4 ms·
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 u
by 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 agoIf 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 agoPersonally, 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 agoI'm thinking bigger than just pedestrians. Distracted drivers are not only affecting pedestrians. Not many pedestrians on open highways.
- amrocha 3y agoI 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 agoYou 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.
- amrocha 3y agoAnd you seem to be insisting that it can't
- owl57 3y agoWell, and what's your plan for the proposed feature? In particular what does your plan say about: 1) phones that allow installation of a custom free OS; 2) phones that are already in use now.
- amrocha 3y agoSoftware updates on Android and iPhones, and if you're one of the 100 people running a custom OS in your phone then you're fine who cares about you
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- amrocha 3y agoDraconian punishments do work for the vast majority of people. Most of Asia has very strict laws against drug use, even weed. If you look at rate of usage, it's a lot lower than more liberal places. But I'm not even saying put people in jail. Just take away their license. They've clearly proven they're not responsible enough to handle driving.
- dylan604 3y agoYou say that as if people will no longer drive when they don't have a license. I can unequivocally say that this absolutely happens, and I'm not asking for a friend. Thinking someone not willing to commit one crime while being able to commit another seems like very strange logic to me.
- amrocha 3y agoOk, then you arrest them when they do that. Most people won't risk getting arrested, even if some would.
- dylan604 3y agoso you're okay with someone being arrested for driving without a license, but not okay with their phone being seized as evidence after causing an accident. you don't think being arrested for driving without some little ID card is a bit draconian?
- amrocha 3y agoOh you're a libertarian. Driving licenses are a government overreach kinda person. I don't think this discussion is gonna go anywhere.
- hooverd 3y agoWhat constitutes usage? Is this a mandatory feature of phones, mandatory MITM root CAs, clipper chip style key escrow for device encryption? What's to stop the police from bumping into a suspect in a parking lot to do parallel construction?
- amrocha 3y agoHave you heard of good faith compliance
- owl57 3y ago> 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? The requirement to record anything in a way useful for law enforcement would be pretty close to a ban of phones that can run a custom OS, which is in turn pretty close to a ban of phones that not spy on the user all the time, whether or not the user drives at all. P.S. And I write it as a happy iPhone user. I want to hope I have options if I later decide that I value privacy or customizability over features!
- amrocha 3y agoAnd I want to know that if you use your phone while driving you will lose your license over it.
- andy99 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 Yes, if it's alleged you killed someone. There's a whole legal system and body of precedent about that stuff going back centuries or millennia. It's not even controversial.
- amrocha 3y agoNobody's alleging anything if you run over a person