Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Scott Schober

dblp:179/0138 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
1as first author
0since 2021 · last 2016
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Applied, interdisciplinary, general and emerging computing · 1 · 1 first-author

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Network and information security
1 paper
Privacy and data protection · 62% Digital forensics and information hiding · 19% Authentication and access control · 19%

Topics — the 2 heaviest of 3, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Digital forensics and information hiding › digital forensics
mobile device forensics
0.112016
Technology Versus Privacy Issues in Preventing Distracted Driver Accidents [Point of View] · Proc. IEEE 2016
Authentication and access control › mobile authentication
smartphone unlocking
0.112016
Technology Versus Privacy Issues in Preventing Distracted Driver Accidents [Point of View] · Proc. IEEE 2016
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2016 Technology Versus Privacy Issues in Preventing Distracted Driver Accidents [Point of View]
abstract
Discusses issues involving texting while driving, focusing on legal and privacy concerns. The majority of states have laws intended to combat distracted driving, but some laws cause concerns for privacy advocates. In January 2016, Vermont representative Martin LaLonde introduced a bill that would allow officers to search a driver's phone during routine traffic stops to see if it was being used. The same purported technology used by companies like Cellebrite to unlock the terrorist's iPhone 5C without Apple's help for the FBI's investigation would be deployed to law enforcement on the roads. The technology available would essentially create a warrantless investigation that any police officer could carry out on site. Given previous federal court decisions, it is highly unlikely that the bill would pass Constitutional muster if enacted. The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable search and seizure of "persons, houses, papers and effects." Sure enough, in October 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that authorities cannot search cellphones or smartphones without a warrant.
Scott Schober
Proc. IEEE1