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 unlawfully to stop you uses stop
> sticks or PITs your car.
>
> Which would you prefer?

You are being disingenuous.

It is a much bigger hassle for a cop to stop you doing a PIT. Much more
difficult and dangerous than flipping a switch.

Steve Furbish

2004-10-11, 7:10 pm

James C. Reeves wrote:
> "Steve Furbish" <sfurbish@hotpop.com> wrote in message
> news:zfidnYQjrsVQJvTcRVn-tA@comcast.com...
> |
> | 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".

I would be inclined to disagree.

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

Governed by a principle of public safety. Employed in accordance with
established rules and policies (i.e. not on a whim)

> 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.

I'm assuming nothing of the kind. Balancing risks is a task that each of
us tackles every day that we get out of bed. I've been at the game long
enough to fully realize that if something can be misused and abused -
someone will make sure that it happens. But even considering the
potential abuses it seems much more likely that any such device would,
in it's legitimate use, save many more lives than it adversely impacts.

Steve

2004-10-11, 7:10 pm

223rem wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
> You are being disingenuous.

Not so. You worry about a "powerful tool" like a kill switch when, in
fact, the police have far more powerful tools already, to stop you and
your car.

> It is a much bigger hassle for a cop to stop you doing a PIT. Much more
> difficult and dangerous than flipping a switch.

Yes, it is. But that's not the point I was making. A kill switch is
a much less powerful tool than a PIT. I see no reason to get worked
up about giving the police a far less powerful tool than road spikes
or PIT.

Steve Furbish

2004-10-11, 7:10 pm

223rem wrote:

> 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.

Interesting that you object so strongly to that "powerful tool" while
referring to yourself as a firearms caliber. One would assume by looking
at the nym that you might be somewhat familiar with at least one of the
alternatives that currently exist to letting high speed chases of
violent felons enter something like (for instance) a school zone or a
crowded public square?

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

Obviously I have no idea what events helped form your "view", but I can
picture someone making your argument today and blasting the police
tomorrow for their inability to prevent the bad guy from running down
some innocent bystander.

Steve

Steve Furbish

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 unlawfully to stop you uses stop
> sticks or PITs your car.
>
> Which would you prefer?

WADR you may prefer the Spike Strips and the PIT maneuver. Unless they
can make this "kill switch" inexpensive to repair it sounds like the
costs to repair could be comparable?

Steve

Paul

2004-10-11, 7:10 pm

"Steve Furbish" <sfurbish@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:q_qdnbT5E5yhSvfcRVn-hQ@comcast.com...

<snip>

[vbcol=seagreen]
> 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... ;-)

I said connected to the vehicle's odometer, not speedometer, limiting
how far you can drive in a given time frame. I wouldn't put it past the
royalty in this nation to use any technology to keep us serfs down.

As for speed control, I always thought that the crappy design of most
vehicles these days did a good job of that already. ;-)

223rem

2004-10-11, 7:10 pm

Z wrote:
>
>
> Yes, it is. But that's not the point I was making. A kill switch is a
> much less powerful tool than a PIT. I see no reason to get worked up
> about giving the police a far less powerful tool than road spikes or PIT.
>

Huh? A tool that achieves the same results but with far less work *is* more
powerful. Dont confuse powerful with violent.

For the cops to PIT you or put road spikes requires risk and a lot
of paperwork, coordination with other cops, radio communication, and
attracts a lot of attention from others and the media.
As a result, it is done only when really necessary.

The kill switch can be easily abused because it is very easy to activate
and can be done discreetly. No risk for a media helicopter catching everything
on camera. You think cops are arrogant now? Wait till they'll be capable to stop any
vehicle they want by pressing a button.

Steve Furbish

2004-10-11, 7:10 pm

Big Bill wrote:

> 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"

How fortunate that you apparently still live in an area where you can
"listen in" on something as routine as a plate check. Even up here in
the sticks we have digital MDTs that leave scannerland full of silence.
And how do you know what is and is not a "ficticious plate" call? No one
could argue that opportunities for abuse would not exist in any
technology that law enforcement would be prone to employ, but what
useful information you or anyone could gain by "listening in" is at best
questionable.

Steve

Steve Furbish

2004-10-11, 7:10 pm

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

That would depend on potential survivability, wouldn't it? If you could
stop that vehicle with a lesser level of violence (A harpoon? Sheesh!)
then why not give it a try?

>
> We already have methods that work as well as can be expected within
> the guidelines the public will accept.

Current methods fall just north of better than nothing IMHO.

Steve

Steve Furbish

2004-10-11, 7:10 pm

223rem wrote:
> Steve Furbish wrote:
>
>
> 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.

I'm still not sure where you're getting an "infringement" here? If you
are driving your car and not trying to outrun the cops then there's a
very good probability that you'll never even give something like a
remote kill-switch a second thought. But if your car is stolen or if the
cops chase some violent felon where it ends up wiping out your loved one
then you'll certainly wonder why something wasn't done differently.

Steve

Steve Furbish

2004-10-11, 7:10 pm

223rem wrote:
> Z wrote:
>
>
>
> You are being disingenuous.
>
> It is a much bigger hassle for a cop to stop you doing a PIT. Much more
> difficult and dangerous than flipping a switch.

You could not be more wrong if you tried. All of the real serious
consequences stemming from unlawfully employing such force on you are
the same either way. IMO it's not going to be the amount of physical
damage or even the potential for immediate personal injury that deters
most BAD cops from doing something like this - it's the criminal and
civil liability that follows. As for the good cops - you wouldn't have
to worry about them at all.

Steve

223rem

2004-10-11, 7:10 pm

Steve Furbish wrote:
> 223rem wrote:
>
>
>
> I'm still not sure where you're getting an "infringement" here? If you
> are driving your car and not trying to outrun the cops then there's a
> very good probability that you'll never even give something like a
> remote kill-switch a second thought. But if your car is stolen or if the
> cops chase some violent felon where it ends up wiping out your loved one
> then you'll certainly wonder why something wasn't done differently.
>

1. A kill button can be and will be abused very with ease.

2. The idea that my car could be imobilized at any time, at the whim
of be government official lazily pressing a button, is completely obscene.
I just find it repugnant.

James C. Reeves

2004-10-11, 7:10 pm

"Steve Furbish" <sfurbish@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:XeudnUEdP5ENlfbcRVn-jg@comcast.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".
|
| I would be inclined to disagree.
|
| > Arbitrary: Not governed by principal. Based on ones preference, notion
| > or whim. Tyrannical. Despotic.
|
| Governed by a principle of public safety. Employed in accordance with
| established rules and policies (i.e. not on a whim)

And ALL those that would/could/will get their hands on said device would be
governed by established rules? I seriously doubt it.

|
| > 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.
|
| I'm assuming nothing of the kind. Balancing risks is a task that each of
| us tackles every day that we get out of bed. I've been at the game long
| enough to fully realize that if something can be misused and abused -

I'm inclined to take the risk of being mowed down by a cop on a chase than
beaten to a pulp by some nefarious individual that *thinks* I just cut him off
so he "kills" my car so he can get to me.

| someone will make sure that it happens. But even considering the
| potential abuses it seems much more likely that any such device would,
| in it's legitimate use, save many more lives than it adversely impacts.
|
| Steve

Not likely. This would be a car jacker and rapist dream device...not to
mention someone that is prone to road rage...just disable the suckers car that
is perceived to be in your way. Sure...public interest...right!? If it was
employed, I'd bet my bottom dollar people like that would find a way to get it.
Safety, my A**. This is about power over people, plain and simple. I'm
convinced of that now.

223rem

2004-10-11, 7:10 pm

Steve Furbish wrote:
> 223rem wrote:
>
>
>
> You could not be more wrong if you tried. All of the real serious
> consequences stemming from unlawfully employing such force on you are
> the same either way.

But it is not really unlawful until the victim proves it to a judge. Good luck going
against police officers in court.

Steve Furbish

2004-10-11, 7:10 pm

223rem wrote:
> Z wrote:
>
>
> Huh? A tool that achieves the same results but with far less work *is* more
> powerful. Dont confuse powerful with violent.

You're right about the push button remote stop switch being more
powerful - for what it's worth.

> For the cops to PIT you or put road spikes requires risk and a lot
> of paperwork, coordination with other cops, radio communication, and
> attracts a lot of attention from others and the media.
> As a result, it is done only when really necessary.

Seems to me that here you're doing little more than projecting your own
fear and laziness? The attention that counts is the attention that a
good civil attorney will afford the "victim" of a bad police seizure.
Rodney King might have a few guys looking around for camcorders before
they administer an extra whack, but other than that the media attention
really doesn't mean much in the heat of the moment during a chase. By
the mere nature of what you're trying to accomplish I cannot see the use
of a "kill switch" as being considered less than lethal force and
subject to the same kinds of paperwork, personal risks, and attention as
the other means that you mention.

