[stavros]

It's very different to watch 1% of drivers, 1% of the time, and to watch 100% of drivers, 100% of the time.

There's no room for change if law enforcement is absolute. Imagine if gay people could never sex, because a microchip zapped their brain whenever they got a sexual thought about a member of the same sex. Homosexuality would still be illegal.

[novagameco]

Putting a microchip in people's brains is a completely different thing than putting a microchip in people's cars. People have a right to bodily autonomy; they don't have a right to drive a car. The first would violate human rights on principle alone, the second has no implication on human rights

[kerkeslager]

I think that very much depends on what the chip in the car does. If it effectively broadcasts your movements to the government, I very much think that does have human rights implications (on the right to privacy).

However, if the chip just limits your car's speed, I have trouble imagining what rights that would violate. Your right to speed? C'mon.