PDA

View Full Version : Apple Bans DUI Checkpoint Apps




Pages : [1] 2

MacRumors
Jun 8, 2011, 03:11 PM
http://images.macrumors.com/im/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/06/08/apple-bans-dui-checkpoint-apps/)


http://images.macrumors.com/article-new/2011/06/trapster.jpg


Apple has added verbiage to the App Store Review Guidelines banning DUI checkpoint apps (http://jalopnik.com/5809972/apple-bans-dui-checkpoint-apps). Presumably, the changed guidelines are in response to letters from four Democratic U.S. senators sent to Apple earlier this year. The letters requested Apple remove apps that provide "a database of DUI [driving under the influence] checkpoints updated in real-time". The Senators considered the checkpoint apps "a matter of public concern."

Section 22.8 of the updated App Store Review Guidelines (http://developer.apple.com/appstore/guidelines.html) reads:
Apps which contain DUI checkpoints that are not published by law enforcement agencies, or encourage and enable drunk driving, will be rejected.Some law enforcement agencies publish where DUI checkpoints will be located ahead of time, and these notices have been exempted from the ban.

As we noted when the senators sent their letter (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/03/23/u-s-senators-ask-apple-to-remove-dui-checkpoint-apps-from-app-store/), many of the apps in question also offer information on speed traps, red light and speed cameras, accidents, and other traffic conditions, several of which have also been considered controversial. However, the new Guidelines only mention DUI checkpoints.

Article Link: Apple Bans DUI Checkpoint Apps (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/06/08/apple-bans-dui-checkpoint-apps/)



ThisIsNotMe
Jun 8, 2011, 03:16 PM
What a joke.

ratzzo
Jun 8, 2011, 03:16 PM
Everyone has to be politically correct nowadays. At the end of the day though, this app will simply appear through Cydia. Does this really promote drunk driving? :/

theheadguy
Jun 8, 2011, 03:16 PM
I am all for free speech, but this is a reasonable limitation. If it saves a single life, it is worth it.

Aduntu
Jun 8, 2011, 03:18 PM
What a joke.

You'd likely change your mind if you suffered the loss of a loved one as the result of drunk driving.

chrmjenkins
Jun 8, 2011, 03:18 PM
This is known as a reasonable limitation.

That's debatable. Many can argue this is a limitation of free speech, but it's a closed market that Apple controls. Notice the senators did not say it's in violation of law, simply that it was concerning.

Darth.Titan
Jun 8, 2011, 03:18 PM
Everyone has to be politically correct nowadays. At the end of the day though, this app will simply appear through Cydia. Does this really promote drunk driving? :/

When the user base is limited to Cydia users, the usefulness of the app drops way down.

Jailbroken iPhones represent a pretty small fraction of total iPhone owners.

chrono1081
Jun 8, 2011, 03:18 PM
Apple is in a damned if you do damned if you don't position right here. If they don't ban the apps they anger the public and get called irresponsible, if they do ban the app people cry that its censorship.

I think they took the correct route since removing the app hurts no one except drunk drivers.

starflyer
Jun 8, 2011, 03:19 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/534.32 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8F190 Safari/6533.18.5)

Stupid. The information that these apps had were given IN ADVANCE by the local police departments!

Why don't these Senetors spend their energy on fixing unemployment and out of control spending.

Daveoc64
Jun 8, 2011, 03:20 PM
"Free Speech" has never applied on the App Store - not that it has to.

Apple is under no legal obligation in any country (not just the United States) to allow everything on the store.

If Apple thinks something is unreasonable, it has the right to ban it.

starflyer
Jun 8, 2011, 03:21 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/534.32 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8F190 Safari/6533.18.5)

I hope they crack down on the local news outlets that publish this information also.

Dmac77
Jun 8, 2011, 03:22 PM
I am all for free speech, but this is a reasonable limitation. If it saves a single life, it is worth it.

Maybe according to you, but to me it's absolutely demented. I personally use apps like this so I can avoid checkpoints, not because I drive drunk, but so I can break Michigan's retarded 10pm curfew for teen drivers. I'll be sure to not update Trapster in the near future. This is just another attempt by the government and their pigs to control people; shame on Apple for giving in to the government and bs political correctness.

-Don

something3153
Jun 8, 2011, 03:22 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/534.32 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8F190 Safari/6533.18.5)

Stupid. The information that these apps had were given IN ADVANCE by the local police departments!

Why don't these Senetors spend their energy on fixing unemployment and out of control spending.

Note that the guidelines only prohibit listing DUI checkpoints that are NOT published by the police force. It would seem this only bans user-reported checkpoint entry...

ihav0frnds
Jun 8, 2011, 03:23 PM
Maybe according to you, but to me it's absolutely demented. I personally use apps like this so I can avoid checkpoints, not because I drive drunk, but so I can break Michigan's retarded 10pm curfew for teen drivers. I'll be sure to not update Trapster in the near future. This is just another attempt by the government and their pigs to control people; shame on Apple for giving in to the government and bs political correctness.

-Don

doesnt that only apply to under 12?? you wouldnt be driving anyways, i hope.

FriarNurgle
Jun 8, 2011, 03:24 PM
Can we ban Facebook and Twitter then? I'm sure people are communicating DUI check points on there too.

barberio
Jun 8, 2011, 03:25 PM
Maybe according to you, but to me it's absolutely demented. I personally use apps like this so I can avoid checkpoints, not because I drive drunk, but so I can break Michigan's retarded 10pm curfew for teen drivers. I'll be sure to not update Trapster in the near future. This is just another attempt by the government and their pigs to control people; shame on Apple for giving in to the government and bs political correctness.

-Don

Ah... Teens. Dumb enough to admit they want an iphone app to help them break the law, but still claim they're just as good drivers as adults.

chrono1081
Jun 8, 2011, 03:25 PM
Note that the guidelines only prohibit listing DUI checkpoints that are NOT published by the police force. It would seem this only bans user-reported checkpoint entry...

You actually think most mac rumors users are smart enough to read the article before opening their mouths? :P

ChadJK
Jun 8, 2011, 03:25 PM
So it just becomes a web app that you access via Safari in iOS. This policy helps Apple's public image but does little to prevent this type of app from being accessible to smartphone-carrying masses.

As mobile browsers become more and more capable there will be more apps that become web apps to avoid Apple's App Store TOS and costs.

Dmac77
Jun 8, 2011, 03:26 PM
doesnt that only apply to under 12?? you wouldnt be driving anyways, i hope.

No it is now illegal in Michigan to drive after 10pm or with more than one passenger (unless accompanied by an adult over 21), if you are under 18 and have less than six months of driving experience.

-Don

trainwrecka
Jun 8, 2011, 03:26 PM
Everyone has to be politically correct nowadays. At the end of the day though, this app will simply appear through Cydia. Does this really promote drunk driving? :/

Are you serious? Who else, but someone breaking the law, would download this app?

The "free speech" argument is completely wrong in this context. You have freedom to break the law, but there will be consequences. You have the freedom to create a handheld computer device that connects to the internet to update you about DUI stops. Apple's App Store doesn't have to submit to your "freedom".

ten-oak-druid
Jun 8, 2011, 03:27 PM
Well this is disappointing.

People not able to drive are not going to be able to remember to use such an app. This is for sober drivers wanting to get around such a check point. This would in turn concentrate the number of DUI drivers at the check point area and make it more affective.

Having this app available is not irresponsible. Posting live updates at a party full of potential drunk drivers or at a public bar would be irresponsible. But so would be letting people leave while drunk without trying to stop them or following through on a threat to call authorities if they do not listen.

PBG4 Dude
Jun 8, 2011, 03:28 PM
Trapster is still on US app store. Better get it if you want it.

Dmac77
Jun 8, 2011, 03:29 PM
Ah... Teens. Dumb enough to admit they want an iphone app to help them break the law, but still claim they're just as good drivers as adults.

FYI, it's not breaking the law unless you get caught. At least that's how my family sees it. I'm sorry but I work until 10:00pm multiple times per week, if I followed this damn law I wouldn't ever get to go to a movie with friends, go to people's houses, etc. I don't know a single family that requires their children to follow this law, and there is a considerable movement to overturn it. This is a law that was made to get broken.

-Don

nutmac
Jun 8, 2011, 03:30 PM
For those that do not drive drunk, all these apps need to do is NOT make a distinction between DUI checkpoint and speedtrap.

Having used apps like Trapster in the past, however, I find them to be a major battery killer and not comprehensive/up-to-date enough. I much prefer to stick with navigation app's traffic feature and stick by "drive less than 10 mph above the speed limit in highway and 5 mph for local roads" rule of thumb.

Mattie Num Nums
Jun 8, 2011, 03:31 PM
You'd likely change your mind if you suffered the loss of a loved one as the result of drunk driving.

I have. This app does nothing to stop anyone from driving drunk. Check points don't cover the entire drive of a drunk, just one portion of it.

nutmac
Jun 8, 2011, 03:33 PM
FYI, it's not breaking the law unless you get caught. At least that's how my family sees it. I'm sorry but I work until 10:00pm multiple times per week, if I followed this damn law I wouldn't ever get to go to a movie with friends, go to people's houses, etc.

So stealing isn't breaking the law unless you get caught?

That said, I do agree with you on stupidity of the curfew law.

SeanMcg
Jun 8, 2011, 03:33 PM
I can't drink but it seems to me that if you are buzzed enough to be concerned about being stopped, aren't you going to have even more trouble navigating the App?

I can't say I totally agree with the statement that Apple is in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" position. Prior to the report of the letter from the senators and then this report, I hadn't heard of a great deal of clamoring for Apple to get rid of these apps.

I see this is PR, and I doubt that removing these apps will improve road safety.

nagromme
Jun 8, 2011, 03:34 PM
This is a slippery slope!

First, devs are not allowed to help us drive drunk and kill people. (Does anyone here not know someone killed that way?)

What’s next, telling devs who they can and cannot murder? Will they disallow apps that prank 9-1-1 or impersonate police calls? What about an app that helps restaurant owners dodge health inspectors, or helps fruit growers inject poisons? Do we lose those rights too? :mad:

Enjoying a particular beverage--without taxi inconvenience--is worth the price of a human life or maiming. Neither the government nor Apple can tell me otherwise. Staying alive on the road is not a right. Selling an app is!

Some laws are bad. Therefore all laws are bad. Therefore law enforcement is bad. QED :)

acslater017
Jun 8, 2011, 03:35 PM
Maybe according to you, but to me it's absolutely demented. I personally use apps like this so I can avoid checkpoints, not because I drive drunk, but so I can break Michigan's retarded 10pm curfew for teen drivers. I'll be sure to not update Trapster in the near future. This is just another attempt by the government and their pigs to control people; shame on Apple for giving in to the government and bs political correctness.

-Don

Grow up. Think of someone besides yourself.

Laird Knox
Jun 8, 2011, 03:36 PM
FYI, it's not breaking the law unless you get caught.
Ah the ignorance.


if I followed this damn law I wouldn't ever get to go to a movie with friends, go to people's houses, etc
The 'ole "it is inconvenient" defense.


This is a law that was made to get broken.
I think Charles Manson once said that.

Dmac77
Jun 8, 2011, 03:37 PM
So stealing isn't breaking the law unless you get caught?

That said, I do agree with you on stupidity of the curfew law.

The difference between breaking a driving curfew or speeding is that those are both victimless crimes. I'm not hurting anyone by breaking a 10pm driving curfew, whereas I would be if I stole something. The only victim is me, myself, and I, if I get caught because violating the curfew gets you two points on your license and a crapload of hiked auto insurance premiums.

-Don

acslater017
Jun 8, 2011, 03:37 PM
I can't drink but it seems to me that if you are buzzed enough to be concerned about being stopped, aren't you going to have even more trouble navigating the App?

I can't say I totally agree with the statement that Apple is in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" position. Prior to the report of the letter from the senators and then this report, I hadn't heard of a great deal of clamoring for Apple to get rid of these apps.

I see this is PR, and I doubt that removing these apps will improve road safety.

Well, now that those senators HAVE written the letter, they're bound to get more attention.

Good on Apple. So much potential harm could come from these apps. So very very little inconvenience for the rest of us. It's stuff like this that differentiates them from Android's free-for-all...

scoobydoo99
Jun 8, 2011, 03:37 PM
You'd likely change your mind if you suffered the loss of a loved one as the result of drunk driving.

This has nothing to do with drunk driving. It's about a citizen's right to share information about when and where the state is conducting searches without probable cause. If we are going to be surveilled and searched without probable cause, we should be able to share information on where that is occurring.

The real travesty is that Apple caved to the government thugs.

kresh
Jun 8, 2011, 03:38 PM
Apple caved pretty easy.

It points to how their behavior will be with iCloud. Since they hold the encryption keys will they bow down to any government agency that wants to comb through the emails and iMessages in the iCloud looking for the subversive of the day (terrorists, tea partiers, huffers, Wiki Leaks supporters, Republicans when the Democrats are in power, Democrats when the Republicans are in power, and so on).

No thank you Apple. If Apple were to let the user create their own 448 bit key, like Mozy does, then I would not have the reservations about iCloud.

dukebound85
Jun 8, 2011, 03:39 PM
FYI, it's not breaking the law unless you get caught. At least that's how my family sees it. I'm sorry but I work until 10:00pm multiple times per week, if I followed this damn law I wouldn't ever get to go to a movie with friends, go to people's houses, etc. I don't know a single family that requires their children to follow this law, and there is a considerable movement to overturn it. This is a law that was made to get broken.

-Don

Picking up right where you left off from your "driving" thread I see:rolleyes:

FYI: I have to correct you though. Breaking a law is breaking a law, regardless if you get caught or not.

mac jones
Jun 8, 2011, 03:39 PM
it's up to Android to fullfill the much needed perp apps.

apps for: hookers, drugs, burglary, DWI, spying, and hacking are desperately needed

note: ( iOS looks pretty boring :D )

Dmac77
Jun 8, 2011, 03:40 PM
Well, now that those senators HAVE written the letter, they're bound to get more attention.

Good on Apple. So much potential harm could come from these apps. So very very little inconvenience for the rest of us. It's stuff like this that differentiates them from Android's free-for-all...

You sound like one of those hypocritical MADD cronies, who says "no no no, the alcohol is bad for you, it kills." and then goes home after your kid's soccer practice only to knock a few back. Just saying.

ThunderSkunk
Jun 8, 2011, 03:40 PM
Who else, but someone breaking the law, would download this app?

Me. I don't drink. I do work til 11pm to 1am most nights. Running into checkpoints and sitting in a line for an hour while the police look for drunks? Okay. But every single night when I've just worked a 16-18hr day? No thank you.

Aduntu
Jun 8, 2011, 03:41 PM
I have. This app does nothing to stop anyone from driving drunk. Check points don't cover the entire drive of a drunk, just one portion of it.

You're correct. It does nothing to stop people from driving drunk. If anything, it contributes to it. On the other hand, banning apps like these do contribute to fewer people driving drunk. If a drunk isn't able to avoid a checkpoint, they get a DUI and don't drive for a while. I'll say that's pretty effective.

This has nothing to do with drunk driving. It's about a citizen's right to share information about when and where the state is conducting searches without probable cause. If we are going to be surveilled and searched without probable cause, we should be able to share information on where that is occurring.

The real travesty is that Apple caved to the government thugs.

You're in denial if you think it has nothing to do with drunk driving. You're also worse off if you think people haven't used those apps to avoid DUI checkpoints because they are drunk. DUI checkpoints are not searches, so you're going to need a better argument than that.

rtdunham
Jun 8, 2011, 03:41 PM
...so I can break Michigan's retarded 10pm curfew for teen drivers. I'll be sure to not update Trapster in the near future. This is just another attempt by the government and their pig...

I was gonna say "grow up" and stop thinking "retarded" is a funny word and that police are "pigs". But then I see you're still a teenager so I guess there's time for you to develop some more mature points of view.

When I was a teenager my dad pulled off the road to look at a map, and we were rear-ended by a drunk going 50. The police found he'd been mixing drinks while he drove. Maybe a checkpoint would have taken him off the road and averted our tragedy.

When I was a young adult I worked as a police beat reporter on weekend nights, when that beat's busiest. I covered many car crashes and alcohol was usually involved. I remember one where I helped police pull a kid out of his crumpled car (the other driver, a pregnant woman, had already been taken away). At the hospital later I watched as doctors first told her husband they'd lost the baby she was carrying, and then, an hour later, that she'd died, too. Maybe a checkpoint would have taken that teenage driver off the road.

What are we to trade for the thousands of alcohol-related auto deaths? Your zeal to avoid the state's curfew? Joe Blow's desire to sell an app?

Have you ever seen a driver flash his lights to warn oncoming traffic that there's a cop with a speedgun ahead? I'm sure he thinks he's cool. I always wonder if the driver would do that--help speeders avoid getting caught--if he knew his kids were driving behind him and would have to face all the speeders who weren't taken off the road. Regardless of age, Don, there are grownups on the road, and some who aren't so much. Pick your sides carefully, because it's not a game but real life, with real consequences.

