Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Senators To Apple: Pull iPhone DUI-Check Alerts

Posted by timothy on from the tell-us-senator-your-opinion-on-net-neutrality dept.

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.'"

57 of 348 comments (clear)

  1. No boobs by unixcrab · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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...

    1. Re:No boobs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sounds fairly typical for America.

    2. Re:No boobs by gandhi_2 · · Score: 5, Funny

      It is the moral declination.

      Depending on where you are, the difference between grid moral and magnetic moral can be quite significant. In my area, the GM angle is like 13.5 degrees.... if I don't account for that, I can easily get morally lost.

      --
      THL phish sticks
    3. Re:No boobs by Vectormatic · · Score: 5, Insightful

      evading a police checkpoint because even though i never drink and drive, i HATE getting stopped and being at the mercy of some lowly educated police thug who by law has all sorts of ways to make me uncomfortable and consume my time?

      Granted, it might be a bit weak, but i consider that to be a very legitimate use of such an app, just because some people dont have the discipline to not drink when they will be driving (or not drive when they drank some beers), doesnt mean i should suffer right?

      (disclaimer, dont have an iphone, dont have such an app since police checkpoints are pretty scarce here, and never drink when i drive)

      --
      People, what a bunch of bastards
    4. Re:No boobs by Vectormatic · · Score: 2

      A fully grown man can have about 3 glasses of wine with a meal and be dangerously close to the legal limit....but may not be anywhere near impeded to the point of not being able to drive a car safely

      how hard is it NOT to drink three glasses of wine when you know you will be driving in the next three-five hours?

      And honestly, i've had occasions where drinking one beer (a belgian triple in fact) noticably impacted my responsetimes, the same goes when i drink two glasses of wine. Granted i dont conform to the weight-range for an american fully grown man (only 85 kilos), but i shouldnt be driving in that state

      I am fairly confident that in most cases (non-empty stomach), i should be able to drive just fine after drinking a single (or two) beer, but the fact is that i know it is a sliding slope (ah, just one more beer, and then i'll quit, and i'll be fine really!), so when i drive, i dont drink, how hard can it be?

      --
      People, what a bunch of bastards
    5. Re:No boobs by feepness · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Granted i dont conform to the weight-range for an american fully grown man (only 85 kilos)

      Actually according to this you are within 2% of the average weight, which is 86.6 kilos. Well within measurement error of your scale.

      I wonder what other misconceptions you have and/or are completely wrong about.

      Have you ever driven when tired? Frustrated? No one is ever 100%.

  2. Second thoughts by Chrisq · · Score: 3, Funny

    Maybe they're trying to move on from their traditional customer base.

  3. Traffic Situation by crow_t_robot · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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....

  4. Public Information by malignant_minded · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Public Information by DanTheStone · · Score: 2

      Similarly: Just because I'm driving the speed limit, I stay between the lines, my registration's up to date, and I'm not under the influence of any drugs, it doesn't mean I'm comfortable having a police car right behind me for 10 miles. I try to look for the first non-suspicious location to get out of the way.

    2. Re:Public Information by malignant_minded · · Score: 2

      Indeed I do the same thing. I find it is like this with anything. Just because I know how to configure a server doesn't mean I like having someone breathing down my neck watching what I am doing at all times. People need space or they get stressed out and make mistakes they wouldn't normally do because now they are more focussed on not doing something wrong.

    3. Re:Public Information by CaptBubba · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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).

    4. Re:Public Information by quacking+duck · · Score: 2

      A friend was heading home on an empty highway late one night after work, hadn't had anything to drink, was doing the speed limit, and obeying all traffic laws. He got pulled over.

      Why? After determining my friend was free to go, the officer said there's plenty of drivers who know they're just above the legal limit (recently revised downward here, to a blood alcohol level of 0.05%, so quite a few women can't even have a single drink now) and do everything to avoid suspicion by being the best possible driver.

      The officer, though good humoured, declined my friend's request to get a ticket for driving the speed limit.

  5. Re:Senators should STFU by Chrisq · · Score: 2, Funny

    While drinking and driving is horrible, what's worse are government actors who conduct searches without a warrant or probable cause.

    Yes, I'd complain to the actors' Union.

  6. non-illegal use. by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:non-illegal use. by slim · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Besides, how is a drunk person going to be able to use the app anyway. They'll break the phone first.

