Apple Bans DUI Checkpoint Apps

[bella92108]

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.

I love how the fanboys would stick up for Apple if they invented an app that would suck a dollar out of the pocket of the user and wirelessly beam it to Apple because Apple says they want it.

Ridiculous. I don't think anyone should drink and drive, but I really don't like the position Apple has been taking on what they consider immoral apps. They need to protect themselves legally, but what next? An email filter to watch for things texted or emailed that might be of interest to the government? Oh wait, Patriot Act already does that.

When are Americans going to wake up and take back the "public" part of public companies?

I guess I'm preaching to a wall, because Apple fanboys have for years let go of freedom and open-ness in favor of what apple wants them to do and how apple wants them to do it.

I'm glad Apple is doing this. It made me a lot more happy I ditched iPhone 3 months ago... iOS5 and it's yawn-ness was step 2, this is just icing on the farewell cake.

Hope Lion isn't a morality policing OS or I'll have to switch to windows, yuck....

 

[ngenerator]

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.

Ah yes, the good old "people who make one-time mistakes should lose their entire livelihood" argument. Always a classic!

 

[scottparker999]

People will just find another way to access this information on their iPhones.

True. So what's the problem?

 

[KingCrimson]

I am all for free speech, but this is a reasonable limitation. If it saves a single life, it is worth it.

Somewhere a tyrant chuckled.

 

[Ivabign]

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.

The first amendment deals with the government abridging the right of free speech, not Apple. Apple can abridge your speech all it wants to with no recourse from anyone. Your only recourse is to not buy their products.

 

[farleysmaster]

Somewhere a tyrant chuckled.

He sounds like an affable fellow.

 

[KingCrimson]

Of course they could put this on a web site, but Apple might black-list it. Does Apple block sites on iOS?

 

[Ivabign]

Ah yes, the good old "people who make one-time mistakes should lose their entire livelihood" argument. Always a classic!

Yep. No problem with that. Just because you didn't kill someone the "one" time you drove drunk doesn't mean you should get a free pass.

 

[ngenerator]

Yep. No problem with that. Just because you didn't kill someone the "one" time you drove drunk doesn't mean you should get a free pass.

Right, makes sense..in 1984..
Slippery Slopes FTW

 

[AZREOSpecialist]

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

Losing people to drunk driving is a terrible tragedy and I'm sorry for your loss, however, I am not a fan of losing access to information under the pretext that it will save lives. Show me a single study where one of these apps was linked to a loss of life. It's impossible because there is no such study. This is an example of Apple caving in to political pressure, but since Apple needs political favors from Washington and local governments, it's probably a reasonable compromise in Apple's eyes.

This is less about caving in to "political correctness" and more about Apple developing political capital in Washington.

 

[rtdunham]

...guess who drives drunk? ANYONE THAT WANTS TO AND CAN...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.

Let me see how tactful I can be. Uhhh...you're just wrong. You're ignorant of the facts. I got accused by a teenager earlier of preaching, and hell, why give up the pulpit now! When I started out as a reporter--and yes, it was a long time ago, almost 45 years--it was routine to go to court and watch those charged with DUIs parade with their lawyers before the judge, and either have their charges dismissed or reduced to speeding or some minor driving offense. I don't think i ever saw a driver convicted of DUI.

We wised up. Too many people died. Too many people lost their loved ones. Over time, there was a gradual change in public awareness until today--lawyer or not--there's no easy way to walk away from a DUI. Even prominent people get convicted. A judge who routinely let drunk drivers off could count on that being used against him in the next election. And though you may think that would win him votes, trust me, it wouldn't.

There was a change in public perception which led to a change in prosecutions (there were no DUI checkpoints at the beginning of the history i'm recounting here). You should believe that those changes have taken lots of drunk drivers off the road, and are partly responsible for the reduction in highway deaths. To argue otherwise is, what'd I say before? Oh, yeah, ignorance.

