Slashdot Mirror
Senators To Apple: Pull iPhone DUI-Check Alerts
CWmike writes "Four US senators on Tuesday called on Apple to yank iPhone and iPad apps that help drunken drivers evade police, saying the programs are 'harmful to public safety.' The CEO of the company that makes one such app said the senators' demand was 'a knee-jerk reaction.'"
Hugh Pickens points out that "Similar apps are available for the iPhone and RIM. Apple released a set of App Store guidelines in September that spells out what apps are and are not allowed to do. Included on that list of 'don'ts' are 'apps that encourage excessive consumption of alcohol or illegal substances, or encourage minors to consume alcohol or smoke cigarettes.'"
Don't we have country with a deficit problem...wars? There are bigger problems....this highlights what is wrong with our country. That app does not encourage anything...it's just a tool....jesus christ..wait, I'm not religious. Fuck.
Apple's puritanical censors don't allow boobs in the app store but have no problem with apps like this? Someone's moral compass is a bit wonky...
Tryin to mess wit aur free cuntree! If I wan get drunk an do recless thangs, they shouldn't stop me! If people get themselves killed by my drivin, weren't my fault, I was drunk an couldn't help it! Their own fault for bein' stupid I say!
1st Amendment? We don't need no stinkin 1st Amendment!
Maybe they're trying to move on from their traditional customer base.
While drinking and driving is horrible, what's worse are government actors who conduct searches without a warrant or probable cause.
DUI check points are normally semi-hazardous traffic situations where cops have cars lined up on the side of the road with pedestrians and officers standing outside their vehicles near the boundary paint of the highway. They also cause significant traffic back-ups and delays. Knowing of these locations is useful for non-drinkers if they have to be somewhere on-time or don't want to be put in the situation to have to navigate a ludicrous human-slalom course. Just like almost any application, it can be used for good and evil. Knee-jerk, MADD-influenced political campaigning HHHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO....
I don't read the newspaper but aren't these checkpoints announced in the paper ahead of time. Why is getting a reminder wrong. I don't drink but I don't necessarily want to get slowed down driving through these, in fact when I can see inspection sticker checks ahead I usually go out of my way to avoid them even with valid tags. I find it's best to avoid police at all costs.
People will always do stupid things and some people seem to think that it's useful to acquire something that enables their stupidity, but it's not really the job of state to deny them that privilege.
Anyway, things that are much more 'harmful to public safety' are legal and, it would seem, easily obtainable.
Sorry, this doesn't fly for me. If an app is produced that is 100% for evading police I would say it wasn't appropriate, but believe it or not there are actually uses for this app that have nothing to do with evading a drunk driving charge. I don't drink at all and if I still lived in Indianapolis I would probably download it because I don't want to be involved with such checkpoints. I don't see how that is wrong.
Besides, how is a drunk person going to be able to use the app anyway. They'll break the phone first.
Remember the stupid story making the rounds yesterday about Apple sending a free iPad2 to the man who reported, "Wife said No."?
Yeah well Apple should send the elected officials, "Apple Says No."
Believe it or not, a Senator [and his staff] can do more than one thing at a time. Besides, since young males account for the largest share of the American drunk driving population, and since young males have a large potential to contribute more to the federal tax base over then they receive in government benefits, keeping them alive and healthy does cut the deficit. Same goes for wars -- we need soldiers, and young men make fantastic soldiers.
P.S. The deficit isn't the problem. The deficit is the symptom of an economy which hasn't recovered for the middle and lower class. A lack of decent jobs is the problem.
Support a few technologists in Washington.
And in what capacity do these apps encourage excessive consumption of alcohol?
80 CC D8 AF AE D3 AB 54 B7 2E CE 67 C7
I always get a chuckle from the police that freak out over apps like this.
Police: Learn to use the false sense of security that these apps give lawbreakers.
Run the same apps in your police car. Have the department buy you a smartphone if needed, they are much cheaper than some of your other police toys.
When a speedtrap app spots you, you'll get an alert since it thinks you're just another speeder. Move 1 mile against traffic and trap the speeders before they get the alert.
When a DUI checkout app spots your checkpoint, post a couple of police on the obvious alternate routes that DUI people would use to avoid the posted checkpoint.
Hell, save time and post the checkpoint yourself, and then give a closer inspection to all of the people that take the gravel road the GPS recommends to avoid the checkpoint that NO ONE ever drives on. Your % of DUI drivers should be higher in that group.
