Emergency services - Time for a auto kill switch!

Author

Time for a auto kill switch!

poboxdc@ix.netcom.com

2004-10-10, 2:11 am

It's about time auto makers installed a "kill switch" that
would allow police officers to disrupt the ignition of
a suspect's vehicle .... instead of chasing the suspect
along interstate highways and through congested cities,
placing everyone at risk for serious injury or death.

The technology is there .... why not do it?

In this particular chase that began near my home, the
police officer ended up hitting a Toyota in Washington, DC
and the two, innocent occupants ended up in critical condition.

The suspect, as usual, got away.

----------------------------------------------------
Police from two jurisdictions are still investigating a police chase
that started in Montgomery County and ended in a crash in Northwest
DC.

http://www.wusatv9.com/news/news_ar...x?storyid=33890
<http://www.wusatv9.com/news/news_ar...x?storyid=33890>
----------------------------------------------------

(KM)

Ry-On

2004-10-10, 2:11 am

What would you expect? Put a dummy in a uniform,
give him a driver's license and they kill innocent people.

Better than a kill switch would be to hire educated people
to be police men. But then, educated people wouldn't want
a job compared to a garbologists.

On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 18:44:27 -0400, poboxdc@ix.netcom.com wrote:

>It's about time auto makers installed a "kill switch" that
>would allow police officers to disrupt the ignition of
>a suspect's vehicle .... instead of chasing the suspect
>along interstate highways and through congested cities,
>placing everyone at risk for serious injury or death.
>
>The technology is there .... why not do it?
>
>In this particular chase that began near my home, the
>police officer ended up hitting a Toyota in Washington, DC
>and the two, innocent occupants ended up in critical condition.
>
>The suspect, as usual, got away.
>
>----------------------------------------------------
>Police from two jurisdictions are still investigating a police chase
>that started in Montgomery County and ended in a crash in Northwest
>DC.
>
>http://www.wusatv9.com/news/news_ar...x?storyid=33890
><http://www.wusatv9.com/news/news_ar...x?storyid=33890>
>----------------------------------------------------
>
>(KM)

Paul

2004-10-10, 2:11 am

<poboxdc@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:416869CB.F8612AC4@ix.netcom.com...
> It's about time auto makers installed a "kill switch" that
> would allow police officers to disrupt the ignition of
> a suspect's vehicle .... instead of chasing the suspect

<snip>

Maybe the cops ought to put them in their cars first before people like
you mandate them for us.....
http://tinyurl.com/5jtal

BTW, where does governmental abuse of this system stop? I can just see
some shit for brains politician deciding to use such technology to
restrict the law abiding's ability to get around.

James C. Reeves

2004-10-10, 2:11 am

I disagree...abuse of the technology would become rampant.

<poboxdc@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:416869CB.F8612AC4@ix.netcom.com...
| It's about time auto makers installed a "kill switch" that
| would allow police officers to disrupt the ignition of
| a suspect's vehicle .... instead of chasing the suspect
| along interstate highways and through congested cities,
| placing everyone at risk for serious injury or death.
|
| The technology is there .... why not do it?
|
| In this particular chase that began near my home, the
| police officer ended up hitting a Toyota in Washington, DC
| and the two, innocent occupants ended up in critical condition.
|
| The suspect, as usual, got away.
|
| ----------------------------------------------------
| Police from two jurisdictions are still investigating a police chase
| that started in Montgomery County and ended in a crash in Northwest
| DC.
|
| http://www.wusatv9.com/news/news_ar...x?storyid=33890
| <http://www.wusatv9.com/news/news_ar...x?storyid=33890>
| ----------------------------------------------------
|
| (KM)

poboxdc@ix.netcom.com

2004-10-10, 2:11 am

Paul wrote:
>
> <poboxdc@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:416869CB.F8612AC4@ix.netcom.com...
>
> <snip>
>
> Maybe the cops ought to put them in their cars first before people like
> you mandate them for us.....
> http://tinyurl.com/5jtal

Maybe they should .... before anymore people get hurt!

(KM)

poboxdc@ix.netcom.com

2004-10-10, 2:11 am

"James C. Reeves" wrote:
>
> I disagree...abuse of the technology would become rampant.

Oh, do speeding criminals and drunk drivers have "rights?"

(KM)

poboxdc@ix.netcom.com

2004-10-10, 2:11 am

Ry-On wrote:
>
> What would you expect? Put a dummy in a uniform,
> give him a driver's license and they kill innocent people.

Uh? Did you read and understand any of this problem? A
common, drunken criminal led police on a high speed chase.

> Better than a kill switch would be to hire educated people
> to be police men. But then, educated people wouldn't want
> a job compared to a garbologists.

Are you assuming an "educated" officer wouldn't chase
the suspect?

Just what is your point?

(KM)

Scott en Aztlán

2004-10-10, 2:11 am

On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 18:44:27 -0400, poboxdc@ix.netcom.com wrote:

>It's about time auto makers installed a "kill switch" that
>would allow police officers to disrupt the ignition of
>a suspect's vehicle .... instead of chasing the suspect
>along interstate highways and through congested cities,
>placing everyone at risk for serious injury or death.
>
>The technology is there .... why not do it?

I agree - I'd *love* to have a remote kill switch to get those goddamn
LLBs out of my way!

Now before you give me your naive protestations about how only the
police will be authorized to use it, recall how controllers forthe
system that turns traffic signals green for emergency vehicles were
recently being sold to the public on the Internet.

>In this particular chase that began near my home, the
>police officer ended up hitting a Toyota in Washington, DC
>and the two, innocent occupants ended up in critical condition.

And that is somehow the chasee's fault? Seems to me the crash was the
fault of the incompetent XXXX behind the wheel of the police car; if
he can't handle a car at high speed, he shouldn't be chasing suspects
through congested city streets. In fact, this is *precisely* why many
police departments have policies against chasing suspects.

--
Sloth Kills!
http://www.geocities.com/slothkills/

maradcliff@UNLISTED.com

2004-10-10, 2:11 am

Do you really think a criminal would keep the kill switch in working
order? I know that I could easily bypass such a device, of course I
am trained in electronics, but criminals have friends who can work on
cars too.

And what about the guy that decides to build a "stop box" and drives
around killing everyones cars for fun. Yes, the technology is there,
but so are the "hackers". Look at all the viruses on the internet and
you'll understand the problem.

On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 18:44:27 -0400, poboxdc@ix.netcom.com wrote:

>It's about time auto makers installed a "kill switch" that
>would allow police officers to disrupt the ignition of
>a suspect's vehicle .... instead of chasing the suspect
>along interstate highways and through congested cities,
>placing everyone at risk for serious injury or death.
>
>The technology is there .... why not do it?
>
>In this particular chase that began near my home, the
>police officer ended up hitting a Toyota in Washington, DC
>and the two, innocent occupants ended up in critical condition.
>
>The suspect, as usual, got away.
>
>----------------------------------------------------
>Police from two jurisdictions are still investigating a police chase
>that started in Montgomery County and ended in a crash in Northwest
>DC.
>
>http://www.wusatv9.com/news/news_ar...x?storyid=33890
><http://www.wusatv9.com/news/news_ar...x?storyid=33890>
>----------------------------------------------------
>
>(KM)

poboxdc@ix.netcom.com

2004-10-10, 2:11 am

maradcliff@UNLISTED.com wrote:
>
> Do you really think a criminal would keep the kill switch in working
> order? I know that I could easily bypass such a device, of course I
> am trained in electronics, but criminals have friends who can work on
> cars too.
>
> And what about the guy that decides to build a "stop box" and drives
> around killing everyones cars for fun. Yes, the technology is there,
> but so are the "hackers". Look at all the viruses on the internet and
> you'll understand the problem.

I fully understand there will be all sorts of abusers in
society. They abuse guns, drugs, people, and the list goes
on and on.

But what is worse ... regarding the engine kill switch, a
few people inconveienced ..... or a few dead people from
a chase?

(KM)

poboxdc@ix.netcom.com

2004-10-10, 2:11 am

"Scott en Aztlán" wrote:
>
> On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 18:44:27 -0400, poboxdc@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
>
> I agree - I'd *love* to have a remote kill switch to get those goddamn
> LLBs out of my way!
>
> Now before you give me your naive protestations about how only the
> police will be authorized to use it, recall how controllers forthe
> system that turns traffic signals green for emergency vehicles were
> recently being sold to the public on the Internet.

So what?

>
> And that is somehow the chasee's fault? Seems to me the crash was the
> fault of the incompetent XXXX behind the wheel of the police car; if
> he can't handle a car at high speed, he shouldn't be chasing suspects
> through congested city streets. In fact, this is *precisely* why many
> police departments have policies against chasing suspects.

If a "kill switch" had been properly used we wouldn't be having this
conversation .... would we? For God's sake, grow up!

(KM)

Dave S

2004-10-10, 11:10 am

> But what is worse ... regarding the engine kill switch, a
> few people inconveienced ..... or a few dead people from
> a chase?
>
> (KM)

Dead people dont vote... (well, except in Chicago)...

