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.

Comments

Unexpected benefits

[XxtraLarGe]

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.

Re:Unexpected benefits

[Anonymous Coward]

"dont tread on me" anti-government conspiracies do not need citations. They are to be taken as absolute truth.

especially since its from commodore64_love (and sockpuppet accounts), they are always modded down by the government, they must be true!

Re:Unexpected benefits

[geek]

Because cops just love seeing all the dead, mutilated bodies drunk drivers leave behind right? How the hell did you get modded up for this ignorance?

Re:Unexpected benefits

[cayenne8]

These days...pretty much ALL traffic enforcement is more towards revenue generation than safety. I'd not be surprised if they start treating DWI like the stoplight/speed cameras..where they actually print on the ticket "this is not a moving violation and will not go on your record"...??

Seriously, I say lets take all the fines for traffic violations, and rather than give them to the police or govt....let's pool it and redistribute it BACK to the citizens at EOY that haven't committed any infractions, as a type of reward.

I'd love to see how much enthusiasm and vigor law enforcement would continue to be for these type of stake outs, speed traps and checkpoints then when they didn't get any money out of it.

Frankly, I'd rather give bounties and rewards for preventing hard crimes like murder....I'm much more worried about that than some traffic infractions.

Don't get me wrong, if you're driving poorly and too inebriated to operate a vehicle safely, get them off the road, but other than that...go out and hunt REAL criminals.

Re:Unexpected benefits

[StikyPad]

Meh.

Even assuming these apps were effective (which they're notoriously unreliable), anyone coherent enough to use this app and plan an alternate route is probably okay to drive.

Re:Unexpected benefits

[tophermeyer]

In most countries flashing your lights is a signal to oncoming motorists that they are approaching a hazard. It almost doesn't matter to me whether that hazard is a fallen utility pole or a bored traffic cop, I would want to have some signal it's coming.

Re:Unexpected benefits

[Chris Burke]

If they were really worried about it...they'd just ban the sale of alcohol in establishments like bars and restaurants,and only allow you to drink at home.

There we go! I knew we'd come up with the proof!

But wait, wouldn't it be easier to just ban driving? Then they'd get rid of every vehicle-related crime at once (except the crime of driving, I guess). Proof they don't care about any of it!

Actually...MADD would really love to just turn back the clock to prohibition.

They would... which is exactly why MADD's founder left the organization. They'd become something other than what she had originally been fighting for.

Re:Unexpected benefits

[gearsmithy]

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

Re:Unexpected benefits

[I(rispee_I(reme]

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

Re:Unexpected benefits

[superdave80]

I agree. I can't believe how every time a city/state/county has a budget deficit, fines suddenly go up. Huh? If the fines are about making people safe, why didn't you up them before? If you are raising them only to make more money, then clearly the fine no longer fits the crime.

Re:Unexpected benefits

[WNight]

Almost all of them have been stand up guys, and good people.

How many of them would write a fellow officer a traffic ticket? Those who wouldn't aren't good guys.

Evidence from my city suggests that most officers would hide evidence of a murder, if they feared the truth would implicate another officer.

Re:Unexpected benefits

[MBGMorden]

Really depends on the neighborhood/jurisdiction.

In my area, I actually work for the local county government (which is tied to and is the main source of funds for the county sheriff's office). You see that for the sheriff's deputies, they are usually much more lenient on things like traffic violations, because in reality the bulk of their funding is coming from property taxes and state funds - NOT traffic violations. As such, they are usually only out to enforce things that they truly believe are safety violations. When I was 17-18 in high school, if a county sheriff's deputy caught us drinking down an old dirt road, they generally didn't care - as long as we weren't throwing trash everywhere, and were in an area where there was unlikely to be any actual traffic (middle of the woods at midnight nobody else is typically on the roads), then they'd usually just let us go with a "Be careful, and stay out of trouble.".

Now, shift to town police instead. The smaller the town (and hence the less state funding they receive), the worse the officers are. They will ticket you for the smallest infraction. One small town around here has literally written tickets for as little as *3* mph over the speed limit. A news story was recently done on that down related to their draconian enforcement and it was exposed that 66% of their budget comes from the fines related to traffic violations. That "town" literally is an intersection with a mayor, judge, and 1-2 police officers (and a population of less than 100 people).

