You MUST hand over your phone to the police or lose driving privileges.

[George-ananda]

However, the view that 'Only the guilty have anything to fear' as a general approach to life is naive.

I don't think it is naïve (in a first-world country at least). Rare weird things might happen but we needn't live in that kind of paranoia at this time.

 

[George-ananda]

Can they set up cameras in your shower and bedroom? After all, if you're not doing anything illegal then why would you object?

No, and the difference is that we as a society through our elected representatives choose to check for text messaging after an accident. There is no such sanction by the people for checking showers and bedrooms. The people are in control.

 

[George-ananda]

That response is getting way too cliche. There are still some things that needs addressing.

The problem is not weither it's going to be determined if the phone was used. I'd much rather that would be ascertained through the court system rather than demanded on site.

It arguably paves a way towards a degree of oppression as this skips legal venues ie; courts, and the person at the time of the incident is at the mercy of the officer in question without any lawyer or representive present. Its encroches further on a person's privacy and ammendent rights for unreasonable search.

That needs to be preserved if we are to remain a free society even if the issue over texting remains valid.

Breathalyzers and text checking are only meaningful if done at the immediate scene. If not....oops I lost my phone somewhere. Even phone records can't prove WHO was using the phone (just that the phone was being used).

 

[Twilight Hue]

Breathalyzers and text checking are only meaningful if done at the immediate scene. If not....oops I lost my phone somewhere. Even phone records can't prove WHO was using the phone (just that the phone was being used).

How would the police know who was using it upon arriving at the accident scene?

 

[1137]

Fascism for safety isn't a trade off I support.

 

[George-ananda]

How would the police know who was using it upon arriving at the accident scene?

Many cars have only one person. In the case of multiple people in the car, it could be an issue for a court to judge based on all the available evidence.

 

[McBell]

Many cars have only one person. In the case of multiple people in the car, it could be an issue for a court to judge based on all the available evidence.

So do a screen shot of the text history and be done with it.
Why the need to plug the phone into another device that you have no idea what it is actually doing to the phone?

 

[4consideration]

So do a screen shot of the text history and be done with it.
Why the need to plug the phone into another device that you have no idea what it is actually doing to the phone?

I'm not arguing in favor of the use of that device, but I'd guess the rationale is that it's not just texting, but surfing the web, and other things like playing games, that might be the distraction.

 

[freethinker44]

I would be willing to sacrifice to save lives and there is a precedent in my state. If you are pulled over at a stop and they want to bring you in for questioning or to take a sobriety or drug test they tow your car. You are responsible to pick up and pay for the car towing and storage after they release you, even if no charges were made.

If a person isn't charged with a crime they shouldn't have to pay to get their vehicle back. People have a right to travel, and with a serious lack of public transportation in the US confiscating someone's vehicle without probable cause is a violation of our right to travel.
In no crime was committed they should just give you your property.

 

[George-ananda]

So do a screen shot of the text history and be done with it.
Why the need to plug the phone into another device that you have no idea what it is actually doing to the phone?

How do you do a screen shot without plugging the phone into another device that you can not be sure what it really does? As the previous post said there are many types of interactive activities on the phone that you shouldn't do when driving. For example, let us say George-ananda is so angered by a Mestemia post that he doesn't have the self-control to wait until he gets home to respond. While checking the spelling of a derogatory word he goes through a red light and kills a pedestrian crossing the street. Society wants to see justice served to that hot-headed George-ananda.. His text print-out shows no activity.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I'm OK with it. If you do nothing wrong you have nothing to fear on all the different kinds of security checking. People want safety and security and it comes with a little inconvenience; so what; co-operate.

Except "for your safety" usually comes with a disclaimer that the government is reducing your rights and will infrindge upon them with

That actually opens up a whole other can of worms, GPS required to be on at all times.

Unless you've jailbroken your phone and have really dug in deep to change some options around, you can't turn the GPS off.

I'd likely go for a mandate that phones have a feature for which texting is automatically disabled if the phone senses motion via GPS system. That will force people to stop and text while stationary while keeping law enforcement out of the picture to address more pressing issues than chasing down texting violations.

It sounds good in theory, but in practice it means not even passengers can text.

No, and the difference is that we as a society through our elected representatives choose to check for text messaging after an accident. There is no such sanction by the people for checking showers and bedrooms. The people are in control.

We, as a society, did not decide on this. We didn't decide on the Patriot Act, either. We don't get a decision on most things that happen in politics.

I would be willing to sacrifice to save lives and there is a precedent in my state. If you are pulled over at a stop and they want to bring you in for questioning or to take a sobriety or drug test they tow your car. You are responsible to pick up and pay for the car towing and storage after they release you, even if no charges were made.

And that is bull****, no matter how you look at it or try and justify it. If no charges are made, your vehicle shouldn't be towed and you shouldn't have to pay for anything. You are being punished and penalized for committing no crime. That is not right, especially if you don't have the money to pay these fines, fines that you somehow accrued through the legal system yet you broke no laws and were not charged with anything.