 

[lostngone]

I am all for free speech, but this is a reasonable limitation. If it saves a single life, it is worth it.

So, in your book anyone and everything should be banned if "it saves a single life"?

 

[iSee]

Feeding poison to puppies?

OK, you made me do it: rate this post positive or I'll poison this puppy.

 

[WestonHarvey1]

Somewhere a tyrant chuckled.

"If it saves a single life, it is worth it" is almost as irritating as "If you've got nothing to hide, why do you care about privacy?"

Sometimes it is clearly not worth it. You could eliminate nearly all of the 50,000 or so traffic fatalities every year by instituting a universal 5mph speed limit. That would obviously be ridiculous, so we are making the determination that 50,000 lives aren't worth saving at the expense of destroying our transportation system in that way.

And how can anyone be so sure of the consequences of banning this app? You may save a life, but cost more lives in ways we can't easily measure. Perhaps clearing the DUI checkpoint paths of sober drivers who are just trying to avoid inconvenience lets the cops catch more drunks at the checkpoint.

 

[WestonHarvey1]

Losing people to drunk driving is a terrible tragedy and I'm sorry for your loss, however, I am not a fan of losing access to information under the pretext that it will save lives. Show me a single study where one of these apps was linked to a loss of life. It's impossible because there is no such study. This is an example of Apple caving in to political pressure, but since Apple needs political favors from Washington and local governments, it's probably a reasonable compromise in Apple's eyes.

This is less about caving in to "political correctness" and more about Apple developing political capital in Washington.

Also, at the risk of sounding insensitive, people who have experienced tragedy and injustice are the last people we should be listening to in matters like this. They're too involved and emotionally compromised. That's why we don't use a victim's family members as jurors in murder trials. That's why judges recuse themselves from cases.

We need calm, dispassionate, rational voices that can use sound judgement when weighing important issues about civil rights.

 

[kppolich]

no need for another distraction behind the wheel. good idea to ban all these imo.

 

[MadeTheSwitch]

And how can anyone be so sure of the consequences of banning this app? You may save a life, but cost more lives in ways we can't easily measure. Perhaps clearing the DUI checkpoint paths of sober drivers who are just trying to avoid inconvenience lets the cops catch more drunks at the checkpoint.

Exactly. It's quite difficult to quantify such things. Especially since this at least one of these apps does more than just DUI checkpoint stuff. For instance, I am extra careful in unfamiliar school zone areas thanks to this app. Not that I wouldn't have been anyway, but that's me. Others might not be so careful. Traveling to unfamiliar areas, I think this kind of app is important and helpful. And the speed traps are another good example. They remind me to slow down and pay more attention to the speed limits. Not just at the speed trap itself, but in general. An app like this increases awareness of safety overall in my opinion. I think that is a good thing.

 

[animenick65]

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)

Regardless of what the law says, I still think a DUI checkpoint is infringing upon my personal rights. You do have personal and moral beliefs, correct? One can feel infringed upon despite what the law says, you just don't have any legal base against it.

Of course I believe in personal responsibility, but I also believe in the responsibility of local bars and clubs to be reasonable in how they serve their customers. Is it ethical to serve a person to the point of extreme inebriation? Many bars actually do practice alcohol awareness training to train their tenders to spot signs of inebriation above the .08 limit.

 

[henchman]

Regardless of what the law says, I still think a DUI checkpoint is infringing upon my personal rights. You do have personal and moral beliefs, correct? One can feel infringed upon despite what the law says, you just don't have any legal base against it.

Of course I believe in personal responsibility, but I also believe in the responsibility of local bars and clubs to be reasonable in how they serve their customers. Is it ethical to serve a person to the point of extreme inebriation? Many bars actually do practice alcohol awareness training to train their tenders to spot signs of inebriation above the .08 limit.

What you "think" or "belve" is of no consequence.

