The Following Demand to Know The Specifics of Vehicle Mile Travel Fee/Chip

Looking a gift horse in the mouth? (2.40 / 10)

It doesn't take too much to understand how important it will be be have knowledge of the travel of people around the state.  I want to see information gathered that will assist in the efforts against climate change, terrorism, the economic crisis.  I don't want to see the state collapse in the debt brought about by the free market.

Any good thinking person living in Massachusetts can see the obvious benefits of this proposal.  Only those with something to hide oppose this advance in technology.  I want to be safe and secure and pay what taxes I owe.

---

by: George David @ Sat Feb 21, 2009 at 12:44:58 PM CST

Really? (0.00 / 0)

Anybody who opposes government ability to track VMT is some sort of criminal? Okay.

I am not sure on this issue, although I am strongly leaning towards it being a bad idea. But this comment is absurd.

---

by: demredsox @ Sat Feb 21, 2009 at 13:43:17 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Your comment isn't absurd, just confused. (3.50 / 2)

I disagree with you that anyone that opposes the ability to track VMT is some sort of criminal.  There are a lot of paranoid people around.  Chances are very good no one cares what most people are doing.  There may be some validity in an arguement as to the cost.  Just think of the benefits.

Think of the information that may be captured for the purpose of study and prevention of global climate change.  Knowing when, where and how much pollution is being spread can be invaluable knowledge.  In the fight on terrorism knowing when and where terrorists are can be an important aid to law enforcement.  Rahm Emmanuel spoke on using the no-fly list to track down suspected terrorists.  What a tool it would be to merge these databases.  Why shouldn't the people that use the highways pay for them?  What a perfect tool for the correct application of tax.  There is a tax crisis ongoing.

As for people that fear that this is a tool to take away some rights, I quote Hilary Clinton"  "Human rights cannot interfere with the global economic crisis, the global climate change crisis and the security crises..."  So, even if it took away some rights (which it doesn't-you have no right in any law I've seen to have a mystery car) it would be a blessing for the greater good.

---

by: George David @ Sat Feb 21, 2009 at 15:10:08 PM CST

[ Parent ]

George David. (6.00 / 2)

You stated that "Only those with something to hide oppose this advance in technology." Your words, not mine. There is no way, from the point of view expressed here, to oppose this on legit grounds. I disagree.

---

by: demredsox @ Sat Feb 21, 2009 at 17:17:37 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I seem to recall (6.00 / 3)

That "Only those with something to hide oppose this" was used in reference to the USA PATRIOT Act. Just, you know, a point of freaking order here.

We all should express caution, at the very minimum, when the government wants to collect more data on us. Yes, even, really especially, liberals.

Left in Lowell: cuz why read the Lowell Sun if you don't have to? ;)

---

by: Lynne @ Sat Feb 21, 2009 at 19:22:51 PM CST

[ Parent ]

R U Sane (4.00 / 2)

VMT is another intrusion by government. They can track you with this technology. You and others forgot there's a
constitution and everytime one of these political morons
comes up with an idea. you guys just jump on board without
considering the ramifications. We are already overtaxed and over monitored. They don't have the nuts to cut back
when times are tough and they keep on coming up with schemes to suck more of our hard earned money out of us.
Well enough is enough. Anypne who supports VMT or a 19 cent gas tax increase has lost leave of their senses and
I question their sanity. Its as bad as wall street traders this week saying the government shouldn't help homeowners out who are losing homes through no fault of their own.
They forgot they got bailed out by taxpayers and enough is enough, tax and spend has gotta stop. Pay as you go has
gotta start. look at California & Kansas they are giving IOU's instead of refunds. It isn't their money but that's where this thing is heading.    

Bob Henry/Cape

---

by: bobhenry @ Sun Feb 22, 2009 at 08:36:22 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Ladies and gentlemen... (6.00 / 1)

Anypne who supports VMT or a 19 cent gas tax increase has lost leave of their senses and
I question their sanity

All those people in Europe are.......  INSANE!