Inconvenienced ones usually DO.

Not saying its a bad idea.. just saying the masses will never allow it.

Dave

Daniel J. Stern

2004-10-10, 11:10 am

On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 poboxdc@ix.netcom.com wrote:

> But what is worse ... regarding the engine kill switch, a few people
> inconveienced ..... or a few dead people from a chase?

Benjamin Franklin said "Those who would give up essential liberty to
purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither", and he was right.
Franklin died in 1790 -- people like you will never learn.

Laura Bush murdered her boy friend

2004-10-10, 11:10 am

poboxdc@ix.netcom.com wrote in message news:<416869CB.F8612AC4@ix.netcom.com>...
> It's about time auto makers installed a "kill switch" that
> would allow police officers to disrupt the ignition of
> a suspect's vehicle .... instead of chasing the suspect
> along interstate highways and through congested cities,
> placing everyone at risk for serious injury or death.
>
> The technology is there .... why not do it?
>

Yeah - but what would the car do then with power steering and power
brakes no longer working? Sounds like you're asking for a crash.

Barry S.

2004-10-10, 11:10 am

poboxdc@ix.netcom.com wrote:

>It's about time auto makers installed a "kill switch" that
>would allow police officers to disrupt the ignition of
>a suspect's vehicle .... instead of chasing the suspect
>along interstate highways and through congested cities,
>placing everyone at risk for serious injury or death.
>
>The technology is there .... why not do it?
>
>In this particular chase that began near my home, the
>police officer ended up hitting a Toyota in Washington, DC
>and the two, innocent occupants ended up in critical condition.
>
>The suspect, as usual, got away.

After reading the room temperature IQ responses to your proposal the
conclusion is your post is either a thinly disguised troll to stir the
local moron pot (Dave maybe being an exception) who have for years
populated these groups or maybe it was an attempt to start a
reasonable discussion on finding a real solution to a real problem in
which case you now realize you picked the wrong place. Never ask a
reasonable question in a group that is overpopulated with hatemongers.

As for your proposal, like Dave wrote, it's not a bad idea but it's
unlikely to ever see the light of day until a legislator or judge
becomes the victim.

James C. Reeves

2004-10-10, 11:10 am

<poboxdc@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:4168BA3D.CA2BD174@ix.netcom.com...
| "James C. Reeves" wrote:
| >
| > I disagree...abuse of the technology would become rampant.
|
| Oh, do speeding criminals and drunk drivers have "rights?"
|
| (KM)

Uhm...yes they do, actually.

But that wasn't the abuse I was speaking of. Just like people that should have
it now have gotten their hands on the device that sets traffic lights to green
for them. People that shouldn't have the "kill" technology will get their
hands on it as well.

BTR1701

2004-10-10, 11:10 am

In article <4168D566.9075ABED@ix.netcom.com>, poboxdc@ix.netcom.com
wrote:

> If a "kill switch" had been properly used we wouldn't be having this
> conversation .... would we? For God's sake, grow up!

Bottom line: my car is *my* property. No government bureaucrat has the
right to force me to let him turn it on and off at his whim.

Big Bill

2004-10-10, 7:09 pm

On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 00:51:36 -0500, maradcliff@UNLISTED.com wrote:

>Do you really think a criminal would keep the kill switch in working
>order? I know that I could easily bypass such a device, of course I
>am trained in electronics, but criminals have friends who can work on
>cars too.
>
>And what about the guy that decides to build a "stop box" and drives
>around killing everyones cars for fun. Yes, the technology is there,
>but so are the "hackers". Look at all the viruses on the internet and
>you'll understand the problem.
>
This is relatively easy to overcome.
The license tag is already keyed to the car. Assuming that the tag
hasn't been changed (a rash assumption in many cases where this would
need to be used), it's possible to have the device in the car to be
made such that a coded RF burst is needed to stop the engine; sort of
lile a garage door opener. The LEO would give the plate number to the
radio dispatcher, the dispatcher would look up the code, tell it to
the LEO, who would program the stop box, then activate it. The car, if
everything went right, would have a dead engine, ad the driver would
have all the problems that implies.
Which is one reason this would only be done in extreme cases, and the
cost would then be high per use.
The technology exists, but the conxequences of it's use is something
the individual community would have to consider.
[vbcol=seagreen]
>
>
>On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 18:44:27 -0400, poboxdc@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>

Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

dptyrob

2004-10-10, 7:09 pm

Not an entirely bad idea, but you're talking about all sorts of legal
battles and outraged protest. I have my reservations about having an
extra vulnerability where some crackpot could pull up behind my wife and
kids with some sort of home made scrambler and disable their car on a
deserted road after dark, myself.

As to the technical feasibility of the idea I believe there are some
tools presently in the works that could be used to "zap" a car and kill
the engine gradually so that you don't have a total and sudden loss of
brakes & steering. Even if that technology becomes reliable and
affordable, there's still going to be a chance that its use may
contribute to the driver of the fleeing vehicle fleeing, though that
driver would probably be much more likely to wreck by continuing to
drive in the manner in which he has been. Since there is that chance,
laws and policies will probably be shaped to authorize the use of such
an instrument in instances where deadly force is authorized, like
similar situations where firing into a vehicle or performing a PIT
maneuver is authorized.

As to the many other negative remarks about law enforcement offered up
by some of the others that have responded to this topic, I wager there's
nothing that law enforcement could do to satisfy you short of being
perfect. More and more agencies are adopting no chase policies or
policies where they only chase people suspected of serious, violent
crimes. But that doesn't ensure that no-one will be hurt or killed
during chases. If we could cross train every officer to be a
lawyer/judge/social worker/marriage counselor/doctor/ninja warrior/race
car driver and the best in all of those fields (which we could do if we
trained them 7 days a week from birth through about age 50), there still
remains the facts that officers are humans that make mistakes and that
there are many variables out there that impact an officer's work above
and beyond his own training, skill, and intelligence.

poboxdc@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> It's about time auto makers installed a "kill switch" that
> would allow police officers to disrupt the ignition of
> a suspect's vehicle .... instead of chasing the suspect
> along interstate highways and through congested cities,
> placing everyone at risk for serious injury or death.
>
> The technology is there .... why not do it?
>
> In this particular chase that began near my home, the
> police officer ended up hitting a Toyota in Washington, DC
> and the two, innocent occupants ended up in critical condition.
>
> The suspect, as usual, got away.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------
> Police from two jurisdictions are still investigating a police chase
> that started in Montgomery County and ended in a crash in Northwest
> DC.
>
> http://www.wusatv9.com/news/news_ar...x?storyid=33890
> <http://www.wusatv9.com/news/news_ar...x?storyid=33890>
> ----------------------------------------------------
>
> (KM)

Scott en Aztlán

2004-10-10, 7:09 pm

On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 02:23:34 -0400, poboxdc@ix.netcom.com wrote:

>
>So what?

Stunning comeback.

Ever consider becoming a professional debater?

--
Sloth Kills!
http://www.geocities.com/slothkills/

Scott en Aztlán

2004-10-10, 7:09 pm

On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 02:20:48 -0400, poboxdc@ix.netcom.com wrote:

>I fully understand there will be all sorts of abusers in
>society. They abuse guns, drugs, people, and the list goes
>on and on.
>
>But what is worse ... regarding the engine kill switch, a
>few people inconveienced ..... or a few dead people from
>a chase?

<YAWN> That one didn't even register on the Troll-O-Meter.

>(KM)

Does KM stand for "Killfile Me?"

--
Sloth Kills!
http://www.geocities.com/slothkills/

Scott en Aztlán

2004-10-10, 7:09 pm

On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 10:54:44 -0500, Barry S.
<beerisforpussys@shoveit.com> wrote:

>poboxdc@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
>
>After reading the room temperature IQ responses to your proposal the
>conclusion is your post is either a thinly disguised troll to stir the
>local moron pot (Dave maybe being an exception) who have for years
>populated these groups

Welcome to "Troll, Counter-Troll."

--
Sloth Kills!
http://www.geocities.com/slothkills/

2004-10-10, 7:09 pm

On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 00:27:41 -0400, poboxdc@ix.netcom.com wrote:

>"James C. Reeves" wrote:
>
>Oh, do speeding criminals and drunk drivers have "rights?"

And......Does one idiot trying to catch another idiot have a right to
kill innocent people??? Think about it.

>
>(KM)

2004-10-10, 7:09 pm

On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 00:26:03 -0400, poboxdc@ix.netcom.com wrote:

>Ry-On wrote:
>
>Uh? Did you read and understand any of this problem? A
>common, drunken criminal led police on a high speed chase.
>
>
>
>Are you assuming an "educated" officer wouldn't chase
>the suspect?
>
>Just what is your point?
An educated officer would, definitely never put innocent
citizens lifes in danger to catch a speeder. Just like an
educated cop would never shoot at a bank robber on a
busy side walk. It's a subject that actually requires no thought
at all. It should be simple logic. But logic only applies to
educatedd people.

