No, it wasn't. That was just the smoke screen.  The P-Act is meant to be the entering wedge to a) erode civil liberties; b) provide cover for any local sheriff or D.A. to bring down surveillance on whomever s/he pleases.

However the biggest threat seems to be less with the government and more with the insurance companies. Insurance companies, by definition, back risk and anything they can use to reduce risk they will do. An insurance company is not going to pay out a claim if it has good reason to believe differently. While there is almost certainly some fraud on the part of motorists, its rather tiny compared to other problems we face while driving. GM, and other manufacturers, have vehicle positioning systems in place on their vehicles, (in GM's case called ONSTAR) that allow the vehicle to be tracked. Taken to the extreme, the technology can do anything from track where we are to how we drive.

Of course this is only a small facet of a larger problem that while we embrace the benefits of technology - the downside is that we risk losing our privacy and identity as our world becomes more thing driven than people driven.

It seems with all the hybrid's, people walking and cycling and taking public transport (because the price of gas is so high) that the state's revenues are down.

And as someone who has sitten on a jury in which unwitting third-party victims of a terrible, maiming automobile collision caused by a high-speed police chase attempted to get some compensation, I can tell you that if this happens to you, it's probaby tough luck... Juries don't like to award money to people for torts caused by local governments. Nomatter WHAT happens.

In my area some rich property owners want to make it so ONLY PEOPLE WHO HAVE CHILDREN PAY THE PORTION OF PROPERTY TAXES THAT FUND EDUCATION!

That's right, make it just like China. Of course, the taxes on those remaining would be huge if the people who can most afford to pay drop out of the system.

if you ask me, their goal is to force people to 'drop off the map' - pulling their children out of school!

When I first heard people talking about this, I thought it was a joke, but it isn't.

It's a slippery slope.  People driving 15, 20 or more MPH above the speed limit are obviously dangers to themselves and others.  Police and Troopers can't be everywhere.  Should we utilize monitoring to catch these people?  Red light cameras do a similar thing.  I don't know...

I do believe the penalties and repercussions of being caught by actually law enforcement personnel should be much stiffer...higher penalties, quicker suspensions, and manditory monitoring for set period of time.  People who haven't violated the rules (or haven't yet been caught) shouldn't be monitored.  But once you offend, you give up your right to privacy, at least for a while.

Just slightly ahead of my time.

Anyone here remember this classic Doonesbury strip?

Really.  if these black-boxes became mandatory,
surely free-enterprise would encourage those among us, who could re-program the things, to "fix them" to report that you drive slower than your grandparents.  

and, if not that, a pair of wire snips would do the trick quite well.  

More seriously, this sitution is analogous (lightly speaking..) to genetic profiling.  

Insurance companies are already offering reduced rates, to those willing to install a "big-brother" box. (i've read this, but lack a cite/url...)

The claim was also made that that one can be credited for "careful" driving, if the box proves out, that your driving patterns are less risky than originally estimated.

But, y'know a small part of me sorta/kinda likes this black-box idea. (pause here, to dodge flames...)

Where I live has one of the highest SUV's per capita ratios, if not the highest in the country.

If the insurance companies could only see the morons in 4-ton SUVs tailgating at >85 MPH on icy highways, it would be a real blessing.

Never mind that nearly all of those SUV's are
plastered with BC04 stickers, or some crackpot libertarian rot ...