Data is as dangerous as it is helpful. The scary thing is that you cannot control how someone else will interpret your data.
The same evidence could of course be helpful to the driver. If their sleep tracking app shows they are well rested and their phone's use shows no distractions while driving, then they could use that as evidence to fight a charge of driving without due care and attention.
We're in the same situation with alcohol -- how much before you're actually impaired? -- but most states have responded to that reality with laws that prohibit driving after drinking almost any alcohol at all.
Are you sure you want a similar situation with respect to your sleep?
There is something weird about driving that makes most people feel they're smarter and better than everyone else, so they can ignore traffic laws at their discretion. That attitude costs quite a lot of lives every year.
Welcome to the future, where if your habits are abnormal big data can land you in jail for it.
Blood alcohol provides a quantifiable measure of impairment. Sleep trackers don't even come close to measuring sleep well enough to provide a single number to use with a threshold.
[0]: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/26/technology/personaltech/f...
No, he's saying that choosing to drive while suffering from the very real effects of severe sleep deprivation probably constitutes negligence.
If the evidence that someone was suffering from severe sleep deprivation comes from a highly unreliable source, than that evidence should be treated as...highly unreliable. Courts are actually pretty good at that.
Even if someone did observe them breaking the rules, the "fault" doesn't exist until the undesirable outcome occurs and is observed. Arguing that loss of privacy will make things safer is illogical, given loss of privacy creates "inverse causality", or causality created by blaming someone for something before they actually do it in an objective frame. Keep in mind that (us) Buddhists believe we are all a single entity, with very specific discrimination that allows each of us to believe we are also a separate entity with an ego. That ego requires privacy to pull off what it does.
The process of "speaking for others" is akin to speculation about someone else's internal subjective frame inside a separate internal subject frame (aka mind's eye) in the observer (the one speaking for the other) BEFORE objective causality occurs. My hypothesis is that, by phrasing the speculation for other entities to consume as if it is an objective fact (which is is not), the "speaker" creates inverse causality event which then spreads in a viral way through the aggregate. See "this video will make you angry" on YouTube.
Apologies if this is still a bit rough around the edges logically and semantically. I'm just now getting it down in words and it's still a work in progress...