You already know texting while driving is ridiculously dangerous, and in many place even illegal, but the cops can’t enforce what they can’t see, right? Not so fast.

If you think you can get away with a quick message to your friend while cruising to get your morning coffee, you might end up with a ticket thanks to a new type of sensor gun.

When a cell phone is being used, it emits radio frequencies that can be picked up and detected. The frequency varies depending on what the phone is being used for—data, voice calling and, of course, texting—which can give a person away if they happen to be secretly tapping away at their phone out of view of any passersby.

A company in Virginia called ComSonics wants to turn this type of sensor into a pointable device that could be used by law enforcement in the same way a radar gun is. If an officer could target your vehicle with the device and detect a texting signal, they might be able to pull you over without ever actually seeing the violation take place.

Privacy hawks take note: The device would only be able to sense that a phone is being used for a specific purpose, and it cannot record or translate that signal into something readable. It’s simply designed to detect.

Of course, proving that a text was being typed out by the driver could be difficult to pull off, especially if a vehicle contains multiple occupants who could be texting. However, if a texting frequency is beaming from your car and you’re the only one in it, that’s going to be pretty hard to explain to an officer.

The device itself is reportedly nearing production, but would need to be tested and adopted by law enforcement agencies and approved by any state or local governments before it is put to use.

It doesn't work that way.

SMARTPHONES DO NOT WORK THAT WAY!!!!!
Attachments:

Sounds like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADE_651 all over again...

Go Go Gadget Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You already know texting while driving is
> ridiculously dangerous, and in many place even
> illegal, but the cops can’t enforce what they
> can’t see, right? Not so fast.
>
> If you think you can get away with a quick message
> to your friend while cruising to get your morning
> coffee, you might end up with a ticket thanks to a
> new type of sensor gun.
>
> When a cell phone is being used, it emits radio
> frequencies that can be picked up and detected.
> The frequency varies depending on what the phone
> is being used for—data, voice calling and, of
> course, texting—which can give a person away if
> they happen to be secretly tapping away at their
> phone out of view of any passersby.
>
> A company in Virginia called ComSonics wants to
> turn this type of sensor into a pointable device
> that could be used by law enforcement in the same
> way a radar gun is. If an officer could target
> your vehicle with the device and detect a texting
> signal, they might be able to pull you over
> without ever actually seeing the violation take
> place.
>
> Privacy hawks take note: The device would only be
> able to sense that a phone is being used for a
> specific purpose, and it cannot record or
> translate that signal into something readable.
> It’s simply designed to detect.
>
> Of course, proving that a text was being typed out
> by the driver could be difficult to pull off,
> especially if a vehicle contains multiple
> occupants who could be texting. However, if a
> texting frequency is beaming from your car and
> you’re the only one in it, that’s going to be
> pretty hard to explain to an officer.
>
> The device itself is reportedly nearing
> production, but would need to be tested and
> adopted by law enforcement agencies and approved
> by any state or local governments before it is put
> to use.

Go Go Gadget Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> When a cell phone is being used, it emits radio
> frequencies that can be picked up and detected.

your a fucking idiot we know. it's remote control technology we all know what a tv remote is

evesdropping is illegal in the usa

europeans using the fein of public service have spawned huge numbers of surveylance technologies to control (and rip off) their citizens - public places, bathrooms, hotels, homes, and cars (your car's computer)

they desperately need our gov to buy contracts to sell their illegal evesdropping crap on us because they are bankrupt

and bullova gov will do anything for a kickback. they'll "study speed cameras" more than once, install them after citizens voted to remove them - just to do it again

----------------------
it's not high tech, it's just waves, and it's stupid, illegal, european, and made in china

It's not impossible.

When your phone isn't in use, the transmitter power is low. When you transmit, the power goes up. For a phone call this would be a constant increase and for a text message the increase would be brief. So if you had a directional antenna of some sort, you could possibly see an increase in transmitter power associated with a text. It would be a bit iffy since radio waves reflect off surfaces and you might be seeing someone else's cell phone despite your directional antenna.

I am ignoring the TDMA/CDMA nature of the signal in the above. TDMA/CDMA coding allows you to identify individual phones all sharing the same frequencies. So you should be able to narrow results down to single cell phone.

A better approach would be to use a fake cell site/tower. Phones aren't very particular about the towers they join -- They pick the strongest signal. So you could get nearby phones to join your site and what for text messages. With a couple of these towers you could vaguely triangulate a position.

Video camera and a 9mm. Much cheaper.

Anyone caught driving with their face buried in a cell phone gets a double tap.

Move on.

Occam's Razor Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Video camera and a 9mm. Much cheaper.
>
> Anyone caught driving with their face buried in a
> cell phone gets a double tap.
>
> Move on.


Hahahaha!

cj7WW Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's not impossible.
>
> When your phone isn't in use, the transmitter
> power is low. When you transmit, the power goes
> up. For a phone call this would be a constant
> increase and for a text message the increase would
> be brief. So if you had a directional antenna of
> some sort, you could possibly see an increase in
> transmitter power associated with a text. It
> would be a bit iffy since radio waves reflect off
> surfaces and you might be seeing someone else's
> cell phone despite your directional antenna.

