25 votes

Mandatory 'Big Brother' Black Boxes in All New Cars from 2012

A bill already passed by the Senate and set to be rubber stamped by the House would make it mandatory for all new cars in the United States to be fitted with black box data recorders from 2015 onwards.

Section 31406 of Senate Bill 1813 (known as MAP-21), calls for “Mandatory Event Data Recorders” to be installed in all new automobiles and legislates for civil penalties to be imposed against individuals for failing to do so.

“Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall revise part 563 of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, to require, beginning with model year 2015, that new passenger motor vehicles sold in the United States be equipped with an event data recorder that meets the requirements under that part,” states the bill.

Keep reading... http://www.infowars.com/mandatory-big-brother-black-boxes-in...

Remember that big wave of "Tea Party" Republicans elected in 2010 because government was too big and intrusive? Yeah... It didn't work.



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I came across another article that has some valid points...

The Supreme Court just decided that you need a search warrant to bug a suspects car. So if this were to get brought before the supreme court it would likely get overturned. Either way I wish Ron Paul would be able to speak on the House Floor out against this and then go on interviews and openly say Would Mitt Romney sign this bill? He's not a real conservative. Perfect opportunity to showcase how consistent Ron Paul is and that you can trust him. https://rt.com/usa/news/congress-map-cars-1813-484/

The insurance lobby strikes

The insurance lobby strikes again!

Someday soon only the very rich will be able to drive.

Culprits that received the most money for supporting bill 1813

This is the list of politicians that received the most money from supporting interest groups that support Senate Bill 1813. Which means they received this money from organization that want bill 1813 to become law in it's current form.
All the senators below voted for senate bill 1813.
Sen. Charles Schumer [D, NY] $570,500
Sen. Harry Reid [D, NV] $479,526 Attached Amendment giving new power to the IRS to revoke and suspend passports
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand [D, NY] $344,841
Sen. Richard Shelby [R, AL] $336,350
Sen. Roy Blunt [R, MO] $317,300
Sen. Barbara Boxer [D, CA] $272,410 Author of Bill 1813
Sen. John Thune [R, SD] $229,814

This Senator abstained which is a common practice when politicians know that a bill will pass without their help and don't want to look like they are supporting it.
Sen. Mark Kirk [R, IL] $255,958

All politicians listed above need to be replaced in the next election. Please write your representatives in the House and voice your opposition. We do not want bill 1813 to become law. https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml It would be best to send them fax and snail mail as well.

...

I think it almost time for some.....______________________________

Everyone needs to look at this bill - I wish black boxes was the

biggest concern - this thing goes on and on and on - you won't believe it!
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/s1813/text

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know Peace." - Jimi Hendrix

I only read part of it and

I only read part of it and never saw the black box part but did you see even the beginning of the regulatory crap they are putting on STATES? It is unreal! They have to write all sorts of reports on fatalities with drivers over 65, and at railway crossings, and on rural roads..what IS this??

They want to track and TAX your milage too

KEEP FUNDING THE REVOLUTION!!!

fireant's picture

And track if you attend any "subversive" meetings...

...like a Ron Paul meet-up.

Undo what Wilson did

They never learn

Someone will come up with a hack, RP drives a 1997 Buick.. I knew the he knew this was coming :)

why do all old people drive

why do all old people drive buicks?

Because

they can!

fireant's picture

This is what we get by accepting the notion that driving is a

priviledge; the grantor of that priviledge can make any restrictions it wants.

Undo what Wilson did

I hate Speed Camera's, its revenue raising and nothing more!

Dont get me Wrong, Here in Perth Western Australia, it is ridiculous, a Nanny state. Instead of finding the problems and creating real solutions, they believe, Like a Tax, That fining people, will stop the actions of those that cause Accidents? Oh thats right, you cant call them Accidents any more, because accidents cant be prevented. You cant legislate against Stupidity! , people WILL die on our roads, the same way some will Die when they go bushwalking, some people are just stupid, others simply unlucky. You cant do it. But back to my point.

