Apple Is Right - The Government Is Overreaching

The FBI has the cell phone of the San Bernardino shooters (both of whom are dead), but they have been unable to access its contents (presumably to learn of contacts of the shooters). The phone is an Apple I-Phone, and the shooters had enabled the encryption app available. It requires a passcode to get past the encryption, and ten wrong tries would cause the information on the phone to disappear.

A California judge has determined that the FBI has the right to access the phone's information, and has ordered Apple to create a way for the government to access the information. Apple has balked, and is fighting the order. CEO Tim Cook says doing so would, in essence, create a "backdoor" that both the government and hackers could use to break into millions of I-Phones owned by innocent Americans.

He is right. The government does have the right to get the information on that phone, but they do not have to right to own a key that would allow them to break into any of the millions of I-Phones in the United States. And they should not have the right to demand those phones be vulnerable to criminal hackers.

Anyone familiar with the history of the FBI will know that they have exceeded their legal limits many times, and violated the rights of ordinary innocent Americans. There is no doubt they would misuse the ability to break into encrypted I-Phones (and if you don't believe that, then I have some ocean-front property here in Amarillo I'll sell you real cheap).

Surely, there is some middle ground here. Why can't the government give the phone to Apple, and let Apple break into it and provide the government with every scrap of information on it -- but not give the government the ability to do the same with every I-Phone in America. Wouldn't that satisfy the judge's order without endangering the privacy of innocent citizens?

It's bad enough that the unconstitutional (in my opinion) Patriot Act has legalized spying on American citizens (with no more probable cause than the government says they want it). All the government has to do is say "terrorism", and they can get a secret warrant to violate the privacy rights of any American. We should not give them any more tools to spy on citizens.

Security is important, but so is privacy -- and the former without the latter is worthless. Our forefathers provided us with inalienable rights. We must stop the federal government from continuing  to chip away at those rights.

The Supremes Make A Good Decision This Time

Every now and then the United States Supreme Court surprises me and makes a unanimous decision to uphold our Constitution. Wednesday was one of those times, when they announced their unanimous decision in Riley vs. California.

The map above (from Forbes Magazine website) shows the difference in the states when it comes to searching an arrestees cell phone. The states in red are those where state courts have approved those warrantless searches. The ones in yellow conduct those searches because there has been no court decision that would stop them from doing so. It is only in those few states in blue where state courts have ruled those cell phone searches cannot happen unless a search warrant is requested and received from a judge.

You can now consider all of those states to be colored blue though. That's because the United States Supreme Court ruled that the police cannot search any cell phone -- even if they already have the cell phone owner in custody -- unless they have a search warrant. The court's opinion, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, says:

"Before cell phones, a search of a person was limited by physical realities and generally constituted only a narrow intrusion on privacy. But cell phones can store millions of pages of text, thousands of pictures or hundreds of videos. This has several interrelated privacy consequences."

"It is true that this decision will have some impact on the ability of law enforcement to combat crime. But the Court’s holding is not that the information on a cellphone is immune from search; it is that a warrant is generally required before a search."

This was a very good decision. The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution protects all citizens from unreasonable searches (searches without a search warrant issued on probable cause). Privacy has long been established as a right in this country, and nothing is more private in today's technological society than an individual's cell phone (where all kinds of private information is stored). Citizens should have the right to expect that information will remain private, unless the police show probable cause and get a search warrant.

The government has nibbled away at our rights in this country -- and at times taken a huge bite out of them (as with the horrendous Patriot Act). It's nice to see the Supreme Court act to protect those rights.

Polls Underestimating Obama's Support ?

The folks over at Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research think that most polls may be underestimating President Obama's support, and that the election is not really as close as the media is reporting. Now this polling organization is a Democratic polling company, so take this however you want, but I think they may well have a good point here. Why do they think this? They believe that people who have only or use mostly cell phones instead of landlines are being undercounted.

Many polling organizations include about 30% cell phone users in their polls, and others don't include any cell phone users at all. However, that 30% figure is the number of people only using only cell phones in 2011. Since that figure is growing by at least 3.5% every six months, that means that the current number of cell phone-only users is probably about 37% (if not more) -- and that means the polls are undercounting those people who have abandoned landlines to use only cell phones.

