Slashdot Mirror
Apple Bans DUI Checkpoint Apps
An anonymous reader writes "In late March, four US senators banded together and wrote a letter to Apple asking that they remove apps that alert users as to the whereabouts of DUI checkpoints. Now, Apple has revised its app store guidelines to ban those type of 'illegal' apps."
Just in time for me to release my new "lemonade stand app" it tells you if you are approaching a lemonade stand, and to slow down just in case you are thirsty, or take a different route if you don't like lemonade at all.
So glad I ditched apple and went back to pc/android a couple of years ago when this kind of crap started.
... is merely to ban apps that contain checkpoint information that is not publicly available. A Checkpoint app that uses data from public police information is still acceptable, and nearly every police department in the nation not only publishes their checkpoint dates and locations, but ADVERTISES THEM on TV and the local news.
Everybody wants so much drama where there actually isn't any. It's annoying.
As far as I can tell, the Senators decided to write Apple precisely because there was nothing illegal about those apps. Reporting on police activity isn't illegal - yet, I guess. I'm not entirely surprised that those apps specifically were banned from the app store, because Apple has an interest in keeping legislators off its back and keep up the image of offering a wholesome version of the Internet. At the same time, I'm curious what other apps would fall under this, or if Apple is going to keep this little bit of TOS around only to remove apps that generate too much bad publicity. My guess is it's going to be the latter.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
This seems a "wag the dog" or some sort of odd complaint that came up.
Every time checkpoints went up, police told the media, who told the public.
Why this is a big deal, I dont know.
I do know that drunk driving IS a huge problem and these checkpoints do save a lot of lives.
I also know that punishment for DUIs are pretty lax, so if they want to stop them, make it tougher.
This is what freedom is all about.
Choose Android.
Choose Freedom.
Fuck the police.
The police definitly need more hackers.
Lets put the check on route #1. Ok now start the application that reports check points on routes #2, #3, #4. Suddenly you have lots of people that are directed into the actual check point. Especially people that were actually looking to avoid the check point and are the actual ones you want to check.
Erm. IANAL, but isn't liberty an important part of the American cultural and political identity?
Do AAPL have a leg to stand on here?
This comment was written with the intention to opt out of advertising.
Is there some app that will allow me to avoid politicians?
Karma: Excellent. 15 moderator points expire sometime.
Most DUI checkpoints are published in newspapers ahead of time.
Will Apple also be banning newspaper apps?
Are technically illegal.
Yet, the apps that alert people to the illegal checkpoints are being criticized.
Fuck, nevermind. I forgot, this is America. Illegal != Not Legal for The Gummit
I'm not so familiar with US democracy, but do four senators represent a quorum, so that they can write a letter that has the power of law? This sounds unusual.
According to TFA, the terms ban:
Apps which contain DUI checkpoints that are not published by law enforcement agencies,
But aren't all DUI checkpoints supposed to be publicized ahead of time?
There is absolutely nothing illegal about those apps. Senators stating they are illegal is an outright lie and violation of the 1st amendment. DUI checkpoints are in fact public knowledge because the public must be informed the checkpoints are in place, because they can prevent people from getting places on time. The general public is usually informed by putting in a newspaper. Because it is public knowledge, the apps are a extension of freedom of speech. It would be the same as an application that allows you to read newspaper articles on sports.
Just because you are wrong and I called you out on it doesn't mean I am a Troll.
so now the apps are 'illegal', and they are not even drugs or weapons.
You can't handle the truth.
I would think a company like Apple would respond differently to political pressure. Checkpoints to begin with skirt a fine line with the 4th amendment, being stopped by the police for no reason so they can observe you up-close and perform an interrogation. The last time I went through one of those things there must have been about 20 or 30 cops standing around. I would think having those guys driving around looking for erratic drivers would be a better use of resources.
"It's fun to obey the machine" - Ralph Wiggum
Not as long as you don't have to buy in iPhone/iPad and can choose to buy Android or Blackberry or whatever.
Go look up "monopoly".
How about an app that you enter the name of a politician and you can enter details of something they have done that you heard about or check what others have reported about your favorite/hated officials. Info like where they are available in the public or where they are making public speeches just in-case you want to communicate with them or throw a sign at them.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
What if I just want to avoid these checkpoints when I'm sober? If avoiding checkpoints is criminal then only criminals will avoid checkpoints.
