On Thu, May 31, 2001 at 07:09:43PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Orwellian.Org/docs/ITS_E-ZPass_NY_NJ.pdf > # > # TRANSCOM members, many of whom are also involved with the E-ZPass > # effort, saw the benefits of building incident detection and > # congestion monitoring functions upon the E-ZPass transponder. Like they need a transponder for congestion monitoring? Pressure pads and cameras aren't enough? > # Additional readers could be installed along the highway to provide > # TRANSCOM with regional incident detection and congestion management > # data...vehicles could be used as probes...exit data will be collected. Aha, we're thinking: it's to save people in case of an accident. Yes, this is technology to the rescue. But read on, and you see "incidents" are canonized as speeding. > http://www.its.dot.gov/staterpt/NY.HTM#deployment > # > # TRANSMIT (TRANSCOM) - $3.5 million test completed 11/99 > # > # This test evaluates the use of automatic > # vehicle identification (AVI) technology as an > # incident detection tool. The system consists > # of AVI "tag" readers which allow vehicles > # equipped with transponders to serve as traffic > # probes to identify potential incidents by > # comparing actual to predicted travel times > # between readers. > > You are now a traffic probe, using your electronic license plate. > > Your highly detailed movements are monitored for your safety. The part that is obviously forthcoming: "No, you may not disable broadcasts to or from your transponder any time your vehicle is operated. It's an important part of your [safety / freedom / convenience]." So much for putting our E-ZPass in a tempest-proof box... > They never told us E-ZPass was part of a massive monitoring system. (I think we already figured that part out, didn't we?) The thing is, it is taking more time than George Orwell predicted, but we're getting closer and closer to NOT ONLY national identification numbers (here, as we see, in the guise of identification numbers for our cars), BUT SOON something that even Orwell didn't foresee: constant tracking of everyone's whereabouts on demand (without the video screen). How could he envision the economy of scale that results when EVERYONE is monitored, ALL the time? Who can doubt that based on current privacy case law, any such monitoring in public places will be deemed perfectly legal? Judge: "No, you did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy concerning your location. No, it was not necessary to get a search warrant to monitor your movements." -- Greg
