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

No boobs

[unixcrab]

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...

Re:No boobs

[gandhi_2]

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.

Re:No boobs

[Vectormatic]

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)

Re:No boobs

[feepness]

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%.

Second thoughts

[Chrisq]

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

Traffic Situation

[crow_t_robot]

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....

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).

non-illegal use.

[MickyTheIdiot]

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.

Re:non-illegal use.

[slim]

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...

Multitaksking

[stomv]

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.

Re:Multitaksking

[Kokuyo]

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.

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.

Re:Multitaksking

[cayenne8]

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.

Is there a law against harming public safety?

[MadJo]

And in what capacity do these apps encourage excessive consumption of alcohol?

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

[slim]

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

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.

Re:typical garbage

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Where in the Constitution?

[crow_t_robot]

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.

Thank you Senators!

[eNygma-x]

I just downloaded because you brought it to my attention... and I don't drink and drive.

Anybody who DUIs is an asshole...

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

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...

Missing the point...

[ultraexactzz]

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.

Illegal in the UK?

[Tx]

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.

Can I get this in a car analogy?

[howardd21]

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

BS....politicians

[hesaigo999ca]

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.

Re:Where in the Constitution?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Pick a side!

[19thNervousBreakdown]

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

Re:Prove your innocence

[joebagodonuts]

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?

Legalized checkpoints

[swb]

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.

Re:Legalized checkpoints

[crow_t_robot]

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.