      I see that your (perfectly valid) choice not to drink, leaves you ignorant of the basics of drunkenness.

      After, say, 2 pints of beer, you can walk without swaying, talk without slurring, and certainly operate a phone. You'd be perfectly capable of driving a car, too, if you could guarantee there wouldn't be any surprises. It's when the car in front brakes suddenly, or there's a loose bit of tyre in your lane, etc. that you'd discover your reactions aren't as quick or accurate as you'd like them to be.

      Almost everybody knows when they're hammered, and wouldn't dream of getting in a car. The danger nowadays is people driving after 2-4 beers, because they feel as if they're in control when they're not.

      Unless you knew all that and were making a weak joke...

  7. Multitaksking by stomv · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Multitaksking by Dunbal · · Score: 2

      keeping them alive and healthy does cut the deficit.

      Considering that the deficit has increased over time along with population, I'm not sure I follow your logic. More people = more services demanded = more spending. And more spending means it's easier to hide frivolous spending, which means the overall efficiency goes down too. The tax base in no way approaches the deficit - which is why there is a deficit in the first place. So "keeping them alive and healthy" will not reduce the deficit and in fact may contribute to the deficit. But of course something like this would get laughed at by government - the same government that "knows what it's doing" and has gotten us where we are in the first place. Sure, laugh.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    2. Re:Multitaksking by Kokuyo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, the problem is a system that demands you HAVE a job even though your fellow man does NOT NEED your labor. We don't need more jobs. Obviously, we're getting the stuff we need to live quite comfortably with the jobs we have.

      We're still linking 'having a job' to 'contributing to society' and therefore we're linking 'salary' to 'right to buy food and shelter'. At the same time it's every manager's duty to make his business more streamlined and thus efficient. Cutting jobs is their primary goal and rightfully so. It just runs contrary to that idea that everyone needs a job.

      Full employment runs contrary to capitalism. The more efficient capitalism gets, the less workable the socialist idea of full employment becomes.

    3. Re:Multitaksking by Shadow99_1 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

      --
      we are all invisible unless we choose otherwise
    4. Re:Multitaksking by cayenne8 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      OTOH alcohol excise tax is a significant source of budget income, so maximizing ability to consume alcohol would be profitable for the budget...

      Actually..you're not far off the mark.

      Back in the 80's...LA was one of the last states (if not the last) to raise the drinking age from 18yrs to 21yrs after being extorted by the Feds. One reason they held out so long was that they figured they'd lose WAY more money in lost tax revenues from raising the drinking age than they would lose from Fed. Highway funds.

      Sadly, one of the big oil crunches hit about then, and the state was hurting for money and finally succumbed.

      The feds really need to get their nose the fsck OUT of national legislation like this...this should be up to the states.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    5. Re:Multitaksking by sed+quid+in+infernos · · Score: 2

      And in a country where just 400 people control over 50% of the wealth

      The article you link doesn't say anything close to that. In fact, the claim Moore makes doesn't come close to saying that. He's saying that the richest 400 control more wealth than the poorest 50%. The poorest 50% don't control 50% of the wealth - that would be impossible unless wealth were evenly distributed.

      In fact, the article says that in 2009, the richest 400 controled 1.27 trillion, out of 53.1 trillion total wealth, or 2.4%. That's not close to 50%.

      Now, your conclusion that "we have a major oligarchy problem as it stands" may be correct even based on 400 people holding 2.4% of total household net worth. More relevant might be that 60% of the people only hold about 2.4% of the wealth. But claims like "400 people control 50% of the wealth" are false. It boggles the mind that someone would make such a claim and link as evidence an article that actually refutes it.

  8. Is there a law against harming public safety? by MadJo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
  9. Police: Adapt and be more effective by Aqualung812 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.
    1. Re:Police: Adapt and be more effective by slim · · Score: 2

      Yay arms races. They always benefit society.

    2. Re:Police: Adapt and be more effective by Aqualung812 · · Score: 2

      So, you think it is better to try to ban an app (only on non-jailbroken iPhones, as Androids and rooted devices can certainly still run these apps) and pretended it isn't something to worry about anymore than to use the app to your advantage?

      I'm not suggesting an arms race. That would be more like trying to detect the users of the app with some tech, and then more tech to hide the users (see radar detector detector detectors).