>
>(KM)

2004-10-10, 7:09 pm

On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 02:23:34 -0400, poboxdc@ix.netcom.com wrote:

>"Scott en Aztlán" wrote:
>
>So what?

So he says, "So what?" That explains it all about intelligent people.

>
>
>If a "kill switch" had been properly used we wouldn't be having this
>conversation .... would we? For God's sake, grow up!
>
>(KM)

2004-10-10, 7:09 pm

[vbcol=seagreen]
>On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 18:44:27 -0400, poboxdc@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>

Well people, you can still purchase what's called led paper.
it's about 1/16 thick. wrap it around your vehicle's main processor
and that stops the signal from the Government's kill switch.

[vbcol=seagreen]

2004-10-10, 7:09 pm

On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 10:23:37 -0700, Scott en Aztlán
<slothkills@NOyahooSPAM.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 02:23:34 -0400, poboxdc@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
>
>Stunning comeback.
>
>Ever consider becoming a professional debater?

He can't. Professional debaters don't eat doughnuts. :D

2004-10-10, 7:09 pm

On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 02:20:48 -0400, poboxdc@ix.netcom.com wrote:

>maradcliff@UNLISTED.com wrote:
>
>I fully understand there will be all sorts of abusers in
>society. They abuse guns, drugs, people, and the list goes
>on and on.
>
>But what is worse ... regarding the engine kill switch, a
>few people inconveienced ..... or a few dead people from
>a chase?

Or a cop on even more of a power trip than he already is?

>
>(KM)

dptyrob

2004-10-10, 7:09 pm

Not an entirely bad idea, but you're talking about all sorts of legal
battles and outraged protest. I have my reservations about having an
extra vulnerability where some crackpot could pull up behind my wife and
kids with some sort of home made scrambler and disable their car on a
deserted road after dark, myself.

As to the technical feasibility of the idea I believe there are some
tools presently in the works that could be used to "zap" a car and kill
the engine gradually so that you don't have a total and sudden loss of
brakes & steering. Even if that technology becomes reliable and
affordable, there's still going to be a chance that its use may
contribute to the driver of the fleeing vehicle fleeing, though that
driver would probably be much more likely to wreck by continuing to
drive in the manner in which he has been. Since there is that chance,
laws and policies will probably be shaped to authorize the use of such
an instrument in instances where deadly force is authorized, like
similar situations where firing into a vehicle or performing a PIT
maneuver is authorized.

As to the many other negative remarks about law enforcement offered up
by some of the others that have responded to this topic, I wager there's
nothing that law enforcement could do to satisfy you short of being
perfect. More and more agencies are adopting no chase policies or
policies where they only chase people suspected of serious, violent
crimes. But that doesn't ensure that no-one will be hurt or killed
during chases. If we could cross train every officer to be a
lawyer/judge/social worker/marriage counselor/doctor/ninja warrior/race
car driver and the best in all of those fields (which we could do if we
trained them 7 days a week from birth through about age 50), there still
remains the facts that officers are humans that make mistakes and that
there are many variables out there that impact an officer's work above
and beyond his own training, skill, and intelligence.

poboxdc@ix.netcom.com wrote:

> It's about time auto makers installed a "kill switch" that
> would allow police officers to disrupt the ignition of
> a suspect's vehicle .... instead of chasing the suspect
> along interstate highways and through congested cities,
> placing everyone at risk for serious injury or death.
>
> The technology is there .... why not do it?
>
> In this particular chase that began near my home, the
> police officer ended up hitting a Toyota in Washington, DC
> and the two, innocent occupants ended up in critical condition.
>
> The suspect, as usual, got away.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------
> Police from two jurisdictions are still investigating a police chase
> that started in Montgomery County and ended in a crash in Northwest
> DC.
>
> http://www.wusatv9.com/news/news_ar...x?storyid=33890
> <http://www.wusatv9.com/news/news_ar...x?storyid=33890>
> ----------------------------------------------------
>
> (KM)

Scott en Aztlán

2004-10-10, 7:09 pm

On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 18:35:39 GMT, CR <Ry-ON@easynews.com> wrote:

>
>He can't. Professional debaters don't eat doughnuts. :D

So I guess he'll just have to settle for Master Debater then.

--
Sloth Kills!
http://www.geocities.com/slothkills/

Steve Furbish

2004-10-10, 7:09 pm

"BTR1701" <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:BTR1702-233EA0.12064710102004@news.east.earthlink.net...
> In article <4168D566.9075ABED@ix.netcom.com>, poboxdc@ix.netcom.com
> wrote:
>
>
> Bottom line: my car is *my* property. No government bureaucrat has the
> right to force me to let him turn it on and off at his whim.

They do, in some instances, have the right to make you stop - which is
essentially the same thing.

Steve

Steve Furbish

2004-10-10, 7:09 pm

"CR" <Ry-ON@easynews.com> wrote in message
news:610jm0l4u3teim76384jqrhes4ibpr8clb@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 02:23:34 -0400, poboxdc@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
>
> So he says, "So what?" That explains it all about intelligent people.

Actually, it was a rather appropriate response to the foolosh suggestion
that something ought not to be produced merely because it might be subject
to some unauthorized use. But don't let me stop you boyz from doin all that
backslapping and high fivin...

Steve

Steve Furbish

2004-10-10, 7:09 pm

<maradcliff@UNLISTED.com> wrote in message
news:o5jhm0hbt95jrfdt7ous79s3rkqice9sf9@4ax.com...
> Do you really think a criminal would keep the kill switch in working
> order? I know that I could easily bypass such a device, of course I
> am trained in electronics, but criminals have friends who can work on
> cars too.
>
> And what about the guy that decides to build a "stop box" and drives
> around killing everyones cars for fun. Yes, the technology is there,
> but so are the "hackers". Look at all the viruses on the internet and
> you'll understand the problem.

One of the most common reasons for chases is that the car is stolen. Of
course you also have the drunks and the teeneaged joyriders, none of whom
are likely to be auto kill-switch hackers.

Steve

Steve Furbish

2004-10-10, 7:09 pm

"Daniel J. Stern" <dastern@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.58.0410101035330.17501@alumni.engin.umich.edu...
> On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 poboxdc@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
>
> Benjamin Franklin said "Those who would give up essential liberty to
> purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither", and he was right.
> Franklin died in 1790 -- people like you will never learn.

Exactly which liberty are you suggesting would be given up here? The right
to flee from the police doesn't exist even now. We can flatten your tires or
ram you to stop a chase, but you have a problem with a device that simply
causes your engine to quit?

Steve

Steve Furbish

2004-10-10, 7:09 pm

"Laura Bush murdered her boy friend" <xeton2001@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:780ea958.0410100701.12cce5df@posting.google.com...
> poboxdc@ix.netcom.com wrote in message
news:<416869CB.F8612AC4@ix.netcom.com>...
>
> Yeah - but what would the car do then with power steering and power
> brakes no longer working? Sounds like you're asking for a crash.

Some of us remember when the majority of cars didn't have either and we
still managed to stop and/or turn...

Steve

Bob Kegel

2004-10-10, 7:09 pm

"CR" <Ry-ON@easynews.com> wrote in message
news:fovim053u397g92r1n7jj6uq3t68doltu3@4ax.com...

> But logic only applies to
> educatedd people.

As do the rules of spelling.

poboxdc@ix.netcom.com

2004-10-10, 10:08 pm

Big Bill wrote:
>
> On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 00:51:36 -0500, maradcliff@UNLISTED.com wrote:
>
> This is relatively easy to overcome.
> The license tag is already keyed to the car. Assuming that the tag
> hasn't been changed (a rash assumption in many cases where this would
> need to be used), it's possible to have the device in the car to be
> made such that a coded RF burst is needed to stop the engine; sort of
> lile a garage door opener. The LEO would give the plate number to the
> radio dispatcher, the dispatcher would look up the code, tell it to
> the LEO, who would program the stop box, then activate it. The car, if
> everything went right, would have a dead engine, ad the driver would
> have all the problems that implies.
> Which is one reason this would only be done in extreme cases, and the
> cost would then be high per use.
> The technology exists, but the conxequences of it's use is something
> the individual community would have to consider.

That's an excellent idea.

(KM)

2004-10-10, 10:08 pm

CR wrote:
> Well people, you can still purchase what's called led paper.
> it's about 1/16 thick. wrap it around your vehicle's main processor
> and that stops the signal from the Government's kill switch.

You need to wrap it around the antenna., which could be anywhere.

John Harlow

2004-10-10, 10:08 pm

> Not an entirely bad idea, but you're talking about all sorts of legal
> battles and outraged protest. I have my reservations about having an
> extra vulnerability where some crackpot could pull up behind my wife and
> kids with some sort of home made scrambler and disable their car on a
> deserted road after dark, myself.

