EMF Technology and Your Car

EMF Technology and Your Car

Ladies & Gentlemen,

 There is a proposal in the U.S. to mandate vehicle to vehicle communications (V2V) using microwave technology. Naturally, what happens in the U.S. will radiate around the world. 

 At first glance it may appear harmless, using technology to protect drivers. Safety, like security, is being used as a Trojan horse to impose corporate ideology and control individual rights to travel.

 Additionally, as pointed out by a colleague in France:

1. The danger of the use of microwave in a vehicle to radiate the person while driving thus causing potential accidents.

2. The dangers of imposing a Class2B Carcinogen and potential Alzheimers cause on someone who drives over a period of time.

3. The prohibition of those who are sensitive to pulsed microwave radiation from driving.

 The imposition of this system further expands the use of microwave technology which is a proven danger to all living things.

 The following is my submission:

 A plan to impose vehicle to vehicle communications by private enterprise is an invasion of the long-recognized human right to freedom of movement and personal privacy.

 For a government to mandate such a plan which favors private enterprise is an incursion against the rights of all travelers.

 Not only does it allow for inter-vehicle communications, the back-haul technology allows for the tracking of individual vehicles.

 The technology also allows for controlling a vehicle by private companies. Thus, while an individual may have paid for a vehicle, ultimate control would rest beyond his or her ownership. 

 In other words, automobile companies can say, “Pay us, but we still control you.” It is also well known that private companies can share personal information about their customers with government. This is part of the prevailing concept of “public-private” partnership.

 WWII Was fought against the concept of Fascism. According to Wikipedia, Fascist movements shared certain common features, including the veneration of the state, a devotion to a strong leader, and an emphasis on ultranationalism and militarism. Fascism views political violence, war, and imperialism as a means to achieve national rejuvenation, and it asserts that stronger nations have the right to expand their territory by displacing weaker nations.

 For any government to consider imposing such a system is antithetical to the precepts of the U.S. Constitution and the Articles of  Confederation. (See below.)

Freedom of movement under United States law

The U.S. Supreme Court in Crandall v. Nevada, 73 U.S. 35 (1868) declared that freedom of movement is a fundamental right and therefore a state cannot inhibit people from leaving the state by taxing them. In United States v. Wheeler, 254 U.S. 281 (1920), the Supreme Court reiterated its position that the Constitution did not grant the federal government the power to protect freedom of movement. However, Wheeler had a significant impact in other ways. For many years, the roots of the Constitution's "privileges and immunities" clause had only vaguely been determined.[5] In 1823, the circuit court in Corfield had provided a list of the rights (some fundamental, some not) which the clause could cover.[6][7] The Wheeler court dramatically changed this. It was the first to locate the right to travel in the privileges and immunities clause, providing the right with a specific guarantee of constitutional protection.[8] By reasoning that the clause derived from Article IV of the Articles of Confederation, the decision suggested a narrower set of rights than those enumerated in Corfield, but also more clearly defined those rights as absolutely fundamental

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement_under_United_States_law

Privacy Rights and Personal Autonomy

The U.S Constitution safeguards the rights of Americans to privacy and personal autonomy. Although the Constitution does not explicitly provide for such rights, the U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted the Constitution protect these rights, specifically in the areas of marriage, procreation, abortion, private consensual homosexual activity, and medical treatment.

State and federal laws may limit some of these rights to privacy, as long as the restrictions meet tests that the Supreme Court has set forth, each involving a balancing of an individual's right to privacy against the state's compelling interests. Such compelling interests include protecting public morality and the health of its citizens and improving the quality of life.

https://www.justia.com/constitutional-law/docs/privacy-rights.html

 The potential for abuse is too great to even entertain vehicle to vehicle communications - never mind the tracking devices already installed in mobile phones and along roads and highways.

 Not since the Nazi government of Germany used IBM’s Hollerith machine to enumerate everything and everybody have human rights been so under threat. This time it is global. Already drivers; licenses in the EU have RFID chips. Why? New cars have electric control units under the dashboards. Thus the capability to place individuals in their cars is already in place. Some automobile manufacturers can diagnose a malfunction in a specific car thousands of miles away.

Your comments build the basis of a legally actionable record.  Without them, this ordeal will never end.  Below is the link to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration public notice about the proposed rule to mandate vehicle to vehicle (V2V) communication in ALL VEHICLES. 

Please register your comments now. 

The deadline is October 20, 2014!

Please take a moment to let NHTSA know what you think of their rule to require V2V communications systems in all vehicles  

You can submit your input at http://www.regulations.gov/#%21docketDetail;D=NHTSA-2014-0022 by pushing the "comment now" button.

http://www.regulations.gov/#%21docketDetail;D=NHTSA-2014-0022

 As London’s Guardian newspaper noted about the internet, “Mass internet surveillance threatens international law.” So too does the proposal to monitor vehicular use. Note that the proposal comes from a non-elected governmental body. Any political figure who would dare sponsor legislation to mandate vehicle to vehicle communications would be driven from office which is why the mandate is being proposed in this way.

KInd regards,

John Weigel