How far do you think privacy protection should go?

Mikaela says:

I never thought I'd find myself in the position of waiving my right to privacy to make things convenient for the government to do its job (ahem -- I'm talking about all those Patriot Act supporters out there), but this morning's NPR story about Oregon's latest plan to assess road taxes got me thinking.

So Oregon is thinking ahead (gotta love planning, right??) to the possible budget shortfall when hybrids and more gas-efficient vehicles generate less revenue from gas taxes (which currently pay for most infrastructure costs). University professors have come up with a GPS system that would track how many miles you drive in certain zones at certain times (a different charge would be assessed for rush-hour miles versus late-night miles, etc.), calculate your tax, and charge you for it the next time you gas up (you can even put it on your credit card!!!).

A great idea in theory, right? Taxpayers would be paying to maintain the roads they actually use, with a direct correlation to when and how they use them. The GPS technology would be able to differentiate between miles driven in Oregon versus outside Oregon, and you would not be charged once you crossed outside the state line.

But it does raise privacy issues. While the government says it won't keep track of individuals' movement, in theory, it could. Drivers would be allowing a tracking device inside their cars, and how would they know how the government was using it?

But it's a good idea, and I'd hate to do the whole baby with the bathwater thing.

So what do you think? What safeguards would have to be in place before a system like this (a system with really smart, progressive intentions) would be acceptable to you?

It is interesting that before I checked myself, I was annoyed at the privacy flag. Civil rights are civil rights, but I found the chink in my privacy armor when my little liberal heart saw a good environmental idea.