How can Youtube & Twitter trust SPLC to help police their systems when the SPLC is part of the Fake News & bias system itself

Yes you read that right, the Southern Policy Law Center that both Twitter and Youtube have boasted about using are actually producing misleading articles that meet all the criteria of FAKE NEWS.

Not only are they producing fake news these articles are defamatory, libelous and deliberately designed to create targeted harassment and they don’t care who they are attacking and only remove the articles for ‘review’ when the articles come under scrutiny.

The latest one targeted left leaning independent journalist Tim Pool. Someone that I would trust for an unbiased opinion on many of the subjects.

This past week an article was written by an employee or contributor to the Southern Poverty Law Center’s website and news system accusing Tim Pool of being a far right journalist, he was also accused of having visited Iran and spoke at a conference there even though as Mr Pool pointed out to the the audience in his own video that he couldn’t have gone there even if he wanted because at the time he was working for a far left news outlet Fusion and was reporting in Ferguson at the time this conference was supposed to have taken place.

It was only after multiple people pointed this out that they pulled the article “Temporarily” for review and at this time it is no longer visible on their servers. It coincides with another article targeting another Journalist who is also not far right and was pulled only after the Journalist started legal proceedings against the SPLC.

How many more inflammatory articles have been produced by this entity that both Jack Dorsey and Susan Wojcicki have boasted are the new gold standard policing method for their websites. Does this explain the targeting of conservative voices? How can you trust an entity that is not only targeting people based on what politics they express but also if they happen to stand too far to the right for their liking and by the looks of it too far to the right of their politics means any political opinions to the right of Josef Stalin!

I’ve watched Tim Pool’s reports for several months and he calls out those on both the right and the left, in fact he is doing the job that all reporters and journalists should be doing and calling out those that show a lack of integrity. Is this the reason?

Either way it makes me wary when I hear that a Youtube creator has had their account taken down for an inane reason or for a video that was never made available to the public, i.e. set to private and had zero views other than by the Creator. It makes me concerned when a person on Twitter has their account locked or are suspended and the reason given was either no reason at all or that “you may have barely crossed the lines and broke some anonymous rule” or “insulted a member of the far left in a tweet”.

A concern about the far right cannot be fixed by introducing policing by extremists at the other end of the political spectrum from them and the Southern Poverty Law Center are blatantly very far left.

If this far left leaning policing of Twitter and Youtube give an unfair and biased opinion at what point does Apple ban the Youtube and Twitter apps from the App Store because they demonstrate the same characteristics of the likes of the Gab AI app that was refused availability on the Apple App Store and removed from the Google Play store because of an implied far right leaning on a platform who’s users are both Liberal and Conservative.

When will platforms learn that people should not be “Nannied” and mothered, if a person doesn’t like an opinion they don’t have to read it, they don’t have to respond to it and they don’t have to lose sleep over it, all platforms have features that allow the muting or blocking. Well Youtube doesn’t, even if you request not to ever see a person’s content it shows up time and again, but that’s the fault of the company and their inability to write decent working code.

Have people ever forgotten something important, an app or platform only exists if users actually use it and just like the days of TV shows relying on viewers the apps rely on users to keep them around. Vid.Me learned that, not enough users led to them closing their doors, other social platforms have gone the same way due to lack of users and the best protection a person can have is to self police and if they feel that the platform is over run with what they don’t like to see then just don’t go there. If you don’t like Tea you don’t drink it, the same with any social platform, don’t like it don’t participate.

Just don’t let the likes of ADL and SPLC etc police it for you, you may find that the result is not “protecting you” it’s protecting their interests and their interests alone.


Wireless Charging is not Environmentally friendly and not Battery Friendly

I have to be open, I have used wireless charging, please don’t think I’m a hypocrite of decrying it.

Remember when Android devices started introducing wireless charging and the chant from the Android Fans was “we don’t have to plug in to charge” and seemed to be almost an anthem. It became rather annoying.

