Demo Data from EDBT 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Scott Schober
dblp:179/0138
· DBLP profile ↗
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
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Digital forensics and information hiding › digital forensics
mobile device forensics |
0.1 | 1 | 2016 | Technology Versus Privacy Issues in Preventing Distracted Driver Accidents [Point of View] · Proc. IEEE 2016 |
Authentication and access control › mobile authentication
smartphone unlocking |
0.1 | 1 | 2016 | Technology Versus Privacy Issues in Preventing Distracted Driver Accidents [Point of View] · Proc. IEEE 2016 |
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2016 | Technology Versus Privacy Issues in Preventing Distracted Driver Accidents [Point of View]abstractDiscusses 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. IEEE | 1 |