Cellebrite Is Developing Roadside Police 'Textalyzer' Device (arstechnica.com) 188
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."
Voice Texts (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Good luck trying to scan my Windows Phone! Bwaahahahaha! Sometimes being the oft-ignored sector has its benefits. The phone may be crackable, but no one bothers to try.
References:
All of those arguments about Linux and Mac being super secure back before there was enough market share for people to care to try to attack them.
Re: (Score:2)
Those arguments started to look as utterly stupid as they are to just about everyone around 2000 when Macs started becoming more common and linux ended up on a lot of servers and gadgets. I hope for your sake that you were attempting to make a joke.
Re: (Score:2)
So far, Windows Phone hasn't shown enough signs of any uptick, so I'm comparing my platform choice as those Mac users who benefitted from lack of hacks due to lack of popularity. If Windows Phone sees any uptick, then obviously it means that the chance of my phone being attacked goes up.....but it also means that all of the other negatives about the platform (lack of interest from app developers) also goes away --- so, I win either way.
Re: (Score:2)
Good luck trying to scan my Windows Phone! Bwaahahahaha! Sometimes being the oft-ignored sector has its benefits. The phone may be crackable, but no one bothers to try.
References: All of those arguments about Linux and Mac being super secure back before there was enough market share for people to care to try to attack them.
I'm sure your windows phone totally doesn't have any legacy Win32 bugs hiding in your Windows 10 mobile OS. That mantra you're using from the 90s only applied because Linux didn't have as large a legacy codebase in the field. Taking your argument to the absurd, I can claim my BeOS machine is one of the most secure on the planet because nobody uses it and it's a beast of a different color.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
The fact of the matter is that you can set up things like autoreply via Tasker and other systems that could result in a text message being sent from your device while it's in your trunk. Plus, why do they need this device when they can just subpoena your cell phone records? It seems to me like this law is being written just so that the police can search your phone any time they stop you.
traffic stop == arrest; you have rights! (Score:5, Informative)
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 wonder... (Score:2)
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 - o
Re: (Score:2)
That's why you involve a third party with oversight. They're not cops and they care about their reputation.
Re:I wonder... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Well, in that case they're doing it wrong, since the citation should be issued with at least a minimum amount of review by an actual person.
and those companies pressuring localities to reduce the amount of time a yellow light is shown,
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I wonder... (Score:4, Insightful)
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... [time.com]
https://www.motorists.org/blog... [motorists.org]
Red light cameras and for profit prisons are turning out to be birds of a feather. Institutionalized evil.
Re: (Score:3)
That's not the least of it. Montgomery County, Maryland has lots of these camera's posted in "school zones". They put a 25 mph speed limit sign up. A few hundred feet further they put a 35 mph speed limit sign. Just beyond the 35 mph sign they put a camera that gives out tickets for driving over the 25 mph speed limit. State law says that the school zone speed limit overrides the posted speed limit so if you see the 35 mph sign and think you're driving the speed limit you still get a ticket.
Maryland law sa
Re: (Score:2)
> when the music stops and everybody's looking for chairs
If I may mix metaphors, nobody expects the music to stop and to have to pay the piper. If they did, we'd have fewer stupid people doing stupid things and that includes abusive people doing abusive things.
They all think the ride won't end while they're on it. They all believe themselves immune or simply don't think of it - it's impossible, this is going to be the way things are - forever.. For the most part, humans are pretty stupid.
In Canada (Score:2)
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".)
Re: (Score:2)
In the U.S. they need a warrant whether the phone is locked or not:
U.S. Supreme Court Ruling in Riley v. California [supremecourt.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
Privileges are the same as rights. In historical context, their use is interchangeable.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/we... [cornell.edu]
Other People Can Use Your Phone..... (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Either the legislators are not very technically savvy, or in Cellebrite's pocket.
Mayor Quimby: Henceforth, this date shall forever be known as Flaming Moe's Day!
Advisor: Uh, sir, this is already Veterans' Day.
Mayor Quimby: It can be two things!
Alternatively:
Abe: All right! I admit it! I'm the Lindbergh baby! Wah wah! Goo goo! I miss my fly-fly dada!
Bill Gannon: Are you stalling for time, or are you just senile?
Abe: A little from column A, a little from column B.
Does your phone have to be in plain sight? (Score:5, Insightful)
Backdoor (Score:2)
The key to selling a lot of these is to have a backdoor that can be assessed when needed.
Warrant vs Decrypting communication (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Those pesky amendments (Score:2)
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.
illusory (Score:2)
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.
Roadside phone cracking is unneeded, car's totaled (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Insane workaround (Score:2)
yabsd (Score:2)
Not if it's all IP data (Score:2)
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.