These things make it easier on the police, not harder, if they would adapt to it!
Grammer Nazis - I mod you "troll" unless you actually add something on-topic. Yes, I know I have mispellings in my sig.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_stop
Cops use this as the guise to engage with you to for purposes of observing your reactions and identifying the smell of alcohol or other substances so they can then secure probably cause to make you perform a field sobriety test and/or breath test.
I just downloaded because you brought it to my attention... and I don't drink and drive.
As in most religions, it's the followers that turn people off to the religion. And Mac users are the worst.
The Senate isn't censoring Apple's applications. (The Senate, actually pass a law? Ha!) No, four Senators are using their constitutionally-protected free speech to whine at Apple in the (fairly realistic) hope that Apple will add one more thing to its extensive list of criteria that will get your app removed.
The idea is fine. The idea is what police departments, in testimonials on their own site, defend (note that I'm not counting the ones that state the service is legal, that's not a defense for the idea it's a statement of fact which they may very well be unhappy about);
http://www.phantomalert.com/Police-Testimonials/Police-Testimonials.html
But what is the reality?
Their own promotion:
In other words, the idea is not to get people to avoid traffic tickets through driving according to posted speed limits, not drunk driving, etc. No, the idea is to have advance warning so that you can then 'adjust in time'. I.e. speed away! Go 140mph! But with our tech, you'll be able to 'adjust in time' to the 70mph posted, and avoid that "embarrassing, frustrating" ticket.
This is reflected in the *customer* testimonials;
Translation: I habitually speed.
Translation: I believe speed limits only apply to speed trap areas.
http://www.phantomalert.com/Customer-Testimonials/index.html
The CEO is overflowing with shit if he believes that the DUI spots will cause drunkards to no longer be drunkards - all it will do is make those drunkards quickly calculate an alternate route over a B road so they won't get caught.
Before a bunch of people come whining about speed limits often being too low compared to the flow of traffic, speed traps being done on deserted roads in the middle of the night instead of in residential areas where speeding is far more dangerous, and DUI checks being a nuisance for people who haven't had a drop to drink but get pulled over... yes, I understand all that just perfectly. That doesn't change how such apps are used used as methods to evasion, rather than methods to change.
And I really hope that they crash into something inanimate before they kill somebody else; but is anybody else pretty creeped out by the notion that secret checkpoints along public roads sounds more like an idea borrowed from a 60's era communist villain(Your papers, citizen...) than a good idea?
Just start talking in slightly more stilted language(try "Guilty of disseminating information harmful to public safety") and you'll be basically indistinguishable from the average translated kangaroo-court verdict...
The entire point of DUI checkpoints is not to actually arrest the drunk drivers dumb enough to pull up. The point is to show that, if you do drive drunk, big angry men with guns will arrest you. This is why they announce the checkpoints beforehand - check your paper or local news website, you'll find an article announcing checkpoints a day or two before they go up. It's not investigative, it's (supposed to be) a deterrent.
Hell, Indiana had a series of billboards - nothing but the image of an orange traffic sign that said "Drunk Driving Checkpoint Ahead". Of course, the billboards were everywhere, and there was no actual checkpoint - but again, it's (supposed to be) a deterrent.
If police forces do not want people knowing about the checkpoints, they should not announce them publicly. If it's a matter of the public record, then they can't fault an app for aggregating that public record.
Never underestimate the potential of Human stupidity. -Heinlein
If a guy can knock back a few and actually use a iPhone touch screen or a Blackberry keyboard, he is good to go behind the wheel!
no comment
Wouldn't it just be easier for police to submit dozens of fake DUI checkpoints, essentially making the app useless?
The Constitution has nothing to do with this. A few senators were standing around one day and somebody mentioned this app, and thew others said it's a bad idea. The headline may as well read "3rd-grade teacher, zookeeper, astrophysicist, and bus driver to Apple".
Now, if there's public support for this idea, then there might be a proposal for legislation, which would likely be a large complicated mess falling under the "interstate commerce" clause, but I doubt that will happen. There's far too many assholes out there who think they have a God-given right to ignore any law they don't like.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
In the UK, warning others of a police speed trap e.g. by flashing your lights is a criminal offence which will get you hauled into court and fined. So I wonder if these apps would even be legal in the UK (I don't have an iOS device, so I don't know if such things are on sale here).
