Apple Bans DUI Checkpoint Apps

[DocNYz]

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]

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]

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]

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]

...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]

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]

Ah, to be an angry young man again!

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]

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]

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]

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]

Not sure why us British have to get penalised also simply because of some idiot US senator!

 

[d0minick]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.