Apple Bans DUI Checkpoint Apps 601
An anonymous reader writes "In late March, four US senators banded together and wrote a letter to Apple asking that they remove apps that alert users as to the whereabouts of DUI checkpoints. Now, Apple has revised its app store guidelines to ban those type of 'illegal' apps."
Makes sense (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't worry it wont be long before you are branded a pedo since lemonade stands are mostly ran by little girls and boys. Won't someone think about the lemon squeezing children?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Makes sense (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm sure this is used by a lot of non-drink-drivers for this reason.
Re: (Score:3)
damnit... ok, new idea... get a fucking warrant.
Re: (Score:3)
So what was the probable cause to talk to you in the first place? If a police officer is talking to you it means he's looking for evidence which means you are a suspect. DUI stops and in particular checkpoints provide the person stopped with none of the same rights as any other typical case. For example, I would never speak to the police without a lawyer. If I assert that right after being stopped for DUI suspicion I would immediately lose my license - guilty until proven innocent.
What's even worse is t
BULLSHIT (Score:3)
There is absolutely no "j
Re: (Score:3)
100% of the people passing a DUI checkpoint is drunk, then, is it?
Or maybe there are sober people who don't want to be stopped at a DUI checkpoint.
I've yet to experience a DUI checkpoint, but I've seen seatbelt check-points that resulted in epically bad traffic jams. I'd want to know if there was one if only to make it to work before lunch (which admittedly doesn't apply to DUI since they probably aren't setup at 8 am).
Re: (Score:3)
If the government can simply require me to waive my fundamental rights as a condition to doing quite ordinary activities, those rights have gotten pretty darned watered down. Want to drive, take an airplane, take the subway, train, or interstate bus? No Fourth Amendment for your person. Hmm, but most of us use public water and/or sewer... maybe as a condition to that, we'll give up protection against sear
Re: (Score:3)
That sucks, but as a condition of you using the public roads, you agree to be subject to DUI screens.
So you're okay with a condition of using public sidewalks that you can be stopped and cavity searched at any time?
The dissenting opinion of the supreme court case said it best:
Moved by whatever momentary evil has aroused their fears, officials — perhaps even supported by a majority of citizens — may he tempted to conduct searches that sacrifice the liberty of each citizen to assuage the perceived evil. But the Fourth Amendment rests on the principle that a title balance between the individual and society depends on the recognition of “the right to be let alone — the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men. [Cite omitted.]'' [496 U.S. at 458-459.)
Re: (Score:3)
I'm sure you are aware of this but thought it needed repeating. The apps being rejected are only those that do not make use of publicly available information regarding DUI checkpoints. Just wanted to point that out. You didn't specifically say mention this policy one way or another so I thought I would. Just wanted to make sure folks who are too lazy to RTFA knew this as well.
From TFA:
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Don't worry it wont be long before you are branded a pedo since lemonade stands are mostly ran by little girls and boys. Won't someone think about the lemon squeezing children?
Bah. Those lazy little bastards don't squeeze lemons any more. They just buy a container of crappy instant lemonade and sell that by the glass.
Re: (Score:3)
No more apples (Score:4, Interesting)
So glad I ditched apple and went back to pc/android a couple of years ago when this kind of crap started.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
While I'm not a big fan of app censorship generally, I don't see the objection to having Apple, Google etc block apps which have no purpose other than letting people drink-drive.
Re:No more apples (Score:4, Insightful)
How do you feel about apps which help innocent people to avoid being questioned about their activities by a man with a gun?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Checkpoint Apps that rely on publicly available police department released data are just fine. Crowdsourced (etc) apps are not.
Why is that?
Whether it's immoral or not to provide a method for drunk drivers and normal drivers alike to avoid DUI checkpoints is another question.
