Nevada Lawmakers Want Police To Scan Cellphones After Car Crashes (apnews.com) 263
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.
Going to be a problem either way (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!
Cop can stand by the side of the road. Every 5minu (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.
Re:Cop can stand by the side of the road. Every 5m (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.
Re: (Score:2)
Can you not elect a bench trial?
Re: (Score:2)
"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."
I got pulled over once because I still had the phone in my hand after looking at it at a stoplight.
Re:Cop can stand by the side of the road. Every 5m (Score:5, Funny)
You are still "driving" when stopped at a red light. And you missed when the Mone turned green by about 10 seconds. ***honk***
Re: (Score:2)
I try to honk about 2 seconds before the light turns green to scare the driver into acting right.
Re: (Score:2)
Good. Sick of missing lights due to people looking at their phone and being slow to move when the light turns green. Worse is when they move because the left turn lane is moving.
I just leave my phone in its case so I can't look at it.
Re: (Score:2)
I connect the phone to my stereo with an aux cord for music and incoming phone calls. I set the phone on my lap so if I receive a call I can glance down for half a second to decide if I'm gonna answer or not and then look back at the road and let muscle memory take over. If I accidentally hang up trying to answer they can either call back or wait until I get to my destination. I have to watch out for too many stupid drivers to take my eyes off the road for more than half a second. I don't even like checking
Re: (Score:2)
Then fix the fucking lights to give a warning that it's going to turn green.
Driving in the US is a fucking nightmare. Either you hit a stop sign every 80 yards or you reach a red light that suddenly goes green with no warning leaving some fuckwit behind you honking their horn because you don't have the reactions of a 20 year old fighter pilot.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
This law clearly is not about enforcing texting and driving; there is something else going on here.
Unless you want to get down right conspiratorial, it seems to be about just that, or just making it easier for police to bust people for it after the fact anyways. From the linked article, a few years ago someone lost a child due to another person texting while driving and was upset enough about it to get involved politically. This isn't too much different than a lot of other laws put into place after someone died in a tragic manner.
It's really just another case of "there oughta be a law" in action. As t
Re:Cop can stand by the side of the road. Every 5m (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
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?
That would never fly here in vegas. We have WAY to many people with power that feel they are above the law, and luckily for me they would never allow this to pass. I am skeptical they will even allow this proposed law. We don't have red light cameras or speed cameras for that exact reason. Which I am grateful for.
Re: (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.
Re: (Score:3)
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!
Re: Cop can stand by the side of the road. Every 5 (Score:3)
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 governmen
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, the government should really setup a process where citizens can report on other citizens with recorded evidence of such problems so they can send them tickets like they do with traffic cameras. Now, the other new problem... people being distracted while trying to snitch on each other in a game of one-up-man-ship.
There is nothing like a society where we all look at each other with contempt and suspicion, right? Hmm... we are going that way anyways so why not?
Re: Cop can stand by the side of the road. Every (Score:2)
See, this is why my sutions works best. No distracted citizens. Privately operated network of well camouflaged mobile cameras. I make money, city makes money, roads become safer, win-win-win. I take the risk of suddenly people no longer texting and driving, or never speeding, so no risk to public funding either.
Re: (Score:2)
Here in Nevada that would be the equivalent of speeding cameras and red light cameras which are outlawed already. I love my state.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, since we're trying to save lives rather then raise revenue, no camouflage, and no film in most of the cameras, just working flashes. And signage everywhere you operate so people know to slow down and put down their phone.
It's basically how it works here with red light cameras mostly being empty but rotated so you never know and the cops phoning in their speed traps.
Re: Cop can stand by the side of the road. Every (Score:3)
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 endangerin
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is a disconnect between breaking the law and getting a ticket weeks later. If going the camera route, you'd need a lot of them and even with 75% being fake, you'd know a good chance of getting caught.
Personally, I think having cops randomly around watching and ticketing would work much better then cameras but once again there has to be enough of them.
Re: Cop can stand by the side of the road. Every (Score:3)
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 e
Re: (Score:2)
Well the fine here is already $543 including the 4 points for a first offence, $888 for a second and 3-12 month driving ban after that. Not as high as some places but high enough to discourage people.
Actually, my mistake, new fines (as of Mar 1st) include $2000 for a second offence within 2 years. First offence didn't change.
