
Texting and Driving? Watch Out for the Textalyzer - state
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/28/science/driving-texting-safety-textalyzer.html
======
analog31
A potential argument for making the Breathalyzer mandatory is that the alcohol
dissipates over time, and has to be detected while it's still present. Also,
the Breathalyzer measures nothing but alcohol.

There's no such immediacy with phone activity, especially since phone logs are
stored permanently somewhere other than the phone. If the police need to
search the driver's phone records, they can tell it to a judge and get a
search warrant. So the analogy to the Breathalyzer just isn't a good one.

And, a casual search of phone records could turn up all sorts of stuff,
encouraging use of the Textalyzer as a pretext for conducting a broader
search.

~~~
levemi
The concept of a Textalyzer also ignores the capacity for apps themselves to
be the cause of the activity. For example IFTTT could be sending texts as a
result of some trigger. The messaging app could be retrying to send a message
that was sent previously. You might have auto-email set up. The entire concept
is flawed. That your phone has engaged in some kind of activity is not
indicative that the human who owns the phone did so manually.

It's a technically ignorant news article about technically ignorant
politicians creating technically ignorant laws that don't really help.

~~~
TrevorJ
Not to mention passengers. My wife commonly uses my phone in the car to help
me navigate so I can keep my eyes on the road. A tool like this would actively
punish responsible drivers like myself.

------
lost_my_pwd
Hmmm... I have asked other's in the car to read and respond to text when I am
driving. I can also read and respond (canned text) to texts in my car using
voice or steering wheel controls.

Seems like this is either very misguided/flawed, simply a feel-good measure, a
way to funnel public money to a connected company, or some combination of the
three.

------
stordoff
Setting aside the obvious technical and privacy concerns for a second, how do
they intend to handle cases where more than one person is in the car? If I'm
driving with my mother, I'll fairly often read a text to her and she will
dictate a response. If you didn't see that interaction, it seems
indistinguishable from if she was texting whilst driving.

~~~
justinlardinois
That's that the courts are for.

------
pwendelboe
Well this seems like a horrible privacy invasion. I can't imagine that they
won't also look at the contents when they are analyzing the device. It would
have to be baked into the phone and as such could probably be bypassed anyway.
We really need more technologically competent representatives...

------
guelo
The "Textalyzer" tech is from Cellebrite, the same Israeli company that sold
the FBI the 0-day for the San Beradino shooter's iPhone. Here's their product
page for the device [http://www.cellebrite.com/Mobile-
Forensics/Solutions/ufed-fi...](http://www.cellebrite.com/Mobile-
Forensics/Solutions/ufed-field-series)

~~~
justinlardinois
So what (legally) happens if my phone stores data in a way that this device
isn't designed to process? Unlikely since I'm sure they support all major
mobile OSes, but I could see it happening occasionally.

------
HappyTypist
This won't work. iOS has disk and file encryption, and you cannot access this
kind of data without being unlocking. Forcing someone to provide a PIN has
been ruled against the first amendment.

~~~
npizzolato
Couldn't the same be said for a breathalyzer? Forcing someone to breathe into
a machine could be seen as forced "speech" in the same way giving up a
password is. That seems to be allowed since the only penalty for refusing is
losing your license (as opposed to some kind of criminal charge).

Honest question btw.

~~~
magicalist
> _Couldn 't the same be said for a breathalyzer?_

Yes, actually, and that question (wrt _criminal_ penalties some states have
heaped on) happens to be in front of the Supreme Court right now in Birchfield
v. North Dakota[1] (though not for the first amendment, GP is off course
there).

Sibling comments are correct on the legal theory behind allowing punishments
for refusing to take a breathalyzer test, but it's clearly questionable
whether a state should be allowed to issue criminal penalties for availing
yourself of your rights. If such a thing were generally allowed, warrants
wouldn't be necessary in most cases: let us search your
person/phone/car/house/papers without a warrant unless you want severe
automatic penalties, etc.