---

by: stomv @ Sun Feb 22, 2009 at 10:00:30 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I always thought that this was simply understood. (0.00 / 0)

a truism, if you will.

Why else would Grandma and Grandpa have high-tailed it out of there?

---

by: CentralMassDad @ Sun Feb 22, 2009 at 13:50:40 PM CST

[ Parent ]

ROFLMAO (0.00 / 0)

What silliness!  Do you really believe that anyone wants to track you?  Believe me, nobody cares.  Put some reality into your lives.  Walk away from the keyboard and meet with people.  Most won't hurt you.  You've read too much nonsense about the government being behind 911, most assassinations, economic disasters on all the foolish internet sites.  Grow up.

Certainly the use of technology to get a fair tax is human neutral.  The FBI is too busy looking for Whitey to catch you for going the wrong way down a one-way street.

---

by: George David @ Mon Feb 23, 2009 at 14:31:50 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Your argument (6.00 / 1)

So, even if it took away some rights (which it doesn't-you have no right in any law I've seen to have a mystery car) it would be a blessing for the greater good.

see more pwn and owned pictures

the government is spying on far more than suspected terrorists through the patriot act and its illegal wiretapping program, including American citizens simply on the phone with people out of the country, allegedly programmed to start recording as soon as simple keywords are used.

The fact is we have no "security crisis" in this country; we're a relatively stable country that's had a terrorist attack or two on our soil over the past 20+ years.

Moreover, I fail to see how this helps tackle global warming when our country refuses to take simple and important steps that we know will have an extremely positive effect now, without such data, such as reducing gas emissions and building more wind farms whilst simultaneously closing coal factories. Moreover, there's very simple, cheap and exceptionally methods we could take in a conservation effort that we don't, such as creating stricter building standards and creating more incentives/mandating people make their homes more energy efficient.

So, no offense, but your argument fails at every single level. Good job!  

---
My thoughts are mine and mine alone. They should not be considered representative of any other organization, group or person - save me.

~Ryan.

---

by: Ryepower12 @ Sun Feb 22, 2009 at 16:04:31 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Urp... (5.50 / 2)

It doesn't take too much to understand how important it will be be have knowledge of the travel of people around the state.

we have toll booths, traffic stops and an entire infrastructure built around congestion detection.  We're not too too far off wrt knowledge about how people travel around the state.

I want to see information gathered that will assist in the efforts against climate change, terrorism, the economic crisis.

You'll have to do a better job of telling us how, exactly, this chip furthers these efforts...

 I don't want to see the state collapse in the debt brought about by the free market.

Again, specific details as to how this chip mitigates this collapse would be helpful...

Any good thinking person living in Massachusetts can see the obvious benefits of this proposal.

That there are benefits, is not in dispute.  But the simple presence of benefits, as you ought to know, doesn't lessen deleterious effects in the slightest.  Nor are benefits, in the presence of malefactors, all that beneficial.   One mans meat, they say, is another mans poison.

Only those with something to hide oppose this advance in technology.

It is well within my rights as a citizen of the commonwealth to wish to hide, deeply and with any number of layers of secrecy, any legitimate activity in which I engage.   For example, it is within my rights to announce to the world that I drive back and forth to church three times daily.  It is also within my rights to wish to keep this information private and confidential.  

Only those who wish to keep something hidden... have something to hide.  Nor should any "good thinking person living in Massachusetts" infer that my desire to keep something hidden (another word for which is "privacy") means that specific something is not a legitimate activity.  

---

"Providing health care to the uninsured is a job killer, while not providing health care is merely a people killer....   Bonus: Job Openings!!"

--Stephen Colbert

---

by: petr @ Sat Feb 21, 2009 at 17:47:41 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I'll be generous and accept this as intentional satire. (6.00 / 2)

   

---

by: CentralMassDad @ Sun Feb 22, 2009 at 13:48:11 PM CST

[ Parent ]

good thinking, bad thinking (0.00 / 0)

I would ask you what a good thinking person was and what a bad thinking person was but I already know the answer.  A good thinking person agrees with you while a bad thinking person thinks for himself or herself.  

