argus-cronos wrote:To have 2 functional breathalyzers on board is more stupid to me. That's ridiculous and what's next?

That is exactly the question!

think it's possible to change the Waze icon on the screen, if they really looking for the blue waze icon on the device.

Of course, piece of cake! You can already do that today. Spoof icons. And we all know cops are so thick that it will take 'm 10 years to catch on again to that high-brow trick... And there will be all sorts of other loopholes and workarounds developed. All illegalized, sooner or later. It's an 'arms race'. But that's not the point. The point is that all this is steadily moving in a very undesirable direction. A direction that slowly but surely shapes a society where just about everything is basically declared illegal = punishable, and consequently a permanent 'sword of Damocles' hanging over every citizen's head. A society where an atmosphere of permanent threat, coercion, and fear is the norm. A fascist society.

fvwazing wrote:

Rokcet wrote: So now we wait for some idiot to duct tape his device, with Waze running, to his OUTSIDE rearview mirror believing this law does not apply to him.

Would help for the coolingproblems as well! But what asterix proposes - disabling the speedcamfunctionality from the SERVER side - seems legal to me. You take Waze over the border and - poof!, speedcams gone, nothing you can do. Would hold in court.

When you cross a border it takes the system up to 20/30km to adjust* to that fact. So for that 20/30km you would be breaking the law.

*When crossing a border without roaming selected, you'll find that nav and phone services still work even though you're well over 10km inside the other country. I.o.w. the system has not yet recognized that you are in another country. And as long as it hasn't it will not disable the speedcam functionality (in Asterix' scenario), and you will be breaking the law...

So where would you position yourself if you were a French traffic cop hunting for lawbreakers...?

AndyPoms wrote:If it were to be a GPS based function, you'd get the change pretty close to the border... Certainly less than 10km...

Agreed. Then it could occur within 100 metres of the actual border. (Still 100 metres of law breaking though...).
So Asterix' scenario being GPS based would be conditional.

But then another, much bigger, and much more fundamental problem crops up: by the end of next year the first GPS satellites will start to fall out of the sky. Don't forget they've been up there for almost 30 years now, and that orbits decay. They are already down to 24 now, from the original 32 (28 + 4 spares; the system was designed to function on 28 active satellites; 8 have already packed up). So in 2 or 3 years there won't be enough working GPS satellites up there anymore for the system to work. And there's no money – or even plans – for a replacement system. Obama cut all NASA's big programs, remember? Orion rockets, Moon missions, Mars missions, asteroid/comet missions, Saturn missions, and GPS. Among other programs. He had to. He's broke. America is bankrupt. 13 Trillion deficit!

(Kinda 'funny' really: first the USA destroyed the Soviet Union by outspending it, effectively bankrupting the USSR, and then the USA simply continued outspending, but themselves; and of course bankrupted themselves; the destruction is on-going).

Meantime the rest of the world has had 25 years to observe how the US applied/applies GPS for political purposes. To apply pressure. And of course for waging war.
Try turn-by-turn navigation in PyongYang, Tehran, Baghdad, Damascus. It doesn't work. Na-nana-na-na!
But it doesn't work in some allies' countries either, like e.g. Riyadh (Saudi Arabia). Because it would be too convenient for radical suicide bombers who inexplicably disagree with the dictatorial monarchy (actually a plutocracy/theocracy) to blow up a couple dozen of the 5,800 'princes' they have overthere.
And what happens with GPS overthere can happen overhere too, at the flick of a switch in the Pentagon. So the rest of the world isn't keen at all to be dependent on that American system. So they build their own. Russia's already got GLONASS, started in the Soviet era. But it survived (kinda hibernating) the regime change (one fascist plutocracy for another). And it was revived and is steadily expanding. Europe's got Galileï, of which the first 2 or 3 satellites are already up. China already have a couple satellites of their Baidu system up there. India and Japan have formally committed to building their own satnav systems. And Australia, South Korea, and Brasil have announced that they are seriously looking into the possibilities too.
All are systems that intend to put networks of between 19 and 60 satellites in orbit!
Note that they are all countries with vast mineral and/or manpower resources and a very bright economical future. They can/will be able to afford programs like this. The USA won't.

So it looks as if in, say, 5 years time the shoe will be on the other foot: the USA, having no functional satnav system anymore, will have to go begging, hat in hand, to get satnav data from the countries that do have functional (second generation) satnav systems.