> The kill switch can be easily abused because it is very easy to activate
> and can be done discreetly. No risk for a media helicopter catching
> everything
> on camera. You think cops are arrogant now? Wait till they'll be capable
> to stop any
> vehicle they want by pressing a button.

My best guess - under thirty and not very experienced in any of the
topics you've chosen to discuss here.

Steve

Nate Nagel

2004-10-11, 7:10 pm

Steve Furbish wrote:

> 223rem wrote:
>
>
>
> I'm still not sure where you're getting an "infringement" here? If you
> are driving your car and not trying to outrun the cops then there's a
> very good probability that you'll never even give something like a
> remote kill-switch a second thought. But if your car is stolen or if the
> cops chase some violent felon where it ends up wiping out your loved one
> then you'll certainly wonder why something wasn't done differently.
>
> Steve

What about when someone wants to *take* your car? Not that difficult to
hack a box to duplicate whatever the cops are using to "kill" your car
and then roll in a tow truck from around the corner.

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

2004-10-11, 7:10 pm

James C. Reeves wrote:
> I'm inclined to take the risk of being mowed down by a cop on a chase than
> beaten to a pulp by some nefarious individual that *thinks* I just cut him off
> so he "kills" my car so he can get to me.

Couldn't that crazed mototist just as easily ram you to disable your
vehicle?

Steve Furbish

2004-10-11, 7:10 pm

Paul wrote:

> I said connected to the vehicle's odometer, not speedometer, limiting
> how far you can drive in a given time frame. I wouldn't put it past the
> royalty in this nation to use any technology to keep us serfs down.

Understood. Just look at what they've already done to our internet.

> As for speed control, I always thought that the crappy design of most
> vehicles these days did a good job of that already. ;-)

I've always thought it better to watch the legislators than to get
overly concerned with the technologies.

Steve

2004-10-11, 7:10 pm

223rem wrote:
> For the cops to PIT you or put road spikes requires risk and a lot
> of paperwork, coordination with other cops, radio communication, and
> attracts a lot of attention from others and the media.
> As a result, it is done only when really necessary.

> The kill switch can be easily abused because it is very easy to activate
> and can be done discreetly. No risk for a media helicopter catching
> everything
> on camera. You think cops are arrogant now? Wait till they'll be capable
> to stop any
> vehicle they want by pressing a button.

You and I obviously envision this very differently... you see a
completely uncontrolled and unsupervised system where a police officer
simply pushes a button and your car is disabled. No record of use nor
any permission needed.

The way I see it, it would be used just like PIT or road spikes ...
the officer must first get permission to use the remote kill switch
and then, each use is logged.

Daniel J. Stern

2004-10-11, 7:10 pm

On Mon, 11 Oct 2004, Steve Furbish wrote:

>
> Actually they are designed to work in conjuction with seatbelt use.

Actually, Steve, you're not correct. Under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard 208, airbags are *required* to "save" an UNbelted
50th-percentile-male dummy.

Big Bill

2004-10-11, 10:08 pm

On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 22:08:44 GMT, 223rem <223rem@sbcglobal.com> wrote:

>Z wrote:
>
>You are being disingenuous.
>
>It is a much bigger hassle for a cop to stop you doing a PIT. Much more
>difficult and dangerous than flipping a switch.

Personally, I'd be much more concerned about his gun than his stop
switch.

Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

2004-10-11, 10:08 pm

On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 15:48:43 -0700, "Bob Kegel" <seventy 2002 at
hotmail dot com> wrote:

>"CR" <Ry-ON@easynews.com> wrote in message
>news:fovim053u397g92r1n7jj6uq3t68doltu3@4ax.com...
>
>
>As do the rules of spelling.
>

No,not necessarily, Eienstein was a genious but facts show
that his spelling was terrible and, once when asked, he was
unable to remember his own phone number.

My Brother in law was a missle instructor for the US Air Force.
Yet he did not have not one adjustable wrench in his garage.
Let alone know how to use it if he did.

Now when it comes to the modern day police I would have to
say, not so much uneducated, but closer to brain dead.
Basically and for all practical purposes the only difference
between a red neck and a modern day cop would be a uniform
and a cheap tin badge. I noticed a new movie, (documentary,)
depending on how you may catagorize it, called "The Boys."

It's about the real heros, being professional firefighters. When
they were seen running into the trade towers when others, including
cops, were seen running away from the towers. This was also
shown on tape via TV. Cops actually running when people were
dying. Almost looked like Colombine all over.

BTW, you will find that most of my bad spelling in typos rather
than a lack of knowledge. My fingers are much to large for a
simple key board.

2004-10-11, 10:08 pm

On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 21:39:16 -0400, poboxdc@ix.netcom.com wrote:

>CR wrote:
>
>
>Educated or experienced?
>
> It's a subject that actually requires no thought

Just as you have proven here. 99% of the people that read
this know that I simply hit d letter d twice. There is a difference
between a typo and bad spelling. However, you would love to make
them think I didn't know how to spell the word. Another example
of your ignorance.
[vbcol=seagreen]
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>It sure does!
>
>(KM)

2004-10-11, 10:08 pm

On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 18:35:09 -0400, "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.
>
>Steve

That's why I say boys, time to get the led paper out and
cover your main processors on your vehicles. I don't know
about you other Americans, but no anti American flunkie
cop who couldn't get a real mans job, is about to hit a switch
and stop my engine.
>

2004-10-11, 10:08 pm

Sorry to inform you fells this but the technology
has been out for over 15 years now. Since main
processors peplaced distributors and such. The
US government already has the switches that
they can use to kill your main processor and turn off
your vehicle. Let's just hope it never falls into the hands
of the bad guys, (Cops.) Can you guys imagine what
would happen if they allowed these idiots to use these
things. Just another toy like their guns.

On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 09:13:35 -0400, Steve Furbish
<sfurbish@hotpop.com> wrote:

>BTR1701 wrote:
>
>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

2004-10-11, 10:08 pm

On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 15:42:50 GMT, BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>
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.
>
>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.

Guys,guys, the switch is already on your car. That is, if you have
an electronic system. Which most do now, exception, pre 80's
cars and trucks. The Government can shut down your electronic
ignition with a click of a switch.

This is why I stress to get some led paper, find your processor
and wrap it with the led paper. Their signal from their kill switch
won't penetrate the led.

>
>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.
>
>
>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".
>
>
>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.

2004-10-11, 10:08 pm

On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 13:45:15 -0400, "Daniel J. Stern"
<dastern@127.0.0.1> wrote:

>On Mon, 11 Oct 2004, Arif Khokar wrote:
>
>
>
>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.

Screw state law. One little fuse will do away with your air bags.

2004-10-11, 10:08 pm

On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 17:15:44 -0400, Steve Furbish
<sfurbish@hotpop.com> wrote:

>Arif Khokar wrote:
>
>
>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.
>
>who wear
>
>It's also why most late model vehicles come with the option to disable
>passenger side airbags.
>
>
>That's not exactly right. The argument was that buckling up was not
>enough to prevent most serious injuries in front-on collisions.
>
>
>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?

Required you say? State requirements are a joke just like red neck
cops are these days. The State requires me to do nothing. I decide
for myself. To this day I have always made my own decision as to
wether the road conditions or weather warrant my putting my seat belt
on. Other than that, I merely hold it down across my chest or sit on
the end of it. Just to keep the dinder heads happy. I learned about
the, just sitting in the end of the buckel from a good cop in here I
think. Can't remember.

>
>
>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

2004-10-11, 10:08 pm

On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 17:08:51 -0400, Steve Furbish
<sfurbish@hotpop.com> wrote:

>BTR1701 wrote:
>
>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?
>
>
>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

But that's just your opinion, and your opinion weighs no more
or less than anyone elses in here. Sorry pal but that's the American
way.

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

2004-10-11, 10:08 pm

:D Now a few of our boys in blue have been know to get
caught doing that on the job. But a great percentage of
police officers are gay so I would say their lovers would take
care of that.

On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 14:55:48 -0700, Scott en Aztlán
<slothkills@NOyahooSPAM.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 18:35:39 GMT, CR <Ry-ON@easynews.com> wrote:
>
>
>So I guess he'll just have to settle for Master Debater then.

2004-10-11, 10:08 pm

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

>
>"CR" <Ry-ON@easynews.com> wrote in message
>news:610jm0l4u3teim76384jqrhes4ibpr8clb@4ax.com...
>
>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...
Thanks for your input but you couldn't stop us if you wanted anyway.

