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

[dime21]

This is just a weird practice right? I mean, really quite strange. Upholding elements of the constitution (such as the 4th amendment) effectively seems to make it impossible to introduce any element of reasonable subtlety into the practice of law making and law enforcement. Is it worth it?

And before anybody has a go at me for attacking the American system, I'm not. I'm just trying to understand it.

No, not at all. If cops actually did their job, and drove around on patrol, they'd catch offenders in the act. Drunks swerve around and drive poorly, they are easy to spot. Erradic driving is probable cause to stop a car. Running a stop sign, even changing lanes without using a turn signal. All probable cause to stop a car. Upholding the 4th amendment does not make law enforcement impossible - it just means they have to do their job.

Think of it this way - without the 4th amendment, it would be perfectly legal for your local police department, the FBI, the INS, and even the IRS to go door to door searching homes as they please, and even installing cameras inside every home in the nation!! Orwellian enough for you yet? All those things would be perfectly legal if it wasn't for the 4th amendment. It's what gives you your right to privacy inside your own home (and inside your car, and on your person)

I see you're in the UK, so it's a very good question you asked! There must be something similar to the 4th amendment in the UK system, no?

 

[vwcruisn]

This is just a weird practice right? I mean, really quite strange. Upholding elements of the constitution (such as the 4th amendment) effectively seems to make it impossible to introduce any element of reasonable subtlety into the practice of law making and law enforcement. Is it worth it?

And before anybody has a go at me for attacking the American system, I'm not. I'm just trying to understand it.

For my money, I'd rather not have these aps out there. If the system needs to be changed to allow them to be legally removed, then that should happen.

So you are advocating that the US change the constitution to allow illegal search and seizure? Will you still approve when your house is ransacked at random intervals, sans warrant?

 

[InuNacho]

So you'd rather catch a drunk driver while he's driving recklessly and/or after crashing into onnocent people, rather than before any of that?

Truth.

 

[dime21]

Did you know that in Virginia and DC, you can get a DUI on -any- moving "vehicle"? A vehicle being defined as any transportation device with wheels. Even a Bicycle. Even a Unicycle. Even roller skates. It's true.

 

[ph0rk]

I'm surprised there isn't a law against these types of Apps already. I agree that they should be pulled.

Are there any other rights you'd like to surrender right now, just to get them out of the way?


The entire game of chasing drunk drivers to "catch them" is stupid - they're already in a car, driving, drunk. If the goal is to prevent drunk driving, it is too little too late. And, of course people are still talking on phones, messing with radios, texting, etc. while driving all the while. And let's not forget sleepy/fatigued drivers which may be even more dangerous than drunk driving (they are also co-morbid).

Enact legislation that targets bars - don't serve people that drove there. Then, buy stock in a taxi company. Profit.

Good luck dealing with the millions of blue collar workers that have 1-5 beers on their way home from work.

 

[dime21]

Enact legislation that targets bars - don't serve people that drove there. Then, buy stock in a taxi company. Profit.

Why do bars always have such large parking lots anyhow?

 

[ph0rk]

Why do bars always have such large parking lots anyhow?

Exactly.

Note: this does not mean an off-duty cop at the bar that radios ahead to his buddy. Hit the bar, not the bar patrons.

 

[zap2]

So you'd rather catch a drunk driver while he's driving recklessly and/or after crashing into onnocent people, rather than before any of that?

The person you're responding to never said that.


But it must be easier to argue against points that no one ever made then to counter their actual point.

 

[dime21]

I'm surprised there isn't a law against these types of Apps already. I agree that they should be pulled.

And what types of apps would those be? You must mean the type of apps that provide content that's already been published in advance, by the government, in newspaper and radio and internet?

Because precisely what this type of app is.

 

[ph0rk]

The person you're responding to never said that.


But it must be easier to argue against points that no one ever made then to counter their actual point.

