Textalyzer - A device that can tell if you were texting while driving

[Richland123]

Textalyzer - A device that can tell if you were texting while driving

Distracted driving has become the #1 cause of auto accidents resulting in property damages, bodily injuries, and deaths. The rise in the number of auto insurance claims and the costs of covering claims from distracted driving has resulted in insurance premium increases as well.

Jeff Rossen and Lindsey Bomnin
NBC TODAY SHOW

A device the size of an electronic tablet is being hailed by its creators as a tool in the fight against distracted driving. But critics call it a major invasion of privacy.

It’s called the “Textalyzer,” and TODAY national investigative correspondent Jeff Rossen tried it out to see how it works.

Like a breathalyzer, the Textalyzer would be used by police after a car accident. But this device would instead allow officers to download information from the driver's phone and track every tap and click made in the minutes beforehand.


Police could use it following an accident to determine whether the driver was distracted by a phone. Right now, the only way police can find that out is with a search warrant allowing them to download that data.

Texting and driving is illegal in 47 states and the District of Columbia. The textalyzer aims to crack down on that activity.

Rossen paid a visit to the headquarters of Cellebrite, the company that developed the device, to test out the technology.

In a blocked off parking lot, Rossen sent a text on his phone. He sent a message on Whatsapp and scrolled through Facebook. He then took a phone call. When he was finished, he handed over his phone to Jim Grady, Cellebrite’s chief executive officer.

They then plugged the phone into the textalyzer, which began downloading information about what apps had just been used.

“I can see that you opened WhatsApp at 2:45. There's several Facebook activity. You received an incoming call at 2:59 and you sent an SMS at 3 o’clock,” Grady reported.


That minute-by-minute report is important to authorities, but privacy advocates describe it as too intrusive. They argue that police should have to get a warrant for that kind of access.

“There's no guarantee when you hand over your cell phone over to the police officer that that officer won't be looking at or copying all kinds of personal data about you,” said Jay Stanley of the American Civil Liberties Union.

Grady said the device doesn’t get that kind of information.

“We're not getting anything about what was said in the texts or who it was said to. Just the touches and swipes,” he said.

 

[Bob_Ross]

It's a great idea...but not great enough to solve the problem of texting-while-driving.
We need something that prevents people from texting-while-driving, not something that simply confirms they were texting-while-driving after they've already broken a law and potentially injured or killed somebody.

 

[Old Garage-Bander]

I agree that sounds like a good idea. Something definitely needs to be done about texting while driving.

My question is, would they have to prove that the texting was the distraction that led to the accident?

With alcohol aren't the laws written such that just being behind the wheel while intoxicated is the offense?
You don't have to be driving the the car? You can be sitting in a parking lot and still be breaking the law.

Suppose a passenger in the car was doing the texting on the driver's phone?
The driver may have been distracted but it would not have been due to them texting, though it may appear to have been the case.
Or perhaps the person driving the car and texting just hands the phone off to the passenger after an incident and claims they were not texting while driving?

If the law for texting and driving is poorly written and ends up being overturned due to technicalities, it might make it harder to pass a new better law.
This needs to be done the right way the first time.

 

[line6man]

Airplanes have black boxes that record the pilot's conversations before tragedy strikes. I've wondered why we don't have cameras and recording devices in cars to capture the driver's reactions when an accident occurs. Sort of like dashcams, but focused on the driver instead of the road.

 

[sissy kathy]

Just disable phones that are moving. That would be a real hindrance to users like @two fingers, but for most users a minor inconvenience. Further, it CAN be done now, with the phone in your pocket. The mobile company could even offer an opt out if you pay enough. Like double you existing plan price. Or they could allow only incoming voice calls. Incoming texts could be held in a buffer until the phone stopped moving, and then sent to the device.

 

[guy n. cognito]

Just disable phones that are moving. That would be a real hindrance to users like @two fingers, but for most users a minor inconvenience. Further, it CAN be done now, with the phone in your pocket. The mobile company could even offer an opt out if you pay enough. Like double you existing plan price. Or they could allow only incoming voice calls. Incoming texts could be held in a buffer until the phone stopped moving, and then sent to the device.

Passengers???

 

[sissy kathy]

Passengers???

In the same boat.

 

[guy n. cognito]

I love that "distracted driving" is now translated as "texting while driving". It shows a short-sighedness that is almost comical.

And this come from a person who doesn't touch his phone while driving: massive invasion of privacy and a massive slippery slope....

 

[guy n. cognito]

In the same boat.

That's my point.........

 

[MJ5150]

Just wait it out. All the idiots that do it will kill themselves eventually, and the problem will be gone.

-Mike

 

[sissy kathy]

I love that "distracted driving" is now translated as "texting while driving". It shows a short-sighedness that is almost comical.

And this come from a person who doesn't touch his phone while driving: massive invasion of privacy and a massive slippery slope....

I get it. I had to quit listening to music when I drive 'cause MUSIC. It would severely distract me. Now I listen to talk radio, not anywhere near as distracting.

 

[Nashrakh]

Just wait it out. All the idiots that do it will kill themselves eventually, and the problem will be gone.

-Mike

You mean after all the bikers and pedestrians have bitten the dust first?

 

[Oddly]

Just wait it out. All the idiots that do it will kill themselves eventually, and the problem will be gone.

-Mike

While I've no problem with that, there's gonna be a lot of collateral damage amongst other innocen road users before the guilty wipe themselves out.

I think the analyser idea is a great one...even as a deterrant...but as said above, its gotta be done right and thete's a lot of vested interest against that happening.

 

[Pilgrim]

Texting while driving is not something I do, but no law enforcement official is getting my phone without a court order.