"People are stupid; given proper motivation, almost anyone will believe almost anything."
When I was 14, I watched my best friend get run over and drug 88 feet under a pickup truck by a drunk driver. I abhor drinking and driving. But it's wrong on Apple's part, and it's just edging us that much further into a police state with fewer and fewer liberties, freedom, free speech, or choices.
make it a mobile HTML5 web page with map overlay
While you are at it Apple, why don't you just ban the damn alcohol ( OH )
What about people that work late hours that tend to be driving home from work at bar time? Are they just presumed guilty until proven innocent?
I have every right to use all available information to help me plan the most efficient trip home possible. As someone that hasn't even touched a drink in 3 years I find it insulting that I have to sit through a 20 minute checkpoint because a small percentage of drivers on the road at a particular time are scumbag drunk drivers.
This is why I am thankful for Android. You don't have to go to an "App Store" in order to install applications.
Big Aaple fan myself, not blind, but a big overall fan. I'm with you this, I am very disappointed with Apple's decision and more saddened in the direction this nation is going. I wish Apple would have taken a freedom of speech stance, but the possible negative PR in refusing this is huge. Still, shame on Apple. Is the inner hippy dead in Steve?
They dont have a monopoly in the true market sense of the word. Your statement is like saying Ford has a monopoly on Lincolns. And no, refusing for no good reason is not an actionable monopoly abuse. This "apple is a monopoly" shit is getting really tired. They are NOWHERE NEAR Microsoftian levels of monopoly abuse. Not even close, they dont have the marketshare for it.
Good-bye
They should do another 1984 commercial, but this time just go all out and embrace Big Brother.
100% of the people passing a DUI checkpoint is drunk, then, is it?
Or maybe there are sober people who don't want to be stopped at a DUI checkpoint.
I've yet to experience a DUI checkpoint, but I've seen seatbelt check-points that resulted in epically bad traffic jams. I'd want to know if there was one if only to make it to work before lunch (which admittedly doesn't apply to DUI since they probably aren't setup at 8 am).
I 'm willing to opt out and use the private roads then.
...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
And most of you called AOL a walled garden. Apple is the supreme walled in garden.I'm not saying its a bad thing,it lets people who have different morals let the Vender's do there dirty work :}
Jack of all trades,master of none
And as a condition of carving out a chunk of the consitution the Supreme Court requires that those DUI checkpoint locations be publicised, making it a rather large stretch to label an app doing so "Illegal".
From wikipedia, "...the California Supreme Court (Ingersoll v. Palmer (43 Cal.3d 1321 (1987)) wherein the Court set forth what it felt to be necessary standards in planning and administering a sobriety checkpoint"
those standards include,
"Advance publicity is necessary to reduce the intrusiveness of the checkpoint and increase its deterrent effect."
The National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration also issued guidelines for sobriety checkpoints in response to a US Supreme Court decision that allowed such checkpoints. These guidelines also required advanced publicity of checkpoints to maximize the deterrent effect and to minimize traffic disruption.
So it seems to me that in this time when few read the newspaper where this advanced publicity is usually buried on the page B29 that an app like this is nearly required instead of being illegal, at least in California.
-- QED
I 'm willing to opt out and use the private roads then.
The only way I see to do that is to get a riding lawnmower and drive over everyone's front yard. It would be slow, but you could make some real friends that way. Bonus points if you clip the hedges.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Gee, I hadn't heard that the government banned all car companies other than GM. That's a bummer.
...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
Reason #437 to dislike the Apple App Store. Publishing data on police checkpoints is neither illegal nor immoral. This is publicly available information (police departments frequently publish it themselves). This is yet another arbitrary restriction on Apple's part.
When you make an ethical stance on one item- you have to make any ethical stance on all items. Because if you don't, it isn't a fair process and is no longer ethical. OTOH, if you only make decisions based on what is legal or illegal, then you are letting your clients make the ethical decisions for themselves- the way it should be.
Clearly (at least to me) they are. The question is whether screwing over your customers because The Man asked you to is the right thing to do. Clearly, it's not.
I did not agree to any such thing.
Hey, I finally got my first freak! Took you long enough!
The 4th Amendment will be preserved, even without the iCult's help.
