While I certainly don't condone driving while impaired - I feel like the government trying to outright ban legal technologies that allow citizens to avoid government authority sets a dangerous precedent.
this technology should not be promoted to your customers--in fact, it shouldn't even be available.
It shouldn't even be available? That sounds sketchy to me. I know slippery slope is a logical fallacy, but if this line of reasoning holds, couldn't you say the same thing about encryption? It enables people who wish to engage in illegal activities to avoid government authority and thus, shouldn't even be available? Scary.
To be fair, there's a difference between "you shouldn't do this" and "you shouldn't be allowed to do this". At least in this letter, the senators are not explicitly trying or threatening to ban anything.
That's going a bit far. People May use encryption for illegal activities. What possible use does the DUI checkpoint software have, outside of enabling drunk drivers?
Where I live it's customary for the police to announce the locations of DUI checkpoints on days that people are especially likely to be drinking and driving (e.g. New Year's Eve). For awhile I didn't understand why they would do this (and I know a lot of people who still don't get it).
If your goal is to catch people driving drunk, then no, it doesn't make sense to announce the locations of DUI checkpoints. If however your goal is to prevent people from driving drunk in the first place, it might make sense to announce checkpoints at a number of locations throughout the city. If the potential drunk driver knows he can't go too many places without passing though a checkpoint he may decide to just stay home.
1. It hops to discourage people from drinking and driving in the first place by planting the idea that there will be checkpoints. The best time to avoid DUIs is before the driver starts drinking. Ideally, they'll make alternative arrangements to get home from wherever it is they're going rather than taking the car and figuring it out after;
2. To enable those capable of driving to avoid the checkpoints. The premise for this is that those who are drinking and driving either are capable of making this kind of rational forethought or they're not and the police are largely interested in catches those that aren't; and
3. Possibly to divert those that are borderline cases from driving through areas where they might cause the most damage if something does go wrong.
I know people like to see speed traps and DUI checkpoints as cynical revenue-raising initiatives but you'd be surprised to learn that some people just don't want others to act irresponsibly by driving several tons of metal at high speed while impaired, possibly harming or killing themselves or others.
My assumption was always that they did these announcements so that people would be inconvenienced and could avoid the checkpoints. The rationale being that if you're too drunk to drive, you probably forgot about the checkpoint anyway and are likely to get caught.
IANAL, but it is my understanding that police announce checkpoints for legal reasons. And if that is the case and the reasons are based on Federal Law or Constitutional decisions, it makes the request by Senators entirely inappropriate.
They used to tell me they didn't feel right "baiting" drunk drivers, for instance sitting hidden outside of popular bars and waiting for closing time. They felt like if they observed you driving impaired, you got pulled over, and if you were drunk you got a ticket. To them this was just the right way to act.
I think there is a natural balance between people being outrageously and stupidly human and law enforcement needing to control the population. In my opinion, the balance has shifted too far to law enforcement's side.
I don't see anything wrong with the apps. I wouldn't use one, but I really hope Apple doesn't come down on the wrong side here. The gay thing was bad enough. Simply because somebody is unhappy or raises a ruckus shouldn't mean that some developer's app can't be purchased. That's crazy. If it breaks somebody's phone? Sure. If it hurts the user? Fine. But just because a bunch of senators wrote a letter? Not good.
I note that all of the Senators involved receive substantial contributions from both police management and union groups. I understand that a monitored population is easier to control, and I understand that these groups seek to lobby to make their jobs easier (and therefore the public safer), but there has to be limits to these things. If not for constitutional reasons just because of common sense.
> They used to tell me they didn't feel right "baiting" drunk drivers, for instance sitting hidden outside of popular bars and waiting for closing time. They felt like if they observed you driving impaired, you got pulled over, and if you were drunk you got a ticket. To them this was just the right way to act.
I can't understand that at all. I would agree if it were a victimless crime, or perhaps if they were actually baiting them. But this sounds like a great and efficient use of police time. Are there any circumstances where they shouldn't stop drunk drivers??
If thieves predictably showed up at a store to steal something, should the police not camp out and take advantage of their predictability?