There's nothing to say that I didn't open a message while in a traffic jam. Also, we have more than a dozen trains a day through town, and it's not unusual to be held up for 10-15 minutes. If I checked email or texts during that time it would do my position no good.

I generally call when I need to communicate while driving, since I can do that via voice command on my dashboard-mounted phone to my car's Bluetooth.

Nope, hand me a court order or subpoena, or no phone.

 

[Old Garage-Bander]

Airplanes have black boxes that record the pilot's conversations before tragedy strikes. I've wondered why we don't have cameras and recording devices in cars to capture the driver's reactions when an accident occurs. Sort of like dashcams, but focused on the driver instead of the road.

Pilots are operating public transport. Laws are different for that than a private vehicle not for hire. It's sort of like needing a special license to be a commercial trucker or bus/cab driver.

I wonder if requiring recording devices in a vehicle might be getting into privacy and first amendment stuff here. On the other hand if insurance companies offered incentives for having those things in your car, that might get somewhere.

In the end it pretty much has to be about someone's pocket book if it's going to work.

 

[MJ5150]

While I've no problem with that, there's gonna be a lot of collateral damage amongst other innocen road users before the guilty wipe themselves out.

I believe the military calls it collateral damage or acceptable losses or something like that.

-Mike

 

[two fingers]

Airplanes have black boxes that record the pilot's conversations before tragedy strikes. I've wondered why we don't have cameras and recording devices in cars to capture the driver's reactions when an accident occurs. Sort of like dashcams, but focused on the driver instead of the road.

Because they are apples and oranges. A pilot is getting paid to care for passengers who have no control over their own collective fate. Same for bus drivers, cabbies, etc. Record them all you want. There is a rumor going around that I may have a cam in my new work vehicle. Fine. I am on the clock and my privacy is not of primary concern. I have a choice. Put up with it or get a new job.

For personal vehicles there are thousands of reasons it wouldn't "fix" anything. First off, it would take a decade ti get it through congress to pass it. Then it would be (as these kinds of policies are) "phased in" over time. By the time every car got cams it would be 50 years from now. By then, cars will be driving themselves and the cams will be useless anyway.

In 2013 there were 10,076 deaths in alcohol related accidents. 3,114 caused by texting and driving. Alcohol consumption while driving is illegal. Problem solved, right? (Sarcasm alert.)

Also, in my personal vehicle, you are taking away my choices and privacy. I don't text and drive. But I CONSTANTLY talk and drive.

Slippery slope IS a logical argument, even though it is always teased by those who can't counter it. If you take away phones, you then get into other areas. Maximum volumes on radios? Stereo controls that are disabled while moving? A "cone of silence" between the driver and all passengers? Food consumption? Women doing makeup? Men using an electric razor? Smoking? Dashboard navigators? Thermostats? Electric window controls? I would argue that spilling and dropping things in my lap and on the floor, and my children, have distracted me MUCH more than electronics have.

Full disclosure: I DID have to lock up my brakes the other day to keep from rear-ending another vehicle. (Granted, they stopped very suddenly when they realized they were about to miss their turn.) I was messing with my phone. But I wasn't texting or calling anyone. I was trying to find the KidzBop version of "Peter Pan" (popular song right now) in the playlist of my phone for my girls. Even with that close call....even with my own children in the car.....I do NOT think we should disable all functions on all phones in the car. That would be just silly. (By the way, I used that as a teachable moment. And I also taught my oldest how to navigate my playlist so from now on the kids will find whatever songs they want while I bebop down the road eyes forward. It's what we adults do. We learn and adapt.)

Then there is that pesky aspect of proof in our legal system. How will you prove that the driver was the person futzing with the phone. You have 4 people riding in a car. Wreck. Cops. This app. They find all kinds of fiddling going on with YOUR phone while YOU were driving just before the accident. How do they prove the others in the car weren't the ones playing with the phone? Cameras? So now we have electronics disabling laws, electronics history recording laws, and cameras in every single personal vehicle? Seriously? Even George Orwell would freak out at that notion!!! Why don't we just legally mandate every human wear a body cam at all times. Perhaps we can save lives with regard to home accidents. (More sarcasm)

Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying we shouldn't have DUI laws. That's just dumb. However, we have to find a balance between liberty and death. I will not drive a personal vehicle with a camera in/on it. Period. I will not disable my phone.

I drive an average of two hours a day for work. I talk on my phones an average of an hour and a half of those two hours. I have never had a close call in my work vehicle. I do not text. I do occasionally drop a carrot stick or a grape.

And the "If we can save just one life it would be worth it" argument is stupid. No, it would not be worth it. One of my grandfathers died falling down some stairs. I do not think we should look in to more stairs safety laws. I would NOT give half my liberties to get him back (nor would he have expected me to).

I will end my (ridiculously long) rant with this. You can not legislate away death, poverty, homelessness, sadness, hunger, danger, theft, illness, fat people wearing stretchy pants or bass players wearing stupid hats and shorts on stage. And trying to is the very definition of diminishing returns. No one life is worth changing the daily habits of over 300 million people.

@Joe Nerve I shoulda just gotten some work done instead of getting worked up. Is there something on the East Coast today that is sucking motivation from the air today???

 

[Old Garage-Bander]

In the same boat.

Yep! They would have to treat phones like open alcohol containers.
All the business people in cars, on their phones all day and that use drivers and have deep pockets will buy off some state senators and the laws won't get passed.

 

[Joe Nerve]

@two fingers , my wife dragged my ass to the gym.

And took my phone away, which I just took back because without it I'm working out much more quickly than her . Now I can waste time again. This gym stuff was making me sweat.

 

[Old Garage-Bander]

Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying we shouldn't have DUI laws. That's just dumb. However, we have to find a balance between liberty and death. I will not drive a personal vehicle with a camera in/on it. Period. I will not disable my phone.