Warp wrote:
>   Well, I suppose people have the right to think that. I'm just wondering
> if that opinion comes from hard math or from political correctness. 

I showed you the math.  It's actually pretty well known.

>> It's not a matter of "offend some people."  The people you're at risk of 
>> offending are the majority of the people living where the law would be enforced.
> 
>   Well, it sounds to me like offending some people.

Except in a democracy, when you offend the majority of the people, often the 
laws get changed.

>   People often take their rights to privacy and freedom very seriously.

Rabidly so, here.

>>>> Randomly stopping people and asking them to prove their innocence.
>>>   Apparently Britain is not one of those countries?
> 
>> Apparently not.
> 
>   What I meant was if you oppose that law in Britain, and why.

I'm not familiar with all the laws, but yes, if you don't check everyone, 
then don't check anyone.

>> Not here.  It's illegal.  Why? Because people who drive SUVs didn't want to 
>> get randomly stopped just because 0.1% of the people driving SUVs might be 
>> intoxicated.
> 
>   Is that so? Well, then that's something I don't agree with. I'm glad if
> this kind of police work reduces the risk of car accidents caused by drunken
> drivers. It increases my safety alongside everybody else's.

If it did, that would be a different story. But it doesn't.

If you stop people for driving drunk even when you can't tell they're drunk, 
how does that reduce accidents?

>> It doesn't, and I explained why a couple of times.
>   Then we'll have to disagree on this particular example.

You can disagree with simple baysian inference math, but you'd be wrong.

>> Basically, people here are generally against getting arrested before a cop 
>> knows a crime has been committed at all.
> 
>   I'm not talking about arresting someone. I'm just talking about *checking*
> the alcohol levels of drivers.

That's being detained, at the least. We have this whole "innocent until 
proven guilty" thing going on here. If there's *no* evidence you've done 
anything wrong, why would you need to prove your innocence more than that?

Plus, you act like false positives are unheard of.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Linux: Now bringing the quality and usability of
   open source desktop apps to your personal electronics.

Post a reply to this message