• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

New York drivers might get mandatory 'textalyzer' phone scans

Carjosse

Sit Nomine Digna
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 14, 2012
Messages
15,836
Reaction score
7,377
Location
Montreal, QC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Not only no, but hell no. This is a constitutional challenge waiting to happen. We have a right to privacy.
 

Kal'Stang

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2009
Messages
42,744
Reaction score
22,569
Location
Bonners Ferry ID USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Huh, sounds like the NSA's penchant for mining "meta-data" is being spread to other areas....
 

Henrin

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Messages
60,458
Reaction score
12,357
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Liberal paradise! Oh yeah!
 

Carjosse

Sit Nomine Digna
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 14, 2012
Messages
15,836
Reaction score
7,377
Location
Montreal, QC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Huh, sounds like the NSA's penchant for mining "meta-data" is being spread to other areas....

This is even further, it is flat out reading your private text messages.
 

Kal'Stang

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2009
Messages
42,744
Reaction score
22,569
Location
Bonners Ferry ID USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
This is even further, it is flat out reading your private text messages.

Might want to read the article a bit closer.

On Thursday, a company representative told CNNMoney that Cellebrite supports the legislation. In a statement, Cellebrite marketing executive Jeremy Nazarian said the device could be designed to check phone logs -- a record of metadata that would show a text message was sent, but not the actual contents of that message

I don't support meta-data mining without a properly authorized search warrant. But unfortunately our country is moving in that direction. Hopefully this goes to court and it gets struck down. But I'm not holding out much hope that it will be. Especially with judges like this...

For all of these reasons, the NSA's bulk telephony metadata collection program is lawful. Accordingly, the Government's motion to dismiss the complaint is granted and the ACLU's mostion for a preliminary injunction is denied.

United States District Court Southern District of New York ~ UCLA v James R. Clapper
 

Carjosse

Sit Nomine Digna
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 14, 2012
Messages
15,836
Reaction score
7,377
Location
Montreal, QC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Might want to read the article a bit closer.



I don't support meta-data mining without a properly authorized search warrant. But unfortunately our country is moving in that direction. Hopefully this goes to court and it gets struck down. But I'm not holding out much hope that it will be. Especially with judges like this...



United States District Court Southern District of New York ~ UCLA v James R. Clapper

It is a slippery slope. I also wonder what happens if someone sent a message using speech to text.
 

Mr Person

A Little Bitter
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Oct 14, 2015
Messages
59,295
Reaction score
49,687
Location
Massachusetts
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Not only no, but hell no. This is a constitutional challenge waiting to happen. We have a right to privacy.

Not for the most part, these days...
 

Beaudreaux

Preserve Protect Defend
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
18,233
Reaction score
15,861
Location
veni, vidi, volo - now back in NC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed

Mr Person

A Little Bitter
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Oct 14, 2015
Messages
59,295
Reaction score
49,687
Location
Massachusetts
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
The goal of the bill is to give police a device that plugs into a phone and scans logs to see if a driver was texting or calling during the crash. And if drivers refuse to hand over their phones, they would lose their driver's license, under the proposed bill -- just as suspected drunk drivers are required to submit to breathalyzers.

Definitely a 4th and maybe even a 5th Amendment violation. It would never stand up in court. Any lawmaker that supports such a thing should never be re-elected to office, and in fact should be eliminated from running for office under the banner of either party - the parties control who can run under their banner.

Curious what cases you'd rely on for that proposition, because I'm more or less completely certain that it is dead wrong.

As the article itself notes, states already have laws that place you in the position of voluntarily agreeing to submit to a breathalyzer test OR to face automatic license suspension. These laws have been upheld as perfectly constitutional because to the extent it is a search, it is a consent search.

As for the 5th Amd., the Supreme Court has even held that it does not violate the 5th amendment to admit evidence in court that you refused the test, because they don't see blowing into a breathalyzer (or the refusal to do so) as being on par with being forced to provide incriminating testimony against yourself. (Contrast Massachusetts, where in 1992, the SJC held in Opinion of the Justices that evidence that you refused a breathalyzer is not admissible under the state constitution because it is the equivalent of testimonial evidence that the driver knows or suspects he has consumed enough alcohol to have committed OUI).


This would be the same thing, but for plugging the phone into a device to provide physical evidence that you were violating the law. With a breathalyzer, it's the percentage of alcohol in your blood stream. With this, it's whether a text function was active at a particular time.
 

Skeptic Bob

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 6, 2014
Messages
16,626
Reaction score
19,488
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
A wreck seems like probable cause to me. As long as the device doesn't log the contents of the messages.
 

Lursa

Implacable
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
May 1, 2013
Messages
100,991
Reaction score
57,829
Location
Outside Seattle
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
I'm all for it but I dont know why they need the device. Like they said in the article, they can already get that info from the service providers. And there's a good chance they can retain more individual privacy that way too.
 

