New York eyes a 'breathlyzer' for texting while driving

http://timesunion.com/local/article/Lawmakers-look-at-breathlyzer-for-texting-while-11105205.php

by dvanwag • 9 years ago

38 47 9 years ago

This is the beginning of the end. Privacy is gone, humanity is doomed. What other data will these devices skim while they are looking through the phone OS to see when the last text message you sent was?

We are on a slippery slope to being completely controlled by cops and their technology. Pretty soon every law enforcement vehicle is going to come equipped with a LTE spoofer running in their car that skims all this information from the phones in the near vicinity.

You'll get automatic messages in your car's dashboard display when you send a text message - "Pull over, you broke the law and sent a text while driving. A cop will be here soon to arrest you."

tptacek2• 9 years ago

I guess it's true, in the sense that when you look at it, everything is the beginning of some end.

vvanders4• 9 years ago

On one hand, driving isn't a right and if you're piloting a 5k+ lb projectile at 70mph(or 50k+ in the case of some truckers I've seen texting + driving) you deserve to have the goddamn book thrown at you.

It would be nicer if there was a way to do this without complete privacy invasion, at the bare minimum a warrant + request to your carrier for just timestamp metadata would make me much more comfortable.

jimktrains24• 9 years ago

What if my passenger was making the call or text on my phone (which isn't uncommon, at least with my group of friends)?

What if the texts were minutes before at a parking lot, while the car was off? How does anything but a copy actually seeing a cell phone in my hand while driving prove beyond a doubt I'm guilty?

merpnderp2• 9 years ago

So your argument is "think of the children" followed by "let's ticket the person even if they handed off their phone to a passenger to text, or texted at the stop light (legal in my state)?"

And you'd be willing to normalize law enforcement snooping in our most private affairs for trivial traffic offenses?

jimktrains24• 9 years ago

Is it keeping track of speed while I perform tasks? or the text I sent a few minutes ago in a parking lot with the car off going to get me a ticket?

Or, what if I handed my phone to the passenger?

kamakazizuru• 9 years ago

this is why we just need to get self-driving cars sooner, this is solving the wrong problem.

Sargos• 9 years ago

This will be struck down by the courts so fast the ink won't even be dry. Your phone is the backbone of your life and contains pretty much all of your private information and allowing police to scoop all of that up without a warrant is blatantly unconstitutional.

ShannonAlther• 9 years ago

So we might hope. But I worry that when this reaches the courts, the case will be over a collision where the driver at fault has modified their phone to resist such an intrusion...

imglorp• 9 years ago

This might fall under probable cause justifying a search.

For example, in a traffic collision, you tailend someone: a super common cause is distracted driving. The officer might claim a search for concrete evidence of distracted driving, like if you were accessing the phone during that moment.

throwfast12• 9 years ago

at the rate of which laws are changing, I wish I could believe ideas like this would be immediately struck down however I suspect more laws like this will be created to our surprise on a consistent basis.

the chief argument being, the law needs tools to protect its citizens.

the sacrifice of privacy for security has been towards security on a consistent basis for a while now, I see no reason for that to change.

tptacek2• 9 years ago

At the rate which laws are changing? Can you be as specific as you can about the priors you're using to generate this conclusion?

wyager• 9 years ago

By "security" you mean the euphemistic term "security" which refers to executive powers. Actual security, the non-euphemistic kind, is inseparable from privacy.

Given that, you are absolutely correct. It's not surprising that the government has gradually given itself more executive powers; governments seldom do the opposite.

math0ne• 9 years ago

It would just have to be written into the terms of your license like current breathalyzer laws are right?

rblatz• 9 years ago

That rule is treading a very thin line, if the government can't legally compel you to do something they are reserving the right to deny you basically every "privilege" they can. At a certain point the government could basically prevent you from being able to go about a normal life for not waiving your rights on demand for nearly anything. It seems like this specific instance is possibly on the ok side of the line, but if so just barely.

skolos• 9 years ago

These technologies (including actual breathlyzer) are patches that might reduce bad human driving behavior but will never eliminate it. In my opinion the only way to solve this is to stop humans from driving altogether. The biggest reason I'm excited that self driving car technology is maturing is because I won't need to worry (and often see through windshield) that a fellow driver is pressing gas pedal while paying no attention where he/she 's going.

empath75• 9 years ago

this seems to be unconstitutional on its face, but the courts have been willing to let cops get away with murder, so it probably would end up being allowed.

thrillgore• 9 years ago

How soon before Apple and Google patch whatever mechanisms this tool is using to check phone activity?

Since my phone uses Qi charging, maybe I see a value in epoxying my USB port...

profmonocle• 9 years ago

My exact thought. The way they describe it, it sounds like they just plug it in and it can get usage data? If no confirmation is required on the device itself, that sounds like a security vulnerability to me.

planteen• 9 years ago

Take it a step further and put a USB killer inside the phone!

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2016/12/usb-killer-fries-dev...

dbg31415• 9 years ago

This is a horrible idea.

I'm not going to unlock my phone for the cops just because they pull me over. Once they connect, who knows what data they will capture and how that will be used. Driving isn't probable case for them to look through my emails... and once I unlock my phone for them they can see everything.

Also... it's stupidly easy to circumvent. Just carry an old phone and switch it out when they ask. They won't have probable cause to search the car, so it's really whatever phone you give them.

I hate how they waste tax money on crap like this.

Brendinooo• 9 years ago

This article was really light on technological details:

The technology is still in development. But the concept is a device that would use cutting-edge software to determine whether a person's smartphone was being used at the time of an accident.