CR

>
>Steve
>

2004-10-11, 10:08 pm

On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 18:46:38 -0400, "Steve Furbish"
<sfurbish@hotpop.com> 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?
And there are those that would ram you back as well.
Remember, the people outnumber the low life police.

American people have a long fuse when it comes to being
bullied by a thug, or should I say 7 thugs. But those fuses
do have a limit. Beware the people that believe in freedom.
CR

>
>Steve
>

2004-10-11, 10:08 pm

On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 21:22:54 GMT, 223rem <223rem@sbcglobal.com> wrote:

>James C. Reeves wrote:
>
>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.

A survey was recently taken and police were not very close to being
the most trusted in both young and old sectors of the population.
They say it is due to all the true stories of cops being molesters,
beaters, corrupt, lying in court, amongst other reasons. These are
only things that make the newspapers. Think of what they get
away with that never gets to the newspapers?

CR

2004-10-11, 10:08 pm

On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 18:26:46 -0400, Steve Furbish
<sfurbish@hotpop.com> wrote:

>James C. Reeves wrote:
>
>I would be inclined to disagree.

I would just bet that you are one of those low life cops. Which I
consider worse than a common criminal with a badge.
>
>
>Governed by a principle of public safety. Employed in accordance with
>established rules and policies (i.e. not on a whim)
>
>
>I'm assuming nothing of the kind. Balancing risks is a task that each of
>us tackles every day that we get out of bed. I've been at the game long
>enough to fully realize that if something can be misused and abused -
>someone will make sure that it happens. But even considering the
>potential abuses it seems much more likely that any such device would,
>in it's legitimate use, save many more lives than it adversely impacts.
>
>Steve

2004-10-11, 10:08 pm

On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 19:29:48 -0400, Steve Furbish
<sfurbish@hotpop.com> wrote:

>223rem wrote:
>
>You're right about the push button remote stop switch being more
>powerful - for what it's worth.
>
>
>Seems to me that here you're doing little more than projecting your own
>fear and laziness? The attention that counts is the attention that a
>good civil attorney will afford the "victim" of a bad police seizure.
>Rodney King might have a few guys looking around for camcorders before
>they administer an extra whack, but other than that the media attention
>really doesn't mean much in the heat of the moment during a chase. By
>the mere nature of what you're trying to accomplish I cannot see the use
>of a "kill switch" as being considered less than lethal force and
>subject to the same kinds of paperwork, personal risks, and attention as
> the other means that you mention.
>

This guy has ever right to discuss what inferior cops do.
Experience has nothing to do with it. Besides I do believe
you are a cop by the way you post. The only experience
you have is being a thug and writing a simple ticket. A sophomore
in school can do that. Hell, even a woman can do that job. Proof,
more and more women are in law enforcement. Proves it doesn't
require much brains, just intestinal gas. Hell even the immigrants
are becomming cops. Now that really speaks high for what's required
in the brain dept. to be a cop.
[vbcol=seagreen]
>
>My best guess - under thirty and not very experienced in any of the
>topics you've chosen to discuss here.
>
>Steve

2004-10-11, 10:08 pm

On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 19:16:15 -0400, Steve Furbish
<sfurbish@hotpop.com> wrote:

>223rem wrote:
>
>You could not be more wrong if you tried. All of the real serious
>consequences stemming from unlawfully employing such force on you are
>the same either way. IMO it's not going to be the amount of physical
>damage or even the potential for immediate personal injury that deters
>most BAD cops from doing something like this - it's the criminal and
>civil liability that follows. As for the good cops - you wouldn't have
>to worry about them at all.

Ya

all 5 of them

Also, you seem to think that your opinion is more
important than most in here. I would say it is equal but
definitely no better than anyone elses.

>
>Steve

2004-10-11, 10:08 pm

On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 23:23:32 GMT, 223rem <223rem@sbcglobal.com> wrote:

>Steve Furbish wrote:
>
>But it is not really unlawful until the victim proves it to a judge. Good luck going
>against police officers in court.

Especially when you can read in the papers almost every
day where another cop was caught lying on the stand.
God, I would hate to know how many lie and don't get caught.

2004-10-11, 10:08 pm

On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 18:40:04 -0400, Steve Furbish
<sfurbish@hotpop.com> wrote:

>223rem wrote:
>
>
>Interesting that you object so strongly to that "powerful tool" while
>referring to yourself as a firearms caliber. One would assume by looking
>at the nym that you might be somewhat familiar with at least one of the
>alternatives that currently exist to letting high speed chases of
>violent felons enter something like (for instance) a school zone or a
>crowded public square?
>
>
>Obviously I have no idea what events helped form your "view"

Columbine for one

, but I can
>picture someone making your argument today and blasting the police
>tomorrow for their inability to prevent the bad guy from running down
>some innocent bystander.
>
>Steve

2004-10-11, 10:08 pm

On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 18:43:43 -0400, "Steve Furbish"
<sfurbish@hotpop.com> wrote:

>
><maradcliff@UNLISTED.com> wrote in message
>news:o5jhm0hbt95jrfdt7ous79s3rkqice9sf9@4ax.com...
>
>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

Keep in touch people. I will gladly tell anyone how to
disable any kill switch.
>

2004-10-11, 10:08 pm

On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 18:43:43 -0400, "Steve Furbish"
<sfurbish@hotpop.com> wrote:

>
><maradcliff@UNLISTED.com> wrote in message
>news:o5jhm0hbt95jrfdt7ous79s3rkqice9sf9@4ax.com...
>
>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

You really aren't to smart are you Steve? In the hacking world most of
them are indeed teenagers. Get a life old boy. Better yet, get
educated and get a real job.
>

2004-10-11, 10:08 pm

On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 14:47:20 -0400, Steve Furbish
<sfurbish@hotpop.com> wrote:

>223rem wrote:
>
>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.

Wow! you are a real hero. Very impressive.

>
>Steve

James C. Reeves

2004-10-11, 10:08 pm

"Z" <z@no.spam> wrote in message news:10mm63l89m6lm6e@corp.supernews.com...
| James C. Reeves wrote:
| > I'm inclined to take the risk of being mowed down by a cop on a chase than
| > beaten to a pulp by some nefarious individual that *thinks* I just cut him
off
| > so he "kills" my car so he can get to me.
|
| Couldn't that crazed mototist just as easily ram you to disable your
| vehicle?

Sure, but not as likely since that would damage their own vehicle...unlike the
kill device.

poboxdc@ix.netcom.com

2004-10-11, 10:08 pm

Z wrote:
>
> James C. Reeves wrote:
>
> Couldn't that crazed mototist just as easily ram you to disable your
> vehicle?

Of course they can. The people who are responding here
are showing a lot of paranoia .... just whenever you
mention the cops can stop their cars. Make me wonder!

(KM)

poboxdc@ix.netcom.com

2004-10-11, 10:08 pm

CR wrote:
>

>
> Especially when you can read in the papers almost every
> day where another cop was caught lying on the stand.
> God, I would hate to know how many lie and don't get caught.

"Every day?" I haven't read about one in years? care to fill
us in with more information?

(KM)

poboxdc@ix.netcom.com

2004-10-11, 10:08 pm

CR wrote:
>
> On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 21:22:54 GMT, 223rem <223rem@sbcglobal.com> wrote:
>
>
> A survey was recently taken and police were not very close to being
> the most trusted in both young and old sectors of the population.
> They say it is due to all the true stories of cops being molesters,
> beaters, corrupt, lying in court, amongst other reasons. These are
> only things that make the newspapers. Think of what they get
> away with that never gets to the newspapers?
>
> CR

Perhaps you could publish this survey?

(KM)

poboxdc@ix.netcom.com

2004-10-11, 10:08 pm

"James C. Reeves" wrote:
>
>
> Not likely. This would be a car jacker and rapist dream device...not to
> mention someone that is prone to road rage...just disable the suckers car that
> is perceived to be in your way. Sure...public interest...right!? If it was
> employed, I'd bet my bottom dollar people like that would find a way to get it.
> Safety, my A**. This is about power over people, plain and simple. I'm
> convinced of that now.

You damned right it's about power! It's about all the power
you can get -- to stop those thugs who are stealing a car
(that doesn't belong to them) and driving at high rates of
speed through intersections (and red lights) just so they
can steal a car. Yes, it's about power all right!