(and please note i've NOT said i care whether you adhere to a curfew. I'm arguing your inconvenience is a petty argument for doing away with DUI checkpoints, much less checkpoint apps. please give it some thought.)

acslater017
Jun 8, 2011, 03:41 PM
The difference between breaking a driving curfew or speeding is that those are both victimless crimes. I'm not hurting anyone by breaking a 10pm driving curfew, whereas I would be if I stole something. The only victim is me, myself, and I, if I get caught because violating the curfew gets you two points on your license and a crapload of hiked auto insurance premiums.

-Don

You're extremely self-centered. Believe it or not, teenagers do not make the best decisions. I should know, I used to be one. You are not a kid, but you are not quite an adult yet. So society places restrictions on teenagers. Be glad that you have a car - 99% of the world's people your age don't have that privilege.

Be patient, be smart. Your life could be ruined if you ran over someone or hurt yourself. That would be far from victimless.

dukebound85
Jun 8, 2011, 03:41 PM
You sound like one of those hypocritical MADD cronies, who says "no no no, the alcohol is bad for you, it kills." and then goes home after your kid's soccer practice only to knock a few back. Just saying.

MADD is not against drinking.....there are against drinking and driving....hence the acronym..Mothers Against Drunk Driving

h00ligan
Jun 8, 2011, 03:42 PM
Shame on them for caving so easily. THIS is why I'm getting sick of apple. Its not their job to police.

Yah yah drunk drivers etc... And I don't drink. But I'd use it to avoid delays.

nathanw
Jun 8, 2011, 03:42 PM
FYI, it's not breaking the law unless you get caught. At least that's how my family sees it. I'm sorry but I work until 10:00pm multiple times per week, if I followed this damn law I wouldn't ever get to go to a movie with friends, go to people's houses, etc. I don't know a single family that requires their children to follow this law, and there is a considerable movement to overturn it. This is a law that was made to get broken.

-Don

"FYI", it's still a law. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean that it is not a law. You work until 10 PM? Talk to your boss about making it 930 to be in accordance with the law.

I know this is getting more and more off topic, but I just can't stand people who think the law doesn't apply to them because they don't like it.

tripjammer
Jun 8, 2011, 03:42 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/534.32 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8F190 Safari/6533.18.5)

Stupid. The information that these apps had were given IN ADVANCE by the local police departments!

Why don't these Senetors spend their energy on fixing unemployment and out of control spending.

There is no fix for that my friend. We have been screwed from both sides for a long time. It will have to fix itself.

ThisIsNotMe
Jun 8, 2011, 03:43 PM
You'd likely change your mind if you suffered the loss of a loved one as the result of drunk driving.

And this has nothing to do with drunken driving.
It is nothing more than a "feel good" move like most anti DUI initiatives.

42streetsdown
Jun 8, 2011, 03:43 PM
if you're that drunk are you going to be thinking about checking your iPhone
for cops?

notjustjay
Jun 8, 2011, 03:43 PM
Me. I don't drink. I do work til 11pm to 1am most nights. Running into checkpoints and sitting in a line for an hour while the police look for drunks? Okay. But every single night when I've just worked a 16-18hr day? No thank you.

Wouldn't you figure it out after the second or third time? You don't need an app to tell you that.

hh83917
Jun 8, 2011, 03:43 PM
Hmm I'm still relying on my radar detector and I think that works better than trapster... Trapster never really worked for me, so it doesn't matter it it's banned, but I don't see any good reason in banning it. Maybe Apple is just under criticism from some lawmakers trying to get reelected.

Laird Knox
Jun 8, 2011, 03:44 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/534.32 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8F190 Safari/6533.18.5)

I hope they crack down on the local news outlets that publish this information also.

That might be difficult as it is a requirement that advance public notice must be given for checkpoints. I can see it now:

Officer: Here, read this notice.
Talking Head: There will be a checkpoint at 4th and Main.
Officer: You are under arrest.
:D

h00ligan
Jun 8, 2011, 03:45 PM
There is no fix for that my friend. We have been screwed from both sides for a long time. It will have to fix itself.

It can't fix itself. With bailouts outsourcing tax benefits warmongering overspending.

He's right, they should focus on other aspects of their job, I'm not paying them to review iPhone apps.

tripjammer
Jun 8, 2011, 03:46 PM
I was gonna say "grow up" and stop thinking "retarded" is a funny word and that police are "pigs". But then I see you're still a teenager so I guess there's time for you to develop some more mature points of view.

When I was a teenager my dad pulled off the road to look at a map, and we were rear-ended by a drunk going 50. The police found he'd been mixing drinks while he drove. Maybe a checkpoint would have taken him off the road and averted our tragedy.

When I was a young adult I worked as a police beat reporter on weekend nights, when that beat's busiest. I covered many car crashes and alcohol was usually involved. I remember one where I helped police pull a kid out of his crumpled car (the other driver, a pregnant woman, had already been taken away). At the hospital later I watched as doctors first told her husband they'd lost the baby she was carrying, and then, an hour later, that she'd died, too. Maybe a checkpoint would have taken that teenage driver off the road.

What are we to trade for the thousands of alcohol-related auto deaths? Your zeal to avoid the state's curfew? Joe Blow's desire to sell an app?

Have you ever seen a driver flash his lights to warn oncoming traffic that there's a cop with a speedgun ahead? I'm sure he thinks he's cool. I always wonder if the driver would do that--help speeders avoid getting caught--if he knew his kids were driving behind him and would have to face all the speeders who weren't taken off the road. Regardless of age, Don, there are grownups on the road, and some who aren't so much. Pick your sides carefully, because it's not a game but real life, with real consequences.


This is all well and good, and you told it awesomely...but drunk drivers are still gonna be out there. The police can't get everybody! They can't even stop other crimes. Probably 90 percent of the people who leave the bar are over the legal limit.

ThisIsNotMe
Jun 8, 2011, 03:47 PM
You're correct. It does nothing to stop people from driving drunk. If anything, it contributes to it. On the other hand, banning apps like these do contribute to fewer people driving drunk.

One only has to look at the statistics between states that employ DUI checkpoints and those that don't to see that there is no coloration between the two.

The entire premise of your argument is fundamentally flawed on 2 levels.

1) DUI check points deter drunk drivers
2) This app contributes to drunk drivers

barkomatic
Jun 8, 2011, 03:47 PM
This is the problem with a closed platform. If you exert complete control of what apps are available to your users, then everytime some group finds something offensive about what is being offered they will come to Apple to have it removed. If Apple doesn't comply with the request, they will make noise.

As fragmented as Android is, Google could easily pull the app from the market, but people can just sideload the app from a website.

I'm against drunk driving but there are valid reasons why a sober driver may wish to avoid a checkpoint.

paulypants
Jun 8, 2011, 03:48 PM
What a joke.

Right on, it is a joke...that some developers were irresponsible enough to create these apps.

Dmac77
Jun 8, 2011, 03:48 PM
I was gonna say "grow up" and stop thinking "retarded" is a funny word and that police are "pigs". But then I see you're still a teenager so I guess there's time for you to develop some more mature points of view.

When I was a teenager my dad pulled off the road to look at a map, and we were rear-ended by a drunk going 50. The police found he'd been mixing drinks while he drove. Maybe a checkpoint would have taken him off the road and averted our tragedy.

When I was a young adult I worked as a police beat reporter on weekend nights, when that beat's busiest. I covered many car crashes and alcohol was usually involved. I remember one where I helped police pull a kid out of his crumpled car (the other driver, a pregnant woman, had already been taken away). At the hospital later I watched as doctors first told her husband they'd lost the baby she was carrying, and then, an hour later, that she'd died, too. Maybe a checkpoint would have taken that teenage driver off the road.

What are we to trade for the thousands of alcohol-related auto deaths? Your zeal to avoid the state's curfew? Joe Blow's desire to sell an app?

Have you ever seen a driver flash his lights to warn oncoming traffic that there's a cop with a speedgun ahead? I'm sure he thinks he's cool. I always wonder if the driver would do that--help speeders avoid getting caught--if he knew his kids were driving behind him and would have to face all the speeders who weren't taken off the road. Regardless of age, Don, there are grownups on the road, and some who aren't so much. Pick your sides carefully, because it's not a game but real life, with real consequences.

So just because I'm a teenager that means I'm mixing drinks in my car. You got me, I make sure I keep some Bombay Sapphire and some tonic water in my car at all times, just because that's what we young whipper snapper hooligans do. I'm not saying that I don't drink, I do when I go to parties, or family functions, but I never drive after drinking. Hell I give my keys to a friend or a friend's parent the second I get that first drink. Just because I don't want to get busted for driving after 10pm, and because I drive my friends who don't have cars, doesn't mean that I support drunk driving; it just means that I know that I'm capable after the street lights come on (unlike many adults that I have to deal with on the roads). Get over yourself, and stop preaching; just because some idiots drive after drinking doesn't mean that I should lose access to an app that I use for a completely legitimate (both legally and morally) reason.

-Don

ThunderSkunk
Jun 8, 2011, 03:49 PM
Wouldn't you figure it out after the second or third time?

Yep. That's why they move em around.

addicted44
Jun 8, 2011, 03:49 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/534.32 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8F190 Safari/6533.18.5)

Stupid. The information that these apps had were given IN ADVANCE by the local police departments!

Why don't these Senetors spend their energy on fixing unemployment and out of control spending.

Apps which use data published by police departments are EXEMPTED from the ban. It says so right in this article.

Are people so trigger happy about bashing Apple that they cant even read the article they are bashing them about?

notabadname
Jun 8, 2011, 03:50 PM
People that decry this as a "limitation of free speech" simply have it wrong. Apple is also entitled to "free speech" and control of their image and their perceived position on various social issues in our society. Those who say this is wrong, must also believe it would be alright to force a clothing store to sell "F@$% America" T-shirts or "Family Christian Stores" to sell books on the "Joys of Atheism".

Apple is not preventing the App makers from selling their product, only from selling their product under the Apple brand. This App has only negative benefits IMO, allowing criminals and drunk drivers to plan routes around checkpoints, and possibly into a head-on with an innocent human being, mother, father, son or daughter. Imagine loosing someone important to you, later learning that only 10 minutes prior they would have been stopped by a checkpoint, but their recovered iPhone reveals "Trapster" still running on the multi-task toolbar. I applaud the decision.

ThisIsNotMe
Jun 8, 2011, 03:50 PM
Right on, it is a joke...that some developers were irresponsible enough to create these apps.

So I guess Apple should ban all gun related apps because guns kill people.
Great logic.

VenusianSky
Jun 8, 2011, 03:50 PM
I don't know about this one. I pesonally don't think an app promotes drinking and driving. Is that what these Democratic U.S. senators are implying? If someone is determined to locate driving checkpoints, they will do it with or without an app. Apple can do what they want, but their decision to ban them is supporting of censorship.

room237
Jun 8, 2011, 03:50 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)

The measure being signed as a law would be limiting free speech. Apple banning this app is definitely reasonable, and in my opinion, a very good move.

billyverde
Jun 8, 2011, 03:50 PM
No big deal. There's still Twitter.

Menopause
Jun 8, 2011, 03:51 PM
Support !

Earendil
Jun 8, 2011, 03:52 PM
I am all for free speech, but this is a reasonable limitation. If it saves a single life, it is worth it.

But here is what I don't get. Let's say a Drunk person downloads this app, and finds out that their route from the party to home goes through a checkpoint. Aren't they now more likely to just stay wherever they are? Without the app, the person would risk it and drive drunk all the way to the checkpoint, endangering everyone along the way.

Alternative option for the drunk person using the app is to take an alternative route. Since I presume most checkpoints are on populated routes, then even if the person goes around they will be on a less populated road than their intended route.

I'm just not sure how this app being used makes me as a sober driver any less safe. It would appear to make me more safe. I'm open to suggestions to the contrary, as long as they have some logic behind them :)

Small White Car
Jun 8, 2011, 03:52 PM
So just because I'm a teenager that means I'm mixing drinks in my car.

Not yet. But when this is how you think:

FYI, it's not breaking the law unless you get caught.

...it's only a matter of time. Check back when you're 25 and tell us you didn't eventually do something stupid in a car.

Menopause
Jun 8, 2011, 03:55 PM
So I guess Apple should ban all gun related apps because guns kill people.
Great logic.

Huh ? Comparison fail :rolleyes: iPhones don't shoot bullets. These apps do however point out to people where they might get into trouble with the law, hence potentially promoting atleast some of them to disobey them.

Not that hard to understand.

Dorje Sylas
Jun 8, 2011, 03:55 PM
This reminded me of all the people who kvetched about speed enforcement cameras. Particularly those that also mentioned how fast they go above the posted speed limit when the "pigs" aren't around. How unfair it is that they "got caught speeding".

Big F to the U to them. If the weren't speeding and making the roads unsafe (and there are plenty of traffic studies to back this claim, I will go get them off Google Scholar if y'all like), then they wouldn't have an issue. Same with DUI check points.

@Dmac77, come talk to us again in 20 years when you've been an adult for a while. I appreciate that you are working for your family to help make ends meet, however the law is still the law. If you are also speeding while breaking the 10pm curfew... you've just proven the point as to why we (the population in it's legal majority and not suffering from hormonal imbalance) don't trust you to be out as provisional drivers that late at night.

Now if i have misunderstood you Dmac77 and you have never speed while out at that time, I apologize. I would also suggest contacting you local state legislature or representative with a well worded (and spell/grammar checked) letter/e-mail with your concerns and situation. With the suggestion of revising the law to allow for "proven" teen drivers to gain an exemption based academics, employment record, and other proof of "moral fiber". We adults love that kind of ****. Don't bitch about the system, bitch with the system to change it. Which will require effort, but that's how adult life works.

If you chose to take that advice I will welcome you in advance to adulthood and maturity.

Lesser Evets
Jun 8, 2011, 03:56 PM
On topic: sad that Apple limits it out, but as another said--Apple is between a rock and a hard place. They chose to go with big-brother.

Semi-off: guess who drives drunk? ANYONE THAT WANTS TO AND CAN. You'd be shocked to know how many have and do drive drunk. It's probably well over half the drivers on the road. Few get caught or in accidents because they can handle it, or are lucky. Don't like that? Well, too bad. Reality is harsh. The law has done absolutely nothing to stop drunk driving or accidents from it, and the law hasn't even dented the amount of violators or violations.

LowKeyed
Jun 8, 2011, 03:56 PM
What a joke.

Agreed,

However, I care less about these specific apps than i do about how easy it was for congress to get them banned and what they will find objectionable next. Banning knowledge and the sharing of knowledge of any kind is a very slippery slope and can quickly lead to abuses of power.

I am all for free speech, but this is a reasonable limitation.

I agree with some of the other posters. This is not a free speech issue. No one is saying you can't tell people about those checkpoints, just that you can't use the App Store to do it.

However, i don't believe there are limitations to free speech that are reasonable. As long as i have the ability/option to not listen to what you say.

If it saves a single life, it is worth it.
In most cases people are likely to drive drunk not because they know where the checkpoint is to avoid, but because they are idiots. If you look at repeat offender rates it appears that getting caught is not a deterrent.
Do you really think that app is likely to influence a drunks decision on wether or not to drive? It is just as likely they will decide to not drive at all because they have to pass a checkout. Some will see that info and decide to drive around it, those people were gonna be on the road drunk regardless.

So the argument can be made that removing this app from the store may actually get people killed. (it's not a good argument, but it's just as valid as saying removing the app could save lives.)

mdatwood
Jun 8, 2011, 03:58 PM
MADD is not against drinking.....there are against drinking and driving....hence the acronym..Mothers Against Drunk Driving

There is a lot of evidence to suggest that MADD really is a modern day prohibitionist movement. Read up on how DUI laws have changed from trying to catch people who are impaired to catching people who have any alcohol in their system at all ignoring any impairment.

As far as checkpoints are concerned many states have realized that they do violate the 4th amendment and must be announced or are no longer done in the state. In CO they must put up a big sign announcing an upcoming checkpoint and allow people to take a different route.

blipper
Jun 8, 2011, 03:58 PM
"FYI", it's still a law. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean that it is not a law. You work until 10 PM? Talk to your boss about making it 930 to be in accordance with the law.

I know this is getting more and more off topic, but I just can't stand people who think the law doesn't apply to them because they don't like it.

There's no law preventing someone from taking another route so as to avoid a checkpoint. Like the other poster, I don't drink and drive but find it irritating to be held up while some deputy tries to scope out if I've been drinking.

The real problem with what Apple did is that it's going to open them up to pressure any time somebody is in disagreement with the purpose of an app --- wait till someone ties one into the right to life---choice issue.

Aduntu
Jun 8, 2011, 03:58 PM
One only has to look at the statistics between states that employ DUI checkpoints and those that don't to see that there is no coloration between the two.

The entire premise of your argument is fundamentally flawed on 2 levels.

1) DUI check points deter drunk drivers
2) This app contributes to drunk drivers

Don't use statistics as the backbone of your argument without providing proof they exist.

Who said DUI checkpoints deter drunk drivers? They may not, but they do find drunk drivers and penalize them, which keeps them off the road for a while.

If an app allows a drunk driver to avoid a checkpoint that would have removed the drunk driver from the road and limited his ability to drive drunk in the future, it's safe to say the app contributes to drunk driving.