Then in my tiny foray into the Android world, it was hardly a fling in fact but maybe a flirtation, I purchased the Google Nexus 5 (the first one) which was recommended highly by many. I can’t remember whether I purchased or they included the wireless charging puck (or cube) but I had one and I used it. I kind of liked the idea but found it annoying somewhat because you had to be precise about where the phone sat and even though it used a magnet to secure it I didn’t have a a place where I felt it wouldn’t matter whether or not the adhesive damaged it so I would pick up the phone and the charger came with it.

I tried others, I invested a small fortune in them and never really paid attention to the power consumption details on the underside or in the handbook. All that concerned me was they all used the most annoying bright blue LED that would stop you sleeping if it was used on your bedside table.

I fell out of love with wireless charging and I fell out of love with Android, well I got rather irritated with the lack of updates, even from Google, and it was just not a good experience for me with the phone crashing at the most inopportune moments.

I never gave much thought, I knew that it took much longer to charge the phone with the wireless charger and had always surmised that if you have to use a 20 watt charger to power the wireless charger to get slower charging then its not really efficient enough.

When the iPhone X became my phone I purchased a charger claiming to be a “fast charger”, only ti find it was slower than the one remaining QI charger that I had from the Nexus 5 days.

I happened to get curious enough to actually read the detailed information only to find that not only were the basic QI chargers giving far worse results than claimed but they actually damage the batteries over longer term.

For example the “fast charger” I had purchased to try with the iPhone X claims to give 5 watts transfer based on a 20watt input power. So with that you are getting 25% efficiency.

But wait, in the paperwork for the charger it tells you that the charger loses efficiency if the distance exceeded 5mm (just under 1/4″) then the efficiency dropped to just 73% of that 5 watts, so your are actually charging at just 3.65 watts. Worse still, the rubber feet they placed on the top of the charge to stop a phone slipping off and the distance already in place because of the case design was more than 5mm, we were talking a charging gap of 8mm. I’m not an engineer but we could easily say that because of the way that eletromagnetic fields work that we could extrapolate the drop in efficiency and that the efficiency would be down to 62.5% of that five watts so 3.13 watts in return for the 20 watts going into the device.

Now most people wouldn’t even realize that these chargers require a 20 watt charger to operate at the specified efficiency so the device is already impacted with a lower wattage going in of less than 20 watts, so the output could be even lower.

Either way we are looking at best case for a charger, even with one of the 2nd generation QI chargers of a maximum of 8 watts.

Not to mention that efficiency is also affected by the phones receiving coil being not placed exactly aligned. What impact would that have.

It seems now that using a wireless charger can damage the battery because of the much lower charging wattage that the wireless charging gives. In the normal scenario that a person would use a QI charger, as a way of allowing them to put the phone down and get a trickle charge between uses is actually the worse possible thing that a person can do. It reduces the life of the battery dramatically according to researchers.

Maybe Android users have voiced concerns that the wireless charging feature had damaged their phone battery and reduced the performance giving shorter and shorter battery life.

Now lets look at the “environmental issue”, many of the same people that say they love the QI charging are the same ones that rant about environmentally friendliness of oil and gas power. Trouble is if your phone can charge faster using even a 10 watt charger plugged into a device or even faster with 20 watt charger then obviously the environmentally friendly thing to do is use the most efficient charging system

Instead of throwing it haphazardly on a QI charger or buying a QI charger just buy a 6 foot or longer charging cable and plug it in. If you have to walk far away from your desk then unplug the phone. Your phone will have gotten. In fact if you had your phone plugged in for 15 minutes while you were working, even without picking it up the charge would be equivalent of 60 minutes or more on a first generation QI charger and 19 minutes on a 2nd Generation QI charger (at their best possibly efficiency i.e. 100%).

Now if you are constantly reading tweets and picking up your phone or getting messages then your phone is still charging at 100% efficiency of the charger you have it connected to when you have a cord plugged into the phone as opposed to everything stopping until the charger is sat back down on the QI charger.

