Digital drivers licences are now a thing in Australia

[Brumby]

No tin foil hat here - but the capability of capturing such information is not a stretch at all.  The legal impediments in acting on it would, I expect, be problematic in the least.  I often wonder about the permissions an App requests - and have cancelled the installation of an App for what I considered unreasonable access.

But, I agree - this is getting off topic.  Before getting back on-topic, my answer to my question is "Don't speed".  I find it amazing that in all the noise about "revenue raising" this is one simple response that the authorities never seem to make directly.  If gets left to Ad campaigns.


Back on topic -
Questions:
 - If we do end up carrying a digital licence - can I have it on a cheap tablet?
 - Will I need to allow the officer to take my digital licence and the device it is on from my possession and possibly out of my sight?

[Halcyon]

Questions:
 - If we do end up carrying a digital licence - can I have it on a cheap tablet?
 - Will I need to allow the officer to take my digital licence and the device it is on from my possession and possibly out of my sight?

I suppose you can have it on any device you like? I don't think plastic licences are going away any time soon. I'm guessing at least for the foreseeable future you can elect to have a physical licence (in addition to a digital one).

I'm guessing the legislation will be modeled based on the laws enacted for the trial. Some relevant points are:

61D   Use of digital driver licence
(4)  Any Act or law that authorises a police officer or person authorised in writing by the Authority, or any other person, to seize a driver licence does not extend to a mobile phone or other electronic device on which a digital driver licence is displayed.

(6)  A person does not commit an offence under this or any other Act or law arising from the person’s use of a mobile phone if the mobile phone was used only for the purpose of displaying the person’s digital driver licence to a police officer when requested to do so by the police officer.

[amyk]

A friend was fined $476 for using a handheld mic on a 2-way radio (which is legal). The cop thought it was a mobile phone. Two court appearances already, with no cop turning up. Third court appearance this month. My friend will fight on, but he won't any justice out of this - they will make sure he will lose financially even if he wins.

I believe in the US, no cop = automatic "not guilty".

[VK3DRB]

An update. The dodgy cop finally decided to turn up to the third court appearance. He said he had an electronics device that proved my friend was on the phone. Unfortunately for the cop, my friend had the electronic call log he got from the phone company, proving he made no call anywhere near when the ticket was issued. The court session went for over an hour and a half. The judge dropped the case after reviewing the evidence. Of course there were no apologies from the judge or the idiot cop. My friend lost 3 days income (and sleep), which is a lot of money for my friend but chicken feed for the judge. My friend won, but he lost 3 days income so he lost.

I don't think cops can use an electronics device to prove a specific driver is on the phone, unless they have sniffers and use triangulation. Even then, in thick traffic, they cannot not be sure. But it is technically feasible using RF fingerprinting.

[Rerouter]

VK3DRB, I'm more curious to the fact the police are using any form of cell phone sniffers, I'm assuming if so they would be looking for voice data, and not packet data, so a person using a mapping services, or a music streaming service don't draw there attention.


It has been a while since I had any kind of look at mobile encoding schemes, I suppose its not out of the question that the cellular modem background data may include info on whether there is a local or speaker/bluetooth call underway, however that is speculation on my part. though by the sounds of your friends case, as they did not have a phone number, I assume they are working on presence, not content.

[Halcyon]

VK3DRB, I'm more curious to the fact the police are using any form of cell phone sniffers, I'm assuming if so they would be looking for voice data, and not packet data, so a person using a mapping services, or a music streaming service don't draw there attention.

In short, no, the Police (in Australia) don't use any such devices. Mobile phone offences are detected by good old fashioned observations by the Police officer (which isn't particularly hard, how often do you see people on their phone?). This can be backed up by Police in-car video, admissions by the driver, additional Police witnesses, CCTV or call records. Triangulation and other methods aren't used for traffic enforcement.

An update. The dodgy cop finally decided to turn up to the third court appearance. He said he had an electronics device that proved my friend was on the phone. Unfortunately for the cop, my friend had the electronic call log he got from the phone company, proving he made no call anywhere near when the ticket was issued. The court session went for over an hour and a half. The judge dropped the case after reviewing the evidence. Of course there were no apologies from the judge or the idiot cop. My friend lost 3 days income (and sleep), which is a lot of money for my friend but chicken feed for the judge. My friend won, but he lost 3 days income so he lost.

VK3DRB, I'm sorry to hear about your friends' experience with Police. But for the most part, Police do an excellent job and there is a reason why Australian Police are among the world's most respected. There are lazy people in every workplace, it doesn't matter how specialised or sophisticated the workplace is. There could be very valid reasons as to why the officer didn't show up to the court hearings, but at the end of the day, Police should be sure of their observations before issuing a ticket. If in doubt, don't issue one.