Does anyone know anything about what Cellebrite does? Their website feels jargon-y on the surface, didn't get a clear sense of what all they do on an initial visit. Is what they're proposing even possible without help from Apple/Google?

problems2• 9 years ago

Cellebrite sells phone exploits and "forensics tools" (read: exploits + data gathering) if I recall correctly.

zabuni• 9 years ago

Judging from the release notes of their other products, which I assume this will be based on, it relies on exploits, or having the phone unlocked. So if you run a patched google phone or an iphone, they get nothing.

http://www.cellebrite.com/Releases/MobileForensics/UFED6.1_R...

The device lists makes and models of Android phones they can access, and ones they can bypass the lock. I have to assume they are using exploits. Especially with the lack of similar lists for Apple.

What I have to wonder though, are they getting a special version of the product, or is the euphemism or a digital "breathalyzer" just a way of dodging the fact that they want to do warrant less digital forensics on people's devices?

finnn• 9 years ago

Anyone know where I can get one of these devices that can bypass the security of a smartphone and scrape it's contents? Also, will the mobile OS manufacturers be patching this gaping security hole?

problems2• 9 years ago

I doubt it works as claimed. My phone when plugged in goes into charge only mode by default, there's not exactly much to exploit there when the data pins are turned off.

They mention the tech is glitchy, I'm guessing because their exploits fail on many devices.

cmdrfred• 9 years ago

It also interestingly works on all devices evidently. I think it's vaporware it says it hasn't been developed yet.

ColinCochrane• 9 years ago

It seems like there are a couple big issues with this.

1) What if your passenger was using your phone?

2) What if you using voice-commands to send a text (especially if via CarPlay, etc...)?

johnfn• 9 years ago

True, passenger in the car does blow a hole through this. But that's only something like 5% of cars, so it'd be easy to only target the other 95%.

Voice to text is certainly harder to prove right now.

To me (and I know this will be a controversial opinion) I feel this is something smart phone manufacturers should work together with the government on. A simple "has a text been manually entered in the last x minutes" read out feels like a non slippery slope that may save lives by proxy.

jimktrains24• 9 years ago

To me (and I know this will be a controversial opinion) I feel this is something smart phone manufacturers should work together with the government on. A simple "has a text been manually entered in the last x minutes" read out feels like a non slippery slope that may save lives by proxy.

It wouldn't save lives -- it's only useful after the fact. My phone shouldn't spy or taddle on me (more than's already required to connect to the cell network.)

mediaman• 9 years ago

The article mentions this technology is still glitchy. But how will it ever become non-glitchy? Police will not be able to constitutionally require you to provide a passcode if the phone is locked and there is established case law to support this, so the device would have to scan the phone without a passcode.

Doesn't existing security on modern phones (the iPhone's secure enclave, for example) make this extremely difficult to do?

darknoon• 9 years ago

Older iPhones have exploits that allow bypassing some or all of the protections. It's likely exploits will be found or have been found against current (iPhone 7) hardware given the economic incentives. Nonetheless, I am not aware of any out in the wild.

As for android phones, afaik you're pretty boned.

jncraton• 9 years ago

That's a little alarmist. Apple at least appears to take iOS security seriously, so if there was a known flaw that was actively being used to extract data in the wild it would get patched very quickly.

Why do assert that Android phones are just broken? Even with traditional full device encryption without specialized hardware support, it is very difficult to extract keys from a running device without some sort of known vulnerability.

I find it highly unlikely that anyone could build a simple device that someone like a State Trooper could use to pull usable information off an encrypted phone made in the last two years old with any kind of reliability.

ben_jones• 9 years ago

So um, can we name and shame whatever start-up is doing this?

tomjen3• 9 years ago

Pointless. I mean sure if they see them do it, fine them, but I am far more concerned with drivers who are drunk - they are dangerous the entire trip.

sandworm101• 9 years ago

Constitutions normally only protect the content of communications, not the fact that communications occur. This isnt even the traditional metadata debate (inside v outside of an envalope). They dont care who or what you text, just the when and that you did. A mandatory tech that betrays only the time that a text was sent will probably survive legal scrutiny.

djschnei2• 9 years ago

4A makes no distinction between content/things and actions. A timeline of my actions is absolutely something I am (should be) secure in.

Furthermore, the idea that privacy means secrecy is too narrow even when we think only about personal information, like the contents of a journal. Suppose I give you my diary and urge you to read it. No one would think you are violating my privacy when you do so. The reason is that privacy is not about the information itself, no matter how personal it may be. Instead, this aspect of privacy – informational privacy – is about my right to control what other see, and in this example I have given you my permission.

Privacy has less to do with the information we conceal from the world than with the close and trusted people that we determine to share our information with.

My Actions, i.e. the act of communicating, is absolutely protected under the original intent of the fourth amendment. Now, that means very little nowadays, but your statement - "Constitutions normally only protect the content of communications, not the fact that communications occur" - is patently untrue.

djschnei2• 9 years ago

“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety” - Ben Franklin

fuzzywalrus• 9 years ago

I just don't know how this could be provable? Either there's an OS level log that you're signing your life away on that is a huge privacy risk (and requires OS level engineering) or they're just guesstimating off data use. I can't see how they'd be able to differentiate from a hands free UX interaction from one done physically. Also, if in a car of multiple people, it begs the question who is responsible for using the phone? When traveling with friends/family/significant others/guests often we hand off our device for media usage.

New York eyes a 'breathlyzer' for texting while driving

Related Stories