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

[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

[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

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?

[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.

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.

:)