BC aims to seize cellphones from drivers, Alberta top cop watching with interest

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Bent Wookie

I am guessing you are a defence lawyer.

Why would it only be defense lawyers that hold that opinion?

[DownhillGoat]

Originally Posted by 4X4

Really? What are they, I want to try.

I would assume "0000" and "1234". A surprising amount of people put 0 effort into passwords.

[4X4]

Originally Posted by kunkstyle

I would assume "0000" and "1234". A surprising amount of people put 0 effort into passwords.

Nope. Just tried them. I assumed he meant that there were a couple of passwords that will grant access, even though they're not the user programmed passwords. That would kind of piss me off if it were the case.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Rathji

Are you aware that there are at least 2 commonly known 'codes' that will unlock iphones without knowing the password?

Does that change your opinion?

Really what are they? Please post them here.

No it doesn't change my opinion.

[photon]

http://arstechnica.com/apple/2013/02...ntacts-photos/
http://arstechnica.com/apple/2013/02...-6-1-passcode/

[ken0042]

^^ Photon- I would agrue that is quite different than what Rathji said ealier that "there are at least 2 commonly known 'codes' that will unlock iphones without knowing the password" What he said seemed to imply that there was just a maintenance code that could be used.

In any case, I would say that the "Find my iPhone" app could be used if your phone was siezed to wipe the phone.

I know people personally who use their phones while driving still. I know I also am often tempted, and have used it at a red light. I have also been honked at because I didn't notice the light changing right away. Why are we so tempted? Because right now the penalty is on par with that of speeding. If they increased the penalty to potential loss of your phone; that might be enough to stop a few more people.

I would even go so far to say that 24 hours isn't long enough. If you have a work phone that gets taken for 24 hours; you could just tell your boss you forgot it at home that one day. If it was taken for a month- you would have some explaining to do.

As for the costitutional rights issue- I see the right to public safety out weighs the right to personal privacy or due process. I know this is contrary to what I said in the .05 thread; and that is because I believe distracted drivers are a greater risk than mildly impaired drivers. I also see this as the Province acting within their duristiction as opposed to trying to circumvent a federal law.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by photon

http://arstechnica.com/apple/2013/02...ntacts-photos/
http://arstechnica.com/apple/2013/02...-6-1-passcode/

Those are different than

2 commonly known 'codes'

.

Those are better described as proceedures, and I would suggest they are not commonly know. Perhaps they are well known is "tech" circles, but I would suggest that if i took a poll tomorrow at my daughter's hockey practice a large number of iphone owners would have no idea.

[AR_Six]

Originally Posted by Bent Wookie

I am guessing you are a defence lawyer.

You guess wrong. I am a lawyer but not a criminal lawyer. I have a particular hobbyist's interest in s.8 though.

Originally Posted by Zulu29

The only way it's found in contravention of the charter is if its CHALLENGED and deemed unconstitutional by the judiciary. What drives me absolutely nuts is people like you who automatically assume something that goes against their personal beliefs is illegal or unconstitutional. The law is being proposed as a deterrent to people committing a crime (yes it is a crime) that endangers people's lives! Screw you indeed.

Well, no, it either is or isn't unconsitutional as it's enacted. If law X is determined to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, the decision doesn't transform the law into an unconstitutional one - it was that way all along, the Court has just confirmed that it is so. Practically speaking it may be enforced until struck down, but from a legal philosophy standpoint the courts are merely applying the law.

And you've assumed incorrectly - it's not that it goes against my "personal beliefs". It goes against my view of our charter rights, particularly the right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure. The point is that once that principle is engaged, it's not about whether you like texting and driving or whether one individual is guilty or not - it's about our civil rights and whether this sort of legislation is acceptable in Canada in light of the principles we've codified.

This is in a sense the same kind of argument I always hear from people when a story gets in the paper about some gangster or drug dealer who's clearly committed the crime he was charged with but has been acquitted as a result of evidence being excluded. People start talking about how this is proof the system is broken. No, it's proof that the system is working.

[You Need a Thneed]

Personally, I think, for the most part, the distracted driving law is a little bit stupid. Not that distracted driving isn't dangerous, it is.

Lets use an example. I have a holder that holds my iPhone up on my dashboard. While it's there, I can still legally use my Blueant bluetooth device to activate Siri. I reach up to my sunvisor, and press one button. However, sometimes due to the ambient noise of the vehicle, Siri just keeps listening, instead of processing what you have said. In this case, pressing the button on my Blueant does not get Siri to start searching. Only the siri button on the screen of the iPhone will do this. I can, without looking, touch the screen of the iphone to get siri going, a single touch. Technically, this is illegal. The only difference is where I'm reaching to press one button.