(KM)

Nate Nagel

2004-10-11, 10:08 pm

poboxdc@ix.netcom.com wrote:

> Z wrote:
>
>
>
> Of course they can. The people who are responding here
> are showing a lot of paranoia .... just whenever you
> mention the cops can stop their cars. Make me wonder!
>
> (KM)

Just 'cause you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you.
We've got some serious problems in this country, first snd foremost
erosion of the Constitution combined with inadequate policing of the
police (and military for that matter, just look at Abu Ghraib.)

Mandating a remote kill switch feature for vehicles is only going to
make the problem worse, not better.

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

Arif Khokar

2004-10-11, 10:08 pm

Daniel J. Stern wrote:

> Actually, Steve, you're not correct. Under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
> Standard 208, airbags are *required* to "save" an UNbelted
> 50th-percentile-male dummy.

Nice double-entendre there, Daniel ;)

223rem

2004-10-11, 10:08 pm

poboxdc@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> Z wrote:
>
>
>
> Of course they can. The people who are responding here
> are showing a lot of paranoia .... just whenever you
> mention the cops can stop their cars. Make me wonder!

Makes you wonder what? That my distrust of cops means that
maybe I am a criminal? Or I am criminally-inclined?

Anyone that distrusts cops must be a criminal, right?
If you're honest you have nothing to fear from cops.
You should always consent to their request to search
your car, etc.

223rem

2004-10-11, 10:08 pm

Steve Furbish wrote:

>
>
> Obviously I have no idea what events helped form your "view"

Why do you assume that there have been "events" in my
personal life that shaped my view of the police? Do you form
your opinions solely based on personal experience? Dont you
read? Watch TV? Or perhaps you are implying that I must have
been through the justice system and I resent cops because of
that "event"? That's a common cop debate tactic used to silence
their critics: "criminals distrust cops therefore you must be
a criminal too".

Max

2004-10-11, 10:08 pm

Max

2004-10-11, 10:08 pm

Z wrote:
> CR wrote:
>
>
>
> You need to wrap it around the antenna., which could be anywhere.

2 words - Wiring Diagram.

--
----------------------
http://www.saab-900.tk
The Saab Tech Resource
----------------------

Scott en Aztlán

2004-10-12, 2:09 am

On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 15:04:06 -0700, Z <z@no.spam> 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 unlawfully to stop you uses stop
>sticks or PITs your car.
>
>Which would you prefer?

Before he can PIT me he has to catch me. ;)

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

Dave S

2004-10-12, 2:09 am

At the present, you do not have the RIGHT to operate a motor vehicle in
the US... you have the PRIVELEDGE.. and this priveledge is regulated by
licensing and registration caveats.

You DO have the right to travel freely across the borders of the states,
but that being said, you dont explicitly have the right to use a motor
vehicle to do it.

So, how is it giving up liberty to have such a device on a motor
vehicle? How is it infringing on your constitutionally guaranteed rights?

Dave

Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> 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.

BTR1701

2004-10-12, 2:09 am

In article <edednacOJ-92avfcRVn-iA@comcast.com>, Steve Furbish
<sfurbish@hotpop.com> wrote:

> Arif Khokar wrote:

>
> 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?

Maybe but if I don't care about selling my car or taking a financial
hit, that's my business.

Big Bill

2004-10-12, 2:09 am

On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 18:52:28 -0400, Steve Furbish
<sfurbish@hotpop.com> wrote:

>Big Bill wrote:
>
>
>How fortunate that you apparently still live in an area where you can
>"listen in" on something as routine as a plate check. Even up here in
>the sticks we have digital MDTs that leave scannerland full of silence.
>And how do you know what is and is not a "ficticious plate" call?

Well, for starters, that's what the police say.
From there, it's pretty easy.
>No one
>could argue that opportunities for abuse would not exist in any
>technology that law enforcement would be prone to employ, but what
>useful information you or anyone could gain by "listening in" is at best
>questionable.

It's very enlightening to listen to some of the ops, then wonder what
the paper and news heads are talking about the next day. You wonder if
the events they are talking about are the ones I listened to.

I remember a few years ago, when it was all the rage to claim that
every Tom, Dick & Juan was walking around with a full-auto firearm,
the dispatcher advised that a female citizen had heard *a* gunshot,
and she reported it as from a machine gun. The dispatcher said the
woman said she could tell it was from a machine gun (remember, *a*
shot) by the way it sounded.
Uzi *wished* it sold as many guns as people reported as being Uzis.

Then there are the mental giants in a VW bug; the driver was an
escapee from Florence (a state prison); the front passenger had 2
felony warrants; one of the back seat passengers also had 2 felony
warrants, as well as a bench warrant (traffic), and the other had
cocaine on him. They were stopped because the driver (the escapee) ran
a red light in front of a marked cruiser.
This is real life; you can't make this stuff up!

What you learn is how truly stupid people can be.
You also learn that domestic violence is not a man-on-woman thing;
it's about 50-50.
You get to hear a lot of what's going on, what the cop in the car does
besides just decide who he'll tax next.
>
>Steve

Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

BTR1701

2004-10-12, 2:09 am

In article <84ednbfw3MPTa_fcRVn-oQ@comcast.com>, Steve Furbish
<sfurbish@hotpop.com> wrote:

> BTR1701 wrote:

>
> Try to sell your vehicle with it's disabled airbag and you'll soon
> discover how that hidden law might impact you.

That could apply to anything. If I took a sledge hammer to the hood of
my car, it would affect the resale value also. That doesn't mean I don't
have the right to take a sledge hammer to the hood of my car.

[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> 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.

I don't believe I ever qualified my statement as to federal or local.
All I said was government. It was your own biases that filled in the
blanks there. You read what you expected to hear, not what was actually
there.

>
> 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....

I've seen enough abuses at all levels of government to not be real cool
with the idea that someone can drive around with a kill switch knowing
that all they have to do is articulate it right later on to justify it.

I've also seen supposedly secure systems like hacker-proof red-light
switchers hacked and sold to anyone who wants them on the net.

The last thing I want is me or my family to be vulnerable to some psycho
with transmitter who has figured a way to activate these switches.

BTR1701

2004-10-12, 2:09 am

In article <af9mm0h7fnpi86r56v7o0ba9d0fskq0bie@4ax.com>, CR
<Ry-ON@easynews.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 18:35:09 -0400, "Steve Furbish"
> <sfurbish@hotpop.com> wrote:
>
>
> That's why I say boys, time to get the led paper out and
> cover your main processors on your vehicles.

You really need to learn basic spelling before I'm gonna put much stock
in your expertise.

The word is "lead", not "led".

The first few times I assumed it was a typo. Now I think you really
believe the word is spelled that way.

BTR1701

2004-10-12, 2:09 am

In article <q89mm0p4654m1sfk9qlvg4i81g8vd6e37k@4ax.com>, CR
<Ry-ON@easynews.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 21:39:16 -0400, poboxdc@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
>
> Just as you have proven here. 99% of the people that read
> this know that I simply hit d letter d twice. There is a difference
> between a typo and bad spelling. However, you would love to make
> them think I didn't know how to spell the word.

You mean like "led"?

BTR1701

2004-10-12, 2:09 am

In article <MvDad.8701$Rf1.8670@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com>, 223rem
<223rem@sbcglobal.com> wrote:

> Z wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> You are being disingenuous.
>
> It is a much bigger hassle for a cop to stop you doing a PIT. Much more
> difficult and dangerous than flipping a switch.

Not to mention, a PIT stop or stop sticks leave evidence and witnesses.
It's a lot harder to use them and then deny it later than pressing a
button and activating an invisible microchip.

andrew szafran

2004-10-12, 11:08 am

In rec.autos.driving poboxdc@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> You damned right it's about power! It's about all the power
> you can get -- to stop those thugs who are stealing a car
> (that doesn't belong to them) and driving at high rates of
> speed through intersections (and red lights) just so they
> can steal a car. Yes, it's about power all right!

So put the power in the hands of the owner. If (a) the car isn't within
close proximity to a passive transponder in the owner's pocket or (b) a
certain hidden button isn't pressed in a certain pattern within 10 sec of
starting the car, the car can be driven 5 miles or so, and then shuts
down, or suddenly has a top speed of 2.5 mph. Bonus points for a pump
that squirts copious amounts of castor oil on the exhaust manifold - the
authorities *will* respond to a car that's "on fire" and the thief will
likely have a bad case of the trots from breathing the smoke

-Andrew

Daniel J. Stern

2004-10-12, 7:11 pm

On Tue, 12 Oct 2004, Arif Khokar wrote:

> Daniel J. Stern wrote:
>
>
> Nice double-entendre there, Daniel ;)

Indeed.

Alex Rodriguez

2004-10-12, 7:11 pm

In article <edednacOJ-92avfcRVn-iA@comcast.com>, sfurbish@hotpop.com says...
>Arif Khokar wrote:
>
>Actually they are designed to work in conjuction with seatbelt use.