I just keep my phone put away with fines like that, as well as not eating while driving and other forms of distracted driving.
https://604now.com/new-distrac... [604now.com]
Re: (Score:2)
That's basically how they enforce it here (BC), Cop standing beside the road looking and radioing their partner on the next block and also driving and watching.
They catch lots but there's always more and you can't have a cop on every block.
Re: (Score:2)
While I think it should be a fine for texting at a red light and stopped, it shouldn't be as big a fine or points on a license.
I don't understand why it's so fucking hard to just put the phone in your pocket and take it back out when you reach your destination.
At a red light? So fucking what. Not looking at your phone isn't exactly hard.
Re: (Score:2)
Man we don't have enough police officers here to do that. someone every 5 minutes my ass here in Las Vegas it would be someone every 30 seconds. And I wish I was exaggerating, I just want to enjoy driving again!!!
Re: (Score:2)
"If it saves lives, good. And it's a really easy tax to avoid, don't use your phone while driving."
Let me explain why this logic is absolutely asinine, abusive, and counter productive.
If you are willing to text and drive risking your life, the life of your occupants if you have them, AND the lives of the drivers around you, tell me why you think a law that allows police to scan your device "AFTER" the accident that has already happened is going to change that?
This is NOT about catching people that are texti
Re: (Score:2)
Read his comment about Australia again. Just simple looking through the cars windows.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re:Going to be a problem either way (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.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Preponderance is for Civil not Criminal law. Police enforcing traffic law is a criminal concern because you have to be breaking a law to be legally pulled over.
"The problem is not that your hands are not on the wheel, but that your mind is not on the road."
Among all of the other "distractions" possible this is hardly worth arguing about. The police themselves are legally allowed to multitask with all sorts of instrumentation in their vehicles during the course of their duties. Proper enforcement and laws
Re: (Score:3)
Preponderance is for Civil not Criminal law. Police enforcing traffic law is a criminal concern because you have to be breaking a law to be legally pulled over.
He's not talking about proving a particular case, he's talking about the scientific evidence that informs law making. The evidence says that hands-free calling is no safer than calling while holding your phone. This is an argument for law-makers to ban making all phone calls while driving.
If it's illegal to drive when holding your phone, why should it be legal to drive when making a hands-free call? Science says both are too dangerous. Yes, not being able to take calls would be very inconvenient, but wh
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Near-zero. Passengers quiet down when something crazy is going on outside the car too. They at least have some situational awareness.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
This is a complete fallacy.
The fact that they are distracted regardless of distraction is enough of a problem, their level of situational awareness actually has about zip to do with it as this is specific to each individual and event. There is exactly zero convincing evidence that their situational awareness is automatically better just because passengers get quiet or by the fact they are present or not. Lots of kids have died with loads of passengers in the car, still had accidents, still died, and still
Re: (Score:2)
So I state that it's near-zero difference, but you really think it's worth ripping into it anyway? And kids are more easily distracted because they need more brain power to drive - their input filtering isn't good enough yet. They're barely keeping up without additional input.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There's little on the road more dangerous than a mother with kids in the back.
The only reason you don't hear about it more is because they're usually too slow to have fatal crashes.
Re: (Score:2)
Seeing that their post was modded insightful while also stating incorrect information you might as well say that there is support for doing just exactly that. There already are laws for banning teens from driving in cars with other teems for much the same reason.
People really are trying to make a law about every little aspect of life, and then they turn around and wonder why government has become so oppressive and why prosecutors are able to throw so many charges at people to scare them into taking a plea
Re: (Score:2)
I guess we should ban talking to passengers in cars as well then, seeing as there is zero difference.
Not true. A passenger increases the chance of an accident, but way less than a cellphone.
The difference is that the passenger can see what is going on. They can see the road, but they can also see the driver, and know when to pause the conversation.
Someone on the other end of a phone conversation has no such awareness, and can choose exactly the wrong time to say "Are you still there?"