Dmac77
Jun 8, 2011, 04:00 PM
MADD is not against drinking.....there are against drinking and driving....hence the acronym..Mothers Against Drunk Driving
That's a good joke. MADD has become the modern day equivalant of the Christian Women's Temperance Union, and MADD's members are the modern day Carrie Nations, except they are hypocrites unlike Nation. Even the founder of MADD has gone on record stating that MADD has gone to far, and she has disassociated herself from the organization because she says it has turned into a temperance (or "neo-prohibitionist" as she called it) organization and is no longer an anti-drunk driving organization.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candy_Lightner
"FYI", it's still a law. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean that it is not a law. You work until 10 PM? Talk to your boss about making it 930 to be in accordance with the law.

I know this is getting more and more off topic, but I just can't stand people who think the law doesn't apply to them because they don't like it.
The law has an exception for traveling home from work. The fact is that if I did not break this law I would have no life except for working, school, studying, and more work. If you can't stand people who break this law, then I suppose you can't stand the majority of Michigan families with teen drivers.

-Don

notabadname
Jun 8, 2011, 04:01 PM
But here is what I don't get. Let's say a Drunk person downloads this app, and finds out that their route from the party to home goes through a checkpoint. Aren't they now more likely to just stay wherever they are? Without the app, the person would risk it and drive drunk all the way to the checkpoint, endangering everyone along the way.

Alternative option for the drunk person using the app is to take an alternative route. Since I presume most checkpoints are on populated routes, then even if the person goes around they will be on a less populated road than their intended route.

I'm just not sure how this app being used makes me as a sober driver any less safe. It would appear to make me more safe. I'm open to suggestions to the contrary, as long as they have some logic behind them :)

Some bad assumptions here. The checkpoints here in Cincinnati are almost always on major roads, normally quiet at bar-closing hours, and normally with wide shoulders and divided medians with barriers. Now the driver chooses to take the "back roads" with little or no shoulders, no barriers between oncoming traffic, and through more residential roads. Even if less populated, he/she is not passing only a few feet from the occasional oncoming car. And even if they hit no other people, they are more of a threat to themselves with trees and utility poles just off the road, and turns and bends that are not permitted on major highways.

No, the person that buys this App isn't buying it to see "if" he should drive home. He is buying it to figure out "how" to drive home. Too cheap to get a cab, it's just a short drive, . . . etc. Learning of a checkpoint just tells him where the on-duty cops are not located. He/she will still drive.

dukebound85
Jun 8, 2011, 04:02 PM
There is a lot of evidence to suggest that MADD really is a modern day prohibitionist movement. Read up on how DUI laws have changed from trying to catch people who are impaired to catching people who have any alcohol in their system at all ignoring any impairment.

While DUI laws may have changed, it is still in regards to driving, no?

As far as checkpoints are concerned many states have realized that they do violate the 4th amendment and must be announced or are no longer done in the state. In CO they must put up a big sign announcing an upcoming checkpoint and allow people to take a different route.

That has not been my experience here in co. The local PD is obligated to give the date of a checkpoint via newspaper but do not give the location. There was also no such sign I remember when I drove through such checkpoint over memorial day weekend

That's a good joke. MADD has become the modern day equivalant of the Christian Women's Temperance Union, and MADD's members are the modern day Carrie Nations, except they are hypocrites unlike Nation. Even the founder of MADD has gone on record stating that MADD has gone to far, and she has disassociated herself from the organization because she says it has turned into a temperance (or "neo-prohibitionist" as she called it) organization and is no longer an anti-drunk driving organization.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candy_Lightner


Dmacc, how about you cite some cases where MADD is influencing legislation regarding drinking at your residence or anything else where no driving is being done. I would be happy to read up on that rather than a biography

paulypants
Jun 8, 2011, 04:02 PM
So I guess Apple should ban all gun related apps because guns kill people.
Great logic.

That's a pretty poor analogy, but you most likely came up with it yourself so I'm sure you're pretty proud of it. Keep practicing, you'll get it right one day. :cool:

ThisIsNotMe
Jun 8, 2011, 04:03 PM
Who said DUI checkpoints deter drunk drivers? They may not, but they do find drunk drivers and penalize them, which keeps them off the road for a while.

And are DUI checkpoints more effective then roaming patrols?

(Hint: The answer is no)

ThisIsNotMe
Jun 8, 2011, 04:03 PM
That's a pretty poor analogy, but you most likely came up with it yourself so I'm sure you're pretty proud of it. Keep practicing, you'll get it right one day. :cool:

Do DUI checkpoint apps cause drunk driving?

Nope.

GorgonPhone
Jun 8, 2011, 04:03 PM
more and more reason to jailbreak...lol

Westacular
Jun 8, 2011, 04:04 PM
This is a reasonable decision by Apple.

I don't mind the general idea of such apps (noting speed traps, photo radar locations, etc), but the idea of deliberately avoiding DUI checks for reasons of drunkenness is extremely sleazy.

That said, police departments DO publish such locations in advance, for a variety of reasons, and Apple considers using this information to be acceptable.

As long as Trapster et al disallow or do not display (on iOS) *user-submitted* locations in the "DUI check" category, they should be fine.

AFPoster
Jun 8, 2011, 04:05 PM
Trapster is still on US app store. Better get it if you want it.

Got it! Also I heard (from the great vine, no proof either) so this is hear-say that the iCloud will give Apple the ability to remove Apps that they ban / remove from the App Store from your mac, iphone & ipad.

mdatwood
Jun 8, 2011, 04:06 PM
This reminded me of all the people who kvetched about speed enforcement cameras. Particularly those that also mentioned how fast they go above the posted speed limit when the "pigs" aren't around. How unfair it is that they "got caught speeding".


Getting way off topic now, but the biggest problem with speed and red light cameras is that they are set up in a way to do 'gotchas' on people.

There are lots of stories of municipalities putting up a red light camera and then shortening the yellow light. What you end up with are people slamming on the brakes at a yellow and now getting rear ended. Brilliant.

Speeding another joke in the US. I would be okay with cameras and super aggressive enforcement if the US made speed limits that made sense. Look at France and they have 3-4 speed limits (tops ones adjusted down 10km for rain) depending on the type of road you're on and that's it. None of this I'm on a 4 lane road and it was 50, but now it's 30 and now it's 45, now 25...wait what was the speed limit again? Limits in the US are so frequently set up in a way to gotcha people it's no wonder people a) speed and b) think cameras are a bad idea.

pyro008
Jun 8, 2011, 04:06 PM
If DUI checkpoints save so many lives, why do we not have permanent checkpoints on every road with more than X amount of vehicles on it per day? It'll save so many more lives!

MadeTheSwitch
Jun 8, 2011, 04:06 PM
This App has only negative benefits IMO, allowing criminals and drunk drivers to plan routes around checkpoints, and possibly into a head-on with an innocent human being.

Have you ever even BEEN drunk before? Planning things is not exactly high on the skill set list when you are under the influence. An app such as this is really for the people who are NOT drunk, still have their reasoning abilities, can actually make use of information because their thought processes are not impaired, and simply want to avoid a traffic bottleneck. Nothing wrong with that.

rhomsy
Jun 8, 2011, 04:06 PM
MADD is not against drinking.....there are against drinking and driving....hence the acronym..Mothers Against Drunk Driving

Wrong. MADD is a neo-prohibitionist group. They support all sorts of anti-alcohol legislation.


http://thenewprohibition.com/mothers-against-drunk-driving.cfm

paulypants
Jun 8, 2011, 04:07 PM
Do DUI checkpoint apps cause drunk driving?

Nope.

Do DUI checkpoints remove some drunk drivers from the road?

Yep.

Aduntu
Jun 8, 2011, 04:10 PM
And are DUI checkpoints more effective then roaming patrols?

(Hint: The answer is no)

Again, provide proof.

And what does that have to do with banning apps that assist drunk drivers in staying on the road longer?

(Hint: The answer is nothing.)

Dmac77
Jun 8, 2011, 04:11 PM
Do DUI checkpoints remove some drunk drivers from the road?

Yep.

Do they also inconvenience the hell out of innocent people and force people to subject themselves to illegal and unlawful searches or else lose their license (that's the penalty in MI for refusing a breathalyzer).

Yep.

farmboy
Jun 8, 2011, 04:11 PM
Maybe according to you, but to me it's absolutely demented. I personally use apps like this so I can avoid checkpoints, not because I drive drunk, but so I can break Michigan's retarded 10pm curfew for teen drivers. I'll be sure to not update Trapster in the near future. This is just another attempt by the government and their pigs to control people; shame on Apple for giving in to the government and bs political correctness.

-Don

Juvenile scofflaws spoken for. Yeah, the Man is really harshing your mellow. Who says teenage brains are actually not completely developed...oh,yeah... medical science.

Really, "pigs"?

JohnDoe98
Jun 8, 2011, 04:11 PM
If the weren't speeding and making the roads unsafe (and there are plenty of traffic studies to back this claim, I will go get them off Google Scholar if y'all like), then they wouldn't have an issue. Same with DUI check points.

Time to go get them, and while you are at it make sure you also get the studies that show in other countries where the speed limits are far higher, or non-existent on some roads (think Germany), the same principles apply ya?

dukebound85
Jun 8, 2011, 04:14 PM
Do they also inconvenience the hell out of innocent people and force people to subject themselves to illegal and unlawful searches or else lose their license (that's the penalty in MI for refusing a breathalyzer).

Yep.

Your ignorance is showing.

Checkpoints are not illegal nor unlawful searches.

Many courts have ruled on this issue

Though I suppose you feel the same about walking through metal detectors for sports venues, airport security, etc right?

portishead
Jun 8, 2011, 04:14 PM
Have you ever seen a driver flash his lights to warn oncoming traffic that there's a cop with a speedgun ahead? I'm sure he thinks he's cool. I always wonder if the driver would do that--help speeders avoid getting caught--if he knew his kids were driving behind him and would have to face all the speeders who weren't taken off the road.

And the award for douchiest comment goes to...

mdatwood
Jun 8, 2011, 04:15 PM
While DUI laws may have changed, it is still in regards to driving, no?


Since much of the US is car centric if you can make the alcohol limit 0 you have effectively put a huge dent in alcohol consumption.


That has not been my experience here in co. The local PD is obligated to give the date of a checkpoint via newspaper but do not give the location. There was also no such sign I remember when I drove through such checkpoint over memorial day weekend


You just need to pay better attention. I drive around checkpoints all the time after seeing the sign. It's possible it is a Denver city area thing and not a statewide thing, but that would be odd. I always figured the sign was a way to get the sober people, who are more likely paying attention, a way to not sit at the checkpoint.

notabadname
Jun 8, 2011, 04:15 PM
Have you ever even BEEN drunk before? Planning things is not exactly high on the skill set list when you are under the influence. An app such as this is really for the people who are NOT drunk, still have their reasoning abilities, can actually make use of information because their thought processes are not impaired, and simply want to avoid a traffic bottleneck. Nothing wrong with that.

Give me a break. And yes, I have been drunk before. But a person at the legal limit of .08 BAC is still very functional, and can easily use a phone, text friends, and even operate a modern automobile (just not safely).

I guess I would ask you, have you ever had too much to drink? If you can't drink a six pack in 90 minutes and operate every feature of your iPhone, you would be very abnormal (or weigh 50 lbs). But that amount of consumption would have most people blow over a .08 easily.

But even that is irrelevant. Apple gets to make business decisions about what products they sell in their store. This one, smartly, doesn't meet the cut. One dead kid that dies as the result of a drunk dodging a checkpoint with Trapster on his iPhone is too many. Apple agrees and so do I.

JohnDoe98
Jun 8, 2011, 04:15 PM
Juvenile scofflaws spoken for. Yeah, the Man is really harshing your mellow. Who says teenage brains are actually not completely developed...oh,yeah... medical science.

Really, "pigs"?

Do you really need to insult him to make your point? I'm no teenager and happen to agree with him, what does that imply? Additionally, that was quite some argument you gave there, an appeal to some kind of irrelevant science in this matter without even citing your evidence. I see even fully developed mellows can be quite lacking in arguments...

farmboy
Jun 8, 2011, 04:16 PM
You sound like one of those hypocritical MADD cronies, who says "no no no, the alcohol is bad for you, it kills." and then goes home after your kid's soccer practice only to knock a few back. Just saying.

Or like the kid who can't distinguish between the Drunk Driving part of MADD and drinking at home.

Sulwyn
Jun 8, 2011, 04:16 PM
Do they also inconvenience the hell out of innocent people and force people to subject themselves to illegal and unlawful searches or else lose their license (that's the penalty in MI for refusing a breathalyzer).

Yep.

But the law also protects innocent people. Sure it's an inconvenience but what's an extra hour in the car compared to knowing you're not risking the rest of your life. You're a kid so you don't understand how important these laws are. I nearly lost someone I loved (Not to drunk driving or anything stupid) so I know the feeling and I wouldn't want anyone else to feel that because someone felt they needed to drive home drunk.

Mattie Num Nums
Jun 8, 2011, 04:17 PM
it's up to Android to fullfill the much needed perp apps.

apps for: hookers, drugs, burglary, DWI, spying, and hacking are desperately needed

note: ( iOS looks pretty boring :D )

FYI Leafly is available on iOS and not Android.

mdatwood
Jun 8, 2011, 04:18 PM
Your ignorance is showing.

Checkpoints are not illegal nor unlawful searches.

Many courts have ruled on this issue

Once again not true. 12 states make checkpoints illegal either under the state constitution or their (imho correct) interpretation of the US constitution.

http://www.ghsa.org/html/stateinfo/laws/checkpoint_laws.html

farleysmaster
Jun 8, 2011, 04:19 PM
The law has an exception for traveling home from work. The fact is that if I did not break this law I would have no life except for working, school, studying, and more work.

For 6 months...

LarryC
Jun 8, 2011, 04:19 PM
It's sad to see apple cave on this issue. Makes me wonder what will be next. I would rather see these fine upstanding senators working on things like the national debt, taxes, ever increasing loss of jobs to places like Mexico and China, Illegal Immigration, Gang violence, etc. It is even more bothersome to see so many of the members here supporting the nanny state. This really is what we need more of, total government control from cradle to grave.

Bafflefish
Jun 8, 2011, 04:19 PM
Do they also inconvenience the hell out of innocent people and force people to subject themselves to illegal and unlawful searches or else lose their license (that's the penalty in MI for refusing a breathalyzer).

Yep.
Except that a breathalyzer is utilized when police have suspicion of some level of intoxication. A person who hasn't been drinking would essentially have no reason to resist outside of having some type of views such as your apparently that the government is violating your rights.

Otherwise, if the person has been drinking and refuses the breathalyzer out of their own fears of being caught having driven under the influence, police will then simply wait until obtaining a warrant to take a blood sample for testing.

Either way, do innocent people sometimes get inconvenienced? Yes. To the extent you're making it sound? No.

Also, as you yourself stated, the law has the stipulation of: After 10 PM, unless with an adult over 21, and under 6 months of driving experience. Essentially, you're stating that a new driver, with limited experience, should have the same level of expected trust as that of an adult or someone with considerable experience. That's simply laughable.

Oh, and just to point out, as the courts have typically stated time and time again, driving is a privilege, not a right.

dukebound85
Jun 8, 2011, 04:20 PM
Once again not true. 12 states make checkpoints illegal either under the state constitution or their (imho correct) interpretation of the US constitution.

http://www.ghsa.org/html/stateinfo/laws/checkpoint_laws.html

Not false either....

The US Supreme Court ruled it legal on a federal level (imho, correct)

The states have a right to write their own laws as long as they don't go against what the USSC says (ie if they said it was illegal, states couldn't have laws that make it legal as it would be violating federal law).

codymac
Jun 8, 2011, 04:20 PM
FYI, it's not breaking the law unless you get caught. At least that's how my family sees it. I'm sorry but I work until 10:00pm multiple times per week, if I followed this damn law I wouldn't ever get to go to a movie with friends, go to people's houses, etc. I don't know a single family that requires their children to follow this law, and there is a considerable movement to overturn it. This is a law that was made to get broken.

-Don

Guess you missed that there's also an exception for traveling to/from employment.

http://www.michigan.gov/sos/0,1607,7-127-1627_40645-252829--,00.html

DUI checkpoints are nothing. If you want to get angry about, imagine them merely selecting a class of private vehicle for checkpoint stops - then imagine the federal government funding the program.

http://www.americanmotorcyclist.com/NewsView/11-05-31/AMA_seeks_end_to_Virginia_motorcycle-only_checkpoints.aspx

ugahairydawgs
Jun 8, 2011, 04:20 PM
Maybe according to you, but to me it's absolutely demented. I personally use apps like this so I can avoid checkpoints, not because I drive drunk, but so I can break Michigan's retarded 10pm curfew for teen drivers. I'll be sure to not update Trapster in the near future. This is just another attempt by the government and their pigs to control people; shame on Apple for giving in to the government and bs political correctness.

-Don

If you'd just quit breaking the law I suppose this wouldn't be an issue.

fattire357
Jun 8, 2011, 04:21 PM
I know it must be terrible to lose a loved one to drunk driving, but is reducing drunk driving really worth limiting free speech?


