Soli said: A bit of a segue, but with texting and driving being a regal issue I'd like to see the Apple Car—at the very least—mute any iPhoje notifications whilst the car is being driven. I'm not exactly sure how this could be achieved, but if we put breathalyzers on the ignitions of cars of convicted drunk drivers, then disabling notifications while a car is in use shouldn't be too tough.
Sounds difficult to me. How do they know it is the driver who is texting? There is a parental control app for teens driving that somehow knows which side of the car the phone is on but it uses a hardware device attached to the upper driver's side windshield. People are not likely to want to buy that set up for themselves though. If such an installation was mandated by a previous violation it might work like the breathalyzer.
As much as I don't like the sound of this, remember that driving is considered a privilege in most states (or all states?). So constitutionally, sure, you're well within your rights to refuse a breathalyzer or a textalyzer, but the state isn't required to give you a drivers license either. So yeah, you're able to refuse, but then they just automatically take away your license. It's like this in many states for DUI.
People keep making the comparison of DUIs and breathalyzers to texting and textalyzers but there's a key difference. It's necessary to do a breathalyzer as soon as possible because the driver dispels the evidence over time. Waiting even a few hours will change the results in favor of the driver. There is no such issue with a phone. It can be taken into custody at the time of the accident and then searched once a warrant has been received. Or the warrant can compel the driver's phone company to turn over records of whether texts were sent at the time of the accident with no need for the phone at all.This law is just laziness and probably unconstitutional, considering the supreme court decision referenced earlier.
What I know is reading a book or cellphone while driving is bad for the motoring public. It needs to stop so what is the solution to this? I see people saying constitution blah blah blah...and all the reasons why they can't do certain things. What is the solution to the problem then?
Soli said: A bit of a segue, but with texting and driving being a regal issue I'd like to see the Apple Car—at the very least—mute any iPhoje notifications whilst the car is being driven. I'm not exactly sure how this could be achieved, but if we put breathalyzers on the ignitions of cars of convicted drunk drivers, then disabling notifications while a car is in use shouldn't be too tough.
Sounds difficult to me. How do they know it is the driver who is texting? There is a parental control app for teens driving that somehow knows which side of the car the phone is on but it uses a hardware device attached to the upper driver's side windshield. People are not likely to want to buy that set up for themselves though. If such an installation was mandated by a previous violation it might work like the breathalyzer.
Touch ID on the start button for the car, comes to mind. Then there are all the standard seat, pedal, steering wheel, and other features of higher-end vehicles that can be programmed for a particular driver. I'm sure that with a more technologically advanced car, even aspects like SiriusXM station settings could change depending on the driver.
I say this, but I also wanted this for the living room with the Apple TV, the way even Netflix has users you can create.
lkrupp said: And if the SCOTUS says it’s constitutional it is. They are the ones who decide, no one else.
HAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
No.
So who decides? You? Everybody gets to decide whether something is constitutional according to their personal moral compass? Then why even have a Constitution? The SCOTUS is the ultimate arbiter, period. You may not like their take on something, their rulings may over time change but the Constitution itself gives them the power to decide, to interpret the document.
It seems as though you will be punished for not unlocking your phone, and that punishment consists of suspending your drivers' license. Totally unconstitutional.
You are already punished if you refuse a breathalyzer test and that has been established law for decades. Claiming something is unconstitutional does not make it so.
And to quote Old Hickory, Andrew Jackson, “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!”
Touch ID on the start button for the car, comes to mind. Then there are all the standard seat, pedal, steering wheel, and other features of higher-end vehicles that can be programmed for a particular driver. I'm sure that with a more technologically advanced car, even aspects like SiriusXM station settings could change depending on the driver.
Sounds good, but although it doesn't happen very often, I'll hear a text come in and pass the phone to my wife in the passenger seat to see who it is.
So who decides? You? Everybody gets to decide whether something is constitutional according to their personal moral compass? Then why even have a Constitution? The SCOTUS is the ultimate arbiter, period. You may not like their take on something, their rulings may over time change but the Constitution itself gives them the power to decide, to interpret the document.
As I said, read the previous comments before posting on this. The Supreme Court has ruled multiple times this law would be unconstitutional for multiple reasons.
I have no idea why you're willfully ignoring facts like this. Are you attempting to troll?
What if your phone is locked, encrypted, and you refuse to comply? Will NYPD need the help of Cellebrite to access that data? What if your phone is in CarPlay mode? Can you not use hands-free Siri to dictate text messages while driving?
What if you read the article? You would have known Cellebrite is actually making a textalyzer as was mentioned. Also it mentions they are working to tell the difference between hands-free texting and regular texting.
