What would TR think about that?

What would Americans of 100 or 200 years ago have thought of the idea that Americans can’t walk or bike to work because they can’t be outside when it is cold/hot/rainy, and can’t do that much physical work? What would Teddy Roosevelt have thought?

Kobasky’s pleasure in driving his antique recalls to me the anti-derailleur faction’s arguments: that bicycles have gotten needlessly complicated. It would be nice to have a car that was as easy to fix as a bike, I think.

Imagine if brassieres were similarly overdesigned, able to support loads weighing up to 300 lbs, and equipped with cupholders, idiot lights, and computerized inflation gauges.

Of course, that is the problem.

If automobiles were used reasonably, as an occasional convenience rather than an every-day necessity, then there would not be a legitimate privacy concern.

I am amazed that the court added:

“Undoubtedly, many find a greater sense of security and privacy in traveling in an automobile than they do in exposing themselves by pedestrian or other modes of travel.”

implying that it is reasonable for average people to drive because they are too insecure to walk on the sidewalk. What would Americans 100 years ago have thought of this idea?

I second that. Damned fine acting, if that’s true. Jack Nicholson’s got nothing on him (though he prefers a golf club to a baseball bat).

Yours. Not mine. Fortunately, your right to put GPS on things doesn’t extend to my own hip pocket. Please think carefully about possible reactions before you the cops to come and try.

Yeah, I’m not surprised to hear that actually. But it’s still scary.

An individual operating or traveling in an automobile does not lose all reasonable expectation of privacy simply because the automobile and its use are subject to government regulation. Automobile travel is a basic, pervasive, and often necessary mode of transportation to and from one’s home, workplace, and leisure activities. Many people spend more hours each day traveling in cars than walking on the streets. Undoubtedly, many find a greater sense of security and privacy in traveling in an automobile than they do in exposing themselves by pedestrian or other modes of travel. Were the individual subject to unfettered governmental intrusion every time he entered an automobile, the security guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment would be seriously circumscribed. As Terry v. Ohio … recognized, people are not shorn of all Fourth Amendment protection when they step from their homes onto the public sidewalks. Nor are they shorn of those interests when they step from the sidewalks into their automobiles.

—U.S. Supreme Court in Delaware v Prouse, 1979, quoted in the Weaver decision.

The possible damage to liberty here is immense.

Free movement (as in speech, not as in beer) is a necessary component of a free society.

In May, a divided Court of Appeals ruled, in a very broad majority decision, that police need a warrant based on probable cause to affix a GPS to a suspect vehicle.

According to the court, we can still devote scarce resources to following suspects by having officers tail them in police cars, without warrants. But the use of GPS – a commonly available technology that makes it easier to do what human beings are otherwise authorized to do – is now flatly prohibited without a warrant…. [edit]

We are just now calculating the full burden of this unprecedented expansion of privacy to cars on public streets, but it could be significant.

Driver kills pedestrian at Metropolitan and Wood Avenues in Parkchester, flees scene (News)

Former American Idol contestant killed by driver, charges actually filed (News)