Considering that flashing your headlights to warn oncoming motorists of speed traps has been ruled by at least one court to be speech protected by the First Amendment, you have to think that an app like this would too.
If Congress or a state legislature tries to ban these apps, I think the laws will probably get overturned. However, if Apple decides that they think these apps are in poor taste and shouldn't be part of their ecosystem, I'm fine with that. They've blocked apps that are far less offensive to me.
The other interesting question is liability. If a driver were to use one of these apps to circumvent a DUI checkpoint and then kill or injure someone in a car accident, I wonder if the app maker (or Apple?) would bear some liability. I don't think that free speech would offer much protection in this kind of case.
It used to be that Danish police would tell the radio stations where they would conduct station people with radar guns to check for people driving too fast.
Since the goal was to prevent speeding, it didn't matter if they slowed down because they wanted to avoid a ticket so long as they slowed down.
These days they don't do so anymore because it is a nice way to pad government coffers, but it would be nice to build such an app.
Are they going to ask that browsers be removed from phones because they can be used to access web apps that might allow drivers to avoid police? Why don't we instead remove colossally stupid legislators from office?
How much simpler it would be for Apple to simply follow the law instead of trying to devise its own set of rules...
Is the content legal? Then it's available on the app store. Is it illegal? Then it's not.
Does it offend some group or the other? It doesn't matter. Does it cause displeasure to a bunch of lawmakers? Tough luck.
But when Apple starts to pull apps that offend minorities, it has to take all those requests into consideration, and produce justification as to why it pulls this and allows that.
this is stupid as hell! there are so many other freakN priorities than sending a letter like that to Apple or anyone. What's next? Are these senetors also going to write to radar or laser detector makers/companies too saying you guys shouldn't be making those devices? I don't drink and I don't condone drink and drive either. Here are the things the senetor should think of
1) If a person is so impaired to drive, he will be even more impaired to operate and understand an app on a tiny freakn device.
2) Maybe the police shouldn't setup any checkpoint. Instead the check should happen in random places on the street.
3) Think of legislation or creating better safety standards for Cars, so the manufacturers are forced device cars that can detect impairment of the driver and not start at all. This option can create more jobs, inovations, etc.
The real problem with a closed app ecosystem is that once everyone realizes a tight control mechanism is in place, all the usual suspects (senators etc) are going to come around trying to claim some power for themselves.
While I'm all for the app, I think this is faulty reasoning. Checking an app for checkpoints and devising an alternate route when you're so drunk that you call an ex-girlfriend at 1AM is one matter, but there are plenty of people with over-the-legal-limit lagged reaction times who shouldn't be driving yet are able to parse out the info from an app.
[+] [-] thecoffman|15 years ago|reply
this technology should not be promoted to your customers--in fact, it shouldn't even be available.
It shouldn't even be available? That sounds sketchy to me. I know slippery slope is a logical fallacy, but if this line of reasoning holds, couldn't you say the same thing about encryption? It enables people who wish to engage in illegal activities to avoid government authority and thus, shouldn't even be available? Scary.
[+] [-] philh|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wtflolly|15 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] JoeAltmaier|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lylejohnson|15 years ago|reply
If your goal is to catch people driving drunk, then no, it doesn't make sense to announce the locations of DUI checkpoints. If however your goal is to prevent people from driving drunk in the first place, it might make sense to announce checkpoints at a number of locations throughout the city. If the potential drunk driver knows he can't go too many places without passing though a checkpoint he may decide to just stay home.
[+] [-] cletus|15 years ago|reply
1. It hops to discourage people from drinking and driving in the first place by planting the idea that there will be checkpoints. The best time to avoid DUIs is before the driver starts drinking. Ideally, they'll make alternative arrangements to get home from wherever it is they're going rather than taking the car and figuring it out after;
2. To enable those capable of driving to avoid the checkpoints. The premise for this is that those who are drinking and driving either are capable of making this kind of rational forethought or they're not and the police are largely interested in catches those that aren't; and
3. Possibly to divert those that are borderline cases from driving through areas where they might cause the most damage if something does go wrong.
