Oregon governor proposes Orwellian-style surveillance

Post Reply New Topic

I'm sure the thread title got your attention, but SADLY it is true.

My state's governor, Ted Kulongoski, has proposed replacing the gas tax with satellite/GPS surveillance on everyone's cars. He would then tax people on how many miles they drove.

http://www.registerguard.com/csp/cms/si ... /story.csp

This is an extremely brazen violation of the 4th amendment. I'm really scared... I mean, there are so many bad things the government could do with this. It seems as Oregon is to lead the way into 1984. This is bad enough that I would consider leaving the state if this was enacted (but not after attempting to organize a giant protest and/or submit a case to the Supreme Court).

Yes, your country is going the same way as the UK. Can't you lynch the guy like in the old movies?

At least if get a copy of the gps trace, you can then use it, for example for an open map project of your choice. That requires an interest in geographical information systems first.

You may consider me outraged. I mean, what is this country becoming? The UK?

Seems odd and rather inefficient. What does this accomplish that the gas tax doesn't do more efficiently?

Oddly enough, when I read that article, I thought the exact same thing. But I don't even think the UK has reached the point of satellite-spying on peoples' cars, have they?
As for the lynching part, it may happen if they push us too far.


Good! We need more outraged people in the USA. That's the only way we'll turn anything around.


Yeah it really sounded inefficient to me, too. I mean, Oregon has about 4 million people. Assume half of the population drives. Who's going to keep track of all of those 2 million people (just that would use a lot of the tax revenues)? What if they're driving on private property or out of state? Will they still be taxed? Then there's the problem of out of state people NOT being taxed for using our roads.

As for the point of it, the supposed point is to prevent the large loss of revenues from the gas tax. Since people are driving more gas efficient cars, they won't use as much gas, and therefore, there will be a drop in gas tax revenue. Well, I guess the state has to find SOME way to give the ODOT (Oregon Department of Transportation) drones their big government salaries and their full, early-retirement pensions, eh?

I figured that was the idea. But on the one hand that seems to relax pressure on people to adopt more fuel efficient stuff (which doesn't sound to cool for the idea of facilitating a change in energy consumption; although I suppose they suppose the market's gonna get that job done). Furthermore, I would think it would be quite possible to figure out how many miles people go in a way that is less...invasive.

It's actually just a revenue stream (a tax that isn't called a tax) for states, and it's a hot commodity for a lot of local governments. The thinking is that the more you use the state's roads (a public creation), the more you should pay for that use. This is supposed to

Make people drive less, and

Increase revenue in the middle of a recession, since they get the double whammy of fewer taxpayers and more government services to pay for it all.

If it works out in Oregon, expect it to show up in your state (at least as a proposed bill) very soon

This system would be an invasion of peoples privacy, and is also USELESS.

VERY basic logic here:

The more you drive..... THE MORE GAS YOU USE...

Therefore, if you drive more you are already paying more for the gas tax. People with more efficient cars are getting a break on that tax, but it is better to have more efficient cars anyways.

Well, yes they have. They have launched pilot projects in various cities to test that kind of technology, for charging per mile. Furthermore, there are masses of cameras that have the capability to recognise and record vehicle registration numbers. Also, GPS tracking devices are routinely fitted to company cars, and are a requirement of certain motor insurance companies if you want a discount, I think.

On the flip side of this is that driving is a privilege, not a right, despite the efforts the USA goes in quelling any other means of moving around. With this being the case, the government can regulate their roads (in essence, their "private" property) in any way shape or form that a private individual can control access to their private property.

GPS can be hacked. AVI tags are cheaper to install and maintain.

It's easier to simply install Automatic Vehicle Identification (AVI) systems (with OCR cameras) every mile or so on the interstates, issue an AVI tag with every vehicle registration, and send a bill to drivers who use the roads without a mounted tag.

Several companies have already installed this technology all over the world.

Just another way for the government to watch after use. The PATRIOT ACT and now this!! !! I am so starting a protest if this actually goes through. If the goverment needs money just cut spending. There is plenty of Pork Barrel spending that the government does that puts our country in the hole.

America is going downhill one step at a time.



"Getting the government of our backss, cutting taxes and strengthening our nations military was all a fresh breath of air for me to hear." --- Actor & California Goverenor Arnold Schwarzenegger

And what form of protest might one, lone Asper perform that would cause a government to turn away from its "Big Brother" course of action?

Yup, more people will use public transportation and leave the cars at home.

Prepare for crowded buses, light rail, and "ghost-town" highways.

If Governor Kulongoski wants this on May's ballot, prepare for one hell of a protest
from Oregonians who will say "This is Wrong."

Keep the gas tax as is.

As an earlier poster mentioned the U.S. is way behind other countries as far as individual auto monitoring is concerned so this doesn't seem to be to far outside the norm, just by our current standards. The Feds wanted to do this same thing back in 74 and later in 84 but it was to expensive to implement. It's far more cost effective now.
Orwell would be proud of how far the government has progressed, as ret*d as it is, in it's quest to dominate us subjects.