Slashdot Mirror


Nevada Lawmakers Want Police To Scan Cellphones After Car Crashes (apnews.com)

An anonymous reader quotes the Associated Press: Most states ban texting behind the wheel, but a legislative proposal could make Nevada one of the first states to allow police to use a contentious technology to find out if a person was using a cellphone during a car crash... If the Nevada measure passes, it would allow police to use a device known as the "textalyzer," which connects to a cellphone and looks for user activity, such as opening a Facebook messenger call screen. It is made by Israel-based company Cellebrite, which says the technology does not access or store personal content. It has not been tested in the field and is not being used by any law enforcement agencies. The company said the device could be tested in the field if the Nevada legislation passes...

Opponents air concerns that the measure violates the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable search and seizure. Jay Stanley, a senior policy analyst at the American Civil Liberties Union, also raised questions over how the software will work and if it will be open sourced so the public can ensure it doesn't access personal content...

Law enforcement officials argue that distracted driving is underreported and that weak punishments do little to stop drivers from texting, scrolling or otherwise using their phones. Adding to the problem, they say there is no consistent police practice that holds those drivers accountable for traffic crashes, unlike drunken driving.

12 of 263 comments (clear)

  1. Going to be a problem either way by SirAstral · · Score: 5, Insightful

    While I would say yea, lets do this to catch the fucking knobs that I constantly see texting and driving, I am 100% certain people are going to be falsely accused because how are they going to verify that it was not a hands-free call or text? This is going going to end well.

    The law these days has become nothing but an automatically guilty upon accusation without due process cliche. We cannot have the innocent suffering just to catch the assholes, despite the fact that the world at large has a mostly guilty until proven innocent bias!

    1. Re:Going to be a problem either way by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I am 100% certain people are going to be falsely accused because how are they going to verify that it was not a hands-free call or text?

      The preponderance of the evidence is that hands-free calls are not safer.

      The problem is not that your hands are not on the wheel, but that your mind is not on the road.

  2. I'm completely OK with this by olsmeister · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As long as they obtain a warrant first.

    1. Re:I'm completely OK with this by Aighearach · · Score: 4, Insightful

      As an aside to this issue I could see insurance companies demanding the same thing as a condition to payment after an accident.

      What a ridiculous idea.

      There are two types of insurance that matter after an accident; liability, and collision coverage.

      If the accident was your fault, liability insurance pays the other party. If it was the other party's fault, their insurance company can't demand anything from you. I don't know about Nevada, but in most states there are a bunch of standard rules for determining whose fault it was. Even if you end up in court, usually you're only arguing about the payment amount because the formula for who is at fault usually makes it really clear; one person was outside their lane, didn't obey the traffic control device, or they rear-ended somebody. Or somebody pulled out into a lane when it wasn't clear. These are all unambiguous situations regarding fault.

      Or if it was your fault and you're using your collision coverage, they don't care what idiot mistake you made; that's the whole point of collision coverage, for when it was your fault. They're your insurance company. They know how often you do this. They don't really care why, they only care how often you're going to do it and how much damage you do when it happens!

      The thing about distracted driving is that it makes you more likely to make the mistakes that cause an accident; and those accidents would all be your fault anyways! From an insurance perspective it isn't relevant unless they can detect it continually the whole time you're driving; then they could use it to set rates.

      This is way more useful to the police than to the insurance, because if somebody died in the accident, being able to prove something like distracted driving is the difference between felony charges and a $135 ticket.

  3. Cop can stand by the side of the road. Every 5minu by raymorris · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If this was about busting people for texting and driving, a cop could stand by the side of the road while his partner is two blocks up in the cruiser and they'd probably get somebody every five minutes. You and I see it constantly while we're driving around. Just watch people start at their phone, doing the thumb dance as they drive by. For bonus points, have a camera that shows what the cop saw.

    Cop who sees rhe texting driver (and has it on video) radios his partner to light them up.

    If you want to do it with less manpower, just have the cops keep an eye out for texting and driving while they do their usual patrol. I see drivers doing it, you see them. Cops can see them too.

    This law clearly is not about enforcing texting and driving; there is something else going on here.

  4. Re:Cop can stand by the side of the road. Every 5m by SirAstral · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "This law clearly is not about enforcing texting and driving; there is something else going on here."

    Yes, this would make a great prelude to opening full legalize search and seizure of all data on peoples phones as well. I did not actually consider that in my first post but you definitely bring up a great point. Almost all laws today are now end runs around civil liberty just so a dossier of citizens can be built so they can charge you with criminal liability for about 100 laws just to scare you into accepting a plea deal. Because everyone knows that citizens are so damn dumb that risking their life in a trail by jury is a risky proposition. Most American citizens will now happily render a guilty verdict just their precious time being wasted having to serve on a jury. There are a lot of self-righteous hypocrite bastards out there.

  5. Re:Actual legislation by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Obviously, you need two devices ... one to be handed to the pig-filth, the other that's OFF while driving and which contains your real data.

  6. On simple question... by Rick+Zeman · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Law enforcement officials argue that distracted driving is underreported and that weak punishments do little to stop drivers from texting, scrolling or otherwise using their phones. Adding to the problem, they say there is no consistent police practice that holds those drivers accountable for traffic crashes, unlike drunken driving.

    What would this tech do to change the above?

  7. Of course not by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "It is made by Israel-based company Cellebrite, which says the technology does not access or store personal content."

    Of course it doesn't access your personal data, because that would be wrong! *cough* *cough*

    And you can certainly trust Cellebrite, they surely would have no reason to fib, right? RIGHT?

    --
    Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
  8. Re:Cop can stand by the side of the road. Every 5m by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Yeah, it's about determining whether a driver's texting, or phone usage was a contributing factor in a car accident they were involved in after the fact. This has ramifications for determining if extra charges need be levied against the driver in a criminal case, or determining liability in civil litigation like a wrongful death suit. Put away the tinfoil hat.

  9. Re:Hahaha they will never get me. by youngone · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Good lord! Their tagline is "Promoting Safe and Productive Automotive Technology" which is the exact opposite of what they're doing.
    We have a charge where I live called "careless use of a motor vehicle" and I think anyone with one of those could be charged with exactly that.

  10. Re:Cop can stand by the side of the road. Every 5m by currently_awake · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Could be because the police want to set a legal precendent where they can scan any phone at the "scene of the crime", no warrant or justification required. Also what happens if they can't get into your phone? Are you required to assist them? Do you go to jail if you don't?