MAILBAG

Dear Danielle Carpenter,

I agree with the article you wrote titled “Elderly need to stop driving.” The Motor Vehicle Department needs to come up with a standard to determine if a senior is still eligible to drive.

Although I agree that the Motor Vehicle Department needs to come up with standards for seniors regarding their eligibility to be able to drive safe, it is not right to assume all elderly are not fit to drive. Some elders, even at the age of 70 or even older are still capable to drive on the street safely just like any other people. Even the statistics that you provided that “elders accounted for only 14 percent of driver fatalities in 1999” proves that they are not the high risk of reason for driving fatalities.

Since the elderly population is expected to grow, I suggest that a standardized test for hearing, vision and memory should be given to seniors every year to ensure the safety of not just the people around them but also for themselves. The Motor Vehicle Departments across the United States should develop a plan to address the issue regarding seniors eligibility to continue to have a driver’s license.

— Maria Melanie Alcaide,
San Jose, Calif.

ONLINE COMMENTS

In response to the April 5 column titled “If you want a job, delete your Facebook”:

“It’s a major invasion of privacy but there seems to be no way to escape it.”

Well, one way would be to make requiring an applicant to hand over their passwords against the law. Rep. Perlmutter proposed exactly that, but his amendment failed in the House http://www.pcworld.com/article/252837/facebook_password_amendment_rejected_by_congress.html.

Obviously, information in the public domain, on websites such as this one, can’t be removed. But, just as we would not expect to hand over our diary to a potential employer, so too should we retain some privacy in our personal accounts.

— Joe Mosely

In response to the April 9 column titled “Police justified in utilizing cellphone location tracking”:

No one is saying that the police should not be able to use cell phone tracking or other technology to investigate crimes. They’re saying that for the government to access information that reveals a lot of private info about you, it needs to get a warrant by explaining to a judge explaining why you are suspected of a crime. And even the ACLU supports an exception to this rule for emergencies, like finding a missing person. I’m thinking that you are not so familiar with the Fourth Amendment, so here it is:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

Think about why this was written — it was because the government was going on fishing expeditions and harassing innocent people.

Opponents of the Bill of Rights generally have one weapon: fear. “Let the government do whatever it wants, or the bad guys will come and get you.”

When the writer says, “The United States is a country of household alarm systems and gated sub-developments. This is a blessing that we often take for granted,” I’m not really sure what she’s getting at — is she saying that we should feel lucky that we’re so safe because we have high security? If so, that’s a very sad and sheltered view of the world.

— Cole