This is against the constitution.

Innocent until proven guilty. Does not give them a warrant. They do not own your car. They have no right to suspect you of a crime and monitor you before a crime has occurred on your own property. They would need a warrant.

You are no obligation to have cameras in your car. It is intrusive and against your human rights.

Sure if you're driving somebody else's vehicle or perhaps working for a company then they can be argued. Again in most instances these have been deemed illegal. Spying on employees and recording them is often quite unlawful as it breaches human rights.

This should be completely rejected as it breaches your rights. It should never make law.

This is against the constitution.

Innocent until proven guilty. Does not give them a warrant. They do not own your car. They have no right to suspect you of a crime and monitor you before a crime has occurred on your own property. They would need a warrant.

You are no obligation to have cameras in your car. It is intrusive and against your human rights.

Sure if you're driving somebody else's vehicle or perhaps working for a company then it they can be argued. Again in most instances these have been deemed illegal. Spying on employees and recording them is often quite unlawful as it breaches human rights.

This should be completely rejected as it breaches your rights. It should never make law.

This is against the constitution.

Innocent until proven guilty. Does not give them a warrant. They do not own your car. They have no right to suspect you of a crime and monitor you before a crime has occurred on your own property. They would need a warrant.

You are no obligation to have cameras in your car. It is intrusive and against your human rights.

Sure if you're driving somebody else's vehicle or perhaps working for a company then it they can be argued. Again in most instances these have been deemed illegal. Spying on employees and recording them is often quite unlawful as it breaches human rights.

This should be completely rejected as it breaches your rights.

This is against the constitution.

Innocent until proven guilty. Does not give them a warrant. They do not own your car. They have no right to suspect you of a crime and monitor you before a crime has occurred on your own property. They would need a warrant.

You are no obligation to have cameras in your car. It is intrusive and against your human rights.

Sure if you're driving somebody else's vehicle or perhaps working for a company then they can be argued.

Otherwise this should be completely rejected as it breaches your rights.

This is against the constitution.

Innocent until proven guilty. Does not give them a warrant. They do not own your car. They have no right to suspect you of a crime and monitor you before a crime has occurred on your own property. They would need a warrant.

You are no obligation to have cameras in your car. It is intrusive and against your human rights.

Sure if you're driving somebody else's vehicle or perhaps working for a company then it they can be argued.

Otherwise this should be completely rejected as it breaches your rights.

This is against the constitution.

Innocent until proven guilty. Does not give them a warrant. They do not own your car. They have no right to suspect you of a crime and monitor you before a crime has occurred on your own property. They would need a warrant.