c9edd6ef
XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone, comp.mobile.android
From: rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com
"Paul M. Cook" wrote in message
news:28d18$566e1077$58b0f472$15947@nntpswitch.blueworldhosting.com...
> 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,
Don’t need to spend much to determine that.
> and you'll end up with lousy data,
Even sillier than you usually manage.
> but it will be worlds better than the data they have now.
You don’t know whether they have that data now or not.
ALL you know is that you can't find it.
> 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.)
Hardly anyone is actually stupid enough to do that stuff
while driving and its trivially easy to see if someone has
been doing that while driving if you know when the
accident happened and they are the only person in the car.
> 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.
No perhaps about it, of course you can. And from the metadata too.
> You still don't know when the accident happened,
Quite a bit of the time you do from a dashcam,
GPS, break in cellphone use, call to 911 etc etc etc,
> but, you could, as I said, get some
> really lousy data with a lot of effort.
You can in fact get excellent data for fuck all effort
if the driver is the only person in the car at the time
of the accident.
> 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.
And when a death is involved, and it is clear that the accident
wasn’t due to any other factor, you have the compelling
evidence that the cause of the accident was the cellphone
use while driving.
> 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.
Most of the data isn't in the phone and cannot be changed.
> So, while you might get a whole bunch of essentially lousy
> data (which is better than we have now), it's still lousy data.
Not when its data from the ISP and cellphone metadata.
> 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.
Even sillier than you usually manage. I have no vested interest
what so ever and do in fact use a cellphone when driving.
> I don't.
You are completely irrelevant.
You can't even manage to work out that cellphone ownership
is completely irrelevant to what is being discussed.
> 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.
You can see nothing of the sort.
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.
Corse it is with your stupid claim that the use of a cellphone
when driving has no effect on the risk of an accident.
> It's clear that cellphone use has no effect
> whatsoever on the overall accident rate.
That isn't clear at all, whatever you ignorantly claim.
> That doesn't need to be proved (it's obvious).
Even sillier than you usually manage.
> Those who claim otherwise are the ones who need to prove it.
Wrong.
> And, guess what?
> They can't.
> Because there is no evidence whatsoever that they can point to.
Wrong.
> 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.
With you in spades.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