Well said. A compromise might be a device which substantially reduced power
or gave them 5 more minutes of drive time (with a warning). This would give
someone an opportunity to call the cops on their cell phone if they were
being stopped by an unauthorized device, pretty much eliminating the
incentive for nefarious use.

I always thought cop cars should have rocket powered harpoons mounted in
their grilles. It'd go right through the trunk or rear window and deploy
spikes to hook the inside of the car, then the cop just slams on the brakes
and stops 'em both. We'll see just how many run after a few publicized
deploys of these babies. ;)

poboxdc@ix.netcom.com

2004-10-10, 10:08 pm

CR wrote:
>
> On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 00:26:03 -0400, poboxdc@ix.netcom.com wrote:

> An educated officer would, definitely never put innocent
> citizens lifes in danger to catch a speeder. Just like an
> educated cop would never shoot at a bank robber on a
> busy side walk.

Educated or experienced?

It's a subject that actually requires no thought
> at all. It should be simple logic. But logic only applies to
> educatedd people.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

It sure does!

(KM)

BTR1701

2004-10-11, 2:08 am

In article <Osqdnfgr1bOBJPTcRVn-hA@comcast.com>, "Steve Furbish"
<sfurbish@hotpop.com> wrote:

> "BTR1701" <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:BTR1702-233EA0.12064710102004@news.east.earthlink.net...
>
> They do, in some instances, have the right to make you stop - which is
> essentially the same thing.

Sure, once I've broken the law.

But this is a requirement that I install equipment on my car (probably
at my own expense) that allows the government to render it inoperative
at their whim before I've ever done anything wrong.

Daniel J. Stern

2004-10-11, 2:08 am

On Sun, 10 Oct 2004, Steve Furbish wrote:

> teeneaged joyriders, none of whom are likely to be auto kill-switch
> hackers.

Right, because most hackers are 50-year-old women. *eyeroll*

Paul

2004-10-11, 2:08 am

"John Harlow" <sirsausage@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:G5ednRDmo6hcdPTcRVn-hw@comcast.com...

> Well said. A compromise might be a device which substantially reduced
power
> or gave them 5 more minutes of drive time (with a warning). This
would give
> someone an opportunity to call the cops on their cell phone if they
were
> being stopped by an unauthorized device, pretty much eliminating the
> incentive for nefarious use.

Not a bad idea, but ther is too much room for abuse of this technology
when put into the hands of government (and not necessairly just the
police). I could just see the next step being to link this to a
vehicle's odometer to shut down the vehicle if it exceeds a pre-set
government approved limit.Or howabout some bureaucrat in his little hole
saying to his minions: "The King errr... The President.... is coming to
town! Hit the kill switch!"

Sorry, but there is too much potential for abuse of such a technology by
the government to ever allow it to see the light of day.

> I always thought cop cars should have rocket powered harpoons mounted
in
> their grilles. It'd go right through the trunk or rear window and
deploy
> spikes to hook the inside of the car, then the cop just slams on the
brakes
> and stops 'em both. We'll see just how many run after a few
publicized
> deploys of these babies. ;)

Also a good idea, but the police car would have to have the frame of a
tank to withstand the sudden load when the officer slams on the brakes.
Better if the officer bring the now combined vehicle to a halt
gradually.

Karl W.

2004-10-11, 7:07 am

Karl Rove's White House " Murder, Inc."

By Wayne Madsen .
Online Journal Contributing Writer .

OCT, 2004- On September 15, 2001, just four days after the 9-11 attacks,
CIA Director George Tenet provided President [sic] Bush with a Top Secret
"Worldwide Attack Matrix"-a virtual license to kill targets deemed to be a
threat to the United States in some 80 countries around the world. The Tenet
plan, which was subsequently approved by Bush, essentially reversed the
executive orders of four previous U.S. administrations that expressly
prohibited political assassinations.

According to high level European intelligence officials, Bush's counselor,
Karl Rove, used the new presidential authority to silence a popular Lebanese
Christian politician who was planning to offer irrefutable evidence that
Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon authorized the massacre of hundreds of
Palestinian men, women, and children in the Beirut refugee camps of Sabra
and Shatilla in 1982. In addition, Sharon provided the Lebanese forces who
carried out the grisly task. At the time of the massacres, Elie Hobeika was
intelligence chief of Lebanese Christian forces in Lebanon who were battling
Palestinians and other Muslim groups in a bloody civil war. He was also the
chief liaison to Israeli Defense Force (IDF) personnel in Lebanon. An
official Israeli inquiry into the massacre at the camps, the Kahan
Commission, merely found Sharon "indirectly" responsible for the slaughter
and fingered Hobeika as the chief instigator.

The Kahan Commission never called on Hobeika to offer testimony in his
defense. However, in response to charges brought against Sharon before a
special war crimes court in Belgium, Hobeika was urged to testify against
Sharon, according to well-informed Lebanese sources. Hobeika was prepared to
offer a different version of events than what was contained in the Kahan
report. A 1993 Belgian law permitting human rights prosecutions was unusual
in that non-Belgians could be tried for violations against other
non-Belgians in a Belgian court. Under pressure from the Bush
administration, the law was severely amended and the extra territoriality
provisions were curtailed.

Hobeika headed the Lebanese forces intelligence agency since the mid- 1970s
and he soon developed close ties to the CIA. He was a frequent visitor to
the CIA's headquarters at Langley, Virginia. After the Syrian invasion of
Lebanon in 1990, Hobeika held a number of cabinet positions in the Lebanese
government, a proxy for the Syrian occupation authorities. He also served in
the parliament. In July 2001, Hobeika called a press conference and
announced he was prepared to testify against Sharon in Belgium and revealed
that he had evidence of what actually occurred in Sabra and Shatilla.
Hobeika also indicated that Israel had flown members of the South Lebanon
Army (SLA) into Beirut International Airport in an Israeli Air Force C130
transport plane. In full view of dozens of witnesses, including members of
the Lebanese army and others, SLA troops under the command of Major Saad
Haddad were slipped into the camps to commit the massacres. The SLA troops
were under the direct command of Ariel Sharon and an Israeli Mossad agent
provocateur named Rafi Eitan. Hobeika offered evidence that a former U.S.
ambassador to Lebanon was aware of the Israeli plot. In addition, the IDF
had placed a camera in a strategic position to film the Sabra and Shatilla
massacres. Hobeika was going to ask that the footage be released as part of
the investigation of Sharon.

After announcing he was willing to testify against Sharon, Hobeika became
fearful for his safety and began moves to leave Lebanon. Hobeika was not
aware that his threats to testify against Sharon had triggered a series of
fateful events that reached well into the White House and Sharon's office.

On January 24, 2002, Hobeika's car was blown up by a remote controlled bomb
placed in a parked Mercedes along a street in the Hazmieh section of Beirut.
The bomb exploded when Hobeika and his three associates, Fares Souweidan,
Mitri Ajram, and Waleed Zein, were driving their Range Rover past the
TNT-laden Mercedes at 9:40 am Beirut time. The Range Rover's four passengers
were killed in the explosion. In case Hobeika's car had taken another route

through the neighborhood, two additional parked cars, located at two other
choke points, were also rigged with TNT. The powerful bomb wounded a number
of other people on the street. Other parked cars were destroyed and
buildings and homes were damaged. The Lebanese president, prime minister,
and interior minister all claimed that Israeli agents were behind the
attack.

It is noteworthy that the State Department's list of global terrorist
incidents for 2002 worldwide failed to list the car bombing attack on
Hobeika and his party. The White House wanted to ensure the attack was
censored from the report. The reason was simple: the attack ultimately had
Washington's fingerprints on it.

High level European intelligence sources now report that Karl Rove
personally coordinated Hobeika's assassination. The hit on Hobeika employed
Syrian intelligence agents. Syrian President Bashar Assad was trying to
curry favor with the Bush administration in the aftermath of 9-11 and was
more than willing to help the White House. In addition, Assad's father,
Hafez Assad, had been an ally of Bush's father during Desert Storm, a period
that saw Washington give a "wink and a nod" to Syria's occupation of
Lebanon. Rove wanted to help Sharon avoid any political embarrassment from
an in absentia trial in Brussels where Hobeika would be a star witness. Rove
and Sharon agreed on the plan to use Syrian Military Intelligence agents to
assassinate Hobeika. Rove saw Sharon as an indispensable ally of Bush in
ensuring the loyalty of the Christian evangelical and Jewish voting blocs in
the United States. Sharon saw the plan to have the United States coordinate
the hit as a way to mask all connections to Jerusalem.

The Syrian hit team was ordered by Assef Shawkat, the number two man in
Syrian military intelligence and a good friend and brother in law of Syrian
President Bashar Assad. Assad's intelligence services had already cooperated
with U.S. intelligence in resorting to unconventional methods to extract
information from al Qaeda detainees deported to Syria from the United States
and other countries in the wake of 9-11. The order to take out Hobeika was
transmitted by Shawkat to Roustom Ghazali, the head of Syrian military
intelligence in Beirut. Ghazali arranged for the three remote controlled
cars to be parked along Hobeika's route in Hazmieh; only few hundred yards
from the Barracks of Syrian Special Forces which are stationed in the area
near the Presidential palace , the ministry of Defense and various
Government and officers quarters . This particular area is covered 24/7 by a
very sophisticated USA multi-agency surveillance system to monitor Syrian
and Lebanese security activities and is a " Choice " area to live in for its
perceived high security .... [Courtesy of the Special Collections Services.]
.... SCS... ; CIA & NSA & DIA....