      I'm suggesting turning your adversary's weapon into your advantage. Very different from an arms race.

      --
      Grammer Nazis - I mod you "troll" unless you actually add something on-topic. Yes, I know I have mispellings in my sig.
    3. Re:Police: Adapt and be more effective by slim · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm not making a point about whether or not it's right to suppress (not ban) the app, here.

      I'm just pointing out that if the police start doing what you suggest, an arms race is pretty much inevitable.

      - public use app to avoid DUI checks
      - police reposition DUI checks to defeat the app
      - public leave bad app reviews since app is now giving inaccurate results
      - developers somehow improve accuracy of app
      - GOTO 10

    4. Re:Police: Adapt and be more effective by Splab · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

    5. Re:Police: Adapt and be more effective by DanoTime · · Score: 2

      Well you clearly highlight what the reasoning is over here in the States.

      It is all about collecting money - and this story says to me that local municipalities want to ensure a constant stream of revenue so they talk to their senators about it - the senators talk to Apple about it... Apple talks to the developer about it... and the developer laughs and creates a story how they are being targeted - making sure to include the company or site name, and drive business from interested bystanders.

      Again, it is all about the money.

    6. Re:Police: Adapt and be more effective by kevinNCSU · · Score: 2

      They actually do this in America too, but people don't pay attention and then spout off about the police collecting money. They even do advertisements on the radios warning that police will be out in force issuing tickets for aggressive driving for the next 2 weeks and stuff like that, and there's always many a news story about how tough the enforcement campaigns will be during holiday travel seasons.

  10. Re:typical garbage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I would say this post highlights what is wrong with our country a lot more than the Senators request. "We should completely ignore Problem X because Completely Unrelated Problem Y is more important is a fucking retarded argument, and making it only proves that you lack the slightest understanding of how the world works.

  11. Re:typical garbage by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2

    Bigger problems are hard to solve and may involve controversy, or even taking one for the team by endorsing an unpopular solution. That sucks.

    Saving the children from drunk drivers and Supporting Our Police, on the other hand, is easy and nearly risk free!

  12. Re:Where in the Constitution? by crow_t_robot · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  13. Thank you Senators! by eNygma-x · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  14. CEO is so full of shit - he could be a septic tank by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    "PhantomALERT is a 100% legal service. If they really understood what we are doing and aim to achieve they would actually support us." [...] "The idea is to deter drivers from drinking and driving. When drivers get alerts for DUI checkpoints on their smart phones and GPS, they will think twice about drinking and driving."

    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);

    âoeIf it is alerting the driver there is camera ahead and actually gets the driver to slow down⦠be aware of the speed limit and also be aware of the speed limit and also be aware not to run that red light⦠thatâ(TM)s a great idea.â New Mexico Police

    http://www.phantomalert.com/Police-Testimonials/Police-Testimonials.html

    But what is the reality?
    Their own promotion:

    Tired of traffic tickets? The embarrassment, the time, the points, the frustration, the money?

    Then you need PhantomALERT! For less than the cost of one speeding ticket, PhantomALERT gives you audible and visual warnings as you drive, alerting you to approaching traffic enforcement zones in plenty of time to adjust to changing traffic conditions. It does the work for you - NO MORE SURPRISES!

    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;

    I am a pharmaceutical sales rep and I drive all over DC, VA and MD all day long. I see speed traps and cameras everywhere and I have gotten my share of tickets.

    Translation: I habitually speed.

    I heard about your service on FOX 5 and I literally run to my computer to check out your website. I was sold immediately. I am sure your PhantomAlert will put a stop to any more tickets. I love the fact that I can now use my GPS to keep track of all the areas I need to slow down at.

    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.

  15. Anybody who DUIs is an asshole... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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...

    1. Re:Anybody who DUIs is an asshole... by gknoy · · Score: 2

      Wait until you read about the immigration checkpoints in Arizona. It's a rabbit hole of WTF with similar time-wasting potential as a link to TVTropes, but with added horror.

  16. Missing the point... by ultraexactzz · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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
  17. Re:Where in the Constitution? by Sarten-X · · Score: 2

    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.
  18. Illegal in the UK? by Tx · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.
    1. Re:Illegal in the UK? by slim · · Score: 2

      We don't have DUI checks here in the UK. I've experienced one once, while on holiday in the US. Basically they narrow the road down with cones, put up signs telling you to slow down, flag your car down as you pass, ask you if you've been drinking, and assuming you say no, and they haven't a reason to think you're lying, they send you on your way.