On the other hand, satnavs with speed camera warnings seem to be legal, but in that case you can argue that the aim is to help you keep your speed down in dangerous areas, i.e. to avoid committing the offence in the first place, whereas with dodging DUI checks, the offence has already been committed, you're just trying to avoid being caught.
Oh no... it's the future.
I just don't understand, can somebody make a car analogy for me?
no comment
Roadblocks are a blatant attack on the principle of innocent before proven guilty, same as wiretapping and spying without due process. These are tools of oppression, not freedom.
The age-old tyrant's claim of "if you are innocent, then you have no reason to hide" should be answered precisely: if I am innocent, then you have no reason to question me. Or follow me. Or detain me. Or spy on me. Or make any contact with me whatsoever.
Yet more interference in the free market by congresscritters.
Had these been republicans we would have heard all kinds of howls about a police state. Since they're democrats and fairly well respected democrats at that it seems that people aren't interested in such hyperbole.
They know this will hurt their wallet, and are using this as the only means to pin point a good reason why not allow it.
First off, someone failing a D&D test would also not be smart enough to remember to use an iphone to evade cops.
And if someone realizes that this is to avoid speed traps, to warn people of possible traffic because of accidents, then become a bit more cunning in setting up your traps, once you nab 2 or 3, move to a next vantage point, and stop thinking that you can sit there for 3 hours to get your monthly quota of tickets. I have friends that are cops, but they never tell me where they will be, I get to find out when i speed past a trap, so if I have a website or app that tells me this, I will consult it to watch my speed, not to change course...
They should also ban the iPhone because you can open it up and stash some drugs inside if you remove the hard drive, and they would never know at the airport....they should ban the iphone for that....or wait they could ban politicians altogether, because you can hide drugs by sticking some up their *sses, so technically it is being used for something it was not designed to, so let's abolish all politicians because people can use them to carry drugs across borders.
Here I go with another reverse cowgirl theory. If cops want to catch drunk drivers, then get more cops or improve the ways to catch them or increase visible policing. Removing some app from an iPhone isn't going to stop people driving drunk. How ridiculous... If I was too drunk to drive, I'd be too drunk to use my phone to look up road blocks. If they're that worried build in some simple sobriety test, like solving some simple 5 * 7 + 13 math puzzle... Or decrease the supply of donuts to the police force.
These senators should be embarrassed for proposing something that is clearly a violation of free speech. Information about check points is as easy (and legal) to obtain as observing one in progress. Any attempt by the law to limit the dissemination of that factual information is a painfully obvious attempt to limit speech that these senators simply do not care for.
if you're not in jail or wrapped around a tree...
Support a few technologists in Washington.
I didn't RTFA, but we all know who's behind this, right? The party of control.
Where's the Android app for this?
I guess you missed the bit about them asking Apple to pull the app. That's different from a Senator opining about the pros and cons of an app.
It's dangerously close to being censorship and considering the government's recent interest in anti-trust issues concerning Apple, it could be a threat.
It's just four Senators; you need 60 to actually do anything. Just because someone is a Senator does not mean that they give up their Constitutional right to whine about everything.
Apple can never win and please everybody, especially not the /. crowd. There have been dozens of "Apple rejects X" stories ever since the App Store launched in 2008. Apple rejects the anti-gay-marriage "Manhattan Declaration" app and gets protests and boycott threats from the Right for denying free speech. Apple approves the Exodus International app (run by a church that thinks homosexuality can be cured), and gets huge petitions (90,000 signers last I saw) and complaints from the Left.
Even the slashdotters are schizophrenic over this matter. "Apple should ban 'Baby Shaker,'" or "why did Apple remove iBoobs?" Can we please be consistent?
either. Apps like this help people like me avoid ridiculous delays as police check us for alcohol consumption. On certain roads, especially on holidays, the wait can be as much as 25-30 minutes.
There's a easy fix for this app (and all similar apps): Make the user *earn* the right to use the app by forcing them to prove they're not legally impaired. If they can't find Waldo, or some other such test, then they'll have to pull over or take their chances and hope they don't find the checkpoints.
The constitution is relevant on several levels:
1. The practice the police are defending is unconstitutional (they need a warrant signed by a judge specifying what they intend to search and why they think they will find it before they can require a private citizen to submit to a search). Driving a car down a given road is not probably cause and therefore should be insufficient for a warrant.
2. A member of Congress represents that body. Writing a letter to Apple (most likely) using their free mail privlage to do so looks like a statement of intent (sort of a do this or we'll write a law forcing your hand). That's questionable ethics, but it also means the question of whether or not Congress has the authority to make such legislation is relevant.