Anyway, a lot will change in satnav land in the coming decade. That much is clear.

xteejx wrote:And then there's the new system being developed by BAE that uses normal radio signals for positioning in similar way to planes. It'll work underground too

1) What kind of accuracy does that work out to IRL?
2) Who will control that system?
3) when can it be functional?
4) Got links?

Sent from my GT-I9100P using Tapatalk 2

C'mon, do you really have to?

Count the billions all those countries pour into their satnav systems to see how much they value the US' magnanimously sharing of theirs.

Oh, and the Airforce took control after NASA developed, built, and deployed it. They, the Airforce, can't do that by themselves. The Airforce is good at lobbing big bombs: one time, one purpose ballistic missiles. Not at building sophisticated outer space hardware, c.q. getting it there.

And 3rd generation data – accurate up to 6 inches in 3 axes – is not and has never been available to the public at large, or the American taxpayer who paid for it all in particular.

Wolfeye wrote:Don't you all have some kind of web browser on your "smart" phones? Isn't there already places on Internet where you can find location of speed traps and speed cams? Is your smartphone with a functional web browser illegal as well?

Time will tell. And judges' verdicts will set precedents. But yes, the final consequence of this could be that smartphones in cars – whatever is or is not installed on them – would be completely prohibited simply because they are capable of running speedtrap info. Irrespective of whether they actually DO or not.

This law got into formal effect on July 1st. So you, we, are formally culpable since then and can legally be fined any day and any minute. But the French authorities also announced they aren't planning on enforcing it yet this year. Of course enforced or not, it IS illegal now so they can fine you for it anytime it bloody suits them! For instance if only to harrass an uncooperative motorist. Wouldn't be the first time some (sadistic) cop got a kick out of "throwing the book at" someone. E.g. you. And they can reverse their non-enforcement policy at the drop of a hat too of course when it suits them. 'Cause the law is already in place and formally effective.

I.o.w. motorist/smartphone owners, in France, are now defacto threatened with heavy fines. That's part of the 'sword of Damocles' hanging over all citizen's heads. The permanent threat, fear, and coercion that the state uses to control its citizens.

Nineteen-Eighty-Four, anyone?

gordonski wrote:So better have Waze turned off when getting stopped by the police.

No! That's not enough. You are culpable if you have a speedtrap alert capable device in your car. Irrespective of whether it is turned on or off, or whether specific speedtrap capable apps are installed or not.

So when you get stopped by the cops, and you want to be sure you won't get any problems, you better chuck your smartphone out the window real fast...!

dmcconachie wrote:

Rokcet wrote:So when you get stopped by the cops, and you want to be sure you won't get any problems, you better chuck your smartphone out the window real fast...!

So your interpretation is that it's illegal to carry a smartphone in your car? Pretty sure any self-respecting lawyer could get that thrown out as a breach of basic human rights.

Sure, after you were arrested, spent time in jail pre-trial, spent 5 years going through several trials, and spent a fortune on your defense. Who can afford that? Who has enough stamina for that? Who can withstand the pressure?

That whole sequence is the threat and the punishment rolled into one! Before the final verdict!

Is that justice?

dmcconachie wrote:

Rokcet wrote:Sure, after you were arrested, spent time in jail pre-trial, spent 5 years going through several trials, and spent a fortune on your defense. Who can afford that? Who has enough stamina for that?Who can withstand the pressure?
That whole sequence is the threat!

There is zero chance of that. All it would take is for one trucker to get arrested for having a smartphone in his cab and the whole country would grind to a halt!

Yeah, we would get large scale protests and demonstrations, risking lots of arrested, pepper-sprayed, or even shot demonstrators. Like with Occupy protests in the US, or miner demonstrations in South Africa, or anti-Putin protests in Moscow.

It all happened before. So it's a bit naive to think it won't again.

dmcconachie wrote:Do they [the cops] have power to confiscate or even search mobile phones? Unlikely I'd have said.

Yes they have those powers – in all countries – if they have 'reasonable suspicion' that laws are broken and/or that there are connections to crime. That's what police are for. That's what we, society, expect of them, and actually pay them for. It's also, at the same time, a very arbitrary – 'multi-interpretable' – argument that can easily be abused. By police/authorities. Against individuals. And IRL it very often IS!