      Of course, that's my experience as a white man in a hire car, with the English accent of a tourist.

      So it's quite different from speed traps. I personally think speed limits should be absolute and speed cameras should be covert. We shouldn't feel that it's only necessary to stick to the speed limit when there are overt cameras around. If people knew that 40MPH means 40MPH, and you could get caught anywhere, maybe speed limits could be increased in many places.

  19. Can I get this in a car analogy? by howardd21 · · Score: 4, Funny

    I just don't understand, can somebody make a car analogy for me?

    --
    no comment
  20. BS....politicians by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  21. Less donuts, more brains, please by antivoid · · Score: 2

    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.

  22. It's easier to booze it up by stomv · · Score: 2

    if you're not in jail or wrapped around a tree...

    --
    Support a few technologists in Washington.
  23. Re:Where in the Constitution? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  24. Easy Fix for the App by mangusman · · Score: 2

    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.

  25. Re:Pick a side! by jedidiah · · Score: 2

    > Apple can never win and please everybody

    This is why it's a good idea to be not solely responsible for the content that appears on your platform.

    You can implicitly allow this stuff by granting your end users liberty rather than being percieved as explicitly approving or censoring anything.

    --
    A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
  26. Dude, where's my bacon? by cshamis · · Score: 2

    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.

  27. Re:Pick a side! by 19thNervousBreakdown · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yeah! Why can't everybody have the same opinion? Get it together, people!

    --
    <xml><I><am><so><damn>Web 2.0</damn></so></am></I></xml>
  28. Re:CEO is so full of shit - he could be a septic t by Vectormatic · · Score: 2

    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
  29. Giving up more and more rights... by GregC63 · · Score: 2

    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?

  30. Re:Prove your innocence by joebagodonuts · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Then get the dangerous driver off the road. Sobriety checkpoints aren't the way to do that.

    In typical bureaucratic fashion, we get an approach that penalizes everyone, without effectively addressing the real problem.

    Sens. Harry Reid (D-Nev.), Charles Schumer (D-NY), Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) and Tom Udall (D-NM) asked Scott Forstall, the head of Apple's iPhone software group, to pull an unspecified number of apps from the company's App Store. The senators also made similar requests of Google's CEO Eric Schmidt and Research in Motion's (RIM) co-CEOs, James Balsillie and Michael Lazaridis.....

    4 Democrats, who would've guessed? The party that thinks it can save us from ourselves. Look guys, you want to help? Get me some of that money like you gave to the Wall Street guys. How come no one wants to "save me from myself" in that fashion?

    --
    "Give a woman two glasses of wine and some pad thai, and they'll agree to just about anything." the Sports Guy
  31. Legalized checkpoints by swb · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:Legalized checkpoints by crow_t_robot · · Score: 5, Informative

      You are exactly correct.

      It should be a requirement for every American citizen to read this book:
      http://www.amazon.com/Tactics-Criminal-Patrol-Discovery-Survival/dp/0935878122/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1300891075&sr=8-3
      The publisher won't sell this to civilians. You have to prove somehow that you are LEO-affiliated to obtain one but I received a copy from a friend who is currently a deputy sheriff and I read it cover-to-cover. IMPORTANT PART: THIS MANUAL DESCRIBES TO LAW ENFORCEMENT AN ARSENAL OF STOPPING, INTERVIEWING AND OBSERVATIONAL TACTICS TO GET YOU TO RELINQUISH YOUR RIGHTS AS AN AMERICAN CITIZEN TO ALLOW OFFICERS TO INSPECT YOUR PERSON AND VEHICLE. The techniques and methods described are AMAZINGLY effective and proven. It teaches them exactly how to let a suspect incriminate themselves and the exact legal boundaries for an officer to skirt while in your presence.

      If you have the chance, PLEASE read this book. It applies to you as a citizen regardless of whether you are a criminal or not.

  32. iPhone apps are just new CBs by SuperBanana · · Score: 2

    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.
  33. iPhone Drivers vs. Drunk Drivers by Maltheus · · Score: 2

    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).