Whether or not anyone tried to make that point, this is all checkpoints actually do - catch people who are already drunk driving. Probably only the ones that haven't had a major accident that night (for obvious reasons).

It is an attempt to treat a symptom, not the problem.

 

[DocNYz]

I am not sure about other states, but in CA, Law Enforcement is specifically required to announce DUI checkpoints and provide an alternative route. Asking to have these applications removed from app stores contradicts the law regarding DUI checkpoints. Gotta love Politicians. Write a law then contradict it. Awesome.

Seriously. Not only is there NOTHING illegal about these apps, they don't violate any terms of the app store. Where I'm from cops harass people to the point where it frequently makes national news and they've even put their own official check points IN TRAPSTER THEMSELVES! If apple gives in to these guys not only will the be horrible for those of us that want to safely avoid unnecessary interactions with cops, but it will be a horrible loss for freedom of speech and set the worse precedent possible for the app store.

Not only that but say you're at a restaurant, have had two beers over the course of dinner, and you get an alert there's a checkpoint on the way home. This will prevent you from driving even LIGHTLY intoxicated and you'll either catch a cab or have someone else take you home. These apps can also PREVENT drunk driving. And you people need to wake up and see that. Not only that but they also allow us to be notified about FIRES, FLOODS, ACCIDENTS, SCHOOL ZONES, UNMARKED SPEED LIMIT CHANGES, etc. Try arguing that that doesn't help EVERYONE.

 

[DiamondMac]

On top of that, you call people at Fox News "capitalist pigs".

Agreed! How dare he call them names. Only Fox News is allowed to call people names based off of fabricated data and bias people!

Is a bit funny seeing you call him out on Fox then call him a left-wing scumbag

Pretty much exemplifies the hypocrisy in yours and most political arguments

 

[Cinnabar]

No, not at all. If cops actually did their job, and drove around on patrol, they'd catch offenders in the act. Drunks swerve around and drive poorly, they are easy to spot. Erradic driving is probable cause to stop a car. Running a stop sign, even changing lanes without using a turn signal. All probable cause to stop a car. Upholding the 4th amendment does not make law enforcement impossible - it just means they have to do their job.

Think of it this way - without the 4th amendment, it would be perfectly legal for your local police department, the FBI, the INS, and even the IRS to go door to door searching homes as they please, and even installing cameras inside every home in the nation!! Orwellian enough for you yet? All those things would be perfectly legal if it wasn't for the 4th amendment. It's what gives you your right to privacy inside your own home (and inside your car, and on your person)

I see you're in the UK, so it's a very good question you asked! There must be something similar to the 4th amendment in the UK system, no?

Hmmm, I'm not sure that it is always so easy to tell when somebody is over the legal limit. The limit is actually relatively low, but even minimal amounts of alcohol can affect a person's reaction time. It's not always about somebody slaloming around in the wrong lane.

I think what I'm talking about here is the public's tolerance for reasonable amounts of state intervention. It seems reasonable to me that the police should be able to set up surprise DUI checks, but uneasonable for them to put surveillance in my own home (unsurprisingly). There is a certain amount of common sense bound up in this.

Actually, reasonableness is part of the wording of the 4th Amendment - 'The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.'

In the UK we have various privacy laws, and we are also a signatory of the European Convention on Human Rights, we guards against unlawlful searches.

I think the Orwellian comparisons are a little strong.

 

[jacollins]

I don't believe the politician really cares about drunk drivers. It's just an excuse to have a way to get rid of the speed trap type apps which directly impact the income stream...

 

[croooow]

I actually agree. Pull 'em. It may be censorship, but it's dangerous not to.

I think it's dangerous to do it. A private company should not let any level of government dictate their actions (Except in cases where laws are broken, do these apps break any laws?)

Apple didn't have a problem with these apps before now.

 

[DocNYz]

Exactly.

Note: this does not mean an off-duty cop at the bar that radios ahead to his buddy. Hit the bar, not the bar patrons.