Also, ordinarily call records alone isn't proof of innocence. Many calls these days are made using data services, which don't appear on regular phone company bills/accounts. I'm not saying your friend is guilty, but in my experience, if that's the only defence someone has for not being on their phone whilst driving, it will generally be laughed out of court.

On a related note, drivers don't seem to be getting the message about mobile phone use. Fines and demerit points aren't enough. On any given day, I witness at least 5-10 people on their phones while travelling to/from work. Police need to start seizing and crushing phones for repeat offenders and just simply start suspending licences. You can have your driving licence suspended on the spot for mid-range drink driving, some speeding and other major traffic offences, mobile phones should be treated the same way. There are almost no valid excuses to be fiddling with your phone while driving.

[VK3DRB]

I agree. There is no excuse for people using mobile phones whilst driving. My friend has integrity and he would not lie. He did say the cop was arrogant and rude. One bad apple don't spoil the whole bunch, girl. Most police have integrity and are decent - in Victoria anyway. But I have witnessed police breaking he law whilst driving.

The state should compensate defendants for loss of wages if the state loses the case. Surely the state makes enough money from fines to pay compensation. But really, this pales into insignificance compared to countries with broken legal systems like in 18 states in the USA where they do not compensate their victims at all if they have been exonerated after spending decades in prison for crimes they did not commit. Yes, three days lost wages is nothing in comparison. The bank HSBC knowingly launders billions of dollars of Mexican drug cartel money so they too can profit from the illegal drug trade, and yet not one of the crooks running the bank got jailed. But if some poor knucklehead gets caught selling ice on a street corner in the USA, he gets 40 years jail.

There is a lack of accountability in big business and big government. Yet the little man is always accountable and easily dealt with.

[RobertHolcombe]

Hmmm ... Access to GPS data - in real time.  How to turn your own device into a speed trap, which would have the capability of issuing you with an infringement notice on the spot - without you having to even slow down.


You know ... there is one way to absolutely circumvent any "revenue raising" of this sort and it can get summed up in two words...

... Anybody want to give it a shot?

Unless you're required to declare when you are in control of a vehicle they could never get away with that

[Monkeh]

The state should compensate defendants for loss of wages if the state loses the case.

The police officer who brought the false charges should. That might make them think twice.

[Halcyon]

The state should compensate defendants for loss of wages if the state loses the case.

The police officer who brought the false charges should. That might make them think twice.

Police stopped getting costs awarded directly against them a long time ago. Now they basically get a "please explain" from their supervisors and if it's serious enough, perhaps some managerial action and a note on their personnel record. The organisation wears the actual costs if there are any. You also can't sue a Police officer personally in Australia if they are acting in execution of their duty, rather you sue the relevant Police service (an example would be, if you claim a Police officer assaulted you during an arrest or interaction).

Having prosecuted many matters in Australia, I don't agree that an individual officer should have costs awarded against him/her. In my experience, probably a good 80-90% of defendants before the court are truly guilty of breaking the law (whether the court comes to the same conclusion is an entirely different story). It's not uncommon for a matter to be dismissed, not because the defendant is completely innocent, but because Police prosecutors couldn't prove it either in accordance with the Evidence Act, investigating Police didn't do a thorough job, mental health reasons or even because the magistrate decides to go easy on the defendant and not record a conviction.

99% of the time, Police do good work. You have those that do the bare minimum and probably get up in court most of the time, you have those that go above and beyond to investigate matters thoroughly, then you get those few who are just slack, make assumptions and don't do the job even to a minimum standard.

Trust me, if you got to be a magistrate in a local court for a week, you'd be throwing the book at everyone.

I'll also add, front-line Police cop a lot of flack from management. Expectations of them are sometimes ridiculous, all in the name of statistics and figures rather than actual proper Police work. Those working on "the beat" are among the hardest workers and the lowest paid (not that the base pay is bad, but they aren't entitled to any special allowances like detectives and other specialised units are), there is no way I would do their job.

[Mr. Scram]

The police officer who brought the false charges should. That might make them think twice.

Only if intent is proven. We all make mistakes.

[VK3DRB]

... Those working on "the beat" are among the hardest workers and the lowest paid (not that the base pay is bad, but they aren't entitled to any special allowances like detectives and other specialised units are), there is no way I would do their job.

I actually almost join up for the police force many moons ago, but instead became an electronics engineer instead.

So rather than working with officers frequently on the beat, I ended up working with beat frequency oscillators  .