The plan to kill Hobeika had all the necessary caveats and built-in denial
mechanisms. If the Syrians were discovered beforehand or afterwards, Karl
Rove and his associates in the Pentagon's Office of Special Plans would be
ensured plausible deniability.

Hobeika's CIA intermediary in Beirut, a man only referred to as "Jason" by
Hobeika, was a frequent companion of the Lebanese politician during official
and off-duty hours. During Hobeika's election campaigns for his
parliamentary seat, Jason was often in Hobeika's office offering support and
advice. After Hobeika's assassination, Jason became despondent over the
death of his colleague. Eventually, Jason disappeared abruptly from Lebanon
and reportedly later emerged in Pakistan.

Karl Rove's involvement in the assassination of Hobeika may not have been
the last "hit" he ordered to help out Sharon. In March 2002, a few months
after Hobeika's assassination, another Lebanese Christian with knowledge of
Sharon's involvement in the Sabra and Shatilla massacres was gunned down
along with his wife in Sao Paulo, Brazil. A bullet fired at Michael Nassar's
car flattened one of his tires. Nassar pulled into a gasoline station for
repairs. A professional assassin, firing a gun with a silencer, shot Nassar
and his wife in the head, killing them both instantly. The assailant fled
and was never captured. Nassar was also involved with the Phalange militia
at Sabra and Shatilla. Nassar was also reportedly willing to testify against
Sharon in Belgium and, as a nephew of SLA Commander General Antoine Lahd,
may have had important evidence to bolster Hobeika's charge that Sharon
ordered SLA forces into the camps to wipe out the Palestinians.

Based on what European intelligence claims is concrete intelligence on
Rove's involvement in the assassination of Hobeika, the Bush administration
can now add political assassination to its laundry list of other misdeeds,
from lying about the reasons to go to war to the torture tactics in
violation of the Geneva Conventions that have been employed by the Pentagon
and "third country" nationals at prisons in Iraq and Guantanamo Bay.

Wayne Madsen is a Washington, DC-based investigative journalist and
columnist. He served in the National Security Agency (NSA) during the Reagan
administration and wrote the introduction to Forbidden Truth. He is the
co-author, with John Stanton, of "America's Nightmare: The Presidency of
George Bush II." His forthcoming book is titled: "Jaded Tasks: Big Oil,
Black Ops, and Brass Plates." Madsen can be reached at:
WMadsen777@aol.com

