But on the highway they are watching over you so you don't break any laws. They have police officers who patrol the highways and traffic cameras. If this had any implications on people's basic human rights, I might agree but driving is a privilege, not a right.
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.
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
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.
