Hacker News Reader

Comment by kaolinite | Hacker News Reader

Clever? There are plenty of completely valid uses for having a phone on whilst driving - such as navigation, streaming music or using CarPlay. As an iPhone needs to be plugged in to use "Hey Siri", this will pretty much entirely affect people using their devices legitimately - whereas people driving with one hand whilst they make a phone call with the other will be unaffected.

This seems like it would be more likely to cause an accident as people have to divert attention from driving to mess with their phone so they can get navigation back (and having listened to the advert, I know I would be very distracted by it).

Finally, is this even legal? I have no idea of the law in Sweden (and IANAL) but I feel like you could make the point that this advert is interfering with your device without authorisation.

View on HN

Sounds to me like Toyota accessed thousands of computers without authorization.

They're a corporation. Little people laws don't apply to them.

(Oh, how I long to be wrong on this, but I strongly suspect that nothing, or at least nothing that will make the campaign a net negative, will come of the fact that they violated the hell out of the CFAA.)

The ad ran in Sweden. CFAA is an American law.

We have the equivalent law against "dataintrång", lit. computerized trespass/intrusion.

https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dataintr%C3%A5ng

https://lagen.nu/1962:700#K4P9c

Both of you: thanks for the correction.

We really need a case in which a corporate executive goes to jail for something like that.

Not sure that the world really needs more litigation...

Overreaction. Is it illegal for me to talk to your phone? To broadcast myself with a megaphone, in a crowd, and yell "Hey Siri, turn on airplane mode"?

Is it illegal for me to unplug your computer? Jerkish, sure, but illegal only, maybe, in very rare circumstances.

I am officially doing this at every function I attend from now on. thank you for this fantastic idea. JWZ would be proud.

I think you are missing the point. Sure, it's an overreaction but if an individual did it as a prank you can bet some prosecutor would try to make a name for themselves by throwing the book at them. What's fair for the goose...

> Hey Siri

by the way, I don't like being made to interact with clunky robotic devices in a manner that suggests they might be human for the purpose of [marketing] making unintelligent plebians think 'wow that's cool'. If it's lifelike I'll use it like it's a personality, but otherwise it should just be a set of commands. Stop trying to confuse my socially inept brain

A navigation device can be messed up for any number of reasons, but none of them are responsible for causing accidents.

The only thing that would cause an accident would be if the driver diverted his or her attention from the road instead of stopping the vehicle in a responsible manner.

Legally responsible? Of course not. Does that mean its a. Good idea to intentionally distract drivers, many of whom will look at and even pick up their phones while driving?

No, what causes the accident in your scenario is a driver illegally fucking with their phone while driving—not the ad that disabled their nav.

Don't misattribute the responsibility.

Having the phone tucked away streaming music, or in a holder in turn-by-turn GPS mode is hardly "fucking with their phone while driving".

Please reread GP's scenario (from "have to divert attention") - you have misunderstood me.

You're assuming that someone who uses it for navigation or to stream music to listen to is 'fucking with their phone'. As either OP or one of the other comments on here noticed, it will not effect people who are talking on their mobile phone, only those who have left it plugged in; ie. those who are obeying the law will be penalized, while those who aren't remain a danger to others.

Calm 'the fuck' down.

You can't use it as a passenger, either.

> There are plenty of completely valid uses for having a phone on whilst driving - such as navigation, streaming music or using CarPlay

Valid? They are completely and utterly unnecessary. I was listening to music before the iPhone existed. I was also driving from point A to point B before GPS navigation existed. Funny, if you know how to read a map it you don't get lost.

No, these things are not necessary. It's one of those cases of "Just because you can <insert function> it doesn't mean you should".

Streaming Pandora while driving or using a shitty phone navigation system isn't a right. And certainly not one that is above the implied right to be safe on the road and responsibility to operate a vehicle in a manner that does not endanger the lives of others.

We are not entitled to use these toys while driving. Just because the features are there does not mean the driver MUST use them or IS ENTITLED to use them.

Let's start from the correct starting point: A driver should not interact with their phone in almost any way while driving. Everything else derives from there.

It would be fantastic if those down-voting this comment could explain why they think it is OK for somebody to place others in mortal danger for the "privilege" of playing with a toy while driving. And, in particular, I would like them to explain how they would feel about this if they lost a member of their family to some asshole texting while driving as my family has. It's easy to have a fucking opinion about everything when you are not exposed to the consequences of your ideas.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com