Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Won't Pull Checkpoint Evasion App

Posted by timothy on from the good-for-them dept.

RedEaredSlider writes "Don't expect Google to remove apps that help users avoid DUI checkpoints — the company says it is leaving the controversial apps on its Android Marketplace. A source said the company only removes apps that violate its Android content policies and the apps in question do not appear to violate these policies." We'll see if Apple caves to pressure to remove them.

5 of 343 comments (clear)

  1. Why should they? by hawguy · · Score: 5, Informative

    Why should they? Police in most (all?) areas are required to publish the locations of checkpoints ahead of time, so these apps are just making public information easier to find.

    1. Re:Why should they? by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 5, Informative

      It's considered entrapment if they don't. If you read your local paper, you'll see checkpoints published. Of course, law enforcement is constantly trying to push the limits. After our local PDs started ramping up DUI checkpoints, they started restricting information on locations, shortening the lead time for announcements, etc.

      --
      I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
  2. Expected benefits by RingDev · · Score: 5, Informative

    Yes, and while standing shoulder to shoulder with drunk drivers and Google, we are also standing shoulder to shoulder with our local news papers, radio stations, municipalities, and police departments, seeing as how they are REQUIRED BY LAW to advertise the location of these check points.

    It is unconstitutional to search or sieze an individual or their car with out reasonable cause. Being on the road after bar time is not reasonable cause. The only way that these check points have been able to pass constitutional muster is by advertising their existance (including the when and where) to act as a deterrant.

    I loathe drunk drivers. I lost a girl friend and another close friend to drunk drivers. I left a company after the finding out that the CEO had been arrested for his 4th DUI. I'd love to see much harsher penalties for multiple offence drunk drivers. But the posting of these check points is a matter of constitutional law. If the senate were to forbid media industries from distributing this information, the check points would fail to pass the constitutional measure and would have to stop.

    As much as I hate drunk drivers, I love the Constitution far more.

    -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
  3. Re:Unexpected benefits by gearsmithy · · Score: 5, Informative

    Let me get that for you. http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=5167

  4. Re:Unexpected benefits by I(rispee_I(reme · · Score: 5, Informative

    This article lends credence to the idea. Don't have a ready citation for the idea that drunk driving is something government needs, though.

    If you're too lazy to click, Dallas, TX decided that the cameras at red lights were doing too good a job of reducing infractions and were cutting into their funding, so they got rid of them. The cops would have you believe that the purpose of the cameras was to increase safety, but their behavior clearly shows that the primary motive was cash.

    It could be argued that this is the result of "running government like a business".

    The lesson: If everyone stopped breaking the law, cops might have to do an honest day's work. :D