Before anyone gets on my case about the definition of free speech, yes, I consider the App Store banning apps that provide information on certain topics a limitation of free speech. I know Apple has every right to do enforce their own policy on their App Store, but I feel uneasy about certain topics being banned.

edit: i should also say I like DUI checkpoints since people shouldn't be drinking and driving. I also don't ever drink and drive. I just want to be able to have access to information that isn't illegal to possess.

phillipduran
Jun 8, 2011, 04:21 PM
I suppose history apps should be banned to. After all, knowledge of history can encourage revolutions.

Just another step in the trend towards government rights/priority over the citizens (I know its voluntary by Apple, but this puts the cops 1st and the citizens last). The filming of cops being an illegal activity is another thing that makes me mad.

The priority should always go to the citizens, that is why it is illegal to search private property without a warrant. . .oh wait, thats eroding as well. . .

We need some sweeping changes back to citizens rights and the constitution. I don't care if it makes policing harder. 100 guilty men should walk before the the rights of just 1 person are trampled.

/soapbox

MetalMoon
Jun 8, 2011, 04:22 PM
The only people whining about this are those who drink and drive, cause otherwise, why would you care? Do yourself a favor and stop drinking, your life will be that much better. You'll save money, and won't risk killing people.

JohnDoe98
Jun 8, 2011, 04:22 PM
How about we stop targeting his age and address his comments/arguments? Checkpoints are a PITA for anyone who isn't doing anything illegal. I for one can't bare being delayed by them and can't tolerate the "traps" that have been mentioned. And I'm certainly no juvenile. So let's get to the point and leave the fluff aside shall we?

Mattie Num Nums
Jun 8, 2011, 04:22 PM
Anyone stop to think that this App may be useful for people who are working late and want to avoid waiting in DUI check point lines. I know for me when I was working late hours they had a check point on the busiest street and it took close to 20 minute to get through. The Cops would always harass me about my red eyes and I'd have to explain the fact that is 11:30PM and I have been up since 7AM at class and then worked an 8 hour shift. I think its wrong for you guys to assume that people will use this App to get around checkpoints with the sole intention to drive drunk. Shame on you. This is preventing a few things, #1 Entrapment, #2 avoiding traffic jams on streets where check points are, #3 avoiding harassment if you are a Designated Driver with a car full of drunks. I have a stomach disease so I cannot drink Alcohol yet whenever I am DD and have drunks in the car Cops treat me like a drunk as well.

celo48
Jun 8, 2011, 04:22 PM
Good call.

Bafflefish
Jun 8, 2011, 04:23 PM
Once again not true. 12 states make checkpoints illegal either under the state constitution or their (imho correct) interpretation of the US constitution.

http://www.ghsa.org/html/stateinfo/laws/checkpoint_laws.html
Just to point out, your own link states that the state laws that do allow for DUI checkpoints have apparently been upheld under the US Constitution.

SpinThis!
Jun 8, 2011, 04:23 PM
Getting way off topic now, but the biggest problem with speed and red light cameras is that they are set up in a way to do 'gotchas' on people. There are lots of stories of municipalities putting up a red light camera and then shortening the yellow light.
yeh it's all a money grab one way or the other. Most municipalities make tons of money from egregiously slow speed limits. Most studies have shown red light cameras to simply be a money grab—there's no safety benefit.

For all the DUI enforcement for checkpoints, the government should put that into a fund to reimburse cab companies for drunk patrons because the bars sure as hell aren't going to do so.

GQB
Jun 8, 2011, 04:23 PM
[SIZE=1]

Why don't these Senetors spend their energy on fixing unemployment and out of control spending.

Yeah... the yearly cost of the carnage inflicted by drunk drivers (and picked up through our insurance rates and taxes) is chicken feed.

farmboy
Jun 8, 2011, 04:24 PM
Do you really need to insult him to make your point? I'm no teenager and happen to agree with him, what does that imply? Additionally, that was quite some argument you gave there, an appeal to some kind of irrelevant science in this matter without even citing your evidence. I see even fully developed mellows can be quite lacking in arguments...

He admits he's both juvenile and a scofflaw, so no insult there. He calls police pigs and you're concerned about my insult? OK.

And by the way, numerous references to brain development, including Sowell, Nature Neurosciences 2003. Not irrelevant at all because the incomplete neural connections in teenage brains govern judgment.

emon878
Jun 8, 2011, 04:26 PM
As soon as a teenager post something people just can't wait to jump on it.

KCMichaelB
Jun 8, 2011, 04:28 PM
I guess they should ban all apps that promote drinking?

Bafflefish
Jun 8, 2011, 04:28 PM
Also, with regard to free speech, I may be wrong about this given how long it's been since I last studied it, but isn't the guarantee of free speech essentially more at the government/public level, i.e. the federal/state/local government cannot impinge upon your right to free speech, but that does not extend to the purvey of private businesses?

A good example, to me at least, is how the Boy Scouts of America are allowed to refuse openly homosexual individuals from being members, a policy that is perfectly "acceptable" given its private nature, but which would run afoul of anti-discrimination laws if they were a government organization.

Thus, if someone chooses to use the App Store and an Apple device, they're at the purvey of whatever decisions Apple chooses to make.

tripjammer
Jun 8, 2011, 04:30 PM
This is the problem with a closed platform. If you exert complete control of what apps are available to your users, then everytime some group finds something offensive about what is being offered they will come to Apple to have it removed. If Apple doesn't comply with the request, they will make noise.

As fragmented as Android is, Google could easily pull the app from the market, but people can just sideload the app from a website.

I'm against drunk driving but there are valid reasons why a sober driver may wish to avoid a checkpoint.


Thats what IOS jailbreaking is for bro...I am all for apples closed off system. It works for us developers. We make money on the IOS side...hardly anything on the android side.

tripjammer
Jun 8, 2011, 04:32 PM
As soon as a teenager post something people just can't wait to jump on it.


Some teens are smarter than adults...age does not always mean a thing sometimes....

notabadname
Jun 8, 2011, 04:32 PM
Do they also inconvenience the hell out of innocent people and force people to subject themselves to illegal and unlawful searches or else lose their license (that's the penalty in MI for refusing a breathalyzer).

Yep.

Illegal? Whatever. More of the Constitutionally uninformed public spouting off their knowledge from friends on facebook.

Read more about the actual law as it was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court, decades ago. And ironically, Michigan is at the center.

http://caselaw.duicenter.com/sitz03.html

(hint: This would mean it is not illegal or unlawful)

emon878
Jun 8, 2011, 04:32 PM
Some teens are smarter than adults...age does not always mean a thing sometimes....

That's my point.

fattire357
Jun 8, 2011, 04:33 PM
I suppose history apps should be banned to. After all, knowledge of history can encourage revolutions.

Just another step in the trend towards government rights/priority over the citizens (I know its voluntary by Apple, but this puts the cops 1st and the citizens last). The filming of cops being an illegal activity is another thing that makes me mad.

The priority should always go to the citizens, that is why it is illegal to search private property without a warrant. . .oh wait, thats eroding as well. . .

We need some sweeping changes back to citizens rights and the constitution. I don't care if it makes policing harder. 100 guilty men should walk before the the rights of just 1 person are trampled.

/soapbox

Agreed. I dislike drinking and driving as much as anyone but I don't know if it is worth banning free speech over.


Not to mention the fact that I don't think Trapster is particularly important when it comes to DUI checkpoints. Everyone can see them a mile away. At least in the city where I live, you start getting suspicious as to why the traffic isn't moving at 10pm. A few blocks up, you can see cop lights flashing and this line of cars stopped. What does a drunk driver have to do? Take a left before you come across that line. You don't need trapster.

JohnDoe98
Jun 8, 2011, 04:33 PM
He calls police pigs and you're concerned about my insult? OK.

And by the way, numerous references to brain development, including Sowell, Nature Neurosciences 2003. Not irrelevant at all because the incomplete neural connections in teenage brains govern judgment.

Your not talking about the "Mapping cortical change across the human life span" article are you? I sure hope not!

dscuber9000
Jun 8, 2011, 04:33 PM
FYI, it's not breaking the law unless you get caught.

You're an idiot.

yg17
Jun 8, 2011, 04:35 PM
...it's only a matter of time. Check back when you're 25 and tell us you didn't eventually do something stupid in a car.

You're not gonna have to wait until he turns 25.... (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1142425&highlight=)

fattire357
Jun 8, 2011, 04:35 PM
Also, with regard to free speech, I may be wrong about this given how long it's been since I last studied it, but isn't the guarantee of free speech essentially more at the government/public level, i.e. the federal/state/local government cannot impinge upon your right to free speech, but that does not extend to the purvey of private businesses?

A good example, to me at least, is how the Boy Scouts of America are allowed to refuse openly homosexual individuals from being members, a policy that is perfectly "acceptable" given its private nature, but which would run afoul of anti-discrimination laws if they were a government organization.

Thus, if someone chooses to use the App Store and an Apple device, they're at the purvey of whatever decisions Apple chooses to make.

You are talking about the legality of laws that impinge upon free speech. I don't think anyone has said yet that what Apple is doing is illegal.

I can still say I don't agree with their limitation of free speech, legal as it may be.

iSee
Jun 8, 2011, 04:36 PM
At first I didn't like this.

But I can't think of a good reason not to.
I don't like the idea of banning anything. But this ban is narrowly defined and I like the idea of helping drunk drivers kill people far less.

I guess I think Apple did a good job on this. It's easy to screw this kind of thing up.

LowKeyed
Jun 8, 2011, 04:38 PM
Except that a breathalyzer is utilized when police have suspicion of some level of intoxication. A person who hasn't been drinking would essentially have no reason to resist outside of having some type of views such as your apparently that the government is violating your rights.

Otherwise, if the person has been drinking and refuses the breathalyzer out of their own fears of being caught having driven under the influence, police will then simply wait until obtaining a warrant to take a blood sample for testing.


In several states/cities the only suspicion required at a checkpoint is your presence at a checkpoint. It is that way in Athens Ga.

I'm honestly asking you this question. You have no problem with a breathalyzer being administered to you if you haven't been drinking. Do you have a problem with a cop looking in your a** if you don't have a drugs there? If your ok with a cop looking in your a**, what about your daughter's, son's, or wife's?

Your assumption that the only reason to resist the excesses and power abuses of government is guilt is completely incorrect. I don't store drugs or illegal guns in my car, but i won't let a cop search it without a warrant.

I hope most judges won't give a officer a warrant for a blood test if all he can say if you drove into a checkpoint.

Dmac77
Jun 8, 2011, 04:39 PM
Guess you missed that there's also an exception for traveling to/from employment.

http://www.michigan.gov/sos/0,1607,7-127-1627_40645-252829--,00.html

DUI checkpoints are nothing. If you want to get angry about, imagine them merely selecting a class of private vehicle for checkpoint stops - then imagine the federal government funding the program.

http://www.americanmotorcyclist.com/NewsView/11-05-31/AMA_seeks_end_to_Virginia_motorcycle-only_checkpoints.aspx

Maybe if you opened your eyes and read the thread all the way through you would see that I later clarified that. The fact that the state is trying to be my parent is wrong. If I had gotten a ticket yet, or been in an accident then I could understand limiting when I could drive; but I have no tickets, and no accidents to my name, so why should I be punished just because of statistics?

He admits he's both juvenile and a scofflaw, so no insult there. He calls police pigs and you're concerned about my insult? OK.

And by the way, numerous references to brain development, including Sowell, Nature Neurosciences 2003. Not irrelevant at all because the incomplete neural connections in teenage brains govern judgment.

Yeah I do call cops pigs, because that is what they are, and my own cousin is a cop, and I have called him a pig to his face. Cops are either the people who were bullied in school and are now taking their revenge out on society, or are the people who did and still do get off on terrorizing innocent people. Cops, especially traffic cops, are the lowest form of life in existence, and deserve to be treated as such. And when did I ever admit that I have a juvenile demeanor or that I'm a scofflaw?

-Don

farleysmaster
Jun 8, 2011, 04:39 PM
I don't like the idea of banning anything.

Feeding poison to puppies?

Daveoc64
Jun 8, 2011, 04:40 PM
In several states/cities the only suspicion required at a checkpoint is your presence at a checkpoint. It is that way in Athens Ga.

I'm honestly asking you this question. You have no problem with a breathalyzer being administered to you if you haven't been drinking. Do you have a problem with a cop looking if you a** if you don't have a drugs there? If your ok with a cop looking in your a**, what about your daughter's, son's, or wife's?

Your assumption that the only reason to recent the excesses and power abuses of government is guilt is completely incorrect. I don't store drugs or illegal guns in my car, but i won't let a cop search it without a warrant.

I hope most judges won't give a officer a warrant for a blood test if all he can say if you drove into a checkpoint.

The officer could merely say that he thought he smelled Alcohol on your breath or the way you spoke to him suggested you were intoxicated.

Such a requirement of "reasonable suspicion" or similar is easily circumvented and offers little protection.

Dagless
Jun 8, 2011, 04:40 PM
And rightly so.

The amount of my old course "mates" who had equipment installed on their car to either alert them of upcoming speed cameras or prevented them from being caught speeding was ridiculous and disgusting. IMO this is the same thing. Why would anyone worry about DUI checking unless they are driving under the influence?

Daveoc64
Jun 8, 2011, 04:41 PM
Maybe if you opened your eyes and read the thread all the way through you would see that I later clarified that. The fact that the state is trying to be my parent is wrong. If I had gotten a ticket yet, or been in an accident then I could understand limiting when I could drive; but I have no tickets, and no accidents to my name, so why should I be punished just because of statistics?

There's a clear difference between disagreeing with the law and flouting it.

unlinked
Jun 8, 2011, 04:41 PM
You're not gonna have to wait until he turns 25.... (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1142425&highlight=)

If nothing else that thread shows you don't have to be young to be an idiot. A lot of it is environmental/genetic.

Tonewheel
Jun 8, 2011, 04:41 PM
Everyone has to be politically correct nowadays. At the end of the day though, this app will simply appear through Cydia. Does this really promote drunk driving? :/

Clearly, the issue is not about "promoting drunk driving." No more than making this app unavailable deters drunk driving. It was simply the responsible thing to do.

iScott428
Jun 8, 2011, 04:41 PM
This makes no sense. Like many people have said using an app like trapster or some other DUI checkpoint app, has no bearing on a persons decision to drive drunk or not.

What the government is doing is avoiding enforcing higher standards for drivers licenses tests as everyone would surely fail. And speaking from experience, I could literally be absolutely hammered and drive much better than most of the "sober" daily drivers I see on the road. Women doing their makeup in the morning, reading a book on the highway, ect...

dukebound85
Jun 8, 2011, 04:41 PM
Yeah I do call cops pigs, because that is what they are, and my own cousin is a cop, and I have called him a pig to his face. Cops are either the people who were bullied in school and are now taking their revenge out on society, or are the people who did and still do get off on terrorizing innocent people. Cops, especially traffic cops, are the lowest form of life in existence, and deserve to be treated as such. And when did I ever admit that I have a juvenile demeanor or that I'm a scofflaw?

-Don

Seriously? You expect people to value your opinion with this sort of nonsense being posted?

supmango
Jun 8, 2011, 04:41 PM
You'd likely change your mind if you suffered the loss of a loved one as the result of drunk driving.

I agree with Apple's decision not to allow these kinds of apps. Personally, instead of banning the apps, I would like to see them fed false information, so that using them would lead you right into a checkpoint.

farmboy
Jun 8, 2011, 04:41 PM
As soon as a teenager post something people just can't wait to jump on it.

Got nothin' against teenagers. Used to be one for a good long while. It's just that some posts by some teenagers don't have the benefit of perspective yet maintain absolute certainty nonetheless. Applies to lots of adults too, but at least you have a biological excuse.

farleysmaster
Jun 8, 2011, 04:42 PM
Maybe if you opened your eyes and read the thread all the way through you would see that I later clarified that. The fact that the state is trying to be my parent is wrong. If I had gotten a ticket yet, or been in an accident then I could understand limiting when I could drive; but I have no tickets, and no accidents to my name, so why should I be punished just because of statistics?



Yeah I do call cops pigs, because that is what they are, and my own cousin is a cop, and I have called him a pig to his face. Cops are either the people who were bullied in school and are now taking their revenge out on society, or are the people who did and still do get off on terrorizing innocent people. Cops, especially traffic cops, are the lowest form of life in existence, and deserve to be treated as such. And when did I ever admit that I have a juvenile demeanor or that I'm a scofflaw?

-Don

Quoted for the non-exception that proves the non-rule:
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1142425


I cannot even begin to describe how much i hate these idiotic people. They just enrage me. Anyone who has been doing 85mph+ on the highway and then has to slow down to under 70 knows what I mean.

Today I was doing 90mph+ in the far left lane, for miles everyone moved out of the way for me. Then all the sudden I come up on this minivan with "Baby on Board, "I Love Children," "Being Nice is the #1 Rule," etc. bumper stickers and magnets. The woman was doing under 65mph would not move out of my way (and there was plenty of space). When I tried to push her, flash brights, honk, etc. she decided to brake check me. Now, not moving over is one thing, but trying to teach me a lesson when I tell you that you're in my way and that you can move over, is just asking me to screw you over.