This is some of the evidence for you and for the World ....
*********************************************

~~~encrypted/logs/access ~~~

Not to mention hundreds of private companies and governments. Anyway...
*********************************************************

Lines 10-36
of my logfiles show a lot of interest in this article:

# grep sid=1052 /encrypted/logs/access_log|awk '{print $1,$7}'|sed -n
'10,36p'

spb-213-33-248-190.sovintel.ru /modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1052
ext1.shape.nato.int /modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1052
server1.namsa.nato.int /modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1052
ns1.saclantc.nato.int /modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1052
bxlproxyb.europarl.eu.int /modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1052
wdcsun18.usdoj.gov /modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1052
wdcsun21.usdoj.gov /modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1052
tcs-gateway11.treas.gov /modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1052
tcs-gateway13.treas.gov /modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1052
relay1.ucia.gov /modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1052
relay2.cia.gov /modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1052
relay2.ucia.gov /modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1052
n021.dhs.gov /modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1052
legion.dera.gov.uk /modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1052
gateway-fincen.uscg.mil /modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1052
crawler2.googlebot.com /modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1052
crawler1.googlebot.com /modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1052
gateway101.gsi.gov.uk /modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1052
gate11-quantico.nmci.usmc.mil /modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1052
gate13-quantico.nmci.usmc.mil /modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1052
fw1-a.osis.gov /modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1052
crawler13.googlebot.com /modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1052
fw1-b.osis.gov /modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1052
bouncer.nics.gov.uk /modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1052
beluha.ssu.gov.ua /modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1052
zukprxpro02.zreo.compaq.com
/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1052....

To be continued ....For Decades.!!!!!

HOLLYWOOD FL.... ATTA & Aris2F...Dis...ney...
DENVER CO...
ART STUDENTS...
MOVERS- INC.@ORG.IL
Lakam & LAPAM ...Mr.X. MEGA....Feith, woolfowitz...Perle, Maaloof, etc.
OSP, SCS, DIA, M.I. etc....
Etc. Etc.

Steve Furbish

2004-10-11, 11:09 am

BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <Osqdnfgr1bOBJPTcRVn-hA@comcast.com>, "Steve Furbish"
> <sfurbish@hotpop.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Sure, once I've broken the law.
>
> But this is a requirement that I install equipment on my car (probably
> at my own expense) that allows the government to render it inoperative
> at their whim before I've ever done anything wrong.

My guess is that any such device would be considered a safety feature or
anti-theft device similar to driver airbags, emmissions equipment,
passive anti-theft devices, On-Star or LoJack. Sure it would add to the
overall purchase price of a new vehicle, but I don't think they'd
mandate installation in older vehicles (how many old clunkers have you
seen retrofitted with airbags?). It's purpose would be singlefold - to
stop a fleeing vehicle during a police chase. I suppose I should be
rather surprised that an alleged (federal) LEO would throw out the "on a
whim" complaint as if they had no understanding of the whole concept of
probable cause, public safety, the use of force, or criminal/civil
liability, but I'm not. I've seen that elitist attitude before among
some of your federal brethren when they simply cannot help but look down
upon local law enforcement as something inferior without the slightest
consideration for the differences in responsibilities we hold.

Sure, once you've broken the law. That's when such a device could be
legitimately employed (on PC, not a whim). Odd that you haven't
advocated totally disarming all police on the off chance that deadly
force will someday be misused....

Steve

Steve Furbish

2004-10-11, 11:09 am

Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Oct 2004, Steve Furbish wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Right, because most hackers are 50-year-old women. *eyeroll*

Hey Daniel, before you get dizzy rolling them eyes perhaps you might
want to consider that most teeenaged joyriders don't even bother
changing the registration plates or looking for the lojack transceivers.
They simply ride until they get bored or their luck runs out.

Steve

P.S. When's the last time you heard of some teenager hacking a LoJack
transceiver? Last I knew they still claim to recover 9 out of 10 of
their clients stolen vehicles.

Steve Furbish

2004-10-11, 11:09 am

John Harlow wrote:
>
>
>
> Well said. A compromise might be a device which substantially reduced power
> or gave them 5 more minutes of drive time (with a warning). This would give
> someone an opportunity to call the cops on their cell phone if they were
> being stopped by an unauthorized device, pretty much eliminating the
> incentive for nefarious use.
>
> I always thought cop cars should have rocket powered harpoons mounted in
> their grilles. It'd go right through the trunk or rear window and deploy
> spikes to hook the inside of the car, then the cop just slams on the brakes
> and stops 'em both. We'll see just how many run after a few publicized
> deploys of these babies. ;)

Somehow I cannot get rid of the mental image of some teenager sitting in
the back seat of his friend's parents "borrowed" car with a grappling
hook protruding from his chest. Perhaps that one belongs on the drawing
board under the catagory of bad ideas?

Steve

Scott en Aztlán

2004-10-11, 11:09 am

On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 18:38:31 -0400, "Steve Furbish"
<sfurbish@hotpop.com> wrote:

>But don't let me stop you boyz from doin all that
>backslapping and high fivin...

....And plonkin' of nymshifting trolls...

--
Sloth Kills!
http://www.geocities.com/slothkills/

Scott en Aztlán

2004-10-11, 11:09 am

On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 22:02:37 -0400, "John Harlow"
<sirsausage@hotmail.com> wrote:

>I always thought cop cars should have rocket powered harpoons mounted in
>their grilles. It'd go right through the trunk or rear window and deploy
>spikes to hook the inside of the car, then the cop just slams on the brakes
>and stops 'em both.

Go rent "2 Fast, 2 Furious" sometime. ;)

--
Sloth Kills!
http://www.geocities.com/slothkills/

John Harlow

2004-10-11, 11:09 am

>> I always thought cop cars should have rocket powered harpoons mounted in
>
> Somehow I cannot get rid of the mental image of some teenager sitting in
> the back seat of his friend's parents "borrowed" car with a grappling hook
> protruding from his chest. Perhaps that one belongs on the drawing board
> under the catagory of bad ideas?

Perhaps if the teenage passenger knew cops had this ability there might be
incentive within the car itself to terminate the pursuit.

We can either allow people to continue to drive WFO down public roads,
endangering you and everyone else, or we can take measures to stop it.

So what is your suggestion to put an end to this once and for all?

223rem

2004-10-11, 11:09 am

223rem

2004-10-11, 11:09 am

Steve Furbish wrote:
> "Laura Bush murdered her boy friend" <xeton2001@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:780ea958.0410100701.12cce5df@posting.google.com...
>
>
> news:<416869CB.F8612AC4@ix.netcom.com>...
>
>
>
> Some of us remember when the majority of cars didn't have either and we
> still managed to stop and/or turn...
>

Dont be dense. A car with failed power steering is much much
harder to steer than a car with manual sssteering.

BTR1701

2004-10-11, 11:09 am

In article <d4KdndOx5sJxG_fcRVn-tw@comcast.com>, Steve Furbish
<sfurbish@hotpop.com> wrote:

> BTR1701 wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> My guess is that any such device would be considered a safety feature or
> anti-theft device similar to driver airbags, emmissions equipment,
> passive anti-theft devices, On-Star or LoJack.

The government doesn't require me to have passive anti-theft devices,
On-Star or LoJack installed on my car.

As for it being a safety device like airbags-- well, you're gonna have
to do a lot of spinning to make the argument that I should have to
install a kill switch on my own car so that government can turn it off
and convince me that it's for my own safety.

Airbags? Yes.

Kill switch? Not so much.

And even if you do make that argument, my response is no thanks. I'm a
grown adult. I don't need a nanny government running around protecting
me from the evils of the world at every turn.

Oh, and the airbag regs only apply to manufacturers. The government
requires that the auto makers install airbags in cars. However, there's
no law against the owner of the car disabling or removing them after
they buy the car.

I would bet this kill switch would come with stiff penalties for anyone
who takes it out.

> I suppose I should be rather surprised that an alleged (federal)
> LEO would throw out the "on a
> whim" complaint as if they had no understanding of the whole concept of
> probable cause, public safety, the use of force, or criminal/civil
> liability, but I'm not.

It has nothing to do with any of that. It's all about control.
Government at every level is becoming more and more intrusive into our
lives and property and it's all done in the name of "safety".

> I've seen that elitist attitude before among
> some of your federal brethren when they simply cannot help but look down
> upon local law enforcement as something inferior without the slightest
> consideration for the differences in responsibilities we hold.

That's a huge chip on your shoulder you've got there, especially
considering this isn't a local vs. federal issue no matter how much you
want to make it one. If these chips are installed in vehicles, the FBI,
DEA and Secret Service will be using them just like the local cops will.

Scott Aleckson

2004-10-11, 11:09 am

poboxdc@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> It's about time auto makers installed a "kill switch" that
> would allow police officers to disrupt the ignition of
> a suspect's vehicle .... instead of chasing the suspect
> along interstate highways and through congested cities,
> placing everyone at risk for serious injury or death.
>
> The technology is there .... why not do it?
>

Won't happen. There is no financial incentive for automakers to do it
on their own. There is no way regulation requiring such a device will
make it through the legislature in the current climate. And it would be
ineffective because there would still be over 200 million operating
automobiles out there on the roads that do not have such a device
installed, so the bad guys will just use one of those vehicles instead
of the new ones with it (and the ones with it would be well publicized
in the press), much like thieves are learning to avoid vehicles equipped
with the OnStar system as it can track the vehicle, making evasion unlikely.

BTR1701

2004-10-11, 11:09 am

In article <ubidnR6ADJmCBvfcRVn-iw@comcast.com>, "John Harlow"
<sirsausage@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
> Perhaps if the teenage passenger knew cops had this ability there might
> be incentive within the car itself to terminate the pursuit.
>
> We can either allow people to continue to drive WFO down public roads,
> endangering you and everyone else, or we can take measures to stop it.
>
> So what is your suggestion to put an end to this once and for all?

Your problem is that you think in terms of "putting an end to this once
and for all". There's is no way to maintain a free society and at the
same time have zero crime.

Sure, we could become a totalitarian police state and that would end a
helluva lot of crime but it's not a goal I aspire to.

If "putting an end to this once and for all" is your only acceptable
outcome, a police state is your only alternative.

Laura Bush murdered her boy friend

2004-10-11, 11:09 am

"Steve Furbish" <sfurbish@hotpop.com> wrote in message news:<aYidndXQDuDRIfTcRVn-oA@comcast.com>...
> "Laura Bush murdered her boy friend" <xeton2001@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:780ea958.0410100701.12cce5df@posting.google.com...
> news:<416869CB.F8612AC4@ix.netcom.com>...
>
> Some of us remember when the majority of cars didn't have either and we
> still managed to stop and/or turn...
>
> Steve

