Apple Bans DUI Checkpoint Apps

henchman said:
If you do a google search, you will find Artiles like this showing that checkpoints do work.
http://www.bermanexposed.org/node/137

The only people who are against them are drunk drivers and the Alcohol beverage industry.
Click to expand...

I can't even consume Alcohol and my Cousins Husbands Sister was killed by a drunk a driver and I am against Check points. They do nothing but give cops a reason to search and ticket for things other than DUI's. It gives Cops the probably cause they need to bust you for anything.
 
farleysmaster said:
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?)
Click to expand...

I agree Apple has the right to ban whatever they want (as do you). What I object to (and you should too) is some group of Senators coming up to you and saying essentially "Nice business you got there. Be a shame if something happened it to it. Say, if you don't do whatever I want..." All without legal basis.
 
jacollins said:
I agree Apple has the right to ban whatever they want (as do you). What I object to (and you should too) is some group of Senators coming up to you and saying essentially "Nice business you got there. Be a shame if something happened it to it. Say, if you don't do whatever I want..." All without legal basis.
Click to expand...

What you should be even more worried about is why Apple is caving. Is it because they are trying to tit-for-tat with the powers that be so that they can get the Tax write-offs on the billions of offshore money they have been lobbying for.
 
Mattie Num Nums said:
I can't even consume Alcohol and my Cousins Husbands Sister was killed by a drunk a driver and I am against Check points. They do nothing but give cops a reason to search and ticket for things other than DUI's. It gives Cops the probably cause they need to bust you for anything.
Click to expand...

Funny, because I've been stopped at numerous checkpoints, and never worried about getting busted.
 
henchman said:
Funny, because I've been stopped at numerous checkpoints, and never worried about getting busted.
Click to expand...

Good for you captain because everyone knows that what happens to you happens to everyone. I have the total opposite. I look like I am 18 (pushing 30), have a shaved head, and drive a sports car. I get harassed like crazy even though I have 0 points on my record and drive like a grandma.
 
henchman said:
The only people who are against them are drunk drivers and the Alcohol beverage industry.
Click to expand...

And the sober people who care about freedom, unreasonable searches without probable cause, and being delayed or harassed just for driving down a particular street on a particular night. Oh...and the businesses that lose money because of all the traffic congestion in front of their places. I know one checkpoint that likes to block a 7/11 on a regular basis. They can't be too happy about that.
 
Daveoc64 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Free speech means nothing if individual senators can restrict it (without laws)simply by leaning on a company.
 
FreeRideHome

Apple made the right choice in banning these types of apps. They enable drunk drivers and encourage a dangerous scenario on the road. Driving on a road is not guaranteed under the Constitution. it is a right given by the states.

If someone has had to much to drink and doesn't have a ride home, they can use the only app on the app store that connects them to a sober ride program servicing their current location... FreeRideHome
 
JohnDoe98 said:
Convenient coincidence wasn't it? As soon as the FTC got involved and actually started asking questions on behalf of Google and the other plaintiffs, magically Apple also happened to change the App store guidelines. You can form whatever opinions you want, for my part I think Apple was clearly worried about the FTC ruling against them and the bad press that would result should such a ruling become a reality. Apple changed their rules and allowed the plaintiff apps, preempting any FTC ruling.

Do you really think Apple could say tomorrow, all of a sudden: no more racing games. We don't like it. They promote speeding. They could do it without qualms? And I'm not talking about public backlash. I'm talking about legal backlash.
Click to expand...

There's plenty of things that Apple doesn't allow at the moment that IMO is anti-competitive.

Not allowing anything that "duplicates the functionality of Apple Apps" or third party web browsers for example. Mozilla has said that it would like to put a browser on iOS, but Apple wouldn't allow it.

I don't think Apple is scared of the FTC or any other similar regulator.
 
Last edited:
jacollins said:
Free speech means nothing if individual senators can restrict it (without laws)simply by leaning on a company.
Click to expand...

I don't see how that restricts free speech.

Apple is under no obligation to honour that part of the constitution.

Apple can do whatever it wants to in this area.

If they get feedback from anywhere (whether that's customers, developers, carriers, the government or the media) then they can choose to act on it if they feel it's in their best interests.
 
theheadguy said:
I am all for free speech, but this is a reasonable limitation. If it saves a single life, it is worth it.
Click to expand...

The problem with that argument is that it is a feel good thing that means nothing, except to the touchy feely crowd. "If it saves a single life, it is worth it." I link that with the "It's for the children" arguments.

