5 ms·
I hate people who use their phones while driving as much as the next person, but I would not buy a phone that divulged my personal information in this way.
by rideontime 3y ago
I hate people who use their phones while driving as much as the next person, but I would not buy a phone that divulged my personal information in this way.
- astrange 3y agoThat's kind of describing Digital Wellbeing/Screen Time.
- rideontime 3y agoWhich I have to unlock my phone to view.
- astrange 3y agoI learned from that Alaska incident that a lot of people just don't lock their phone.
- acdha 3y agoThat is not divulging personal information in any case and the privilege of driving requires some compromises there. For example, having a medical condition actually is a private matter but the state has a compelling public safety interest to require you to disclose conditions which affect your ability to drive safely.
- rideontime 3y agoIf you're suggesting that the state should make driver's licenses contingent on owning a phone with a feature like this, I guess I'll just have to give up my car or my phone, then.
- acdha 3y agoI’m saying that it’s reasonable for a police officer investigating a collision to ask the driver about a very common cause of collisions, just as we allow them to check for alcohol and require you to take a test if you appear to be impaired. The feature described would be a nice way to support those questions in a manner which does not reveal private information, require you to unlock the phone, or otherwise risk giving them access beyond what’s needed to answer the questions during an official investigation. You could of course choose not to use it but why you’d want to give them additional access to your device is beyond me.
- rideontime 3y agoAnd I'm saying that I disagree with you.
- acdha 3y agoSure, lots of people disagree with things but the law is what matters, not vibes. There’s a long-running precedent that investigating accidents makes it reasonable to ask what the operator of the vehicle was doing immediately before the crash.
- rideontime 3y agoI don’t see how that precedent applies. I can already easily answer their question without unlocking my device, and if they want evidence, they can get a warrant. Even the breathalyzer requirement seems irrelevant, considering that it only requires you to submit to a breathalyzer performed by a police officer, rather than mandating that your BAC be available to anybody with physical access to your property.
- acdha 3y ago> I can already easily answer their question without unlocking my device, and if they want evidence, they can get a warrant. You can’t answer their question with anything but hearsay. This is why I brought up the DUI checks because we know some people are going to lie, and hard evidence can easily be acquired to sidestep that issue. The suggestion above would be similar in terms of having minimal privacy concern and because it’s cheap and easy it’d actually be done in non-egregious cases.
- rideontime 3y agoI reject your insistence that making an activity log, however opaque, visible to anybody with physical access to a device is a "minimal privacy concern." Repeating it as though it is settled fact does nothing to convince anybody. Perhaps if you'd ever had to deal with an abusive partner you'd see the obvious implications. I also reject the comparison to DUI checks on the basis that those must be performed ASAP in order not to lose the evidence, thus necessitating urgency; the same doesn't apply to phones. As we've seen in, for example, the case of the Uber self-driving car operator who was using her phone when she killed a pedestrian, they were easily able to determine this after the fact, without such intrusive features.
- kccqzy 3y agoPressing both side buttons has nothing to do with driving.
- sokoloff 3y agoThat was described as a way for a police officer to investigate your phone use after a traffic stop or in an accident investigation.
- kccqzy 3y agoThen what safeguards does it have to ensure there is in fact a police officer and a traffic stop or an accident? None? Then it's a privacy nightmare that divulges your personal information to any stranger nearby.
- sokoloff 3y agoI’m not advocating for it (and, in fact, think it’s a terrible idea). I was just explaining what the idea was.
- acdha 3y agoThe feature described does not give personal information. It would give information which is highly relevant during an official investigation in a privacy-preserving manner which does not open the possibility of giving other unintended information. Now, it would be possible to use the same mechanism they use for digital drivers licenses to further restrict it but the nice thing about that idea is that not using sensitive information means there isn’t much concern of a leak.