You don't understand. Cars today are designed to be used with PS and
PB. It's much harder to steer a PS-car with the PS turned off than to
steer a car that is designed for manual steering.

Arif Khokar

2004-10-11, 11:09 am

BTR1701 wrote:

> Airbags? Yes.

Actually:

Airbags? Not so much.

This is a case of the government mandating a device designed to protect
a 50th percentile sized *unbelted* male in a frontal collision. That's
why they're more of a liability for children and shorter people who wear
seatbelts.

> And even if you do make that argument, my response is no thanks. I'm a
> grown adult. I don't need a nanny government running around protecting
> me from the evils of the world at every turn.

That's precisely what the government did when mandating airbags because
not enough people were buckling up.

> Oh, and the airbag regs only apply to manufacturers. The government
> requires that the auto makers install airbags in cars. However, there's
> no law against the owner of the car disabling or removing them after
> they buy the car.

I believe that you have to fill out an exception form of some sort to
get your airbag disabled. Most mechanics will not disable them due to
liabliity purposes.

My mother is only 5' 2" tall. She sits very close to the steering wheel
when driving. If she ever got into a collision that resulted in airbag
deployment (I believe that 25 mph is sufficient), she'd definitly suffer
serious injury or die due to the airbags.

BTR1701

2004-10-11, 7:10 pm

In article <Z%xad.6713$137.1068@news01.roc.ny>, Arif Khokar
<akhokar1234@wvu.edu> wrote:

> BTR1701 wrote:

>
> I believe that you have to fill out an exception form of some sort to
> get your airbag disabled. Most mechanics will not disable them due to
> liabliity purposes.

But if you're a mechanic yourself and you take the things out, you're
not breaking any law.

Daniel J. Stern

2004-10-11, 7:10 pm

On Mon, 11 Oct 2004, John Harlow wrote:

> We can either allow people to continue to drive WFO down public roads,
> endangering you and everyone else, or we can take measures to stop it.
> So what is your suggestion to put an end to this once and for all?

My suggestion is to quit making a mountain out of a molehill. Police
pursuits involving "people driving WFO down public roads" don't happen all
that often, and policies against prolonged or high-speed pursuits in
built-up areas are spreading throughout North American police agencies.

Street racing is a much larger concern, and might suggest the same "Kill
switch!" idea, but the fact of the matter is that it's impossible to stop
any given kind of behavior "once and for all" -- not in a nominally-free
country.

Daniel J. Stern

2004-10-11, 7:10 pm

On Mon, 11 Oct 2004, Arif Khokar wrote:

[vbcol=seagreen]
> I believe that you have to fill out an exception form of some sort to
> get your airbag disabled. Most mechanics will not disable them due to
> liabliity purposes.

Right, but you *yourself* can disable the airbags (or any other piece of
safety equipment) on your own car without permission from NHTSA -- unless
state laws tell you you cannot.

Garth Almgren

2004-10-11, 7:10 pm

Around 10/10/2004 7:02 PM, John Harlow wrote:

> I always thought cop cars should have rocket powered harpoons mounted in
> their grilles. It'd go right through the trunk or rear window and deploy
> spikes to hook the inside of the car, then the cop just slams on the brakes
> and stops 'em both. We'll see just how many run after a few publicized
> deploys of these babies. ;)

Hmm... Imaginative, but sounds a /little/ dangerous.

Rent "Thunder Road" starring Robert Mitchum. The revenuers have a bump
claw on their front bumper to hook onto the back bumper of the
moonshiner they're chasing and drag them to a stop.

Fortunately for Mitchum's character, his "1950" Ford has a detachable
rear bumper for just such an occasion.

--
~/Garth |"I believe that it is better to tell the truth than a lie.
Almgren | I believe it is better to be free than to be a slave.
******* | And I believe it is better to know than to be ignorant."
(pgp@v6stang.com for secure mail info) --H.L. Mencken (1880-1956)

Steve Furbish

2004-10-11, 7:10 pm

Scott en Aztlán wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 18:38:31 -0400, "Steve Furbish"
> <sfurbish@hotpop.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> ...And plonkin' of nymshifting trolls...

It's real, it's the only nym I've got and it's all I've used but for a
handful of exceptions in the mid nineties.

So plonk away shitheel.

Steve

Steve Furbish

2004-10-11, 7:10 pm

223rem wrote:
> Steve Furbish wrote:
>
>
> Dont be dense. A car with failed power steering is much much
> harder to steer than a car with manual sssteering.

Having experienced total sudden engine failure at highway speeds in a
marked police cruiser I can assure you that I am familiar with what
happens when the power brakes and steering no longer work. It is more
difficult to stop and steer, but it's certainly do-able and less
frightening than a rear tire blowout (which I've also had the pleasure
of expeiencing) IMO.

Steve

Steve Furbish

2004-10-11, 7:10 pm

Paul wrote:

> Not a bad idea, but ther is too much room for abuse of this technology
> when put into the hands of government (and not necessairly just the
> police). I could just see the next step being to link this to a
> vehicle's odometer to shut down the vehicle if it exceeds a pre-set
> government approved limit.Or howabout some bureaucrat in his little hole
> saying to his minions: "The King errr... The President.... is coming to
> town! Hit the kill switch!"

You obviously see a difference between this and what actually happens
now when that same VIP comes to town? When H.W. was president he used to
come through my town on occassion. Everything near the motorcade route
was shut down by local police, state police and secret service. A kill
switch would not have stopped you any more surely. As for the government
limiting the top speeds your production auto can attain with said
killswitch - what's to stop them from simply requiring manufacturers to
hard code the engine computer to limit speeds above a desired level?
Sort of like a cruise control only different... ;-)

Steve

Big Bill

2004-10-11, 7:10 pm

On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 20:15:48 -0400, poboxdc@ix.netcom.com wrote:

>Big Bill wrote:
>
>That's an excellent idea.
>
>(KM)

Sort of.
Listen in on your local police radio, and note how many 'fictitious
plate' calls are made by LEOs on the steets.
As I said above, this is one very easy way to get around the koll box
system.

Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

Big Bill

2004-10-11, 7:10 pm

On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 11:14:27 +0200, "Karl W." <KuCh@nine.com> wrote:

>According to high level European intelligence officials, Bush's counselor,
>Karl Rove, used the new presidential authority to silence a popular Lebanese
>Christian politician who was planning to offer irrefutable evidence that
>Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon authorized the massacre of hundreds of
>Palestinian men, women, and children in the Beirut refugee camps of Sabra
>and Shatilla in 1982.

Would this be the same "high level European intelligence officials"
who were convinced that Saddam Hussein had WMDs?

Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

Big Bill

2004-10-11, 7:10 pm

On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 09:37:58 -0400, Steve Furbish
<sfurbish@hotpop.com> wrote:

>Daniel J. Stern wrote:
>
>Hey Daniel, before you get dizzy rolling them eyes perhaps you might
>want to consider that most teeenaged joyriders don't even bother
>changing the registration plates or looking for the lojack transceivers.
>They simply ride until they get bored or their luck runs out.

Well, adolescence is a time of learning.
>
>Steve
>
>P.S. When's the last time you heard of some teenager hacking a LoJack
>transceiver? Last I knew they still claim to recover 9 out of 10 of
>their clients stolen vehicles.

Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

Big Bill

2004-10-11, 7:10 pm

On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 10:39:23 -0400, "John Harlow"
<sirsausage@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>Perhaps if the teenage passenger knew cops had this ability there might be
>incentive within the car itself to terminate the pursuit.

We are not talking here about using the kill box (or harpoon) *instead
of* lighting up the car; we are talking about the situation when the
driver refuses to pull over, endangering himself and others.
At this point, any incentive to pull over without violence has already
been disregarded.
Any passengers within such cars already know the probable end involves
violence of some sort; merely redefining that violence won't do much
good.
>
>We can either allow people to continue to drive WFO down public roads,
>endangering you and everyone else, or we can take measures to stop it.
>
>So what is your suggestion to put an end to this once and for all?
>
We already have methods that work as well as can be expected within
the guidelines the public will accept.

Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

Big Bill

2004-10-11, 7:10 pm

On 11 Oct 2004 08:52:01 -0700, xeton2001@yahoo.com (Laura Bush
murdered her boy friend) wrote:

>"Steve Furbish" <sfurbish@hotpop.com> wrote in message news:<aYidndXQDuDRIfTcRVn-oA@comcast.com>...
>
>You don't understand. Cars today are designed to be used with PS and
>PB. It's much harder to steer a PS-car with the PS turned off than to
>steer a car that is designed for manual steering.

Whaddyaknow!
Even a broken clock is right twice a day!

Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

Steve Furbish

2004-10-11, 7:10 pm

John Harlow wrote:

>
>
> Perhaps if the teenage passenger knew cops had this ability there might be
> incentive within the car itself to terminate the pursuit.

It's rare that a passenger, especially a rear seat passenger, has that
kind of control.

> We can either allow people to continue to drive WFO down public roads,
> endangering you and everyone else, or we can take measures to stop it.
>
> So what is your suggestion to put an end to this once and for all?

Criminalize the bad behavior (eluding) to the point where the risks
clearly outweigh the potential gains and implement something similar to
Ken's original kill switch idea to cover those instances where the bad
guy absolutely needs to be stopped with minimal risks to innocent
bystanders. Nothing is foolproof and any means police employ to forcibly
stop a fleeing offender is likely to have deadly force implications, but
the idea should be to minimize the risks to innocent people.

Steve

Steve Furbish

2004-10-11, 7:10 pm

BTR1701 wrote:

> Your problem is that you think in terms of "putting an end to this once
> and for all". There's is no way to maintain a free society and at the
> same time have zero crime.
>
> Sure, we could become a totalitarian police state and that would end a
> helluva lot of crime but it's not a goal I aspire to.
>
> If "putting an end to this once and for all" is your only acceptable
> outcome, a police state is your only alternative.

I can "sort of" agree that completely eliminating all high spped pursuit
situations is an unrealistic goal and thus "putting an end to this once
and for all" is not likely. I do, however, think that an unrealistic
fear of what abuses could potentially be made with a technology is poor
reason to write it off altogether. Arguments about potential abuses are
exactly what the gun control crowd use to wage their campaigns against
gun ownership. It's not right there and it's not right here. There are
legitimate public safety issues involved with finding ways to safely
terminate high speed pursuits without endagering the public further and
without simply adopting no chase under any circumstance policies.

Steve

Steve Furbish

2004-10-11, 7:10 pm

Daniel J. Stern wrote:

> My suggestion is to quit making a mountain out of a molehill. Police
> pursuits involving "people driving WFO down public roads" don't happen all
> that often, and policies against prolonged or high-speed pursuits in
> built-up areas are spreading throughout North American police agencies.

My suggestion is that you might wish to wake up and see the reality
involved here. Reporting of police chases that do not end in serious
injury or death is not mandatory and is thus pretty haphazard in many
jurisdictions. I recently read one article over at pursuitwatch.com that
claimed over 6000 pursuits in 1997 in California alone. If only 1% of
those end in death or serious injury then you're still left with a
rather significant "molehill" in the end. Of course, you then have to
factor in the numbers from everywhere else...

> Street racing is a much larger concern, and might suggest the same "Kill
> switch!" idea, but the fact of the matter is that it's impossible to stop
> any given kind of behavior "once and for all" -- not in a nominally-free