 

[George-ananda]

Except "for your safety" usually comes with a disclaimer that the government is reducing your rights and will infrindge upon them with

It's not a disclaimer. When our democratically elected representatives make a law they consider the positives and negatives. In this case the safety gains of deterring distracted driving make the law in total a benefit for society. If you disagree then vote for a representative that thinks like you. That is how a functioning democracy works.

We, as a society, did not decide on this. We didn't decide on the Patriot Act, either. We don't get a decision on most things that happen in politics.

What do you mean? Our democratically elected representatives did decide.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Many cars have only one person. In the case of multiple people in the car, it could be an issue for a court to judge based on all the available evidence.

Exactly. It would be far better for the courts than the police. Phone records would have any required information easily obtained through proper channels made through judiciary venues as opposed through direct enforcement means.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

When our democratically elected representatives make a law they consider the positives and negatives.

No they don't. They look at how their party votes, how their donors want them to vote, what is expected of them, and then if there is time then they may have some aids fill them in on what a bill may-or-may-not do. These "positives" and "negatives" are really not even considered, and they can be subject to individual interpretation. Such as a bill to legalize same-sex marriage. Depending on who you are, for most people, that in itself is either a positive or negative thing.
And, BTW, America is not a democracy.

What do you mean? Our democratically elected representatives did decide.

That is not "we." We were mostly and largely against the wide and generalized language of the Patriot Act, especially the part that allowed for sweeping surveillance without a warrant, but it happened anyways. We do not like such invasions of privacy, but the politicians make it happen. We did not get to decide on hooking cell phones up to a machine or not, yet the politicians are. We are against the outlandish money in politics, but it happens anyways. We tend to believe groups like ALEC are criminal, but yet many politicians are firmly aligned with the group. We have for sometime now have strongly disapproved of Congress, but yet nothing has changed.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Exactly. It would be far better for the courts than the police. Phone records would have any required information easily obtained through proper channels made through judiciary channels as opposed in doing so through direct enforcement means.

My issue is, even if my text messenger is opened, they can't prove I was actually on it or doing anything while I was driving, because I may open a text at a stop light, start replying, but then put my phone down once the light changes. And as has been pointed out, texting is not the only form of distraction.
And I question I have, say if I set my phone up to "attack" any unauthorized entry attempts. What would the law do and say should my phone trash their machine?

 

[George-ananda]

No they don't. They look at how their party votes, how their donors want them to vote, what is expected of them, and then if there is time then they may have some aids fill them in on what a bill may-or-may-not do. These "positives" and "negatives" are really not even considered, and they can be subject to individual interpretation. Such as a bill to legalize same-sex marriage. Depending on who you are, for most people, that in itself is either a positive or negative thing.
And, BTW, America is not a democracy.

That is not "we." We were mostly and largely against the wide and generalized language of the Patriot Act, especially the part that allowed for sweeping surveillance without a warrant, but it happened anyways. We do not like such invasions of privacy, but the politicians make it happen. We did not get to decide on hooking cell phones up to a machine or not, yet the politicians are. We are against the outlandish money in politics, but it happens anyways. We tend to believe groups like ALEC are criminal, but yet many politicians are firmly aligned with the group. We have for sometime now have strongly disapproved of Congress, but yet nothing has changed.

I think this is a case where your co-constituents and representatives are generally more 'conservative' than you are on these issues. Well in a democracy, the majority does rule. You need to convince more constituents that your position is the better one and they will elect representatives that support your positions.

 

[George-ananda]

Exactly. It would be far better for the courts than the police. Phone records would have any required information easily obtained through proper channels made through judiciary venues as opposed through direct enforcement means.

OK, lets say the phone in the car being used was under someone else's name. How would the court ever know from the records? And I can think of other issues with your method. And then you will object to the courts/police subpoenaing all your phone records and you'll wonder 'who knows what else they do with the data'.

You need to know what phones were in the car at the scene, it can't be determined later.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I think this is a case where your co-constituents and representatives are generally more 'conservative' than you are on these issues.

I was talking about issues that most Americans, left and right, Conservative and Liberal, Democrat and Republican, agree on, but the politicians did something entirely different that was and is unwanted by their constituents.

Well in a democracy, the majority does rule.

Again, America is not a democracy, and the majority does not rule. The majority does rule in a democracy, and that basically meant "mob rule" when the Constitution was penned, and why America was not set up to be a democracy (and largely why it still isn't). England, a constitutional monarchy, is far more democratic than America is.

 

[Twilight Hue]

OK, lets say the phone in the car being used was under someone else's name. How would the court ever know from the records? And I can think of other issues with your method. And then you will object to the courts/police subpoenaing all your phone records and you'll wonder 'who knows what else they do with the data'.

You need to know what phones were in the car at the scene, it can't be determined later.

That's why it's better for the courts to decide that than the police. You don't want overpowered police playing the role of Judge Dredd out there. That's not a free society.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

What I really want to see is citizens who are bestowed with the power to arrest cops who are driving while distracted, or who otherwise abuse their power and/or do dangerous things (such as creeping down an alley without any headlights on). If it's illegal for us to use our phones while driving, it should be no different for police. How can we expect them to uphold the law if they live as though they are above it?