The problem you seem to have here is you're trying to redefine "use" to get the outcome you want. At first by narrowing it down, then when you're told you can't do that, by stretching it. You can't do that.
I'm not trying to redefine 'use' at all - it is a very vague term, that's my point.
If you want to get very technical and anal about it, which you apparently do...
"looking at anything that is in the phone."
Read that sentence again and tell me what 'in' means - I highly doubt that this is a direct quote, even though you happily presented it as one.
It's an agreed amendment to the Australian Road Rules - Victoria's just (apparently) the first to implement it.
I'm pretty sure the local governments can still ignore rules if they choose, hell the NT had unlimited speed limits on the Stuart Highway for years before being enforced by their local government.
I'm not trying to redefine 'use' at all - it is a very vague term, that's my point.
You may not be aware of it, but you are definitely trying to do that. Any vagueness you see here is a product of your desire to exclude from the term "use" something that people would ordinarily understand to be "using" the device.
If you want to get very technical and anal about it, which you apparently do...
What you describe perjoratively as anal is me interpreting the law based on actually being a practicing lawyer in the country where the law was passed. It's not a matter of being anal, it's a matter of having the training to know how statutes are interpreted by the courts and applying that to the words in the statute.
Read that sentence again and tell me what 'in' means
Again, it's an ordinary word. Perhaps it will assist you if you read in the word "stored" in front (for illustration - don't assume the resulting sentence means exactly the same as that in the statute).
