>>41238
>Assuming the tech would work properly

It can't and won't. Set aside the fifth amendment questions, which are unfortunately unlikely to be settled in the favor of personal privacy. Assume also that this is actually technically functional and not just some tech company run by a "connected" CEO that just scored a juicy contact.

How is the system able to determine whether the text was typed by hand or entered by voice? Only one of those is prohibited.

If "it doesn't matter!" (a reasonable argument built around the use of much older statues that have nothing to do with texting and are instead wreckless driving -- a position taken by texting laws opponents), guess who already has that information in the specifically limited capacity? The cellular provider.

Ohh, but that would require a subpoena. This warrantless way is so much better. Why, you could search the "voluntarily" offered phone for a all kind of things. Hell, image it for later analysis. You'll have to, in fact, to make it admissible. Why, you need to decrypt in order to do that...

And so, congratulations, you now have a decrypt-or-jail law on the books. Well done.

Do you need to compel someone to open their phone? Pull them over for a minor traffic infraction and voila! Like every broken tail light trunk inspection.

This is an obvious ploy to use a serious problem to advance tyrannical law enforcement powers. But I think you know that.

>>41288
1. Thousands are dying and millions are injured and nothing is working to make it stop. I don't think it's reasonable to assume that Big Brother just wants your data.
2. Like with drunk driving citizens are free to decline the breathalyzer, and then States are free to suspend their license. The 5th Amendment issue is moot.
3. Government contracting is rife with horror stories, you're right. But, this case would be special. The government should ensure that there's competition, oversight, and that the FBI is around to thwart abuse.
4. The tech is a big "if," it's like the OP said. I'm not an expert on the matter so I don't want to wade too deep into hypotheticals. But, if I suspend disbelief for a second, I can appreciate that a perfectly working textalyzer would be a public service.

>>41360
>But, this case would be special
Wouldn't be special
Messed up point 3.

>>41360
Not him but to play devils advocate, why do you have to reduce deaths? People are always going to be stupid and people are always going to die doing stupid things.

To wrap the world in cotton and put everyone in straitjackets to ensure nobody is able to hurt themselves is not a good idea.

Just let the morons win their Darwin award.

>>41369
>Just let the morons win their Darwin award.
Others are frequently killed by distracted drivers, both passengers and others on the road. The more dense the area, the greater the likelihood. It's not just the drivers clearing themselves from the gene pool. Young people do stupid shit, but no one wants to see their lives wasted.

The numbers and trends are also pretty staggering. Roads are more dangerous than a lot of combat zones and their critical to commerce and government. Regulating something like this prudently would save lives, money, and insure a more resilient society.

Any cost benefit analysis should acknowledge the cost of deaths.

>be me
>text at stop lightsa

I really need to stop before I end up going to hell.

OP, I get where you're coming from, but please reconsider. This is one of those things that's good on paper and elritch tier horror in practice.