Driving a Vehicle (which has to be bought, from a Third Party) on "Public Roads" (Which have to be built, if not by the Public, then privately. Where, you can put other people in Direct harm due to your actions/or lack of actions) IS a Priviledge.

The same way that Health Care is a Priviledge, you can not demand something just because to want it. Your right to travel, move from Point A to B, associate with whoever ,whereever, Is your RIGHT. Using a Vehicle, something someone else has to produce, and the all amenities associated with driving a vehicle, is not your Right. As that would involve forcing people to produce cars for those who couldnt afford it. The same as Housing, the same Health Care, And we all know where that leads.

You do not have the Right to anything Material, you do have the Right to Pursue those things though. And you do have the right to Pursue those things in a Free and Fair enviroment.

.

.

░░░░░███████ ]▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄ ----------------O
▂▄▅█████████▅▄▃▂
Il███████████████████].
◥⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙◤..

I will direct you here...

http://youtu.be/_nOMbfsgZ9s

hurry class is starting.....

≈ ≈ ≈ ≈ ≈ ≈ ≈ ≈ ≈ ≈ ≈ ≈
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make
violent revolution inevitable."
John F. Kennedy

Thanks for the link

I'll be in class for a quite a while LOL. I watch for 15 minutes this guy seems to know what he is talking about.

I am amazed at what can be found on you tube.

Surviving the killing fields of Minnesota

Todays brainwashing: GMO's are safe

Come on, lets actually think about this

Whats with the downvotes?

How about instead of reacting, think.

I used to think the same thing, Same as Health Care, Everyone deserves Health care, Everyone deserves to be able to drive. But as we know, you can not have "RIGHTS" that infringe upon other peoples rights

How does thinking "I have a right to drive a car, any different to thinking "I have a right to Medical treatment"

Seriously whats the difference?, I thought about that quite abit when I realised a while ago, and even though it went against what I originally thought, I have to agree with Ron Paul, You can not have rights that force others to provide for you.

You have work and Buy a car to have one. It is not a right to have one. You cant demand the government Give you a Car, because it is your right.

Btw, This Black Box BS, is still BS, and beside the point I am making. You have a right to privacy ultimately so this Black box Idea can go jump, Id be ripping mine out.

every time you fill up your

every time you fill up your tank you pay gas tax. that money goes into a fund for public roads and ETC. the government makes a killing off it. so your not really traveling for FREE lol if you use gas you pay a tax. that's not including all the toll fees, weight station fees and all other tacked on taxes you can not get around if you travel on public roads. this does not even include people who have to pay the gas tax to fill up a lawnmower etc. so if you use it you still loose it. its not FREE. people who sit on their buns all day long wasting away with a 40 and a needle in their arm do not contribute with any tax toward any health fund. they just sap it up like a old dry towel. they do not deserve my hard earned money. these black boxes are more for the electric car revolution where people are filling up the tank less. the amount you drive will prob be taxed.

░░░░░███████ ]▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄ ----------------O
▂▄▅█████████▅▄▃▂
Il███████████████████].
◥⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙◤..

Nobody is entitled to health

Nobody is entitled to health care. Everyone has a right to acquire it through voluntary transaction.

"Come on, lets actually think about this"....

ok, No one is stopping you. You should do that.

≈ ≈ ≈ ≈ ≈ ≈ ≈ ≈ ≈ ≈ ≈ ≈
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make
violent revolution inevitable."
John F. Kennedy

Real intelligent Response there.

Care to stop being a Moronic F%$kwit and actually explain what you are talkign about? or perhaps answer my question so I can think about it more?

Where are the actual intellectual Dailypaulers at the moment?

As I have said, I use to agree with you, that Driving is a Right, then, when I understood Ron's position on Medical Care, I thought how can It be a right to force someone else to provide for you? (Ie a Car)

Can you simply explain why you think saying "Its my right to recieve medical care" is any different to saying "Its my right to Drive" ?