Morality has nothing to do with it; for these checkpoints to have passed Constitutional muster, it's required that the public be informed as to their location. So again, why does it matter how the public gets this information? It's not like most checkpoints are disclosed except for a few here and there that those wacky pranksters with their smart phones are spoiling the surprise!!!!!111lol
Personally, I wholeheartedly support DUI checkpoints and would approve of greater punishments for dangerous and erratic drivers.
Personally, I despise any and all fishing expeditions performed by the police and I'm grateful that these
Re:No more apples (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't drink & drive, and I also don't enjoy waiting in a long line of cars going through a DUI checkpoint.
Like all technology, there can be legal and illegal uses, or in this case, moral and immoral uses. Information about DUI checkpoints is required to be public.
Re:No more apples (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't drink and drive and I also don't enjoy being hit by asshole drunk drivers.
I don't want to be hit by asshole drunk drivers either, but I value my 4th Amendment rights more than a little bit more safety enforced by a police state.
Cops patrolling and looking for erratic drivers is the answer, not a police state searching innocent civilians with no cause.
Re: (Score:3)
Since DUI checkpoints are illegal under Washington state constitution, the parents of your friends won't be waiting for any checkpoint.
http://www.ghsa.org/html/stateinfo/bystate/wa.html [ghsa.org]
I'm sorry for their loss, and I fully support MUCH tougher penalties for drunk driving (or other crimes, like hitting cyclists). From the article you linked to, it sounds like your friends would be alive today if there was proper punishment for DUIs:
Re:No more apples (Score:4, Insightful)
Loss is a horrible thing.
But, you have to remember that rights are more important than a single life. I don't want another terrorist attack, so should I agree to fly naked and have a cavity search before boarding a flight?
There is also the question of effectiveness of check points. If it takes 20 officers to run a check point and they catch 1-2 people who might not even be impaired but simply blew over the magical .05 or .08 limit is that really the best use of 20 officers time? Could it be better to have them patrolling and looking for people who are you know...impaired?
Re:No more apples (Score:5, Insightful)
> apps which have no purpose other than letting
> people drink-drive
That these checkpoints are called "DUI checkpoints" in no way suggests that:
1) Government checkpoints are authorized by the Constitution
2) There is no reason for non-drunks to avoid them
3) That banning products in high demand will do anything but create a black market for them.
If you're not a fan of censorship generally, I'd expect you to be a little more skeptical and analytical, a little less "I don't care if the authorities grope everybody's underpants because I've got nothing to hide".
Re: (Score:3)
Government checkpoints are authorized by the Constitution
Neither is letting you use public roads without conditions. As part of the conditions for driving your vehicle on public roads, you agree to submit to these checkpoints.
Re:No more apples (Score:5, Informative)
Nice try dude.
The Tenth specifically states that the gov can't do stuff like this if it's not in the constitution.
The Ninth says that just because they didn't say "you can use public roads without conditions", you still can do so.
The Fourteenth (like it or hate it) extended these restrictions to the States as well.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not mocking your choice, I'm condemning it.
Re:No more apples (Score:4, Informative)
Aside from hype, Apple's real policy... (Score:4, Informative)
Everybody wants so much drama where there actually isn't any. It's annoying.
Re:Aside from hype, Apple's real policy... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Aside from hype, Apple's real policy... (Score:5, Informative)
obstruction of justice. that's what they'll get you on.
there used to be a custom on the road: when you saw a speed trap, you blinked your lights to the oncoming traffic to warn them. this, in many states, can you get cited ;(
citizens having power SCARES those in charge. (story at 11)
Re:Aside from hype, Apple's real policy... (Score:4, Interesting)
Question: where speeding is (in most cases) not criminal, and the purported goal of speed traps is for safety, not revenue collection, drivers flashing their headlamps achieves the oft-stated goal: getting drivers to slow down. Why should they care if people slow down a couple thousand feet before the speed trap? You would think that if the real purpose of speed traps is to increase safety (study after study after study have consistently demonstrated that speeding in and of itself is not dangerous) then they would encourage ANY means to get drivers to slow down. Calling it obstruction of justice is idiotic because it shows that all they care about is revenue.
