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."
I wonder if such a system would factor in dictation input in deciding "guilt."
Nobody expects The Spanish Inquisition!
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 wonder... if they textalyze your phone and don't find what they want to see, whether they have to wear condoms as they fuck the shit out of your car looking for the "real" phone?
Or is this just a legally neutered horse shit law? Or something more sinister, like an excuse to read everybody's text history? "We don't keep it. Honest!"
All this police state nonsense is hilarious and all, and this should not be construed as a threat: if I were the cops, I would not want to be on the wrong side of the People - or the family of those who were - when the music stops and everybody's looking for chairs. Just a thought.
If your phone is locked, they need a warrant to search it. (It's open season if it's not locked)
If the asked me to unlock it, my response would be "Not without a warrant" (Unspoken: "And not with one either".)
Ian Ameline
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.
People do that with breathalyzers, too. Hell, people do that with radar guns for speeding. One of those few times where citizens can make things too inconvenient for the big guy instead of the other way around.
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?
This should not stand any kind of court test as the Supreme Court has already ruled in 2014 that police CANNOT examine a cell phone, search or extract any data from it unless an arrest has been made and a valid search warrant executed. IF they are being honest about the device keeping things like contacts private, this device does nothing that the police cannot already get from the wireless service provider, most of which already "look the other way" on any requirement of a warrant.
The key to selling a lot of these is to have a backdoor that can be assessed when needed.
Go ahead PROVE I had my phone with me, without a fucking warrant you cant check my car, so let's start the game.
Cellbrite, helping pigs be fucking gestapo thugs since 2008.
That's the rub - first off, you need to power down your phone before police inspect. 2nd off, if they ask, just say it wasn't with you. Then they can ask to unlock it and you say you forgot your password (protected under 5th amendment). If it's an iPhone5S or later (or Android equivalent in security terms), the police just hit a brick wall in their investigation.
This proposed law is unconstitutional (seems like most egregious legislation falls under this ... of course)
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
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.
Any device, legislation, price of software, etc. that is explicitly designed to get around an amendment should be instantly dismissed.
This is the "just the tip" of removing your constitutionally protected rights. And it's never just the tip. I'm thinking 13 will be next.
This signature is false.
"We look forward to supporting DORCs" Indeed.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The only way they can determine whether you used your phone during a crash is to get deep into every single application and look at its logs: the SMS app, chat apps, the web browser, social media apps, etc. And you have to be naive to think that they aren't going to do keywords searches at the same time. And when the keyword searches "alert", they have the justification to dig deeper.
You have the time to go to the judge and get a warrant per the law. If you want to hook some hacking device up to my phone to figure out if I was texting somehow without accessing my private data, I'm going to need the source code to verify that my rights weren't violated. Also, violations of the DMCA apply to me hacking my own phone, not the cops using a device to hack my phone.
It is no longer uncommon to be uncommon.
Since the hack needed to access the phone is largely something the Apple or Google would fix if they knew about demanding the source code might expose the vulnerability and thus be refused thereby dismissing the case.
It is no longer uncommon to be uncommon.
But there is no implied consent for submitting your phone.
That's what buying your local legislator is for, sonny. From the actual text of the proposed New York bill:
2. Any person who operates a motor vehicle in this state shall be ...
deemed to have given consent to a portable electronic device field test
for the purpose of determining portable electronic device usage when
involved in an accident while operating a motor vehicle including phone
activity for the period of time immediately preceding the accident
[ALL CAPS removed to get around /.'s loudness filter]
Breakfast served all day!
Insane workaround - ask the phone company for timestamps of messages. Get a warrant if you have to.
And states made the radar gun accurate under the law nomater how out of calibration it was etc etc etc.
This device has no purpose other than to invade privacy, if there was a death/serious injury getting a warrant for your sms and various chat services for the time in question is not much of a high bar. This is open up your safe, it's ok this nifty black box won't invade your privacy. This is using the driving is a privilege not a right line of thought to make you give up your rights. Driving must be considered part of freedom of association and only removable as part of a criminal sentence.
No sir I dont like it.
Why can't they just ask the cell carrier if that phone was in use? Sounds like yet another bullshit device.
It's going to be so funny when he calls you a smartass street lawyer and then proceeds to rape your civil rights right there on the side of the road and then plant drugs on you.
It is, but that won't prevent the scumbag from calling over his buddies to hold you down while he pepper sprays you, then charges you with a bunch of bullshit of offenses. Trust me on this.