No they weren't. As the other poster pointed out they were designed to an
unbelted adult. That is why smaller adults, and children, have been killed
by the stupid devices. Only recently have airbags been re-designed.

>If
>you rely on them to protect your unbelted butt then you might be in for
>a surprise.

If you are small belted adult, you could be dead because of the stupid
devices.

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

How many hoops do you have to jump through to disable the airbag?

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

If that is the case why aren't airbags used in race cars? They crash much
more frequently than cars on the road. They also crash at much higher
speeds. They can get by with belts alone.

>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.

A good seatbelt _PROPERLY_ worn will minimize the injury.
------------------
Alex

Daniel J. Stern

2004-10-12, 7:11 pm

On Tue, 12 Oct 2004, Alex Rodriguez wrote:

[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
> No they weren't. As the other poster pointed out they were designed to
> an unbelted adult. That is why smaller adults, and children, have been
> killed by the stupid devices. Only recently have airbags been
> re-designed.

....and despite the "redesign" (mostly a PR effort), they are still
REQUIRED by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208 to "save" an
UNbelted 50th-percentile male dummy.

Matthew Russotto

2004-10-12, 7:11 pm

In article <416869CB.F8612AC4@ix.netcom.com>, <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.

Better yet, everyone should have to wear handcuffs and leg irons at
all times, the chains of which police officers could shorten at the
touch of a button.

Steve Furbish

2004-10-12, 7:11 pm

Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Oct 2004, Steve Furbish wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Actually, Steve, you're not correct. Under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
> Standard 208, airbags are *required* to "save" an UNbelted
> 50th-percentile-male dummy.

I've been wrong before and I'm sure that I'll be wrong again..... BUT I
think you're reading into the fact that one of the tests NHTSA uses is
called an unbelted dummy test. As Mr Burstein previously noted - airbags
are considered a supplemental restraint system.

Steve

Steve Furbish

2004-10-12, 7:11 pm

CR wrote:

> Required you say? State requirements are a joke just like red neck
> cops are these days. The State requires me to do nothing. I decide
> for myself. To this day I have always made my own decision as to
> wether the road conditions or weather warrant my putting my seat belt
> on. Other than that, I merely hold it down across my chest or sit on
> the end of it. Just to keep the dinder heads happy. I learned about
> the, just sitting in the end of the buckel from a good cop in here I
> think. Can't remember.

I only knew of one other numbskull who did something like that and
considered it a "victory". That was Larry Butts. Ever here of him? ;-)

Steve

Steve Furbish

2004-10-12, 7:11 pm

Alex Rodriguez wrote:
> In article <edednacOJ-92avfcRVn-iA@comcast.com>, sfurbish@hotpop.com says...
>
>
> No they weren't. As the other poster pointed out they were designed to an
> unbelted adult. That is why smaller adults, and children, have been killed
> by the stupid devices. Only recently have airbags been re-designed.

You both have the right to be wrong if you wish. Besides - YANKEES SUCK,
Go SOX!

> If that is the case why aren't airbags used in race cars? They
crash much
> more frequently than cars on the road. They also crash at much higher
> speeds. They can get by with belts alone.

They have multipoint safety harnesses - not automotive seatbelts. They
wear helmets, protective suits and have an onboard fire suppression and
breathing apparatus. They don't "get by with belts alone" as you suggest.

Steve

James C. Reeves

2004-10-12, 7:11 pm

Steve Furbish

2004-10-12, 7:11 pm

CR wrote:

> But that's just your opinion, and your opinion weighs no more
> or less than anyone elses in here. Sorry pal but that's the American
> way.

I'll accept that I suppose. The only person I ever really considered
myself superior to was that guy Larry Butts that I mentioned earlier.

Steve

Daniel J. Stern

2004-10-12, 7:11 pm

On Tue, 12 Oct 2004, Steve Furbish wrote:

[vbcol=seagreen]
> I've been wrong before and I'm sure that I'll be wrong again..... BUT I
> think you're reading into the fact that one of the tests NHTSA uses is
> called an unbelted dummy test. As Mr Burstein previously noted - airbags
> are considered a supplemental restraint system.

Airbags are *called* "supplemental restraint systems". They are REQUIRED
by Federal Law (49CFR571.208) to be calibrated so as to "save" an UNbelted
50th-percentile male dummy. If an airbag system does not perform that
task, it is noncompliant with US regulations and cannot legally be
installed in a new vehicle or sold as a replacement component for an
existing vehicle. This is not just a "H'mm...let's see what happens when
we test the airbags with this particular kind of crash" deal, it is a
requirement that all airbags in US-market automobiles are Federally
legally required to meet. That being the case, whatever they're *called*,
they are NOT designed as supplemental restraints in the US.

In other countries, airbags *are* specifically designed and implemented as
supplemental restraints; they're calibrated to augment the seat belts --
not act as a last-ditch substitute for them. But that is NOT the case in
North America.

Steve Furbish

2004-10-12, 7:11 pm

BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <84ednbfw3MPTa_fcRVn-oQ@comcast.com>, Steve Furbish
> <sfurbish@hotpop.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> That could apply to anything. If I took a sledge hammer to the hood of
> my car, it would affect the resale value also. That doesn't mean I don't
> have the right to take a sledge hammer to the hood of my car.

Who can argue with logic like that? I suppose disabling the airbags -
absent any medical necessity to do so - is kind of like taking a sledge
hammer to your car?

>
>
> I don't believe I ever qualified my statement as to federal or local.
> All I said was government. It was your own biases that filled in the
> blanks there. You read what you expected to hear, not what was actually
> there.

You didn't have to qualify it. You've previously qualified your opinions
by stating that your LEO background is Secret Service. While there's an
off chance that the Secret Service might have occassional use for the
type of device under discussion - they wouldn't likely be employing it
to stop high speed pursuits on a regular basis. I suspect that the
"whim" you spoke of had nothing to do with your own agency, but was
aimed squarely at those law enforcement agencies who are regularly
called upon to stop people in vehicles who sometimes are reluctant to
stop. My bias, if it exists, is based on your posts and the impression
that I get of you're being a bit of a federal snob. Nothing personal.
I've known a few agents over the years who were good law and order
people and you may be as well. I just don't get that impression from
your posts. You always seem to anticipate law enforcement abuses.

> I've seen enough abuses at all levels of government to not be real cool
> with the idea that someone can drive around with a kill switch knowing
> that all they have to do is articulate it right later on to justify it.

You're suggesting a lie so why not come right out and say it? If you're
simply talking about being articulate enough to actually offer
justification for a use of force situation then the force was justified
and there's no problem.

> I've also seen supposedly secure systems like hacker-proof red-light
> switchers hacked and sold to anyone who wants them on the net.
>
> The last thing I want is me or my family to be vulnerable to some psycho
> with transmitter who has figured a way to activate these switches.

If somebody wants to hurt you or your family they probably won't need an
engine kill switch to do it.

Steve

fbloogyudsr

2004-10-12, 7:11 pm

"Daniel J. Stern" <dastern@127.0.0.1> wrote
> On Tue, 12 Oct 2004, Steve Furbish wrote:
> But that is NOT the case in North America.

This month's Car & Driver has a rant/op-ed by Csaba Csere
that y'all might find interesting...

Floyd

Steve Furbish

2004-10-12, 7:11 pm

Nate Nagel wrote:

> Just 'cause you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you.
> We've got some serious problems in this country, first snd foremost
> erosion of the Constitution combined with inadequate policing of the
> police (and military for that matter, just look at Abu Ghraib.)

Ah yes, the latest "Rodney King". From now on every corrections officer
will have to apologize for the actions of a few soldiers in an Iraq prison..

> Mandating a remote kill switch feature for vehicles is only going to
> make the problem worse, not better.

If they're "out to get you" then do they really need that so-called
"kill switch" in the first place? After all, the only time such a device
would be necessary from a law enforcement perspective would be if you
refused to stop when signalled. For most innocent people that's not a
problem.

Steve

Steve Furbish

2004-10-12, 7:11 pm

223rem wrote:
> poboxdc@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
>
>
> Makes you wonder what? That my distrust of cops means that
> maybe I am a criminal? Or I am criminally-inclined?
>
> Anyone that distrusts cops must be a criminal, right?
> If you're honest you have nothing to fear from cops.
> You should always consent to their request to search
> your car, etc.

You are the one turning a tool to prevent high speed chases into a
nefarious means of intruding on your privacy. There's no request to
search issue here except for the one you now bring up. It's about
stopping people who are criminals from taking the cops on a long high
speed pursuit and endagering you or your loved ones. Since you're not a
criminal - and I'm prepared to make that assumption - there will likely
never be an occassion where you would knowingly be impacted by the use
of such a device.