Seriously to both of you guys. I've seen cops in bars stand and watch kids have easily over a dozen drinks then get in to cars and drive off whole the cops just stand there. They should hit it at the source not take away our rights, illegally.

Think different apple. Don't give in.

If this does however happen we need to start a petition.

I don't believe the politician really cares about drunk drivers. It's just an excuse to have a way to get rid of the speed trap type apps which directly impact the income stream...

Totally agree. Cops only care about meeting quotas and getting money, not protecting people. They want easy arrests like this because taking down crack houses and drug rings is dangerous and time consuming. I've literally been pulled over going 31 in a 30 TWICE because it was the end of the month and they wanted to meet their quota and get over $500 from me each time.

 

[dime21]

Hmmm, I'm not sure that it is always so easy to tell when somebody is over the legal limit. The limit is actually relatively low, but even minimal amounts of alcohol can affect a person's reaction time. It's not always about somebody slaloming around in the wrong lane.

I think what I'm talking about here is the public's tolerance for reasonable amounts of state intervention. It seems reasonable to me that the police should be able to set up surprise DUI checks, but uneasonable for them to put surveillance in my own home (unsurprisingly). There is a certain amount of common sense bound up in this.

Actually, reasonableness is part of the wording of the 4th Amendment - 'The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.'

In the UK we have various privacy laws, and we are also a signatory of the European Convention on Human Rights, we guards against unlawlful searches.

I think the Orwellian comparisons are a little strong.

Yes I see what you're saying, however, the precedent in the US legal system is that the difference between "reasonable" and "unreasonable" as it relates to search and seizure, is probable cause. The police are required to have some reason to believe you are breaking a law.

Again, it can be as simple as changing lanes without using your turn signal. Also speeding is a big one - most major highways in my city the speed limit is 55 mph. Even on a 12 lane super highway. 55 mph. Of course everyone on the road is going 70+. If you're actually going 55, you'll get run off the road. So by making the speed limit artificially low, they've now turned everyone into a criminal, and the police can stop any car they please for "speeding".

You see how it works? The police must have a probable cause to stop and search you. But the laws of the road (and everywhere else) are crafted so that it's almost impossible not to violate them, thus generating probable cause.

 

[Cinnabar]

So you are advocating that the US change the constitution to allow illegal search and seizure? Will you still approve when your house is ransacked at random intervals, sans warrant?

No, I'm not advocating that at all. It just seems reasonable for the police to make surprise checks in areas of a city where they feel that there is a high probability that people are drinking and driving. If I was a cop, and I suspected that every Saturday night there was a particular stretch of road in my neighbourhood that people drove down drunk, then I don't think it would be awful for me to set up a surprise checkpoint there. That would accord with the wording of the 4th amendment anyway, which seems to allow for reasonable 'searches and seizures'. I hadn't read the 4th amendment when I made my original post, so it seems there is more subtlety there than I thought. Which is good no?

There is a long way from all this to my house being ransacked by the state without a warrant, which seems like a bit of knee-jerk reaction to what is essentially pragmatism.

 

[^*..*^]

Miles you make a great point... You also confirm that Apple better pull them, its a pointless app because if your so drunk then you can't operate a phone let alone an app.

What if I need a policeman in a hurry? Because of accident, robbery, etc
Like anything in life it has two sides. I look at the positive side.
A great application!

 

[whidbeyben]

Constitutional rights trump Senatorial ignorance

Don't pull the aps.
1. Freedom of Assembly and Freedom of Speech are guaranteed constitutional rights in this country. Applications like Trapster, which allow users to gather and disseminate information are protected by our constitution.

2. Drunks usually don't have the wits about them to use applications like Trapster. They're the ones who leave their iPhone 4 prototypes on the bar when they stumble out to their cars.

