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

[AR_Six]

Originally Posted by Zulu29

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.

Courts aren't gods. They are essentially lawyers endowed with the ability to make their opinions binding. I am a lawyer without that ability, but this doesn't somehow make my opinion any less valid than theirs (except in so far as I would expect any judge hearing this to have a more informed and experienced view than mine). Judges have biases as well. In my opinion, it's unconstitutional.

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.

Further to the earlier point, I can validly call a law unconstitutional even AFTER the Supreme Court determines that in their view, it isn't. The courts do get things wrong, not altogether infrequently. Just a month or so ago, the Supremes overturned one of their decisions that had been standing since 1978.

I think the difference of perspective here is that you appear to be saying that laws aren't unconstitutional until the court decides that they are. I disagree. Laws either are or are not unconstitutional on their own merits, and where they are unconstitutional a court can - and hopefully does - recognize as much and strike them down.

[Zulu29]

Originally Posted by AR_Six

Courts aren't gods. They are essentially lawyers endowed with the ability to make their opinions binding. I am a lawyer without that ability, but this doesn't somehow make my opinion any less valid than theirs (except in so far as I would expect any judge hearing this to have a more informed and experienced view than mine). Judges have biases as well. In my opinion, it's unconstitutional.

Further to the earlier point, I can validly call a law unconstitutional even AFTER the Supreme Court determines that in their view, it isn't. The courts do get things wrong, not altogether infrequently. Just a month or so ago, the Supremes overturned one of their decisions that had been standing since 1978.

I think the difference of perspective here is that you appear to be saying that laws aren't unconstitutional until the court decides that they are. I disagree. Laws either are or are not unconstitutional on their own merits, and where they are unconstitutional a court can - and hopefully does - recognize as much and strike them down.

The courts aren't "gods" but they are the closest thing to it in the legal world. Yes your opinion is less valid because its not binding and you have no control in court of anything outside of your sphere of influence. I would be very interested to see you in court, call a law unconstitutional in front of a judge when case law and prior rulings deemed it constitutional.

Please explain to me what your interpretation of "validly call a law unconstitutional" means. I would agree with you if that means you sitting around with a few colleagues in your office and you gave your opinion, but certainly not in a professional setting in a court.

The whole "my opinion" approach makes me laugh. The sky is purple, no it's not, well that's my opinion.

Your argument seems to be that there is no such thing as a good law, only a law that hasn't been struck down yet.

[gargamel]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

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.

What if you're singing along to the radio and a cop catches a glimpse of you and thinks you're on the phone, then stops you and decides to seize your work phone that's sitting there on the center console? You can dispute it and provide phone records to show that you weren't using your cell, and a judge would be happy to consider that. Unfortunately, by that point, you've already had to go a day without your phone and your work information has been compromised.

Originally Posted by Zulu29

The courts aren't "gods" but they are the closest thing to it in the legal world.

That's how it should be, but now cops get to be "gods" too.

[AR_Six]

Originally Posted by Zulu29

The courts aren't "gods" but they are the closest thing to it in the legal world. Yes your opinion is less valid because its not binding and you have no control in court of anything outside of your sphere of influence. I would be very interested to see you in court, call a law unconstitutional in front of a judge when case law and prior rulings deemed it constitutional.

I imagine it'd look much like the lawyers in Smith arguing that the Supreme Court was wrong in Moldowan. They won.

Please explain to me what your interpretation of "validly call a law unconstitutional" means. I would agree with you if that means you sitting around with a few colleagues in your office and you gave your opinion, but certainly not in a professional setting in a court.

I can validly make an argument, equivalent to any other argument presented by anyone else, that the principles of a particular charter provision are contravened by a particular piece of legislation. And yes, that applies equally in a court - in addressing a charter issue the position is either that the law is contrary to the charter or not. There is no pre-judgment as to whether that position is right or wrong, and it is usually a nuanced argument.

The whole "my opinion" approach makes me laugh. The sky is purple, no it's not, well that's my opinion.

Right, no difference whatsoever between observing a physical fact and taking a position on an issue of constitutional law. Brilliant point.

Your argument seems to be that there is no such thing as a good law, only a law that hasn't been struck down yet.

I don't know where you got this, it's absolute nonsense. The notion that because I think some laws are unconstitutional and should be struck down means that I think all laws should be is bizarre.

Your opinion appears to be that the SCC can't be wrong in its interpretation of the charter - that whatever they say the charter means is what it means. That is crazy talk.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Zulu29

The whole "my opinion" approach makes me laugh. The sky is purple, no it's not, well that's my opinion.

It actually is purple, we just see it as blue.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by gargamel

What if you're singing along to the radio and a cop catches a glimpse of you and thinks you're on the phone, then stops you and decides to seize your work phone that's sitting there on the center console? You can dispute it and provide phone records to show that you weren't using your cell, and a judge would be happy to consider that. Unfortunately, by that point, you've already had to go a day without your phone and your work information has been compromised.

Two things:

1. In my car the centre console closes and is under my arm, but of course you don't know that, I should have been more clear.
2. I am a man. Men should not sing in their vehicles.

[Zulu29]

Originally Posted by AR_Six

Your opinion appears to be that the SCC can't be wrong in its interpretation of the charter - that whatever they say the charter means is what it means. That is crazy talk.

That's an asinine assumption on your part. Of course the SCC can be wrong in its interpretation, but until challenged or overturned whatever they say the charter means is what it means. That is fact. No amount of spinning on your part will change that. They are the final say.