Count me in the bad thinking person camp.

---

by: RegularJoe @ Sun Feb 22, 2009 at 13:49:56 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I'm a bad thinker, too. (0.00 / 0)

It reminds me of "correct thought" as it was known during the Cultural Revolution.

As petr notes, we already have reliable methods for gathering this kind of data. It is not necessary or desirable to give law-enforcement the means to track our every move.

Shoe bomber, underwear bomber -- why aren't we waging war on clothes?

---

by: kirth @ Mon Feb 23, 2009 at 08:15:09 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I guess (0.00 / 0)

you really liked the Patriot Act and all the intrusions into our personal privacy these past 8 years. As for me, I have nothing to hide, but I still don't want government able to track my every movement by the inch. I also don't want to put them one step close to being able to charge me tolls anywhere they feel like it. Who will be the first to come out with a 'fix' to block these sensors from being read?

---

by: af @ Sun Feb 22, 2009 at 21:50:41 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Gas Tax and travel chip (0.00 / 0)

How can the Governor propose a gas tax increase when he gives state troopers their own personal cruisers paid for by the state?  A lot of these cars are unmarked cars they can use as the personal vehicle.  Who pays for the gas in these cars? Governor,  clean up your house (state employees pork basket), before you clean up ours. Stop the spending first.

---

by: teddyrodgers @ Sat Feb 21, 2009 at 12:58:26 PM CST

Take A Look At Oregon (6.00 / 4)

When I considered recommending a VMT pilot, I looked to what Oregon is doing in this area.  With specific respect to privacy, the Oregon DOT reports that their program is designed to protect against accidental or intentional invasion of privacy.  From the ODOT report:

"The concept requires no transmission of vehicle travel locations, either in 'real time' or of travel history.  Accordingly, no travel location points are stored within the vehicle or transmitted elsewhere. Thus there can be no tracking of vehicle movements. Secured short distance transfer of mileage data occurs at the time of fueling."  

The Oregon system involves a gps receiver, that was designed "not to send an identifying signal out from the on-vehicle device to mark real time travel. Thus, no one would have the ability to track a vehicle's movements while it was underway or parked.  ODOT also designed the on-vehicle device not to retain any travel history."

These representations have led me to believe that a system can be put into place that protects the privacy of people, in a durable and effective way.  I am committed to doing so in any system we develop here in massachusetts.

Jim Aloisi

---

by: eguy @ Sat Feb 21, 2009 at 14:17:19 PM CST

Why? (5.50 / 2)

Why would you take such a complicated approach to collecting revenue directed at transportation usage?

Each time a MA vehicle renews its inspection there is a recording of data associated with that vehicle, including odometer reading.  Given that odometer tampering is already protected, the annual mileage is known to the Commonwealth.  So what if some of that mileage is not in MA, just adjust the rate to factor that into the equation.

Collect the money up front when the car is first inspected based on its odometer reading/age in years.  If after year 1 the odometer change is less, then discount the next year's bill, or if it is greater increase that bill.

For a gas tax of 42.5 cents per gallon with a 25 mpg car that drives 10K miles per year, you should collect about $170 in taxes.  Drive 20K miles and you pay double, and at 10K half.  Drive a more fuel-efficient car you pay less, a gas-guzzler you pay more.  But you don't want to double-tax, so split the difference between the mileage tax and the gas tax.  The current rate 23.5 cents/gallon is close to half, and you can increase that by CPI going forward.  Add an average of $85 (dependent on each vehicle's mileage, also adjusted by CPI) to the inspection cost and you get half from mileage tax and half from gasoline tax.