It makes my glad to be a Blackberry owner. I can get my apps from whomever I want. RIM knows I'm a big boy who's able to make his own decisions. Hell, I can even write my own and I don't need anyone's permission to install it. Freedom is awesome.
EXACTLY. People do not realize that DUI checkpoints REQUIRE PUBLIC NOTICE. You will see ads in your local newspaper and some mention on your local TV news in the morning on where your local DUI checkpoints will be located. When you come upon a DUI checkpoint, there is supposed to be signage alerting you to the fact and allowing you to do a u-turn if you desire.
DUI checkpoints are not mandatory and are supposed to be advertised. These apps should not be considered illegal, if DUI checkpoints are not.
I should note that these requirements are for Florida, where I have experience with DUI law. I'm not sure if this is the case in other states.
If the government can simply require me to waive my fundamental rights as a condition to doing quite ordinary activities, those rights have gotten pretty darned watered down. Want to drive, take an airplane, take the subway, train, or interstate bus? No Fourth Amendment for your person. Hmm, but most of us use public water and/or sewer... maybe as a condition to that, we'll give up protection against search and seizure for our homes. What about those newspaper boxes on the sidewalk? maybe to be sold there, they should accept government censorship.
I'm sure you are aware of this but thought it needed repeating. The apps being rejected are only those that do not make use of publicly available information regarding DUI checkpoints. Just wanted to point that out. You didn't specifically say mention this policy one way or another so I thought I would. Just wanted to make sure folks who are too lazy to RTFA knew this as well.
From TFA:
Back in the day, I used to have to decide for myself what programs were appropriate for my devices and computers. Now Apple does it for me on my iPhone and iPad. And now with the launch of the Mac App Store, soon they'll tell me what's appropriate on my PC too. It's nice when someone gives you tough love. Soon I won't have to worry at all about malware anymore, or any other software that Apple thinks is inappropriate for me.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
With the blatant stupidity I have seen from our UK friends like this, it's amazing the Iroquois didn't kick your dumb asses all the way back across the Atlantic, not to mention the Hindus.
What, the stiff upper lip keep the blood from getting to your brain?
Your tiny little island, is unfortunately a big fan of censorship, eavesdropping, and other nanny-state BS so I know it might be hard to realize that some places, rights are held to be important aspects, even above some degree of safety sometimes.
I once worked at a place and a guy that worked for me drove his lawnmower to work one day because his car was out of commission. Got a good laugh out of that.
...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9215010/RIM_bows_to_pressure_yanks_BlackBerry_DUI_checkpoint_app
This appears to be the application in question:
http://www.phantomalert.com/
It does speed traps, dangerous curves, school zones, photo enforcement...
SO - since DUI checkpoints REQUIRE publication, Apple is effectively saying: "We are complicit when the Police BREAK THE LAW".
That IS what you just said, right?
Paranoia is a Survival Trait!
There is no monopoly here. The market is "Smart Phone App Stores", not "App Store for the iPhone". You are perfectly free to buy an Android phone, a Blackberry, or a Windows Mobile phone.
That sucks, but as a condition of you using the public roads, you agree to be subject to DUI screens.
So you're okay with a condition of using public sidewalks that you can be stopped and cavity searched at any time?
The dissenting opinion of the supreme court case said it best:
Moved by whatever momentary evil has aroused their fears, officials — perhaps even supported by a majority of citizens — may he tempted to conduct searches that sacrifice the liberty of each citizen to assuage the perceived evil. But the Fourth Amendment rests on the principle that a title balance between the individual and society depends on the recognition of “the right to be let alone — the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men. [Cite omitted.]'' [496 U.S. at 458-459.)
Go for it.
Agreed. Which is why it wasn't declared illegal (except in the poorly written summary).
Not in the least. They're just saying that, should the police break the law, they are not the proper channels to go through to rectify the situation.
Actually, you did, when you got your driver's license. Check it out sometime. Many states also have laws that state that having a driver's licence means that you consent to a breathalyzer or alcohol blood test. If you don't consent, then don't get a driver's license.
I think you would make quite a bit more enemies. Sure, you'd be mowing their lawn, but who really wants a straight-line streak of shorter grass?
So you're okay with a condition of using public sidewalks that you can be stopped and cavity searched at any time?
No. But that's such a slippery slope argument that only an idiot would make.
And you do have the right to be "left alone." You just don't have the right to use public roads at the same time.