I drove behind her for a few miles, and then when the opportunity stuck, I shot a gap to pass her, made sure she couldn't move over to another lane (besides the service lane) and I slammed off my brakes (I swear I saw a squirrel run across the highway), she had to veer off of the road to avoid hitting me. I guarantee she'll never try to brake check someone or force the speed limit on them again. I seriously hope she or her damn baby got whiplash. (NO LECTURES PLEASE, THEY WILL ALL BE IGNORED)

I seriously wish that .50 cal guns would be options on cars so that I could just blow up people like her.

-Don

mdatwood
Jun 8, 2011, 04:44 PM
Just to point out, your own link states that the state laws that do allow for DUI checkpoints have apparently been upheld under the US Constitution.

Not false either....

The US Supreme Court ruled it legal on a federal level (imho, correct)

The states have a right to write their own laws as long as they don't go against what the USSC says (ie if they said it was illegal, states couldn't have laws that make it legal as it would be violating federal law).

I've read the case and the reasoning was laughable, but infringing on rights is what the government does best. BTW, based on the reasoning of the decision the same could be used by the police to search anyone at anytime as long as it's 'random' and contributes to public safety. Not a slippery slope I would prefer to go down, so I'm happy that some states are still fighting it.

If you want more fun look up information on the joke that is the breathalyzer and how it works (+- .02 possible variance for a test where .08 means you fail yikes!). Or how police are not required to save the evidence (your breath) and how you're supposed to take their word that the machine was correct.

Roadside sobriety tests are another joke. Can anyone walk a straight line at night with lights flashing and cars flying by while in a stressful situation to start with? Didn't think so.

As my lawyer friends tell me all the time. If a police officer is talking to you he's gathering evidence even if you think you did nothing wrong. It's best to stay polite, say nothing, and ask for your lawyer.

Tonewheel
Jun 8, 2011, 04:44 PM
Maybe according to you, but to me it's absolutely demented. I personally use apps like this so I can avoid checkpoints, not because I drive drunk, but so I can break Michigan's retarded 10pm curfew for teen drivers. I'll be sure to not update Trapster in the near future. This is just another attempt by the government and their pigs to control people; shame on Apple for giving in to the government and bs political correctness.

-Don

"Teen" being the key word in your post.....

JohnDoe98
Jun 8, 2011, 04:44 PM
. Why would anyone worry about DUI checking unless they are driving under the influence?

Here's 1. Let's start there and see where it leads. The checkpoints are a serious nuisance to some of us who never, ever, drink and drive. I like to minimize my time on the road. I don't particularly enjoy driving most of the time so I only do it to get from A to B. Anything that delays me, and yes I am a very busy person, annoys the heck out of me. Why should I be penalized for the stupidity of others? There are alternatives to DUI checkpoints, I say pursue those options. What's your counter?

Mattie Num Nums
Jun 8, 2011, 04:44 PM
I agree with Apple's decision not to allow these kinds of apps. Personally, instead of banning the apps, I would like to see them fed false information, so that using them would lead you right into a checkpoint.

Again the assumption that only drunks will use it. A lot of Assuming going on in this thread.

DjMac11
Jun 8, 2011, 04:45 PM
Ah... Teens. Dumb enough to admit they want an iphone app to help them break the law, but still claim they're just as good drivers as adults.

Having the app doesn't mean you're going to/wanting to break the law. Some people have more important things to do than being intruded upon by a police checkpoint...which shouldn't even exist in a free society anyway. This just gives them a heads-up.

mrboston987
Jun 8, 2011, 04:45 PM
The part of the article that caught my attention was the Map itself. It's of my hometown, Woburn, MA.

They have the DUI checkpoints there often because of all of the people heading northbound on 93 out of Boston after a night of drinking.

fattire357
Jun 8, 2011, 04:45 PM
In several states/cities the only suspicion required at a checkpoint is your presence at a checkpoint. It is that way in Athens Ga.

I'm honestly asking you this question. You have no problem with a breathalyzer being administered to you if you haven't been drinking. Do you have a problem with a cop looking if you a** if you don't have a drugs there? If your ok with a cop looking in your a**, what about your daughter's, son's, or wife's?

Your assumption that the only reason to recent the excesses and power abuses of government is guilt is completely incorrect. I don't store drugs or illegal guns in my car, but i won't let a cop search it without a warrant.

I hope most judges won't give a officer a warrant for a blood test if all he can say if you drove into a checkpoint.

You know whats kind of funny is that the whole legality of the checkpoint thing is a little moot in real life. A few years back I got pulled over because I had the wrong kind of bumper on my vehicle. This confused me, because although I had an older truck, I'm pretty certain my bumper was stock, but maybe there was something wrong about it.

Anyways, he then said that in pulling over I crossed the white line, which made him suspicious that I was drinking. Wait, what? How am I supposed to pull over? Lol. Anyways, I hadn't been drinking, and I just wanted to go home, so I consented to a sobriety test (I wonder if I should have resisted on principle).

But honestly you put it all together, and realize the police officer did a sobriety test because I had a stock bumper on my truck, and it's just kind of ridiculous. He didn't have a legal right to do a sobriety test without just cause, and somehow he found it. There was no damages to me so its not like I can sue the city for breaking the law, and I'm sure if I was actually drunk and took it to court the police officer could have lied and said he saw me swerve. I dunno. My point is you can sit and debate the legality of the issues for a while but in practice most of these privacy laws get broken because many (not all) police officers don't care and there's not much you can do if your privacy is violated (unless you can sue for damages).

If I go break the law a police officer gets on my case in a heartbeat, if the police officer breaks privacy laws usually nothing happens.

Tonewheel
Jun 8, 2011, 04:46 PM
I agree with Apple's decision not to allow these kinds of apps. Personally, instead of banning the apps, I would like to see them fed false information, so that using them would lead you right into a checkpoint.

Fun idea, but in reality that would be bait and switch, and problematic for a pay-for product.

animenick65
Jun 8, 2011, 04:47 PM
To those saying they welcome the change, do you really think those who are drunk enough to be above the legal limit could really effectively use the app to avoid a DUI checkpoint? I think the only ones who would even consider using something like this are those who just want to avoid the hassle.

DUI checkpoints seriously infringe on our rights as Americans. The real problem are the establishments that serve alcohol to those who have obviously had way to much. I've known two people who were dear friends of mine killed by drunk drivers who were served alcohol way past the point of sanity. I guess the smart thing would be to start policing establishments, then again said establishments pay the salaries of these police departments.

notabadname
Jun 8, 2011, 04:47 PM
Again, Apple also has a "freedom of speech" as well. We don't require "Family Christian Stores" to sell books on the "Joys of Atheism" either. Why is it that so many think every business should be required to sell every product brought to them for sale? If a product is not keeping with the image you want for your company, you are FREE to NOT sell it. "Hustler" is a legally sold magazine, and the publisher is legally protected in it's right to sell it. But "Barns & Noble" is not legally forced to sell it.

farleysmaster
Jun 8, 2011, 04:47 PM
How about instead of blaming the cops and the States, blame the DUIs for the inconvenience...?

iSee
Jun 8, 2011, 04:47 PM
This is a slippery slope!

First, devs are not allowed to help us drive drunk and kill people. (Does anyone here not know someone killed that way?)

What’s next, telling devs who they can and cannot murder? Will they disallow apps that prank 9-1-1 or impersonate police calls? What about an app that helps restaurant owners dodge health inspectors, or helps fruit growers inject poisons? Do we lose those rights too? :mad:

Enjoying a particular beverage--without taxi inconvenience--is worth the price of a human life or maiming. Neither the government nor Apple can tell me otherwise. Staying alive on the road is not a right. Selling an app is!

Some laws are bad. Therefore all laws are bad. Therefore law enforcement is bad. QED :)

Finally, someone who gets it! It makes me sick that Apple has become so politically correct.

Mattie Num Nums
Jun 8, 2011, 04:47 PM
You know whats kind of funny is that the whole legality of the checkpoint thing is a little moot in real life. A few years back I got pulled over because I had the wrong kind of bumper on my vehicle. This confused me, because although I had an older truck, I'm pretty certain my bumper was stock, but maybe there was something wrong about it.

Anyways, he then said that in pulling over I crossed the white line, which made him suspicious that I was drinking. Wait, what? How am I supposed to pull over? Lol. Anyways, I hadn't been drinking, and I just wanted to go home, so I consented to a sobriety test (I wonder if I should have resisted on principle).

But honestly you put it all together, and realize the police officer did a sobriety test because I had a stock bumper on my truck, and it's just kind of ridiculous. He didn't have a legal right to do a sobriety test without just cause, and somehow he found it. There was no damages to me so its not like I can sue the city for breaking the law, and I'm sure if I was actually drunk and took it to court the police officer could have lied and said he saw me swerve. I dunno. My point is you can sit and debate the legality of the issues for a while but in practice most of these privacy laws get broken because many (not all) police officers don't care and there's not much you can do if your privacy is violated (unless you can sue for damages).

I've been a victim of being targeted because of my horrid allergies in combination with my stomach disease it gives me bloodshot red eyes. Everytime a cop sees me, I must be a lush!

LowKeyed
Jun 8, 2011, 04:48 PM
The officer could merely say that he thought he smelled Alcohol on your breath or the way you spoke to him suggested you were intoxicated.

Such a requirement of "reasonable suspicion" or similar is easily circumvented and offers little protection.

You are absolutely correct. But i admire the hell out of cops. Not all the laws they enforce. But i know bunches and hang out with a few. I think most of them are honest and don't abuse the powers they are trusted with.

The guys i know would just go about there night if someone refused there request to search and they legitimately didn't preview suspicious behavior.

dukebound85
Jun 8, 2011, 04:48 PM
I've read the case and the reasoning was laughable, but infringing on rights is what the government does best. BTW, based on the reasoning of the decision the same could be used by the police to search anyone at anytime as long as it's 'random' and contributes to public safety. Not a slippery slope I would prefer to go down, so I'm happy that some states are still fighting it.


How do you feel about security measures at sporting venues or the airport? I am curious.


If you want more fun look up information on the joke that is the breathalyzer and how it works (+- .02 possible variance for a test where .08 means you fail yikes!). Or how police are not required to save the evidence (your breath) and how you're supposed to take their word that the machine was correct.

You are not required to take the breathalyzer (in co at least). However, not donig so will give you a quick ride to the hospital for some blood work (I recommend this as results don't come back right away so your car will not be impounded that night and you will not be hauled off to jail if you aren't obviously drunk)

Roadside sobriety tests are another joke. Can anyone walk a straight line at night with lights flashing and cars flying by while in a stressful situation to start with? Didn't think so.

You are not required to do a roadside test (at least in CO)

As my lawyer friends tell me all the time. If a police officer is talking to you he's gathering evidence even if you think you did nothing wrong. It's best to stay polite, say nothing, and ask for your lawyer.

I agree 110%

JohnDoe98
Jun 8, 2011, 04:49 PM
How about instead of blaming the cops and the States, blame the DUIs for the inconvenience...?

As long as they haven't harmed anyone from their DUI, they are not inconveniencing me.

Aduntu
Jun 8, 2011, 04:50 PM
The fact that the state is trying to be my parent is wrong.


Based on the evidence in this post (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=12454683&postcount=10), someone needs to do it, because your biological ones are doing a horrible job.

farleysmaster
Jun 8, 2011, 04:51 PM
As long as they haven't harmed anyone from their DUI, they are not inconveniencing me.

If no one was getting harmed, would they keep the checkpoints to give the cops something to do...?

Gorilla72
Jun 8, 2011, 04:52 PM
Well at least "Offender Locator" is still in the App Store! So I won't know where the DUI Check Points are, but I can still find where "Johnny Gropesalot" lives!

Mattie Num Nums
Jun 8, 2011, 04:52 PM
Based on the evidence in this post (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=12454683&postcount=10), someone needs to parent you, because your biological ones are doing a horrible job.

I agree however, its not any of our decisions nor is it the states or governments to try and be that parent.

farleysmaster
Jun 8, 2011, 04:52 PM
Based on the evidence in this post (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=12454683&postcount=10), someone needs to do it, because your biological ones are doing a horrible job.
Jesus, I thought the guy was 18...

Thunderhawks
Jun 8, 2011, 04:53 PM
Again the assumption that only drunks will use it. A lot of Assuming going on in this thread.

As the say

to Assume makes an ass out of u and me

This entire thread is very simple to read:

1) I don't drink and drive DONE and yes, I will be inconvenienced, just not every day!

2) I do drink and drive I'll be caught sooner or later or die or kill somebody!

The rest is filler

dukebound85
Jun 8, 2011, 04:54 PM
You know whats kind of funny is that the whole legality of the checkpoint thing is a little moot in real life. A few years back I got pulled over because I had the wrong kind of bumper on my vehicle. This confused me, because although I had an older truck, I'm pretty certain my bumper was stock, but maybe there was something wrong about it.

Anyways, he then said that in pulling over I crossed the white line, which made him suspicious that I was drinking. Wait, what? How am I supposed to pull over? Lol. Anyways, I hadn't been drinking, and I just wanted to go home, so I consented to a sobriety test (I wonder if I should have resisted on principle).

But honestly you put it all together, and realize the police officer did a sobriety test because I had a stock bumper on my truck, and it's just kind of ridiculous. He didn't have a legal right to do a sobriety test without just cause, and somehow he found it. There was no damages to me so its not like I can sue the city for breaking the law, and I'm sure if I was actually drunk and took it to court the police officer could have lied and said he saw me swerve. I dunno. My point is you can sit and debate the legality of the issues for a while but in practice most of these privacy laws get broken because many (not all) police officers don't care and there's not much you can do if your privacy is violated (unless you can sue for damages).

If I go break the law a police officer gets on my case in a heartbeat, if the police officer breaks privacy laws usually nothing happens.

Funny you mention that. I have been pulled over for not having a license plate light working so my plat was only half lit up and the stop focused on drinking and driving

My brother got a DUI after initially being stopped for not having a plate on his front bumper

Aduntu
Jun 8, 2011, 04:55 PM
I agree however, its not any of our decisions nor is it the states or governments to try and be that parent.

You're right, the state shouldn't be a parent. They should just put kids like him in jail for doing 90+ MPH. Maybe he'd eventually learn the lesson his parents should have taught him.

mdatwood
Jun 8, 2011, 04:55 PM
Illegal? Whatever. More of the Constitutionally uninformed public spouting off their knowledge from friends on facebook.

Read more about the actual law as it was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court, decades ago. And ironically, Michigan is at the center.

http://caselaw.duicenter.com/sitz03.html

(hint: This would mean it is not illegal or unlawful)

That's a good site with a lawyer who used to prosecute DUIs and now defends them because he thinks the laws are so out of whack. If you're going to read that one page linked make sure to read the entire decision and dissent (which I agree with).


Moved by whatever momentary evil has aroused their fears, officials — perhaps even supported by a majority of citizens — may he tempted to conduct searches that sacrifice the liberty of each citizen to assuage the perceived evil. But the Fourth Amendment rests on the principle that a title balance between the individual and society depends on the recognition of “the right to be let alone — the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men. [Cite omitted.]'' [496 U.S. at 458-459.)

ryanwarsaw
Jun 8, 2011, 04:55 PM
So it just becomes a web app that you access via Safari in iOS. This policy helps Apple's public image but does little to prevent this type of app from being accessible to smartphone-carrying masses.

As mobile browsers become more and more capable there will be more apps that become web apps to avoid Apple's App Store TOS and costs.

At that point Apple has done all it really can. I can easily understand why it is in Apple's interest to ban this app instead of having to justify why they don't ban it.

Dakotian
Jun 8, 2011, 04:56 PM
This is not free speech. This has no resemblance of valid use of a programers time or data storage space and speaks lowly of any downloader who intends to circumvent the law. I applaud Apple for keeping high standards and it is GREAT to see any major company finally stand up for what is right. Sure they can go post it somewhere else...so go, get...and as the saying goes "don't let the door hit you on your way out", the store, the users and Apple are that much better for it. Again, Apple, Thank You.

Dorje Sylas
Jun 8, 2011, 04:57 PM
Time to go get them, and while you are at it make sure you also get the studies that show in other countries where the speed limits are far higher, or non-existent on some roads (think Germany), the same principles apply ya?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC548724/

http://www.rsconference.com/pdf/RS030116.pdf?check=1

http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/9/4/302.abstract

Assuming you mean Autobahn when you mean German, it does have speed limits for various classes of vehicle, typically around 80 miles per hour. I will not begin to address the, welcome, anomaly that is the Autobahn. Its success has not been replicated to that degree elsewhere so I wouldn't use it as justification in unliminiting speeds on (super) highways. Addiotnaly there is a government recommend speed of 80 miles per hour on that road system. Not enforced, but recommend.

You're the first persons I've run across how's actually said more or less 'okay fine, get the articles'. If you want to go dig yourself you'd be surprised at the various effects that well targeted traffic control system (including cameras) can have on speeds and fatalities. I'll agree that in some cases revenue was a motivation. However when used correctly they have positive impacts (not an intended pun).

