On Sunday 09 March 2003 18:16, you wrote: > On Sunday 09 March 2003 10:31 am, david wrote: > > Neither you nor anyone else has the right to force me or any > > other individual to subsidize your welfare. > > > > This device, if forced on individuals by a government entity, > > would violate fourth amendment protections against > > self-incrimination. DUI laws requiring breath or blood tests do > > the same thing. > > But you wouldn't mind if insurance companies required the device > in order for you to get a policy (whether or not it called the > police or just the insurance company) ? > > Right ?
- Re: Fw: Drun... Declan McCullagh
- Re: Fw: Drunk driver det... Anonymous via the Cypherpunks Tonga Remailer
- Re: Fw: Drunk driver detector... Dan Veeneman
- Re: Fw: Drunk driver detector... Skulking Rogue
- Re: Fw: Drunk driver detector... Major Variola (ret)
- Questionable science and... Greg Broiles
- Re: Questionable sci... Bill Stewart
- Re: Fw: Drunk driver detector... Major Variola (ret)
- Re: Fw: Drunk driver detector... Sunder
- Re: Fw: Drunk driver detector... Thomas Shaddack
- Re: Fw: Drunk driver detector... david
- Re: Fw: Drunk driver det... Bill Stewart
- Re: Fw: Drunk driver... Harmon Seaver
- Re: Fw: Drunk driver det... Kevin S. Van Horn