---

by: JoeS @ Sat Feb 21, 2009 at 14:44:10 PM CST

[ Parent ]

You only (6.00 / 1)

have to look at MA's history in implemented new technology to see why they are looking at complicated 'gee whiz' systems. They made the MBTA cashless system (CharlieCard, et al) a fiasco when there were many successful systems around already to emulate. In the area of tolls, doesn't it strike you as odd that every state from the mid Atlantic up the coast to Maine has one name and one system, while good ol' MA studied long and hard and came up with FastLane? They always reinvent the wheel, make things unnecessarily complicated, and botch the implementation. Even the Registry's drivers license went through an unnecessarily contentious and expensive search when it converted from the old Polaroid based photo to the new digital one. They just make things too difficult, often without reason.

---

by: af @ Sun Feb 22, 2009 at 22:02:13 PM CST

[ Parent ]

If that's the best you've got... (0.00 / 0)

that's pretty weak.

The CharlieCard is hardly a fiasco.  Sure some MIT kids showed it could be hacked, but so what?  The CharlieCard results in faster entrance than the old system with more collection of fares.  The fiasco there was really how the MBTA handled it, not the technology itself (which is the same as London and many other cities).  As a side note, why can't I top off my card online?  Why can't I set up my card to keep topping up so that when it's down to $5 it charges back up to $25, just like FastLane?

FastLane instead of EZPass?  Even though they work with each other, you're complaining that they're named something different?  The technology works just fine and is 100% interoperable, thankyouverymuch.

I'd have complained about MA's seemingly botched transition to open standards files.  I'd have complained about the MBTA's failure to roll out priority green signals for the green and silver lines and the CT buses.  I'd have pointed out the Lege's inability to stream their sessions online with sufficient nines of uptime.

---

by: stomv @ Mon Feb 23, 2009 at 07:00:46 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Now Jim, don't start confusing us with facts and data based research.................. (0.00 / 0)

we much prefer to speculate about the worst that could happen

---

by: Judy Meredith @ Sat Feb 21, 2009 at 15:32:15 PM CST

[ Parent ]

so many layers of foolishness in this policy (6.00 / 1)

No offense, Mr. Secretary, but this proposal is a) costly to implement, b) an incentive to buy less efficient vehicles and c) impossible to completely mitigate privacy concerns.

First off, let's make the assumption that under the Patrick and Obama Administrations, it'll be impossible for this chip to be used improperly. That's a generous assumption, but I'll make it for the context of this argument. What about future Romney or Bush administrations? It would be very easy to tamper with this program, burying a few obscure lines here and there in legislation that has little to do with the actual program, thereby granting intrusive access to this information. We need to be prepared for how this chip can be used with the worst Governors and Presidents, not just the best or even current.

We already have a completely fair tax for roads and bridges. It's called the gas tax. It taxes those who drive less efficient vehicles a proportionally larger sum than those who drive efficient cars. That's good policy. The VMT is largely an excuse not the raise the gas tax, but to raise necessary funds for our roads and bridges. You're not fooling anyone, though. If we need more money for our roads and bridges, we need to be adults in the ways we collect it. Creating new taxes and trying to pretend as though they're anything but an increase to the gas tax is not mature and responsible. Need more revenue for roads and bridges? Use the gas tax to do it. It's simple, easy, convenient, efficient and has a history of working in the past in every single country in the world. Why fix what's not broken?  

---
My thoughts are mine and mine alone. They should not be considered representative of any other organization, group or person - save me.

~Ryan.

---

by: Ryepower12 @ Sun Feb 22, 2009 at 16:57:12 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Can someone explain? (5.80 / 5)

Not sure if I understand the purpose of tracking miles traveled.

A gas tax IS a mileage tax.  The more miles you travel, the more gas you need to buy.  

What advantage is there to taxing people for gas AND mileage?  I think a higher gas tax would suffice.  Even if the chips don't track car movement or location, it will be perceived as invasive and big brotherish.  What do other people think?

---

by: 1776 @ Sat Feb 21, 2009 at 15:28:37 PM CST

They are worried about Hybrids and Plug-ins (0.00 / 0)

Less gas consumed (or none at all) = less revenue to maintain transportation infrastructure.