Anecdotally I feel considerably less safe on a particular stretch of local freeway now the speed cameras are gone and peole are driving like total morons again. Okay there were always driving like morons just the speed cameras slowed them down a bit.

easy4lif
Jun 8, 2011, 04:58 PM
Just an opinion but, if your too drunk to drive I highly doubt you have the mental capacity to open an app and figure out a new route that avoids these check points.

JohnDoe98
Jun 8, 2011, 04:59 PM
If no one was getting harmed, would they keep the checkpoints to give the cops something to do...?

Probably not. But that's besides the point. There are alternative measures that can be taken to deal with DUIs. Ban those caught from having licenses for life. If they harm someone or drive without a license, send them to jail for a significant amount of time. Those measures do not inconvenience me in the least. It's the leniency given and generally acceptance by the populace at large that is responsible for so many DUIs on the roads today. I also think the police could be doing much more important work with their time than harassing people with checkpoints.

supmango
Jun 8, 2011, 05:00 PM
Having the app doesn't mean you're going to/wanting to break the law. Some people have more important things to do than being intruded upon by a police checkpoint...which shouldn't even exist in a free society anyway. This just gives them a heads-up.

You are probably right that some, possibly many, use this app to save time. But the fact still remains that some people use it to avoid getting caught while driving drunk.

Your argument that a DUI checkpoint conflicts with the ideology of a free society is interesting. But I think that there are clear rationals for when and how they are used. Does anyone know if a court system has banned them anywhere in the country?

notabadname
Jun 8, 2011, 05:01 PM
To those saying they welcome the change, do you really think those who are drunk enough to be above the legal limit could really effectively use the app to avoid a DUI checkpoint? I think the only ones who would even consider using something like this are those who just want to avoid the hassle.

DUI checkpoints seriously infringe on our rights as Americans. The real problem are the establishments that serve alcohol to those who have obviously had way to much. I've known two people who were dear friends of mine killed by drunk drivers who were served alcohol way past the point of sanity. I guess the smart thing would be to start policing establishments, then again said establishments pay the salaries of these police departments.

Wow! So you think checkpoints infringe on our rights - wrong - as determined by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1990, but that a bar should have to determine whom it can sell alcohol to, and therefore deny a citizen service, based on its own best guess? And what if that person isn't driving? Should the bar allow (and test him/her) to exceed .08 BAC but stop at some other limit determined by the bar? Should the bar require the relinquishing of all motor vehicle keys for entry, then provide breathalyzers prior to leaving the establishment for those who would like to return home. Should there be a law requiring alcohol be sold at a bar to only each individual, to better determine drunkenness? (no round buying or being a gentleman for your date - all patrons tested for sobriety for every drink when they purchase their own)

I guess you believe in some personal rights (even though freedom from the reasonable search and seizure at a checkpoint is NOT a right in accordance with the U.S. Constitution as determined by the U.S. Supreme Court), but not personal responsibility. And Apple should be required to sell an App it doesn't want to, but a bar should be prohibited from selling a drink it does want to sell (after it determines if you are too drunk, umm. . . to drive . . . even if you aren't driving)

farmboy
Jun 8, 2011, 05:02 PM
Yeah I do call cops pigs, because that is what they are, and my own cousin is a cop, and I have called him a pig to his face. Cops are either the people who were bullied in school and are now taking their revenge out on society, or are the people who did and still do get off on terrorizing innocent people. Cops, especially traffic cops, are the lowest form of life in existence, and deserve to be treated as such. And when did I ever admit that I have a juvenile demeanor or that I'm a scofflaw?

-Don

OK, thanks for playing.

Juvenile: of or relating to young people.
Scofflaw: a person who flouts the law, especially by failing to comply with a law that is difficult to enforce effectively.

Gorilla72
Jun 8, 2011, 05:03 PM
You know, I have been through checkpoints, or shall we say Harrassed at checkpoints, so maybe some people like this app just to avoid dealing with Officer hardass? If someone is bombed out of there mind, they last thing they are going to be able to do, is view an app to tell them where a check point is. Just another example of the minority deciding what is best for the majority. You know what, better get ride of the GPS app, because I can find where you live! O wait, you posted it on Facebook for me, so very easy for me to come get you, drunk or sober! If this becomes the status, then should we close Gun shop because someone they sold too killed someone? If I kill someone with a Knife, should we stop selling Knifes? Lets stop blaming everyone but the PERSON themselves who causes the problems! So no the Drunk Driver will just kill someone on the way to the DUI checkpoint, instead of down another street. This really resolves NOTHING!

MadeTheSwitch
Jun 8, 2011, 05:05 PM
Give me a break. And yes, I have been drunk before. But a person at the legal limit of .08 BAC is still very functional, and can easily use a phone, text friends, and even operate a modern automobile (just not safely).

I guess I would ask you, have you ever had too much to drink?

Of course. Which is why I made the comment...speaking from experience. A person who is drunk does not have the reasoning ability to even think about using an app. Probably couldn't even find it in their phone really. (I mean how many people drunk dial and drunk text the wrong person cause they can't even get THAT right?) In all likely hood, a person who thinks they are okay enough to drive would also think they were okay enough to not need a checkpoint app either. That's the whole point. You aren't dealing with a reasonable person when you are talking about people whom are drunk. The mindset that you and I or anyone sober reading this right now, is NOT the same mindset or ability that we would have while intoxicated. It just isn't.

notabadname
Jun 8, 2011, 05:07 PM
That's a good site with a lawyer who used to prosecute DUIs and now defends them because he thinks the laws are so out of whack. If you're going to read that one page linked make sure to read the entire decision and dissent (which I agree with).

Actually I have, among other decisions, all of which can be found at www.justice.gov. But it is lengthy, and the summation on the site I listed does not distort the findings. The defense of a DUI of course needs to work on merits of the law, and procedural errors of law enforcement in executing them. The original link brings those procedures (and defense tactics) to light.

supmango
Jun 8, 2011, 05:08 PM
Probably not. But that's besides the point. There are alternative measures that can be taken to deal with DUIs. Ban those caught from having licenses for life. If they harm someone or drive without a license, send them to jail for a significant amount of time. Those measures do not inconvenience me in the least. It's the leniency given and generally acceptance by the populace at large that is responsible for so many DUIs on the roads today. I also think the police could be doing much more important work with their time than harassing people with checkpoints.

Problems with your alternative measures:

Ban those caught from having licenses for life - They will drive anyway.

If they harm someone or drive without a license, send them to jail for a significant amount of time - They will get out on parol because the prison system is too crowded for "non-violent" offenders.

The police do not enjoy the checkpoints anymore than we do. But they will take it over responding to a call where a drunk driver has killed a car full of people.

Again, as many have said before, until you experience the effects of drunk driving first hand, you have difficulty understanding these issues. For those of us who have, it is not that we feel responsible to stop DUI's on the road because it is better for society (though it is), it is because we feel responsible for protecting loved ones who are out there driving among them.

It is a complex issue, and there needs to be more solutions available. For now, DUI checkpoints are the best one we have.

JohnDoe98
Jun 8, 2011, 05:12 PM
Dorje Sylas, thanks for the data to backup your point. The studies show at particular locations, crash prone locations, the cameras are a good means of helping to reduce accidents and harm on the road. I agree, at those places, the cameras have a valid purpose. But from the data you provided, it hardly follows that a ubiquitous use is reasonable, as it seemed your initial post was suggesting, but perhaps I misread.

halhiker
Jun 8, 2011, 05:16 PM
Apple is weak to do this. Drunk driving checkpoints are an incredible intrusion upon personal liberty and do NOTHING to deter drunk drivers that a normal patrol could not. In fact, stationing the cops in the parking lot of bars would do far more to curtail drunk driving than any checkpoint. People would take cabs home instead. I read every report on these checkpoints in our local paper and most arrest no more than one or two suspects but make tons of money impounding people's cars over minor violations. Cops are also collecting lots of overtime pay which we can no longer afford. I have never driven drunk and never will so cops have NO reason to stop me. That's what I resent.

econgeek
Jun 8, 2011, 05:16 PM
Apple has the right to control Apps in the appstore.

The violation of free speech is these political scum writing a letter to apple and applying pressure to get these apps squelched. That is actually a felony.

Also, worth noting, these checkpoints are themselves illegal. Every cop who participates and consequently stops someone without probable cause is also a felon and belongs in jail.

Anyone who supports squelching these apps, by definition rejects the constitution, rejects the law of the land, and loses the right to call themselves american.

It is this creeping fascism that is destroying america... and all of you who support it are scum.

Porco
Jun 8, 2011, 05:17 PM
First point: It's not as if Apple doesn't ban other things it deems unsavoury even when legal. There are loads of guidelines that when broken will get an app rejected.

Second point: If you have a right to know where checkpoints are, no-one is stopping you doing that via a computer before you drive, or via your mobile device via websites. Apple just doesn't want to be involved in that.

Third point: Whatever you think about this, someone could easily be over the limit and still access such info and apps. There isn't just a binary 'drunk' and 'not drunk' there is 'jolly', 'tipsy' 'bladdered' 'sozzled'... etc etc. - the point being that people can think they are perfectly able to drive yet still be impacted by a few drinks, without being so drunk they can barely make it to the car.

Fourth point: IF (see point three) someone is very very drunk, then it could be argued that a tap-once app is going to make it much easier for the worst offenders to find out if they will get caught, which is bad. Those who are entirely sober can bookmark the relevant website and browse to it in Safari or find out ahead of their car journey. Of course this ban does not make the information impossible to obtain, but it makes it less simple, and makes it far less to do with Apple.

Fifth point: If you think this an affront to freedom you should perhaps consider Apple's freedom to ban whatever they want to on their store. Other phones are available.

dukebound85
Jun 8, 2011, 05:17 PM
Apple has the right to control Apps in the appstore.

The violation of free speech is these political scum writing a letter to apple and applying pressure to get these apps squelched. That is actually a felony.

Also, worth noting, these checkpoints are themselves illegal. Every cop who participates and consequently stops someone without probable cause is also a felon and belongs in jail.

Anyone who supports squelching these apps, by definition rejects the constitution, rejects the law of the land, and loses the right to call themselves american.

It is this creeping fascism that is destroying america... and all of you who support it are scum.
Not according to the US Supreme Court and their interpretation

mosx
Jun 8, 2011, 05:17 PM
If Trapster is removed, this seals the deal on iPhone 4 being my last iPhone.

For the record, I have never drank, nor have I ever done any sort of drugs.

Trapster is an awesome app for those of us who like to avoid traffic delays, cop on power trip harassment, and just like to protect our fourth amendment rights in general.

With that said, when the ruling was made that "legalized" checkpoints, even the SCOTUS judges said that checkpoints are a violation of the fourth amendment, but felt that the violation wasn't as important as protecting against drunk drivers.

FBI data has shown that roving patrols are 90% more effective. DUI checkpoints also require 10x more man power than roving patrols and only focus on one area.

Case in point? Over Memorial Day weekend, a local city here had a checkpoint. Out of the 1,300 cars screened, only two were suspected of DUI. Two cars that had gone unnoticed by police up until that point. Across town, thanks to the checkpoint taking man power away from actual patrols, a true drunk driver crashed head on into oncoming traffic and killed people. Roving patrols on that busy "main" street would have got the guy long before he could do any damage. But they were more concerned with checking for driver licenses and registration and for profitable fix it tickets for 1,300 other cars.

Lets not forget that DUI checkpoints ARE announced prior to being conducted and apps like Trapster are community driven. If someone sees something then they report it. It's no different than Twitter, Facebook, or any other social networking app.

Fourth point: IF (see point three) someone is very very drunk, then it could be argued that a tap-once app is going to make it much easier for the worst offenders to find out if they will get caught, which is bad

And if police did what is 90% more effective than checkpoints, roving patrols, then those that are ACTUALLY drunk and driving will get caught and will have no way of avoiding it.

Fifth point: If you think this an affront to freedom you should perhaps consider Apple's freedom to ban whatever they want to on their store. Other phones are available.

Which is why those other devices have overtaken Apple's market share.

econgeek
Jun 8, 2011, 05:18 PM
How about instead of blaming the cops and the States, blame the DUIs for the inconvenience...?

Because DUIs are not the cause of this situation. They are merely the excuse that the states and the cops use in order to pretend like they are justified with these illegal checkpoints.

Of course the real purpose is to harass people, and to make sure they know that they better not step out of line.

This is, by the way, what a police state is like.

econgeek
Jun 8, 2011, 05:20 PM
If Trapster is removed, this seals the deal on iPhone 4 being my last iPhone.

I don't blame Apple for caving to criminal intimidation coming from government agents. I blame the government.

Rather than supporting Android, or some other platform, support the Libertarian party, or some other pro-liberty organization.

Apple is not the problem, criminal government (and the ignorant sheep who support them) are.

JohnDoe98
Jun 8, 2011, 05:21 PM
They will get out on parol because the prison system is too crowded for "non-violent" offenders.


We don't need to let them out. Build bigger jails. Cost money? Fine with me. I value my time.

econgeek
Jun 8, 2011, 05:23 PM
Not according to the US Supreme Court and their interpretation

The supreme court does not have a say. The constitution is not subject to reversal from the bench. The supreme court can declare that obama poops skittles and rides to work on a unicorn, for all the relevance it has under the law.

Though I do find it hilarious that we're talking about cops-- aka "Law Enforcement Officers" breaking the law, and getting the "ok" from another agency of government... and somehow you think it is legitimate.

Every evil action in every tyrannical regime in history has been "legal" under the perspective of the people doing it.

So, for you to say that the supreme court made it legal-- which, they didn't, by the way, they didn't even rule the way you imply-- is to say you reject the rule of law, and choose the rule of men.

spazzcat
Jun 8, 2011, 05:25 PM
Most states this info has to be published in the newspaper anyways...

SpinThis!
Jun 8, 2011, 05:26 PM
It is a complex issue, and there needs to be more solutions available. For now, DUI checkpoints are the best one we have.
The problem is the checkpoints don't really keep the drunks off the road. And people aren't going to stop indulging in alcohol.

That doesn't leave a whole lot of solutions. Maybe we need better mass transit in this country. Maybe that means someone should start a nationwide taxi company dedicated to driving drunk drivers home (and possibly scheduling to pick up their car later) with a taxi-pickup app for drunks that's ran with government funds. The drinking is not going to stop but it's possible to curb the driving part by providing more lucrative options than driving in the first place.

phpmaven
Jun 8, 2011, 05:26 PM
Everyone has to be politically correct nowadays. At the end of the day though, this app will simply appear through Cydia. Does this really promote drunk driving? :/

You can't be serious. This isn't about being "politically correct", it's about being a responsible human being. Innocent people are killed every day because some idiot gets behind the wheel when he/she is hammered. Giving these people a way to avoid getting caught is just wrong in every way. It's hard to believe that there is even a debate about this.

LarryC
Jun 8, 2011, 05:30 PM
The supreme court does not have a say. The constitution is not subject to reversal from the bench. The supreme court can declare that obama poops skittles and rides to work on a unicorn, for all the relevance it has under the law.

Though I do find it hilarious that we're talking about cops-- aka "Law Enforcement Officers" breaking the law, and getting the "ok" from another agency of government... and somehow you think it is legitimate.

Every evil action in every tyrannical regime in history has been "legal" under the perspective of the people doing it.

So, for you to say that the supreme court made it legal-- which, they didn't, by the way, they didn't even rule the way you imply-- is to say you reject the rule of law, and choose the rule of men.

This has to be one of, if not the best post I have ever read here. Very well written. It is good to see that there are some freedom minded people on this board. I was really getting worried:D

DocNYz
Jun 8, 2011, 05:32 PM
You know, I have been through checkpoints, or shall we say Harrassed at checkpoints, so maybe some people like this app just to avoid dealing with Officer hardass? If someone is bombed out of there mind, they last thing they are going to be able to do, is view an app to tell them where a check point is. Just another example of the minority deciding what is best for the majority. You know what, better get ride of the GPS app, because I can find where you live! O wait, you posted it on Facebook for me, so very easy for me to come get you, drunk or sober! If this becomes the status, then should we close Gun shop because someone they sold too killed someone? If I kill someone with a Knife, should we stop selling Knifes? Lets stop blaming everyone but the PERSON themselves who causes the problems! So no the Drunk Driver will just kill someone on the way to the DUI checkpoint, instead of down another street. This really resolves NOTHING!

****ing seriously. This is ****ing ********. The whole ****ing point of this ability in these apps that do so many other things is to AVOID dealing with harassing cops. If there is a DUI checkpoint, then people STAY OFF THE ROAD, not get on it more and drink more. This logic is completely flawed, apple bowed down to a few ****ing uneducated morons in senate and set a horrific precedent for the future of iOS. Not to mention most of the goddamn checkpoints get ****ing posted BY THE OFFICERS online in many states in the first place, if they're too retarded to add them to trapster and someone else is already taking public information and reposting it, there is NOTHING wrong or illegal or dangerous about that.

We need some good constitutional lawyers here to kill this where it lies before it gets way out of hand.