Mayyybe. Phones send *lots* of short requests -- apps checking for updates, for example. And if it has to be directional, that's pretty weak--what, the cops are gonna follow a given car until the detector goes off? Might as well just stare at passing drivers--cheaper and probably equally effective.

> I am ignoring the TDMA/CDMA nature of the signal
> in the above. TDMA/CDMA coding allows you to
> identify individual phones all sharing the same
> frequencies. So you should be able to narrow
> results down to single cell phone.

OK, so you know that phone number xxx-xxx-xxxx sent a text. How does that identify the vehicle? I'm missing something...

> A better approach would be to use a fake cell
> site/tower. Phones aren't very particular about
> the towers they join -- They pick the strongest
> signal. So you could get nearby phones to join
> your site and what for text messages. With a
> couple of these towers you could vaguely
> triangulate a position.

Yeah, but that's pretty clearly not what's being talked about here. If you're gonna do that, I don't think you need to develop anything; cops already have that, several different versions exist.

Not trying to pick a fight--this is an interesting discussion.

Some more (pseudo?) info in this: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2762345/The-texting-gun-stops-drivers-using-mobile-wheel-Device-detects-text-phone-data-signals-phones.html

So it's a gun-like device. Which, I submit, already makes it pretty useless, per my comment above.

It includes these gems:
"According to the Virginian-Pilot, it can discern the different frequencies from a text message, phone call and data transfer."

Um, no.

And:
"It apparently uses similar technology used by cable repairmen to find where a cable is damaged, who look for transmission ‘leaks’."

WTF? (Mind you, the Daily Mail isn't exactly Scientific American...)

Two things.

1) A directional antenna that pinpoints the spot where the signal is emitting the strongest signal.

2) It says the technology used determines if the phone is emitting a voice frequency or a text frequency. Apparently two different bands arr use for voice vs text.

3) The officer then looks to see if only one person is in the car and if so pulls over the car.

Would it be able to differentiate between sending and receiving?

Go Go Gadget Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You already know texting while driving is
> ridiculously dangerous, and in many place even
> illegal, but the cops can’t enforce what they
> can’t see, right? Not so fast.
>
> If you think you can get away with a quick message
> to your friend while cruising to get your morning
> coffee, you might end up with a ticket thanks to a
> new type of sensor gun.
>
> When a cell phone is being used, it emits radio
> frequencies that can be picked up and detected.
> The frequency varies depending on what the phone
> is being used for—data, voice calling and, of
> course, texting—which can give a person away if
> they happen to be secretly tapping away at their
> phone out of view of any passersby.
>
> A company in Virginia called ComSonics wants to
> turn this type of sensor into a pointable device
> that could be used by law enforcement in the same
> way a radar gun is. If an officer could target
> your vehicle with the device and detect a texting
> signal, they might be able to pull you over
> without ever actually seeing the violation take
> place.
>
> Privacy hawks take note: The device would only be
> able to sense that a phone is being used for a
> specific purpose, and it cannot record or
> translate that signal into something readable.
> It’s simply designed to detect.
>
> Of course, proving that a text was being typed out
> by the driver could be difficult to pull off,
> especially if a vehicle contains multiple
> occupants who could be texting. However, if a
> texting frequency is beaming from your car and
> you’re the only one in it, that’s going to be
> pretty hard to explain to an officer.
>
> The device itself is reportedly nearing
> production, but would need to be tested and
> adopted by law enforcement agencies and approved
> by any state or local governments before it is put
> to use.


What about all the rest of the rediculously dangerous driving habits.
How about this one:
Driving around all stressed out with run up credit to the limit?
Maxed out credit cards. Auto loans. On top of the mortgage loans. With a caffeine buzz going on top of that? Racing from red light to red light with your head up your ass? Tailgating. (FOLLOWING TOO CLOSE: ILLEGAL AND HIGHLY DANGEROUS!) Thinking the driver(s) ahead of/in front of you are supposed to drive just as stupid stressed out as you?
Yeah. This equate should be considered just as or more dangerous as driving while texting.
They should spend a ton of money on somehow detecting and busting these types.
Give them citations until it busts their credit limit with fines, auto insurance run up and the rest to GET THEM THE FUCK OFF THE ROADS FOR A GOOD LONG TIME!
Of course, if the local police would just simply DO THEIR JOBS RESPONSIBLY, INCLUDING THE DISPATCHER AND ON DUTY SENIOR OFFICER's - PROPERLY PRIORITIZING THE LOCAL PATROL OFFICER's DUTY's - THIS THESE TRAFFIC PROBLEMS WOULD NOT EXIST, NATIONWIDE!
And, in what situation is the most death and injury caused nationwide?
Yes. YOU GUESSED IT! DEATH AND INJURY CAUSED EXCLUSIVELY BY MOTOR VEHICLE OPERATOR's THAT DO NOT KNOW HOW TO DRIVE SAFELY!
Attachments:

How can they tell whether you're sending a text or receiving? I receive plenty of text messages on my phone while it's sitting inside the cupholder as a I drive.


