[acdha]

That is not divulging personal information in any case and the privilege of driving requires some compromises there. For example, having a medical condition actually is a private matter but the state has a compelling public safety interest to require you to disclose conditions which affect your ability to drive safely.

[kccqzy]

Pressing both side buttons has nothing to do with driving.

[acdha]

The feature described does not give personal information. It would give information which is highly relevant during an official investigation in a privacy-preserving manner which does not open the possibility of giving other unintended information.

Now, it would be possible to use the same mechanism they use for digital drivers licenses to further restrict it but the nice thing about that idea is that not using sensitive information means there isn’t much concern of a leak.

[kccqzy]

The feature described divulges information such as "timestamps showing when it was unlocked, for how long, how many finger taps occurred, etc" which is absolutely personal information. And no, it is not privacy-preserving. It is an affront to all cryptographers to use the phrase "privacy-preserving" here given that it makes zero effort to preserve privacy.

Have you actually seen what amazing technologies are worthy of the name "privacy-preserving" these days? You can look up items in a database without the database operator knowing what you queried. You can let a server add two numbers without the server operator knowing what these two numbers are. These are worthy of the phrase "privacy-preserving" in this age.

[acdha]

That’s not a privacy risk under any normal definition of the term.

[sokoloff]

That was described as a way for a police officer to investigate your phone use after a traffic stop or in an accident investigation.

[kccqzy]

Then what safeguards does it have to ensure there is in fact a police officer and a traffic stop or an accident? None? Then it's a privacy nightmare that divulges your personal information to any stranger nearby.

[sokoloff]

I’m not advocating for it (and, in fact, think it’s a terrible idea). I was just explaining what the idea was.

[kccqzy]

Thanks. The idea was perfectly understood.

[sokoloff]

Ok. This post made me doubt that: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39146401

[rideontime]

If you're suggesting that the state should make driver's licenses contingent on owning a phone with a feature like this, I guess I'll just have to give up my car or my phone, then.

[acdha]

I’m saying that it’s reasonable for a police officer investigating a collision to ask the driver about a very common cause of collisions, just as we allow them to check for alcohol and require you to take a test if you appear to be impaired.

The feature described would be a nice way to support those questions in a manner which does not reveal private information, require you to unlock the phone, or otherwise risk giving them access beyond what’s needed to answer the questions during an official investigation. You could of course choose not to use it but why you’d want to give them additional access to your device is beyond me.

[rideontime]

And I'm saying that I disagree with you.

[acdha]

Sure, lots of people disagree with things but the law is what matters, not vibes. There’s a long-running precedent that investigating accidents makes it reasonable to ask what the operator of the vehicle was doing immediately before the crash.

[rideontime]

I don’t see how that precedent applies. I can already easily answer their question without unlocking my device, and if they want evidence, they can get a warrant.

Even the breathalyzer requirement seems irrelevant, considering that it only requires you to submit to a breathalyzer performed by a police officer, rather than mandating that your BAC be available to anybody with physical access to your property.

[acdha]

> I can already easily answer their question without unlocking my device, and if they want evidence, they can get a warrant.

You can’t answer their question with anything but hearsay. This is why I brought up the DUI checks because we know some people are going to lie, and hard evidence can easily be acquired to sidestep that issue. The suggestion above would be similar in terms of having minimal privacy concern and because it’s cheap and easy it’d actually be done in non-egregious cases.