Beaudreaux

Preserve Protect Defend
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
18,233
Reaction score
15,861
Location
veni, vidi, volo - now back in NC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The goal of the bill is to give police a device that plugs into a phone and scans logs to see if a driver was texting or calling during the crash. And if drivers refuse to hand over their phones, they would lose their driver's license, under the proposed bill -- just as suspected drunk drivers are required to submit to breathalyzers.



Curious what cases you'd rely on for that proposition, because I'm more or less completely certain that it is dead wrong.

As the article itself notes, states already have laws that place you in the position of voluntarily agreeing to submit to a breathalyzer test OR to face automatic license suspension. These laws have been upheld as perfectly constitutional because to the extent it is a search, it is a consent search.

As for the 5th Amd., the Supreme Court has even held that it does not violate the 5th amendment to admit evidence in court that you refused the test, because they don't see blowing into a breathalyzer (or the refusal to do so) as being on par with being forced to provide incriminating testimony against yourself. (Contrast Massachusetts, where in 1992, the SJC held in Opinion of the Justices that evidence that you refused a breathalyzer is not admissible under the state constitution because it is the equivalent of testimonial evidence that the driver knows or suspects he has consumed enough alcohol to have committed OUI).


This would be the same thing, but for plugging the phone into a device to provide physical evidence that you were violating the law. With a breathalyzer, it's the percentage of alcohol in your blood stream. With this, it's whether a text function was active at a particular time.

This is not a breathalizer, it is a monitor and potential restriction of freedom of speech by an unlawful search and seizure - there is software and hardware in modern vehicles that allow a person to talk on the phone without holding it and to text without reading or typing which is required to break the laws. The phone will still show that a call was made or a text was received or sent but the fact that the person did so through a hands free voice recognition program is not logged on the phone and is potentially a violation of the person's Constitutional rights.

What the proposed legislation does is give the government power it does not have regarding both restrictions on the 1st Amendment rights of citizens and increases in government power to search and seize without a warrant which is a 4th Amendment violation, and potentially a 5th Amendment violation if they gain access to what was texted or stated over the phone by eliminating the choice of the person to choose to remain silent.
 

Gaius46

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 15, 2012
Messages
17,616
Reaction score
10,335
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Aside from potential privacy and 4A issues it is not illegal to use a hands-free phone while driving in NY. Many modern cars interface directly with phones and allow for sending text messages via voice command. How does the legislature propose to discriminate between those or cases where the driver dictates a message to a passenger who does the typing?
 

Chomsky

Social Democrat
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 28, 2015
Messages
74,314
Reaction score
60,437
Location
Third Coast
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Not only no, but hell no. This is a constitutional challenge waiting to happen. We have a right to privacy.

Not for the most part, these days...
Actually, no we do *not* have a right to privacy (sadly), although some of what we believe to be privacy is sometimes found under 'unreasonable search and seizure'.

But unless my undergrad Con Law professor was in error, the Constitution is silent on the issue.
 

Gaius46

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 15, 2012
Messages
17,616
Reaction score
10,335
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Actually, no we do *not* have a right to privacy (sadly), although some of what we believe to be privacy is sometimes found under 'unreasonable search and seizure'.

But unless my undergrad Con Law professor was in error, the Constitution is silent on the issue.

The Roe court thinks we do. The right to privacy is inferred from other enumerated rights........
 

Chomsky

Social Democrat
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 28, 2015
Messages
74,314
Reaction score
60,437
Location
Third Coast
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
The Roe court thinks we do. The right to privacy is inferred from other enumerated rights........
Are you speaking of in the Justices' comments?

Any links?
 

OrphanSlug

A sinister place...
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 24, 2011
Messages
32,077
Reaction score
31,077
Location
Atlanta
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
This is going to become a big mess, and probably challenged the very first time it is used.
 

Carjosse

Sit Nomine Digna
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 14, 2012
Messages
15,836
Reaction score
7,377
Location
Montreal, QC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Actually, no we do *not* have a right to privacy (sadly), although some of what we believe to be privacy is sometimes found under 'unreasonable search and seizure'.

But unless my undergrad Con Law professor was in error, the Constitution is silent on the issue.

I would say accessing my texts, even metadata as unreasonable search. We are in the digital age, we need to re-define these rights.
 

Lursa

Implacable
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
May 1, 2013
Messages
100,991
Reaction score
57,829
Location
Outside Seattle
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
I would say accessing my texts, even metadata as unreasonable search. We are in the digital age, we need to re-define these rights.

Does the content need to be accessed?
 

Lursa

Implacable
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
May 1, 2013
Messages
100,991
Reaction score
57,829
Location
Outside Seattle
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
What do you mean?

Do they have to read the content of the texts? Isnt just the proof of accessing the text enough? Or sending?
 
Top Bottom