What’s more environmentally friendly. Direct connection through a wire or indirect connection through QI wireless charging.

Footnote: Not all cords are the same, both lightning and USB charging cords have different efficiencies and some that you purchase may be darn right dangerous for your device and for you. Stick to good quality well established brands or for ones supplied by the manufacturers.

You can’t sue Youtube over Adpocolypse, sorry.

Unfortunately the Youtube terms of service/use and Adsense terms are written so they are not obligated to show advertising on any adverts.

Collective Youtube creator (multiple people) ZombieGoBoom lost a case against Youtube and Google over this. Full details can be reviews in detail with Leonard French’s Lawful Masses Youtube channel which goes through the judgement at the link below

ZombieGoBoom v Youtube. Google

Essentially the case was dismissed with prejudice meaning it can’t be refiled and anyone filing a case on a similar basis is going to have their case thrown out by the judge immediately.

It means that Youtube are not obligated to put advertising onto the video’s of those that are Adsense members and that income should be treated as “not guaranteed”.

The judge bluntly said that “YouTube’s only obligation” is to make a video an entity uploads visible if it meets the standards required by YouTube and Google. Being a member of Adsense does not make it a contractual obligation that the video is acceptable to the program or is acceptable for viewing on the site.

This really was something that I expected from such a case. Nobody should be expect an income from such a scheme and we have seen that in the past several weeks that Youtube have differing standards between how they treat different creators on the platform, the most notable being where they were not even going to discipline a creator for rather disturbing video content then when they did there barely punished him and after their pitiful punishment had ended he celebrated by tasing dead rats in a video and was then given yet another pitiful 2 week suspension and was then allowed back on again while others are permanently banned for just outing a fraudster and referring to the fraudster as being morbidly obese.

These days anyone should treat Youtube as ZERO income and merely focus on the value of the platform being purely as free hosting and free content delivery platform for their video’s. That in itself is a bargain, with some creators with video’s of multiple hours long the cost of hosting storage and content delivery would cripple them running in the multiple thousand dollars a month.

For those with fairly high quality output I would suggest setting up an free creators account with Amazon.

Amazon Video Direct

It’s free to set up an account and it gives them a chance to have their content aired Netflix style through the Amazon Prime video platform. It may not be big now but the earlier you are in and creating the more likely you are to be big enough to benefit from any advertising when Amazon start including advertising on a low cost or free subscription version of the Amazing Prime Video, after all there are always rumors about them creating an AmazonTube and if this tat that has been going on between Amazon and Google continues it may appear sooner than later.

There are also other platforms like Twitch (again owned by Amazon) to name but one, others like Bitchute and others. Some have advertising through their traffic is still low. You could go all out and invest in creating your own video platform and go it alone and then set up advertising accounts and ad-reads etc then you may make a small income from that and maybe eventually by allowing others to use it and taking some of their ad revenue you can make a bit from it.

You could go all out like Leo Laporte, build your own studio, employ your own staff and operate your own servers and persuade a company to become a sponsor and in return receive free or discounted Content Delivery Network services like Leo’s TWiT.TV does. He also does all his own advertising on air using ad-reads in the shows and a tip-jar system on his website for those that want to give a little bit more.

Just don’t rely on the income from Google. Back when they were struggling to build an advertiser base on Youtube to monetize the platform the share between Youtube and the creator was balanced to benefit the creator but YouTube are struggling to justify the losses they are incurring and the only way to shrink the losses is to increase the revenue they get from advertising and other services.

That is why Youtube “RED” came about and now why they are pushing so fiercely the Youtube “TV” platform too. They need those services because they can’t endlessly carry a loss before an activist shareholder demands that creators pay using the service to host their output or all video’s are subject to advertising where they are deemed appropriate but by creators only get a tiny part of the revenue or no revenue from advertising at all and will have to rely on other forms of monetization or support for their work.