3. It's not immediately obvious what portions of the Constitution apply to this case. The first (freedom of speech) second (right to bare arms) and fifth (right to due process) amendments all have a case
If someone tries to put it into a bill, then you can whine about censorship; until then, it's no different than you, me, or anyone else asking for the app to be pulled. I'll concede that they might have a bigger voice than the rest of us, but the burden still falls completely on Apple to heed or dismiss the request. Perceived authority is not the same as actual authority; both you and I have been around long enough to know this, and so have the people at Apple who will ultimately decide this app's fate.
Jesus loves me, he loves me a bunch, because he always puts Jiffy in my lunch.
Okay, I'm not condoning drunk driving. It's deadly dangerous full stop. However, the state has no right to prevent me from knowing the locations of DUI checkpoints, or patrol cars that are camping behind billboards, or in unlit parking lots, etc. I find it completely unacceptable that US Senators would suggest we begin employing secret police tactics like those used by the STASI in cold-war era East Germany. iPhone app, Android, whatever, that doesn't matter guys. Next they'll tell you can't text the location of a speed trap to somebody else, or talk on the phone about it. That's what this is really all about; restricting free communication of the citizens. The app is just the medium, it's not important. Please remember to vote these Senators out of office next election.
A Terry stop has nothing to do with a check point where they stop each and every car on the road for an inspection
From your link
>In the United States, a Terry stop is a brief detention of a person by police[1] on reasonable suspicion of involvement in criminal activity but short of probable cause to arrest.
CEO is so full of shit - he could be a septic tank
for a second there, i thought you were using british slang for yank :P
People, what a bunch of bastards
whatever? must be using the doasyou'retold decibel system?
First, I am not condoning driving under the influence. To me this is a constitutional matter. Law enforcement can set up a Gestapo type check point and all they have to do is make an announcement on a low wattage radio station as to the location of the check point and the law says this is enough to consider the public informed. Typically they only do this the afternoon before the checkpoint is set up. This is fundamentally unconstitutional. You should not be subjected to being stopped and questioned for no apparent reason. If I am a sober driver and want to avoid this checkpoint, I should have everything available to me to do so. This app is no different to me than law enforcement having to announce the location of the checkpoint. I also believe you can actually go to the local law enforcement or state highway patrol website and get the same information, so what is the difference in that and having an app that will do it for you?
DUI checkpoints are publicized BY THE POLICE on the 6:00 news before they're opened later that night... by the way.
I didn't even know apps like this existed. Can't wait to give it a shot! Funny that police departments support these apps (specifically in my town according to the advertisement on a few of them even) yet our "representatives" in legislature do not.
Driving on a certain route at 2:10 AM gives them the reasonable suspicion to stop your car which is why they do it.
This subtlety is often lost on the Internet, and it drives me crazy. The First Amendment only restricts the action of governments to limit speech, not individuals or private entities.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
Reasonable suspicion depends on the “totality of the circumstances”, and can result from a combination of facts, each of which is by itself innocuous.
Police actions are a matter of public record. They announce RIDE (roadside checks) on the radio around here all the time. Perhaps if a driver knew he would be checked he wouldnt drive... and isnt that the end game? or is the end game to nail as many as possible to reap cash rewards in the form of fines.. I don't drive drunk, and I don't condone it. With the way the laws are going here (in Ontario), 1 beer is enough to ruin your life. So I stay where I am not matter what. I see nothing wrong with this app, as all it would tell me is "the cops are going to pull you over and waste you time, even tho you havent broken any law, and they have no probable cause, but expect to get harassed anyway... take a different route"..
I'm told by a currently employed police officer that this is largely what motivates many suburban districts to perform speed traps. It has nothing to do with concern about speeding, but it enables them to stop and interview drivers essentially at random, fishing for other possible crimes.
He also said that it was "widely believed" that vigorous traffic enforcement was a general deterrent to crime, the theory being that people involved in criminal behavior were sensitive to police presence and the risks associated with being stopped with incriminating items, flagged for parole violations/outstanding warrants, etc.
To me it seems like a good excuse to run a police state.
When police are flagrantly violating the 4th amendment to the US constitution, interfering with the freedom of travel on what in Britain is called "the King's highway", and costing drivers time and fuel, and making some late to appointments, surely the citizens have every right to warn each other of where the illegal activity is being conducted so they can simply avoid going there.
