Congress is contemplating a law to solve the problem of high-speed auto accidents. The speed limit in most locales is 65 mph, but everyone knows that people violate it every day. Enforcement is costly and sporadic, and obviously is not a sufficient deterrent to scofflaws. Therefore, largely at the behest of the insurance industry, Congress is considering technological fixes.

If the law passes, every auto manufacturer will have to install, on every car, a regulator that prevents the car from exceeding 65 mph. Foreign carmakers wishing to export to the United States would have to comply as well, on all of their cars. (The argument is, someone could easily import a non-regulated car through Mexico.) Any auto manufacturer failing to comply would not only be prohibited from selling cars here; they would also face significant civil and criminal penalties.

Since many Americans are mechanically adept, it seems logical that they will find a way to circumvent the regulator. In fact, a person possessing the skills to undo the regulator is likely also to be a loner, possibly anti-social, and therefore likely to actually follow through and circumvent the device. The existence of unregulated cars would defeat the entire purpose of the law, of course, so Congress plans to make circumvention of the device illegal, also under threat of significant civil and criminal penalties.

The setting of speed limits has long been recognized as a local matter, falling under the "police powers" of local jurisdictions. Imposition of a national speed limit is therefore problematic, as shown by earlier experience with the 55 mph law. However, trade in automobiles can be regulated by Congress, under the interstate commerce clause; such rationale is already applied in the national safety standards mandated by Congress. It is argued that the speed regulator is simply an extension of these earlier precedents.

For a long time, car manufacturers lobbied against this bill, arguing that it served few legitimate interests, that it restricted user choice, and that it would add to the cost of vehicles to no good end. Additionally, it created an implicit impression that American cars are unsafe at high speeds, potentially opening the manufacturers to liability suits. Apparently that last point was the most telling: The bill's sponsors recently added a "safe haven" clause, absolving manufacturers of any liability in cars wherein a regulator has been deactivated. In return, the auto lobby has acquiesced in the bill's passage.

Some people argue that there are circumstances when it is reasonable and perhaps even necessary to exceed 65 mph. For example, driving on your own land is not subject to speed laws. Racing circuits obviously would feel an impact. And of course, if you are using your car legally at the speed limit, there can arise situations where the safest option is to speed past some obstacle. Supporters of the bill dismiss these so-called "fair use" objections. They affect only a tiny fraction of Americans, it is said, and that small proportion of legitimate use cannot outweigh the vast potential for illegitimate use. Additionally, it is said, the bill doesn't prohibit speeds above 65 mph; it merely disallows cars that can reach such speeds. An American's right to higher speeds, therefore, is not abridged.

---

By now you've probably come to the conclusion that the proposed law is another example of ridiculous Congressional meddling in the personal lives of citizens. Indeed, the law probably seems absurd. Well, there's good news and bad news. The good news is, Congress is not really pondering such a bill. No one has proposed enforcing technological limitations on your driving habits.

The bad news is, people do want to restrict your usage of information you own -- which includes not only computer data, but music, videos, books, and so on. They want the right to lock your data behind proprietary "access control mechanisms", and they want it to be illegal to invent, use, or talk about devices that circumvent the control mechanisms. They want this to be illegal even when your access is protected by long-established rights and case law. In the name of hobbling so-called "pirates", they are willing and eager to deny you your right to read a book as many times as you'd like, or to loan a CD to a friend, or to watch a DVD on the machine of your choice.

The really bad news is, they aren't proposing such a law. They've already passed it. It's called the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, passed in 1998 and in effect for about a year now.

You might want to read why the DMCA is unconstitutional (in my opinion). You can also read a list of abuses engendered by the DMCA.