---

by: JoeS @ Sat Feb 21, 2009 at 16:31:36 PM CST

[ Parent ]

We should encourage cars that use less gas. (0.00 / 0)

Because they reduce the costs of global warming.

---

by: joeltpatterson @ Sat Feb 21, 2009 at 22:27:33 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Or better yet... (0.00 / 0)

Public transit.  Or carpooling.  Or cycling.

Would buses have to pay this mileage tax as well?  Seems a bit foolish...

~~~~
Believe it or not, I have even more to say...

---

by: sabutai @ Sun Feb 22, 2009 at 19:04:58 PM CST

[ Parent ]

That is years away (0.00 / 0)

so deal with it then, probably by raising the gas tax.

Which is not so bad as it sounds from the consumers' point of view.

If, in ten years, Joe Fillup is driving a car that uses 20% less gasoline, and the state raises the gas tax by 20% (which would be what, 8 or 9 cents?), his total gas bill is still less.

Rhetorical question: Which would you rather pay, a lower price per gallon, or lower costs overall?

Nobody likes taxes, but the existing gas tax is a better solution than VMT.

---

by: Trickle up @ Sun Feb 22, 2009 at 07:41:34 AM CST

[ Parent ]

deal with that problem when it comes (6.00 / 1)

and there are other ways to do it than implanting chips in our cars that are capable of tracking our movement.  

---
My thoughts are mine and mine alone. They should not be considered representative of any other organization, group or person - save me.

~Ryan.

---

by: Ryepower12 @ Sun Feb 22, 2009 at 16:59:42 PM CST

[ Parent ]

The advantage is (6.00 / 1)

that they will then have the ability to 'toll' any road their hearts desire, without having to worry about toll plazas or collectors. How low will it go? Will it just be the Tpke, or now Rts 24, 93, 91, 20, or how about Mass Ave, Comm Ave, Cambridge St?

---

by: af @ Sun Feb 22, 2009 at 22:07:42 PM CST

[ Parent ]

An idea that's too smart by half -- and thus doubly dumb? (6.00 / 4)

I agree with 1776.  And my primary problem with this idea is not based on civil liberties (although that's a whole different concern); it's too complicated and simply not practical.

Yes, we should charge the people who use the roads.  But why do we need a complicated high-tech measuring regime instead of an increase in the gas tax?

Worse, wouldn't taxing miles driven -- as opposed to taxing gas consumed -- eliminate an incentive to have a high-mileage car?

If we want to bring in revenue for each car that goes over a bridge (in theory, to help pay for the bridge), isn't a gas tax more fair, in that it would charge heavier cars more, on average?  A Chevy Suburban weighs around 5600 pounds; a Ford Focus weighs only 2600 pounds, less than half as much.  And on the highway, a Suburban gets 20 mpg, while a Focus gets 35 mpg.  Shouldn't we be taxing the Suburban drivers more?  They put more carbon in the atmosphere; they put more weight and stress on our highways and bridges.  

And worse still, enacting a VMT law now will provide an ever bigger disincentive 2-3 years from now as the next generation of electric cars hits the roads -- a disincentive that's especially foolish considering that Massachusetts is already shaping up to be a national and global leader in cleantech, including battery storage.  If we tax miles rather than gas, won't that discourage someone from spending extra to get a Chevy Volt, which is expected to get 60 mpg or more but cost around $35000-40000?  

As for information on traffic patterns, there are professionals who have already made counting cars into a science.  If we're thinking about examining economic patterns or security issues, that data already exists and does not require a new, expensive program that will cost millions to implement and run.

And sure, giving the state government "information" on climate change would be nice.  But I'd rather provide incentives for each of us to act in ways that will mitigate climate change.

smrtass.  intelligent progressivism.  http://smrtass.tumblr.com

---

by: Tristan @ Sat Feb 21, 2009 at 16:06:18 PM CST

This is another huge point (6.00 / 2)

All miles are not the same. I have a small car which gets 26-28 MPG. My neighbor might have an SUV that gets, if lucky, 15 MPG. I think we're better off giving incentives to people to drive those fuel efficient cars, not gas guzzlers. A usage tax is going to either seriously be overcomplicated trying to take that into account in any fair way, or else not take it into account and kill the incentive for driving better cars.