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Most government agencies could give a damn about public safety. They just want the money from the DUI.
Why, then, are there no Apps for the following:
1. Burgle. Your smartphone can determine whether the occupants of a house are away for just an hour or on vacation.
2. Swindle. This App uses the Internet as a database to uncover Social Security numbers (in the USA) and identity earmarks (elsewhere).
3. Stalkem. This is a swell app to determine whether someone is stalkable; provides phone numbers and addresses of potential victims.
4. Gettem....
5. Hurttem...
A wide-open field for app developers.
No one ever had to evacuate a city because the solar panels broke!
I think that the basis for any remotely sane fiscal policy has got to be "keep the taxpayers alive".
If that isn't quite working out for you right now, sure, I can grok that. You're still going to need to take said taxpayers as a basis though, because you're not going to get taxes out of anything other than the taxpayers.
If at any point it makes sense to let taxpayers die or to start killing them outright, there is something SERIOUSLY wrong with your country ... or with your logic. :-P
Anyone Heard of Free Speech?
Seems that neither Apple nor our elected officials in the USA have.
I'm not big on governments having secrets, but I don't see how avoiding police DUI checkpoints is bad for anyone.
It doesn't tell you to drink more. So why is it stopped?
Rather like the "safety cameras" locations in Sat-Navs (except somewhat less so), if you know where these spots are, you can avoid where there's a known problem with drunk drivers going in their cars.
Seems like a safety feature to me.
Or are they saying that drink driving only kills the driver that's drunk?
Years ago, a friend had a 5 minute long conversation about how cops were incredible assholes, speeding tickets were just revenue collection (which they are), etc. Shortly after the conversation ended, he got pulled over for speeding, and the cop walked up, said hello, and asked him if he'd like to continue the conversation. He'd been chatting with the (bored) cop.
Please help metamoderate.
When I see these stops I turn off on a side street or make a u-turn. I will not willingly submit to an unconstitutional search. ... Papers Comrade?
People are so hyper about drinking and driving, which is often tragic, but mostly goes unnoticed and without incident. From what I've observed, people on cell phones are even more dangerous and absent minded behind the wheel. I'm not sure that I'm for a ban, but I find it hypocritical to condemn one action while implicitly endorsing the other (so long as you aren't using this app, of course).
I always thought that would be awesome -- open the speed trap app and drive. See a speed trap? tap the "speed trap" button as you drive past, and the GPS coordinates get uploaded to a server.
I envision two operation modes, "live" mode and "historical" mode.
In live mode, when you are approaching a speed trap, the app alerts some user-definable distance from the speed trap; if you see the trap, you click on a button to validate the speed trap.
If there is no speed trap there, clicking "no trap" would essentially vote down the speed trap and/or accelerate some expiration time associated with reported speed traps.
The user could also have validation thresholds (ie, don't warn unless there are more than N trap reports in the last N minutes/hours).
If "historical" mode is enabled, warnings would also be issued for places that have a history with reported speed traps. There would have to be some parameters for defining alert thresholds (time since last report, number of unique reporting days, frequency of reports).
Coordinates alone may be tricky for coherent warnings -- many urban areas have a parallel freeway only a couple of miles away, or roads with enough turns to make driving distance and straight-line distance significantly different. But I'd imagine actual road identification via GPS may involve GIS data that would make the app far more complex.
I suspect if an app like this were made and was at all popular, it would really throw a wrench into speed traps. Enough aggregated data might even expose internal speed trap schedules (ie, Highway 62 never has traps on Tuesdays, etc).
only when rhyming it Cockney-style ;)
Reminds me of milk gone off big time stylee :)
The tax base in no way approaches the deficit - which is why there is a deficit in the first place.
Falsehood. Any number of studies and surveys show that the problem is people are undertaxed relative to the amount of spending, and that is causing a deficit.
Tax rates keep dropping, and despite Republican theories, it has not magically increased revenues through trickle growth.
I think they tried that - it was called prohibition. Oooh, I see what you did there.
At least in NH, to the best of my knowledge, they have to announce the fact that they are going to hold a checkpoint on a given date (the location isn't disclosed, however).
Why do they have to announce it? Entrapment. I think that's ridiculous because they would be more effective if people didn't know when they would be held.
I've got to disagree. Even if they're not passing laws (yet?) the fact that they are Senators is important. Being Senators is why this was newsworthy; if some zookeepers said what they said, we wouldn't be hearing about it. When Senators say they want something stopped, there's an implicit threat there.