Gamoe
Jun 8, 2011, 05:32 PM
In the perfect world nobody would drive drunk. In a perfect world police officers in a free state would not harass citizens and treat them like criminals without prior evidence. In a perfect world they wouldn't set up hidden speed zones, not to keep the people safe, but to squeeze as much income in fines from the public as possible. In a perfect world these apps wouldn't be necessary. Bad call on Apple's part.

MadeTheSwitch
Jun 8, 2011, 05:34 PM
Again, as many have said before, until you experience the effects of drunk driving first hand, you have difficulty understanding these issues. For those of us who have, it is not that we feel responsible to stop DUI's on the road because it is better for society (though it is), it is because we feel responsible for protecting loved ones who are out there driving among them.

It is a complex issue, and there needs to be more solutions available. For now, DUI checkpoints are the best one we have.

No they aren't. If they were, then you would see checkpoints set up all over town on a daily basis in order to protect your loved ones. The fact that you don't proves that in fact, that is not the motivation. The real motivation is to A) Make it look like they are making a token effort and B) income generation when there are budget shortfalls to be made up. Nothing more. Again, if this was really about protecting people from drunks and if that really worked, you would see these used daily in your town.

Someone else had it right....if you really want to stop drunk driving, put police in the parking lots of bars. That will make people think twice. A DUI checkpoint, will not. Nor will it catch all the drunks leaving all the bars. There ARE plenty of other roads after all. Checkpoints are too limited in scope to be very effective at dealing with the real problem.

econgeek
Jun 8, 2011, 05:35 PM
I think most of them are honest and don't abuse the powers they are trusted with.

Participating in these checkpoints is proof positive that one is not honest and that one is, in fact, abusing the power they have. These checkpoints are illegal, and every person stopped is an individual felony. 10 years, I believe if the cops are armed when they stop them. United States Code 18-242 makes this a crime.

You think these cops are good guys because they think they are good guys, but they are all criminals... they think they are good guys because they are ignorant of the law. If they've ever pulled someone over, they have done so without a warrant, they are criminals. If they ever busted someone for possession of drugs, they are criminals. (Mabury vs. Madison makes enforcing drug laws a crime, because they are unconstitutional.)

These criminals will continue to get more and more corrupt, more and more abusive, until people start killing them.

econgeek
Jun 8, 2011, 05:38 PM
You can't be serious. This isn't about being "politically correct", it's about being a responsible human being. Innocent people are killed every day because some idiot gets behind the wheel when he/she is hammered. Giving these people a way to avoid getting caught is just wrong in every way. It's hard to believe that there is even a debate about this.

Innocent people are killed every day because perfectly sober blonds get behind the wheel and have a brain fart and kill someone. Also, because dads are disturbed by a fight they had with mom. Or mon is disturbed by something her kid said.

Clearly the "innocent people are killed every day" excuse can be used to try and support any abuse you want.

The reality is: Just because some innocent people are victims of accidents, does NOT give you the right to perpetrate crimes against other INNOCENT people.

Every sober person stopped by one of these checkpoints is an innocent person and the victim of a crime.

You don't decrease crimes by committing more crimes.

farleysmaster
Jun 8, 2011, 05:38 PM
Probably not. But that's besides the point. There are alternative measures that can be taken to deal with DUIs. Ban those caught from having licenses for life. If they harm someone or drive without a license, send them to jail for a significant amount of time. Those measures do not inconvenience me in the least. It's the leniency given and generally acceptance by the populace at large that is responsible for so many DUIs on the roads today. I also think the police could be doing much more important work with their time than harassing people with checkpoints.

Without checkpoints, what percentage of people who are caught for DUI are caught without injury to property or person...?

They could be doing more important work, yes. And it's the people getting drunk, driving and risking the lives of others that are making them waste their time...

econgeek
Jun 8, 2011, 05:41 PM
it's the people getting drunk, driving and risking the lives of others that are making them waste their time...

There are people who rob banks out in the world. We could put cops at every streetcorner stopping people and searching for ski masks.

Then you could say "its the people robbing the banks that are responsible for our police state."

Reality would still be that it is people like you who think that fear of some rare crime justifies massive crimes like these checkpoints that are really responsible for our living in a police state.

DocNYz
Jun 8, 2011, 05:41 PM
No they aren't. If they were, then you would see checkpoints set up all over town on a daily basis in order to protect your loved ones. The fact that you don't proves that in fact, that is not the motivation. The real motivation is to A) Make it look like they are making a token effort and B) income generation when there are budget shortfalls to be made up. Nothing more. Again, if this was really about protecting people from drunks and if that really worked, you would see these used daily in your town.

Someone else had it right....if you really want to stop drunk driving, put police in the parking lots of bars. That will make people think twice. A DUI checkpoint, will not. Nor will it catch all the drunks leaving all the bars. There ARE plenty of other roads after all. Checkpoints are too limited in scope to be very effective at dealing with the real problem.

TOTALLY agree. DUI checkpoints serve one purpose, and one purpose only. To make police departments money and keep cops away from criminals they should be fighting. You only see them during major events/times of the year or in wealthier areas where they know people being stopped can pay up. They have a ****ing quota and in stead of doing their jobs they just try to do it all at once, the same reason at the end of the month they pull people over non stop for speeding tickets, rather than at a constant rate.

notabadname
Jun 8, 2011, 05:41 PM
Of course. Which is why I made the comment...speaking from experience. A person who is drunk does not have the reasoning ability to even think about using an app. Probably couldn't even find it in their phone really. (I mean how many people drunk dial and drunk text the wrong person cause they can't even get THAT right?) In all likely hood, a person who thinks they are okay enough to drive would also think they were okay enough to not need a checkpoint app either. That's the whole point. You aren't dealing with a reasonable person when you are talking about people whom are drunk. The mindset that you and I or anyone sober reading this right now, is NOT the same mindset or ability that we would have while intoxicated. It just isn't.

Sorry. Completely disagree from personal experience. I see people at the club or bar regularly use smart phones to locate attractions, google and resolve arguments, text and call (the correct person). For people of 150 lbs, it only takes 3 drinks to reach a BAC of .08, 4 to comfortably exceed it. You are telling me you would be unable to use your iPhone or make decisions after 3 beers in, say, 60 minutes? I have easily been over .08 BAC and used a trampoline, my iPhone and played horseshoes or darts at the neighborhood progressive party - no driving required. That's the problem. 4 beers does not make one (most) inebriated. But it does make you unsafe to drive a car. Myth Busters even had a great episode on the subject, and tested the stars at .08 with a car. Still completely coherent, and doing most tasks well. but they had marked decrease in driving skills. They then took the the test further to inebriation, and yes, at that point, iPhone use would be tough. But at .08 BAC, not a problem for most.

A person
weighing 150 pounds, drinking at the rate of 1.5
ounces of alcohol (the approximate amount found
in one 12-ounce can of beer or one glass of wine)
per half hour would need:
Two drinks................... to reach a BAC of 0.05%
Three drinks ...... to reach a BAC of nearly 0.08%
Four drinks .................. to reach a BAC of 0.10%
Six drinks .................... to reach a BAC of 0.15%

farleysmaster
Jun 8, 2011, 05:42 PM
Anyone who supports squelching these apps, by definition rejects the constitution, rejects the law of the land, and loses the right to call themselves american.

It is this creeping fascism that is destroying america... and all of you who support it are scum.
If only I could fit all these words on one bumper sticker.

Daveoc64
Jun 8, 2011, 05:44 PM
Apple has the right to control Apps in the appstore.

The violation of free speech is these political scum writing a letter to apple and applying pressure to get these apps squelched. That is actually a felony.

Also, worth noting, these checkpoints are themselves illegal. Every cop who participates and consequently stops someone without probable cause is also a felon and belongs in jail.

Anyone who supports squelching these apps, by definition rejects the constitution, rejects the law of the land, and loses the right to call themselves american.

It is this creeping fascism that is destroying america... and all of you who support it are scum.
You're missing the point that Apple isn't just distributing these apps within the US.

Other countries have completely different attitudes to these things.

The US Constitution is about as valid as a Harry Potter book in the legal system in every other country.

The constitution doesn't apply to companies like this.

aristokrat
Jun 8, 2011, 05:46 PM
...but I just can't stand people who think the law doesn't apply to them because they don't like it.

Law is a living thing, and not all laws are good. Perhaps you should read a little about the social contract.

Tell the colonial revolutionists that they shouldn't try to change things just because they didn't like it. Tell it to the abolitionists. Tell it to the suffragettes. What do you think they would have done? I understand that that is an extreme example, but that doesn't mean people should just roll over because a law doesn't kill people. I'm not arguing for or against the topic (or the curfew law), just against your closed-minded viewpoint.

There is no universal morality, so the only test of a law is if the majority of society is willing to sacrifice some freedom in exchange for more order, etc. If the majority of people don't support a law, then it should be changed.

notabadname
Jun 8, 2011, 05:47 PM
TOTALLY agree. DUI checkpoints serve one purpose, and one purpose only. To make police departments money and keep cops away from criminals they should be fighting. You only see them during major events/times of the year or in wealthier areas where they know people being stopped can pay up. They have a ****ing quota and in stead of doing their jobs they just try to do it all at once, the same reason at the end of the month they pull people over non stop for speeding tickets, rather than at a constant rate.

Ha, ha. Are they just charging people at the stop? If they are "making money", it must be off of violations, like DUI's that are discovered, or other charges that are uncovered during a plate-check. How are they making money if everyone stopped is innocent? Riddle me this Batman.

And of course they increase patrols during the holidays. That is when the highest incident of citizens taking to the road after a party occur, and the highest number of accidents and fatalities.

WickedMessenger
Jun 8, 2011, 05:47 PM
Don: If nothing else, you're views make entertaining reading. Thank you.

Everyone else: What was it Tennyson said? Something like: "I am but a fool to reason with a fool"

-wm

partyBoy
Jun 8, 2011, 05:51 PM
Dont get me wrong i am the biggest apple fan boy but this has to be the stupidest thing i have ever heard why would Apple ban this app ? I totally DISAGREE with this move...What ever happened to "the land of the free" and who cares what these politicians say...Frack the police !

I hate cops !!!!!

Rodimus Prime
Jun 8, 2011, 05:58 PM
The supreme court does not have a say. The constitution is not subject to reversal from the bench. The supreme court can declare that obama poops skittles and rides to work on a unicorn, for all the relevance it has under the law.

Though I do find it hilarious that we're talking about cops-- aka "Law Enforcement Officers" breaking the law, and getting the "ok" from another agency of government... and somehow you think it is legitimate.

Every evil action in every tyrannical regime in history has been "legal" under the perspective of the people doing it.

So, for you to say that the supreme court made it legal-- which, they didn't, by the way, they didn't even rule the way you imply-- is to say you reject the rule of law, and choose the rule of men.
you might want to look up what the supreme court does.

Supreme court interrupts the Constitution. and if a given law goes against it.

The Court as ruled that DUI checkpoints do not violate the Constitution.

d0minick
Jun 8, 2011, 06:00 PM
Are you serious? Who else, but someone breaking the law, would download this app?



I disagree. I use to work at the Hard Rock in Hollywood. My schedule was usually 2-10pm. The DUI checkpoint would already be set up. I would use this app to avoid them.

ajnicho
Jun 8, 2011, 06:02 PM
Not sure why us British have to get penalised also simply because of some idiot US senator!

d0minick
Jun 8, 2011, 06:02 PM
I hate cops !!!!!

But you'll be the first to call a cop if your in trouble.

You dislike traffic cops. Which is understandable. But not all cops are traffic cops. And cops do the community a great service.

So please, don't say you hate cops.

EDIT: And I see you are down here in Miami. So you should know, after that terrible "urban weekend", cops can really pull through. Unless you were down there too causing problems and helping raise prices in the SOBE community.

MadeTheSwitch
Jun 8, 2011, 06:04 PM
You are telling me you would be unable to use your iPhone or make decisions after 3 beers in, say, 60 minutes?

I'm saying from MY personal experience, yes. If I am too drunk to drive a car effectively, then I am going to be too drunk to use an app correctly or have it even occur to me to use one in the first place. Just like when a drunk gets into a car they A) Don't think they are too drunk to drive and B) it doesn't occur to them that they might run into a DUI checkpoint.

Again, I think you are taking your rational sober mind as it is right now, and applying it to a situation where you would not be rational. Have this conversation with me when you are three sheets to the wind. If you even remember this conversation or that this website even exist at that point. lol

farleysmaster
Jun 8, 2011, 06:04 PM
you might want to look up what the supreme court does.

Supreme court interrupts the Constitution. and if a given law goes against it.

The Court as ruled that DUI checkpoints do not violate the Constitution.

You misunderstand. The US constitution is the inerrant and literal word of God brought down from Mount Sinai by Moses. Who are these so-called judges to so-called interpret the constitution in their so-called robes?

jacollins
Jun 8, 2011, 06:05 PM
I think this is very chilling and Apple should be slammed hard for it. I see it as a free speech issue and it's not breaking a law (there's no laws saying you can't post that you saw a DUI checkpoint at X location). Apple should have stood up for the users vs folding. Essentially tell the senator "Yes, we agree it's bad, pass a law to ban it and we'll be happy to remove the apps. Oh, you can't pass it because it's CONSTITUTIONALLY INVALID? So sorry.". The constitution means squat when you can strongarm companies into obeying you without needing constitutionally valid laws.

Next up on the list now. Apple removing the camera/camera apps because you MIGHT record the police beating up someone they don't like... (referring to the multiple cases out currently where cops want to confiscate the phones of people recording them doing traffic stops and the like).

pyro008
Jun 8, 2011, 06:06 PM
Also, with regard to free speech, I may be wrong about this given how long it's been since I last studied it, but isn't the guarantee of free speech essentially more at the government/public level, i.e. the federal/state/local government cannot impinge upon your right to free speech, but that does not extend to the purvey of private businesses?

A good example, to me at least, is how the Boy Scouts of America are allowed to refuse openly homosexual individuals from being members, a policy that is perfectly "acceptable" given its private nature, but which would run afoul of anti-discrimination laws if they were a government organization.

Thus, if someone chooses to use the App Store and an Apple device, they're at the purvey of whatever decisions Apple chooses to make.
Actually, thats because homosexuals arent protected by EEO law which applies to everyone. They are protected by an Executive order in regards to federal employment practices, so they can be discriminated against based on sexual orientation outside of federal employment. However, this may change soon.

Free speech as guaranteed by the first amendment really has no bearing on private companies, however. They can censor whatever they feel like, although it is odd given the liberal hippie Apple persona that they would censor things that are legal.

farleysmaster
Jun 8, 2011, 06:07 PM
The constitution means squat when you can strongarm companies into obeying you without needing constitutionally valid laws.

I do dozens of things a day that aren't in the US constitution, and I don't even have to be strong-armed.

Why would Apple be prohibited from banning something that's not banned by the US constitution?

(p.s. what does the US constitution say about fart apps?)

scottparker999
Jun 8, 2011, 06:08 PM
I agree that apple should ban apps which disclose the (unreleased) locations of DUI check-points.

The distinction between these check-points and speeding and red light cameras is very clear.

Knowing the location of a speed camera causes drivers to slow down - therefore achieving the objective of the camera.

Knowing the location of a red light camera prevents drivers running a red light - therefore achieving the objective of the camera.

Knowing the location of a DUI check-point allows a driver to bypass the checkpoint - therefore defeating the object of the check-point.

partyBoy
Jun 8, 2011, 06:08 PM
But you'll be the first to call a cop if your in trouble.

You dislike traffic cops. Which is understandable. But not all cops are traffic cops. And cops do the community a great service.

So please, don't say you hate cops.


I have a Kimber (45 caliber) I dont need cops...cops are not here to protect us, they are here to screw us over

Daveoc64
Jun 8, 2011, 06:10 PM
Free speech as guaranteed by the first amendment really has no bearing on private companies, however. They can censor whatever they feel like, although it is odd given the liberal hippie Apple persona that they would censor things that are legal.

Apple censors a bucketload of content - they just do what they think is best for their company.

In this case, they probably aren't going to see worldwide boycotting for not supporting Apps that help people drink drive (or so it would appear). I'd think that most people would see it as a good move.

Aduntu
Jun 8, 2011, 06:13 PM
I have a Kimber (45 caliber) I dont need cops...cops are not here to protect us, they are here to screw us over

I bet you make your parents so proud...

farmboy
Jun 8, 2011, 06:15 PM
Because DUIs are not the cause of this situation. They are merely the excuse that the states and the cops use in order to pretend like they are justified with these illegal checkpoints.

Of course the real purpose is to harass people, and to make sure they know that they better not step out of line.

This is, by the way, what a police state is like.

Wrong.
Wrong.
Absolutely wrong (and you have no idea by how much).

Kar98
Jun 8, 2011, 06:16 PM
MADD is not against drinking.....there are against drinking and driving....hence the acronym..Mothers Against Drunk Driving

No, they are against alcohol, period. They're true neo-prohibitionists. The "driving" part is just a lame and transparent pretext.

notabadname
Jun 8, 2011, 06:18 PM
I'm saying from MY personal experience, yes. If I am too drunk to drive a car effectively, then I am going to be too drunk to use an app correctly or have it even occur to me to use one in the first place. Just like when a drunk gets into a car they A) Don't think they are too drunk to drive and B) it doesn't occur to them that they might run into a DUI checkpoint.

