Would a Statewide Ban on Texting and Driving Really Be Necessary?

Texting while driving: The source of many profound thoughts.
Yesterday, Arizona's representatives defended your freedom to shoot off a quick text or two with one hand, while you're controlling 4,000 pounds on the highway with the other.

Well, after they actually figured out what they were voting for.

The ban that would have been enacted under the passage of House Bill 2125 called for a citation of just $50 for sending or reading text messages while driving, but that went up to $200 if you got in an accident while doing so.

The bill came with other caveats, too, which would have made it even more unlikely that the average driver/texter would get caught by the po-lice.

The municipal ban in Phoenix, for example, has led to citations for people texting and driving approximately once in a blue moon.

More »

John McCain Thinks iPad/iPhone Are Built in U.S. -- Which They're Not

John McCain thinks iPhones are built in America.
Like most things, Apple's iPad and iPhone are not built in the United States, which may need to be explained to Arizona's senior senator, John McCain, who recently declared that the two products were assembled right here in the U.S. of A.

Kudos to the 74-year-old senator for knowing the products even exist. In fact, "The Mav" is a technology novice -- he's a self-admitted computer "illiterate" who's "never felt the particular need to e-mail," and has to "rely on [his] wife for all the assistance [he] can get."

More »

Morning Poll: Is Running DNA Tests on Your Significant Other's Underwear to Prove They're Cheating an Invasion of Privacy?

Yesterday, we found a Phoenix laboratory that offers "infidelity testing," which entails someone stealing a pair of their significant other's underwear and having spots, smudges, and stains tested for DNA.

It's gross, we know.

As off-putting as it sounds, apparently it's fairly popular -- the lab gets about five customers a week who request the service.

Stealing someone's undies to prove infidelity seems a little, to put it politely, paranoid. And some say it's an invasion of privacy.

We want to know how you feel about it: Is testing someone's underwear to prove that they're cheating an invasion of privacy?

Vote, and see the results of yesterday's poll after the jump.

More »

Cheaters Beware: Phoenix Lab Uses DNA to Prove Infidelity Via Stains on Underwear

If you happen to be cheating on your significant other, you better be prepared to hide, wash, or burn your undies after the deed is done, thanks to a Phoenix laboratory that's offering its DNA testing services to people who suspect they're being cheated on.

For about $100, Phoenix-based Chromosomal Laboratories Inc. will treat your significant other's underwear like a crime scene and pull any stain, spot, or smudge that may be the result of some extra-curricular intercourse.
Melissa Beddow, an analyst for Chromosomal Laboratories, tells New Times that if you bring your significant other's undies into the lab, analysts can perform "infidelity testing" to determine whether there is any semen, saliva, or blood present.

More »

GPS Tracking on Vehicles by Cops Without Warrants Upheld (Again); "Wholesale Surveillance" Imaginable, Says Eighth Circuit Court

Imagine a society in which cops have the power to place GPS tracking devices on thousands of vehicles, arbitrarily, without need for a single warrant.

We're already there, says the Eighth Circuit Court.

tomtom gps.jpg
Wikimedia Commons

In upholding the conviction of Josue Acosta Marquez, (a.k.a. Martin Contreras-Pulido) in an interstate marijuana-smuggling case, the Circuit Court judges wrote that federal agents and Iowa cops did nothing wrong when they planted the electronic-monitoring device on a pickup truck used by Marquez while it was parked at a Wal-Mart. Police accessed the unit seven times to change the batteries -- always in a public place -- and tracked the pickup as it drove between Des Moines and Denver.

Since anyone can see a vehicle parked or driving in public places, the use of electronics to enhance surveillance doesn't violate Fourth Amendment rights regarding unreasonable search and seizure, wrote Justices Roger Wollman, James Loken and John Gibson.

No warrant neeeded. And there's nothing stopping cops from planting those suckers as often and wherever they like, says the Eighth Court judges, (adding that they're "mindful of the concerns" about the May 21 ruling. In a chilling aside, the justices write:

More »

Now Trending