3. Let's encourage law enforcement to spend more time catching real criminals (drug dealers, illegal aliens running drugs, robbers, rapists and burglars) instead of concentrating on revenue production through speed traps, red light cameras and speed cams, which target law abiding ordinary citizens to generate revenue while having no effect on real public safety.

 

[ilovemyibook]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_0_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8A306 Safari/6531.22.7)

I am not sure about other states, but in CA, Law Enforcement is specifically required to announce DUI checkpoints and provide an alternative route. Asking to have these applications removed from app stores contradicts the law regarding DUI checkpoints. Gotta love Politicians. Write a law then contradict it. Awesome.

It's that way in Kansas. I don't condone drinking and driving, but it is common knowledge around here when they have a checkpoint.

 

[dime21]

Seriously to both of you guys. I've seen cops in bars stand and watch kids have easily over a dozen drinks then get in to cars and drive off whole the cops just stand there. They should hit it at the source not take away our rights, illegally.

That's a good point - and there is supreme court precedent to back this up. The supreme court has ruled that the job of the police is NOT to stop crime, nor to prevent it, and they are not legally obligated to intervene even if they see a crime in progress! They have the right to sit on their ass and do nothing. Fact.

The supreme court ruled that the job of the police is to catch criminals after they have committed the crime. That is their job.

For example, if you call 911 because someone is in your home trying to rape or kill you, the cops can tell you piss off because they're having doughnuts and don't feel like responding. Once the intruder actually kills you though, now the police are required to respond - not to save you obviously, but to catch the law breaker.

Sound crazy? Well it's 100% true. Which is a prime reason for upholding the 2nd amendment, so that people can protect themselves. But that's outside the scope of this thread.

 

[AlkFoo]

Let's stay on point here. We have politicians requesting that Apple pull an app from the App Store because it lists DUI checkpoints. First of all, I believe (as stated numerous times in here) it "public" knowledge and ran in newspapers. Are these politicians going to ask that newspapers, also not run where the checkpoints are at. Most importantly, sticking to issue with this, politicians are supposed to our reprisentation and our voice...although I am sure there are people that would prefer this app not exist, I believe these politicians should look at the bigger picture which is our rights as citizens to freedoms outlined in our constitution.

IMO, we continuesly allow politicians to make decisions on a short-term what is going to get me elected basis...without looking at the bigger picture. The bigger picture is, before long we will have no voice, as well as freedoms. What is the difference between requesting to pull this app, and requesting certain things not be broadcast on TV, News channels, or published in papers...oh wait... that already happens.

Slowly but surely, one freedom or choice is being taking away from us... at some point in the future there will be Americans that look our orginal constitution and say, "Freedom? Really?". It's a slow grind, but before you know you it Big Bro "Feddy" is holding all the cards.

Drinking and Driving is wrong... that's obvious- it kills people. But I don't even look at this situation as being about Drinking and Driving. It's State Sponsored Censorship, which takes freedoms away. Wow, somebody created an "electronic" application for something that is already in print. Do these politicians not understand it? The constitution was put into place to protect people from people... I don't care what the intentions are, the history of the world has proven that people will take advantage of power and control, even if they have good intentions.

 

[vwcruisn]

No, I'm not advocating that at all. It just seems reasonable for the police to make surprise checks in areas of a city where they feel that there is a high probability that people are drinking and driving.

There's an area in my town known for heavy drug use/drug dealers. Why not make surprise checks at the houses in that area? I'm sure the police feel there is a high probability of drug use in that area, and they most likely would make many arrests.

 

[jwdsail]

I think he was referring to how many here are linking this app to freedom of speech and that Apple is barred from touching it. As much as I hate to say it; Apple is well within it's rights to pull the app. I don't think they should, but it's their playground and their rules.

This app, and the data provided *are* protected speech. Can Apple censor it themselves, sure. The sticky part is that these congress critters are using coercion to force Apple to censor it..

Does it fit into the letter of the law? Maybe. The spirt? Um, hell no. It doesn't pass the smell test by a long shot.