Sorry, but driving is definitely a right. It's just a different mode of travelling than walking.
Last edited:
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.
U.S. Senators Ask Apple to Remove DUI Checkpoint Apps From App Store
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
What you people seem to be missing is the fact that these apps are, first and foremost, focused primarily on speedtraps. The DUI checkpoints are merely secondary additions alongside them.
It's all about protecting the revenue source with traffic tickets. Don't let the DUI appeals fool you; that's not the real issue at the heart of the matter.
It's all about protecting the revenue source with traffic tickets. Don't let the DUI appeals fool you; that's not the real issue at the heart of the matter.
^+1
Its posted in the newspaper the day before as required by law here in cali.
Download it while you can....
Well let me educate you on the 4th amendment
First of all, an Officer needs reasonable suspicion to conduct a traffic stop on a vehicle not probable cause. An Officer needs probable cause to make an arrest.
Second: Normally an Officer is required to have reasonable suspicion to stop a vehicle, but the Supreme Court says that at a sobriety checkpoint, drivers can be stopped without reasonable suspicion, and may be tested summarily and without probable cause. Departments are required however to follow guidelines such as preplanning the checkpoint/location, having a formula for which vehicles are checked, warning lights, determine how long a driver can be stopped or detained, etc A department is required to give public notice, but it doesnt have to be announced on the 5:00 news or make the front page of the paper. So notice of the checkpoint cleary is not literally the only thing that makes them constituional.
Third: you are correct that an Officer must observe some type of violation to stop a vehicle, but again an Officer only needs reasonable suspicion to conduct a traffic stop not probable cause. An Officer needs probable cause to make an arrest or conduct a search. Reasonable suspicion requires a less standard of proof than probable cause.
Should Apple remove the apps? I say no. Who knows, by knowing that theres a checkpoint it could deter someone from driving drunk in the first place.
Apple should ban the apps
Not due to censorship, but just because "it's the right thing to do".
Sexually explicit content is legal (subject to reasonable constraints like USC 2257) - yet Apple bans those applications. Why not restrict an app whose purpose is to help drunks drive?
Not due to censorship, but just because "it's the right thing to do".
Sexually explicit content is legal (subject to reasonable constraints like USC 2257) - yet Apple bans those applications. Why not restrict an app whose purpose is to help drunks drive?
Outdated??? How old are you or what rock have you been living under??? The "legal" limit used to be .10 until Clinton urged all states to lower it to .08 with Federal highway funding. A new standard under the Clinton admin is far from "outdated". Now do I agree with it? No! Calling it outdated is just the wrong term.
And to the above poster... According to DMV driving is a privilege and not a right. You agreed to that when you signed your drivers licenses at DMV. Read the fine print.
Obviously
The state and local government has us under such a sickening amount of surveillance that it seems ridiculous to me that a few people are worried about a handful of "citizens" having the power to avoid a few "traps". (REALLY...this is a problem? Drunks with iPhones and enough dexterity to peruse their apps?)
No, i don't think drinking and driving is right, but i also don't think that surrendering ALL technology and power to the police while censoring our own powers makes for a level playing field.
AGAIN, DRUNK DRIVING IS NOT OKAY. But surrendering all control and technological advance to "Those that control us" and bending to their whims is just another way that we give up what little bit of sanity we have.
Instead of banning software let's take some responsibility and raise our children in a way where they learn responsibility and self control (i say this as a current parent).
The state and local government has us under such a sickening amount of surveillance that it seems ridiculous to me that a few people are worried about a handful of "citizens" having the power to avoid a few "traps". (REALLY...this is a problem? Drunks with iPhones and enough dexterity to peruse their apps?)
No, i don't think drinking and driving is right, but i also don't think that surrendering ALL technology and power to the police while censoring our own powers makes for a level playing field.
AGAIN, DRUNK DRIVING IS NOT OKAY. But surrendering all control and technological advance to "Those that control us" and bending to their whims is just another way that we give up what little bit of sanity we have.
Instead of banning software let's take some responsibility and raise our children in a way where they learn responsibility and self control (i say this as a current parent).
this is silly, what next? Ban GPS's because someone could upload the same datafiles to the GPS and be warned?
How about banning Cocktail apps, because they encourage me to make an alcoholic drink which may make someone drunk and perhaps make them drive...
I think someone who is drunk will not have the capability to use a smartphone let alone try and control their car at the sametime.
Typical "nanny state" of America
As someone who mentions "civil rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution" in your signature, it's both ironic and hypocritical of you to be against preserving the 4th amendment and in favor of denying people "civil rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution" in the form of checkpoints. Seeing as how checkpoints take the 4th amendment and run it through a paper shredder.
I should also ask if you or anyone else that is in favor of killing our 4th amendment rights has ever actually used Trapster? It's good for finding out about accidents, dangerous turns, school zones, bad intersections, red light cameras (which typically have shorter yellow lights and more rear end accidents), and countless other road hazards. Being able to preserve my 4th amendment right by alerting me to a checkpoint that I can then avoid is just a plus. As I said before, I've never drank or done drugs. I care about the fact that checkpoints kill one of our fundamental rights.
You know what's funny, I didn't look twice at Trapster or whatever else app until they made it a big deal on various forums. Now I'll be thinking to load up my Trapster app when I'm piss drunk and driving home after downing two LITs and a 12 pack of Corona. Thanks US Senators! One more overconfident drunk on the road thanks to your PMS attack.
Ironically the government can track your every move with that cellphone you're trying to be all 'free from control' with.
I agree.
I agree.
Don't these Senators have jobs?
Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that I don't partially agree with the sentiment, But is this the most constructive use of their time. After all they do work for us? Perhaps they could do something about traffic, or crime, or the economy? Instead of wasting tax payers money.