People on the road today are idiots - especially here in Massachusetts (there is a reason the word Masshole exists): yield signs mean "cut the other person off," stop signs mean "proceed without stopping or slowing and without checking for traffic," red lights mean "Punch it! You have a three-second grace period" and someone turning on their turn indicators (blinkers in New England nomenclature) is an indication that you are to speed up and not let the person change lanes so that they can't get to their exit. Also, we have our highways backwards: often the leftmost lane is the "drive 55mph in the 60mph|65mph zone and read a book", the middle lane is the one that you never travel in but the one where you cut off everyone who thinks it's the travel lane, and the right lane is the passing lane - and if the right lane is taken, then the breakdown lane becomes the passing lane.
On top of that people have no sense of custom: I've had one batshit insane bitch cuss me out - she signaled to change lanes in front of me, so I quickly flashed my highs twice; this historically means "go ahead you're clear." She didn't change lanes but slowed down. Whatever. So a little further she puts her turn indicator on again so again I flashed my highs and WAVED signaling "go ahead." She didn't change lanes. Well the road narrowed so she pulled behind me, and then coming up to a traffic light she pulls up next to me and starts cussing me out. I told her that I was signaling for her to go ahead and change lanes, and even slowed down to give her more room, and she didn't take it. She continued to cuss me out. I just called her a moron and continued on my way when the light turned green. There are customs on the road - flashing your lights to signal to someone (truckers ESPECIALLY follow this - or used to) to go ahead and pull in front of you; the flashing indicates "you're clear" and when you move over, you signal "thanks" by flashing rear fogs or brake lights (many truck drivers do that to this day, but many do not any more) once you're in your lane. Flashing your highs at oncoming traffic in daylight means "speed trap ahead" - and flashing when you are behind someone in the passing lane (in MA, the slow-down-to-5-10mph-under-the-limit-and-read-a-book-or-eat-your-sub-or-watch-a-DVD-lane) means "please move over I'd like to pass."
When I travel outside of New England, it's refreshing to see that many people recognize and follow rights of way, light signal customs, and all of that.
Anyway, back to the topic: if people signaling gets people to travel "more safely" (ignoring studies on "speeding" - I'm talking about the propaganda about why there are artificially low speed limits and the according speed traps) then why should police departments complain about people slowing down? It just proves that it's about revenue and power, not safety at all.
Re:Aside from hype, Apple's real policy... (Score:5, Funny)
"this historically means "go ahead you're clear.""
That's news to me. It traditionally means "clear the way, I'm moving faster than you."
Re:Aside from hype, Apple's real policy... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Eventually, the state put a stop to this and dissolved the town. But it was like that for near
Re: (Score:3)
Entrapment holds if all three conditions are fulfilled:
1. The idea for committing the crime came from the government agents and not from the person accused of the crime.
2. Government agents then persuaded or talked the person into committing the crime. Simply giving someone the o
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Canary it.
"Moving, Moving, Moving, STOPPED for no reason."
How Foursquare? "I really like Mile 37 on the highway. You GOTTA see the AWESOME tree!"
Re: (Score:2)
You mean seeing that there is a check being done somewhere somehow means that it isn't "publicly available"? Where else would this app get its info if it wasn't from public records, or people reporting checks in? Both of which should be legal.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
There's an exemption in the Apple Store policy about DUI checkpoints that are published by the authorities.
Re: (Score:2)
REQUIRED, huh? That may be, but who could and would enforce that?
Numerous SCOTUS rulings indicate the Constitution can be safely ignored by the Government. Worse thing that happens is SCOTUS says Congress needs to make the infringing activity legal, which they promptly do.
