Log In
Home
15 Feb ’12
Offline
I don't see how this isn't a violation of the 4th amendment
We're all familiar with the Breathalyzer, the brand name for a roadside device that measures a suspected drunken driver's blood-alcohol level. It has been in use for decades. Now there's a so-called "textalyzer" device to help the authorities determine whether someone involved in a motor vehicle accident was unlawfully driving while distracted.
The roadside technology is being developed by Cellebrite, the Israeli firm that many believe assistedthe Federal Bureau of Investigation in cracking the iPhone at the center of a heated decryption battle with Apple.
Under the first-of-its-kind legislation proposed in New York, drivers involved in accidents would have to submit their phone to roadside testing from a textalyzer to determine whether the driver was using a mobile phone ahead of a crash. In a bid to get around the Fourth Amendment right to privacy, the textalyzer allegedly would keep conversations, contacts, numbers, photos, and application data private. It will solely say whether the phone was in use prior to a motor-vehicle mishap. Further analysis, which might require a warrant, could be necessary to determine whether such usage was via hands-free dashboard technology and to confirm the original finding.
The legislation was prompted by intense lobbying from the group Distracted Operators Risk Casualties (DORCs). The son of its co-founder, Ben Lieberman, was killed in 2011 by a distracted driver in New York. The proposed law has been dubbed "Evan's Law" in memory of 19-year-old Evan Lieberman.
21 Feb ’12
Offline
It totally is a violation. But most of what government does now is, so this isn't anything new. Just another drop in the bucket. I have arguments with statists quite often, and I crush them most of the time. A few weeks ago I was killing it and the guy had nothing left when I broke down constitutionality. His reply however, I had nothing for: "Well even if it is unconstitutional, that's just the way it is and you better just accept it"
He's right. Still not accepting it though. Most people want a benevolent overlord, but I'm not most people.
15 Feb ’12
Offline
I find that line of thinking very troubling, sadly it is the norm
15 Feb ’12
Offline
seems this would go against this recent court ruling
In a major decision back in 2014, the Supreme Court finally ruled that police need a warrant to search someone’s cellphone when making an arrest.
That case, Riley v. California, was a major privacy victory. Now, it's being interpreted by a federal court in Illinois to mean that even opening a phone to look at the screen qualifies as a “search” and requires a warrant.
The Illinois case involves a sting operation that ensnared Demontae Bell, an alleged drug dealer accused of illegal possession of an AK-47 assault rifle. An officer testified that while interrogating Bell he pulled out a confiscated flip phone and opened it, revealing a picture of the rifle, which Bell had set as his home screen's wallpaper. That was then used as grounds for a warrant to search Bell's phone for metadata about when and where the photo was taken. The officer claimed he opened the phone in order to turn it off.
But on Wednesday, the judge ruled police have no right to open a suspect's phone and look at the screen without first getting a warrant, even if it's just to turn it off, since the Riley case clearly established doing so is a “search” under the Fourth Amendment.
Most Users Ever Online: 698
Currently Online:
89 Guest(s)
Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)
Top Posters:
easytapper: 2149
DangerDuke: 2030
groinkick: 1667
PorkChopsMmm: 1515
Gravel Road: 1455
Newest Members:
Forum Stats:
Groups: 1
Forums: 12
Topics: 11482
Posts: 58640
Member Stats:
Guest Posters: 2
Members: 19842
Moderators: 0
Admins: 1
Administrators: K