Bullshit. I have been subjected to one of these DUI checkpoints. The police stop every nth car whether or not alcohol is smelled or suspected. I happened to be the lucky number n car. They required me to remove my glasses and submit to a field sobriety test. In Ohio, there is no publication of checkpoints, so in order to get around the 4th amendment, they test "randomly". i.e. every nth car. That is, unless they happen to smell or see alcohol. Then you are busted anyway.
There is absolutely no "justifiable" or "probable" cause whatsoever. I was simply collateral damage so they can visually inspect each and every motorist on a specific stretch of highway. Of course, I could have refused to submit to the test and automatically lost my license for 6 months. This is another of Ohio's wonderful laws.
As a non-drinker, this bullshit infuriates me. I have to prove innocence during a non-justified traffic stop.
It's not the only slipper slope argument an idiot would make (and it's even not much of a slipper slope) because the 'war on terror' is quickly taking us down that direction. If you're for giving up basic rights to use a public resource, then you don't have much of an argument against removing those basic rights for using all public resources.
Your saying that we don't have the right to be left alone while in public, to which I disagree with as does the 4th amendment and at least some of SCOTUS.
Try this one then:
"So you're okay with a condition of using public sidewalks that you can be stopped, be forced to produce identification, and have your person searched at any time?"
If anyone thinks that's the same sort of "slippery-slope argument", he needs to crawl out from under his rock. It's status quo now.
Not to mention that Apple's somewhat in a bind here, because of their walled garden approach.
When asked to ban a certain class of apps, Apple has a choice: it can ban them from iOS or explicitly keep them. Since Apple runs the App Store, doing either is a political act with consequences to Apple's image. Anybody running a non-exclusive application store could just remove some apps from the store, allowing them to stay available.
Usually, I'd ask if anybody wanted to write a web app, since Mobile Safari will do a whole lot of things App Store apps aren't allowed to, but in this particular case I rather agree with their decision.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
It's completely reasonable to act on one ethical problem and ignore another. That approach may offend *your* sense of ethics, but you're not Apple.
Actually, you did, when you got your driver's license.
I don't have a driver's license. Nor is my local area very big on checkpoints (you see more further out of town). However, I do ride bike, and under the law, a bicycle counts as a vehicle in almost every way (with a few exceptions like not being allowed on freeways, but for the most part I'm a car).
Could I be made to take a breathalyzer at a checkpoint? Now there's an interesting question.
Hey, I finally got my first freak! Took you long enough!
That's not how it works. Calling it an "agreement" is highly misleading. Extremely few people are aware of such laws, so how can the rest be said to have actually "agreed" to it?
Not that this changes the effect of these laws, but it's not like most people have ever specifically made a statement like, "yes, I agee to be subject to random DUI checkpoints". For most people, where such laws exist, it's not so much that they ever have specifically agreed to these things, but more that they are subject to such laws due to being under qualifying jurisdiction, licensing, and behavior.
Additionally, just because something is the law, or is buried in an agreement (either explicitly, ot implicitly), does not automatically make it right or beyond reproach or even constitutional.
He wasn't making a slippery slope argument. He never said this would lead to that. He was saying they are both based on the same notion.
The roads are public. Making use of them should not force one to give up their constitutional rights like this. Especially not something so extreme and fundamental as these checkpoints do.
The way you talk, it's like you are on a vicarious power trip. It's really disturbing.
So, US senators asked Apple to ban apps that report DUI checkpoints. In response Apple changes rules to say that apps can not report DUI checkpoints which are not published, although legally all checkpoints must be published or they are illegal. I read this as Apple pointing out the hypocrisy of the fed government's request.
Extremely few people are aware of such laws,
In NY it is on the written test for getting a license, as well as what the legal limit is for BAC.
Note that it must be a *legal* u-turn, otherwise you give them probable cause to stop you.
I didn't agree to any such nonsense. Agreement requires a meeting of the mind. There was none. This was fiat, not agreement, and there's no shred of ration reason such bullshit should be allowed when the Bill of Rights expressly forbids this exact thing as explicitly as possible.
But, hey, whats a little freedom when we get the illusion of safety, right?
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Extremely few people are aware of such laws,
In NY it is on the written test for getting a license, as well as what the legal limit is for BAC.
What percentage of drivers today took a test with that question?