I know people like to see speed traps and DUI checkpoints as cynical revenue-raising initiatives but you'd be surprised to learn that some people just don't want others to act irresponsibly by driving several tons of metal at high speed while impaired, possibly harming or killing themselves or others.
[+] [-] allwein|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] brudgers|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] TGJ|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] DanielBMarkham|15 years ago|reply
They used to tell me they didn't feel right "baiting" drunk drivers, for instance sitting hidden outside of popular bars and waiting for closing time. They felt like if they observed you driving impaired, you got pulled over, and if you were drunk you got a ticket. To them this was just the right way to act.
I think there is a natural balance between people being outrageously and stupidly human and law enforcement needing to control the population. In my opinion, the balance has shifted too far to law enforcement's side.
I don't see anything wrong with the apps. I wouldn't use one, but I really hope Apple doesn't come down on the wrong side here. The gay thing was bad enough. Simply because somebody is unhappy or raises a ruckus shouldn't mean that some developer's app can't be purchased. That's crazy. If it breaks somebody's phone? Sure. If it hurts the user? Fine. But just because a bunch of senators wrote a letter? Not good.
I note that all of the Senators involved receive substantial contributions from both police management and union groups. I understand that a monitored population is easier to control, and I understand that these groups seek to lobby to make their jobs easier (and therefore the public safer), but there has to be limits to these things. If not for constitutional reasons just because of common sense.
[+] [-] ekanes|15 years ago|reply
I can't understand that at all. I would agree if it were a victimless crime, or perhaps if they were actually baiting them. But this sounds like a great and efficient use of police time. Are there any circumstances where they shouldn't stop drunk drivers??
If thieves predictably showed up at a store to steal something, should the police not camp out and take advantage of their predictability?
[+] [-] WillyF|15 years ago|reply
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1493749
If Congress or a state legislature tries to ban these apps, I think the laws will probably get overturned. However, if Apple decides that they think these apps are in poor taste and shouldn't be part of their ecosystem, I'm fine with that. They've blocked apps that are far less offensive to me.
The other interesting question is liability. If a driver were to use one of these apps to circumvent a DUI checkpoint and then kill or injure someone in a car accident, I wonder if the app maker (or Apple?) would bear some liability. I don't think that free speech would offer much protection in this kind of case.
[+] [-] aresant|15 years ago|reply
Trapster was designed from the ground up to be a platform for drivers to share relevant geo data.
The Trapster moderators have worked to curb DUI checkpoint sharing since its inception but users find ways around it.
So really this is a platform discussion - is it the platform's responsibility to proactively moderate the content?
If so doesn't that have wider implications for Twitter, Facebook, etc?
[+] [-] tomjen3|15 years ago|reply
Since the goal was to prevent speeding, it didn't matter if they slowed down because they wanted to avoid a ticket so long as they slowed down.
These days they don't do so anymore because it is a nice way to pad government coffers, but it would be nice to build such an app.
[+] [-] bricestacey|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] warmfuzzykitten|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bambax|15 years ago|reply
Is the content legal? Then it's available on the app store. Is it illegal? Then it's not.
Does it offend some group or the other? It doesn't matter. Does it cause displeasure to a bunch of lawmakers? Tough luck.
But when Apple starts to pull apps that offend minorities, it has to take all those requests into consideration, and produce justification as to why it pulls this and allows that.
[+] [-] wtflolly|15 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] saidulislam|15 years ago|reply
1) If a person is so impaired to drive, he will be even more impaired to operate and understand an app on a tiny freakn device.
2) Maybe the police shouldn't setup any checkpoint. Instead the check should happen in random places on the street.
3) Think of legislation or creating better safety standards for Cars, so the manufacturers are forced device cars that can detect impairment of the driver and not start at all. This option can create more jobs, inovations, etc.
These morons are freakn shame to our democracy!
[+] [-] unknown|15 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] waterlesscloud|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tyhjmhytgfv|15 years ago|reply
Instead there was a 3rd party site where you could download an updated database of accident black spots - the ones where they put speed cameras.
[+] [-] unknown|15 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] artmageddon|15 years ago|reply