In other words, it's a magic probable cause generator.
And instead of throwing money at some stupid device to help investigate a crash,
wouldn't the money be better spent at some other kind of magic devices to prevent the crash happening in the first place ?
Magic devices such as adaptive cruise-control, forward collision warning with automatic braking, lane departure warning (with automatic trajectory correction)...
Technologies under the brand name "City Safety". Or "Autopilot" if you're more Tesla-inclined.
Used to be available in more expensive cars (e.g.: Volvo), now starts to show up even in more modest ones (e.g.: available even on VW's Up! serie) and several european automakers are vouching to make it default on their whole range.
The technology is here, already deployed on some of the car currently out on the streets.
Money would be better spent in perfecting that technology and/or helping it get more wide spread and affordable/available.
Money on technology that actively saves lives.
But no, let's instead blow money on little useless gadgets, just to help pin-point who's more likely to be guiltiest once the accident already happened.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
So licensing drivers is a 4th Amendment workaround then? Time to re-examine licensing drivers. Why should adults need to bargain away their civil rights to get government permission to drive their own car on public roads ...?
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.
Simpler solution - I use an old flip-phone - no apps on it at all, and I keep it TURNED OFF, unless I want to call out, or check my answering machine or voice mail.
I hate to be interrupted when I don't need to be, and I rarely ever need to be, since I check my messages a couple of times a day. Oh, and it's a burn phone.
Cellular phone addiction is a terrible thing...
That was a factor in 2012 accident Inwas in. The insrance company subpoena cellphone records and the result was obvious.
Or if you are guilty, just wipe the phone after the accident, by the time the cops arrive the wipe will be done.
That must be some amazing technology! It can even detect that the driver is texting, not one of the passengers...
Privileges = immunities = rights. They are the same thing. Historically, they were interchangeable.
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States, and of the States in which they reside, and the Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States.
It doesn't say licensing, it says operating a motor vehicle. So someone from Canada driving through the state has given their implicit consent according to this law.
It seems like if you want to protect your privacy you have to read through every law of every country/state/province/county that you intend to pass through just in case you might run into trouble.
You have a right to not self-incriminate. Handing over your cellphone for such an analysis violates that.
It's not really a method to determine if you are at fault for an accident. They just want more of peoples data.
There's no way to tell if the message I sent was created by me dictating the message or by me typing the message in. Or I could have been distracted by a message coming in by looking at it on the lock screen. It would show up as unread on the system even though I've seen it.
So, does it look at things like the screen on log like what the battery section under android uses?
I can imagine there would be last activity timestamps on the running processes as well.
Any android developers have any input?
The Fourth Amendment doesn't protect a right to privacy. The Fourth Amendment protects the right to be free from unreasonable searches. Keeping private data private doesn't suddenly make a search not a search...
Show me on the 1st Amendment bobblehead where the moderator touched you...
Carry a burner phone. When pulled over, turn off your main phone, hide it, and "use" the burner phone, and turn it over if asked.
- First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
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.
former cop here. just...no. cops always need a warrant to search your person or seize your property, and probable cause if they are going to detain you. your busted licence plate light is all they need for the latter; you gave them the former via "implied consent" when you signed for your driver's license. Most civilians don't understand that a traffic stop is an arrest, and thus all the civil protections afforded citizens in the Constitution apply, meaning the cops have to follow the rules. Incidentally, that is probably why there is so much push back from cops about being recorded -- they aren't used to having to follow the rules. Some jerk's iphone record of their failure to do so imperils their career. Next time a cop pulls you over, ask him point blank: Am I being detained? If the first word out of his mouth is anything other than "Yes" drive away. A smart cop is going to smile ruefully and wait for a less savvy citizen to meet his roadside revenue quota. A dumb cop is going to call for back up and get his ass handed to him by his desk sergeant, the chief of police, the city prosecutor, and the judge at your trial (in the extremely unlikely event it gets that far) if he tries to detain you again.
Sorry for the discursion. To bring this back on point, while existing implied consent laws can be easily adapted to include any electronic devices discovered in the course of your traffic stop, that is not the real issue here. People really need to understand that you are "under arrest" even when you are just being given a traffic ticket, and that you haven't surrendered your civil rights just because some cop thought you were an easy mark for a little quasi-legal extortion. You are protected by a robust set of principles enshrined in the Constitution, and you can rely on their protection when confronted by a cop who just wants to make his quota for the month and engage in a little data mining of your phone while he's at it.