Re: (Score:2)
One hand on the wheel vs two. Two hands would give more control when the driver finally pays more attention to the road or has that "oh shit" burst of adrenaline.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Whether that's true or not is beside the point since almost every state that has laws regarding cell phone use while driving has an exception in the case where a hands free device is used.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
I'm pretty sure hands free is safer, I can control mine completely with buttons in the steering wheel or by voice command while keeping my eye on what I am doing. While that is still less safe than not answering the phone at all it is a damn sight safer than burying my nose in the phone while unlocking it, and then driving one handed while talking. Then there are these people who drive with both wrists on the steering wheel while they text as they drive.
Re: (Score:2)
If this is true then they should also criminalise stereos, passengers, aircon etc
Music isn't interactive. It doesn't demand the drivers attention.
Passengers share the driver's situational awareness.
Aircon causes seconds of distraction, not minutes.
Re: (Score:2)
how are they going to verify that it was not a hands-free call or text?
When was the last time Bluetooth was enabled and paired with the car? I'll bet this is logged somewhere. When was the last time speech-to-text was used? I'll bet this leaves traces as well. In case of Google Assistant, it actually stores and timestamps all your verbal commands on the cloud. I'm not saying this technology is going to be perfect initially, but I'll bet all these issues can be solved after a little while.
Re: (Score:2)
You are not thinking forensically about it. A log is no proof, it can be hacked, but hey software for keeping your device clean would soon become handy. Additionally, even with blue tooth connected, I can physically pick up the phone and initiate a dial manually by hand and still invoke blue tooth. Also, I have accidentally butt dialed emergency numbers on my phone sitting in the car not touching it.
The Technology is incredibly immature and unreliable... if I sat as a juror I would not be willing to conv
Re: (Score:2)
You'd have to be pretty quick about it then. My understanding is that this search would be performed right at the scene of a vehicle collision. How many people carry all the tools they need to hack their phone in their car?
Re: (Score:2)
When was the last time Bluetooth was enabled and paired with the car?
Every time I switch on the ignition, why? What the fuck does that have to do with shit? My phone could be in my pocket, in my bag or in my fucking house and it'll pair with the car.
Or it could be in my hand, and I could be tapping away like a teenage girl.
When was the last time speech-to-text was used?
My car doesn't log that.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you know billboards are largely banned in Australia because their express purpose is to distract drivers and they cause accidents, especially animated ones, yet. I see why you have a problem with mobile phones, there is a profit in it and hence they do not care, not really. Why snag the phone, yeah, they are lying, just another fishing expedition and a chance to install software, not check what your software has been doing but install new invasive software.
Once the take your phone from your sight, time
Re: (Score:2)
The law these days has become nothing but an automatically guilty upon accusation without due process cliche.
Well this speaks volumes about how little most law makers understand technology and how a lot of law has on purpose become obtuse so that the courts may refine it at a later time, which for technology this is the intended consequence since, well see first point. Since the turn of 20th century, lawmakers have become increasingly less incline to produce focused law and rather make law that applies broadly and allow courts to refine as need be. We clearly aren't going to be leaving a legislative process that
Re: (Score:2)
It sounds like a great way to reduce insurance liability.
Re: (Score:2)
It gets better than that, they will give you a distracted driving ticket here in vegas now if you're doing ANYTHING other than holding the wheel. I cant verify as in getting a ticket myself but I know people that claim to have gotten tickets for eating while driving. It was apparently all over the news a few weeks back. We do have a major problem with people being on their phones while driving. it now takes approximately 30 seconds to get all the vehicles moving at a stop light now. Everyone has to finish r
Re: (Score:2)
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? [steering-wheel-ipad.com]
Re:Hahaha they will never get me. (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Hahaha they will never get me. (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm, and I thought nothing good could come of that device. You're onto something here. Now to try to set the air bag off by hitting them from the back.. Ill be back!
Re: (Score:2)
You're the reason we have to have laws like this...
I'm completely OK with this (Score:5, Insightful)
Warrantless (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Nevada will argue that driving is a privilege and they are not threatening the driver with a fine or jail time for non-compliance. They are simply exercising their right to decide who can and cannot drive on its roads.
I agree a warrant should be required.
Re: (Score:3)
As an aside to this issue I could see insurance companies demanding the same thing as a condition to payment after an accident.
Re:I'm completely OK with this (Score:5, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
A war ant? Awesome! I think we can all agree on war ants. Are they red or black? Cause I think red is a lot scarier!
When the cops smash your door in with war ant you don't even have time to be scared.
