U.S. Senators Ask Apple to Remove DUI Checkpoint Apps From App Store

[palebluedot]

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.

I'm not really taking a side on your argument but I think it is interesting to note that you could probably apply the concept of "open fields" to searches/DUI checkpoints. It would counter the random search ruling(s) but I'm sure a good case could be made legally either way.

Open fields
Main article: Open fields doctrine
Similarly, "open fields" such as pastures, open water, and woods may be searched without a warrant, on the ground that conduct occurring therein would have no reasonable expectation of privacy.
The doctrine was first articulated by the Supreme Court in Hester v. United States, 265 U.S. 57 (1924), which stated that “the special protection accorded by the Fourth Amendment to the people in their ‘persons, houses, papers, and effects,’ is not extended to the open fields." The decision was rendered on the ground that "open fields are not a 'constitutionally protected area' because they cannot be construed as "persons, houses, papers, [or] effects.
In Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170 (1984), the police ignored a "no trespassing" sign and a fence, trespassed onto the suspect's land without a warrant, followed a path for hundreds of feet, and discovered a field of marijuana. The Supreme Court ruled that no search had taken place, because there was no privacy expectation regarding an open field:
open fields do not provide the setting for those intimate activities that the Amendment is intended to shelter from government interference or surveillance. There is no societal interest in protecting the privacy of those activities, such as the cultivation of crops, that occur in open fields.[58]
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4th_Ammendment

 

[chris7777]

I sure wish the politicians would actually work this swiftly on other matters.

If it affects their revenue stream, they are on it from twitter, but if not, then the bill has to be hand drafted in 12000 pages, pased to evere senator, and represenatives Office to be reviewed by their staff, researched 6months, and then something might be done.

 

[oban14]

I'm not really taking a side on your argument but I think it is interesting to note that you could probably apply the concept of "open fields" to searches/DUI checkpoints. It would counter the random search ruling(s) but I'm sure a good case could be made legally either way.

Open fields
Main article: Open fields doctrine
Similarly, "open fields" such as pastures, open water, and woods may be searched without a warrant, on the ground that conduct occurring therein would have no reasonable expectation of privacy.
The doctrine was first articulated by the Supreme Court in Hester v. United States, 265 U.S. 57 (1924), which stated that “the special protection accorded by the Fourth Amendment to the people in their ‘persons, houses, papers, and effects,’ is not extended to the open fields." The decision was rendered on the ground that "open fields are not a 'constitutionally protected area' because they cannot be construed as "persons, houses, papers, [or] effects.
In Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170 (1984), the police ignored a "no trespassing" sign and a fence, trespassed onto the suspect's land without a warrant, followed a path for hundreds of feet, and discovered a field of marijuana. The Supreme Court ruled that no search had taken place, because there was no privacy expectation regarding an open field:
open fields do not provide the setting for those intimate activities that the Amendment is intended to shelter from government interference or surveillance. There is no societal interest in protecting the privacy of those activities, such as the cultivation of crops, that occur in open fields.[58]
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4th_Ammendment

My car is not an open field, it's a private space that I own and paid for.

 

[res1233]

This is disgusting. The federal government has no right to request this of ANY company. I know I'll get bashed for saying this in the demonet, but all these senators are democrats. How un-American. With that said, I think it should be pulled, but I'm afraid that if it's pulled, it'll encourage these senators to try something like this again in the future, so it may be best to leave it. Again, I find this so disgusting...

 

[djgamble]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPod; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-gb) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)

Personally I find it hard to believe that so drunk as to warrant avoiding a checkpoint will be collected enough to use the app effectively in the first place.

Yeah but drunk enough to be over-confident and take risks, people will use it. If you can start a car, you can start an iPhone app...

 

[Ichneumon]

This is disgusting. The federal government has no right to request this of ANY company. I know I'll get bashed for saying this in the demonet, but all these senators are democrats. How un-American. With that said, I think it should be pulled, but I'm afraid that if it's pulled, it'll encourage these senators to try something like this again in the future, so it may be best to leave it. Again, I find this so disgusting...

For a European like me it is very weird to read all these heated reactions. Although there would be some discussion here too if something like this happened, I'm sure that most political parties (left AND right) would quite likely agree to this and that most people would be okay with it. Maybe you are right and it is, "un-American" as to me it seems all of you have a very different idea of the purpose of a state than most Europeans, I think.

 

[bobbleheadbob]

Anybody drunk enough to need to avoid a checkpoint is going to be too drunk to use these apps.

 

[oban14]

For a European like me it is very weird to read all these heated reactions. Although there would be some discussion here too if something like this happened, I'm sure that most political parties (left AND right) would quite likely agree to this and that most people would be okay with it. Maybe you are right and it is, "un-American" as to me it seems all of you have a very different idea of the purpose of a state than most Europeans, I think.

