c9edd6ef   
   XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone, comp.mobile.android   
   From: pmcook@gte.net   
      
   On Mon, 14 Dec 2015 08:02:42 +1100, Rod Speed wrote:   
      
   > But when there is recorded cellphone use at the time of the   
   > accident and there is only one person in that car, you can   
   > be quite confident that the cellphone was being used.   
      
   Look Rod.   
      
   I know and you know that you can spend a lot of money to   
   determine whether a cellphone was being used at the exact   
   time of an accident, and you'll end up with lousy data, but   
   it will be worlds better than the data they have now.   
      
   The reason is obvious, in that you can *use* a cellphone in   
   any of myriad ways (watching videos, looking up contacts,   
   making phone calls, gps tracking, asking Siri questions,   
   listening to an MP3 audio, playing games, mapping directions,   
   setting an alarm, changing the volume, snapping a photo,   
   downloading software, editing a file, walking down the file   
   system, showing wifi signal strength values, texting, etc.)   
      
   For some of that stuff above, and maybe even for most of that   
   stuff above, perhaps you can do forensics such that you can   
   figure out, from time stamps or whatever, when the activity   
   started and stopped.   
      
   You still don't know when the accident happened, but, you   
   could, as I said, get some really lousy data with a lot   
   of effort.   
      
   Let's face it. Practically, unless a death is involved or a   
   cop is involved or terrorism is involved, etc., nobody is   
   gonna spend the forensic time doing what you suggest.   
      
   In fact, in the USA, the phone is a protected device, in that   
   the police can not search it, so, anyone can *change* that   
   data since they're typically not arrested after an accident   
   and their phone is typically not confiscated.   
      
   So, while you might get a whole bunch of essentially lousy   
   data (which is better than we have now), it's still lousy   
   data.   
      
   Point is, the only people who intimate that you can tell a   
   cellphone was in use prior to an accident are the people who   
   have a vested interest in that cellphone being used prior to   
   the accident.   
      
   I don't.   
      
   I can plainly see that whether or not the cellphone is used,   
   it makes absolutely no difference whether there will be an   
   accident or not. Just like the color of your eyeballs has no   
   effect on whether you're gonna have an accident, the onus isn't   
   on me to prove that.   
      
   It's clear that cellphone use has no effect whatsoever on the   
   overall accident rate. That doesn't need to be proved (it's   
   obvious).   
      
   Those who claim otherwise are the ones who need to prove it.   
   And, guess what?   
      
   They can't.   
   Because there is no evidence whatsoever that they can point to.   
      
   They may as well claim people with large belt buckles are more   
   prone to accidents. It's that baseless of a claim.   
      
   If they believe otherwise, they're welcome to that *opinion*; but   
   without a shred of proof that backs up their point, they're just   
   opining.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)