Steve

Matthew Russotto

2004-10-12, 7:11 pm

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

>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.

Of course you do; you have the whip in hand. Those of us who get the
lash instead have other ideas.

Matthew Russotto

2004-10-12, 7:11 pm

In article <rKGdneb1-tmvd_fcRVn-vg@comcast.com>,
Steve Furbish <sfurbish@hotpop.com> wrote:
>223rem wrote:
>
>
>You do realize that there exists a vast territory between anarchy and
>totalitarianism, right?

Sure. Rather less territory between totalitarianism and the status
quo, though, and shrinking every day.

Steve Furbish

2004-10-12, 7:11 pm

andrew szafran wrote:
> In rec.autos.driving poboxdc@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
>
>
> So put the power in the hands of the owner. If (a) the car isn't within
> close proximity to a passive transponder in the owner's pocket or (b) a
> certain hidden button isn't pressed in a certain pattern within 10 sec of
> starting the car, the car can be driven 5 miles or so, and then shuts
> down, or suddenly has a top speed of 2.5 mph. Bonus points for a pump
> that squirts copious amounts of castor oil on the exhaust manifold - the
> authorities *will* respond to a car that's "on fire" and the thief will
> likely have a bad case of the trots from breathing the smoke

>
> -Andrew

That's an excellant idea and would certainly prevent *some* high speed
chases. But it wouldn't do diddly to prevent the ones where the offender
(like some guy that just killed his wife for instance) is the owner and
knows how to deactivate the passive system.

Steve

Steve Furbish

2004-10-12, 7:11 pm

CR wrote:

> I would just bet that you are one of those low life cops. Which I
> consider worse than a common criminal with a badge.

I'll bet that you spend too much time with young boys. ;-)

Steve

Matthew Russotto

2004-10-12, 7:11 pm

In article <10mm27v815cgne0@corp.supernews.com>, Z <z@no.spam> wrote:
>
>Not so. You worry about a "powerful tool" like a kill switch when, in
>fact, the police have far more powerful tools already, to stop you and
>your car.

They have powerful tools for stopping my heart, too -- sidearms,
rifles, shotguns, etc. And for incapacitating me less permanently --
tasers, billy clubs, etc. I wouldn't, however, consider those as
reason to install a kill switch on my heart for use of the police, or
even an implanted taser.

Steve Furbish

2004-10-12, 7:11 pm

CR wrote:

> This guy has ever right to discuss what inferior cops do.
> Experience has nothing to do with it. Besides I do believe
> you are a cop by the way you post. The only experience
> you have is being a thug and writing a simple ticket. A sophomore
> in school can do that. Hell, even a woman can do that job. Proof,
> more and more women are in law enforcement. Proves it doesn't
> require much brains, just intestinal gas. Hell even the immigrants
> are becomming cops. Now that really speaks high for what's required
> in the brain dept. to be a cop.

You really can't help yourself, can you? Still a woman hating non-hacker
who couldn't manage a good cop putdown if your life depended on it.
Still seeing Sorroche?

Steve

Steve Furbish

2004-10-12, 7:11 pm

CR wrote:

> Also, you seem to think that your opinion is more
> important than most in here. I would say it is equal but
> definitely no better than anyone elses.

I agree. The only one I ever always bettered was that Nancy Butts....

Steve

Steve Furbish

2004-10-12, 7:11 pm

223rem wrote:
> Steve Furbish wrote:
>
>
>
> Why do you assume that there have been "events" in my
> personal life that shaped my view of the police? Do you form
> your opinions solely based on personal experience? Dont you
> read? Watch TV? Or perhaps you are implying that I must have
> been through the justice system and I resent cops because of
> that "event"? That's a common cop debate tactic used to silence
> their critics: "criminals distrust cops therefore you must be
> a criminal too".

Nice dodge.

So are you saying now that you formed your view of police after watching
TV or reading a newspaper?

Steve

Andrew Szafran

2004-10-12, 7:11 pm

In rec.autos.driving Steve Furbish <sfurbish@hotpop.com> wrote:
> That's an excellant idea and would certainly prevent *some* high speed
> chases. But it wouldn't do diddly to prevent the ones where the offender
> (like some guy that just killed his wife for instance) is the owner and
> knows how to deactivate the passive system.

To use an extreme example, perhaps you can prevent the guy from killing
his wife by placing cameras and microphones in every home that get
monitored by a central computer system which automatically summons the
police if a fight is happening (voice strain analysis and detecting rapid
motion - false alarms would be handled by a human "dispatcher" taking a
peek). Oh, and let's ban rifles, hammers, steak knives, sporks, and fire
axes while we're at it.

The point that I'm trying to make is; the fact that a system can prevent
crimes doesn't automatically make it desirable.

-Andrew

Steve Furbish

2004-10-12, 7:11 pm

CR wrote:

> You really aren't to smart are you Steve? In the hacking world most of
> them are indeed teenagers. Get a life old boy. Better yet, get
> educated and get a real job.

Still looking for that special teen, huh?

Steve

Big Bill

2004-10-12, 7:11 pm

Big Bill

2004-10-12, 7:11 pm

On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 14:07:56 -0400, Alex Rodriguez <adr5@columbia.edu>
wrote:

>
>If that is the case why aren't airbags used in race cars? They crash much
>more frequently than cars on the road. They also crash at much higher
>speeds. They can get by with belts alone.

A couple of reasons...
5-point restraint systems
Normal bump-'n-grind racing would deploy the airbags; how many would
be needed?
I'm sure there are more.

Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

Garth Almgren

2004-10-12, 7:11 pm

Around 10/12/2004 1:37 PM, fbloogyudsr wrote:

> "Daniel J. Stern" <dastern@127.0.0.1> wrote
>
>
>
> This month's Car & Driver has a rant/op-ed by Csaba Csere
> that y'all might find interesting...
>
> Floyd

This one?

http://caranddriver.com/article.asp...8&page_number=1

--
~/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)

James C. Reeves

2004-10-12, 7:11 pm

<poboxdc@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:416B392E.B0029EC1@ix.netcom.com...
|Z wrote:
| >
| > James C. Reeves wrote:
| > > I'm inclined to take the risk of being mowed down by a cop on a chase
than
| > > beaten to a pulp by some nefarious individual that *thinks* I just cut
him off
| > > so he "kills" my car so he can get to me.
| >
| > Couldn't that crazed mototist just as easily ram you to disable your
| > vehicle?
|
| Of course they can. The people who are responding here
| are showing a lot of paranoia .... just whenever you
| mention the cops can stop their cars. Make me wonder!
|
| (KM)

You are not familiar with history, I take it.

dptyrob

2004-10-12, 7:11 pm

Nate Nagel

2004-10-12, 10:08 pm

Steve Furbish wrote:

> Nate Nagel wrote:
>
>
>
> Ah yes, the latest "Rodney King". From now on every corrections officer
> will have to apologize for the actions of a few soldiers in an Iraq
> prison..
>

Incorrect. The whole XXXXing United States will have to do MORE than
apologize to make up for what happened there. The damage may be
irreparable at this point, but that's irrelevant to the discussion. The
fact that it was "only a few soldiers" is also irrelevant. It takes
"only a few soldiers" or "only a few cops" or "only a few judges" to
completely dick over quite a few innocent people, which is why strict
controls are necessary. I'm not implying that "bad" cops or soldiers or
judges or whatever are the norm; however, I am flat out stating that
there are too many.

>
>
> If they're "out to get you" then do they really need that so-called
> "kill switch" in the first place? After all, the only time such a device
> would be necessary from a law enforcement perspective would be if you
> refused to stop when signalled. For most innocent people that's not a
> problem.
>

Ah, I knew it was only a matter of time before that came up. That
argument has been wrong throughout recorded history, and remains wrong
to this day.

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

2004-10-12, 10:08 pm

[vbcol=seagreen]

2004-10-12, 10:08 pm

dptyrob

2004-10-12, 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.

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

2004-10-12, 10:08 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

2004-10-13, 11:10 am

Steve Furbish

2004-10-13, 11:10 am

Steve Furbish

2004-10-13, 11:10 am

Bob Kegel

2004-10-13, 11:10 am

"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.

2004-10-13, 11:10 am

Daniel J. Stern

2004-10-13, 11:10 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*

BTR1701

2004-10-13, 11:10 am

In article <1MednfKBs5ZtovHcRVn-gg@comcast.com>,
Steve Furbish <sfurbish@hotpop.com> wrote:

> BTR1701 wrote:
>
> Who can argue with logic like that?