Both require other people's labor for you do do so? I think you are missing the point I am making.

breath man.

here's the deal. analogies are not proof or evidence, they are merely a tool to aid in explanation.

people have natural rights to their lives, freedom (which includes mobility, speech, and other standard human physical articulation), and the pursuit of property.

the act of driving a car, is merely the act of being mobile.

i think you were confusing the act of driving, which requires only one person, with the act of receiving free medical attention from a profession, which requires two people.

unless you did not mean the act of driving, but instead meant the act of obtaining a car in the first place.

so if you want to say that people shouldn't expect free cars from a car salesmen, just like they shouldn't expect free treatment from a doctor, then that's fine. nobody will argue against that point. but that wasn't the point in contention.

once people have obtained a commonly used transport, they have the right to be mobile, and unreasonable attempts to regulate it, should be shot down.

the regulation should be determined at the state level.

people have the right to be mobile, the right to travel, and therefore the right to drive, ride, fly, sail, ski, etc etc etc, as long as they do not infringe on others rights.

i think an automobile is pretty common place in most first world countries, and so the bar for driving should be set pretty low in those countries, barring unusual circumstances.

it's a dangerous activity, no doubt. exceptionally careful people can mitigate those odds.

Yes

That was my point, The act of obtaining a car has to come before driving. That was my point, because if you went and told the General Population it was their "RIGHT" to drive, some would jump to conclusions and demand they be given a car, Which by the way actually happens here in Australia, at least WA. The Government provides cars to, Im not sure if its just the indiginous poor, or poor in general, obviously after jumping through hoops, Im not sure how it works, but there are people here with cars paid for by the government, because I suppose, some people believe its their right to drive.

And thats what I was getting at, I was saying it cant be a right to drive, it is only your right to pursue being able to drive, by obtaining a car, through volantary agreement, and then doing so.

But like sreams showed, "The right to acquire a gun through voluntary transaction does -not- mean that I am "owed" a gun."

Which is a Great point.

Which is what I was getting at. Also though,. . I was pondering . . the Right to own a Gun doesnt mean you can use it in any way you want, You cant for example take pot shots at things in public, as it is dangerous, can the same be said about Vehicles af any kind, They have to be used in an exceptable manner in order for not only safety, but efficiency.

fireant's picture

As soon as I saw the flag at distress, I knew it would be good.

(it's the only way I fly it)
That looks like a great course...bookmarked.

Undo what Wilson did

fireant's picture

Then if it's a "priviledge", ALL Constitutional rights are

waived as soon as you back your car out of the driveway. That's the end result of considering it a priviledge.
I disagree with your position. I have a right to utilize the standard form of transportation. That right does not mean it has to be provided for me; only that I have a right to use it if I choose. Given the danger to others of utilizing that right, I understand certain qualifications are prerequisite.

Undo what Wilson did

What?

Sure, If you can afford to buy that form of Transportation.

Its the same as Health care, How can driving a car be a right?

How can it be when someone else has to work for you do to So.

Like I said, Travelling, Perambulating, Roving, Moving, IS your right, it is not your right to demand the mode in which it happens, If thats the case then is is MY right to demand I am flown everywhere in a private Jet.

Why would all constitutional Rights be waived anyway. You do believe in having Laws dont you? Laws that work with the Constitution? All laws are still secondary to the Constitution arent they? I dont understand where you are coming from in that perspective.

Explain to me how Thinking "owning a Car is a Right" is any different than Thinking "Having Medical Care is a right"?

Nobody "has to work for me".

Nobody "has to work for me". The car manufacturer chooses to work for me in exchange for the fruits of my labor.

fireant's picture

I'm probably more confused at your confusion than you are

with my statements. You either fail to grasp or just haven't read what I wrote. I'm asking no one to provide me with anything.

Undo what Wilson did

What?

What again, Can you please explain to me what your talking about?

Ive come to the conclusion, due to Ron Pauls stance on Health Care, that Driving a Car, requires someone elses work. Therefor, You can not have the Right to drive a Car, anymore than you can have a right to Medical Care?

How is it any different?

Please explain this to me?

I would also add that the

I would also add that the case is similar with the right to bear arms. The right to acquire a gun through voluntary transaction does -not- mean that I am "owed" a gun.