Some insurance companies already doing this (Score:3)
Proof it's the driver? (Score:2)
Hunting for your data (Score:2)
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.
This is a reason to carry a burner (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's just as distracting for a driver to dictate out loud to the passenger holding the phone.
Interesting question (Score:2)
History check (Score:2)
why, no officer, (Score:2)
Re:Dictation (Score:5, Informative)
So you'd potentially be declared guilty of driving whilst distracted until a warrant was obtained to determine that you were using hands-free?
One would think that since they're already in the device that such a thing could easily be determined.
Re:Dictation (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Future regulation will be crafted that says if you root your phone to remove such capabilities you will immediately have your license suspended.
Re: Dictation (Score:3, Funny)
The joke is on them! in 4 out of the last 5 accident I was involved in I was not texting, I was reading slashdot!
Re: (Score:2)
Does it say you'd be presumed guilty? I would suppose that you could go to traffic court and say "Yes your Honor, I plead guilty to typing while driving and accept some kind of still-punishing plea" versus "No your Honor, I swear I was using voice dictation and I can prove it, so I plead not guilty; let law enforcement get a limited warrant to inspect my phone, and I'll risk harsher punishment if it can be shown that I lied in court".
If this device existed in theory, and did indeed have the privacy protect
Re: (Score:2)
As for the reason for a warrant, here's how I'd imagine it: you slap the device on a phone, it skims commonly-used chat programs and flags "yes" or "no". If it flags "yes", then you either say "yeah I fucked up, give my phone back and I'll just eat what they give me" or "no, I didn't fuck up, put this phone in an evidence bag and give it to someone who can do real memory analysis forensics under strict oversight" or, even better, "no, I didn't fuck up, give the subpoena to Google and let THEIR SERVERS conf
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, it varies a lot by jurisdiction. Obviously, where you live, too many people learned how to get out of the ticket so they altered procedures. In other places they do things differently.
In others, they don't care because the court fees are more than the ticket would be and you have to pay them even if you're not guilty (yes, it's a transparent scam).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What you described is what you'll find in parts of the US. The bit about it being varied by jurisdiction is key. Other than the Federal Courts there is no "US court system." They are individual States with individual courts and individual processes and they are not universal nor nearly universal. There's a lot of variation (per jurisdiction, even). Google will help you out here, assuming you're interesting in fixing the hole in your knowledge.
Congress could be regulating these costs (Score:2)
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 Amen
Re: (Score:2)
"Your sister probably does the same thing I do, either she writes a letter to the DA or she shows and goes to the clerks office dressed nice, with a professional looking clipboard and pin and turns on the charm a little. Last time I did the clerks office thing they reduced my ticket by exactly what traffic school costs. So while I paid a ticket, it doesn't go on my insurance."
Good ol' corruption.
Re: (Score:2)
Not quite. Without the device, all they have is evidence that you were in an accident. That is all. With the device, suddenly they have probable cause for a warrant and then they're pawing through your personal papers and effects.
Re: (Score:3)
They'll steal your car and money and not give it back even if you aren't charged with anything, so yes, you will be presumed guilty, as in ALL traffic tickets where you have to go to court to get it overturned...
Re: (Score:2)
Does it say you'd be presumed guilty?
Does it need to? (Do you read history??)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Dictation (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
And when the cop who saw the phone in your hands pulls out his dashcam that shows the same thing?
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt his dashcam has enough resolution to tell the difference between a phone and a wallet.
Re: (Score:2)
Does your wallet have a light-up screen? Especially at night?
Re: (Score:2)
What position does the dashcam view you from again? And why would your screen be visible from there?
Re: (Score:2)
If the police officer's vehicle is behind yours, then its dashcam can probably see through your vehicle's rear window.
Re:Dictation (Score:4, Funny)
Does your wallet have a light-up screen? Especially at night?
If your answer is 'no,' then you need the new Lite-up Wallet from Slashdot Industries. The Lite-Up Wallet is more than just a wallet that lights up, it's a whole new way of carrying your personal paper possessions. Worried that you'll fumble for a dollar bill and accidentally tip the valet with a twenty? Worry no more, as the Lite-Up Wallet guides you to the proper denomination. Need to make sure that you use the credit card that still has credit available? The Lite-Up Wallet clearly illuminates all your cards and makes selection a snap! The Lite-Up Wallet comes in three colors and four sizes, and if you order today, WE WILL SEND YOU TWO FOR THE PRICE OF ONE!
