Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Bans DUI Checkpoint Apps
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
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.
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.
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.
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.
Last edited:
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
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.
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?
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?
If nothing else that thread shows you don't have to be young to be an idiot. A lot of it is environmental/genetic.
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.
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...
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...
Seriously? You expect people to value your opinion with this sort of nonsense being posted?
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.
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.
Quoted for the non-exception that proves the non-rule:
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1142425/
Dmac77 said:
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.
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?
Again the assumption that only drunks will use it. A lot of Assuming going on in this thread.
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.
That Map is of Woburn, MA
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.
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.
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.
Fun idea, but in reality that would be bait and switch, and problematic for a pay-for product.