Also, the point Tristan makes on heavier cars = more wear and tear on infrastructure also is a good point.

Left in Lowell: cuz why read the Lowell Sun if you don't have to? ;)

---

by: Lynne @ Sat Feb 21, 2009 at 19:29:54 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Pretty sure this VMT chip is dead on arrival. (0.00 / 0)

Baker/Tisei in 2010... Charlie Baker on why people "have been" leaving MA, "It's not the weather here, it's the climate"

---

by: JohnD @ Sat Feb 21, 2009 at 18:25:01 PM CST

We can hope. (0.00 / 0)

--
If you want to live like a Republican, you better vote like a Democrat. —Harry Truman

---

by: dcsohl @ Fri Feb 27, 2009 at 07:58:18 AM CST

[ Parent ]

This whole sticker chip idea infuriates me..... (6.00 / 1)

This whole sticker chip idea infuriates me..
We are going to cut funding for homeless people, because Massachusetts is broke, then spend an infinite sum on implementing this high tech mileage tracking system so we can then collect more money so we can spend more money on implementing the system and maintaining it, and hire more state workers so they can keep an eye on it and have probably vast amounts of paperwork to file on April 15th.  This is without question the most ridiculous, short sighted investment I have seen lately, and if he thinks he is going to use stimulus money to begin to pay for the whole concept he has another thing coming.
Deval Patrick....you'd better wake up and grow up!  This country is in a crisis, or have you not heard. The people of Massachusetts are struggling in harsh ways, why don't you think about ways to simplify and streamline, instead of
thinking of ways to complicate things. You are just looking for an new way to suck more money from people who just don't have it. I get that the state needs more money, but doing it this way is going to probably cost more than you will receive.  And before you start demanding more money, I want to see some substantial savings in garbage spending, and I don't mean cuts for the homeless, or the poor, or senior citizens, or cuts in education or healthcare. I mean cuts in state employee benefits, wages that are above and beyond reasonable, spending on contracts that have not been fully scrutinized for waste or conflicts of interest, nonsense spending on anything that is not truly important to the people of this state. I was so glad to hear that Barack Obama is telling the mayors of our country to spend wisely.  I hope he means that there will be a calling out on nonsense spending for all government officials, including governors, state legislatures and anyone else who is responsible for submitting proposals and creating budgets.  I would draw that all the way down to local governments, school committees and anyone who submits their budgets for funding.  The responsibility starts at the very beginning when projects are initiated and proposals submitted.  Money can be saved in so many ways.  And we the citizens know this because whe are doing our best every day to cut our costs in our own household budgets.  It's time for the government to start doing the very same thing.  They should have started a long time ago.

---

by: liveandletlive @ Sat Feb 21, 2009 at 20:50:56 PM CST

And...Thanks for speaking out Ernie! (0.00 / 0)

I was hoping someone with a bigger voice than mine would start screaming about this.  Please keep speaking out.  The more we scream, the more likely we'll be heard.  Thanks!

---

by: liveandletlive @ Sat Feb 21, 2009 at 20:59:25 PM CST

The milage tax is the dumbest idea (6.00 / 4)

to come down the pike in a long, long time. Not only is it complicated and potentially (probably) invasive, it is a new, additional tax on something that has not been directly taxed before--how on earth can another consider that more palatable than simply increasing some of the taxes already paid (i.e., add a bit to the gas tax, add a bit to the excise tax)?

The notion that efficient vehicles may lead to a decrease in gas tax revenues, and that this is a problem that needs to be solved by placing additional taxes on those who drive efficient vehicles--it is the kind of idiocy that only "the best and brightest" could come up with, rather like the brilliant minds behind this financial system of ours that just came crashing down all around us. Whoever is proposing to tax milage because GPS technology makes it theoretically possible to track it--these people need a good solid dope-slap to snap them out of it.  

