No cellphones, no texting by drivers, US urges

On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 12:53:18 -0800 (PST), Mrs Irish Mike
> wrote:

>On Dec 14, 11:23*am, Steve > wrote:
>>
>> They're not going to get to look the cell phone records without a
>> warrant, which is going to be really hard to obtain...
>
>Proof? You just make this up as you go along or what?

Are you kidding? Do you really imagine that the police or the DA can
simply get your phone records and use them against you in court?

> From yesterday's news:
>
>"
>WASHINGTON - A 19-year-old pickup truck driver involved in a deadly
>highway pileup in Missouri last year sent or received 11 texts in the
>11 minutes immediately before the accident, federal investigators said
>Tuesday...

Obviously done with a warrant...

>"Investigators are seeing texting, cell phone calls and other
>distracting behavior by operators in accidents across all modes of
>transportation with increasing frequency. It has become routine for
>investigators to immediately request the preservation of cell phone
>and texting records when they launch an investigation."

A federal judge ruled cell phone records are constitutionally private
and therefore can't be released without a warrant, in a case that may
affect how law enforcement officials use data in criminal
investigations.
http://www.mobiledia.com/news/104420.html

>
>Read mo http://www.azcentral.com/business/ar...#ixzz1gXndLn2Z
>
> Routine. Get it? No big deal to pull one's cell phone records.

Only with a warrant.. no warrant and it's inadmissible.

>Driving is a privlage, one in which one gives up certain rights.

But not your telephone records.

>Look
>at implied consent, that's all that needs to be done as far as phone
>records.

<ROTFLOMAO> there is no "implied consent" for your phone records.
They need a warrant to get them...

> Why would you want to defend such stupid behavior?

I'm not defending anything. I'm just telling you how it is...

On Dec 13, 10:17*pm, Car Crashes Mean Car Sales - GM loves highway
criminals > wrote:
> I'm all for this but such a ban has to be combined with stiff
> penalties, not this $25 fine crap we now have. Treat cell-driving like
> drunk driving.
>
> http://my.earthlink.net/article/top?...8cc-63e3-44cb-....
>
> No cellphones, no texting by drivers, US urges
>
> December 13, 2011 9:33 PM EST
> WASHINGTON (AP) — Texting, emailing or chatting on a cellphone while
> driving is simply too dangerous to be allowed, federal safety
> investigators declared Tuesday, urging all states to impose total bans
> except for emergencies.
>
> Inspired by recent deadly crashes — including one in which a teenager
> sent or received 11 text messages in 11 minutes before an accident —
> the recommendation would apply even to hands-free devices, a much
> stricter rule than any current state law.
>
> The unanimous recommendation by the five-member National
> Transportation Safety Board would make an exception for devices deemed
> to aid driver safety such as GPS navigation systems.
>
> A group representing state highway safety offices called the
> recommendation "a game-changer."
>
> snip
> __________________
> Reckless drivers are a bigger threat to you than all other criminals
> put together!
>
> Affirmative action is double racism. Persecuting whites in the belief
> blacks can't make it on ability.

Sing it, bub. I'm sick of the near misses with yakking drivers.

On Dec 14, 2:31*am, necromancer
<Zidane's_Last_Red_Card@worldofnecromancer_no_spam _no_way.org> wrote:
> Judy "**** 4 Brains" Dairya spewed:
>
>
>
> >I'm all for this but such a ban has to be combined with stiff
> >penalties, not this $25 fine crap we now have. Treat cell-driving like
> >drunk driving.
>
> Great, just what we need: another nanny state law to protect imbeciles
> like you from yourself.

No that's not it at all, you moron. The idea is to protect people
from dangerous actions of other people. That's what govt's are for.
Seat-belt laws are nanny state, but not this.

On Dec 14, 6:16*pm, Kalmia > wrote:
>
> Sing it, bub. *I'm sick of the near misses with yakking drivers.-

What would do more good than laws is a PR campaign pointing out how
texting drivers are a huge menace to others. Put up billboards that
say texting drivers are a hundred times more dangerous to you than
terrorists.

