6 ms·

"A lot of low level crime could be eliminated if people's communications could be accessed at will by law enforcement" Such as? Keep in mind that eliminating

"A lot of low level crime could be eliminated if people's communications could be accessed at will by law enforcement" Such as? Keep in mind that eliminating low level crime is often very low priority for law enforcement: they only do this under pressure or when expecting some bonus for it. There's a lot of crime that they could fight but virtually don't. Also, most endemic low-level crime is best fought with policies and eliminating poverty, not by pinning petty criminals after the damage is already done.

michaelt 11y ago
Such as? It would be trivial to use GPS data from cell phones to issue automatic fines for speeding. Profitable too - such a project could certainly pay for itself.
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  ALPRs are so much better for that. You can't easily spoof the data and you can't pretend you're a good driver by slowing down just before a scanner. I keep wondering why they aren't deployed on every other road everywhere. It sounds like something that would quickly solve the problem of speeding (and related deaths).
  - dhimes 11y ago
    ALPR: automatic license plate recognition. How would that work? Compare the times between shots a large distance apart, like on toll roads?
    - TeMPOraL 11y ago
      Yup. You take two shots few kilometers apart and calculate the time it took the car to cross that distance. You can't cheat that easily; if you've crossed the distance faster than distance/maximum_legal_speed, you've been speeding, period. That's why many drivers hate them - because they work and can actually enforce some common sense from them.
      - jacquesm 11y ago
        We have a nice road with those in NL, it's 5 lanes (where before we had 2) per side, the speed? 100 Km/h. The old 2 laner had a maximum speed of 120 Km/h. Goldmine for the government though, just about anybody that drives there the first time thinks they must be the only ones who don't realize that 100 Km/h is a bit slow for a road like that. http://auto.blog.nl/column/2012/11/16/trajectcontrole-a2-goudmijn http://auto.blog.nl/column/2012/11/16/trajectcontrole-a2-gou... 13 million Euros in the first couple of months. For sure common sense had nothing to do with this.
        TeMPOraL 11y ago
        Well, if the limit is 100 km/h and people still drive 120 km/h, then it's only their fault that they get fined. Limits are limits, you are supposed to respect them. The situation would be different if, for instance, those limits would be obscured or appeared suddenly, and you'd have police forces enforcing them there on purpose. I've heard of cases like that. Did anyone actually ask the people who put the limits about their reasoning though? Maybe this is the value that came out of simulations. Maybe it's a part of an environmental strategy (going 120 km/h uses much more fuel than 100 km/h and thus leads to greater emissions). But maybe the simulations were wrong. I'm sure that there are proper channels one could use to dispute the limits. But just disregarding them because they 'look wrong' is pure hubris.
        jacquesm 11y ago
        They look wrong because we have 130 Km/h on a very large chunk of that road and the last bit (the widest) then becomes 100. It basically suckers in everybody driving there the first time so it's not as if it is clear to most drivers what the limit there should be. Speed limits should make sense, not be arbitrary. That they change them frequently doesn't help either.
        TeMPOraL 11y ago
        Ok, fair enough. That sounds more like purposeful extracting money from drivers than ensuring safety and optimal flow.
  - bediger4000 11y ago
    How is speeding a problem that we should want to solve? I mean, you implicitly acknowledged that speeding happens all the time. Yet we don't have a huge death rate from it. It's not a safety problem except in fairly rare situations, it seems to me. It's an administrative problem. I'd go so far as to say that speed limits themselves are the problem. They're set too low to allow easy money from fines.
    - TeMPOraL 11y ago
      Because it does happen all the time, and it is one of the primary causes of road fatalities. And yes, we do have a huge death rate from it, which dwarfs things like drug or terrorism-related deaths. People are irresponsible. Many drivers in particular think they're above-average and smarter than the people who designed the traffic signs. Treating speed limits as "just a suggestion" makes it more difficult for people with actual understanding of traffic patterns to design them to ensure optimal flow of cars. Most of the drivers I personally know are textbook cases of https://xkcd.com/277/ https://xkcd.com/277/ (though I do know a few responsible ones, and I respect them deeply for that).
- guard-of-terra 11y ago
  Phones don't have to phone home with GPS data and they actually don't since it will ruin battery life even further. Will also fine passengers which is hilarious. Speeding is most often victimless crime so it's not obvious why it is absolute good for me, the citizen.
  - StavrosK 11y ago
    You asked for an example of crimes that would be eliminated with backdoors, and you got one.
    - noir_lord 11y ago
      You'd have to legally mandate that people carry a phone at all times otherwise I'd just leave the phone at home and go speeding and/or cripple the GPS unit. Hell if I where inclined I could feed the GPS unit false data showing I was doing 30 in a 30 to deliver food to a nursing home. None of this stuff is workable or desirable.
  - ixwt 11y ago
    >Will also fine passengers which is hilarious. What about using your phone as a key? To turn on your car you have to put your phone into a deactivated mode (like a drive dashboard) that has significantly decreased functionality. I'd bet parents would be rather interested in this (and perhaps car companies). >Speeding is most often victimless crime so it's not obvious why it is absolute good for me... Not always. The stopping distance from 35 mph to 40 mph is a good bit. I haven't found any numbers on 35 mph, but it seems that 30 mph has a stopping distance of ~75 ft, while 40 mph is ~120 ft. If you're going 5 over in a 35 mph zone (which is normally a city) there is an increase in brake time that could potentially put someone at risk of being hit. Is it victimless if you put someone elses well being at risk by being hit by you? Because you wanted to get somewhere slightly faster? Edit: readability
    - jlgaddis 11y ago
      N.B.: for better readability, you'll want a blank line (two CRLFs) between your "quoted text" and your reply.
- anc84 11y ago
  GPS based speed calculations are not to be trusted, is easily faked and often false.
  - coldpie 11y ago
    As opposed to the testimony of a police officer... I think it'd be good enough for the courts.
- jameshart 11y ago
  How do you prove the cellphone owner was driving, not just a passenger?

michaelt 11y ago

Such as? It would be trivial to use GPS data from cell phones to issue automatic fines for speeding. Profitable too - such a project could certainly pay for itself.

