Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

VIC Victoria Police Consider New York Style Policing Model

Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' started by Jeffco, Jun 6, 2016.

  1. Mods not sure if exactly right spot please move if necessary

    Not sure if I agree with all aspects of this, actually I don't but here is Vicpols latest idea.

    Victoria Police may scan mobile phones for texting drivers

    DANGEROUS drivers texting behind the wheel would be busted by a hi-tech gadget that scans smartphones under an idea being investigated by police.

    Police would conduct roadside phone scans — similar to breath tests — using a “textalyser” in a radical move to catch texting motorists.

    The New York-style policing model, in which the device is a mobile phone version of the breathalyser, will be considered by Victoria Police.

    It comes as the latest Victoria Police figures show 34,392 drivers were caught — 94 a day — using their phones while behind the wheel in 2015.

    Alarmingly, the number of Learner drivers and P-platers nabbed had almost tripled in three years to 1986.

    Known as a textalyser, police use the device on the roadside after a crash to scan mobile-phone metadata to determine if they had been used at a particular time.
    The equipment can check for phone activity including web browsing and call and text logs. Acting Superintendent Stuart McGregor said police would examine the technology, being built by Israeli company Cellebrite.

    “We are interested in anything that could support us in our road to zero lives lost on Victorian roads,” he said.

    “We are constantly assessing technologies from all over the world to advance our road policing efforts here.”

    Politicians in New York have drafted a law allowing police to use the device to detect if a motorist was talking, texting or on the internet at the time of a crash or just before.

    Under the law, motorists on their phones would be treated like drunks and those who do not submit their phones face immediate licence suspension.

    Should the trial be successful, the device could become standard in police cars.

    Under existing laws in Victoria, police must apply and pay large sums of cash to telcos to extract phone data.

    Despite fines of $455 and the loss of four demerit points, many Victorian drivers still flout the law — 130,853 across three years to 2015.

    Supt McGregor said it was alarming how many P-plate and Learner drivers were being caught.

    “No text message or social media update is more important than getting to your destination safely,” he said.

    “When you’re learning how to drive or driving on your own for the first time, it is essential to devote your full attention to the task at hand.”

    Supt McGregor said that while the numbers were falling for full licence holders — 42,731 in 2014 to 34,392 in 2015 — they were still a concern.

    No Cookies | Herald Sun
    • Informative Informative x 4
  2. at the risk of being unpopular I reckon this is the best thing ever. no doubt 130,000 offenders in three years is the tip of the iceberg in terms of real numbers.

    I hope they introduce it in all states.

    I wonder if it allows for hands free texting using Siri?
    • Agree Agree x 4
  3. I could be wrong but aren't txt's times stamped :whistle:, if so should be easily policed if you're pulled over but you would think privacy laws would come into play.
  4. After a crash.

    Why not? Might be a better deterrent than currently in place
  5. Sounds good to me! :)

    Has anyone told the NSW cops about it?
  6. Interesting...
  7. The general principle, I am in favour of. People shouldn't use phones while driving. But the methodology concerns me. If you want to take someone's phone, and look into, AFTER an accident has happened, see whether they were googling kitten pawn, that's one thing. You start interrogating people's phones with no warrant, from some metres away, you've just taken not one but several steps down the road to disaster. This is what they do - they find a place to insert a wedge, and then hammer it.

    In the US, the FBI wants to get into an apple thing used by terrorists. So, do they take it to Apple and ask for their help? No, they stage a publicity campaign and get a court order, written to give them catre blanch to bust anything, any time, any way they like, and demand the tech companies comply with them. The precedent they want is cops (and spooks and FEDs) can ask a tech company to do anything, and that company is compelled to obey because we are big brother.

    I am not in favour of people texting (or talking without a hands free, or watching [invent your own unlikely sexual pairing]) but I am very worried about the authorities riding a wave of public sentiment to get something they want. We had a madman shoot some people in Tasmania. How long did it take Little Johnnie to write those complex new laws from scratch? It must be nice to be the Prime Minister who can type 2,000 words a minute...

    I would like to dip some of these dropkicks in hot wax, for texting while driving, but be very careful what you give permission to, because of them.
    • Agree Agree x 15
  8. How much metadata will they actually check, what will happen with the data once collected, if the police find something interesting in it, what happens then?

    This is also troubling I lose the right of Innocent until proven guilty.

    I can see it now at every single accident, a cop stops by wether its needed or not says give me your phones I need to check if you were on them at the time of incident.

    I say no officer s its clear that he's at fault & bang I've just been done lost my licence cause a cop wants to scan my phone.
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  9. Well said kneedragonkneedragon

    I agree 100%. And support whatever we can do to get goons who are using phones while driving to be appropriately penalised, but the thin edge of the wedge is a dangerous place to be.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  10. Of course, this whole thing turns into a major shit-fight if the driver is not alone in the vehicle.
    • Agree Agree x 4
    • Like Like x 1
  11. Hmmm yes the grassy knoll/ I didn't do it theory. Good point Sir
    • Agree Agree x 1
  12. #12 kneedragon, Jun 6, 2016
    Last edited: Jun 6, 2016
    No, that's just the start.

