What the fuk????
Thread Starter
Member
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
From: Clearwater, FL
Vehicle: 2010 Sonata
What the fuk????
Congress Is About To Pass A Bill That Restricts Traveling, Driving And International Banking
The U.S. Passport Act of 1926 is an obscure piece of legislation that was enacted decades ago when the idea of passports started catching fire around the world.
Subsequently absorbed into U.S. Code Title 22, the law was originally intended to authorize and issue passports for . .citizens to travel abroad.
Several years ago, the law was modified to provide the Secretary of State with the authority to revoke or deny a passport to any U.S. citizen convicted of engaging in immoral acts with minors overseas.
Until now, this has been the only instance of excluding a U.S. citizen from travel abroad. But if Senator Barbara Boxer gets her way, there’s going to be one more.
As part of Senate Bill 1813 (known as MAP-21), Congress has inserted language that would oblige the Secretary of State to revoke or deny a passport to any U.S. citizen who the IRS Commissioner deems as having "seriously delinquent tax debt."
For the purposes of MAP-21, "seriously delinquent tax debt" is defined as an amount in excess of $50,000 in which a notice of lien or levy has been filed in public records.
So far, though, no one in Washington has shown any intention of backing down.
I’ve taken the time to actually read the entire bill myself … I wanted to ensure that I understood it fully before telling you about it. And believe it or not, there are even dumber provisions within.
For starters, in what may be one of the most depraved Big Brother moves on record, section 31406 of the bill makes it mandatory for "black box" event recorders to be installed in every new passenger vehicle starting with model year 2015.
Section 31504 requires the development of special alarm systems designed to remind drivers that there are other passengers in the vehicle. Duh.
Then there are provisions for more taxpayer funding to subsidize the massively loss-making Amtrak … plus calls to develop more national, regional, and state-owned railways across the country.
Perhaps most important, though, is Title II of the bill – "Stop Taxhaven Abuse."
Long story short, if the U.S. government decides in its sole discretion that a foreign jurisdiction is impeding tax enforcement, Uncle Sam can shut them out of the U.S. financial system, no questions asked.
The U.S. Passport Act of 1926 is an obscure piece of legislation that was enacted decades ago when the idea of passports started catching fire around the world.
Subsequently absorbed into U.S. Code Title 22, the law was originally intended to authorize and issue passports for . .citizens to travel abroad.
Several years ago, the law was modified to provide the Secretary of State with the authority to revoke or deny a passport to any U.S. citizen convicted of engaging in immoral acts with minors overseas.
Until now, this has been the only instance of excluding a U.S. citizen from travel abroad. But if Senator Barbara Boxer gets her way, there’s going to be one more.
As part of Senate Bill 1813 (known as MAP-21), Congress has inserted language that would oblige the Secretary of State to revoke or deny a passport to any U.S. citizen who the IRS Commissioner deems as having "seriously delinquent tax debt."
For the purposes of MAP-21, "seriously delinquent tax debt" is defined as an amount in excess of $50,000 in which a notice of lien or levy has been filed in public records.
So far, though, no one in Washington has shown any intention of backing down.
I’ve taken the time to actually read the entire bill myself … I wanted to ensure that I understood it fully before telling you about it. And believe it or not, there are even dumber provisions within.
For starters, in what may be one of the most depraved Big Brother moves on record, section 31406 of the bill makes it mandatory for "black box" event recorders to be installed in every new passenger vehicle starting with model year 2015.
Section 31504 requires the development of special alarm systems designed to remind drivers that there are other passengers in the vehicle. Duh.
Then there are provisions for more taxpayer funding to subsidize the massively loss-making Amtrak … plus calls to develop more national, regional, and state-owned railways across the country.
Perhaps most important, though, is Title II of the bill – "Stop Taxhaven Abuse."
Long story short, if the U.S. government decides in its sole discretion that a foreign jurisdiction is impeding tax enforcement, Uncle Sam can shut them out of the U.S. financial system, no questions asked.
http://www.sovereignman.com/expat/so...#ixzz1sVZsyfZ5
Super Moderator
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 10,795
Likes: 5
From: Pflugerville, TX
Vehicle: 2000 Elantra
To the tone of the quoted article generally, You people really should tune in to Neal Boortz so you wouldn't be surprised by stuff like this. He's been predicting the Democrats to erect an economic Berlin Wall around America for a while now, if they ever get enough control.
But hey, elections don't make any difference . . .
To the 'outrage' of EDRs in new cars, here are some highlights from the pertinent section of the bill:
It looks like they are trying to standardize what some OEMs are already doing. The previous section is about standardizing pushbutton ignitions, and the subsequent sections talk about standardizing seat belt warnings. Is there any outrage that two sections up in the bill they are talking about security standards to prevent hackers mucking about in your car electronics?
The bill is a gigantic overreach of federal power, on the grounds that cars are sold in interstate commerce and nobody is going to stop us from telling the people what to do because we're 97% sure to be re-elected so why not?
Your government is too big. This is a symptom, and not the worst one. Find something else over which to be indignant, says I!
But hey, elections don't make any difference . . .
To the 'outrage' of EDRs in new cars, here are some highlights from the pertinent section of the bill:
SEC. 31406. VEHICLE EVENT DATA RECORDERS.
(a) Mandatory Event Data Recorders-
(1) IN GENERAL- <snip> new passenger motor vehicles sold in the United States be equipped with an event data recorder that meets the requirements under that part.
<snip>
(b) Limitations on Information Retrieval-
(1) OWNERSHIP OF DATA- Any data in an event data recorder <snip> is the property of the owner<snip>
(2) PRIVACY- Data recorded or transmitted by such a data recorder may not be retrieved by a person other than the owner or lessee of the motor vehicle in which the recorder is installed unless--
(A) a court authorizes retrieval of the information in furtherance of a legal proceeding;
(B) the owner or lessee consents to the retrieval of the information for any purpose, including the purpose of diagnosing, servicing, or repairing the motor vehicle;
(C) the information is retrieved pursuant to an investigation or inspection authorized under section 1131(a) or 30166 of title 49, United States Code, and the personally identifiable information of the owner, lessee, or driver of the vehicle and the vehicle identification number is not disclosed in connection with the retrieved information; or
(D) the information is retrieved for the purpose of determining the need for, or facilitating, emergency medical response in response to a motor vehicle crash.
<snip>
(d) Revised Requirements for Event Data Recorders- Based on the findings of the study under subsection (c), the Secretary shall initiate a rulemaking proceeding to revise part 563 of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations. The rule--
<snip>
(2) shall require that data stored on such event data recorders be accessible, regardless of vehicle manufacturer or model, with commercially available equipment in a specified data format;
(3) shall establish requirements for preventing unauthorized access to the data stored on an event data recorder in order to protect the security, integrity, and authenticity of the data; and
(4) may require an interoperable data access port to facilitate universal accessibility and analysis.
(e) Disclosure of Existence and Purpose of Event Data Recorder- The rule issued under subsection (d) shall require that any owner’s manual or similar documentation provided to the first purchaser of a passenger motor vehicle for purposes other than resale--
(1) disclose that the vehicle is equipped with such a data recorder; and
(2) explain the purpose of the data recorder.
<snip>
(a) Mandatory Event Data Recorders-
(1) IN GENERAL- <snip> new passenger motor vehicles sold in the United States be equipped with an event data recorder that meets the requirements under that part.
<snip>
(b) Limitations on Information Retrieval-
(1) OWNERSHIP OF DATA- Any data in an event data recorder <snip> is the property of the owner<snip>
(2) PRIVACY- Data recorded or transmitted by such a data recorder may not be retrieved by a person other than the owner or lessee of the motor vehicle in which the recorder is installed unless--
(A) a court authorizes retrieval of the information in furtherance of a legal proceeding;
(B) the owner or lessee consents to the retrieval of the information for any purpose, including the purpose of diagnosing, servicing, or repairing the motor vehicle;
(C) the information is retrieved pursuant to an investigation or inspection authorized under section 1131(a) or 30166 of title 49, United States Code, and the personally identifiable information of the owner, lessee, or driver of the vehicle and the vehicle identification number is not disclosed in connection with the retrieved information; or
(D) the information is retrieved for the purpose of determining the need for, or facilitating, emergency medical response in response to a motor vehicle crash.
<snip>
(d) Revised Requirements for Event Data Recorders- Based on the findings of the study under subsection (c), the Secretary shall initiate a rulemaking proceeding to revise part 563 of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations. The rule--
<snip>
(2) shall require that data stored on such event data recorders be accessible, regardless of vehicle manufacturer or model, with commercially available equipment in a specified data format;
(3) shall establish requirements for preventing unauthorized access to the data stored on an event data recorder in order to protect the security, integrity, and authenticity of the data; and
(4) may require an interoperable data access port to facilitate universal accessibility and analysis.
(e) Disclosure of Existence and Purpose of Event Data Recorder- The rule issued under subsection (d) shall require that any owner’s manual or similar documentation provided to the first purchaser of a passenger motor vehicle for purposes other than resale--
(1) disclose that the vehicle is equipped with such a data recorder; and
(2) explain the purpose of the data recorder.
<snip>
It looks like they are trying to standardize what some OEMs are already doing. The previous section is about standardizing pushbutton ignitions, and the subsequent sections talk about standardizing seat belt warnings. Is there any outrage that two sections up in the bill they are talking about security standards to prevent hackers mucking about in your car electronics?
The bill is a gigantic overreach of federal power, on the grounds that cars are sold in interstate commerce and nobody is going to stop us from telling the people what to do because we're 97% sure to be re-elected so why not?
Your government is too big. This is a symptom, and not the worst one. Find something else over which to be indignant, says I!
Super Moderator
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,735
Likes: 3
From: Vegas, Baby, Vegas!!!
Vehicle: '14 Ford F-150
Hate to tell you guys, but there are only a couple manufacturers who don't already have EDR's in their cars. Some not only save collision info. The EDR in the GTR actually records when launch control is used so Nissan can deny warranty claims on broken trannys.
Senior Member
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 1,782
Likes: 0
From: tampa, FL
Vehicle: 2000 Tiburon