Breaking: Insider at Apple says that Apple to drop 2 camera Design favoring a Camera they designed themselves that gives 20x Zoom and Wide Angle in a single camera

According to an insider that works in the design team at Apple they have decided to drop the double camera solution on the larger iPhones replacing with a universal single lens camera and hardware technology that gives both wide angle and exceptional zoom ability of up to 20 times zoom.

The insider we shall call GapingLeak says that it is planned for all new iPhones in the next iteration. It uses its own processor and gives the following features;

Up to 20x Zoom

Wide Angle camera facility

1920 FPS Slow Motion recording

Night vision I.R. Recording.

The processor will automatically adjust the image to compensate for the single wide angle lens design and manages the whole video processing.

Included in iOS 12 will be an Apple Dash Cam functionality built into Camera App and combines with the Maps app. They plan to stock a range of phone holders and cabling options for installing adequate power wiring for by iphone in a car. It will also include the ability to record the sound of what’s going on in car and record a lower resolution image from the front facing camera which can be shown if images need to be saved for evidential use.

The Dash cam functionality will work in all phones and operate with whatever design.

The proprietary processor is to be tagged the C1 processor and will offer faster processing of iMovie apps. An a professional subscription version of iMovie called iFinalCut will be launched that takes advantage of the processor if installed and finally give a fully professional movie editing option with a subscription fee.

Another feature coming is the ability to listen to incoming video while using a separate microphone only device attached to the lightning port or bluetooth and the ability to select where sources come from.

It looks like Apple is going all in on video production functionality on the iOS, after all their strong point has always been the quality of imaging on the iPhones.

The Internet Dearly Needs A Freedom Of Speech/Expression Charter to Protect Internet Users

Recently we have seen a spate of attacks by Internet based companies for Social Media and Video content distribution that has shown a sever lack of protection for people’s right to express themselves.

For years everyone has taken for granted the right to say what they feel, expressing their feeling and not have to worry about being silenced. Over the last few years we have seen that this has been eroded and this year we seem to have reached a watershed.

In the past few days Youtube decided to completely wipe out many conservative video content producers, no reason was given, one was given a strike on a video that was set to private, that means that it was only available to him and had never been set to unlisted or public. The reason given was that it breached YouTube’s terms of use. What was wrong with the video? It seemed he had called someone “Morbidly Obese” that was morbidly obese and pointed out that their GoFundMe was a scam that you cannot buy a heart transplant and that he was lying and the campaign was claiming that he had been denied a heart transplant because “he was an illegal immigrant” which was misleading since they cannot deny treatment simply because you are in a country illegally. That aside, that was just one. At first you think, oh an anomaly until it isn’t.

Suddenly another Youtube creator suddenly gets his channel flagged for a video that he made many months ago and there had been no issue before. They stopped him live-streaming for 90 days (the decision was reversed after an outcry). Within 24 hours many many others had been purged in the same way, most having their accounts completely deleted. The one similarity between all the creators was blatant. They were creators that had upset Social Justice Warriors, Feminists or the Far left wing. Essentially they were targeting the perceived right and those that had upset the left or shown signs of “wrong think”.

Youtube later claimed it was a mistake and in their words “Some radical employee’s carried out the conservative purge before it was intended to be carried out”. They didn’t deny that they had planned to take away the right of expression to anyone that was leaning too far to the right of where their own politics sit.

Twitter in this same period has also started targeting anyone that they see has being guilty of wrong think, deciding what people should and should not be able to see on their Platform. Even myself that has a fairly bland political point received two 12 hour “Naught Corner” time outs within 24 hours for “wrong think”.

