5 ms·

> The police can access cellphone records but the process is cumbersome and privacy laws require a subpoena. So in short, the phone company keeps records as do

> The police can access cellphone records but the process is cumbersome and privacy laws require a subpoena. So in short, the phone company keeps records as does the phone and an increasing number of cars. However the author apparently feels that the police shouldn't even have to ask. Frankly that is an insane take. With the amount of information being (secretly) kept about us by our own devices we risk putting the entire population under constant surveillance if we don't improve protections against law enforcement hacking devices.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
hooverd 3y ago
Pitting pedestrian safety against general purpose computing is a weird move by pedestrian safety activists.
- andy99 3y ago
  It's an alignment of incentives. Interests who are against privacy align themselves with causes they would benefit from less privacy. See "think of the children"
  - amrocha 3y ago
    Do you genuinely think that if you kill someone because you were driving on your phone, that information should be hard to access to an investigator? Like, I understand that privacy is important. I agree that it is. But if you choose to drive a deadly machine, then you agree to give up a degree of that privacy. All cars have license plates, identifying who it belongs to. Car drivers are subject to document checks by road security personnel. Car drivers are subject to alcohol tests if they're suspected of being drunk. What makes phone usage more sacred than any of those things? I'm not saying all your phone data becomes public if you're in a crash, the same way that an alcohol test doesn't tell the cops where, what, and with who you were drinking with. How is society in any way worse, if phones recorded usage in the past 24 hours, and drivers had to provide that data if implicated in a crash?
    - dylan604 3y ago
      If there's a tool that an officer can use that retrieves this information, I'd have a problem with that. If the phone is demanded as evidence with proper warrant/subpoena, then sure. However, in the cases of a car wreck, I think confiscating the phone as evidence does seem warranted. And admitting that has me in a weird state. With such little consequences for blatantly being distracted, it will not stop. But looking at history, draconian punishment is not a deterrent in other aspects. Addicts are going to do whatever for their fix. Admitting phone addiction exists is probably something too though.
      - hooverd 3y ago
        Personally, I don't think calling for expanding the surveillance state helps this cause vs advocating for proper pedestrian infrastructure and road design. We've made it really easy to speed and give no heed to pedestrians and other forms of infrastructure.
        dylan604 3y ago
        I'm thinking bigger than just pedestrians. Distracted drivers are not only affecting pedestrians. Not many pedestrians on open highways.
        amrocha 3y ago
        I don't know what world you live in that a license plate on your car is ok in terms of privacy, but a phone that reports whether you were using it while driving is a surveillance state.
        owl57 3y ago
        You seem to be insisting that such a feature can be mandated without collateral damage for a lot of phone users, including people who never use a phone while driving or even don't drive at all.
        3y ago
acdha 3y ago
This is discussed in the article, and you’re making a much more provocative claim which the author does not advance. They specifically mention civil liberties as a concern and the one proposal specifically mentioned would involve cameras identifying drivers visibly using their phones, which requires no hacking whatsoever. The obvious measure would be standardizing the process of police asking drivers about phone use in every crash, which again has no civil liberties concerns. It also seems like Apple and Google should have a roll as trusted third parties. The phone could save a short activity log (basically the same things screen time apps record: was the device unlocked, active, last touch event, etc.) any time car play is active or the accelerometer records hard deceleration with a secure way to share that with the police so you can be confident all you’re giving them is evidence that you weren’t looking at Tik Tok 20s before the collision.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

hooverd 3y ago

Pitting pedestrian safety against general purpose computing is a weird move by pedestrian safety activists.

andy99 3y ago
It's an alignment of incentives. Interests who are against privacy align themselves with causes they would benefit from less privacy. See "think of the children"
- amrocha 3y ago
  Do you genuinely think that if you kill someone because you were driving on your phone, that information should be hard to access to an investigator? Like, I understand that privacy is important. I agree that it is. But if you choose to drive a deadly machine, then you agree to give up a degree of that privacy. All cars have license plates, identifying who it belongs to. Car drivers are subject to document checks by road security personnel. Car drivers are subject to alcohol tests if they're suspected of being drunk. What makes phone usage more sacred than any of those things? I'm not saying all your phone data becomes public if you're in a crash, the same way that an alcohol test doesn't tell the cops where, what, and with who you were drinking with. How is society in any way worse, if phones recorded usage in the past 24 hours, and drivers had to provide that data if implicated in a crash?
  - dylan604 3y ago
    If there's a tool that an officer can use that retrieves this information, I'd have a problem with that. If the phone is demanded as evidence with proper warrant/subpoena, then sure. However, in the cases of a car wreck, I think confiscating the phone as evidence does seem warranted. And admitting that has me in a weird state. With such little consequences for blatantly being distracted, it will not stop. But looking at history, draconian punishment is not a deterrent in other aspects. Addicts are going to do whatever for their fix. Admitting phone addiction exists is probably something too though.
    - hooverd 3y ago
      Personally, I don't think calling for expanding the surveillance state helps this cause vs advocating for proper pedestrian infrastructure and road design. We've made it really easy to speed and give no heed to pedestrians and other forms of infrastructure.
      - dylan604 3y ago
        I'm thinking bigger than just pedestrians. Distracted drivers are not only affecting pedestrians. Not many pedestrians on open highways.
      - amrocha 3y ago
        I don't know what world you live in that a license plate on your car is ok in terms of privacy, but a phone that reports whether you were using it while driving is a surveillance state.
        owl57 3y ago
        You seem to be insisting that such a feature can be mandated without collateral damage for a lot of phone users, including people who never use a phone while driving or even don't drive at all.
        3y ago

acdha 3y ago

This is discussed in the article, and you’re making a much more provocative claim which the author does not advance. They specifically mention civil liberties as a concern and the one proposal specifically mentioned would involve cameras identifying drivers visibly using their phones, which requires no hacking whatsoever. The obvious measure would be standardizing the process of police asking drivers about phone use in every crash, which again has no civil liberties concerns. It also seems like Apple and Google should have a roll as trusted third parties. The phone could save a short activity log (basically the same things screen time apps record: was the device unlocked, active, last touch event, etc.) any time car play is active or the accelerometer records hard deceleration with a secure way to share that with the police so you can be confident all you’re giving them is evidence that you weren’t looking at Tik Tok 20s before the collision.