The Constitution decides. If the SCOTUS says that freedom of speech means that “hate speech” exists, they’re wrong. If the SCOTUS says that the right to bear arms means that arms may only be borne in the military, they’re wrong. If the SCOTUS says that the right to protection from search and seizure doesn’t extend to anyone the government dictates, they’re wrong. If the SCOTUS says that the electoral college doesnt elect the president and vice president, they’re wrong. Et cetera.
The SCOTUS is the ultimate arbiter, period.
Again, no.
...the Constitution itself gives them the power to decide, to interpret the document.
It's definitely unconstitutional. But universal whole device phone encryption will make this a moot point...if coupled with a built-in fake "sandbox" for them to "analyze" that you could sign in to. The sandbox would look authentic and show them only what you wanted them to see.
This bill similar to what happens when a person is suspected of a DUI/DWI/OVI in a sense. This is just a tax on the poor and lower middle class. Anyone that can afford a lawyer will pay the $500-$1500 for a lawyer and get the charges dropped, walk out of the courthouse and text their friends while driving to their local bar.
If they can come up with a way to determine that you were texting in a way that was illegal without revealing what text was typed, or two whom, then it might fly. Otherwise they would need a warrant. Forcing me to reveal if I broke the law is one thing, but finding out exactly what I said or with whom would be giving up my privacy.
For those that compare this to a breathalyzer... The more apt comparison would be if I am required to give a breath sample to prove I broke the law, that's one thing, but if that included forcing me to give up information that included who I was drinking with, where, what I said to them, etc., then that would be violating my privacy.
I just don't think they can do it. How will the be able to prove that I was texting (in an illegal way) without seeing the contents of my text? If they can't do it right, then they can't do it at all.
Texting is bad and should be illegal Forcing me to show them the contents of my private texts on a whim should be illegal also though.
As a motorcyclist, I have had a close call with somebody I know for a fact was using their phone at the time we almost collided. So, it's hard to disagree. And driving is a privilege, not a constitutional right. A car is a lethal weapon if not respected.
In California, so-called "lane splitting" is legal. IMO, this law should remove the burden of responsibility from drivers in cars for subsequent accidents caused by lane splitting motorcyclists.
My thoughts on this matter is that texting should carry the death penalty, if a person is found to be guilty of causing an accident and the death of others while they were texting.
Driving while drunk or driving while texting basically amounts to the same thing, and distracted people with their heads buried in their phones are found everywhere now. If their stupidity and negligence causes harm to others, then these people should of course be punished, including facing the death penalty, if their crime is severe enough.
This is a terrible idea. You have to prove your innocence. An "implied consent" law that makes you sign away your rights to participate in modern life is part of a dangerous notion that rights are based in the 18th century, therefore living a 21st century lifestyle is only a priviledge. That attitude imposes forced obsolescence on freedom and is just wrong on every level.
But, if this sort of law catches on, there would hopefully be some standardization so Apple and other companies could design products to balance privacy with minimal compliance, for example the phone OS could write a log file, containing only the data required by the "textalyzer", which is stored in a separate enclave from the rest of your data. This would eliminate the need to unlock all your data for law enforcement with only trust that they'll follow whatever law that limits the scope of their data collection and search.
Consider the slippery slope: the gist of this law is that your phone is serving the government as an aircraft-like black box, recording what was happening before the accident. Next they're going to want the accelerometer data, recent location data, maybe even "cockpit voice recording" — audio recorded in the car before an accident or being pulled over. Is that why you bought your phone? Who does your phone serve?
This is a terrible idea. You have to prove your innocence. An "implied consent" law that makes you sign away your rights to participate in modern life is part of a dangerous notion that rights are based in the 18th century, therefore living a 21st century lifestyle is only a priviledge. That attitude imposes forced obsolescence on freedom and is just wrong on every level.
But, if this sort of law catches on, there would hopefully be some standardization so Apple and other companies could design products to balance privacy with minimal compliance, for example the phone OS could write a log file, containing only the data required by the "textalyzer", which is stored in a separate enclave from the rest of your data. This would eliminate the need to unlock all your data for law enforcement with only trust that they'll follow whatever law that limits the scope of their data collection and search.
Consider the slippery slope: the gist of this law is that your phone is serving the government as an aircraft-like black box, recording what was happening before the accident. Next they're going to want the accelerometer data, recent location data, maybe even "cockpit voice recording" — audio recorded in the car before an accident or being pulled over. Is that why you bought your phone? Who does your phone serve?
Modern automobiles already have what amounts to a black box and the data from those boxes has already been used in court cases to determine if and when brakes were applied, the accelerator depressed, the speed of the vehicle at impact, whether the air bags deployed, etc.
No problem. If you refuse a breathalyzer test you get an immediate 90 suspension of your drivers license in many states. The police can also obtain a warrant, based on their trained observations, to force you to submit to a blood test. Driving is a privilege not a right. You have the Constitutional right to refuse a breathalyzer test and to refuse a textalyzer analysis. You do not have the right to drive an automobile. That’s a privilege extended to you by the state and you cannot claim your rights are being violated when that privilege is suspended. It’s your right to submit or not. This is perfectly Constitutional in my opinion.