Not anyone who wants to remain logical.

> I suppose disabling the airbags - absent any medical necessity to do so -
> is kind of like taking a sledge hammer to your car?

I have no idea what it's "kind of like". However, the point remains that
the owner of an automobile is not prohibited from doing something to
his/her car merely because it might decrease its market value.
>
[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> You didn't have to qualify it. You've previously qualified your opinions
> by stating that your LEO background is Secret Service.

Ah, so since I'm a USSS agent, then any time I complain about government
over-reaching I *must* be referring to the locals again. I see.

I wonder if the reverse is true. Can I make the same unfounded
assumptions about your statements?

> While there's an
> off chance that the Secret Service might have occassional use for the
> type of device under discussion - they wouldn't likely be employing it
> to stop high speed pursuits on a regular basis.

How does "a regular basis" figure into my simple and generic reference
to "the government"?

> I suspect that the "whim" you spoke of had nothing to do with your own
> agency, but was aimed squarely at those law enforcement agencies
> who are regularly called upon to stop people in vehicles who sometimes
> are reluctant to stop.

You can suspect whatever you like but the fact is that I was referring
to any government agency that engages in vehicle stops. Be that the FBI
or the Santa Monica Beach Police.

> My bias, if it exists, is based on your posts and the impression
> that I get of you're being a bit of a federal snob. Nothing personal.
> I've known a few agents over the years who were good law and order
> people and you may be as well. I just don't get that impression from
> your posts. You always seem to anticipate law enforcement abuses.

Why is that a bad thing? As a lawyer, I anticipated abuse of process by
my fellow attorneys as well. Didn't make me a bad lawyer.

How exactly does recognizing and anticipating the potential for abuse
make a cop less of a "good law and order" person?

>
> If somebody wants to hurt you or your family they probably won't need an
> engine kill switch to do it.

No reason to give them even more weapons for their arsenal.

BTR1701

2004-10-13, 11:10 am

In article <1fydnYiL0rJQpPHcRVn-jw@comcast.com>,
Steve Furbish <sfurbish@hotpop.com> wrote:

> CR wrote:
>
>
> I'll accept that I suppose. The only person I ever really considered
> myself superior to was that guy Larry Butts that I mentioned earlier.

A retarded worm is superior to Larry Butts.

Mike Z. Helm

2004-10-13, 11:10 am

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

Yeah, sure. Your going to get a 5 minute response time on some remote
stretch of road, where either you, your car, or both will be long gone
(or just dead) in less than 5 minutes.
--
There's no way to delay that trouble comin' everyday

P.FloriK

2004-10-13, 11:10 am

alt.cellular, alt.firefighters,
alt.cellular.verizon,alt.cellular.nextel,

alanerskine1@bigpond.com

alan@nowhere.com (Alan p) wrote in message news:<6f9130e2.0410011900.666b8aft@posting.google.com>...
[vbcol=seagreen]
>
>

[vbcol=seagreen]
> From: Alan P (alan@nowhere.com) aka Jeff Bond (jbond@nowhere.com
> aka a4144ever (a4144ever@aol.com
> Subject: I Alan p just moved to Sove next
> View this article only
> Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
>
>
> I Alan P just moved to Sove next to the park so i can trap kids in
> the restroom and take pics. of them in the nude. pls. email me
> for pics. . i love sex dick pussy little boys little girls.

JBOND@NOWHERE.COM,

[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> Mr. Smith,
>
> Pursuant to our phone conversation I have enclosed
> my contact information (707). I thank you for your
> time and would appreciate any information you may
> find about "Jeff Bond" (jbond@nowhere.com and his
> true identity. before we are able to track him down.
> Should he may be able to flee to mexico to avoid us.
>
> the video of jeff we have of him in a red car that was
> reported 10851: Stolen vehicle and jeff has on a
> wig and fake mustache.
>
> we will keep trap on your phone and pls.keep your
> front and back 24hour video going.
>
>
>
> Detective Vanni
> Violent Crimes Investigation Unit
> Sheriff's Department

[vbcol=seagreen]
for a living[vbcol=seagreen]

[vbcol=seagreen]
boy who has enter[vbcol=seagreen]

[vbcol=seagreen]
Bond do but the[vbcol=seagreen]

Last updated: 7 p.m., October 12, 2004

Start Date/Time: October 10, 2004 at 6 p.m.

Administrative Unit: CDF Sonoma-Lake-Napa Unit

Location: Rumsey Canyon

Acres Burned: 29,695

Containment: 5%, Containment estimated on October 16, 2004 at 8 p.m.

Structures Destroyed: Berryessa Peak Lookout and radio repeater site
destroyed

Threatened: See Evacuataions. Fire Information - 707-967-4207 or
967-1456.

Evacuations: There is no immediate threat, but the Napa Sheriffs
Dept. has issued VOLUNTARY evacuations for Lake Berryessa Estates -
about 75 homes.
An evacuation Center will be set up at the Pope Valley School.

Injuries: 0

Cause: By Jeff Bond jbond@nowhere.com AKA alan@nowhere.com

Cooperating Agencies: CDF, Bureau of Land Management, U S Forest
Service, CA Conservation Corps, Red Cross, CHP, Local Government, CA
Dept. Corrections

Total Fire Personnel: 1,100

Fire crews: 69 (61 CDF)

Engines: 27 (26 CDF)

Airtankers: 9 (5 CDF)

Helicopters: 13 (1 CDF)

Dozers: 19 (8 CDF)

Water tenders: 10

Costs to date: $950,000

Major Incident Command Team: #5
Conditions: Fire has two heads - One along Cache Creek drainage and
the other along Blue Ridge toward Lake Berryessa.
Winds and extremly inaccessible terrain are making the fire fight very
difficult.
Area is innaccesible to engines and is being fought by hand crews and
by aircraft.
Smoke is very heavy even outside of fire area.

Name County Administrative Unit Status
Rumsey Fire Yolo and Napa Counties CDF Sonoma-Lake-Napa Unit 5%,
Containment estimated on October 16, 2004 at 8 p.m.
Tuolumne Fire Tuolumne Stanislaus National Forest 10%
Old Hwy Fire Mariposa CDF Madera-Mariposa-Merced Unit 40%
Runway Fire San Bernardino San Bernardino National Forest 10%
Bear Fire Mariposa CDF Madera-Mariposa-Merced Unit 10%
Geysers Fire Lake CDF Sonoma-Lake-Napa Unit 60%
Pattison Fire Calaveras CDF Tuolumne-Calaveras Unit 100%
French Fire Shasta CDF Shasta-Trinity Unit 100%
Bear Fire Shasta CDF Shasta-Trinity Unit 100%
Oregon Fire Butte CDF Butte Unit/Butte County Fire 100%.
Hunt Fire Calaveras CDF Tuolumne-Calaveras Unit 100%
Stevens Fire Placer CDF Nevada-Yuba-Placer Unit 100%
Calaveras Complex Calaveras CDF Tuolumne-Calaveras Unit Armstrong
100%, Mineral 100%, Copper 100%
Straylor Fire Lassen CDF Lassen-Modoc Unit 100%
Mataguay Fire San Diego San Diego 100%
Sims Fire Trinity Six Rivers National Forest 100%
Crown Fire and Foothill Fire LA County LA County Fire/Angeles National
Forest 100%
Eagle Fire Riverside CDF Riverside Unit/Riverside County Fire 100%
Cerritos Fire Riverside CDF Riverside Unit/Riverside County Fire 100%
Pine Fire LA County LA County Fire/Angeles National Forest 100%
Cachuma Fire Santa Barbara Los Padres National Forest 100%
Gaviota Fire Santa Barbara Santa Barbara County, CDF, USFS 100%

just wait when jeff comes out his cave and shows up here we all will
kill him.

P.FloriK

2004-10-13, 11:10 am

Steve Furbish

2004-10-13, 7:11 pm

Steve Furbish

2004-10-13, 7:11 pm

Daniel J. Stern wrote:

> Airbags are *called* "supplemental restraint systems". They are REQUIRED
> by Federal Law (49CFR571.208) to be calibrated so as to "save" an UNbelted
> 50th-percentile male dummy.
<snip>

I suppose you could characterize it that way. They do use
anthropomorphic "crash test" dummies unbelted to measure the forces and
determine compliance. It's not exactly the same thing as requiring a
"save" of a dummy, but I get your point.

