Hacker News Reader

Comment by synlatexc | Hacker News Reader

Why not display a Recent Phone Use option when both side buttons of an Apple device is pressed?

* slide to power off * Medical ID * SOS Emergency Call * Recent Phone Use

Report would be high-level -- has phone been unlocked in last 30 minutes, if so, timestamps showing when it was unlocked, for how long, how many finger taps occurred, etc.

That would give law enforcement a quick indication of whether phone was in use. Of course if there are passengers it could be contested. For more detail, they'd have to subpoena as they do now.

View on HN

I hate people who use their phones while driving as much as the next person, but I would not buy a phone that divulged my personal information in this way.

That's kind of describing Digital Wellbeing/Screen Time.

Which I have to unlock my phone to view.

I learned from that Alaska incident that a lot of people just don't lock their phone.

That is not divulging personal information in any case and the privilege of driving requires some compromises there. For example, having a medical condition actually is a private matter but the state has a compelling public safety interest to require you to disclose conditions which affect your ability to drive safely.

Pressing both side buttons has nothing to do with driving.

That was described as a way for a police officer to investigate your phone use after a traffic stop or in an accident investigation.

Then what safeguards does it have to ensure there is in fact a police officer and a traffic stop or an accident? None? Then it's a privacy nightmare that divulges your personal information to any stranger nearby.

I’m not advocating for it (and, in fact, think it’s a terrible idea). I was just explaining what the idea was.

Thanks. The idea was perfectly understood.

Ok. This post made me doubt that: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39146401

The feature described does not give personal information. It would give information which is highly relevant during an official investigation in a privacy-preserving manner which does not open the possibility of giving other unintended information.

Now, it would be possible to use the same mechanism they use for digital drivers licenses to further restrict it but the nice thing about that idea is that not using sensitive information means there isn’t much concern of a leak.

The feature described divulges information such as "timestamps showing when it was unlocked, for how long, how many finger taps occurred, etc" which is absolutely personal information. And no, it is not privacy-preserving. It is an affront to all cryptographers to use the phrase "privacy-preserving" here given that it makes zero effort to preserve privacy.

Have you actually seen what amazing technologies are worthy of the name "privacy-preserving" these days? You can look up items in a database without the database operator knowing what you queried. You can let a server add two numbers without the server operator knowing what these two numbers are. These are worthy of the phrase "privacy-preserving" in this age.

That’s not a privacy risk under any normal definition of the term.

If you're suggesting that the state should make driver's licenses contingent on owning a phone with a feature like this, I guess I'll just have to give up my car or my phone, then.

I’m saying that it’s reasonable for a police officer investigating a collision to ask the driver about a very common cause of collisions, just as we allow them to check for alcohol and require you to take a test if you appear to be impaired.

The feature described would be a nice way to support those questions in a manner which does not reveal private information, require you to unlock the phone, or otherwise risk giving them access beyond what’s needed to answer the questions during an official investigation. You could of course choose not to use it but why you’d want to give them additional access to your device is beyond me.

And I'm saying that I disagree with you.

Sure, lots of people disagree with things but the law is what matters, not vibes. There’s a long-running precedent that investigating accidents makes it reasonable to ask what the operator of the vehicle was doing immediately before the crash.

I don’t see how that precedent applies. I can already easily answer their question without unlocking my device, and if they want evidence, they can get a warrant.

Even the breathalyzer requirement seems irrelevant, considering that it only requires you to submit to a breathalyzer performed by a police officer, rather than mandating that your BAC be available to anybody with physical access to your property.

> I can already easily answer their question without unlocking my device, and if they want evidence, they can get a warrant.

You can’t answer their question with anything but hearsay. This is why I brought up the DUI checks because we know some people are going to lie, and hard evidence can easily be acquired to sidestep that issue. The suggestion above would be similar in terms of having minimal privacy concern and because it’s cheap and easy it’d actually be done in non-egregious cases.

I reject your insistence that making an activity log, however opaque, visible to anybody with physical access to a device is a "minimal privacy concern." Repeating it as though it is settled fact does nothing to convince anybody. Perhaps if you'd ever had to deal with an abusive partner you'd see the obvious implications.

I also reject the comparison to DUI checks on the basis that those must be performed ASAP in order not to lose the evidence, thus necessitating urgency; the same doesn't apply to phones. As we've seen in, for example, the case of the Uber self-driving car operator who was using her phone when she killed a pedestrian, they were easily able to determine this after the fact, without such intrusive features.

Your testimony about your own behavior is not hearsay.

That data is practically useless because I'm using Google Maps and Spotify connected to my AUX neither of which I think most people consider using your phone while driving.

Ok, I'll bite. Why would most people not consider using Google Maps and Spotify on your phone to be using your phone?

I think the argument for these two apps would be that it's essentially identical to using the nav system and audio system of your car.

If your phone is mounted and easy to reach, that's perhaps true. If you're holding it in your hand and looking down, it's less comparable.

I think it's pretty clear cut that using your phone to do stuff is... using your phone.

If you want a dedicated gps or music player you can buy one.

In my area you can not use a phone at all while driving a motorcycle even for navigation.

You are allowed to buy a dedicated gps though.

In CA, the rules are now the same for cellphones and dedicated GPS units. The only exception is for "manufacturer-installed systems that are embedded in the vehicle". Taken literally, this means that if you have an aftermarket CarPlay-compatible head unit, it's illegal to touch it at all, other than to turn it on or off. [1]

It appears that new drivers are also forbidden from even looking at dash-mounted devices while driving. I get that they might be more easily distracted, and unable to give voice prompts while driving, but they presumably also need more help navigating, with advance lane change warnings, etc. Basically, these laws have not been especially well-calibrated, which is not surprising given that this is true for pretty much all laws regarding new technologies.

1: https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/does-california-law-...

Hilarious take.

Touch device with cellular radio physically attached to car: A-ok

Touch device with a radio not connected to the car? VERBOTEN.

I believe there have been some legal disputes concerning this approach. Some time ago the US Constitution was amended to provide clarity.

I can’t wait for that to be used against me when I’ve been safely having my wife use my phone while I’m driving.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com