> country.

Street racing is perhaps an equal concern (though it's not a problem in
all communities), but it wouldn't lend itself to the "killswitch idea"
as readily as police pursuits except in those instances where the issues
might overlap such as when a street racer hit's something or someone
then tries to elude police afterwards.

Steve

Steve Furbish

2004-10-11, 7:10 pm

223rem wrote:

> Absolutely agree. But why stop there? The technology exists
> for much more. How about GPS transmitters in every vehicle
> which would allow our friendly police officers to *finally*
> clamp down on speeders and other criminals? How about "tracking"
> and "kill" chips inserted into everyone's body at birth?
> Now that would really put a dent into crime. Only criminals
> would object!

You do realize that there exists a vast territory between anarchy and
totalitarianism, right?

Steve

Steve Furbish

2004-10-11, 7:10 pm

Scott Aleckson wrote:
> poboxdc@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
> Won't happen. There is no financial incentive for automakers to do it
> on their own. There is no way regulation requiring such a device will
> make it through the legislature in the current climate. And it would be
> ineffective because there would still be over 200 million operating
> automobiles out there on the roads that do not have such a device
> installed, so the bad guys will just use one of those vehicles instead
> of the new ones with it (and the ones with it would be well publicized
> in the press), much like thieves are learning to avoid vehicles equipped
> with the OnStar system as it can track the vehicle, making evasion
> unlikely.

As someone here already noted - there really is not once and for all
solution to stop police pursuit short of banning them completely. Since
there are legitimate public safety concerns with not letting every
violent criminal with the guts to hit the accelerator just drive away
you have to come up with something that's a bit of a compromise. You are
correct that there is no financial incentive for automakers to implement
such a program on their own so if it's ever to be it would require
legislation. You are also correct that there would still be millions of
automobiles not affected by any newly introduced system for the duration
of their servicable lives, but change usualy comes with a look toward
the future. I think you're wrong, however, in believing that most
thieves learn to avoid certain vehicles (such as those equiped with
OnStar). Vehicle theft is most often a crime of opportunity and rarely
does the opportunistic thief have any long term plans for their
'aquisition' and few think they'll ever be caught in the vehicle no
matter what because they believe they can simply outrun the police.

Steve

223rem

2004-10-11, 7:10 pm

Steve Furbish wrote:
> 223rem wrote:
>
>
>
> You do realize that there exists a vast territory between anarchy and
> totalitarianism, right?
>
> Steve

If you allow the authorities to get away with small, 'reasonable' infringements
of citizens' freedoms, you'll only encourage them to further limit our liberties.
Cops and government bureaucrats instinctively work for instituting a totalitarian
system everywhere they are.

James C. Reeves

2004-10-11, 7:10 pm

"Steve Furbish" <sfurbish@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:zfidnYQjrsVQJvTcRVn-tA@comcast.com...
|
| "Daniel J. Stern" <dastern@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
| news:Pine.GSO.4.58.0410101035330.17501@alumni.engin.umich.edu...
| > On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 poboxdc@ix.netcom.com wrote:
| >
| > > But what is worse ... regarding the engine kill switch, a few people
| > > inconveienced ..... or a few dead people from a chase?
| >
| > Benjamin Franklin said "Those who would give up essential liberty to
| > purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither", and he was right.
| > Franklin died in 1790 -- people like you will never learn.
|
| Exactly which liberty are you suggesting would be given up here? The right
| to flee from the police doesn't exist even now. We can flatten your tires or
| ram you to stop a chase, but you have a problem with a device that simply
| causes your engine to quit?
|
| Steve
|
|

Liberty: Freedom or release from slavery, imprisonment, captivity or
ANY form of arbitrary control.

I would classify a device such as this as "arbitrary control".

Arbitrary: Not governed by principal. Based on ones preference, notion
or whim. Tyrannical. Despotic.

You're assuming that only the police would possess such a device, which is not
the case. It's use by the nefarious among us would become a risk to us all.

Steve Furbish

2004-10-11, 7:10 pm

BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <d4KdndOx5sJxG_fcRVn-tw@comcast.com>, Steve Furbish
> <sfurbish@hotpop.com> wrote:
>
>
> The government doesn't require me to have passive anti-theft devices,
> On-Star or LoJack installed on my car.

Generally, it's market driven. If you want people to do something that's
good for them but that might not be popular you either have to provide
financial incentive (or prohit alternatives). You would likely see
insurance companies provide discounts to vehicles so equipped and you'd
surely see some states outlaw tampering with them. Logic tells you that
there would be some who would attempt to disable any such device out of
some claim of principle, but what do you suppose might be a consequence
if that persons vehicle were ever stolen and ended up crashing and
killing someone because of an owner disabled safety feature?

> As for it being a safety device like airbags-- well, you're gonna have
> to do a lot of spinning to make the argument that I should have to
> install a kill switch on my own car so that government can turn it off
> and convince me that it's for my own safety.

Actually, it would more likely be the device installed in my car that
would impact your safety, but I'm not suggesting anything like a
retrofit would ever work. Just make it standard on new vehicles and
natural attrition would take care of the rest.

> Airbags? Yes.
>
> Kill switch? Not so much.
>
> And even if you do make that argument, my response is no thanks. I'm a
> grown adult. I don't need a nanny government running around protecting
> me from the evils of the world at every turn.

I agree in principle, but suggest that this might not be an "every turn"
situation. We're discussing means to address a specific problem and
whining about a potential for abuse is nearly as silly as simply banning
all pursuits without exception.

> Oh, and the airbag regs only apply to manufacturers. The government
> requires that the auto makers install airbags in cars. However, there's
> no law against the owner of the car disabling or removing them after
> they buy the car.

Try to sell your vehicle with it's disabled airbag and you'll soon
discover how that hidden law might impact you. Perhaps not in Texas, but
the real world doesn't start and end in the southwest either.

> I would bet this kill switch would come with stiff penalties for anyone
> who takes it out.

More likely with extremely increased liabilities in the event that
something unfortunate happens.

>
>
> It has nothing to do with any of that. It's all about control.
> Government at every level is becoming more and more intrusive into our
> lives and property and it's all done in the name of "safety".

There's not a lot of room for "whim" in the application of what is
likely considered deadly force (killing the engine on a moving vehicle
would not be without risks). My objection was to your implying that the
local governments act on whims. We follow similar rules for use of force
as do most federal agencies.

>
>
> That's a huge chip on your shoulder you've got there, especially
> considering this isn't a local vs. federal issue no matter how much you
> want to make it one. If these chips are installed in vehicles, the FBI,
> DEA and Secret Service will be using them just like the local cops will.

And I think we'd both expect those agencies to adopt acceptable use
policies and not operate "on a whim" as you previously suggested would
be the case? I don't find it easy to envision the FBI or the Secret
Service killing vehicles on "a whim". If you can then that's the scary
part....

Steve

Steve Furbish

2004-10-11, 7:10 pm

Arif Khokar wrote:

> Actually:
>
> Airbags? Not so much.
>
> This is a case of the government mandating a device designed to protect
> a 50th percentile sized *unbelted* male in a frontal collision.

Actually they are designed to work in conjuction with seatbelt use. If
you rely on them to protect your unbelted butt then you might be in for
a surprise.

>That's why they're more of a liability for children and shorter people
who wear
> seatbelts.

It's also why most late model vehicles come with the option to disable
passenger side airbags.

> That's precisely what the government did when mandating airbags because
> not enough people were buckling up.

That's not exactly right. The argument was that buckling up was not
enough to prevent most serious injuries in front-on collisions.

> I believe that you have to fill out an exception form of some sort to
> get your airbag disabled. Most mechanics will not disable them due to
> liabliity purposes.

And you are probably required by state law to report the alteration to
anyone that you subsequently sell the vehicle to. Think you might take a
financial hit there?

> My mother is only 5' 2" tall. She sits very close to the steering wheel
> when driving. If she ever got into a collision that resulted in airbag
> deployment (I believe that 25 mph is sufficient), she'd definitly suffer
> serious injury or die due to the airbags.

I've seen a fair number of collisions involving small elderly people
both with and without airbags. I can attest that steering column on
chest injuries aren't very pleasant either.

Steve

223rem

2004-10-11, 7:10 pm

James C. Reeves wrote:
>
> Liberty: Freedom or release from slavery, imprisonment, captivity or
> ANY form of arbitrary control.
>
> I would classify a device such as this as "arbitrary control".
>
> Arbitrary: Not governed by principal. Based on ones preference, notion
> or whim. Tyrannical. Despotic.
>
> You're assuming that only the police would possess such a device, which is not
> the case. It's use by the nefarious among us would become a risk to us all.

So you wouldnt have any problem with it if only the police had access to it?
Then you dont have a real freedom-related concern about it.

I object to the police having it. They already have way to much power over us
already. And I dont trust them either.

James C. Reeves

2004-10-11, 7:10 pm

"223rem" <223rem@sbcglobal.com> wrote in message
news:OQCad.8690$Rf1.8079@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
| James C. Reeves wrote:
| >
| > Liberty: Freedom or release from slavery, imprisonment, captivity or
| > ANY form of arbitrary control.
| >
| > I would classify a device such as this as "arbitrary control".
| >
| > Arbitrary: Not governed by principal. Based on ones preference, notion
| > or whim. Tyrannical. Despotic.
| >
| > You're assuming that only the police would possess such a device, which is
not
| > the case. It's use by the nefarious among us would become a risk to us
all.
|
| So you wouldnt have any problem with it if only the police had access to it?
| Then you dont have a real freedom-related concern about it.
|
| I object to the police having it. They already have way to much power over us
| already. And I dont trust them either.

Power breeds corruption..always has...always will. Even among the
rank-and-file police. Yes, I would have a problem with anyone having this
capability. But, I have the greatest concern about those in society that can
be trusted the least. And we all know that those entities of nefarious intent
have a way of getting their hands on things. Making the kill device illegal
means nothing to that bunch (which one would think would be obvious).

223rem

2004-10-11, 7:10 pm

Steve Furbish wrote:
> "Daniel J. Stern" <dastern@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
> news:Pine.GSO.4.58.0410101035330.17501@alumni.engin.umich.edu...
>
>
>
> Exactly which liberty are you suggesting would be given up here? The right
> to flee from the police doesn't exist even now. We can flatten your tires or
> ram you to stop a chase, but you have a problem with a device that simply
> causes your engine to quit?

You are making a big assumption here: that the police will act lawfully.
I do not trust them to act lawfully all the time, so them having such a
powerful tool concerns me a lot.

In my view the police are first and foremost looking out for their own
interests, not for the citizens'.

223rem

2004-10-11, 7:10 pm

Z wrote:
> 223rem wrote:
>
>
>
> With a kill switch, a cop acting unlawfully to stop you shuts down your
> car's engine.
>
> Without a kill switch, a cop acting unlawfu