Re: (Score:3)
What exactly is illegal about those apps? (Score:5, Interesting)
As far as I can tell, the Senators decided to write Apple precisely because there was nothing illegal about those apps. Reporting on police activity isn't illegal - yet, I guess. I'm not entirely surprised that those apps specifically were banned from the app store, because Apple has an interest in keeping legislators off its back and keep up the image of offering a wholesome version of the Internet. At the same time, I'm curious what other apps would fall under this, or if Apple is going to keep this little bit of TOS around only to remove apps that generate too much bad publicity. My guess is it's going to be the latter.
Re:What exactly is illegal about those apps? (Score:5, Funny)
They're not illegal, the submitter just threw that word in and put it in quotes because they're an 'idiot'.
Re: (Score:2)
but they would probably love to help sober drivers avoid the inconvenience of sitting in line at a checkpoint.
Hypocritical (Score:2)
Every time checkpoints went up, police told the media, who told the public.
Why this is a big deal, I dont know.
I do know that drunk driving IS a huge problem and these checkpoints do save a lot of lives.
I also know that punishment for DUIs are pretty lax, so if they want to stop them, make it tougher.
Re:Hypocritical (Score:4, Insightful)
Citation?
I agree drunk driving is a bad thing. But frankly, I've never seen any real evidence it's as endemic as you suggest. I've been driving for almost 40 years, and I can only recall seeing ONE (1) guy who was almost certainly drunk while driving (he was going east on the westbound half of a divided highway in the middle of the night).
It's virtually certain that there were other drivers who'd had a drink or three near me on the road in that time, but none that were obvious enough to pick out from the usual fraction of sucky drivers you find everywhere.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Does seeing a high concentration of DUIs being with a first responder actually increase their overall statistical frequency, or does it merely make it feel like there are a lot of them?
Re: (Score:3)
I also agree; been driving 30+ years and this 'drunk driving problem' is not any kind of major problem that I've seen.
so much is overblown because its a popular way to raise more power for those in charge and to look like you're tough on 'crime'.
a checkpoint to catch a percent of a percent? isn't that a baby and bathwater situation? sure sounds like one to me. lets suspect everyone who crosses this 'checkpoint' and have them be assumed guilty unless they prove TO US that they're not.
fully turning the ame
Re: (Score:2)
The actual reason Drunk driving is a problem is the random deaths on the roads caused by people driving drunk.
If you live out in the boonies and dont see many cars, then of course you wont notice any.
What you should do is go to a bar, wait till closing and follow a few cars home.
Live in the city? You should have notcied some by now, but if you havent. Drive around betwee
Re: (Score:2)
Drunk Drivers cause the system to only require ONE person to mess up.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Hypocritical (Score:5, Insightful)
Automotive analogy: The problem with using BAC is that it's akin to checking the speed of your car by putting strain gages in the tires and measuring the radial strain to get at the rotational speed. It's just as silly.
What you need to do is a functional test: measure reflex speeds, vestibular nystagmus and its suppression, and such. All of that could be done with a portable eye tracker, quite cheaply, too (read: big profits for manufacturer). This would take care of people's varying sensitivity to alcohol, and would automatically catch drug users, too. It tests the performance of the visual system -- kinda important when you're driving.
BAC is an indirect way to measure impairment: it's impairment you're after, not BAC itself. BAC is a very approximate estimate for impairment! Even worse, BAC is measured indirectly again by poorly testing the amount of alcohol in exhaled air. That's two layers of indirection for measuring something that has direct, reproducible measurements available.
Re:Hypocritical (Score:5, Insightful)
the dangers of drunk driving have nothing to do with how your eye vibrates or your nystagmus suppresses or whatever.
There isn't some magic booze fairy that comes down and jerks the wheel. These are well-understood biological processes. You said it yourself above, "The danger is with people who are drunk enough to mess with their distance judgment or reflexes." So which is it? Biology or booze fairy?
At least BAC is a proxy that can be understood and everybody agrees is related to alcohol intake.
So what? It's also an arbitrary measurement that can mean wildly different things depending on any number of factors. If I usually have a six pack a day, and today I drank three beers, I'm probably over the limit, but in no way impaired. You obviously know that. So why are you spreading lies?