---

by: Alice in Florida @ Sat Feb 21, 2009 at 21:24:27 PM CST

Gas Tax (6.00 / 1)

If the argument is about reducing emissions and stress on the roads, a higher gas tax seems to be more effective and fair than taxing miles traveled.  I'm getting about 75mpg with a small motorcycle.  The only motorized vehicles smaller than me on the roads are the 50cc scooters, which have even less impact on both counts.  While they don't have license plates, they do get registered and I assume will also have the chips implanted in thier stickers.  It doesn't seem right to tax the many, many miles I (with a 250cc engine) and the scooterists (some of whom have engines as big) spend crisscrossing Boston or Worchester or wherever.  

I admit, I ride around just for the pleasure of seeing the sights, and I take endless detours as my whim directs. It may not be the most measurably productive use of my vehicle but it allows me to enjoy "everything the commonwealth has to offer" as the Governor exhults in his piped in commentary at the airport.  I doubt I, or the scooterists, commit much wear and tear on the roadways.  We do pay our fair share of gasoline taxes as we burn through every gallon.  Taxing a little scoot as much as a Hummer seems to be more about raising revenue than promoting fuel efficiency.  

Raising the gas tax would directly translate into more light transportation while benefiting public transport indirectly.  During the winter and on particularly rainy warm days, I take the T.  My strategy may not translate well in the small towns west of my homebase, but the gas tax again promotes the use of fuel efficiency rather than a blanket excise on just moving around and being a member of wider society.  Surely the state doesn't want to encourage people just to stay home.      

---

by: whaleheadking @ Sun Feb 22, 2009 at 13:10:59 PM CST

By the way (6.00 / 3)

Everyone reacting (rightly, in my view) to this thread might do well to recall that reaction the next time they are baffled by the reaction of gun owners to a registration statute.

Even if you can trust the guys in government with certain information, you can't trust government with that information.

---

by: CentralMassDad @ Sun Feb 22, 2009 at 13:54:15 PM CST

Yes but (0.00 / 0)

Guns in the community constitute a threat to the public good, and so therefore you are comparing are apples to oranges. Sorry, but if you're going to buy a weapon that kills people (or, I suppose, animals, but can still kill people), I want to be sure you are not a recently paroled ex-con. I want that gun registered so police can trace it back to its owner. And I would like that to have a child safety lock.

Whereas this info-collecting technology is SOLELY for the purpose of collecting money. That hardly kills anyone, whether you collect the into or not. Collecting the info doesn't keep us safer in general.

My right to live in a safe environment dictates that we be reasonable with regards to killing weapons. Sorry. Apple, meet orange.

Left in Lowell: cuz why read the Lowell Sun if you don't have to? ;)

---

by: Lynne @ Mon Feb 23, 2009 at 12:12:07 PM CST

[ Parent ]

It's true that the info is for different public goals (6.00 / 1)

but I think CMD's point stands: discomfort with government collection of information isn't a single issue or on a single side of the aisle.

---

by: stomv @ Mon Feb 23, 2009 at 13:04:00 PM CST

[ Parent ]

threat to public good (0.00 / 0)

That sounds like a simple ideological conclusion, rather than a statement of fact.  Indeed, I suspect that cars kill more people than guns, anyway.

Nevertheless, the issue isn't with WHY the government collects information about me, it is that the government collects information about me AT ALL.

Party activists--R and D-- never get this distinction.  Sure it is super if the guy we support gets new power, but what about the guy we oppose?  What about the hypothetical, infinitely malicious bad guy, who will, with certainty, abuse whatever power he has?

---

by: CentralMassDad @ Mon Feb 23, 2009 at 14:07:50 PM CST

[ Parent ]

At all? (0.00 / 0)

"Nevertheless, the issue isn't with WHY the government collects information about me, it is that the government collects information about me AT ALL."

