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.'"

Comments

typical garbage

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Public Information

[malignant_minded]

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.

Re:Public Information

[CaptBubba]

They HAVE to be publicized to be legal in the US. This is because part of the legal logic used to find checkpoints OK is they serve as a deterrent, which can't happen if they are kept secret.

And yes, it is a good idea to avoid the checkpoints like the plague. The vast majority of citations and arrests they make have absolutely nothing to do with DUI. At any particular moment there are likely dozens of violations on your car which you can be written up for. Even when I drove my brand new car off the lot it had equipment issues I could be ticketed for (the dealership put those plastic things around the license plates).

Police: Adapt and be more effective

[Aqualung812]

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!

Re:Police: Adapt and be more effective

[Splab]

Interestingly, here in Denmark, police welcome these kinds of apps. They are not in the business of writing tickets, but they try to make roads safer; if an app alerts that there's a speed trap on some major highway, that means a full afternoon of *most* people driving like they should have been.

During high drinking seasons (Christmas and Easter for instance) they are always out in the newspapers warning people that they will be making more checks and focusing on this.

But of course, for this to make sense it requires the police to be in the business of preventing and not collecting.

It's so obvious

[Anonymous Coward]

Yet more interference in the free market by congresscritters.

Re:Multitaksking

[Shadow99_1]

And exactly what is supposed to happen to those who find themselves without jobs? Especially for men with no kids government will not help you. You don't qualify for state medical aid programs so better not get sick. You won't qualify for state monetary support. You may manage to squeak by for food stamps. You won't qualify for housing support. So... That's looking really great there.

Women on the other hand usually qualify for all of those when not working and not supported by someone else. They go to the top of the lists if they have kids. Men with kids rank just below women, though often still have issues with certain programs.

I have needed those very support programs before and been let down as a single man. I'm hardly alone either, the economy is much better for women than men in the first place. Women are in demand by business. So your suggesting we need less men (as the most often to be let go and who in their younger years make less than their female counterparts on average) who then can't get support to continue to live without family to take care of them. That so isn't a long term solution.