You could actually sum up the current state of America and American politics in the microcosm of this thread just by looking at what the government wants, what half the people want, and what the other half want. These same arguments and approaches run through every single issue these days.

Anybody drunk enough to need to avoid a checkpoint is going to be too drunk to use these apps.

You can actually get a DWI after having a glass of wine. You don't have to be over the limit to be arrested and charged.

 

[AppleScruff1]

Anybody drunk enough to need to avoid a checkpoint is going to be too drunk to use these apps.

Actually, probably not. 3-4 beers can put you over the legal limit in many states.

 

[Dooger]

For a European like me it is very weird to read all these heated reactions. Although there would be some discussion here too if something like this happened, I'm sure that most political parties (left AND right) would quite likely agree to this and that most people would be okay with it. Maybe you are right and it is, "un-American" as to me it seems all of you have a very different idea of the purpose of a state than most Europeans, I think.

+1. It's hilarious the way Yanks react to these things with their constant squawking about constitutional rights. What about the rights of the people these drink drivers kill every year? Here in Europe you're scum if you drink drive, and there's no way our governments or any company should go out of their way to help you avoid detection.

 

[palmerc]

Amazing.

It amazes me that radar detectors, and things like this DUI app aren't illegal already.

 

[Ichneumon]

You could actually sum up the current state of America and American politics in the microcosm of this thread just by looking at what the government wants, what half the people want, and what the other half want. These same arguments and approaches run through every single issue these days.

To me it seems we in Europe are much more used to giving in personal liberties if it serves some public good (like saving lives due to lowered amount of drunk driving). In general, I'd say we see it less of a problem if the state interferes. Whether that is good, well, I'll let everybody have an opinion on that.

You could say that's Europe is much more "socialist", and in all honestly you'd likely be right, I sometimes am amazed by how right-wing Obama sometimes seems.

 

[terraphantm]

It amazes me that radar detectors, and things like this DUI app aren't illegal already.

Meh, I would hate to give up my radar detector. Out here, traffic tends to move at 75-80mph on the highway regardless of the speed limit (which is 65 in most areas, 55 in others). I'd hate to get pulled over and get 3-5 points on my license for simply keeping up with the pace of traffic. Besides, most of the speed limits are artificially low these days. You can't compare speeding to drunk driving - nowhere near the same level of irresponsibility.

But... aren't the DUI check points usually announced in the news paper anyway? It's public information... I would however be in support of amending the laws so that they don't have to announce when/where the check points will be.

 

[mosx]

It amazes me that radar detectors, and things like this DUI app aren't illegal already.

Checkpoints themselves are unconstitutional, as stated by SCOTUS.

Trapster works by average people reporting everything from speed traps to checkpoints to dangerous turns. People notifying others of traps has already been ruled protected free speech.

I'm not really taking a side on your argument but I think it is interesting to note that you could probably apply the concept of "open fields" to searches/DUI checkpoints. It would counter the random search ruling(s) but I'm sure a good case could be made legally either way.

Open fields
Main article: Open fields doctrine
Similarly, "open fields" such as pastures, open water, and woods may be searched without a warrant, on the ground that conduct occurring therein would have no reasonable expectation of privacy.
The doctrine was first articulated by the Supreme Court in Hester v. United States, 265 U.S. 57 (1924), which stated that “the special protection accorded by the Fourth Amendment to the people in their ‘persons, houses, papers, and effects,’ is not extended to the open fields." The decision was rendered on the ground that "open fields are not a 'constitutionally protected area' because they cannot be construed as "persons, houses, papers, [or] effects.
In Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170 (1984), the police ignored a "no trespassing" sign and a fence, trespassed onto the suspect's land without a warrant, followed a path for hundreds of feet, and discovered a field of marijuana. The Supreme Court ruled that no search had taken place, because there was no privacy expectation regarding an open field:
open fields do not provide the setting for those intimate activities that the Amendment is intended to shelter from government interference or surveillance. There is no societal interest in protecting the privacy of those activities, such as the cultivation of crops, that occur in open fields.[58]
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4th_Ammendment

Oban14 put it best. My car is my personal space, and its generally locked and unable to be accessed without my permission, the same as my house.

However, I'd go so far as to say they were wrong with that ruling too. If theres a fence in place then that land owner DOES have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

 

[yadmonkey]

To me it seems we in Europe are much more used to giving in personal liberties if it serves some public good (like saving lives due to lowered amount of drunk driving). In general, I'd say we see it less of a problem if the state interferes. Whether that is good, well, I'll let everybody have an opinion on that.

You could say that's Europe is much more "socialist", and in all honestly you'd likely be right, I sometimes am amazed by how right-wing Obama sometimes seems.