All you can do is get your hands up as fast as you can, and hope you don't get shot or bit enough times to kill you.
It was the same way in the olden times when the police used dogs.
No. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Get a warrant. And yes, that means showing probable cause for a warrant.
About one in four accidents involve cellphone use.
Probable cause [wikipedia.org] does not necessarily mean "greater than 50%".
It is a legal term, not a mathematical one.
Re: (Score:2)
Or, I imagine, simply assuming full responsibility for the crash outright and stating that you weren't paying enough attention to driving would probably not leave them with any cause to search your phone either.
They'll ding you for distracted driving, which is what they'd ding you for if they found you'd been using your phone, but hey.... at least you protected your rights, right?
Actual legislation (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
What if your device is not compatible with their software?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
That's true, searching your physical body is about invasive as it gets. Imagine a country where the cops could just demand your blood and remove it. About as far from freedom as you can get.
At least a phone can be treated like valuable papers, locked in the trunk or such.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, making up your own terms and claiming rights from the defunct Articles of Confederation is really gonna impress the judge...
Re: (Score:2)
If only police had a way of acting before crashes (Score:2)
Something that bugs me about anti-cell phone bills (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If I can change the channel on my radio why can't I do it on my phone sitting in a dash holder?
Some of them let you do that. California prohibits windshield mounts (probably as a way to penalize people who can only afford cheap radar detectors, which are legal to have in this state) but you can change the music on your phone in a non-windshield-mount cradle. You can only text by voice, though.
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm. I used my phone as a satnav in California and didn't know about the windshield mount law.
Good job I just dropped it into the drinks holder, and looked down when I needed to check directions.
Re: (Score:2)
is that if you've got a nicer car your phone syncs to it and you can control it from the dash, which is perfectly legal. If I can change the channel on my radio why can't I do it on my phone sitting in a dash holder?
Because you interact only a few seconds with your radio and you do it at long intervals. I've seen people interacting with their phones for extended periods of time while texting, surfing, working some app or god knows what else. That constitutes several orders of magnitude more distraction than the momentary distraction of pressing a preset button on your radio or rotating a volume knob which you can usually also do without taking your eyes off the road. I've been stuck behind people driving at walking pac
Observed Bad Behaviors and Outcomes (Score:2)
>"Law enforcement officials argue that distracted driving is underreported"
Then encourage people to report it more. That doesn't require scanning people's phones. Observed behavior is far more meaningful than trying to uncover every possibly way something bad could happen.
>"and that weak punishments do little to stop drivers from texting, scrolling or otherwise using their phones."
Then make the punishments more severe. Again, that has nothing to do with scanning people's phones.
>"Adding to the p
On simple question... (Score:5, 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?
Do not drink and drive... (Score:2)
Of course not (Score:5, 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?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see how it can know all that without accessing personal content quite frankly.
of course what you count as personal content. but I would kinda like to know how it supposedly can check that you had a fb callscreen open without going into the logs to see if you called someone on fb? which is personal data?
Re: (Score:2)
This just underlines why it is important for phone manufacturers to block this kind of invasive software entirely.
Police accountability (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
muh whattabout
Cowardly spoken by someone who didn't even begin to understand my comment. Well done.
Re: (Score:2)
So, you believe that there's no possible chance that the police will abuse this new power to dig into your phone? Or is it that you believe that when they do abuse it, they're surely be held accountable for their abuse?
Do the police stop when they use the radio? (Score:2)
Are police cars required to pull over before they respond to radio calls? Why is that different?
That aside, this seems unworkable.
How do they prove whether or not they are downloading data - or uploading spyware. (will they carry a large insurance bond to cover any damage their software does?)
If there are multiple in the card, how do they know who was on the phone.
If a phone rings and in hitting the silence you accidentally hit the pick-up button, is that illegal?
Re: (Score:3)
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!
C&I driving (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It bears noting that this isn't even an issue unless you got in accident... and both party's phones would be checked.
As for probable cause, the simple fact that an accident occurred may present probable cause that at least one party was not paying enough attention to the road, so there's that.
Good (Score:2)
And there should be greater penalties if you are talking or texting and are involved in an accident.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Waste of time. It was pilot error [slashdot.org]. It's always pilot error [slashdot.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh dear. Did someone's dashcam catch you being naughty?