Meanwhile Facebook has quite openly boasted about taking down those that they feel have opinions that are not aligned with what Facebook feels is correct. Recently I posted to friends (I never post publicly and only to my friends and not friends of friends) and unlike many I only have a few people on my friends list at Facebook and keep it just for family contact mostly. It was about the police taking down an armed gang member and I had a photo of it taking place. Facebook removed it because I had said that it was a Mexican Gang Member. The newspaper had mentioned that it was a wanted Mexican Cartel gang member and not a legal citizen. I appealed the decision and they declined the appeal saying that I cannot mention the nationality of a person in a derogatory way. So I have experienced Facebook deliberately censoring for fear of upsetting the far left on there myself and many people that are mildly conservative have had their Facebook pages unpublished simply because someone, a member of the page, posted something that was a little too far to the right for Facebook.

What we seem to be seeing is a push to censor people of what would be referred to simply has not being in compliance with the politics of the social media platforms. These companies are hiding behind their terms of use, modifying them when necessary, to make it possible to censor those that do not have politics or opinions that align with those of the company.

It is time that there was a charter to protect freedom of speech and expression on these platforms, after all they Google and Facebook both have a virtual monopoly over social media and stifling speech is something that we all thought was behind us years ago.

When will the world realize that it is not the right for a third party to decide what speech is allowed and not their right of a third party to stifle the propagation of opinions. Sure there are unsavory opinions on both sides but we as people have the ability on these platforms to “Block” and “Mute” those that we don’t agree with and choose to not view or read their opinions and these unsavory opinions have the right to be present in the public arena.

Trying to “Stifle” these opinions puts the collation of them underground where they are not put under public scrutiny and are not open for discussion. We cannot turn the internet into echo chambers where people can feel all safe and cozy. It should be like every day life where you cannot pretend it is still 1950 and everyone lives in Mayberry (well except for my late mother in law who refused to accept how times had changed).

It is time for a charter to protect everyone’s voices online and protect them from suppression. Democracy flourishes when you allow opinions, whether right or wrong, to be in the open.

Net Neutrality, the illusion of a protection that was never for the consumer

Today I was “lectured” by a youngster about how important Net Neutrality is for the people and that it protects the consumer from the ISPs. Is this actually what it was there for in the form that was instituted by the FCC? The answer is No and here’s why.

When you look at the idea of net neutrality in the way it is described the term is actually not correct. It is supposed to make all “Bits of Data equal” that they would be treated in that way. Trouble is, Net Neutrality is not about protecting consumers, it does nothing for consumers it protects the existing data transporters such as Google and those that operate the backbone of the internet along with those that sell content. It does not protect the consumer at all.

Net Neutrality is supposed to stop those that operate Content Delivery Networks and the likes of Youtube, Netflix, Amazon video etc of having their data slowed down unless they pay extra for their data to be transported faster.

Meanwhile, as I pointed out, if all bits were equal then the charge would be identical for internet service for all users and would be delivered at the fastest possible speed on the network, after all all bits are equal. We don’t all pay the same and depending on how much we pay depends on the speed. If we were under a net neutrality system we would not be speed limited we would be data limited.

Data limiting is just the same system that the cellphone companies were operating under, they didn’t charge for a data speed, you got the fastest that the network would give but you were given an allocation of data and when it was used up you had to either pay for more or have by the supply cut off or extremely limited. This means that all bits are equal that you have purchased.

In fact if we were to talk about net neutrality, it would have protected the consumer from having unlimited data managed by forcing services such as youtube etc to be limited to 480p, which is essentially slowing those bits artificially. In fact the Verizon unlimited plans charge you more to avoid having your speed limited. Making all bits not equal on the Verizon Wireless Network.

We lived in this illusion of all bits being equal, they never have been and never will be.

Even on a cable based system, if all bits were equal then they would balance their data and not limit the upstream or outgoing bits from a consumer giving priority to downstream or incoming data, which is why sometimes even if you have 100Kbps down stream and there are three or four people sucking data in it using services that have as much outgoing data and incoming data (for example online game playing) the service will start to struggle became the upstream speed may only be 5 Kbps going out and it it affects the incoming flow of data for someone watching maybe Netflix movie rather than playing by a game and why the games suffer.