Steve

Steve Furbish

2004-10-13, 7:11 pm

Andrew Szafran wrote:
> In rec.autos.driving Steve Furbish <sfurbish@hotpop.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> To use an extreme example, perhaps you can prevent the guy from killing
> his wife by placing cameras and microphones in every home that get
> monitored by a central computer system which automatically summons the
> police if a fight is happening (voice strain analysis and detecting rapid
> motion - false alarms would be handled by a human "dispatcher" taking a
> peek). Oh, and let's ban rifles, hammers, steak knives, sporks, and fire
> axes while we're at it.
>
> The point that I'm trying to make is; the fact that a system can prevent
> crimes doesn't automatically make it desirable.

There's an enormous difference between the concepts of a "kill switch"
in a car and cameras or microphones to monitor in the home. That banning
argument is one that always seems to come out when people overreact to a
suggestion that seems to provide police with a better way of doing things.

Just to clarify things - I strongly agree that something like a monitor
installed in your car (without a warrant) to track it or listen in on
conversations would be such a gross violation of your Constitutional
rights that I'd be first in line to join your protest and fight that
type of government intrusion. But a dormant switch that would only
"legally" be used to stop a high speed pursuit is a horse of a different
color. Presently my department uses spike strips that rapidly deflate
tires of a criminal who drives over it. It's dangerous to deploy and It
doesn't guarantee that the bad guy will stop without crashing (probably
less likely to avoid crashing than one who's simply lost their power
steering and brakes). If the car is stolen and you're the victim it's
quite likely that you'll have a couple of tires and possibly some rims
to replace under the best of circumstances. I don't see this as a debate
about privacy rights as some do. I see it as a matter of safety. Better
ways to end high speed pursuits are needed. It seems all too easy for
some people to picture themselves as victims of improper use of a kill
switch - yet those same people never seem to worry about a fleeing bad
guy (or the pursuing cruiser) crossing their path?

Steve

Steve Furbish

2004-10-13, 7:11 pm

Matthew Russotto wrote:

> Of course you do; you have the whip in hand. Those of us who get the
> lash instead have other ideas.

That kind of reminds me of the kids who seem to always ask what it's
like to speed legally. The other guys position always looks better when
you think they have a clear upper hand, but it's rarely as simple as it
seems. Abuses usually catch up to you and when they do it really doesn't
matter that you never thought you'd get the lash.

Steve

Nate Nagel

2004-10-13, 7:11 pm

Steve Furbish wrote:

> Andrew Szafran wrote:
>
>
>
> There's an enormous difference between the concepts of a "kill switch"
> in a car and cameras or microphones to monitor in the home. That banning
> argument is one that always seems to come out when people overreact to a
> suggestion that seems to provide police with a better way of doing things.
>
> Just to clarify things - I strongly agree that something like a monitor
> installed in your car (without a warrant) to track it or listen in on
> conversations would be such a gross violation of your Constitutional
> rights that I'd be first in line to join your protest and fight that
> type of government intrusion. But a dormant switch that would only
> "legally" be used to stop a high speed pursuit is a horse of a different
> color. Presently my department uses spike strips that rapidly deflate
> tires of a criminal who drives over it. It's dangerous to deploy and It
> doesn't guarantee that the bad guy will stop without crashing (probably
> less likely to avoid crashing than one who's simply lost their power
> steering and brakes). If the car is stolen and you're the victim it's
> quite likely that you'll have a couple of tires and possibly some rims
> to replace under the best of circumstances. I don't see this as a debate
> about privacy rights as some do. I see it as a matter of safety. Better
> ways to end high speed pursuits are needed. It seems all too easy for
> some people to picture themselves as victims of improper use of a kill
> switch - yet those same people never seem to worry about a fleeing bad
> guy (or the pursuing cruiser) crossing their path?
>
> Steve

I see the former situation as FAR more likely than the latter. I have
yet to see a high speed chase in person, but I've seen quite a few
criminals "scoping" an area for easy to steal cars. Would make
carjacking quite a cakewalk, I'd think.

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

223rem

2004-10-13, 7:11 pm

Nate Nagel

2004-10-13, 7:11 pm

Steve Furbish wrote:

> Matthew Russotto wrote:
>
>
>
> That kind of reminds me of the kids who seem to always ask what it's
> like to speed legally. The other guys position always looks better when
> you think they have a clear upper hand, but it's rarely as simple as it
> seems. Abuses usually catch up to you

sure they do.

> and when they do it really doesn't
> matter that you never thought you'd get the lash.
>
> Steve

Obviously you either aren't living in reality, or your area has a far
more responsble breed of cops than most.

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

Steve Furbish

2004-10-13, 7:11 pm

Nate Nagel wrote:
> Steve Furbish wrote:
>
>
> Incorrect. The whole XXXXing United States will have to do MORE than
> apologize to make up for what happened there. The damage may be
> irreparable at this point, but that's irrelevant to the discussion. The
> fact that it was "only a few soldiers" is also irrelevant. It takes
> "only a few soldiers" or "only a few cops" or "only a few judges" to
> completely dick over quite a few innocent people, which is why strict
> controls are necessary. I'm not implying that "bad" cops or soldiers or
> judges or whatever are the norm; however, I am flat out stating that
> there are too many.

How about a bit of perspective? Yes it was *bad* that those GIs
embarrassed and abused the prisoners in their care - but nobody got
beheaded. Whenever one of the latest hostages gets beheaded I can't help
but think of how it's the apologists like you that the terrorists play
to. The United States has been reasonably up front with what happened
Abu Ghraib and those responsible have steadily been brought to justice.
Meanwhile, those who you think deserve our apology continue to behead
innocent hostages whos hands are bound behind their backs.

>
> Ah, I knew it was only a matter of time before that came up. That
> argument has been wrong throughout recorded history, and remains wrong
> to this day.

Well you're just a prognosticating sonofagun, aren't you? It came up
because it's true. How many cases of cops indiscriminately tossing stop
sticks in front of innocent motorists can you come up with? How often
have you heard of them employing the PIT maneuver for no good reason?
Yet you worry about a similar tool because it's technilogically advanced
and safer to deploy?

Steve

Laura Bush murdered her boy friend

2004-10-13, 7:11 pm

James C. Reeves

2004-10-13, 7:11 pm

"Steve Furbish" <sfurbish@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:J_2dner-w-W_NPDcRVn-jQ@comcast.com...
|
| There's an enormous difference between the concepts of a "kill switch"
| in a car and cameras or microphones to monitor in the home. That banning
| argument is one that always seems to come out when people overreact to a
| suggestion that seems to provide police with a better way of doing things.
|
| Just to clarify things - I strongly agree that something like a monitor
| installed in your car (without a warrant) to track it or listen in on
| conversations would be such a gross violation of your Constitutional
| rights that I'd be first in line to join your protest and fight that
| type of government intrusion. But a dormant switch that would only
| "legally" be used to stop a high speed pursuit is a horse of a different
| color. Presently my department uses spike strips that rapidly deflate
| tires of a criminal who drives over it. It's dangerous to deploy and It
| doesn't guarantee that the bad guy will stop without crashing (probably
| less likely to avoid crashing than one who's simply lost their power
| steering and brakes). If the car is stolen and you're the victim it's
| quite likely that you'll have a couple of tires and possibly some rims
| to replace under the best of circumstances. I don't see this as a debate
| about privacy rights as some do. I see it as a matter of safety. Better
| ways to end high speed pursuits are needed. It seems all too easy for
| some people to picture themselves as victims of improper use of a kill
| switch - yet those same people never seem to worry about a fleeing bad
| guy (or the pursuing cruiser) crossing their path?
|
| Steve

Except a form of monitoring already exists as part of the air bag systems.
Monitors speed, brake/throttle position, etc. The data is being subpoenaed in
court cases as we speak.

Nate Nagel

2004-10-13, 7:11 pm

Steve Furbish wrote:

> Nate Nagel wrote:
>
>
>
> How about a bit of perspective? Yes it was *bad* that those GIs
> embarrassed and abused the prisoners in their care - but nobody got
> beheaded. Whenever one of the latest hostages gets beheaded I can't help
> but think of how it's the apologists like you that the terrorists play
> to. The United States has been reasonably up front with what happened
> Abu Ghraib and those responsible have steadily been brought to justice.
> Meanwhile, those who you think deserve our apology continue to behead
> innocent hostages whos hands are bound behind their backs.

Because we have proven ourselves to be no better than their previous
government, our protests to the contrary.

>
>
>
> Well you're just a prognosticating sonofagun, aren't you? It came up
> because it's true. How many cases of cops indiscriminately tossing stop
> sticks in front of innocent motorists can you come up with? How often
> have you heard of them employing the PIT maneuver for no good reason?
> Yet you worry about a similar tool because it's technilogically advanced
> and safer to deploy?

I worry about its abuse, not its use. Criminals would have a field day
with it. So would less than ethical cops.

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel