[DropbearRob]

There is a growing misconception that it is the role of the government to "keep their citizens safe".

Although that it is often the intention of legislation to prevent behaviour which may lead to unsafe situations. For example, making it illegal to drink and drive. You can arrest someone for breaking the law, but never can you arrest someone right up to the point of breaking the law. For example, You cannot arrest someone for being drunk and having their car keys in their pocket, or even being asleep in the car while drunk.

This is the problem with the government demanding to read all communications... the idea that they have the right in order to prevent you committing a crime. Its not only impossible to prevent someone committing a crime (anyone can snap and do truly horrible things without prior communique), its insane to think that you can arrest someone for pre-crime.

The role of the government is to pass laws. The role of the police and the justice system is to enforce these laws. It is not their job to spy on all their citizens for events which historically kill fractions of a percent compared to something as trivial as car accidents.

[J-dawg]

I happened to catch a Radio 4 documentary [0] on Sunday about the government's "Prevent" strategy, which aims to find evidence of extremism in places such as schools and "nip terrorism in the bud". It featured several worrying stories (including a school calling the police because a boy was talking about a toy gun he'd been given as a present [1]).

The most worrying part was when they interviewed a senior police officer and he actually said words to the effect of:

"We are operating in a pre-criminal space."

And went on to attempt to justify retaining people's data when they have intervened in this way.

So they are now actually talking openly about pre-crime, and using people's children against them.

[0] http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b08yp16m

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jan/27/bedfordshire...

[DanBC]

The PREVENT strategy could have been useful. But schools over-report (because that's the safest thing to do when you're compelled to report) and there doesn't seem to be sensible triage in place to filter out over-zealous referrals.

Here's an example of what the PREVENT agenda should be about: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/HCJ/2016/9.html

or this case: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2016/3171.html

[mtgx]

> The PREVENT strategy could have been useful.

No, it couldn't have been. It's a mistake to believe that any prevention strategy will work on a large scale, and the reason is you'll always get too many false positives like that [1].

It's not just an issue with schools being too eager to report. It will happen in any scenario, including inside intelligence agencies if you force them to go after any "remotely potential terrorist". There will be thousands and thousands of false positives.

[1] - https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/03/data_mining_f...

[saimiam]

> thousands and thousands of false positives.

Or, for Iraqis from 2003-2007, one truly egregious one.

[biofox]

I have no problem, in principle, with the prevent strategy. If impressionable children are at risk of being brainwashed into a dangerous ideology, then the state should step in, just as it does with any other form of abuse.

Hasn't "pre-crime" always been a part of policing, in the form of intelligence gathering and crime prevention?

My main concern is schools, and (increasingly) the police acting irrationally and disproportionately.

[openfuture]

I feel it is the government that are brainwashing impressionable children with dangerous ideology and I'd prefer it if the stepped out.

[J-dawg]

That's an interesting counter-argument, thanks.

But I still don't think I agree with you. The problem here is that it's left up to police to decide what is a "dangerous ideology". It's not something that you can decide in advance and make objective criteria for. The potential for police to abuse these powers (either through corruption or simply being over-zealous) is enormous. This is how you end up with a Green Party politician being added to the register of "Domestic Extremists", to give one of many examples.

[Jedd]

How do you feel about the banning of toy weapons - including water pistols, plastic swords, bows & arrows, rubber knives?

(Personally I think it's a fine idea, but many of my thoughts are easily taken out of context.)

[reitanqild]

Next they take your car.

Why? Cars kills way more people than guns. Often not because of a need to get from a to b but because of reckless driving just for the fun of it. So - you could argue - you should not only need to have a drivers permit but a driving permit for your actual trips.

Ok. Maybe cars should be banned. Or at least restricted to people with a legitimate reason like politicians and doctors.

But do you think it will end there? If we give up cars then air traffic would be a natural next step...

You see?

This is why I defend the right to have guns, the right to modify cars, have real crypto, say almost[0] anything you want. Because it is a cheap insurance against a society that we really really want to avoid. Because the majority of people who have been killed have been killed by their own or a neigbouring country - not by their neigbours who happened to have a personal gun.

[0]: including: "I belive the person behind reitanqilds account is stupid"

Not including: "Hi guys! Lets start a fundraiser to kill <anyone>"

[Jedd]

> Next they take your car.

But cars are useful and, on average safer, for many / the majority of people that use them. Guns are, on average, not so useful / safe. Note that I'm averaging this across the planet, not just across one small (5% of global population) country with a lot of strong opinions on the matter.

> Why? Cars kills way more people than guns.

I know it's a pithy aphorism, but in the same way that guns don't kill people, cars don't kill people either. It's a matter of mitigating the risk of misuse of one or the other (or both). And, as I say, cars have a very important benefit for a lot of people. Guns ... less so.

In any case you've missed my point.

We don't have toys that we hand out to toddlers and < 10yo's that encourage the emulation of lethal activities by means of turning a vehicle into a weapon -- but we do with plastic facsimiles of weapons. I was asking should we be discouraging the latter.

You turn that into a 'if the kiddies don't have plastic semi-automatic weapons, then we'll have to give up private transport, and then we won't be able to use commercial airlines'.

Aside: there's sufficient natural experiments out there that demonstrate the benefits of gun control compared to, say, the USA's approach. While I respect your preferences here, it's difficult to make a compelling argument.

[genon]

> Guns are, on average, not so useful / safe.

To be fair, I don't think many people are killed by toy guns. One thing I'll never forget from the land of Orwell is this from 15 years ago (virtually to the day, ironically enough):

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2168430.stm

    Three 12-year-old children were arrested
    by five police officers who then fingerprinted
    them and took DNA samples, after the youngsters
    were seen playing with a toy gun.

[cr0sh]

> We don't have toys that we hand out to toddlers and < 10yo's that encourage the emulation of lethal activities by means of turning a vehicle into a weapon

You obviously never played with your toy cars properly as a child...

[literallycancer]

>But cars are useful and, on average safer, for many / the majority of people that use them. Guns are, on average, not so useful / safe. Note that I'm averaging this across the planet, not just across one small (5% of global population) country with a lot of strong opinions on the matter.

Do you have the numbers to back that up?

[solatic]

> There is a growing misconception that it is the role of the government to "keep their citizens safe".

What misconception? This is the basis of the social contract between society and its government, to safeguard the natural rights of society, the foremost of which (Life, among Life, Liberty, Property/Pursuit of happiness) is the safety and security of members of society. Read up on Locke and Rousseau https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract

> The role of the government is to pass laws

This is a tautology. Legislation is but a means in which some forms of government (excepting, for instance, dictatorships) act to secure the natural rights of society. Legislation is not a goal in and of itself for government.

> This is the problem with the government... the idea that [the government should try] to prevent you [from] committing a crime

See natural right #2 - the right to liberty, which in context means the right to act as you please until you actually cross the line by committing a crime. The right to liberty is not mutually exclusive to the right to life; legitimate governments act to secure both in tandem.

[ue_]

Why do you think this social contract persists to this day, or if it ever did? Locke and Rousseau were theorisers. Do you really think governments, least of all the UK government, is founded on the ideas of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness? Even those which claim to be in some way like the US seem to be doing nothing toward these principles. So I think GP's point stands. What relevance does this social contract have when we see it is violated all the time?

>act to secure the natural rights of society.

This is obviously not the case, as evidenced by the fact that governments act against securing rights we previously held, for example censorship and invasion of privacy.

>See natural right #2 - the right to liberty

Natural rights are a funny thing - everyone claims they exist yet I see no evidence that they do (or even should), they change depending on who you ask, and various countries have their own ideas of what they mean. What you call "legitimate" is wholly based on your own opinion of it. Proudhon (whom you must be familiar with) particularly took issue with the right of property in the French republican constitution of his day. He noted that it is unlike the rights of equality and justice, too.

I'm all for theorising and implementing policy based on our philosophical investigation, but it's not clear to me that the investigation is valid, and that it has been implemented to a sufficient degree. To say our governments are based on the ideas of freedom put forth by Locke is as farcical as saying the Soviet Union was based on the ideas put forward on Socialism by Marx in his criticism of political economy.

[solatic]

> What relevance does this social contract have when we see it is violated all the time?

You cannot understand the notion of natural rights without understanding why they are fundamentally theologically based rights.

That doesn't necessarily mean religious theology - which is where it was rooted from ("that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" etc.). In an atheistic context, these rights can also be made unalienable by a firm societal devotion to humanism, or even just belief in the liberating power of free markets.

> What you call "legitimate" is wholly based on your own opinion of it.

Not by my opinion, but by my beliefs, and by the common beliefs of the rest of the society of which I am a part. Opinion and faith are different concepts. To have an opinion is to make a subjective judgement; to have faith is to optimistically take a risk on a productive course of action in the absence of evidence or guarantee.

What relevance does the social contract have? Society's collective faith defines our common ethics. The social contract does not only bind our government in its treatment of us; it binds us in how we treat each other, because our culture is not narrowly limited to our political beliefs but rather defines how we treat each other. Yes, it is rather laissez-faire, but it still firmly binds us to treat each other with mutual respect for our lives, our freedom, and the fruits of our labor. To reject the social contract is to be an anarchist.

> "Today I say: As long as the gate is closed, as long as this scar of a wall is permitted to stand, it is not the German question alone that remains open, but the question of freedom for all mankind... ... after these four decades, then, there stands before the entire world one great and inescapable conclusion: Freedom leads to prosperity. Freedom replaces the ancient hatreds among the nations with comity and peace. Freedom is the victor. ... We welcome change and openness; for we believe that freedom and security go together, that the advance of human liberty can only strengthen the cause of world peace. ... General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization: Come here to this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall! ... As I looked out a moment ago from the Reichstag, that embodiment of German unity, I noticed words crudely spray-painted upon the wall, perhaps by a young Berliner: "This wall will fall. Beliefs become reality." Yes, across Europe, this wall will fall. For it cannot withstand faith; it cannot withstand truth. The wall cannot withstand freedom."

President Ronald Reagan - June 12, 1987

[ue_]

>these rights can also be made unalienable by a firm societal devotion to humanism

This seems fair enough, I can understand this, but only from the point of view that if you want rights at all then you need to start somewhere, and there is no position I can see that does not involve some kind of hand wavy "that's just the way that it is", not that I am faulting you on that, but it's how I see the idea, anyway.

>the liberating power of free markets.

Heh, I needed a good laugh today :)

"We cry shame on the feudal baron who forbade the peasant to turn a clod of earth unless he surrendered to his lord a fourth of his crop. We call those the barbarous times. But if the forms have changed, the relations have remained the same, and the worker is forced, under the name of free contract, to accept feudal obligations. For, turn where he will, he can find no better conditions. Everything has become private property, and he must accept, or die of hunger." -- Peter Kropotkin in The Conquest of Bread.

>The social contract does not only bind our government in its treatment of us; it binds us in how we treat each other, because our culture is not narrowly limited to our political beliefs but rather defines how we treat each other.

I'd rather have the social contract detached from government; if it must be attached then I view it as illegitimate, as illegitimate as I view the state which does not seek consent of the governed. It is material conditions that give rise to new concepts of rights, morality, justice and freedom. As Marx said, the Communist views the current bourgeois institutions of rights and morality as a facade, and behind those lurk even more bourgeois prejudices.

>To reject the social contract is to be an anarchist.

I would say, it is to be a certain kind of anarchist. The contracts we have today carry the threat of force to legitimise them; however there are contracts between friends which do not. This kind of contract is in my opinion possible at a larger scale in a stateless anarchist (non-proprietarian) society.

>Yes, it is rather laissez-faire, but it still firmly binds us to treat each other with mutual respect for our lives, our freedom, and the fruits of our labor.

Kropotkin wrote that this is exactly not the case, lamenting how the worker must surrender one third to the capitalist and middleman and one third to the state in the form of tax. The material conditions that influence the creation of these social contracts will also influence the creation of our interactions between each other.

I am no defender of the Soviet Union, but to me it is entirely possible for the USSR's conception of rights and freedoms to be just as valid as those of the US. The wall was a short sighted and silly idea in my opinion. And yet I feel as though behind Raegan lurked his own prejudices as to what rights should prevail, even if his intentions may be noble and in desire of freedom (which I don't believe so much).

It is interesting to me to see the difference between what is moral, what should be legislated, and indeed whether there is any morality and legislation at all (i.e Stirnerist egoism),

[thehardsphere]

The Right to Liberty, which we will secure for you by taking away as much of it as possible.

[qubex]

Rights aren't natural, they aren't inherent, they are assigned (or granted) by a given constitutional context. In some systems there are rights that do not exist in other systems, even very fundamental ones.

Governments are extending their mandate and they are curtailing/"ungranting" certain other rights (principally, the uncodified "right to privacy"). Insofar as Parliament is sovereign in the UK and is the ultimate source of all rights, this is within their remit and requires no exceptional super-majority or constitutional amendment process.

Whether this is desirable or otherwise is quite another matter.

[jrs95]

While that may be true, it's not the philosophical basis of our current system of government. The concept of natural law is, though. And in general, the majority of people seem to believe in rights under that definition (albeit more likely due to religious beliefs than having read Enlightenment philosophers).

[qubex]

Philosophy is codified nowhere. Simply the fact that people can operate under a presumed ”philosophy” while, as you admit, the reality of the matter is quite distinct, would seem to confirm that whatever prevalent philosophy may from time to time exist is irrelevant.

[jrs95]

But this stuff actually is codified. It's essentially the basis of our legal system. When it's working "correctly", it's working along these lines.

[solatic]

> Right's aren't natural, they aren't inherent, they are assigned (or granted) by a given constitutional context.

Wrong. A government violating your natural rights is not the same thing as those rights not existing. There is nothing immoral or unethical about a government which does not safeguard non-existent rights, it is the act of violation which violates the social contract and makes the government illegitimate.

[qubex]

I'm sorry, but you are absolutely misinformed. If I am a citizen of a country that does not, for example, recognise the right to vote then there is no higher authority I can go to in an attempt to obtain redress, both because there is no higher authority, and because the vote is not a right in this legal system. No rights have been violated, they are simply not extant in this system.

[wfo]

I think you misunderstand fundamentally, GP is saying that no matter the position of the current government there are absolute inalienable rights which is a common position to take (outlined in the founding of the US, for example) and that there is indeed a higher authority than government, morality/religion/philosophy/humanism. Some consider, e.g. the UN declaration of human rights to enumerate rights which can be violated by governments even though you cannot go to the UN for redress.

You are considering a 'right' to be defined as 'a thing the particular current government allows you to do' which is a great technical legal definition in service of blind unquestioning obedience to the powerful and is a nice clean enunciation of the universally rejected philosophical principle "might is right" but is actually the exact opposite of what most people mean when they refer to rights. The law (even highest law of the land) and its enforcers can violate your rights and you can defend your rights by refusing to obey unjust law, for example. The whole point of saying a right exists is to define what it means for a government to be evil or oppressive; to deny natural rights. To say rights are defined by what the government permits is to say no government can ever be evil or oppressive, and that it justifies itself by its power and nothing more, an idea we rejected hundreds of years ago as a race when we moved past the divine right of kings.

[qubex]

Thank you for your explanation but I do not misunderstand. ”Natural Rights” is just a concept political philosophers came up with to suggest there should be some minimal set of identical rights in all legal systems. It is a suggestion, not a source of law.

Case in point: in a thread broadly pertaining to the law in the UK you bring up the US Constitution, and its enunciation of rights in the first batch of amendments (otherwise known as the Bill Of Rights). No such analogue exists in UK law because (despite being a constitutional monarchy) the UK has no explicit written constitution (at least not a single specific document whose amendment or modification requires special supermajority in parliament).

The US Constitution's Bill of Rights famously proclaims US citizens' rights to bear arms. No analogue exists in UK law. What is a natural rights proponent to make of that? That the UK has implemented less of the natural rights than the US has? That bearing arms is not a natural right? That the US allows rights that are not natural rights? These would all be spurious conclusions because rights need not map across legal systems and certainly do not ”inherit” from one golden standard of ”natural rights”.

I think it is easy for us technologically-inclined people to think of various legal systems as differing implementations of a ”natural rights specification”, and come away with a feeling that there are various levels of correctness or preferrability. That's the wrong mindset, though. A better one would be that each legal system is a formal system built up from different and sometimes incompatible axioms, so that some support some theorems and others don't (but support other theorems).

[cr1895]

>For example, You cannot arrest someone for being drunk and having their car keys in their pocket, or even being asleep in the car while drunk.

An aside, but this is not true.

"According to Alabama state law, Hand was deemed to be in “constructive possession” of the vehicle, and although he wasn’t driving and the vehicle was parked, the keys being in the car was the determinant that triggered the arrest.""

https://www.tidesports.com/dashawn-hand-sleeping-car-not-dri...

[DropbearRob]

from the article. "Hand was parked in a near-campus parking lot, sitting in the driver’s seat with the headlights on and the vehicle cranked, but was asleep with the car in park."

"The vehicle cranked" is the key there.. he is shown to be operating the vehicle while under the influence.. If he was asleep in the car without it being on, I doubt they would have a case.

[cr1895]

That was just the first one that came up. Critically, it's however the authorities (and it seems to depend on the state) define "operating" the vehicle.

But more to my point, you can still be arrested for DUI while not literally driving/sleeping in the backseat. Given the number of law firm search results that pop up, I'm guessing it's often a way people fight DUIs. So maybe these don't stick.

[DropbearRob]

ok ok, perhaps this was a bad example of being in a situation which is legal but illegal adjacent, because it seems in some cases it is illegal to sleep in your car while drunk, or even being near your car while drunk. but the crux of my argument remains valid. in those cases you've broken the law (past tense) because in this case those scenarios are considered a breach of the law.

My point remains that the role of government is to pass laws, and the role of law enforcement is to enforce those laws by capturing people who break the law. NOT to arrest people who "might" break the law, because that group contains everyone.

[sleazybae]

let's not find out. don't sleep in your car while drunk. there, problem solved! ;-D

[sleazybae]

>can't arrest someone for being drunk and having their car keys in their pocket

yes you can, at least in Florida. i had to recently take a driving class to avoid points on my license, and one of the points the instructor really impressed on that class was that IF you're in the parking lot in your car, (asleep or awake, doesn't matter) AND a police officer stops you AND gives you a sobriety test AND your BAC is over the limit, you're getting cited for sure.

be responsible and get an uber or a lyft or a taxi or any of the other options available to you.

[fredley]

Unfortunately, there's a misconception underlying this one that there are 'good people' and 'bad people', and the role of Government is to protect the former from the latter. This of course flies in the face of the reality that crime is committed by otherwise ordinary people under extraordinary circumstances.

Under this rhetoric - widely subscribed to by the right wing and tabloid press, it seems a logical step that the role of Government should be to impede 'bad people' as much as possible - "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" is an obvious corollary from this position too.

[dm319]

I find this comment particularly interesting. I have a suspicion that believing in good and bad people is a product of fairytales and religion. I've never quite understood why authoritarianism, religion and the right seem to go together, maybe this is part of puzzle.

[fredley]

I don't think religion etc. is to blame personally, it's a simple extension of believing that I am good, and I am like her, and she is good, and we are not like them. We never see ourselves as the people who could tip over the edge.

[waqf]

Fairytales and religion wouldn't be so popular if people didn't already have an innate desire to believe in good and bad people.

[ebcode]

Then again, people wouldn't have an innate desire to believe in good and bad people if fairytales and religion weren't already so popular.

[cmdkeen]

In the UK* it is an offence to be "drunk in charge of a vehicle" so you absolutely can be arrested and charged for being asleep whilst drunk in a vehicle. You'll be having to defend yourself in court as to whether it was likely that would could have driven it drunk.

In the same way reading communications can be perfectly legal and is often helpful in establishing conspiracy cases. Accepting that Governments can legally intercept communications with some form of due process shouldn't be viewed as going after "pre-crime". It has always been the case before now that legal interception powers also enable illegal Government (or indeed non-state) snooping, that should be dealt with by robust interventions by an independent judiciary.

* Road Traffic Law is one of the relatively few criminal areas that is UK wide

[DropbearRob]

OK, so I have decided that my example of not having the intention to commit the crime is a bad one as it has been flagged up by everyone regarding how in the UK you can indeed be arrested for this.

heres my solution to the situation in the UK. If you are EVER planning on sleeping it off in the car, get a breathalyzer locking cabinet for your keys.

http://www.alcolockgb.com/

this way you can prove unambiguously that you are unable to operate the vehicle even if you wake up and are over the limit... there.. problem solved. Now lets get back on track about the right to read all communications.

even if they backdoor all chat messages, you can still use your own encryption within that channel. Everyone can do this using free open source software and even custom keyboards in android (I don't use iPhone so I don't know about them).

What happened to good old fashioned spycraft following people around and occasionally plutonium pelleting someone in the leg with an umbrella.

[DropbearRob]

well I'll be damned...

What is the legal definition of being in charge?

There is no legal definition for the term "in charge" so each case will depend on its exact circumstances and facts. Generally, a Defendant is "in charge" if he was the owner/in possession of the vehicle or had recently driven it. He is not in charge if it is being driven by another person or is "a great distance" from the vehicle.

Matters are more complicated where a person is sitting in the vehicle or "otherwise involved with it". In charge can include attempting to gain entry to the vehicle and failing, having keys to the vehicle, having intention to take control of the vehicle or even "being near the vehicle".

This opens a WHOLE can of worms for me as I do live in the UK.. and I regularly get drunk and sleep in my campervan. According to this particular interpretation, all campervan owners who get drunk and sleep in the van can be arrested. Im thinking that due to there is no legal definition of "in charge" that this could definitely be argued in court.

[kagamine]

Like everything in UK law it is interpretation (of a police officer and a judge and your defense) and any given circumstance. If you sleep in the back of a camper van with the key in the glove box and the doors locked a police officer would be hard pushed to convict you of attempting to drive. Don't freak out just yet. Now go out of the vehicle and stand still for a while on a dark night. You are now loitering with intent (to burglarize perhaps). Now put a reflective jacket on over your dark hoodie; you are now absolved of suspicion. Get back in the camper van and have a peaceful 40. Just about anything is illegal with the wrong attitude. In the UK, my experience has been to just talk to the police and be honest, they're usually quite smart.

[mdekkers]

The times I have been over the safe driving limit in the UK, I have always climbed on the backseats to sleep, so that there could be no confusion about intent. I was once woken up by a policeman, told him I felt I was over the limit and decided to sleep in the car, and he told me "well done" and was on his way.

I think it is all about presentation (and how you speak to the police)

[TheGrumpyBrit]

The legislation: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/5

While you can reasonably be deemed "in charge" of your camper van, if you're seen climbing into the living area with the clear intention of bedding down for the night, or are knocked awake by the police and then breathalysed, you would have a very good argument that there was no likelihood of your driving the vehicle, and therefore you would have a defence against the charge.

If, on the other hand, you climbed into the drivers seat and started the engine so you could turn on the heaters and put the radio on for a bit while you had your evening cocoa, you'd have a rather more difficult hill to climb.

