Long Island Shooters Forum banner
1 - 20 of 50 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,738 Posts
"New 'textalyzer' technology, and enabling legislation, could help police determine if a driver's
texting, Facebooking, Instagramming, Snapchatting, or whatever digital pursuit seemed like a
good idea at the time was the reason for a highway crash or erratic driving in the state of New
York.

The theory is that the textalyzer would work much like a breathalyzer helps detect a drunk
driver.

The New York Civil Liberties Union and other civil libertarians are afraid it will be a flagrant
violation of civil rights.

Ben Lieberman disagrees with the NYCLU.

'The general public knows distracted driving is a problem, but if people knew the extent of the
damage caused by this behavior, they would be amazed,' Lieberman said.

Lieberman knows.

He has been trying to put an end to distracted driving ever since his 19-year-old son Evan was
killed in a 2011 car crash caused by a person who was texting while driving.

Now Lieberman is backing legislation named after his son that would enable police in the state
of New York to use textalyzer technology to determine if drivers were texting instead of being
forced to get a warrant or subpoena to check cell phone records.

'Evan's Law' would allow a police officer to demand the cell phones of drivers involved in an
accident. The devices of anyone who refused would be confiscated.

'With our current laws, we're not getting accurate information because the issue is not being
addressed at the heart of the problem - with the people causing the collisions,' Lieberman said.

New York Sen. Terrence Murphy (R ) and Assembly Assistant Speaker Felix Ortiz (D) have sponsored
the legislation, which is supported by Lieberman and the organization he founded, Distracted
Operators Risk Casualties (DORCs).

The Assembly and Senate proposals have yet to be voted on by the full legislature."

Read the rest: https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/2016/05/08/new-york-states-textalyzer-legislation-opens-phones-to-warrantless-searches/?singlepage=true
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,092 Posts
So much wrong with this bill. There is no reason to presume that all accidents are the result of texting. The vast majority are not.

Also, breath tests are not performed on all drivers involved in accidents, but only where there is a suspicion of intoxication.

Finally, unlike a blood alcohol test, there is no urgency to collect phone data at the scene. The records can be obtained from the cell service provider, later on, if necessary.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
803 Posts
Drive down any highway and look to the right and left!!!!!!

Sorry, we already have Laws we only need to enforce them and this will go away substantially, This goes for all VTL.

maybe reduce cameras doing our enforcement too.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,651 Posts

·
Temp. self-imposed ban.
Joined
·
4,410 Posts
And there is always a Republican POS to attach that "bipartisan" stamp to any excrement that comes his way.
I am very sorry about Mr. Lieberman's family tragedy. But that's where it stops.
You want to do something to commemorate your son's life?
Do it be increasing prison terms for people who text and drive, if it results in manslaughter.
Don't embellish your son't memory by turning America in soft fascist state.

Hitler promised, once, that people will buy tram tickets. (The public transportation, lost money year after year).
The good Germans naively thought he was gonna make "more jobs" (never fails, doesn't it?) buy hiring conductors.
Nope. Look up how he solved the "free riders" problem. He never needed conductors after that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tonto

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,606 Posts
So much wrong with this bill. There is no reason to presume that all accidents are the result of texting. The vast majority are not.

Also, breath tests are not performed on all drivers involved in accidents, but only where there is a suspicion of intoxication.

Finally, unlike a blood alcohol test, there is no urgency to collect phone data at the scene. The records can be obtained from the cell service provider, later on, if necessary.
I would think they (investigators) already do request a warrant for phone/text/data records of those involved in a fatality.

If your going to push for a law to curb distracted driving, push for cell carriers to disable certain features on phones when it's traveling beyond certain speeds... That would certainly make more sense and not violate anyone's rights...I know, some will hate the suggestion, but it's better than a bill that will force someone to hand over their phone after the sideswipe someone's parked car.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,530 Posts
I don't see an issue with having a court order the cell phone records if someone is involved in a crash. This law presumes people are guilty without due process.

That said, texting and driving is a real problem. It is not limited to teenage kids either. I've seen moms with mini vans full of children texting away.

I used to go to this one parking lot for lunch and it was near a traffic light. In the hour I sat there I would count at least 25-30 people texting as they pulled up to the light. I've had people veer in my lane on the southern state (while it was snowing mind you) only to see they were texting during a snow storm.

I don't get why cops sit on the side of the road to catch speeders when they could yield far more tickets just pulling up next to people and see them facebooking away.

I would total my car if I texted and drove. I'm not sure how these people do it and why they aren't all dead already.
 

·
Sifting Through the Ruins
Joined
·
8,015 Posts
The device can't read the substance of any texts or emails, or aps. It just provides the status of the phone at the moment of collision as "in use", or inactive.

If you ain't texting while driving, whats the privacy concern?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,011 Posts
The device can't read the substance of any texts or emails, or aps. It just provides the status of the phone at the moment of collision as "in use", or inactive.

If you ain't texting while driving, whats the privacy concern?
Does that include having received an incoming text or call? Or just out going?

And how exactly does the device know what the "status" was at the time of the accident if it wasn't there in the first place?
 
  • Like
Reactions: NRATC53

·
Registered
Joined
·
555 Posts
Fear anything labeled with "common sense". The police should be patroling for muzzies doing recon on soft targets.
 

·
Temp. self-imposed ban.
Joined
·
4,410 Posts
The device can't read the substance of any texts or emails, or aps. It just provides the status of the phone at the moment of collision as "in use", or inactive.

If you ain't texting while driving, whats the privacy concern?
Slippery slop.
It will be reading the messages/emails, etc within next "administrative revision" of the law. Want to read the phone records? Fine. We have a process in place.
Its working. Do you want your officers become prosecutors at the scene of the accident? Next stop upgrade them to executioners as well. Saves lots of public funds, simplifies complicated and overwhelmed court system.

That's how it ALWAYS happens. Do you, guys, know anything, and I mean ANYTHING (!) about history?
 

·
Sifting Through the Ruins
Joined
·
8,015 Posts
It would read out display outgoing/incoming, note time it was opened, and for how long, and time of keystroke entries.
Substance is not displayed.
Information would be obtained anyway with a warrant, so nothing is lost or gained privacy wise, but the immediacy keeps the public on edge that they lose their phone right away with the probable cause established on site. Its a big deterrent.
I was T-Boned at an intersection by a texting driver who ran a light. The prick fled, I ended up upside down with the car on fire. If the perp would have been caught on scene he could have been locked up then and there, rather than me having to wait up to 15 months for Verizon or ATT to respond to a warranted search request.
A lot of these texting accidents are with illegals and transients behind the wheel. The passage of 4 to 16 months to get the phone records allows these perps to abscond, leaving you holding your p**k with nobody to get redress from.
Don't know why anyone would think this is a privacy issue. Its implied consent: Driving isn't a civil right, its a privilege granted by the state. Driving with a phone in the car, therefore, also isn't a civil right. Don't want its activity history disclosed? Don't drive with it in the car.
 
1 - 20 of 50 Posts
Top