On Dec 14, 11:23*am, Steve > wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 09:32:12 -0800 (PST), Mrs Irish Mike
>
> > wrote:
> >On Dec 14, 5:45*am, Steve > wrote:
>
> >> Fear not, there is little chance of any lawmakers banning hands free
> >> telephone usage. *I can see banning texting, even banning holding the
> >> phone to your ear, but handsfree usage is totally unenforceable.
>
> > Not so. If you are in an accident, the police need only look at your
> >cell phone records to determine if you were using it. Additional
> >charges could then brought.
>
> They're not going to get to look the cell phone records without a
> warrant, which is going to be really hard to obtain...

The same article discusses that and they _are_ "locking the cellphone
records" as a stardard practice. How they are getting it done is not
explained.

Harry K

On Dec 14, 4:01*pm, Steve > wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 12:53:18 -0800 (PST), Mrs Irish Mike
>
> > wrote:
> >On Dec 14, 11:23*am, Steve > wrote:
>
> >> They're not going to get to look the cell phone records without a
> >> warrant, which is going to be really hard to obtain...
>
> >Proof? You just make this up as you go along or what?
>
> Are you kidding? * Do you really imagine that the police or the DA can
> simply get your phone records and use them against you in court?
>
> > From yesterday's news:
>
> >"
> >WASHINGTON - A 19-year-old pickup truck driver involved in a deadly
> >highway pileup in Missouri last year sent or received 11 texts in the
> >11 minutes immediately before the accident, federal investigators said
> >Tuesday...
>
> Obviously done with a warrant...
>
> >"Investigators are seeing texting, cell phone calls and other
> >distracting behavior by operators in accidents across all modes of
> >transportation with increasing frequency. It has become routine for
> >investigators to immediately request the preservation of cell phone
> >and texting records when they launch an investigation."
>
> A federal judge ruled cell phone records are constitutionally private
> and therefore can't be released without a warrant, in a case that may
> affect how law enforcement officials use data in criminal
> investigations.http://www.mobiledia.com/news/104420.html
>
>
>
> >Read mohttp://www.azcentral.com/business/ar...0111213Drivers...
>
> > Routine. Get it? No big deal to pull one's cell phone records.
>
> Only with a warrant.. *no warrant and it's inadmissible.
>
> >Driving is a privlage, one in which one gives up certain rights.
>
> But not your telephone records.
>
> >Look
> >at implied consent, that's all that needs to be done as far as phone
> >records.
>
> <ROTFLOMAO> *there is no "implied consent" for your phone records.
> They need a warrant to get them...
>
> > Why would you want to defend such stupid behavior?
>
> I'm not defending anything. *I'm just telling you how it is...

No, you are telling how your _think_ it is. They are getting the
records locked. How they are doing it is not stated.

Harry K

On Dec 14, 8:57*pm, Harry K > wrote:

>
> The same article discusses that and they _are_ "locking the cellphone
> records" as a stardard practice. *How they are getting it done is not
> explained.
>

It would be pretty easy to have the states pass an implied consent
attached to a drivers permit.

Our laws regarding drunk driving show that driving does not come with
all the protections our Constitution would seem to guarantee. People
who drive have consented to give evidence that is incriminating
(sobriety tests), failure to do so can lead to fines and imprisonment.
In effect, the Fifth Amendments rights, protecting one from giving
evidence that is self-incriminating, have been given up.

Drive on state roads then you have given permission to prove
sobriety. Not too hard to pass laws forcing drivers to surrender their
cell phone records to prove innocence in DWT (Texting) cases.