Does this make any real difference? Note the chart above. When cell phone users are polled they give President Obama a lead of 11 points (53% to 42%). But when landlines users are polled they only give the president a 1 point advantage (48% to 47%). That's quite a difference. Why should that be? Well, look at the following numbers:

* 43% of Hispanic adults use only cell phones.

* 37% of African-Americans use only cell phones.

* 49% of 18 to 24 year-olds use only cell phones.

* 60% of 25 to 29 year-olds use only cell phones.

* 51% of 30 to 34 year-olds use only cell phones.

It goes without saying that these groups (along with women) are the groups with the largest percentage of support for the president -- and that explains the difference between the cell phone and landline users shown by the chart above. It is quite possible that polls using cell phone users as only 30% or less of their respondents are undercounting the president's support. And unless this is changed, polls in future years may be even more out of whack.     

Famous - But Not Very Smart

This story is convincing proof that just because someone is famous (or at least semi-famous) doesn't mean they're very smart. Either that, or they think any kind of publicity is good publicity. CBS is reporting that at least 50 female celebrities have had their cell phones or computers hacked, and the hackers stole nude or compromising pictures of them.

Among those who were victims of the hacking are Scarlett Johansson, Miley Cyrus, Jessica Alba, Vanessa Hudgens, and Christina Aguilera. Making matters even worse, this is the second time this has happened to some of them (Hudgens in 2007 and Cyrus in 2008).

I have to wonder just what the hell these women were thinking. Doesn't even a 9 or 10 year-old know that cell phones and computers are not safe places to store intimate or secret material. Didn't everyone just see what happened to U.S. government secrets, which were posted on WikiLeaks? If the government can be exposed, how much easier is it going to be to get stuff from a person's computer or cell phone?

If you don't want compromising pictures of yourself spread all over the internet, then keep them off your cell phone and/or computer. Isn't that just common sense these days -- even for those who aren't celebrities?

The Cell Phone On Airplanes Myth (Lie)

Everyone who's flown on an American airline knows that cell phone use is prohibited. As the plane starts to pull away from the terminal attendants will caution all passengers to turn their cell phones off, and they will not allow passengers to turn them back on until the plane has landed. This is because the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the Federal Aviation Administrations (FAA) decided years ago that the cell phones might interfere with an airplanes navigation equipment.

Neither of these organizations had any proof that the supposed interference would occur, but they said they didn't have any proof that it wouldn't occur so they continued the ban. Making matters even more ridiculous, many airlines are now offering in-flight wi-fi service (for a price of course). But the cell phone ban continues.

Well guess what? There are 139 other countries whose airlines allow cell phone use. And after over 7 million calls, there hasn't been a single problem. No plane has crashed or gotten off course because of cell phone use. It looks like the FCC and FAA have just been lying to us, or they just don't want to do their homework. Either way, things need to change.

Bills Would Outlaw Cell Phone Driving In Texas

If you've read this blog for very long then you probably know I am against cell phone driving and have written several posts calling for it to be outlawed across the nation.   Anyone who has driven for any length of time will have many stories of people driving dangerously while talking or texting on their cell phone.   And the National Transportation Safety Administration has produced evidence that cell phone drivers are as dangerous to the general public as drunk drivers.

There is little argument over this.   Almost everyone knows that cell phone driving is very dangerous -- for everyone else, that is.   The crazy thing about this is that while people know it is dangerous, nearly everyone thinks they are the exception to the rule -- while other people pose a risk to others, far too many people think they are able to drive while talking or texting on a cell phone without posing any risk to others.   It's like drunk drivers -- I never heard one say they were too drunk to drive (although they will admit that drinking and driving is dangerous).

That is why I believe that new laws are necessary to ban cell phone driving.   These people, like drunk drivers, will not stop this dangerous activity until they are forced to do so by the police.   Fortunately, it looks like at least some legislators are paying attention to this problem.   State Representative Jose Menendez (D-San Antonio) says,   "I am trying again because this has gotten out of hand and it has become a road safety hazard.   People talking or texting while driving are causing accidents, or, putting themselves and others at risk of serious injury or even death."