Once upon a time, some people wanted musicians to stop singing about sex.
One way of telling this story, is: "They got together, met with a few musicians, and asked them nicely to voluntarily stop doing it."
The other way of telling this story, is: "They were Senators' wives and they got their husbands to hold Senate hearings, and a particularly obnoxious abusive Senator finally slipped into lying that he was talking about 'private action' and then Frank Zappa, barely containing a giggle, looked around at the Senate hearing chambers full of government people and said, 'This is private action?' and at that point, everyone knew they and their bullshit were caught red-handed."
I subscribe to the second version of that story. They're Senators, not zookeepers, and that's relevant.
Sorry congress critters, but the information these apps provide are protected speech under the first amendment. Period.
If you don't like it, please leave, move to Iran, don't let the door hit y'all on the way out...you won't be missed..
Frankly that goes for the hypocrites on both sides of the political spectrum that only defend the constitution when it's convenient, and otherwise use it like toilet paper.
There's far too many assholes out there who think they have a God-given right to ignore any law they don't like.
Wait, did you just call Rosa Parks an asshole?
WWJD?
JWRTFM!
No, it's not weak. It's part of probably the strongest argument possible.
DUI checkpoints are, pure and simple, arbitrary detention and investigation. The fact that I happen to be driving down the same road a checkpoint is on does not constitute probable cause to believe I've been involved in some criminal activity. I hear that Americans had to have their constitution fixed up a bit on this issue a while back, because powerhungry cops have historically neglected to apply common sense, and treated suspects like criminals. Something called the Borth Amendment or something.
I'm neither a legal scholar, nor an American, so I could in fact be talking out my ass.
If opportunity came disguised as temptation, one knock would be enough.
3^2 * 67^1 * 977^1
I do not understand how it can be causally linked that this app somehow promotes drinking. Personally I would want to have (and contribute data to) this application even if I'm stone cold sober simply because CHECKPOINTS SUCK. You'd want to avoid an area that's stopped for an accident, why would you not want to avoid an area that is similarly stopped for a checkpoint?
How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
"Four U.S. senators Tuesday called on Apple to yank iPhone and iPad apps that help drunken drivers evade police..."
The police and the private companies that make breathalysers should open these devices to public scrutiny to prove their reliability, until then people should be able to do everything in their power to avoid being forced to use these black boxes.
One problem with that theory as it applies to sobriety check points...
It is illegal for the state to sieze/search you for alcohol unless they have reasonable cause. Numerous judges have already found that being on the road after bar time in and of itself is not reasonable cause. So sobriety check points legal status depends not on their ability to catch unwitting drunk drivers, but in their publicized existance as a deturant.
That's right, every sobriety check point (in the states that they are legal in) is advertised before hand. News papers, police web sites, local radio, etc... Not only is there no suprise here, there is Constitutional protection from these check points being set up as a suprise.
The iPhone app is doing nothing that your local news papers and radio stations aren't already doing. And if Congress were to bar the distribution of this information, it would make the check points illegal.
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
>"Four US senators on Tuesday called on Apple to yank iPhone and iPad apps that help drunken drivers evade police," "Pull iPhone DUI-Check Alerts"
That is not "evading police". If anything it is avoiding entrapment and inconvenience. The practice of putting up a "check point" road block is dubious to say the least. They are subjecting people to search and seizure with ZERO probable cause.
I don't like the idea of people driving drunk, and know it is a big social problem, but you don't just throw everyone's civil liberties out the window and cause major inconveniences as a "solution".
Case in point- I have never consumed alcohol nor any illicit drug in my whole life. I got stuck on my motorcycle in one of those damn checkpoints. It wasted a considerable amount of my time as I had to wait in line in very hot weather in full riding gear, pull over, take off most of my riding gear, go into my pack to get my ID while the officers are looking at me like I am going to pull out a gun, wait, then reassemble everything. I also felt very uncomfortable and threatened by the situation.
UNACCEPTABLE!
According to the Supreme Court, cops are not allowed to stop *every* car along a highway --- only the ones they suspect of drinking.
What Supreme Court decision declared checkpoints illegal? They either must have Reasonable Suspicion, or they can pull over everyone and check everyone. So, rather than actually having to watch drivers, they just stop everyone at checkpoints. And last I heard, that was ok with the Supreme Court.
Learn to love Alaska