[sworkhard]

I'm still not convinced that talking hands free on your phone is inherently more dangerous than talking to a passenger in your car. However, I do know that talking hands free or to a passenger can keep you awake and more focussed when driving long distances. (without them, people tend to get lost in thought, or at least lose focus due to the monotony). A study has shown that singing in your car has the same effect.

To me, if the use of the device doesn't take your eyes off the road, its probably acceptable. Is it somewhat distracting? Sure it is, but much, much less so than say, day dreaming, which is a much bigger threat on longer drives than hands free phone use ever will be.

That being said, we absolutely need to find a way to get rid of texting/emailing and driving. Same thing with non-hands free phone use (impairment is possibly the same as hands free, but your ability to react quickly and safely is reduced due to having one arm stuck holding a phone to your ear).

However, don't make the mistake of thinking eliminating distractions will reduce distracted driving. Quite possibly, it will make almost no difference in road safety as many of these distractions are desirable by keeping us more alert when we need it most. (Music and adult passengers for example)

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by 4X4

Really? What are they, I want to try.

http://www.pcadvisor.co.uk/news/appl...ne-5-pin-code/

[Rathji]

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.

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 didn't say PIN, and didn't mean PIN. I meant a series of actions that could be used to unlock a phone. I used the word code, because to me it reminds me of the old Contra Nintendo codes. I am sorry if my language confused the issue. Sometimes posting on your phone can lead to ambiguous posts.

As for them being common knowledge, I was referring to the fact that the details of the exploit are commonly available and have been reported in the media. Even then, if someone was intent on breaking into your phone, or thought they might have unfettered access to a few phones over the course of performing their job (like if they they were able to confiscate them), then it is a simple search on youtube away from finding it.

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.

Is it common knowledge that bump keys exist? Does that invalidate them as something that you should consider when purchasing a lock?

How about applications that make it trivial to break into many wifi networks? Full kits that are sold online that allow someone with a tablet to break into your wifi?

The criminals know these things are out there, it is common knowledge to anyone who wants to look for it. You don't need to be a member of a secret internet society or part of an intricate criminal enterprise to get access to these things.

[ken0042]

Fair enough Rathji. I just think the methods shown in that video cross the line into actually hacking into the phone. If the police were going to go that far; I would hope that they had a more sophisticated means to do so.

[Rathji]

My only point was having a PIN on a device does not mean it is impossible to get into, nor does it require any special equipment or a long period of time with the device. Thinking it does could obviously impact your support of a policy like this, which is why I brought it up.

[Nage Waza]

Originally Posted by Swarly

oh please, what hazards/environment change is going on while you are sitting at a red light? pushing way too hard on that one. anyone with half a brain can operate their phone and see if a light changes, or the car in front is going. only thing that makes it a distraction now is that you cant hold the phone up in front of your face so you can also watch the light, now people are staring down trying to hide the fact, it was much better driving on the roads before this distracted driving law came into effect.

You might as well close your eyes and use whatever mental technique you can think of to take your mind off the fact you are in control of a motor vehicle and during the licensing phase you learned to be in care and control of the vehicle at all times. If you have a license, and it is a privelage to drive, than follow the rules. I can barely understand what you are writing. Try to remember the materials that make up your driving exam, or did you read it in disbelief?

Studies have proven texting is bad, go argue with the studies.

Originally Posted by Swarly

I disagree with the whole distracted driving law, due to the simple fact that police had the power to ticket bad drivers before for dangerous driving. 2 years ago you see some idiot swerving on the road he could get a ticket same as today, only difference with this law in place is that someone driving straight down the road with clear sight can get a ticket because they push a button on their nav. or happen to send a text while sitting at a red light. just a cash grab, makes it easy to ticket whoever doesn't matter if you are driving normal or swerving around like a drunk.

Not sure what your second paragraph is for. It doesn't matter if you disagree, studies prove distracted driving is as bad as drunk driving. You don't like it? Quit driving please, you might save a life.

Originally Posted by AR_Six

I imagine it'd look much like the lawyers in Smith arguing that the Supreme Court was wrong in Moldowan. They won.

I can validly make an argument, equivalent to any other argument presented by anyone else, that the principles of a particular charter provision are contravened by a particular piece of legislation. And yes, that applies equally in a court - in addressing a charter issue the position is either that the law is contrary to the charter or not. There is no pre-judgment as to whether that position is right or wrong, and it is usually a nuanced argument.

Right, no difference whatsoever between observing a physical fact and taking a position on an issue of constitutional law. Brilliant point.

I don't know where you got this, it's absolute nonsense. The notion that because I think some laws are unconstitutional and should be struck down means that I think all laws should be is bizarre.

Your opinion appears to be that the SCC can't be wrong in its interpretation of the charter - that whatever they say the charter means is what it means. That is crazy talk.

And this is why arguing with a lawyer is completely futile. Although is quoted your response, it's almost like he didn't read it and/or fully comprehend it.

Just tell him he's right and move on.

[Azure]

So is there any evidence that the distracted driver laws reduce the number of accidents?

[Zulu29]

Originally Posted by Bent Wookie

And this is why arguing with a lawyer is completely futile. Although is quoted your response, it's almost like he didn't read it and/or fully comprehend it.

Just tell him he's right and move on.

Oh I'm not a lawyer.