RIPA Part III

[Peter Fairbrother]

Ian G Batten wrote:

>> 
>>> as we do with requirements to give breath samples at the roadside,
>>> 
>> Different entirely. I don't drive, and so could never be the
>> subject of such
>> a demand. It is a requirement placed on drivers, not on the general
>> public.
>> It ought to be spelled out that way a bit more too.
> 
> You logic seems to be that things that would otherwise be invasive
> when done to the general population are OK when done to drivers,
> because they choose to drive.  If you're worried about computers
> being seized and your telephone calls being intercepted, the same
> principle applies: it's your choice to use a computer or a
> telephone.  

The difference - it is not in general inherently dangerous to use a computer
or telephone, even when drunk. Tho' I remember some drunken posts I wish I
could recall...

It is inherently dangerous to other people to drive, especially while drunk.
That's why we have driver licensing, and do not permit people to drive at
all when they are drunk. We have decided that it is a crime to drive when
drunk - and I think most people, including drivers, would agree.

You may note that I described the imposition of a breath test on the
innocent driver as unfair - but that it was a small imposition, of little or
no consequence beyond taking a little time.

We generally permit the Police to engage the innocent and take up a little
of their time, sometimes even to arrest the innocent - everyone arrested is
not guilty - as part of their duty in order that crime may be controlled.


Still tho', I am unhappy about this argument. I feel it is flawed and I
don't quite know why.


> It's interesting that people who are in general opposed
> to CCTV were quite relaxed about the idea of ANR on the roads (``no
> one is forcing them to drive!'') but suddenly have discovered some
> principles when it becomes facial recognition in railway stations.
> It's as though a contempt for car drivers has become some sort of
> shibboleth for people who think the 1983 Labour Manifesto is a great
> political work.

I personally am not relaxed about ANR. I think it stinks, and if I was in
charge it would be illegal to use it except in local situations, eg charging
for car parks.

I have not read the 1983 labour manifesto, but I doubt the Labour Party are
or were then capable of a great political work. Tories etc either.

BTW I do have a (old green paper) driving license and even insurance, I just
don't have any need to drive.

-- 
Peter Fairbrother