People never seem to think about the converse. Great, it's worthwhile if it saves a single life. How about if it COSTS lives? How many people getting killed is it worth to have? It saves a single life yay, but it murders 100 people. Still worth it?
 
jacollins said:
The problem with that argument is that it is a feel good thing that means nothing, except to the touchy feely crowd. "If it saves a single life, it is worth it." I link that with the "It's for the children" arguments.

People never seem to think about the converse. Great, it's worthwhile if it saves a single life. How about if it COSTS lives? How many people getting killed is it worth to have? It saves a single life yay, but it murders 100 people. Still worth it?
Click to expand...

Relevant to this point, how many people do you realistically think are going to die by not having these Apps?
 
Daveoc64 said:
I don't see how that restricts free speech.

Apple is under no obligation to honour that part of the constitution.

Apple can do whatever it wants to.
Click to expand...

Totally agree. Apple can do whatever it wants to (within the laws). It's a private company. If law enforcement wants information on users, law enforcement needs to go through the legal system to get it (subpeona, etc). The issue is Apple caving to extra legal requests.

In this situation, the senators don't like posting of DUI checkpoints (even though various states require public posting of it). They have 2 choices. Pass a law, or lean on companies to do it for them.

Pass a law. They haven't even bothered to go down this path. I could be wrong, but I don't think anyone disagrees with this. It conflicts with the free speech amendment. They know it will be overturned.

Lean on Apple. Apple says "Yassuh massa" and removes apps that have user posted DUI checkpoints. There's no legal basis behind the request. Just a bug up some senator's you know what.

Thus, restricted free speech with no law to overturn. The chilling effect here is "Why should I spend 100k on developing an app if some senator can get it removed because he doesn't like it." Today DUI checkpoints. Tomorrow your favorite religion, etc.
 
henchman said:
The only people pissed off are drinkers or people wanting to get away with something.
Click to expand...

You're wrong. Again you're just spewing BS assumptions. Some of us want this App to avoid being harassed and delayed in our commute as well as our rights to avoid being entrapped by local authorities.
 
jacollins said:
Lean on Apple. Apple says "Yassuh massa" and removes apps that have user posted DUI checkpoints. There's no legal basis behind the request. Just a bug up some senator's you know what.

Thus, restricted free speech with no law to overturn. The chilling effect here is "Why should I spend 100k on developing an app if some senator can get it removed because he doesn't like it." Today DUI checkpoints. Tomorrow your favorite religion, etc.
Click to expand...

IMO the problem is that US Politics has too much money and influence from Business in it. That's unlikely to change though.
 
Mattie Num Nums said:
You're wrong. Again you're just spewing BS assumptions. Some of us want this App to avoid being harassed and delayed in our commute as well as our rights to avoid being entrapped by local authorities.
Click to expand...

BS, checkpoints are always at night.
At least I've never ran not ne in the daytime.
Especially not at rush hour.
So, save me the commute excuse.
 
Daveoc64 said:
Relevant to this point, how many people do you realistically think are going to die by not having these Apps?
Click to expand...

Realistically, how many people HAVE died because of the apps? I haven't seen any numbers (if any even exist).

Let's go back to the basic theme. You (in general, not specifically you) want to take something away from me. I believe you've got to prove a just cause for it. In this case, you can say it'll maybe save lives because drunk drivers might be caught at checkpoints. On the other hand, I can say it might cost lives because the drunk driver sees a checkpoint and tries to escape, running over people.
 
logandzwon said:
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

- Benjamin Franklin. A notable scientist, inventor, and a Founding Father of the United States of America. Published 1775.
Click to expand...

Thank you. I guess I could of been less lazy and found that my myself.
By the way I despise DUI. As a society though we should always be weary of any new law, restriction, ect.
 
Daveoc64 said:
Relevant to this point, how many people do you realistically think are going to die by not having these Apps?
Click to expand...

While it's not a likely scenario, here's one... the last time I was stopped by a DUI checkpoint, we were stopped in traffic for about an hour and a half, after a four hour drive (we were going to visit my girlfriend's sister). Let's say someone gets stuck in an extra hour and a half of traffic due to a checkpoint after a 10 or 12 hour drive, falls asleep at the wheel, and has an accident?
 
jacollins said:
Realistically, how many people HAVE died because of the apps? I haven't seen any numbers (if any even exist).

Let's go back to the basic theme. You (in general, not specifically you) want to take something away from me. I believe you've got to prove a just cause for it. In this case, you can say it'll maybe save lives because drunk drivers might be caught at checkpoints. On the other hand, I can say it might cost lives because the drunk driver sees a checkpoint and tries to escape, running over people.
Click to expand...

And you, want an app that will help you avoid getting caught driving drunk.
That's the basic reason for everyone crying here.
They just don't want to admit it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Back
Top