As such I wouldn't say that ALL law enforcement officers are out to be dicks, but realistically, when you tie their paycheck to the numbers of tickets they write, you're going to get draconian enforcement.

Re:Unexpected benefits

[Miamicanes]

Exactly. Red-light cameras were pushed HARD in Florida by claiming they'd reduce red-light running, but 99.7% of the actual tickets end up getting issued for rolling right turns, or coming to a complete stop with the front vertical plane of the car not 100% behind the white line painted SO FAR BACK from the intersection,drivers on wet roads end up in a position where they literally have about 200 milliseconds to figure out whether they have enough room to come to a complete stop behind the white line painted about a hundred feet back from the actual intersection without hydroplaning and spinning out of control, or trying to make it completely across the intersection to another point ridiculously far beyond the actual intersection.

The fact that there are no mandatory state-dictated standards for yellow-light timing and/or white-stripe placement makes the whole thing an even bigger farce. Actually, that's not quite right... there ARE standards for timing and geometry, but they only apply to state-road intersections... intersections that never have red-light cameras anyway because FDOT knows they're bullshit and doesn't even want to waste its time screwing with them. It's cash-starved municipalities that go crazy putting them everywhere, casting their nets as far and aggressively as they can with the tightest timings and most widely-spaced stripes the consultants leasing them the cameras and issuing the tickets tell them they can get away with. In fact, FDOT won't even allow red-light cameras on state property.

How bad is it in Florida? In many cases, the red-light cameras are now costing the municipalities money, because any ticket issued by them can be trivially challenged on technical merit and get thrown out of court with basically 100% success, often without even requiring an attorney. At least one judge (in Broward, I think) cleared his entire docket and dismissed every outstanding ticket issued by a municipality over the prior ~year because LITERALLY 100% were getting successfully thrown out, and the City's legal argument for pursuing them can be loosely summarized as "our contract with the camera company requires us to cooperate, and we really need the money." I don't remember the exact argument, but it was something along those lines, and was so egregiously bad, the judge threatened to hold the City's attorney and its elected officials in contempt of court if it kept wasting his time with tickets that couldn't stand up to even the most trivial legal challenge.

The fact is, actual honest-to-god "the light is red, and I'm going to intentionally proceed through the intersection anyway" offenses are almost *unheard* of in the US. At the end of the day, it's probably the #1 greatest cultural taboo in America. Americans will sit at a red light at 3am on a deserted 6-lane road for 5 minutes. We'll spend 10 minutes backing up and moving forward in a roomba-like forward-facing figure-8 pattern shifting across 2 or 3 lanes trying to trigger broken sensors, and do a U-turn over a curb and raised median if we believe that the light really, truly, is never going to turn green... but actually proceeding forward through a red light? Never.

I expect no less

[Omnifarious]

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.

Re:I expect no less

[Anonymous Coward]

I would support the right of a KKK or Nazi sympathist to say or publish whatever he likes before I support you in oppressing him. You are no better than the religious lunatics who indoctrinate their offspring. Enjoy your 'freedom,' serf.

Why should they?

[hawguy]

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.

Re:Why should they?

[GodfatherofSoul]

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.

Re:Why should they?

[morari]

Regardless, they are still treating you and I like criminals. Show me your papers, citizen!

Re:Why should they?

[Americano]

Here in New Hampshire, there are specific prohibitions against using a sobriety checkpoint for trapping ANY violation other than drunk driving.

The legislature enacted RSA 265:1-a (2004), which provides:[...]
Sobriety checkpoints can't be used as a backdoor method to find other types of criminal violations. They must be published in advance by at least one newspaper.

Go figure, the legislature - along with armies of lawyers and police officers, thought of your trick and specifically closed the loophole to prevent against that abuse.

I don't see a problem

[Locke2005]

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.

Search and Seizure has Constitutional Limits

[bit trollent]

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.

Re:This should violate their ToS

[blair1q]

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.

Checkpoints

[ryanov]

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.

Checkpoints where I live

[pnuema]

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....

Expected benefits

[RingDev]

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

Re:This should violate their ToS

[himurabattousai]

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.

Point of advice...

[cayenne8]

If you DO get pulled over by the cops after having a few...remember this.

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.

:)