Textalyzers Can Search Your Smartphone
New Device Allows Cops to Download
All of Your Smartphone Activity in Seconds
“Any person who operates a motor vehicle in the state shall be deemed to have given consent to field testing of his or her mobile telephone and/or personal electronic device for the purpose of determining the use thereof while operating a motor vehicle, provided that such testing is conducted by or at the direction of a police officer.”
(ANTIMEDIA) New York — That’s language from the text of a bill currently working its way through the New York state legislature. The legislation would allow cops to search through drivers’ cell phones following traffic incidents — even minor fender-benders — to determine if the person was using their phone while behind the wheel.
Most states have laws banning the use of mobile devices while driving, though such laws are rarely enforced. This is largely because it’s nearly impossible to catch someone in the act. What person would admit to an officer that they broke the law, the argument goes, particularly when it’s after the fact? After all, cops don’t show up until after the accident occurs.
Now, technology exists that would give police the power to plug drivers’ phones into tablet-like devices — being called “textalyzers” in the media — that tell officers exactly what they were doing on their phone and exactly when they were doing it. And if the readout shows a driver was texting while driving, for instance, the legal system will have an additional way to fine them.
“Recording your every click, tap or swipe, it would even know what apps you were using. Police officers could download the data, right on the spot,” Jeff Rossen of NBC News said in a video report on the technology.
Proponents of the legislation point to the rise in traffic fatalities associated with using mobile devices while driving. But rights activists, such as Rashida Richardson of the New York Civil Liberties Union, says it’s a societal issue and no excuse to violate an individual’s privacy:
“This is a concern because our phones have some of our most personal and private information — so we’re certain that if this law is enforced as it is proposed, it will not only violate people’s privacy rights, but also civil liberties.”
New York state isn’t alone. Currently, similar legislation is being considered in Tennessee and New Jersey.
Just don’t do it.
Government at it best is a necessary evil…if it was not necessary no laws would exist anywhere at anytime…from tribal to all the “isms”.
But texting while driving is plain stupid…for yourself and everyone else. Yes, I am capable of separating the stupidity of the action from the “right to private info” of the matter…but that just shows the value of cultivating right thinking. The right path leaves the authoritarians holding a bag of air.
My uncle left my property about 2007 heading to town on a windy rolling hill road and I followed shortly thereafter encountering him on the road waving traffic down…a teenager was texting while driving and came over a hill and ran smack dab into the tail end of a stopped garbage truck. Guess which did not give way. And the girl’s life will be forever changed.
Just don’t do it and leave the authoritarians holding air…in this case I suspect the authoritarians would not minding holding a bag of air.
You are misunderstanding what that bill says. It says that police, etc can use the excuse of a taillight out, or anything else to search data on your smartphone. First that is not a constitutional “Law”. It is being created as *color of law, pretend law because the people will believe that those who are creating it actually have the lawful authority to do so – they do not. No one who serves in any position within our governments have higher authority then the US Constitution. No one.
The Fourth Amendment is supreme over all other laws that deal with searching homes, the people the peoples items, etc.
Fourth Amendment: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, SHALL NOT BE VIOLATED, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” (caps are mine except when already there within the US Constitution)
*Color of law. The appearance or semblance, without the substance, of legal right. Misuse of power, possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because wrongdoer is clothed with authority of state, is action taken under “color of law.” Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, page 241.
That is why I disclaimed ” Yes, I am capable of separating the stupidity of the action from the “right to private info” of the matter”…because on the Constitutionality of the matter this bill is an infringement of rights.
Good job sticking up for the Fourth Amendment bytheway.