Rep. Menendez has introduced a bill (HB 37) for consideration when the new legislative session begins next month.   State Senator Carlos Uresti (D-San Antonio) has introduced a companion bill in the state senate (SB 119).   Uresti says,   "Studies have found that texting can impair a driver as much as being drunk, so an outright ban just makes common sense."

Menendez has introduced his bill in the last three Texas legislative sessions, and the bills all died without ever getting out of committee.   He believes the bill will have a better chance in the coming session because there has been a lot of recent negative publicity about cell phone driving and a larger percentage of the population now sees this as a dangerous activity.   A recent Texas Transportation Institute survey showed that 52% of Texans would support a law banning cell phone use while driving.

The question now is whether cell phone companies will lobby against the bills.   Menendez believes he can convince them this is not an anti-cell phone issue, but a safety issue.   And he might have a point.   Some cell phone companies, like AT&T, already have programs discouraging use of their cell phones while driving.

I still have serious doubts about whether the Republican-dominated legislature will pass such a law, but I hope I'm wrong.   A law banning cell phone driving could save a lot of lives and injuries.

Gov. Should Disable Cell Phones In Cars

There's no doubt that one of the most dangerous things a driver can do these days is talk on the cell phone while driving.   I think most people realize that -- at least for other people.   For some reason, while people know this is unsafe many seem to think it is only unsafe for other people to do it -- but they are somehow magically immune to the dangers themselves.

An example of this is when teen drivers are asked what should happen to drunk drivers.   The vast majority says the law should penalize drunk drivers very severely.   However, these same teens don't think the law should ban texting while driving.   Most of them seem convinced that they can do it safely.   This is in spite of the fact that several studies have shown cell phone use while driving is as dangerous as drunk driving (and texting is even worse).

The U.S. Secretary of Transportation, Raymond LaHood, says that cell phone distracted drivers killed about 5,500 people last year.   In addition, about a half-million people were injured.   Those are minimum figures.   Paul Atchley, a scientist at the University of Kansas who has studied the phenomenon, believes the actual figures are probably much higher.

The sad part is that all of these deaths and injuries can be prevented.   If people would just stay off their cell phones and pay attention to their driving these needless deaths and injuries would not happen.

I know there are many people who think they must use their phones while driving.   They will tell us that their fast-paced life demands it, or their business demands it.   Nonsense.   Life went on and business got done before cell phones were invented, and it would if they weren't used while a person is driving.

Some states have outlawed hand-held cell phones while driving.   This makes it look like something is being done about the problem when nothing is actually being accomplished.   The danger from using a cell phone while driving is from the distraction it causes the driver -- not from the phone being held in a hand or not.

I have often thought something should be done technologically to stop cell phone driving.   Now it looks like the government is considering the same thing.   LaHood says the government is considering requiring cars to have a technology that would disable cell phones.   The cell phone would be disabled when the car reaches a certain speed (possibly as measured by cell phone towers).

I think this is an excellent idea.   This would still allow cell phone use in an emergency by just pulling over to the side of the road, but would prevent use while the car is moving.   I know there will be efforts to defeat this by some tech geeks, but I still think it is an idea worth trying.

Just remember, the life that is saved could be someone you love.

Amarillo Rep. Opposes Cell Phone Ban

Tomorrow a new law goes into effect.   It will be against the law to use a cell phone while driving in a school zone.   This is a good law, which will probably save the lives of some children here in Texas.

The law was passed in the last session of the Texas Legislature.   The only problem is the law doesn't go far enough.   It should have banned the use of cell phones while driving anywhere and anytime.   Fortunately, there are some members of the legislature that want to ban all cell phone driving, as soon as the legislature meets again.

Rep. Jose Menendez (D-San Antonio), who authored the school zone bill, is one of those supporting the comprehensive ban.   Rep. Bill Pickett (D-El Paso), chairman of the House Transportation Committee agrees, and says the committee will be holding hearings soon so a bill can be ready when the legislature convenes,   

Menendez says,   "I am hopeful that my colleagues will understand that this is a serious issue that needs immediate attention because a lot of drivers now use cell phones as if they were computers and are getting too distracted....There is already too much evidence which shows that using a cell phone while driving, whether talking or texting, puts people at great risk of getting involved in a major accident.