I'd argue that texting is significantly more dangerous than holding a phone up to your ear, which is a little bit more dangerous than handsfree calling. There are situations where holding a phone up to your ear while driving is well within an acceptable limit. I'd argue that it is well within acceptable limits to hold a phone to your ear while driving on a non busy divided highway, for example. I done it many times, without a hint of distraction. Of course, doing the same on a busy Deerfoot Trail is completely different.

Obviously typing a quick text while stopped at a light is much different than texting while driving in busy traffic.

Ultimately, I think it comes down to the judgement of the cop - and that is why I think the destracted driving laws are silly. We already had laws that allowed cops to use their judgement to see if someone was driving distracted. Enforcement of the existing law was needed over the black and white law that was created, which Police are essentially not enforcing anymore, perhaps because they choose to use their judgement instead.

I wonder what the results or court trials on the distracted driving law have been? Are people gettng off in court when they have received a ticket for touching their phone while stopped at a light?

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by ken0042

^^ Photon- I would agrue that is quite different than what Rathji said ealier that "there are at least 2 commonly known 'codes' that will unlock iphones without knowing the password" What he said seemed to imply that there was just a maintenance code that could be used.

In any case, I would say that the "Find my iPhone" app could be used if your phone was siezed to wipe the phone.

I know people personally who use their phones while driving still. I know I also am often tempted, and have used it at a red light. I have also been honked at because I didn't notice the light changing right away. Why are we so tempted? Because right now the penalty is on par with that of speeding. If they increased the penalty to potential loss of your phone; that might be enough to stop a few more people.

I would even go so far to say that 24 hours isn't long enough. If you have a work phone that gets taken for 24 hours; you could just tell your boss you forgot it at home that one day. If it was taken for a month- you would have some explaining to do.

As for the costitutional rights issue- I see the right to public safety out weighs the right to personal privacy or due process. I know this is contrary to what I said in the .05 thread; and that is because I believe distracted drivers are a greater risk than mildly impaired drivers. I also see this as the Province acting within their duristiction as opposed to trying to circumvent a federal law.

Bravo.

[Boblobla]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Those are different than .

Those are better described as proceedures, and I would suggest they are not commonly know. Perhaps they are well known is "tech" circles, but I would suggest that if i took a poll tomorrow at my daughter's hockey practice a large number of iphone owners would have no idea.

I guess it is fortunate for us that the police will be turning the phones over to a girls hockey team not to someone with technical knowledge.

[Hockeyguy15]

Originally Posted by ken0042

Why are we so tempted? Because right now the penalty is on par with that of speeding. If they increased the penalty to potential loss of your phone; that might be enough to stop a few more people.

But the penalty is less than speeding, there are 0 demerits that come with the fine. I agree the penalty is not harsh enough, but we are skipping a whole bunch of punishment options before moving to seizure of personal property.

Why not try something along the lines of speeding 50km over the limit..6 demerits and a $350 fine, maybe even throw in a mandatory court appearance or make them take a class on distracted driving?

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Boblobla

I guess it is fortunate for us that the police will be turning the phones over to a girls hockey team not to someone with technical knowledge.

1. What are you doing on you phone that causes you so much concern if seen? You ashamed of you wang?
2. The reference to the team (parents actually) was showing that this is not common knowledge as stated in the orignal post.

I am at a loss to see why people are so upset about this law. There is nothing that is so important that I need to text while driving.

[Red]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

Personally, I think, for the most part, the distracted driving law is a little bit stupid. Not that distracted driving isn't dangerous, it is.

Lets use an example. I have a holder that holds my iPhone up on my dashboard. While it's there, I can still legally use my Blueant bluetooth device to activate Siri. I reach up to my sunvisor, and press one button. However, sometimes due to the ambient noise of the vehicle, Siri just keeps listening, instead of processing what you have said. In this case, pressing the button on my Blueant does not get Siri to start searching. Only the siri button on the screen of the iPhone will do this. I can, without looking, touch the screen of the iphone to get siri going, a single touch. Technically, this is illegal. The only difference is where I'm reaching to press one button.

I'd argue that texting is significantly more dangerous than holding a phone up to your ear, which is a little bit more dangerous than handsfree calling. There are situations where holding a phone up to your ear while driving is well within an acceptable limit. I'd argue that it is well within acceptable limits to hold a phone to your ear while driving on a non busy divided highway, for example. I done it many times, without a hint of distraction. Of course, doing the same on a busy Deerfoot Trail is completely different.

Obviously typing a quick text while stopped at a light is much different than texting while driving in busy traffic.

Ultimately, I think it comes down to the judgement of the cop - and that is why I think the destracted driving laws are silly. We already had laws that allowed cops to use their judgement to see if someone was driving distracted. Enforcement of the existing law was needed over the black and white law that was created, which Police are essentially not enforcing anymore, perhaps because they choose to use their judgement instead.

I wonder what the results or court trials on the distracted driving law have been? Are people gettng off in court when they have received a ticket for touching their phone while stopped at a light?