This is insufficient reasoning, unless you buy that government can never have a reason to hold information.  I assume you don't agree with that.  Therefore it becomes necessary to decide what criteria shall be used to determine when information gathering will be permissible or impermissible.   Presumably there can exist a set of criteria where, when applied, indicate that information keeping track of item x is impermissible while information on item y is not.  Disagreements that lead to differing outcomes of permissibility are really disagreements on the criteria.

Thus, disparate desired outcomes on the government's retention of information is not, by itself, evidence on hypocrisy.


"It is not because things are difficult that we do not dare, it is because we do not dare that things are difficult." - Seneca (5 BC - 65 AD)

---

by: Mr Lynne @ Mon Feb 23, 2009 at 15:37:41 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Correct. (0.00 / 0)

I suspect that cars kill more people than guns

You are correct. But the last time I checked, cars were subject to registration also. For precisely the same reasons that guns should be subject to registration: so if somebody commits a crime with them, it is easier to track down the perp. IMHO, on both cars and guns, the right to privacy is outweighted by the public good.

Not the case at all with the VMT chip. Not at all.

--
If you want to live like a Republican, you better vote like a Democrat. —Harry Truman

---

by: dcsohl @ Fri Feb 27, 2009 at 08:01:59 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Careful on the parallel (6.00 / 1)

CMD,

I appreciate your point, but let's be careful here.

The precise comparison would be if the government expressed interest in attaching GPS devices to guns.  Knowing that someone owns something (a car, a gun, a house) is a different kettle of fish than having the potential capability to know precisely where that something is.  

I'll introduce another comparison just b/c it's tangentially relevant: A "smart" electrical grid.  If you had a "smart" meter on your house, your utility (and by extension, the government) would have the capability to know a lot more about you based on your energy use.  In fact, by load-profiling, it's conceivable they could figure out when you wake up, go to sleep, shave, etc.  

But in my opinion, the potential benefits of a smart grid way, way, way, outweigh these potential privacy issues.  First off, if you really want privacy, you can go off grid.  Second, the utility is selling you something for which the value varies greatly in time (peak power is very expensive); it's not unreasonable that they should track that.  Imagine a restaurant that sold all bottles of wine for the same price.  Third, a smart grid has great power to enhance energy conservation, both through better visibility and through active demand management.  

In sum, my opinions on various ideas, real and proposed, re: privacy:

Cars: Gov. knows ownership:  Good.  Gov. knows precise in-state mileage:  Why again?

Guns: Gov. knows ownership:  Reasonable.  Gov. knows exact location:  Launch the black helicopters!

Electricity: Util./(and gov.) knows aggregate usage: OK.  Utility has real-time metering: Highly desirable.

---

by: syphax @ Mon Feb 23, 2009 at 15:43:04 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Apple pie, orange pie... (6.00 / 1)

I don't believe in government regulation "because we can," which seems to be one of the only rationales put forward for the VMT.  (Or, for those old enough to remember the Six Million Dollar Man, "we have the technology...")

But let's be honest here: guns should be at least as regulated as cars.  Why?  Because they are the two most common instruments of crime.  So if we can track a stolen car, we should be able to track a stolen or improperly sold gun.

Every car has a unique VIN (vehicle identification number), and every car needs to be registered with the state.  This is not an especially onerous regime.  It is part of the cost of living in an advanced society (one that has roads, say).  

To ask the same of gun owners is not the end of the world.  It is part of the cost of living in a society in which we pay lots of taxes to have police and prosecutors and judges.

And in fact, the comparison is a perfectly good one.  If someone needs to take a class and pass both written and skills tests in order to drive, should we ask any less of aspiring gun users?

smrtass.  intelligent progressivism.  http://smrtass.tumblr.com

---

by: Tristan @ Wed Feb 25, 2009 at 07:45:44 AM CST

[ Parent ]