Also, I believe texting uses the same data frequency as email, so same thing, how can they tell whether the phone is synchronizing with the server and downloading an email vs. something else?

JustCurious Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> How can they tell whether you're sending a text or
> receiving? I receive plenty of text messages on
> my phone while it's sitting inside the cupholder
> as a I drive.

Well, it's not unreasonable that it can detect transmission, since signal strength is proportional to the square of the distance from the transmitter, plus the gadget can "watch" from multiple angles. So if it's pointing at your car and sees a signal but *also* sees the same signal, with similar strength, from a slightly different direction (far enough off that it can't be from your car), it could conclude "OK, that signal is coming from the tower, not the car".

> Also, I believe texting uses the same data
> frequency as email, so same thing, how can they
> tell whether the phone is synchronizing with the
> server and downloading an email vs. something
> else?

Yeah, data is data. But I suppose sending email is as bad as sending a text.

So we're converging on something vaguely plausible, but it's still "point at that car at the instant that the driver sends text/email, which still fails the plausibility test. Radar/laser guns work because the cop SEES the car, plus the speeding isn't momentary. Sure, the cop can sit aiming at the oncoming traffic, but if it goes off and there's more than one car coming, it's not like he can pick out which car it was. And if the road has singleton cars going by, it's unlikely to be worth the time to sit there!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellular_frequencies#United_States_Carrier_Frequency_Use is interesting, too -- I knew that there were different frequencies but not that there were so many, and such varied usage across the carriers.

Greybeard Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> JustCurious Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > How can they tell whether you're sending a text
> or
> > receiving? I receive plenty of text messages
> on
> > my phone while it's sitting inside the
> cupholder
> > as a I drive.
>
> Well, it's not unreasonable that it can detect
> transmission, since signal strength is
> proportional to the square of the distance from
> the transmitter, plus the gadget can "watch" from
> multiple angles. So if it's pointing at your car
> and sees a signal but *also* sees the same signal,
> with similar strength, from a slightly different
> direction (far enough off that it can't be from
> your car), it could conclude "OK, that signal is
> coming from the tower, not the car".
>
> > Also, I believe texting uses the same data
> > frequency as email, so same thing, how can they
> > tell whether the phone is synchronizing with
> the
> > server and downloading an email vs. something
> > else?
>
> Yeah, data is data. But I suppose sending email is
> as bad as sending a text.
>
> So we're converging on something vaguely
> plausible, but it's still "point at that car at
> the instant that the driver sends text/email,
> which still fails the plausibility test.
> Radar/laser guns work because the cop SEES the
> car, plus the speeding isn't momentary. Sure, the
> cop can sit aiming at the oncoming traffic, but if
> it goes off and there's more than one car coming,
> it's not like he can pick out which car it was.
> And if the road has singleton cars going by, it's
> unlikely to be worth the time to sit there!
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellular_frequencies#
> United_States_Carrier_Frequency_Use is
> interesting, too -- I knew that there were
> different frequencies but not that there were so
> many, and such varied usage across the carriers.


I'm referring to RECEIVING email. The phone synchronizes with Exchange automatically anytime I receive email.

It's really about the same as RECEIVING a text message. I could have my phone in my pocket and be completely ignoring it, yet still receiving emails and text messages...

JustSoYouKnow Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm referring to RECEIVING email. The phone
> synchronizes with Exchange automatically anytime I
> receive email.
>
> It's really about the same as RECEIVING a text
> message. I could have my phone in my pocket and
> be completely ignoring it, yet still receiving
> emails and text messages...

Right, that's what I was talking about: distinguishing between sending and receiving. Reread?

It no work dat way.

The company claiming to have this thing is a scam.

I just text when I'm at a red light.

>How can they tell whether you're sending a text or receiving?

The xmit and recv frequencies are different. It's a band/range of frequencies in both cases. Yes, I would agree that text messages are short and possibly would look like other tower communications. If you had a protocol analyzer, would be able to 'see' text messages since they are fairly specifically located in the protocol and cell phones don't encrypt with the tower (CDMA and TDMA do a sort of coding that makes this idea a little difficult though).

> "It apparently uses similar technology used by cable repairmen to find where a cable is damaged, who look for transmission ‘leaks’."

Yeah, it would radiate. The break in the cable would act as a stub antenna. Since the break in the cable would be a poor antenna/impedance match the signal would be weak (bad VSWR). You could also put a TDR on the line and get an idea of the distance to the break. That's how we find fiber breaks. OTDR to find the distance to the break and then drive to about that distance and start looking for the nearest backhoe.

>I knew that there were different frequencies but not that there were so many, and such varied usage across the carriers.

I knew. Try installing a cell phone repeater that will work for everyone. With the advent of LTE and Verizon's use of 700MHz, I need to get yet another repeater. Thank's Verizon!

The police can also send your toothbrush to the lab to see if you really brushed your teeth or just ran water over your toothbrush to fool your fat uncle.