If you make a habit of sleeping somewhere other than a recognised camp site, it would probably be worth your while keeping a couple of those £2 disposable breathalysers from Halfords in the glove box. Not only will it prevent you from accidentally driving while still over the limit the next day, but if you are challenged by the police while you're still drunk, it allows you to demonstrate that you have the means on hand to ensure that you won't be driving before you're fit to do so.

[salad77]

> or example, You cannot arrest someone for being drunk and having their car keys in their pocket, or even being asleep in the car while drunk.

Yes you can. In the UK (since we're discussing the UK, that's important), the offense is being in charge of a motor vehicle whilst incapacitated by drink or drugs. Incapacitated is defined as being over the limit defined in law (80mg in England/Wales and 50mg in Scotland - don't cross the border after a drink!).

Mere possession of the keys or being inside the vehicle [alone] or sitting in the driving seat is treated exactly the same as driving drunk. Some pubs will offer a 'hold your keys' service where you put the keys behind the bar and come back the next day to collect the keys and car when you're below the limit for driving.

[beaconstudios]

actually, funnily enough in the UK you can be arrested for being "drunk in charge of a motor vehicle" even if you aren't in the driver's seat. That can apparently include sleeping one off in the back seat of your car.

[onion2k]

Amusingly, here in the UK, we also have the crime of "drunk in charge of a carriage" which has been used to prosecute people for being drunk with all manner of things from bicycles to horses.

[gregn610]

"Wanton or Furious riding" is also an offence.

[gsnedders]

Note this is English law (not the nonexistent UK law); this is a simple application of the mischief rule (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mischief_rule).

[DropbearRob]

as I mentioned in an above reply.. what about campervans?

[beaconstudios]

I'm no legal expert but I think when they're parked up in an appropriate place (private land, layby, that kind of thing) they're considered a temporary residence? Who knows with our convoluted english common law!

[TheGrumpyBrit]

It's very much still a vehicle, but there's a statutory defence to Drunk in Charge if you can demonstrate that there was no likelihood of driving while you were over the limit. Having a bed in the back and being parked in a suitable place to spend the night should be more than enough to demonstrate that unless you're seen to be climbing into the drivers seat.

In the UK, this may be your own private domicile, but you can still be harrassed.

[mtgx]

> This is the problem with the government demanding to read all communications... the idea that they have the right in order to prevent you committing a crime. Its not only impossible to prevent someone committing a crime (anyone can snap and do truly horrible things without prior communique), its insane to think that you can arrest someone for pre-crime.

This is exactly what Bruce Schneier saw with his "data mining for terrorists" essay more than a decade ago. Trying to prevent terrorist attacks is impossible if you rely on data mining alone, because of all the false positives it can create, making it useless in actually preventing real attacks.

https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/03/data_mining_f...

[thaumasiotes]

> You can arrest someone for breaking the law, but never can you arrest someone right up to the point of breaking the law.

Attempted murder is criminalized, but that's a weak counterpoint.

Criminal conspiracy, however, is exactly the crime you're claiming can't exist.

[Zhenya]

While I agree with you in general, the following point is incorrect:

>>or even being asleep in the car while drunk.

If the keys are in the ignition, you are DUI.[0]

Even sleeping in the car is also considered a DUI in some states[1]. Beware!

[0] http://caselaw.findlaw.com/co-supreme-court/1006683.html

[1] http://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2015/07/how-to-sleep-it-off...

[gjjrfcbugxbhf]

In the UK being drunk in charge of a motor vehicle is a crime. 'In charge of' includes for example being near the vehicle with the keys in your possession and certainly includes being asleep in the vehicle. If charged with this crime you are required to prove (to a balance of probabilities standard i.e. about 50:50) that you were not going to try to drive it until you were sober. NB I don't necessarily agree with the legal situation in the UK I'm merely stating the reality.

[csomar]

Well driving while drank is pre-crime too.

[choward]

Exactly. It's just trying to prevent you from breaking motor vehicle laws like driving down the wrong side of the road.

[inlined]

I think outlawing conspiracy to commit a crime is the (potentially) reasonable way governments have bridged the gap and enforced prevention.