I can't stand drunk driving apologists.
I can't stand ad hominems.
Re: (Score:3)
the dangers of drunk driving have nothing to do with how your eye vibrates or your nystagmus suppresses or whatever
Sez you. Nystagmus is directly related to the efficacy of the alcohol that is affecting the brain. If you know the alcohol is affecting the eyes a certain amount, you know that it is also affecting motor centers the same amount. It is a proxy, but a very close proxy.
At least BAC is a proxy that can be understood and everybody agrees is related to alcohol intake.
Everybody doesn't agree that,
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You do know alcohol can still be in your system, slowing you reactions and making you unfit to drive even after you've got 5 or 6 hours sleep on someones couch right?
A pint or 2 will be well out of your system the next morning, a half bottle of tequila and 6 beers not so much.
Choose Freedom. Choose Android. (Score:4, Insightful)
This is what freedom is all about.
Choose Android.
Choose Freedom.
Fuck the police.
Police missing perfect opportunity (Score:3)
The police definitly need more hackers.
Lets put the check on route #1. Ok now start the application that reports check points on routes #2, #3, #4. Suddenly you have lots of people that are directed into the actual check point. Especially people that were actually looking to avoid the check point and are the actual ones you want to check.
Re: (Score:2)
Any politician caught up in such a thing would have a terrible campaign next time around however as people suggest that they intentionally LIED to the population to force them into a certain area. Even outside of the obvious deceitfulness there, it also could have implications for negatively affecting the traffic.
Probably not illegal, but such a thing could quickly turn into a PR nightmare.
Re: (Score:2)
would it ? it seems kinda hypocritical to vote for laws that institute checkpoints, and then to whine against a smart use of technology to make them more efficient ?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They do something like this in Florida.
They put a sign up on one of the interstates saying "Drug Checkpoint Ahead".
There is no checkpoint, and if there was one, it would probably be unconstitutional.
But they don't need one.
They just pull over everyone who suddenly pulls a U-turn across the median
(which is a genuine traffic violation).
A-PPolice State. (Score:3)
Erm. IANAL, but isn't liberty an important part of the American cultural and political identity?
Do AAPL have a leg to stand on here?
Re: (Score:2)
"Erm. IANAL, but isn't liberty an important part of the American cultural and political identity?"
Allegedly, it was at one point. In the imperial era, nicht soviel.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:A-PPolice State. (Score:5, Insightful)
I run a store. I don't want to sell beans in my store. I remove all beans from my store.
Do I have a legal leg to stand on here?
Re:A-PPolice State. (Score:4, Insightful)
According to some at /., no. In the name of freedom you must be forced to sell any and all beans, whether you want to or not.
Re: (Score:2)
I run a store. I don't want to sell beans in my store. I remove all beans from my store. I also exercise my proprietary lock down on your mouth and digestive system to prevent you from eating beans from anyone else. You can try to remove my bean-locking, but it might kill you, and I will be unhappy if you succeed. I did try to push legislation to stop that, but it didn't go my way. Oh, and I will periodically push out an update to you that mi
Re: (Score:3)
I run a small and successful store. Megamart opened up next door, and they sell everything I do and more. They franchise their brand to anyone who meets their terms (for free!), and although the franchisees aren't always the most agreeable to this, they pretty much allow any vendor to put their stuff on the shelves. Sometimes the quality is not g
Re:A-PPolice State. (Score:4, Insightful)
No competition? What about Android?
It's either totally crushing iOS and being a triumph for "open over closed" *or* Apple has a monopoly on mobile apps.... you can't have your cake and eat it.
It is not illegal to have a monopoly, or to have a homogenous system - another analogous position would be Xbox Live and the online store there, or the PSN (when it's working, I kid, I kid).
Crucially no one is forcing you to use an iOS device, or an Xbox 360, or a Playstation, and using one of those does not restrict the competitors at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure. But you "don't want to sell beans in your store" because the city council told you not to - they want to reduce politically-oriented flatulence in town meetings.
