Slashdot Mirror
Cellebrite Is Developing Roadside Police 'Textalyzer' Device (arstechnica.com)
An anonymous reader writes: Cellebrite, the company many believe helped the FBI crack into the iPhone 5c belonging to a San Bernardino terrorist, is developing a roadside "textalyzer" device to help law enforcement determine whether someone involved in a motor vehicle accident was unlawfully driving while distracted. As reported from Ars Technica: "Under the first-of-its-kind legislation proposed in New York, drivers involved in accidents would have to submit their phone to roadside testing from a textalyzer to determine whether the driver was using a mobile phone ahead of a crash." The textalyzer allegedly would keep conversations, contacts, numbers, photos, and application data private in an effort to get around the Fourth Amendment right to privacy. "Cellebrite has been leading the adoption of field mobile forensics solutions by law enforcement for years, culminating in the formal introduction of our UFED FIELD series product line a year ago," Jim Grady, Cellebrite's CEO, said in a statement. "We look forward to supporting DORCs and law enforcement -- both in New York and nationally to curb distracted driving."
Crazy, many new cars let you send and receive via voice now. Hell, even can listen and send without you picking them up.
Sounds like a good excuse to copy peoples phones, pull someone over for "texting while driving" and scan their phone... No warrant needed.
I personally can think of an easy way of avoiding this completely:
If you see red and blue lights, put your phone in airplane mode, throw it under the seat, and deny you even have one. Same if you're involved in a collision. If the cop asks to search your car, tell him that his rights to search your car are about as good as your rights to give him a cavity search.
I suspect they'll do what they do where I live, and set the fines at a level that makes it cheaper to pay the fines than to plead not guilty. As an aside, my sister has never paid a traffic ticket in her life, as she has time on her hands. She pleads not guilty, and by the time the police realize they were supposed to turn up in court, she has been let off through a lack of evidence.
This would be a brain dead law to enact, designed to only enrich Cellebrite. There are many ways there could be recent texts on your phone that would be completely legal under current US law in all 50 states. For example, a friend could be using your phone while you drive to text and respond to texts directed to you, or you could be using voice texting. Either the legislators are not very technically savvy, or in Cellebrite's pocket.
Does your phone have to be visible to the officer, or can they now search your car without a warrant to see if you've hidden a phone in it?
If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
Tell that to the third parties companies that sell the red-light cameras. There's been numerous instances of the red-light cameras issuing false citations, and those companies pressuring localities to reduce the amount of time a yellow light is shown, in order to get more revenue at the expense of safety.
This is the problem with the whole discussion. Law enforcement should not have access to the contents of your phone without a warrant. The focus on encryption it makes the emphasis on this discussion whether or not law enforcement should be able to crack your phone instead of what business they have examining your phone without a warrant in the first place.
Would you let someone search your house without a warrant, even if they had a key? Why should your phone, which is your property, also be subject to illegal unreasonable search? Why should the data products that your phone produce that are not contained on the phone be subject to ongoing monitoring without a warrant?
Record the phone number, get a warrant and ask the telecommunications companies for the *times* of your text messages and phone calls that day. No phone access required.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
I have a simpler method: if your car is moving don't touch or look at your phone. If you're expecting something urgent then pull over safely before you do either.
If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
Those things piss me off to no end.
There are a few in my area with such a short yellow light that, depending on the distance, it would be safer to run the red light than to slam on the brakes.
App to wipe all following an accident or event to preserve 5th amendment rights.
GAH! I can't decide weather this rates as "funny", "troll" or "insightful". Something is seriously f'ed up somewhere, and I'm not certain it's me.
I personally can think of an easy way of avoiding this completely:
If you see red and blue lights, put your phone in airplane mode, throw it under the seat, and deny you even have one. Same if you're involved in a collision. If the cop asks to search your car, tell him that his rights to search your car are about as good as your rights to give him a cavity search.
LoL,
If you see Red and Blue, its too late. You wont have time to put the phone in aeroplane mode, you definitely wont be able to do it without the officers noticing.
No you cant, dont argue with me, you are not as clever as you think you are.
The reason idiots get caught on their phone is because they get so distracted by it that they become completely oblivious to anything around them. Green lights, concrete bollards, other vehicles and the cop walking up right next to them. Also all your "clever" tricks are also dead givaways, no-one sits in the car and stares intently at their crotch for 5 minutes unless they've got a phone down there.
I can think of a much easier solution, put the fucking phone away whilst you're driving. If this is too onerous or you think you're good enough that it doesn't apply to you (clue by four: you are not), start taking the bus.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
So why isn't the minimum amount of time that a yellow light must be shown fixed by law based on scientific reasons (e.g. current speed limit, expected reaction time of a worst-case, legal driver, etc.)?
Because then they cannot generate more revenue. These redlight camera outfits are not there to uphold the law. The are there to make a profit. When you are there to make a profit, at least in America, you have to make more profit this quarter than last quarter.
Apparently the results of the yellow light shortening has been after it is implemented, drivers hopon the sprags as soon as they see one, treating it as a red light. This has resulted in more rear ending accidents, as the number one sport in the US is tailgaiting so closely that you owe the person in front of you at least a dinner and a movie. http://time.com/3643077/red-li...
https://www.motorists.org/blog...
Red light cameras and for profit prisons are turning out to be birds of a feather. Institutionalized evil.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.