Sounds like a Siri issue. They should throw her in prison.

[Zulu29]

Originally Posted by AR_Six

You guess wrong. I am a lawyer but not a criminal lawyer. I have a particular hobbyist's interest in s.8 though.

Well, no, it either is or isn't unconsitutional as it's enacted. If law X is determined to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, the decision doesn't transform the law into an unconstitutional one - it was that way all along, the Court has just confirmed that it is so. Practically speaking it may be enforced until struck down, but from a legal philosophy standpoint the courts are merely applying the law.

And you've assumed incorrectly - it's not that it goes against my "personal beliefs". It goes against my view of our charter rights, particularly the right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure. The point is that once that principle is engaged, it's not about whether you like texting and driving or whether one individual is guilty or not - it's about our civil rights and whether this sort of legislation is acceptable in Canada in light of the principles we've codified.

This is in a sense the same kind of argument I always hear from people when a story gets in the paper about some gangster or drug dealer who's clearly committed the crime he was charged with but has been acquitted as a result of evidence being excluded. People start talking about how this is proof the system is broken. No, it's proof that the system is working.

You're arguing semantics, personal belief and your view are essentially the same thing, you're viewing something with your own bias. If law X is enacted and found to be compliant with the charter it's constitutional and it was all along, my point is no one knows until the judiciary rules. The law will be applied practically as the government is the only body entitled to enact legislation, the court interprets it.

I understand that your view is that cell phones should not be seized as you feel that is a violation of your charter rights against unreasonable search and seizure. My point is that to call it "unconstitutional" is a pretty big assumption as it hasn't been deemed so yet. Agree with it or not, it's up to the courts to decide.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

1. What are you doing on you phone that causes you so much concern if seen? You ashamed of you wang?
2. The reference to the team (parents actually) was showing that this is not common knowledge as stated in the orignal post.

I am at a loss to see why people are so upset about this law. There is nothing that is so important that I need to text while driving.

Well most people likely have confidential information on their phone if it's a work device. Lawyers in particular will have privileged emails that I'm sure their clients wouldn't want in the hands of the police.

The argument of "if you don't like the punishment, then don't break the law" is so ridiculous it makes my head want to explode. Based on this logic you can impose completely disproportionate punishments and just tell people to suck it up. (This doesn't apply to people who, like Ken, have said they feel that it is an invasion, but it's worth it for the public safety).

[Zulu29]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

Well most people likely have confidential information on their phone if it's a work device. Lawyers in particular will have privileged emails that I'm sure their clients wouldn't want in the hands of the police.

The argument of "if you don't like the punishment, then don't break the law" is so ridiculous it makes my head want to explode. Based on this logic you can impose completely disproportionate punishments and just tell people to suck it up. (This doesn't apply to people who, like Ken, have said they feel that it is an invasion, but it's worth it for the public safety).

Most people have a password on their phone. Do you really think "big brother" is going to conduct surveillance on you til you're spotted driving while yakking on your cell phone, send traffic cops out to stop you, seize your phone and then send it off to a lab to get analyzed and then return the phone to you in 24 hours? Oh don't forget they'll be doing the same thing to everyone else driving with a cell phone too. Come on...

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

Well most people likely have confidential information on their phone if it's a work device. Lawyers in particular will have privileged emails that I'm sure their clients wouldn't want in the hands of the police.

The argument of "if you don't like the punishment, then don't break the law" is so ridiculous it makes my head want to explode. Based on this logic you can impose completely disproportionate punishments and just tell people to suck it up. (This doesn't apply to people who, like Ken, have said they feel that it is an invasion, but it's worth it for the public safety).

I have a work phone, it is full of sensitive information. That is why I keep is in my pocket or centre console while driving. I have no concerns about the police taking my phone as it's not "out and about" while driving. I don't think taking someone's phone from them for 24 hrs because they were using it while hurtling down the road is "disproportionate". The good that is gained far out weights the "bad".

[GrrlGoalie33]

Originally Posted by Zulu29

Most people have a password on their phone.

Most people I know don't have a password on their phone.

I believe the law makers should increase the penalties for distracted driving, but make the laws something that actually hurt us. Taking my smartphone away from me for 24 hours doesn't really hurt me.

Make the fine $350+ and give me demerit points...now THAT hurts. It hurts now when I have to pay the fine, and for the next 3-7 years while I have to pay for increased insurance.

[Boblobla]

What about if someone is playing with their stero/GPS that is installed in their dash? That is as bad as glancing at your cell imo. Do they rip the stereo out of the vehicle?

For the record, I ####ing hate people who use cell phones, gps, do their make-up, shave, eat with 2 hands or masturbate while driving. I have my phone hooked up through bluetooth and I don't text or email while driving.

I think seizing the phone is a huge jump and completely unwarranted.