allowing some goombah to search their bags as they exit MicroCenter or
> Circuit ****ty will probably welcome GPS vehicle tracking with open
> arms.
>
>
While Pentagon wonks talk about permanent war you worry about having
your bag checked?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/st...674184,00.html

--
You can't fool me: there ain't no Sanity Clause - Chico Marx

www.geocities.com/Athens/Agora/1955

DaveW wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>
>> In article <lHhsf.4075$Q73.2059@trnddc03>, DaveW wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Sounds like yet another good argument for private, as opposed to
>>> government roads.
>>
>>
>>
>> Which will become corporate controlled roads, and corporations are
>> some of the biggest backers of tracking. Haven't you noticed how
>> corporations have been attempting to track and log everything people
>> buy, do, etc with their products?
>> Broad band over power lines has been considered a good thing by
>> corporations because it will allow them to monitor the entire life
>> cycle of products that are plugged into electrical outlets.
>> A private controlled road will be about as untracked as going to a
>> large chain grocery store and being forced to choose between having
>> your purchases tracked and paying very high prices.
>>
>
>
> Drivel.

Oooooooooooooooooooh!
>
> First you make the assumption that privately owned means corporate owned,
>
I understood him to mean that it would turn out that way, not that it
was by definition the same thing.

> Second, you assume that Corporations (limited liability companies)
> themselves are not creations of government.
>
Quite obviously they are not, and not all limited libility companies are
corporations. A private company becomes a corporation when it sells
shares on the stock market, though in practice there is more to it than
that. This can be quite important. A boss may choose to take reduced
profits for whatever reason: a corporation is *legally* obliged to
maximize profits.

> Third, and mostly correct, you assume that ordinary people will gladly
> give up privacy and freedom to save a few bucks. That's how we got into
> the mess in the first place.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> DAve
>


--
You can't fool me: there ain't no Sanity Clause - Chico Marx

www.geocities.com/Athens/Agora/1955