But I won't buy anything from you at all, and I'm going to tell everyone you hate the tasty beans of freedom.
Re: (Score:2)
You'd have to wipe out all the other bean growers, the black and grey bean markets and all the people with the $99/year bean licenses to have a point.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Apple doesn't have to allow apps showing photos of kittens if it chooses to ban those. It's a privately owned business.
Yes, Apple has a leg to stand on.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:A-PPolice State. (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
The Senators had no legal legs to stand on.
Sure they did. Anybody can write a letter, but Apple can choose to comply with their request or ignore it. In this case, they did what they were asked to do. A handful of senators could also write a letter asking Apple to buy air time during the Superbowl filled with footage of his holiness Steve Jobs doing the electric slide. There's nothing wrong with them sending that letter, but Apple would likely blow them off.
Re: (Score:2)
Not as long as you don't have to buy in iPhone/iPad and can choose to buy Android or Blackberry or whatever.
Go look up "monopoly".
Can I avoid Senators with an app? (Score:2)
Is there some app that will allow me to avoid politicians?
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, its called Bitcoin.
Newpapers? (Score:2)
Most DUI checkpoints are published in newspapers ahead of time.
Will Apple also be banning newspaper apps?
Re: (Score:2)
The new ToS are about removing apps that use information that was not publicly available already. The data published by the police is still fine to use. Of course, the troll summary leaves that out to try to paint Apple in as poor a light as possible, but this is slashdot.
The answer to your question is thus "no", as answered in TFA.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The new ToS are about removing apps that use information that was not publicly available already. The data published by the police is still fine to use. Of course, the troll summary leaves that out to try to paint Apple in as poor a light as possible, but this is slashdot.
So just to be clear, since it appears ALL checkpoints [wikipedia.org] have to be published publicly, therefore NO apps are to be banned?
Or no?
Re: (Score:3)
That's kind of a funny insight -- certain legislators being cranked that public information has unexpectedly gotten into a readable, useful format. Implying that newspapers have degenerated to the status of "officially public information" but "assuming no one actually reads them".
Re: (Score:3)
Hey brainiac, I know reading the fucking article is so last-year around here, but if you had bothered to read it, you would have seen this:
This submission is retardedly inaccurate flamebait. If your app contains information about checkpoints that have been published
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry to deflate your rage-boner, but the "or" clause in that language means that either of those criteria can cause a ban.
Given that "encourage and enable" is overly broad, and could, in fact, relate to any source of information, the original question still stands.
"not published" (Score:3)
According to TFA, the terms ban:
Apps which contain DUI checkpoints that are not published by law enforcement agencies,
But aren't all DUI checkpoints supposed to be publicized ahead of time? [wikipedia.org]
Public Knowledge (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nonsequitur.
Re: (Score:2)
If you read the actual letter, you'll find that the Sentators do not claim these apps are illegal.
http://www.edibleapple.com/us-senators-ask-apple-to-remove-apps-that-alert-users-of-dui-checkpoints/ [edibleapple.com]
more governmnet intervention (Score:2)
so now the apps are 'illegal', and they are not even drugs or weapons.
Re: (Score:2)
They're not illegal. The troll summary writer used the word illegal.
Gov Official Reporting Apps (Score:2)
How about an app that you enter the name of a politician and you can enter details of something they have done that you heard about or check what others have reported about your favorite/hated officials. Info like where they are available in the public or where they are making public speeches just in-case you want to communicate with them or throw a sign at them.
easy fix.. (Score:2)
Android (Score:3)
Thanks for selling Android, Apple (Score:3)
The 4th Amendment will be preserved, even without the iCult's help.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course not. They didn't say Apple responded to a legal requirement. They voluntarily responded to a REQUEST.
Re: (Score:2)
They do it to truckers all the time with weigh stations, how are cars any different?