But our own representative here in Amarillo opposes the ban on cell phone driving.   Republican David Swinford (pictured) says,   "The people I represent are not stupid, they are smart enough to take care of themselves.   Trust the people."

What an idiotic statement.   Stats from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration have shown that a cell phone driver is as dangerous as a drunk driver.   And that a fact even among the folks Swinford represents.   Does he want to eliminate drunk driving laws too, and "trust the people"?

Personally, I don't care to trust cell phone drivers with the lives of my family and friends, anymore than I'd want to trust those same lives to drunk drivers.   There are at least 2,600 deaths and 12,000 serious injuries caused by cell phone drivers each year, and this number will only rise as our cell phones are capable of doing more things all the time.

Does Rep. Swinford just not care about the thousands killed and injured each year by cell phone drivers?   Or is he just getting too much campaign money from the communications companies?   Either way is a pretty sad commentary on his position. 

Outlawing Texting Is Not Enough

It looks like Congress finally wants to do something about dangerous cell phone use by drivers. Senators Charles Schumer (D-New York), Robert Menendez (D-New Jersey), Mary Landrieu (D-Louisiana) and Kay Hagan (D-North Carolina) have just unveiled legislation they are introducing in the Senate.

The legislation would force states to outlaw cell phone texting and e-mailing while a person is driving a motor vehicle. Any state that does not outlaw this activity will lose 25% of their annual highway funding until they do.

Schumer said, "When drivers have their eyes on their cellphones instead of the road, the results can be dangerous and even deadly." Of course, he is right. The only flaw I see in the law proposed by these senators is that it doesn't go far enough.

The law needs to ban ALL cell phone use while driving. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has shown that talking on a cell phone while driving is equally as dangerous as driving witha blood-alcohol content of 0.08 (which is labeled as drunk driving in most states). It is three times more dangerous than that when dialing.

Some people think the hands-free units solve that problem. According to the NHTSA, the danger is not in holding the phone, but in the conversation itself. People get so involved in the conversation that they lose their focus on driving. How can we justify outlawing drunk driving, when we continue to allow this activity which is just as dangerous.

The fact is that all cell phone use (talking, texting, e-mailing, cruising internet, etc.) is too dangerous to allow drivers to do. Why then, does Congress want to only half-do the ban that is needed? Would doing the job right cost them some phone company lobbying dollar?

(Cartoon is by Jeff Stahler in The Columbus Dispatch)

Cell Phones And Driving Don't Mix

Finally, someone is speaking out on the danger of talking on a cell phone while driving, and asking that the practice be outlawed. I can't believe it has taken so long. All anyone has to do is drive around for a few hours in any American city, and they will see driver after driver doing incredibly stupid and dangerous things because their mind is on the phone conversation they are having, and not on their driving.

The woman who was driving the car pictured above was killed because some fool was too busy talking on a cell phone to pay attention to his driving. This woman is only one of many victims of cell phone driving. According to the National Safety Council (NSC), there are 2,600 deaths and over 12,000 serious injuries every year that are caused by driver's talking on cell phones.

And those could be very conservative numbers. There are 270 million cell phone owners in the United States, and the NSC estimates that 80% talk on their phone while driving. Where's the outrage? Are we only outraged by the dangerous things that we don't do ourselves?

Some states are mandating that drivers use "hands free" devices while driving and talking on their cell phones, but that has little effect on the problem. As NSC's chief executive Janet Froetscher says, "It's not just what you're doing with your hands — it's that your head is in the conversation and so your eyes are not on the road."

After examining more than 50 scientific studies, the NSC has reached the conclusion that driving while talking on a cell phone (even hands free) makes the driver four times as likely to be involved in a traffic accident. That figure is comparable to driving while drunk!

We have made drunk driving a crime and continuously wage campaigns against it. But amazingly, most of us don't seem to be worried at all about the 216 million drivers who are every bit as dangerous as the drunk drivers. That strikes me as being very stupid.

If we're going to wage war against the drunk drivers (and I have no problem with that), shouldn't we also outlaw talking on a cell phone while driving, since they are just as dangerous?

The Governor's Highway Safety Association and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety both agree with the NSC that using a cell phone while driving is dangerous and based on the research should be banned.

How much more evidence is needed? How many more lives must be lost? Isn't it time to act?