 

[HKZ/MST3K]

Since DUI checkpoints, and cops having the legal right and protection to murder people when they bust down doors, were approved by the US Supreme Court I think it's time that everyone refused to comply with both grossly wrong and illogical judgements of the protections the 4th Amendment provides. Violently if need be. The US Supreme Court has proven itself to be both politically motivated and grossly inept at it's function. The only way to respond is violently defend your home from illegal and unjust police entry and steadfastly refuse to be harassed and threatened at a DUI checkpoint by any and every law enforcement officer.

Apple has every right to restrict the info these apps can present to the user, or steadfastly refuse to approve them for sale or distribution in their App Store. I applaud them for exercising that right, and I will exercise the right to refuse to consent to an illegal and wasteful search at any and every DUI checkpoint I come across. I will also continue to plan on shooting every single person that violently enters my home as many times in the face as I possibly can before I have to switch mags. Criminal or cop, doesn't matter because bullets aren't discriminatory and neither am I.

 

[henchman]

Since DUI checkpoints, and cops having the legal right and protection to murder people when they bust down doors, were approved by the US Supreme Court I think it's time that everyone refused to comply with both grossly wrong and illogical judgements of the protections the 4th Amendment provides. Violently if need be. The US Supreme Court has proven itself to be both politically motivated and grossly inept at it's function. The only way to respond is violently defend your home from illegal and unjust police entry and steadfastly refuse to be harassed and threatened at a DUI checkpoint by any and every law enforcement officer.

Apple has every right to restrict the info these apps can present to the user, or steadfastly refuse to approve them for sale or distribution in their App Store. I applaud them for exercising that right, and I will exercise the right to refuse to consent to an illegal and wasteful search at any and every DUI checkpoint I come across. I will also continue to plan on shooting every single person that violently enters my home as many times in the face as I possibly can before I have to switch mags. Criminal or cop, doesn't matter because bullets aren't discriminatory and neither am I.

And you need to get a grip, and up,your meds.

 

[mattnotis]

I'm much too paranoid to drink and drive. But checkpoints are a pain in the ass even for sober people. You ever been in one? They take forever to get through. And I'm sure they give minorities a hard time when they go through them too.

 

[mosx]

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

http://www.ocala.com/article/20101230/articles/101239969

http://abionline.org/checkpoints.cfm

http://www2.fbi.gov/publications/leb/2003/jan2003/jan03leb.htm showing more arrests from saturation patrols than checkpoints.

Yeah, there is an "alcohol lobby" link there. But if you read it, you see they lobby for the more effective way of catching drunk drivers.

First link proves the point that DUI checkpoints DO infringe on our rights.

And like I've said before, it'd be difficult to find a highly populated state that doesn't require announcement of checkpoints prior to conducting them while also requiring signs and other warnings be placed far enough in advance of the checkpoint to allow drivers to take a different route. So, again, going by the logic of those who advocate the removal of apps like Trapster, state law helps drunk drivers get away with it more than a smartphone app ever could. Going by that logic, those laws should be repealed so checkpoints can be set up whenever, wherever, with no warning at all

 

[AidenShaw]

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

But, on the other hand, it's completely wrong on some points.

To say that the US Supreme Court isn't "relevant" to the law is almost the exact opposite of the truth. If there's a question about a law, the Supreme Court is the final arbiter - the Supremes define the law.

Their decisions might not always be popular - but the US doesn't place the rights and liberties of its citizens at the whim of a popular vote or legislative fiat.

 

[WestonHarvey1]

And you need to get a grip, and up,your meds.

Why? He has some very cogent points about the erosion of 4th Amendment protections. I personally know cops who agree with him and wish they didn't have to serve no-knock warrants. They fully expect to be shot, quite justly, when they are given the wrong address and kick in the wrong door. The police shouldn't have a legal one-up when they startle an innocent person in the middle of the night who then tries to protect his family from a home invasion.

Warrants. You knock, you display the warrant and your credentials. That's how it's supposed to work. Just because someone might flush drugs down the toilet doesn't mean we should flush the Constitution, too.