Well put and quite correct about Obama. That's why I call the two parties Republican and Republican Light.

Something I like about talking to Europeans about politics (and it's evident in your post) is that you are more likely to have a shred of humility to your beliefs, while my fellow Americans tend to shout their beliefs at each other. I digress...

Deciding through democratic process to give up a right can be a way to properly exercise your rights. For example, I am willing to give up my right to drive 70 MPH through a school zone at 2:30pm. I'm less comfortable with the idea of giving up my right to access information (like this app), as it has a less direct causal relationship to the perceived danger.

When it comes to democratic decisions, I tend to err on the side of individual liberty. However implicit in this statement is that sometimes I will inevitably err and thus I won't look down on someone for disagreeing. It's not black and white. I spend a lot of time in Germany which is definitely a lot more "socialist" than the US and I respect a lot about the way they do business. You almost get a sense of teamwork amongst the people - it's really remarkable.

 

[Ichneumon]

Well put and quite correct about Obama. That's why I call the two parties Republican and Republican Light.

Something I like about talking to Europeans about politics (and it's evident in your post) is that you are more likely to have a shred of humility to your beliefs, while my fellow Americans tend to shout their beliefs at each other. I digress...

Thanks, I guess that comes naturally to how things work here. In the Netherlands there aren't 2 political parties, but 12 and only when they make a coalition of like 3 parties they can get a (small) majority. I guess that alters your idea of political right and wrong a bit.

 

[mixel]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8F190 Safari/6533.18.5)

Senators work on multiple things at the same time, the "they have bigger fish to fry" thing is missing the point.

I say pull them, I can't really see a reason not to. It's Apples store though so I guess its their call.

Weird how everyone is anti govt and police intervention in *everything*. Trying to curtail DUI is a good thing. A couple of minutes inconvenience for a driver, oh no! They must catch some people with these things or they'd not do it.

 

[mcmarks]

Where's the data?

I say absolutely not! Curbing freedom (of anything) is a very serious step and needs to be treated that way. Where is the analysis and data that shows that this drastic step is warranted? How many sobriety check points are set up every day? How many people are checked? How many are found to be intoxicated? How many people avoid checkpoints because of apps? None of this information has been provided.

Enough emotional tugging on heart strings in our political system! That will never lead to a good decision and we deserve better!

 

[kprescod]

I Concur

Apple should definitely remove it, no need to pretend that you're not drunk! it keeps me an many other innocent family members alive and out of danger!

 

[res1233]

For a European like me it is very weird to read all these heated reactions. Although there would be some discussion here too if something like this happened, I'm sure that most political parties (left AND right) would quite likely agree to this and that most people would be okay with it. Maybe you are right and it is, "un-American" as to me it seems all of you have a very different idea of the purpose of a state than most Europeans, I think.

This is actually very accurate. Americans in general want very different things than europeans. We tend to want more autonomy, while europeans are generally fine with the government telling them what to do. It's mostly personal preference.

I will say this though: Too much government control just leads to trouble. They legislate and legislate and often don't research the legislation before they implement it, like any company would do, which leads to many many problems, and you see this in europe as well. Take mini-USB for example. Governments are often very slow to overturn legislation, and once mini-USB is obsolete, europeans will still be forced to include it on their devices, while americans will enjoy whatever new tech is out. So, it sounds nice to have the government cater to all your needs, but the truth is, they're politicians. They don't have the authority to legislate the majority of what they legislate nowadays.

 

[mistermonica]

Those who do not support this are essentially condoning drinking and driving. Dont be cowards and use censorship or "the man" as a mask.

 

[coolmacguy]

Those who do not support this are essentially condoning drinking and driving.

Absurd.

I don't support it because it will affect apps like Trapster which are useful for avoiding speed traps.

Speed traps do not save lives, they are just a money making venture for the local police/courts.

 

[WestonHarvey1]

If the future of computing is curated platforms like iOS, and the government is allowed to dictate the content of these platforms, then we are in serious trouble.

Personal computers were once all about personal freedom but that era is coming to an end.

 

[tCruzin4lyfe]

What's with all this Hippie Crap, leave the App alone, just because I don't think it should be pulled doesn't mean I condone drinking and driving. I don't drink at all. PLUS it's not going to stop drunk drivers anyway, the same with textin while driving, you think that law in some states will actually make people stop? You just put the phone away when you see a cop. Smoking while driving can be dangerous too, so can loud music. People always need something to whine about.
Leave the app and let the police find the drunk drivers, I get DWB tickets all the time so I'm sure they should be able to give out some DUI's and DWI's also. GET OVER IT!

 

[Abacab]

Harry Reid

Harry is the same douche that came up with obbamacare.
Vote him out !