A prime example of how literally net neutrality only affects those filling the backbone of the network can be described by a rant from that Jaded Tech Guy Radio Show Host who complained “without Net Neutrality it means that I may have to pay extra to have my show transmitted live over the internet so it doesn’t stutter or freeze and wait to buffer. (Sorry Leo it’s all about your set up that has always caused that problem, you see Leo you’re servers are shit).

So do I worry about the imminent loss of Net Neutrality? Hell No. It’s business as usual, we didn’t even benefit from it. I still get the same services and same results (albeit biased depending on the politics of the search engine) when I search for information. I still get the same awful cat video’s on youtube and the same terrible and unwanted makeup tutorials regardless of how much I tell youtube to stop. Business as usual.

So people, stop whining about “Net Neutrality” it doesn’t protect you. Now a charter that would protect the freedom of speech on the internet instead of partisan censoring that has started to be pushed upon us. Now that would be something that I would fight for.

Should you use a Dash Cam or Dash Cam Software on a Smartphone?

I’ve used Dash Cams for years, it’s just a little piece of security that gives you an edge in any dispute or accident but should you invest in a standalone dash cam or just use your phone and an app.

Earlier today I was watching the Host of The Tech Guy Radio Show on his Live recording of one of his Netcasts (podcasts to the rest of us but let him pretend his product is unique). He reviewed a Dashcam, nothing remarkable about it except that it connects directly to LTE and allows interaction between an account holder and the driver of the vehicle and transmits the video direct to a smart phone but really just yet another dash cam.

This seems a timely reminder that I should write something about dash cams, everyone else seems to be pushing people towards owning them. In Europe they have become almost mandatory for drivers to protect themselves but over here people have sometimes felt that they are intrusive so I held off talking about them but it seems that now I should.

Why did I start using a Dash Cam?

It was several years ago, I was ticketed for crossing a stop line at a four way stop. I had stopped two feet before the stop line because a vehicle blocked the view down the road which was parked on the intersection and obstructed part of the road. So I viewed the road further back and then pulled toward to turn right. I sheriff’s deputy ticketed me for not stopping at the four way stop (though many people stop much further back and the law says that the stop should take place before the line but doesn’t say that there is a maximum distance for this stop either).

I did the pay way, I had no proof that I stopped and the judge very rarely accepts the statement of an accused and it was cheaper to pay the fine and do traffic school online that fighting the ticket. I decided from then on that it was time to make sure that I was covered.

My first dash cam

My first was actually the one I favored and used for the longest time. It was cheap, off hand I can’t remember how much but it was not much at all, maybe $40, and recorded in 720p onto an SD Card. The camera clamped to the review mirror replacing the mirror with one slightly larger, the screen would display for a set time before turning off and then would be just like any other mirror.

I routed power up to it and used it for years until something failed and it gave up.

Dash Cam Disenfranchisement

It’s replacement was supposed to be an identical product but it wouldn’t work properly, it’s field of vision was very narrow in comparison with its predecessor and I became very frustrated, not only that I had to reroute the wiring because the connector was a micro-USB instead of the mini-USB that had been in use on the predecessor.

My search for a better camera ensued.

I started looking for an alternative and had been seeing reviews that were glowing for the Mini 806 and 826 dash cams, so I bought the first, it failed within a day or two, overheated and then quit working and would return to a factory fresh setting on every start up. So the date and time and preferences would all have to be set every single time the engine was started. Returned to the vendor.

I rather stupidly purchased its later model, it seemed to work fine except for a rather strange effect, if it was a warm day, over 70 degrees outside it would overheat. Then it started wrecking SD Cards and I mean wrecking them, they would be inserted and would end up damaged beyond recovery.

I ordered another dash cam the DDPai M6 Plus HD model.

