Slashdot Mirror
Google Won't Pull Checkpoint Evasion App
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.
I wonder if they ever consider that this may actually be persuading people to not drink & drive. They check their phone, see that there are some drunk driver stake-outs, and they take a cab home instead. I'm sure it doesn't happen in all cases, but if it helps in a few, that's a good thing.
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
Apple is practically obligated to pull the app, given the fact they're willing to act as the morality police for their users, though it might take them awhile because they like to pretend they 'think different'. RIM is a lily-livered chicken with no willingness to take any kind of stand for fear of offending anybody. It's also not a surprise they pulled the app. And Google is standing by their principles, and won't pull the app unless its actually illegal.
The world is acting according to my expectations in this regard. And once again, its Google I have the most respect for.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
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.
If you're rational enough to pull out an app and plot a route home that avoids all the checkpoints, you're probably sober enough to drive. The problem with drunk drivers is that they DON'T think straight.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Then chances are you're too drunk to use the apps. I can't imagine some drunk driver trying to use some Google Maps mashup on a phone to navigate around police roadblocks, let alone have the mental aforethought to consider using it. People don't drink and drive because they're evil-doers, they do it because they lack the sober rationale to realize they're not capable of driving in their current condition.
"Where is my mind?"
This application just allows users to enforce their constitutional rights.
Americans once had a right under the constitution to protection from illegal search and seizure. Now even someone who is driving in total compliance with the law is subject to being interrogated by the police and having their blood forcibly taken from them.
Personally, I'd rather not have the police stick me with a needle in violation of my constitutional rights.
This app will be very useful until unconstitutional police checkpoints can be banned.
From what I've seen the past few years, the federal government seems to be able to do what it wants, constitutionality be damned. I'm sure Apple and Blackberry find it easier to comply than to try and fight city hall (as the saying goes). Furthermore, if they throw them a bone, less likely it is to see Washington attempt to come in and meddle in their businesses. You make certain congress critters mad at you and they'll go on an almost holy crusade if they think it will buy them points for the next election crusade.
And they don't have to pass laws to do it. Let's say google refuses, depending on the congress critter, they could decide to hold hearings on say Google's online advertising monopoly or privacy or whatever topic makes for a good witch hunt and do so in public. That costs google time and money (lawyers) and costs shareholders (at least in the short term).
Those who play politics see it as a game.
"The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
That's kind of like saying the 4th and 5th Amendments are "aiding and abetting a person to break the law".
You're free to speak and to associate. That's what this app does. You're free not to incriminate yourself. That's what this app does. This is true whether you're committing a crime or not.
It's the responsibility of the police to observe you doing it, not the privilege of the police to make you prove it. And if it weren't for the ridiculous "driving is a privilege not a right" rulings, police checkpoints of any kind would be entirely unconstitutional stops, as they are based on no reasonable suspicion.
I find checkpoints annoying, and I don't drink and drive. Seems to me if I want to know how to avoid them, I should be able.
It is common knowledge where I live that certain municipalities stop drivers at checkpoints, and then will not release them until they have found some reason to give them a ticket. They aren't DUI checkpoints. They are the modern version of "highwaymen". A few coins to keep the kings peace....
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
What law does this kind of app aid a person in breaking?
I do not jest when I ask this, because it is NOT illegal to avoid contact with the police. Driving is not a right, but rather a privilege. However, you DO have the right to travel from one place to another free of undue and unwarranted harassment. Because of the way that DUI checkpoints are conducted, they absolutely qualify as undue and unwarranted harassment. You personally may not mind being the presumption of guilt that hovers over you at a DUI checkpoint, but most reasonable people resent the mindset of police who are looking for any excuse to slap you with a ticket--or worse. I consider the ability to avoid unnecessary interaction with an agency that does not have my best interests in mind to be a legitimate use. If you don't, then you really need to get a clue.
Furthermore, the locations of DUI checkpoints are published beforehand. Would you also take newspapers to task for publishing this information? You could certainly use it to get plastered and then avoid the cops. The checkpoint locations are intended to be public knowledge, and trying to restrict that knowledge is not too good an idea.
Yes, it is illegal to drive when drunk. Here's the thing, though--as soon as you get behind the wheel of a car you can't control (for nearly any reason) and start driving it, you've already broken the law. Once you're truly drunk, you don't have the mental capacity to take a route home based on where the police aren't. If you can think ahead and plan out your trip home based on a DUI checkpoint alert program and actually stick to it, then you probably aren't the danger to the driving public that MADD and the police say you are.
I haven't even gone into the inaccuracy of breathalyzer readings, nor the fact that field tests are designed to be failed. I could, but I trust that I've made my point.
"osake no hou ga, biiru yori ii" to omotteiru.
No matter how many cops you see in front of you, make sure and talk to the one in the middle.
That is most likely the real one.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Sorry, should have put a YMMV tag on that.
As another example, in Wisconsin, sobriety checkpoints are 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
"Driving is not a right, but rather a privilege."
Although I mostly agree with your post, I am interested to know where this idea comes from, it seems to have been indoctrinated in a large segment of the population.
There are multiple court decisions declaring that driving is indeed a right, for example: http://thecountyguard.org/right-2-drive-handout.html
So why is the average american citizen so willing to surrender this right and go along with the privilege theory? Did I miss some kind of mass disinformation campaign?
-Lod