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.
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.
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!
As long as they obtain a warrant first.
Here's the actual legislation if anyone wants to look through it. Seems like a pretty bullshit law. If you refuse to submit your device to search, it's an automatic 90-day suspension of your license.
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.
"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.
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?
I use a tablet for my connectivity needs. Because it is not a cell phone, I'm in the clear.
So do you use one of these?
Pretty sure they want to be able to do this without getting a warrant. I'm also pretty sure they are going to finagle it so they just download *all* texts, dump them into a database, then sort through them looking for any criminal activity later on.
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
"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...
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.
they say there is no consistent police practice that holds those drivers accountable for traffic crashes
Funny, I was going to say the same thing about police accountability for abusing their powers.
"Tell me doctor, with all of your defenses, are there any provisions for an attack by killer bees?"
You are still "driving" when stopped at a red light. And you missed when the Mone turned green by about 10 seconds. ***honk***
That's all "distracted" driving is. You want to "plug into" my phone? GET A WARRANT! There really isn't any difference between texting and driving than reaching down to pick up something you dropped, changing the radio station you were listening to, turning around to talk to someone, looking at yourself/makeup in the mirror and on and on. It ALL falls into the category of C&I driving. CARELESS and IMPRUDENT driving.
Every 5 minutes? I cross a busy, but only one lane in each direction, street a few times a week during rush hour. During just one crossing, I see many people using their phones, usually i can spot them because they weave out of their lane.
If the government would contract me, I'd be happy to setup a company which takes video of traffic, finds people who use cell phones, then issues a ticket to them via mail - with a web portal to go see your video and pay. I will even give 10% of the tickets to the government, so they get to reduce texting and driving and it will cost them nothing, the 10% will cover any administrative costs involved with integration with their emv databases. I'll also make sure the cameras are mobile and well camouflaged so no problems with people causing accidents because they see them. Oh, if you are serious about enforcing speeding, happy to share 20% of all speeding fines (I anticipate a lot larger volume of fines if I can start ticketing at +5mph). With video evidence, court challenges will be rare and usually will not succeed (for speeding I'll have a rigorous calibration process and schedule). Any interested municipalities?
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.
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?
HAHA no, laws only apply to you! Police have special exemptions in the law to let them use mobile phones, even operate a laptop while driving!
Not as effective when signaged and advertised, people will still text and drive where they know there are no cameras. If they are camouflaged, mobile, and nobody knows where they are, people are less likely to text and drive everywhere.
That said, I think I get where you're coming from, the prevailing social justice sentiment that it's better to not save lives than save lives but allow someone to make money in the process, even in cases like this where the money would clearly come only from people endangering others.
Having more cops around costs the city money, so higher taxes. If you think you can offset it by the ticket revenues, then you'll have to raise the fines as cops issue less tickets per hour than an automated camera. Then if revenue declines because less people text and drive, you have to lay them off. Outsourcing it to a private (yes, for profit) company brings money in rather than out and let's the private company take on the risks (being a company, they can shift some cameras to different cities, not so easy to send the extra cop to another state).
As for disconnect from time delay, I agree however I think you overestimate this impact. Getting a ticket in the mail a week or two later would absolutely curb people's dangerous (to others) habits.
Those are great for texting drivers. If they crash, the airbag in the steering wheel will slam the device into their face. Seems fitting...
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
As much as I have been frustrated enough by texters to damage their vehicle. That is an easy way to get shot or possibly even run over than shot here in the US. Seriously people are crazy and if someone broke something on my vehicle I would not take it lightly. Not saying I would shoot them, but people in california shoot other drivers because they have to sit in traffic next to them.
I don't see horns being used that much. If you're hearing them often your probably just not paying attention. You can usually see the opposing traffic's lights turn from yellow to red, so if you're paying attention there are plenty of clues.
Both of your claimed uses can be done after the fact with a subpoena from the cellular provider.
If I was a conspiracyst I would see this as an attempt by the state legislature to undo the recent supreme court that ruled that cell phones couldn't be searched without a warrant. Just throw in a moving violation and viola, a cell phone search!