Difference is that this has the video of it actually being used, it's a news report video if it matters
Police sometimes have a judge on call to sign warrants to almost immediately draw blood from suspected drunk drivers, if you think you're going to be able to keep them off your phone...
Police sometimes have a judge on call to sign warrants to almost immediately draw blood from suspected drunk drivers, if you think you're going to be able to keep them off your phone...
the key there is suspected drunk driver, which they can usually tell by speaking/observing an individual. How in the world do you show up to an accident scene and suspect someone was texting?
So basically a keylogger for phones without a warrant?
Talk about using a sledgehammer to pound in a nail.
Easy. Check their skin color.
they can eat my entire asshole if they think they are gonna plug something into my phone without a warrant.
Apple and Google have been trying to move iOS and Android to pervasive default full-device encryption for some time now.
I think everyone should immediately consider encrypting their device, and if their device is an older one which doesn't support it, consider upgrading to one that does.
Have fun plugging into an encrypted phone coppers, and if the driver conveniently forgets their password then too fucking bad unless you plan to try and arrest them on the spot with no evidence whatsoever of wrongdoing.
New headline racist cop kills black for texting
Ain't a nail to those who have had people killed by dickwads that text while driving.Talk about using a sledgehammer to pound in a nail.
I'm cool with this. People who text and drive can get fucked. As far as I'm concerned, they should loose their license and get thrown in jail too for good measure. As long as any bill passed makes it not mandatory (same as with a breathalyzer), I'm cool with it.
TBH, I'm not overly worried about abuse, at least not any more than with a breathalyzer. As of right now, the he said-she said system just doesn't work.
Ain't a nail to those who have had people killed by dickwads that text while driving.
This isn't affecting only people who text and drive, which is the entire point that you are too short sighted to see while you are busy trying to tug at heartstrings as a means to guilt people into giving up their rights.
If texting (or "texting") while black wasn't already something that would get you killed, I'll be damned. Still, I do think the societal costs of texting while driving need to be examined and compared to possible abuses. Individual cases of abuse are not able to invalidate a crime stopping model. DUI tests, as I have already mentioned, are a good example of this.Go ahead and add 'Texting while black' to the list
Fuck that shit. Hope it never comes to fruition.
What was wrong with just getting records of phone activity from the telecom company?
Nor do DUI tests and breathalyzers only affect those that drink and drive. That doesn't mean there's no point to them. And it's not about pulling at peoples heartstrings, it's about having as few people text and drive as possible. Some respond to ads and information telling why texting and driving is bad, but others won't listen until there's a strong punishment, and an effort to crack down hard on texting and driving.
Of course it's going to come with consequences, the real question is whether the pros in this case outweigh the cons. I believe they do, so long as they can't force you to hand over or unlock your phone.
You know who else are terrible people who ruin lives? Child molesters. So how about you let me into your house and let me look around to make sure you aren't stashing some child porn somewhere? I mean, if you have nothing to hide....
False equivalency. If you've already been in a crash or are swerving all around the road, they have a reason to check what is going on.
Swerving around or being belligerent or smelling or booze after a crash puts you under suspicion of being drunk, which is why cops can then then issue a breathalyzer or ask for a warrant for a blood test.
Simply being in an accident is not proof that I've been drinking or texting. Nor is it reasonable that the act of being in an accident should put someone under suspicion of either. If the cops think I've been texting, it's their job to prove I was, it's not my job to prove I wasn't. There's a distinction.
You're wrong. If there's an accident, they can also measure the skid marks on the road to measure the friction of your tires to determine if you were speeding. They will look at the damage you caused to the other vehicle to attempt to determine your speed. They will also take a look at your headlights to determine if you had your headlights on if you were driving at night (your headlight bulbs will break differently if they were on or off). There is a lot of determination in an investigation and I think that if you were texting falls under that realm.
Reviewing skid marks on a public road doesn't require invading someone's right to privacy. If a police officer doesn't have reasonable cause or suspicion that you were texting while driving, they should have no right to search your phone. That's not how it works.
Again, I ask, if a cop pulls up to an accident, what would cause them to "think you were texting"?
If a cop pulls up to a collision, I want them to be able to determine the cause of the accident. A cop immediately checks if you're impaired just by a visual and smell test if you're alcoholically impaired.Again, I ask, if a cop pulls up to an accident, what would cause them to "think you were texting"?
I didn't say that they have a right to search your phone. I am vehemently against that. I do think that they should have the ability to determine if you were tapping on your phone when the collision happened.
I don't think a separate sensor/chip in the phone that has no network connectivity and that measures solely screen activity is a terrible idea.
Revolutionary until some jailbreak app denies or changes access
You're wrong. If there's an accident, they can also measure the skid marks on the road to measure the friction of your tires to determine if you were speeding. They will look at the damage you caused to the other vehicle, the materials of said material and compare it to lab results of different speed of a full vehicle ramming into that material. With that, they can fairly accurately judge your speed. They will also take a look at your headlights to determine if you had your headlights on if you were driving at night (your headlight bulbs will break differently if they were on or off). There is a lot of determination in an investigation and I think that if you were texting falls under that realm.
None of these examples you used would be protected by the 4th amendment. A warrantless search and seizure of your phone without probable cause is unconstitutional. That's an enormous distinction.