I never text, but this brings up a question frequently on my mind: is using google navigate while driving considered "distracted driving"? I try to set the destination before putting the car in gear, but I don't always do it that way, and it is admittedly dangerous to type in a destination while driving. Also tend to hold phone in my hand so that I can see the navigation info while driving -- can this get me busted?
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Take a look at how breathalyzers have pushed back significantly over the years that their implementations are "trade secrets" and therefore not subject to scruitany. It was only a few years ago when we finally got a look behind the curtain just to discover the devices wouldn't have passed most government agency standards including temporary code left in production, a failure to baseline properly, and only registering a problem with the device after 32 consecutive errors. Who here doesn't see history repeating itself?
You say "unfortunate", I say "appropriate".
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Except that if I obtained my driver's license BEFORE the law was passed, they would be adding an ex post facto condition to the license, wouldn't they?
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Here's the thing: cops have a right to search your car before it is towed, for "safety". If you were just in an accident, chances are your car will be getting towed! Even if your car is drivable, they can simply detain you, which gives them the right to tow your car (safely parked off the highway), which gives them the right to search your entire car, bring in a drug sniffing dog, etc. Think I'm kidding? I've had them do this to me when I was rear-ended. "Can I have my wife come get the car to save me the $200 towing fee?" "No, you have no right to contact anyone!"
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Other than the Federal Courts there is no "US court system." They are individual States with individual courts and individual processes
Perhaps federal countries other than the United States have federal laws that define which such "individual processes" in provincial or state courts might be considered "excessive fines" or violation of "due process". For example, a federal legislature might rein in what court costs a province or state is allowed to assess against an acquitted defendant. The U.S. Congress has the theoretical authority to do this under the fines clause in the Eighth Amendment and the due process clause in the Fourteenth Amendment. So why hasn't it, other than that Congress has been captured by judicial branches of the several states?
Why no Officer I do NOT have a cellphone in my possession. (cell phone locked in trunk).
You're inept at history.
Privileges are the same as rights. In historical context, their use is interchangeable.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/we...
Why can't they just ask the cell carrier if that phone was in use?
Because if the conversation isn't going over the voice or SMS network, the cell carrier can't easily distinguish data comprising a conversation over Skype or WhatsApp from another application's background data.
Historically, ["privilege" and "right"] were interchangeable.
Take care not to apply the etymological fallacy. If more recent statutes explicitly draw a distinction between "right" and "privilege", a judge will apply whatever definition was current at the time the word was added to the law. For example, would interpret "privileges" in the Fourteenth Amendment using the 1860s definition but "privilege" in a modern motor vehicle code under a newer definition.
Yeah, how about no? Simply having been involved in a traffic incident is NOT justification for searching my phone and the significant access that device has to very private data - even if texting WAS involved, the police can obtain that data from my cellphone company in the form of records and meta-data that does not include the content of those messages, which is not in any way relevant to the investigation of a traffic accident, much less access to my email, unrelated calling records, location data, etc.: this is about the same as insisting the police be allowed to search my house because a gas station attendant claimed I left without paying for fuel.
So, no. Get a warrant. Even then, I'm not opening it up for you - have fun with that full-device encryption and the scads of taxpayer money you'll waste trying to defeat it over a traffic incident, when you could just subpoena my cell service provider who would be more than happy to provide law enforcement with the specific and relevant information they need for their investigation.
Yet another unjustifiable law enforcement overreach, made possible by unethical technology companies and legislators who either don't understand tech or the Constitution (or are just corrupt and don't care), and sponsored by the state that thinks it's above the strictures placed on it by the Constitution and the 4th Amendment.
"Inveniemus Viam Aut Faciemus" 'We will find a way... Or we will make one!' --Hannibal of Carthage
I see where you are going with this, but never answer any question from a police officer other than providing driver' license, registration, and proof of insurance. NEVER Lie. If an officer says, "Is your cell phone on?", your answer is: "I wish to remain silent".
While you're entirely correct, of course, the key is to power the phone off before the officer arrives at your window. Then if the ostensibly courteous first-world US police decide to become third-world fascists and just stomp all over your rights - you are secure in your belongings on the phone.
Never Never arrive at a security checkpoint or have law enforcement present (if you can avoid) with your phone powered on. If you get pulled over, immediately power it off.
Always use a alphanumeric password (even if it is just "5555").
Don't use a cloud backup.
If you have a device with decent encryption like on iOS8+ / iPhone5S, you should be safe at that point in your papers (on the phone).
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
Comment removed based on user account deletion