Like drinking and driving, texting and driving has become a scourge on the public health. These laws come into being because stupid people do stupid and dangerous things.
Apparently you don't understand the concept of freedom of association. Beyond that there is nothing constructive that could come from such a device. At best it is a device to enable fishing trips by the police. Besides there is a perfectly legal way to handle this, it is called an investigation. Get a warrant and have the phone company deliver the required records to the police.
100% not Constitutional. I’d love to say that means it won’t happen, but of course it will.
Are you saying you have a Constitutional right to drive an automobile? Courts have long ruled that you do not have such a right. You are perfectly free to refuse the proposed textalyzer test. You have that right. You just can’t drive a car for the next ninety days if you do.
This has nothing to do with driving a car it has everything to do with illegal searches.
Can’t you read? This law says you may exercise your rights any time. You are not being forced to submit to anything but your driving privileges will be revoked if you don’t. It’s voluntary and as someone has already stated you agreed to give up your privilege to drive under certain circumstances when you got your drivers license. It all boils down to whether you value your rights more than your privileges. Your choice.
Really man this has nothing to do with driving, it is all about erosion of the Bill of Rights.
And I don’t know how get through to your thick head. You keep wagging on about being forced to turn over your phone. You are NOT BEING FORCED to do anything. The police ask your to let them inspect your phone under this law. You say no and that’s it. What’s unconstitutional about this law? The asking? The police can’t ask you to do this voluntarily? Is that what you are saying? In refusing you lose your driving privileges for 90 days. So again what part of this law is unconstitutional?
You just stated the unconstitutional part, that you'd be punished for exercising your rights…
"Do this or else" is the very definition of being forced.
So all existing law regarding refusal to take a breathalyzer test and then being ‘punished’ by losing driving privileges is unconstitutional? The SCOTUS disagrees and has determined it is lawful to do so. You are wrong. And if the SCOTUS says it’s constitutional it is. They are the ones who decide, no one else.
SCOTUS has screwed so many times that you really can't count on them to protect your constitutional rights.
Comments
People keep making the comparison of DUIs and breathalyzers to texting and textalyzers but there's a key difference. It's necessary to do a breathalyzer as soon as possible because the driver dispels the evidence over time. Waiting even a few hours will change the results in favor of the driver. There is no such issue with a phone. It can be taken into custody at the time of the accident and then searched once a warrant has been received. Or the warrant can compel the driver's phone company to turn over records of whether texts were sent at the time of the accident with no need for the phone at all.This law is just laziness and probably unconstitutional, considering the supreme court decision referenced earlier.
I say this, but I also wanted this for the living room with the Apple TV, the way even Netflix has users you can create.
[email protected] said: You are already punished if you refuse a breathalyzer test and that has been established law for decades. Claiming something is unconstitutional does not make it so.
And to quote Old Hickory, Andrew Jackson, “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!”
I have no idea why you're willfully ignoring facts like this. Are you attempting to troll?
What if you read the article? You would have known Cellebrite is actually making a textalyzer as was mentioned. Also it mentions they are working to tell the difference between hands-free texting and regular texting.
Again, no.
Nope.
The Constitution explicitly does not give them that power. They do not have that power.
For those that compare this to a breathalyzer... The more apt comparison would be if I am required to give a breath sample to prove I broke the law, that's one thing, but if that included forcing me to give up information that included who I was drinking with, where, what I said to them, etc., then that would be violating my privacy.
I just don't think they can do it. How will the be able to prove that I was texting (in an illegal way) without seeing the contents of my text? If they can't do it right, then they can't do it at all.
Texting is bad and should be illegal Forcing me to show them the contents of my private texts on a whim should be illegal also though.
Driving while drunk or driving while texting basically amounts to the same thing, and distracted people with their heads buried in their phones are found everywhere now. If their stupidity and negligence causes harm to others, then these people should of course be punished, including facing the death penalty, if their crime is severe enough.
But, if this sort of law catches on, there would hopefully be some standardization so Apple and other companies could design products to balance privacy with minimal compliance, for example the phone OS could write a log file, containing only the data required by the "textalyzer", which is stored in a separate enclave from the rest of your data. This would eliminate the need to unlock all your data for law enforcement with only trust that they'll follow whatever law that limits the scope of their data collection and search.
Consider the slippery slope: the gist of this law is that your phone is serving the government as an aircraft-like black box, recording what was happening before the accident. Next they're going to want the accelerometer data, recent location data, maybe even "cockpit voice recording" — audio recorded in the car before an accident or being pulled over. Is that why you bought your phone? Who does your phone serve?