TeMPOraL 11y ago
ALPRs are so much better for that. You can't easily spoof the data and you can't pretend you're a good driver by slowing down just before a scanner. I keep wondering why they aren't deployed on every other road everywhere. It sounds like something that would quickly solve the problem of speeding (and related deaths).
- dhimes 11y ago
  ALPR: automatic license plate recognition. How would that work? Compare the times between shots a large distance apart, like on toll roads?
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago
    Yup. You take two shots few kilometers apart and calculate the time it took the car to cross that distance. You can't cheat that easily; if you've crossed the distance faster than distance/maximum_legal_speed, you've been speeding, period. That's why many drivers hate them - because they work and can actually enforce some common sense from them.
    - jacquesm 11y ago
      We have a nice road with those in NL, it's 5 lanes (where before we had 2) per side, the speed? 100 Km/h. The old 2 laner had a maximum speed of 120 Km/h. Goldmine for the government though, just about anybody that drives there the first time thinks they must be the only ones who don't realize that 100 Km/h is a bit slow for a road like that. http://auto.blog.nl/column/2012/11/16/trajectcontrole-a2-goudmijn http://auto.blog.nl/column/2012/11/16/trajectcontrole-a2-gou... 13 million Euros in the first couple of months. For sure common sense had nothing to do with this.
      - TeMPOraL 11y ago
        Well, if the limit is 100 km/h and people still drive 120 km/h, then it's only their fault that they get fined. Limits are limits, you are supposed to respect them. The situation would be different if, for instance, those limits would be obscured or appeared suddenly, and you'd have police forces enforcing them there on purpose. I've heard of cases like that. Did anyone actually ask the people who put the limits about their reasoning though? Maybe this is the value that came out of simulations. Maybe it's a part of an environmental strategy (going 120 km/h uses much more fuel than 100 km/h and thus leads to greater emissions). But maybe the simulations were wrong. I'm sure that there are proper channels one could use to dispute the limits. But just disregarding them because they 'look wrong' is pure hubris.
        jacquesm 11y ago
        They look wrong because we have 130 Km/h on a very large chunk of that road and the last bit (the widest) then becomes 100. It basically suckers in everybody driving there the first time so it's not as if it is clear to most drivers what the limit there should be. Speed limits should make sense, not be arbitrary. That they change them frequently doesn't help either.
        TeMPOraL 11y ago
        Ok, fair enough. That sounds more like purposeful extracting money from drivers than ensuring safety and optimal flow.
- bediger4000 11y ago
  How is speeding a problem that we should want to solve? I mean, you implicitly acknowledged that speeding happens all the time. Yet we don't have a huge death rate from it. It's not a safety problem except in fairly rare situations, it seems to me. It's an administrative problem. I'd go so far as to say that speed limits themselves are the problem. They're set too low to allow easy money from fines.
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago
    Because it does happen all the time, and it is one of the primary causes of road fatalities. And yes, we do have a huge death rate from it, which dwarfs things like drug or terrorism-related deaths. People are irresponsible. Many drivers in particular think they're above-average and smarter than the people who designed the traffic signs. Treating speed limits as "just a suggestion" makes it more difficult for people with actual understanding of traffic patterns to design them to ensure optimal flow of cars. Most of the drivers I personally know are textbook cases of https://xkcd.com/277/ https://xkcd.com/277/ (though I do know a few responsible ones, and I respect them deeply for that).
guard-of-terra 11y ago
Phones don't have to phone home with GPS data and they actually don't since it will ruin battery life even further. Will also fine passengers which is hilarious. Speeding is most often victimless crime so it's not obvious why it is absolute good for me, the citizen.
- StavrosK 11y ago
  You asked for an example of crimes that would be eliminated with backdoors, and you got one.
  - noir_lord 11y ago
    You'd have to legally mandate that people carry a phone at all times otherwise I'd just leave the phone at home and go speeding and/or cripple the GPS unit. Hell if I where inclined I could feed the GPS unit false data showing I was doing 30 in a 30 to deliver food to a nursing home. None of this stuff is workable or desirable.
- ixwt 11y ago
  >Will also fine passengers which is hilarious. What about using your phone as a key? To turn on your car you have to put your phone into a deactivated mode (like a drive dashboard) that has significantly decreased functionality. I'd bet parents would be rather interested in this (and perhaps car companies). >Speeding is most often victimless crime so it's not obvious why it is absolute good for me... Not always. The stopping distance from 35 mph to 40 mph is a good bit. I haven't found any numbers on 35 mph, but it seems that 30 mph has a stopping distance of ~75 ft, while 40 mph is ~120 ft. If you're going 5 over in a 35 mph zone (which is normally a city) there is an increase in brake time that could potentially put someone at risk of being hit. Is it victimless if you put someone elses well being at risk by being hit by you? Because you wanted to get somewhere slightly faster? Edit: readability
  - jlgaddis 11y ago
    N.B.: for better readability, you'll want a blank line (two CRLFs) between your "quoted text" and your reply.
anc84 11y ago
GPS based speed calculations are not to be trusted, is easily faked and often false.
- coldpie 11y ago
  As opposed to the testimony of a police officer... I think it'd be good enough for the courts.
jameshart 11y ago
How do you prove the cellphone owner was driving, not just a passenger?