On 2011-12-15, Mrs Irish Mike > wrote:
> On Dec 14, 8:57*pm, Harry K > wrote:
>
>>
>> The same article discusses that and they _are_ "locking the cellphone
>> records" as a stardard practice. *How they are getting it done is not
>> explained.
>>
>
> It would be pretty easy to have the states pass an implied consent
> attached to a drivers permit.
>
> Our laws regarding drunk driving show that driving does not come with
> all the protections our Constitution would seem to guarantee. People
> who drive have consented to give evidence that is incriminating
> (sobriety tests), failure to do so can lead to fines and imprisonment.
> In effect, the Fifth Amendments rights, protecting one from giving
> evidence that is self-incriminating, have been given up.
>
> Drive on state roads then you have given permission to prove
> sobriety. Not too hard to pass laws forcing drivers to surrender their
> cell phone records to prove innocence in DWT (Texting) cases.

The above is a perfect demonstration of the slippery slope in action.

Once our rights have been violated in one area the next and following
areas are justified by those that went before.

I got a better idea, hold people accountable for bad driving and forget
about why they were driving badly. Oh but there's a problem... no more
moral outrage, less power for government, and ultimately less enjoyment
for busy body control feaks. And most of all, no revenue stream for
those in and close to government, those who participate in the various
rackets.

On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 21:00:23 -0800 (PST), Harry K
> wrote:

>On Dec 14, 4:01*pm, Steve > wrote:
>> On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 12:53:18 -0800 (PST), Mrs Irish Mike
>>
>> > wrote:
>> >On Dec 14, 11:23*am, Steve > wrote:
>>
>> >> They're not going to get to look the cell phone records without a
>> >> warrant, which is going to be really hard to obtain...
>>
>> >Proof? You just make this up as you go along or what?
>>
>> Are you kidding? * Do you really imagine that the police or the DA can
>> simply get your phone records and use them against you in court?
>>
>> > From yesterday's news:
>>
>> >"
>> >WASHINGTON - A 19-year-old pickup truck driver involved in a deadly
>> >highway pileup in Missouri last year sent or received 11 texts in the
>> >11 minutes immediately before the accident, federal investigators said
>> >Tuesday...
>>
>> Obviously done with a warrant...
>>
>> >"Investigators are seeing texting, cell phone calls and other
>> >distracting behavior by operators in accidents across all modes of
>> >transportation with increasing frequency. It has become routine for
>> >investigators to immediately request the preservation of cell phone
>> >and texting records when they launch an investigation."
>>
>> A federal judge ruled cell phone records are constitutionally private
>> and therefore can't be released without a warrant, in a case that may
>> affect how law enforcement officials use data in criminal
>> investigations.http://www.mobiledia.com/news/104420.html
>>
>>
>>
>> >Read mohttp://www.azcentral.com/business/ar...0111213Drivers...
>>
>> > Routine. Get it? No big deal to pull one's cell phone records.
>>
>> Only with a warrant.. *no warrant and it's inadmissible.
>>
>> >Driving is a privlage, one in which one gives up certain rights.
>>
>> But not your telephone records.
>>
>> >Look
>> >at implied consent, that's all that needs to be done as far as phone
>> >records.
>>
>> <ROTFLOMAO> *there is no "implied consent" for your phone records.
>> They need a warrant to get them...
>>
>> > Why would you want to defend such stupid behavior?
>>
>> I'm not defending anything. *I'm just telling you how it is...
>
>No, you are telling how your _think_ it is. They are getting the
>records locked. How they are doing it is not stated.

Simple fact is that phone records may not be accessed without a
warrant..

>Harry K

On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 19:53:13 -0800 (PST), Car Crashes Mean Car Sales -
GM loves highway criminals > wrote:

>On Dec 14, 6:16*pm, Kalmia > wrote:
>>
>> Sing it, bub. *I'm sick of the near misses with yakking drivers.-
>
>What would do more good than laws is a PR campaign pointing out how
>texting drivers are a huge menace to others. Put up billboards that
>say texting drivers are a hundred times more dangerous to you than
>terrorists.

What nonsense... people who text or hold the phone on their ear
don't care one little bit about others....