    What about if they use the same tech to check what people have been looking at online, before letting them attend a protest march? We caught Peter Garret and chucked him out of the anti-prejudice rally, because he'd just been browsing Al Jezira, and you KNOW that has terrorist sympathies...

    The business of what happens in a car, is not the real issue. Once they have the technology, and permission to use it, then where does the use of it stop?

    And then what happens when they have some unexpected success? Suppose they stumble across somebody they've been looking for, using this phone interrogation stuff? "We only caught the Nylon Strangler thanks to our wonderful new electronic safety screen. Isn't it wonderful?"

    You can make the case, quite easily, for wide scale spying on everyone, all the time, because we will catch the Nylon Strangler much quicker. And we do (they're quite right) have a much better chance of catching people who want to have a big terrorist attack at ANZAC day or something. So does that justify a complete loss of any privacy for all of us?
    • Agree Agree x 3
    • Like Like x 1
  13. I'm pretty sure "they" have the technology........

    It's been a long time since I was managing a network.... I've been retired for 13 years.... but, back then, there were tools for "spying" on network traffic, I'd have to expect that there are such things as network sniffers for mobile phones.

    I do remember, before the demise of the analog phone network, several politicians being rudely surprised at how easy it was for folk to listen in on their phone conversations, and me being amazed at how stupid they could be, saying silly stuff on a network, and expecting it to be "safe".

    As for where the use of such technology stops........ I dunno.

    If it stops a bunch of innocent civilians getting blown up........ sounds fair to me.

    If it "encourages" folk not to stuff about with their phones when driving....again, sounds fair to me. (Remember that piccie of Bill Shorten, just recently?)

    I know I'm headed down the old path of..."You have nothing to fear if you aren't doing anything wrong." <shrug>

    Where would you draw the line, kneedragon?
    • Like Like x 3
  14. I think there are better tech solutions, and one's that render enforcement redundant.
    Phones (or networks) incapable of receiving and composing texts while moving would mean that there would be no need for infringements. Same with calls (other than through bluetooth perhaps).
    Of course police would prefer a system that places them at the centre. That's only human nature.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  15. Where do I draw the line? LOL - I don't KNOW, mate. It all frightens the be-cheezes out of me.

    There has to be some kind of defence. There has to be some degree of protection against this stuff.

    Look, I am also an old techie. The only 'digital security' is never go into a room that has a running computer. That isn't a reasonable measure in the modern world. Nothing you have ever done on a computer, is really secure.

    "I think there are better tech solutions, and one's that render enforcement redundant."
    Now that's a much better idea! The issue then, is how do you know who the driver is? Should we stop all those people who serf while commuting on the train? Because the obvious fix would break all that in a heartbeat.
  16. Got a CFA callout on Saturday evening 1.5 kms from home to a MVA, driver had taken out the concrete and pipe railing on a bridge while texting, destroyed the car, luckily not himself, he also blew 0.2.
    Don't have a problem checking times of use but everything is open to abuse.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  17. #17 CrazyCam, Jun 6, 2016
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 6, 2016
    OK titus, are you going to tell my wife that she can't do stuff on her phone while in the car, with me driving?

    • Agree Agree x 1
  18. Yes :eek:. Although I am pretty sure it is possible to set the disruption area to just the drivers seat. Proximity sensors have been developed to that point, according to one report I came across.

    To put it simply, if drivers are willing to take the risk now, they'll just continue to do so. The threat of punishment has very limited effect.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  19. ... further...

    Everything you do in the modern world, leaves an electronic paper trail.

    Do you really want the local copper, to see your car drive past, check the number plates and get a name and address, then check your marital status and make an educated guess about whether the woman in the car with you is actually your wife? Should he be able to do a check around and see whether your credit card has been used to book or pay for a motel room in the last 3 days? The tech to do that is widely available right now. I would like to think it is not being used that way just yet. I don't want to see it move in that direction.

    They will tell us they can use this to catch child molesters and kiddie pawn people, and that's true - they can. But what else will it open up?

    "But if you haven't done anything wrong then you have nothing to fear." Actually, that isn't true either. How hard would it be for there to be a miss-spelling on one of the old database entries, that throws your name up as a convicted child molester? You would find out about that as soon as it threw up a false positive. Ok. So how would you then go about making sure the error was corrected? How would you go about changing the activity log, to delete all reference to you being arrested on the (incorrect) information that you were a tamperer? How would you watch and enforce the accuracy of that information? How would you enforce access to it? How would you prevent a malicious person (perhaps an ex-wife or husband) from inserting some incorrect information? This is a mine field - a really huge one.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  20. If it stops innocent folk getting massacred, yup!

    If it catches folk doing illegal things, yup!
    • Disagree Disagree x 3
    • Winner Winner x 3
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Dislike Dislike x 1