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

[Twilight Hue]

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?

While I don't want to see cops stripped of their capability to effectively survey and capture criminals, it would be nice to see independent oversight with real teeth placed to regulate and enforce excessive behavior and actions brought about by enforcement officers.

Givin the nature of certain kinds of criminals, police can't be toothless in apprehension of those that resist.

It's a tough fine line to traverse.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

While I don't want to see cops stripped of their capability to effectively survey and capture criminals, it would be nice to see independent oversight with real teeth placed to regulate and enforce excessive behavior and actions brought about by enforcement officers.

Givin the nature of certain kinds of criminals, police can't be toothless in apprehension of those that resist.

It's a tough fine line to traverse.

That's true, but there is a big difference between that and a cop using their lights just to get past a stop light, or driving down the road while texting on their phone. They'll be demanding our phones up front, but if they are in a wreck the phone issue probably won't even be raised.

 

[bobhikes]

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.

Yeah I thought so to but I still had to pay myself.

 

[bobhikes]

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.

Yeah, I thought so to but I had to pay.

 

[Twilight Hue]

That's true, but there is a big difference between that and a cop using their lights just to get past a stop light, or driving down the road while texting on their phone. They'll be demanding our phones up front, but if they are in a wreck the phone issue probably won't even be raised.

True. Police are exempted in many things. Like not wearing seatbelts and talking on phone while driving.

 

[freethinker44]

Yeah I thought so to but I still had to pay myself.

That's why I said should. The system is ****ed. Win or lose, you still lose and they win.

 

[bobhikes]

That's why I said should. The system is ****ed. Win or lose, you still lose and they win.

Just to let everyone know not all States allow this. I just found out recently. Here's the map

https://www.bing.com/images/search?...49c19a89e4de3a098b2bc7a5ffc299c6o0&ajaxhist=0

 

[Shadow Wolf]

True. Police are exempted in many things. Like not wearing seatbelts and talking on phone while driving.

The seat belt thing I get. But the phone thing, I'm not just talking about using a phone to talk, but texting on it as well. Really, I don't even think they should be able to run a license plate through on their computers while driving because that does inherently include taking their eyes off the road, becoming distracted, and becoming a potential road hazard should anything happen. Driving is easily the most dangerous thing most people will ever do and do so on a regular basis, and the work of police should not include making it more dangerous.

 

[Sapiens]

It will just bring about a one-touch "backup and wipe" app. The cops will always be behind the technology curve.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

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.

To be clear, I'm not talking about this specific consideration (ie. handing over a phone). I am talking in terms of a general rule of life.
The simplest way for anyone in power to gain additional control over those 'beneath' them is to simply argue 'Why do you have an issue with this? Do you have something to hide?'

At what point is the question asked 'Why do you NEED this additional power? Why do I NEED to surrender personal liberty for the greater good. Make your case, so we can democratically determine the correct path forwards as a cohesive society?'

 

[George-ananda]

To be clear, I'm not talking about this specific consideration (ie. handing over a phone). I am talking in terms of a general rule of life.
The simplest way for anyone in power to gain additional control over those 'beneath' them is to simply argue 'Why do you have an issue with this? Do you have something to hide?'

At what point is the question asked 'Why do you NEED this additional power? Why do I NEED to surrender personal liberty for the greater good. Make your case, so we can democratically determine the correct path forwards as a cohesive society?'

I think our elected representatives consider the cases made by both sides and in this case they might conclude that the deterrent is worth the cost. I am the type that doesn't have a problem co-operating with authorities but some people seem more paranoid than me about that process. Maybe something in my core is different? I think 99% of the time police are good. Maybe others see a much lower percentage.

What harm to an innocent person is there in handing over a phone to be checked? What specific harm do you envision can come from the process?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I think our elected representatives consider the cases made by both sides and in this case they might conclude that the deterrent is worth the cost. I am the type that doesn't have a problem co-operating with authorities but some people seem more paranoid than me about that process. Maybe something in my core is different? I think 99% of the time police are good. Maybe others see a much lower percentage.

You're talking about the government like it functions as a high school US government text book says it does. In addition, we've reached a point where politicians don't want to hear the other side, they demonize the other side, and according to some "compromise is the Democrats yielding to Conservative ways."
And I really doubt that 99% of the time police are good. This time of year especially they love searching people. I counted five cars pulled over and being searched once, on one day, on my way out of town. Of course they rarely find anything, but they'll still use whatever excuse they want to go ahead and search people anyways, just to search them. If they are that good, why did LA cops in one month manage to fire more bullets than all German police combined in an entire year? Why did the cops here try to get a cop who was drunk while on duty off any and all charges when he hit and killed another motorist?

What harm to an innocent person is there in handing over a phone to be checked? What specific harm do you envision can come from the process?

It's the fact that they are expecting us to just give up and surrender our rights, one after another, more and more, and it's always "if you aren't doing anything wrong." Taking our rights is what is wrong, allowing police to bypass laws and do as they will is wrong, and expecting we give everything over to them is wrong. It's another way to control, to intimidate, and make people more obedient, even the laws do not work or have the desired effect.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I think our elected representatives consider the cases made by both sides and in this case they might conclude that the deterrent is worth the cost. I am the type that doesn't have a problem co-operating with authorities but some people seem more paranoid than me about that process. Maybe something in my core is different? I think 99% of the time police are good. Maybe others see a much lower percentage.

What harm to an innocent person is there in handing over a phone to be checked? What specific harm do you envision can come from the process?

Again...to be clear...I'm not talking about this PARTICULAR law change. More the notion that any increase in authority powers can simply be justified with 'What have you got to hide?'

Separate issue, but 99% strikes me as ridiculously naive also. Police (for example) are both people and citizens, as well as being police.
Should we assume they are separate and 'special' in some fashion? That seems misguided.

I am in general terms very much law abiding and courteous to cops. This does not extend to simply accepting all extensions of power or feeling guilty on questioning the same.

Civil forfeiture, and equipping police with suplus military equipment are 2 examples of policies which are completely beyond the pale, imho.

 

[McBell]

It will just bring about a one-touch "backup and wipe" app. The cops will always be behind the technology curve.

Actually, they already exist.
Have for quite some time.

 

[Sapiens]

I know of wipe, but automatic backup to the cloud too?

 

[fantome profane]

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.

Ok, so explain why I can't use my phone on the bus, or the train, or even in the passenger seat of a car?

 

[George-ananda]

It's the fact that they are expecting us to just give up and surrender our rights,

My difference with you may be who is the 'they' in the above statement. It is more like 'we the people' in the above statement. It is our democratically elected representatives that are discussing the law per the OP. Yes, there is some trade-off between privacy and making society more safe. It is our representatives that make this judgement call. Who hires these people and pays these people? It is we the people. It sounds like you are thinking there is some hidden conspiracy against our rights. Who is leading this conspiracy and How? and Why?

 

[Father Heathen]

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

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -Benjamin Franklin

 

[Twilight Hue]

Ok, so explain why I can't use my phone on the bus, or the train, or even in the passenger seat of a car?

There might be actual conversations like the old days , and no-one loudly like a bullhorn chattering away about what's going on in their lives into the phone. Some people might just appreciate and applaud the peace.

 

[McBell]

I know of wipe, but automatic backup to the cloud too?

My phone automatically backs up everything to the cloud.
Apps, settings, app settings, pics, documents, folder structure, etc.
If my phone is lost or stolen I can send it a text or email that will wipe the phone.
I can even send a text or email that will brick the phone.

Then I can purchase a new phone and have everything downloaded to it.

ESET NOD 32