Re: (Score:2)
If your answer is 'no,' then you need the new Lite-up Wallet from Slashdot Industries. The Lite-Up Wallet is more than just a wallet that lights up, it's a whole new way of carrying your personal paper possessions. Worried that you'll fumble for a dollar bill and accidentally tip the valet with a twenty? Worry no more, as the Lite-Up Wallet guides you to the proper denomination. Need to make sure that you use the credit card that still has credit available? The Lite-Up Wallet clearly illuminates all your cards and makes selection a snap! The Lite-Up Wallet comes in three colors and four sizes, and if you order today, WE WILL SEND YOU TWO FOR THE PRICE OF ONE!
But wait, there's more! Just pay separate shipping and processing!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt his dashcam has enough resolution to tell the difference between a phone and a wallet.
Its still failing to pay due care and attention whilst operating a motor vehicle (or however the law is worded in your country). Also the judge wont buy that excuse, you are far from the first armchair lawyer they've come across and probably not the first time they've heard that lame excuse today.
Re: (Score:2)
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
This already violates it. They can take the phone and hold it pending a warrant to search it, but they cannot violate it this way. "Trust us, we ain't actually looking yet."
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I look at my phone a lot while I'm driving. Since it has a GPS function, that isn't surprising. Nor is it illegal.
Re:Dictation (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Any movements like that are probable cause for a search of the vehicle. Police watch you like hawk once they light you up. Druggies hiding drugs.
Re: (Score:2)
someone important to you
While I agree with the sentiment of your post by saying this you're as much a douche-bag as he is.
Re: (Score:2)
How about you don't drive distracted and endanger other human beings. Your moral compass says it is okay for you to break the law, injure someone else and then hide evidence of said crime?
Uh no, it's the fact that I don't want my phone taken out of my possession.
Re: (Score:2)
Wishing harm on someone is pretty sick, especially over texted driving.
Re: (Score:3)
So, I assume you never change the radio station while moving. Or take a drink of coffee/soda. Or speak to someone in the back seat.
Driving distracted is a fact of life on the road. If you can't drive safely while glancing at a phone, you can't drive safely while changing the AC controls either.
Personally, I'm fine with taking all distractions out of cars, literally. Just leave the steering wheel, pedals, and controls for lights, blinkers, and wipers. Remove everything else, so idiots like you will shut the
Re: (Score:2)
Where do you live? Lying to a cop is not a crime, in and of itself. How you lie and what the lies is pertaining to may make it a crime. Lying to a *federal* official is a crime, however.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Or, I could RTFA.
"Further analysis, which might require a warrant, could be necessary to determine whether such usage was via hands-free dashboard technology and to confirm the original finding."
So you'd potentially be declared guilty of driving whilst distracted until a warrant was obtained to determine that you were using hands-free?
One would think that since they're already in the device that such a thing could easily be determined.
You wouldn't be declared anything; the process is like a series of sieves.
First check: was the driver using the phone at all?
If "yes," then file for a warrant and proceed to second check; if "no," then the driver has been cleared of driving while distracted (by phone)
Second check: was the driver using a hands-free feature, or using the phone in a manner that would require the phone to be held and/or manipulated at the time of the crash?
If "hands free = yes" then the driver has been cleared. If "hands free
Re: (Score:3)
> The reason why the whole "already in the device" idea doesn't quite cut it is that the Cellebrite solution doesn't actually show the content in question. The second step of the test is partially tied to the content on the device in a way that *probably* falls within Fourth Amendment protections and concerns. So Cellebrite is taking the high road and playing it safe. Good for them.
More like the high road to covering their own ass.
According to my reading of the summary they suck all the data off your dev
Re:Dictation (Score:5, Interesting)
In other words, it's a magic probable cause generator.
Perhaps at one time before law enforcement in this country proved how much it was willing to lie cheat and steal, even in a court of law under oath, this might be a really good thing. These days, I don't trust them not to rig the device to retain data beyond what's permitted and I don't trust them not to rig it to be a probable cause generator. I'm not even sure I trust them not to use it to implant incriminating evidence in the phone, or a virus.
Other magic *life saving* devices (Score:2)
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.: Volv
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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 con
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Definition at time of enactment (Score:2)
Historically, ["privilege" and "right"] were interchangeable.
Take care not to apply the etymological fallacy [wikipedia.org]. 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.
Re: (Score:3)
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)
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Sorry officer I dont have a phone. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:One little problem.... (Score:4, Informative)
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: [nysenate.gov]
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]
Re: (Score:2)
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 ...?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I assume it would be like a breathalizer, you can refuse, and they can haul you to jail, and get a fast court order for a blood sample.
that nicely gets away from the self-incrimination problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're inept at history.
Privileges are the same as rights. In historical context, their use is interchangeable.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/we... [cornell.edu]