The other problem I have is that they are not taking aim at the actual purpose of these app's. The primary use of most of these app''s are not avoiding DUI checkpoints, but Traffic Jams. And Living in a big city, we need all the help we can get avoiding traffic jams. Maybe the Senators are afraid we will realize that they are doing nothing, and want to have something to show for their two or four year term in office. I think Apple should have the letters framed and send them back to the Senators. And ignore them just like every one else does.
Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that I don't partially agree with the sentiment, But is this the most constructive use of their time. After all they do work for us? Perhaps they could do something about traffic, or crime, or the economy? Instead of wasting tax payers money.
The other problem I have is that they are not taking aim at the actual purpose of these app's. The primary use of most of these app''s are not avoiding DUI checkpoints, but Traffic Jams. And Living in a big city, we need all the help we can get avoiding traffic jams. Maybe the Senators are afraid we will realize that they are doing nothing, and want to have something to show for their two or four year term in office. I think Apple should have the letters framed and send them back to the Senators. And ignore them just like every one else does.
Gotta be the stupidest idea ever. Obviously, if the app is called Drink-And-Drive or something, Apple may want to reconsider it's status, but Trapster is has plenty of legitimate uses. If we're going to ban technology because it can be used by drunk people, we might as well ban handguns because they can be used by drunk people too!
I use Trapster all the time, mostly to remind me where the red light money-making machines are. I would be seriously pissed if they decided to ban it while you can still get semi-auto handguns with 30 bullet clips in every shop in town. Huge double standard.
I wonder if these technophobes ever entertained the concept of discussing this with the app makers rather than just trying to get them universally banned? How about a more reasonable solution, like disallowing road block reporting from 6pm to 6am or something?
I use Trapster all the time, mostly to remind me where the red light money-making machines are. I would be seriously pissed if they decided to ban it while you can still get semi-auto handguns with 30 bullet clips in every shop in town. Huge double standard.
I wonder if these technophobes ever entertained the concept of discussing this with the app makers rather than just trying to get them universally banned? How about a more reasonable solution, like disallowing road block reporting from 6pm to 6am or something?
I don't drink and drive, but I choose not to subject myself to delays caused by searches without probable cause.
Have you ever been almost rear-ended at a late night DUI checkpoint? I have.
Ever crept through a DUI checkpoint, getting soaked with cold rain on your motorcycle, had to open your rainsuit, and get your pants sopping wet while you fished out your wallet and license? I have.
Ever been delayed by a DUI checkpoint so that you needed to speed to to get to your destination on time? I was, when there was a huge DUI checkpoint on a major road. Spare me your sanctimonious speeches about speeding because I probably drive a lot better than you do (having on-track racing experience) in vehicles that are much better suited to high speed use than yours is.
Your safety is not so important that others should give up their Constitutional rights to free speech and their protections against search without probable cause.
I am not a "drunk.". I am a motorist and motorcycle rider who does not want to waste my time, maybe get cold and rained on, maybe get rear-ended, so that some cop who stopped me without probable cause can conduct a fishing expedition search of my person and vehicle.
It's remarkable that so many of you mention the drunk driving issue, but avoid the fact that the main purpose of Trapster and the other apps is to warn you of speed traps. Frankly, if you're all for those, you're either 85 years old or paranoid.
Here in Los Angeles, the police set up speed traps all over the place, hiding behind bushes, and posting 35mph speed limits in areas with wide lanes and no sidewalks (a.k.a. no pedestrians). They then nail everybody driving 40+. Guess how much that ticket costs now? Over $250. Now why do they do this? Surely it's to keep us safe!
Face it folks. The police in most major cities set up these systems because they're desperately underfunded, need revenue, and need it badly. Of course, that's the politicians fault, but We The People end up paying the price.
If you really think these apps should be yanked, you aren't thinking this through.
Here in Los Angeles, the police set up speed traps all over the place, hiding behind bushes, and posting 35mph speed limits in areas with wide lanes and no sidewalks (a.k.a. no pedestrians). They then nail everybody driving 40+. Guess how much that ticket costs now? Over $250. Now why do they do this? Surely it's to keep us safe!
Face it folks. The police in most major cities set up these systems because they're desperately underfunded, need revenue, and need it badly. Of course, that's the politicians fault, but We The People end up paying the price.
If you really think these apps should be yanked, you aren't thinking this through.
They don't like that, wait til the "Office ID" app starts taking place. There are massive incidents of officer impersonation out there. Imagine being pulled over by a cop, use your iPhone to take picture of him, facial recognition software spots the cop and you have the officers Public Service Record on your iPhone to verify he is a real officer. There is also prototype putting RFID or bar codes on the officer for easier identification. Just another public servant who's record should not be hidden.
I get a kick out of reading all these posts proclaiming this as big brother, thought police intervention or decrying the Senators for "wasting their time on this" while other larger issues persist.
1) This isn't a law. They are asking Apple to do something. You can write Apple (or Senators) letters too.
2) Most of you decry them for "wasting time on this" while economic issues, wars, etc. persist. Do you really think that someone isn't capable of doing two things at once, esp. when they have a staff that exists to help them research, write laws, etc. Also, I have a feeling most of you would decry them for trying to do anything to "fix" problems as government intervention anyway.
1) This isn't a law. They are asking Apple to do something. You can write Apple (or Senators) letters too.
2) Most of you decry them for "wasting time on this" while economic issues, wars, etc. persist. Do you really think that someone isn't capable of doing two things at once, esp. when they have a staff that exists to help them research, write laws, etc. Also, I have a feeling most of you would decry them for trying to do anything to "fix" problems as government intervention anyway.