It had Good reviews and it was actually a reviewer of dash cams that recommended highly. It had WiFi connectivity and was designed for always on use. Only trouble was that the firmware corrupted when it tried to do an update during its installation and it was $329. The company argued over replacing it and wouldn’t send a replacement so I asked if I could send it back since it was non-functioning as described. $25 later to ship back to them I eventually got a refund.

After this I thought about smartphones and apps.

The first smartphone dashcam

I had an old iPhone 4 doing nothing and thought to myself, I’m sure there’s software out will work.

I went through the App Store and found several dash cam apps and installed them. I never thought about them working on the iPhone 4. I ended up finding one that did work with it called OSM DVR.

OsmAnd DVR by OsmAND B.V. $5.99

While the Dash Cam app’s latest version was not available for the iPhone 4, I sadly found out, the older version was available for the iPhone 4 and I could restore the unlock from the full 64 bit version.

I used this regularly using a magnetic mount direct onto the windscreen. It gave me a great little 720p dash cam, sure it didn’t have a wide viewing angle but it did what was important to me and would supply the footage of an incident if necessary.

It would record inside the cabin which is important because some states and countries require this. Only trouble was the transfer of the video took what seemed forever.

On the positive side all versions had a trimming tool and you could overlay a map showing the location of the vehicle and direction. I still loved that feature even though the trimmer was not any better than the trimmer available on the photo’s app.

I then progressed to using my daily driver iPhone 6s Plus and an app but because I also listened to music or audio books and podcasts at the same time I ran into an issue, I had to turn off the microphone on the app to be able to listen to audio through bluetooth and living in California the video would not be admissible if there was no audio.

That’s when I switched to

Smart Dash Cam by $2.99 (in app upgrade to full version)

In some respects it is not as good as the OSMandDVR app and doesn’t have resolution options in quite the same way but the developers are very responsive to suggestions and now include various upload choices or you can move the video using share to your photo’s app to allow trimming of video etc.

It ha a maximum 720p resolution which seems rather low resolution when used with later models of iPhone such as the iPhone 6 and later and has no support for the second camera sensor in the iPhone 7 Plus, 8 Plus and X.

That aside, apart from the odd crash where the speed doesn’t calculate all the time it has one huge advantage. Even if audio is placing it will record audio giving an actual recording from inside the cab, even if you are using bluetooth for audio it will use the phone’s microphone and record from there which is exactly what is needed.

I also switched, with iPhone X to using a Rearview mirror Phone holder which gives a more centered view of the driving though it does make it clear that California’s roads are far from the best in the USA and in some respects barely better than some third world countries.

What do I recommend?

While I do agree with the point that a physical dash cam is perfect in many circumstances the majority of them have a major problem, they use batteries and if you are not in a cooler country where it is temperate and it rarely gets too hot if the camera as a Lithium battery you will have issues with the camera overheating and the battery malfunctioning in the heat. There just are not enough that use a capacitor type back up power system for periods when the camera is disconnected but are less prone to overheating issues.

Though when it comes to cost and convenience having a dash cam app and using your phone it is still the best choice, even better if you have a spare phone. There are several dash cam apps on the iTunes Store, I suppose there are equally as many on the Google play store but I have no experience of these.

Certainly for less than US$10 and a mount that allows it view what is going on this is possibly the best way and an app will do just as good when it comes to protecting you and acting as a neutral 3rd party that can only supply the facts of what happened during an accident or incident.

I still prefer for features the OSMandDVR app that costs $5.99 to unlock but sadly I use the cheaper DASHCAM app by IPCam Soft because it does have the sound recording featuring which I like to use, it also seems to be far more economical when it comes to data usage.

At the end of the day, I go for cost and let’s face it, Leo Laporte, that all singing all dancing dash cam you are touting on your show doesn’t benefit you any more than not having one when you vehicle is stolen and having a photo of the person before they rip out the dash cam don’t mean anything.

One day, maybe they will give users of Dash Cam’s and the apps an insurance discount for using them in a vehicle in the United States just like they do for an alarm, after all it is in their interest for a person to use one.