Again, I think you are taking your rational sober mind as it is right now, and applying it to a situation where you would not be rational. Have this conversation with me when you are three sheets to the wind. If you even remember this conversation or that this website even exist at that point. lol

I speak from the experience of the non-sober mind. I am an airline pilot. Nothing could be more serious to me than a DUI. The violation is required to be reported to the FAA and can result in the loss of my Certificate/License and corresponding loss of job. I do not drink and drive for that reason as well as thinking it is irresponsible to society. I have been out, had easily over the limit of .08 BAC for driving and been competent enough to both make the decision not to drive, as well as call a cab or a friend to pick me up. I have no issues using the phone at greater than .08 BAC but under about .12 BAC. I have been to bars where (as novelty - not guarantee of sobriety for obvious legal reasons) you can even test your BAC for kicks. You keep mentioning "3 sheets to the wind" and other types of references that I would refer to as "plastered". Correct, a plastered person will not make good use of a smart phone. But absolutely, I bet 9 out of 10 people could easily use an iPhone App at .08 BAC. Anyone, anyone? Bueller? Backup here? 3 to 4 beers and you are "sheets to the wind" is not normal.

henchman
Jun 8, 2011, 06:25 PM
We will see how you guys feel about ths, when you lose a loved one to an inconsiderate selfish ******* who decided to drive drunk.

And I bet mr "I have a 45 Kimberly" spends his days breaking all sorts of laws.
And most likely drives drunk all the time as well.

I don't hate cops.
But then, I'm not out acting like a tough guy, getting into trouble all the time either.

mosx
Jun 8, 2011, 06:26 PM
Wrong.
Wrong.
Absolutely wrong (and you have no idea by how much).

Yeah? Prove hes wrong.

Have you been through a checkpoint? First question is always "license and registration", never "have you been drinking?". In fact, they rarely ask if you have been drinking.

Then your car gets checked for any violations like burnt out lights or cracked or tinted windows. If you have any you get written up for it.

As I said before, during the last holiday weekend here, 1,300+ cars were "screened" in a DUI checkpoint and only 2 were suspected of DUI, but not arrested. But a good 60+ cars were written up for fix it violations. Meanwhile, across town, thanks to depleted man power for actual patrols, a REAL drunk driver swerved into oncoming traffic and killed people. Was on a major street. Roving patrols, which the FBI has concluded are 90% more effective than checkpoints, could have prevented it.

We will see how you guys feel about ths, when you lose a loved one to an inconsiderate selfish ******* who decided to drive drunk.

Read my post. Thanks to A "DUI checkpoint" taking manpower away from roving patrols, people DID lose their lives to a drunk driver. A checkpoint requires 10x the man power of roving patrols, and roving patrols are 90% more effective according to the FBI. Had the police been conducting roving patrols, those lives could have been saved.

Edit: I also like how the posts in this thread that point out the reality of DUI checkpoints, our rights, etc. are getting voted down while those supporting taking away our rights and Apple's stance are getting voted UP. heh.

It doesn't make a driver slow down at all lights. It makes them feel safe to run any light not listed as camera enforced if they are so inclined. It makes them slow where, and only where, they know they will be punished. Therefore, this ensures a driver who disregards red lights as a habit, will never be punished by the law. Without a practical way of knowing which lights were protected, most would be more cautious at all lights. The very nature of the App proves their desire to avoid fines, and their nature to only obey regulations where they know they are enforced. If you don't run red lights as a rule, you have absolutely no use for the App. Zero.

Completely wrong. At least in California and most US states, red light cameras and speed enforcement camera warnings are posted prior to the intersection/camera. So you know in advance anyway if there is a camera ahead.

Trapster has MANY legitimate uses. It warns you of school zones, dangerous turns, car accidents, road kill, closed roads, etc. And as myself and others have said, as someone who has never drank, I just don't like having my fourth amendment rights violated nor do I want to have to deal with the traffic jam of a checkpoint. So it warns me in advance of the state's law requiring signs be posted far enough in advance to take an alternate route.

Which brings up another point that has already been stated, most states require checkpoints to be announced in the news prior to actually holding the checkpoint AND they require signs be posted far enough in advance for drivers to choose to take an alternate route.

So if someone is "drunk" and trying to avoid "getting caught", simply paying attention to road signs (which requires less coherency than using a smartphone app to avoid "getting caught") will help them around the checkpoint. Basically, using the logic of checkpoint advocates here, STATE LAWS HELP "Drunk drivers" not get caught by requiring ADVANCED WARNING both in the news and ahead of the checkpoint.

notabadname
Jun 8, 2011, 06:26 PM
Knowing the location of a speed camera causes drivers to slow down - therefore achieving the objective of the camera.

Knowing the location of a red light camera prevents drivers running a red light - therefore achieving the objective of the camera.

It doesn't make a driver slow down at all lights. It makes them feel safe to run any light not listed as camera enforced if they are so inclined. It makes them slow where, and only where, they know they will be punished. Therefore, this ensures a driver who disregards red lights as a habit, will never be punished by the law. Without a practical way of knowing which lights were protected, most would be more cautious at all lights. The very nature of the App proves their desire to avoid fines, and their nature to only obey regulations where they know they are enforced. If you don't run red lights as a rule, you have absolutely no use for the App. Zero.

iEvolution
Jun 8, 2011, 06:26 PM
Good ol' apple knows whats best for us, what a joke.

I don't even drink and I think this is stupid.

This is exactly why I'm not jumping into iOS, Apple just does what they want to do and tell everyone how they should use their device.

iPod Touch is the furthest I'll go.

Mr Fusion
Jun 8, 2011, 06:28 PM
Good job everyone, we've covered just about everything. :) Mainly...

- Apple's doing this to protect their business, not because they enjoy playing "censor."

- Drunk people can still use their iPhones.

- DUI traps are how cash-strapped cities make money.

Apple. iPhones. Money.

:p

stangaroo
Jun 8, 2011, 06:31 PM
I use this app to avoid the checkpoints just for the sake of inconvenience, honestly, there is absolutely no reasonable argument to defend an app that warns drunk drivers of a checkpoint...

...and unfortunately that's what the DUI feature is probably used for most of the time.

As long as I know where the speed traps are I'm ok with them taking out the DUI function :D

stangaroo
Jun 8, 2011, 06:33 PM
Good job everyone, we've covered just about everything. :) Mainly...

- Apple's doing this to protect their business, not because they enjoy playing "censor."

- Drunk people can still use their iPhones.

- DUI traps are how cash-strapped cities make money.

Apple. iPhones. Money.

:p

When will they be able to put a stop to drunk texting though?

...and how will the city profit from it?

:)

dukebound85
Jun 8, 2011, 06:34 PM
The supreme court does not have a say. The constitution is not subject to reversal from the bench. The supreme court can declare that obama poops skittles and rides to work on a unicorn, for all the relevance it has under the law.

Though I do find it hilarious that we're talking about cops-- aka "Law Enforcement Officers" breaking the law, and getting the "ok" from another agency of government... and somehow you think it is legitimate.

Every evil action in every tyrannical regime in history has been "legal" under the perspective of the people doing it.

So, for you to say that the supreme court made it legal-- which, they didn't, by the way, they didn't even rule the way you imply-- is to say you reject the rule of law, and choose the rule of men.

I hope you are joking. If not, I suggest you learn what the function of the Supreme Court is:rolleyes:

By the way, the SCOTUS does not write the laws so it couldn't even do what you wrote in your post. One of their roles is to determine if a law is Constitutional. They ruled DUI checkpoints are. As such, they are entirely legal on a federal level. Now states can enact further legislation to suit their needs as long as it doesn't run counter to what the SOCTUS says (ie if the SCOTUS said they were illegal, states could not say they are legal but the vice versa is entirely fine)

eNcrypTioN
Jun 8, 2011, 06:34 PM
People will just find another way to access this information on their iPhones. ;)

robair
Jun 8, 2011, 06:41 PM
It is intended to help drunk drivers avoid unannounced checkpoints. By extension, it is intended to help drunks stay on the road. By extension, this app helps promote road kill. What a stupid, irresponsible app. I am very happy that Apple banned it. Too bad someone doesn't make an app to easily report drunk drivers... oh, yeah, the phone: 911. Report these idiots. Anything to get drunks off the road is a good thing. Apps like this help KEEP drunks on the road... ridiculous!

Glideslope
Jun 8, 2011, 06:45 PM
I am all for free speech, but this is a reasonable limitation. If it saves a single life, it is worth it.

Precisely. It is a "reasonable" action. There is no counter argument to this.

If people get worked up over this one, get your Xanax increased. :apple:

Dagless
Jun 8, 2011, 06:47 PM
I have a Kimber (45 caliber) I dont need cops...cops are not here to protect us, they are here to screw us over

I'm so glad the American public has cops to protect them from the likes of you.

Precisely. It is a "reasonable" action. There is no counter argument to this.

If people get worked up over this one, get your Xanax increased. :apple:

But what if people are busy or in a rush? Think about them! They might really really need to get somewhere.

mosx
Jun 8, 2011, 06:53 PM
It is intended to help drunk drivers avoid unannounced checkpoints. By extension, it is intended to help drunks stay on the road. By extension, this app helps promote road kill. What a stupid, irresponsible app. I am very happy that Apple banned it. Too bad someone doesn't make an app to easily report drunk drivers... oh, yeah, the phone: 911. Report these idiots. Anything to get drunks off the road is a good thing. Apps like this help KEEP drunks on the road... ridiculous!

Your profile says you're in San Francisco. So you need to learn the laws of your state. In California, unannounced checkpoints are very illegal. State law requires announcement of the checkpoint prior to conducting it, as well as signs posted far enough in advance of a checkpoint to allow drivers to take an alternate router around it. So, using your logic, California state laws are helping drunks stay on the road a whole lot more than an app like Trapster is.

And, again, FBI data has shown that roving patrols are 90% more effective than DUI checkpoints. Google is your friend. And like I've repeated many times, during the last holiday weekend here, a DUI checkpoint took man power away from roving patrols that lead to an actual DUI related crash that caused deaths and yet caught no drunk drivers. But it did get quite a few fix it tickets written!

Ivabign
Jun 8, 2011, 07:01 PM
Me. I don't drink. I do work til 11pm to 1am most nights. Running into checkpoints and sitting in a line for an hour while the police look for drunks? Okay. But every single night when I've just worked a 16-18hr day? No thank you.

So you need an app that tells you where a checkpoint is that you seem torun into every night? Sounds like you are drinking and driving.

Personally I think driving while intoxicated should be punished far more severely than it is now. Mandatory jail time. If you lose your job - boo hoo, you should have thought about that first.

They need to make the punishment so painful that idiots who drink reallynthink about it prior to picking up the keys.

MadeTheSwitch
Jun 8, 2011, 07:01 PM
I speak from the experience of the non-sober mind.

Again, so do I.

I have been out, had easily over the limit of .08 BAC for driving and been competent enough to both make the decision not to drive, as well as call a cab or a friend to pick me up.

Great. Then you are the exception, not the norm. Probably because of your thoughtful vigilance due to your pilot's license. The average person is going to think that they are either A)Sober enough to drive that they do not need to know about checkpoints so they will not look for them or B) Too drunk for it to occur to them to get out their phone, find an app, and somehow use it correctly.

You keep mentioning "3 sheets to the wind" and other types of references that I would refer to as "plastered". Correct, a plastered person will not make good use of a smart phone. But absolutely, I bet 9 out of 10 people could easily use an iPhone App at .08 BAC. Anyone, anyone? Bueller? Backup here? 3 to 4 beers and you are "sheets to the wind" is not normal.

Keep mentioning? I've made reference to "3 sheets to the wind" a grand total of ONCE (the post you replied to) and now this post makes two times. I may have used plastered earlier perhaps but even then two references would not invoke a "keep mentioning" notion in my mind. And as for it being not normal....whatever. 3 or 4 beers in the what, one hour period you mentioned? Yeah...I will be drunk.

pubwvj
Jun 8, 2011, 07:02 PM
Discussing DUI check points is freedom of speech. The Supreme Court will not like this.

Besides, the App developers need just move their project to the web.

Daveoc64
Jun 8, 2011, 07:05 PM
Discussing DUI check points is freedom of speech. The Supreme Court will not like this.

They are completely powerless.

What a private company chooses to do is not subject to the constitution (at least not in this context).

Just like these forums aren't the place to discuss S&M or talking about piracy, the App store isn't somewhere you can find out how to dodge a checkpoint.

dukebound85
Jun 8, 2011, 07:06 PM
Discussing DUI check points is freedom of speech. The Supreme Court will not like this.

Besides, the App developers need just move their project to the web.

Free speech only applies to the government interaction with the populace.

Apple has every right to allow whatever apps it wants in its own store

farleysmaster
Jun 8, 2011, 07:07 PM
And, again, FBI data has shown that roving patrols are 90% more effective than DUI checkpoints. Google is your friend. And like I've repeated many times, during the last holiday weekend here, a DUI checkpoint took man power away from roving patrols that lead to an actual DUI related crash that caused deaths and yet caught no drunk drivers. But it did get quite a few fix it tickets written!

What is the primary source for this? All I can find is repeated quotes from someone in the alcohol lobby.

farleysmaster
Jun 8, 2011, 07:10 PM
Free speech only applies to the government interaction with the populace.

Apple has every right to allow whatever apps it wants in its own store

Additionally, there are always limits to free speech, specifically incitement.

CubusX
Jun 8, 2011, 07:18 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/534.32 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8F190 Safari/6533.18.5)

Stupid. The information that these apps had were given IN ADVANCE by the local police departments!

Why don't these Senetors spend their energy on fixing unemployment and out of control spending.

The info in the trapster app was added by the users and not law enforcement.

The users added the DUI checkpoints, camaras, and police cars spotting drivers going over the speed limit.

reactions
Jun 8, 2011, 07:20 PM
You'd likely change your mind if you suffered the loss of a loved one as the result of drunk driving.

hmm.

how do you feel about speed traps?

thatrandomguy
Jun 8, 2011, 07:34 PM
There is no legal reason to remove the apps. The argument that such apps enable drunk drivers to "get away with it" is spurious at best. In fact, the DOT recommends it more as a word of mouth scare technique than to stop drunk drivers at the checkpoint (http://druggeddriving.org/pdfs/SobrietyCheckpoints.pdf) (see page 7).

The Senate wanted to look tough and appeal to those who feel strongly about drunk driving, and the reality is that Apple did not want to appear to be a company that condoned drunk driving. It's easier to just ban the apps than to go through the political & media circus created out of nothing (Apple's helping drunk drivers evade the police! More at 11.). Sadly, when you reap the benefits of a centralized app store, you must also take the downfalls (assuming you don't jailbreak).

This is not a freedom of speech issue. Apple is not a government entity. They are private. They can accept what they want in their curated store.

JohnDoe98
Jun 8, 2011, 07:40 PM
They are completely powerless.

What a private company chooses to do is not subject to the constitution (at least not in this context).

Just like these forums aren't the place to discuss S&M or talking about piracy, the App store isn't somewhere you can find out how to dodge a checkpoint.

So why did Google voice complain to the FTC about having their app rejected or pulled from the app store? Did it have to do with anti-competitive behavior from Apple? What's the lesson here? Sadly, Apple isn't a liberty to reject anything they please. They must do so in ways that do not demonstrate discrimination, anti-competitiveness, and various other possible scenarios. In short, if Apple wants to prohibit certain things from the App store it will have to give good and reasonable explanations as to why. What is the explanation in this case?

Daveoc64
Jun 8, 2011, 07:43 PM
So why did Google voice complain to the FTC about having their app rejected or pulled from the app store? Did it have to do with anti-competitive behavior from Apple? What's the lesson here? Sadly, Apple isn't a liberty to reject anything they please. They must do so in ways that do not demonstrate discrimination, anti-competitiveness, and various other possible scenarios. In short, if Apple wants to prohibit certain things from the App store it will have to give good and reasonable explanations as to why. What is the explanation in this case?

It's in bold.

There isn't a "other possible scenario" as you put it.

Pulling an App because you fear it might compete with you is potentially illegal.

Pulling an App because you don't think that it's good for your ecosystem is not illegal.

Apple is not required by law to accept any and every App to its store.

thatrandomguy
Jun 8, 2011, 07:44 PM
So why did Google voice complain to the FTC about having their app rejected or pulled from the app store? Did it have to do with anti-competitive behavior from Apple? What's the lesson here? Sadly, Apple isn't a liberty to reject anything they please. They must do so in ways that do not demonstrate discrimination, anti-competitiveness, and various other possible scenarios. In short, if Apple wants to prohibit certain things from the App store it will have to give good and reasonable explanations as to why. What is the explanation in this case?

Anti-competitive behavior and freedom of speech are two different things. There are specific laws regarding anti-competitive behavior, while freedom of speech is not a required gift from a private corporation.

If Apple were to pull DUI checkpoint apps, then sell a service for DUI checkpoints, that might be more of an argument.