[1] [http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/04/argument-analysis-
criminal...](http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/04/argument-analysis-criminal-
penalties-for-refusal-to-take-a-breathalyzer-test-in-jeopardy/)

~~~
ams6110
If we would simply hold people liable for the consequences of their actions we
would not need DUI laws or breathalyzer "implied consent" attached to driving.

~~~
smileysteve
Seriously.

Distracted and reckless driving have been laws long before cell phones or laws
against drinking while driving. Distracted and reckless driving already carry
large fines and are much more subjective with much less burden of proof than
finding a text message on a phone.

~~~
pdkl95
Drunk driving laws are really addressing the problem indirectly. The whole
point is that EtOH affects stuff like reaction time, motor control,
situational awareness, and risk assessment. The source doesn't matter, if you
are not able to meet a minimum ability in those skills, then driving is a
going to be dangerous. The source of the problem doesn't matter.

Instead of the breathalyzer (or other tests for EtOH) we should be testing for
ability. I suspect this shouldn't be hard or expensive, for example, to make a
portable device that implemented objective tests[1] of ability. Obviously some
research would be needed to determine which skills need to be tested and to
calibrate the minimum-ability cutoffs.

[1] like this reaction time test:
[https://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/java/redgreen.html](https://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/java/redgreen.html)

------
ams6110
I see cops using their phones and laptops while driving as much as I see
anyone else do it. Will they exempt themselves? Or will they be required to
submit their phone to the textalyzer at the end of each shift?

------
yakult
here's how it'll work: they'll have two phone-readers: one 'by the book' which
really 'just' reads the metadata and puts it i their database. The second is
basically an exploit kit that dumps your data by any exploit they can find.

The theory being they'll use the first for motorists and the second for
terrorists.

But then someone will figure it's terribly convenient for drug and organised
crime too. And tax evasion. And tickets. Soon everybody gets the exploit kit
but they'll whip out the first one for press ops.

------
emitstop
Terrible and flawed on so many levels I can't believe it

------
beardog
"well thats the stupidest f-ing thing i've read all day" (The idea, not the
article). Serious privacy invasion & would never work in practice.

------
westward
Driving while using a mobile and drunk driving are qualitatively different for
at least one important reason... If I'm talking or texting while I'm driving,
I can stop if traffic patterns become sketchy. I can't suddenly stop being
drunk.

Clear and dry with light traffic is very different than snow in a construction
zone. Phone use is something I can stop doing. The same can't be said for
being drunk.

------
edgall
While texting and driving is definitely an issue, this isn't the solution.

It would be much more appropriate to implement ways that remind people that
this is dangerous behaviour.

Preferably there should be something done during driving tests to see how
people react. Something like calling the participants phone when in a safe
environment to see how they react. Of course people could plan for it but that
would be the point.

------
dejawu
I think there might be a way to minimize the privacy risk here: Let Textalyzer
data only be read over a physical USB cable, and only expose the time and
duration of the activity, not the nature of it. Then police can see whether a
driver has been using their phone without digging further.

Of course, I don't have high hopes that it'll actually be implemented like
this, and I fully expect if this does come out to see a headline a year later
along the lines of "Textalyzer protocol exposes private user data/allows
arbitrary code execution!"

------
mmaunder
First they'd have to unlock the iphones. And around we go.

------
blazespin
invest in self driving cars

~~~
yakult
You mean the ones made by google, connected to the cloud 24/7, dumps its logs
remotely on demand, and will lock its doors and drive you to the police
station if its bayesian analysis thinks you're probably a terrorist?

~~~
idrios
I'd donate money to an open-source self-driving-car project.

Imagine being able to download the schematics for the car, order relevant
commercial parts, 3D print the exterior, connect to a specialized Raspberry Pi
with cameras and sensors, built-in GPS, ...

I don't actually know how you would do this but if Google can build a self-
driving car, then why couldn't an independent group of motivated people who
don't have any conflict of interest also make one?

~~~
justinlardinois
Why doesn't an open source photo editor as good as Photoshop exist?

The answer to both is that both require highly talented programmers and
designers with a lot domain-specific knowledge, and most if not all of the
people who fit that bill are getting paid to do it commercially.