Not only that but for commercial drivers federal regulations put that limit at .04 and not .08. The part that isn't often mentioned about that is that it applies in personal vehicles as well.
When you make an ethical stance on one item- you have to make any ethical stance on all items. Because if you don't, it isn't a fair process and is no longer ethical.
Only by your code of ethics. See? Done.
Unless you can prove that all ethical systems must, in order to be considered ethical systems, create stances on all "items" under that ethical system's consideration.
I'm pretty sure that there are a lot of ethical systems which have failed to enumerate all possible "items" that fairly fall under their consideration. It seems that ethical systems are still enumerating these.
So, perhaps it is just the case that there is no such thing as an ethical system, if your requirement has to be met.
Regards.
If you die from either driving drunk or being hit by a drunk driver, none of those damn "rights" are of worth to anyone. You libertarians/anarchists think that "freedom" is equal to a lack of laws but the truth is that anarchy is the opposite of freedom. Why? Because anarchy swiftly degenerates into fiefdoms run by warlords and that means that they only people who feel "free" are the warlords. If you are in constant fear then you are too paralyzed to ever exercise your freedoms that you might think you still have. Freedom is never "free". It must be bought with blood and maintained with some sense of order for the common good. Absolute "freedom" via anarchy is a myth.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
Yes, you can. I've known more than one person who got a dui riding a bicycle. The rationalization is that you can seriously hurt someone by hitting them with a bicycle, too. Personally, I got a written warning for speeding on a bicycle.
Now if we got more cyclists to understand that road laws affect them as well, I would be much happier when driving. Either you get to use crosswalks and be a pedestrian, or you get to move with traffic, not both. Get off the damn thing if you want pedestrian right-of-way.
DUI riding a bicycle? I've heard of people getting a DUI while changing the oil in their car, and a quick search showed that somebody got arrested for DUI while walking beside their bicycle in their own yard...
As for giving a bicyclist a speeding ticket, there's a few problems: ;)
1. Relatively hard to hit with a radar gun
2. Tickets are generally not going to get you much
3. bicyclists tend to view them as badges of honor.
I don't read AC A human right
I passed a cop who was doing the speed limit in his cruiser. No radar gun required for that one. And yes, the cop noticed I was extremely amused by the entire situation, probably why I only got a warning and not a ticket - I was likely the most pleasant person he dealt with all day.
I'm glad Apple freed us from corporate shackles. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYecfV3ubP8
U.S. Senators Harry Reid (D-Nev.), Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), and Tom Udall (D-N.M.) are named as senders in the letter
Oh, of course.
I'm sorry sir, but to get an answer to that question I need a completed 834-6b form, what you have here is an 836-6a form. Please get in the blue line to get the correct form.
But seriously, it's been in the booklet that you study for the written exam since at least 1994, however as to how many drivers took the exam, and how many of the various exams it has been on, I'm not sure.
But you're supposed to know everything in the booklet. Though I will venture that how much the average driver retains is probably close to 0% considering anecdotal evidence.
Yeah, I know you can get a DUI on a bike. But I wonder if I could be required to stop at a DUI checkpoint.
Now if we got more cyclists to understand that road laws affect them as well, I would be much happier when driving.
At the risk of going offtopic, I largely agree with your sentiment here. Some days I think the biggest threat to my well-being on my bike is actually other bikers who ride like assholes, because they make people in cars assume I'm going to be pulling the same shit. On the other hand, I wish we could get more drivers to understand this too. I can't count the number of times people have yelled out their windows at me or blew me by for obeying the fucking law. Why aren't I on the sidewalk? Because I don't want to kill anyone, you asshole (not you personally, "you" rhetorically). Also, it's against the damn law. Biking on the sidewalk's good for a $90 ticket around here. They only really enforce that downtown, but the downtown cops are really zealous about it.
Hey, I finally got my first freak! Took you long enough!
My roommate got stopped, drunk on his bicycle, on the freeway, and walked away with a warning ticket. "No bikes/peds on freeway." We framed it and hung it on the wall :)
Hey, I finally got my first freak! Took you long enough!
So, basically people roughly 35 and under took a test with that question (assuming 1994 is an accurate date), and people over 35 did not (assuming the same). While I'd be interested in actual stats, that sounds like less than half of all NY drivers will have been reasonably *assumed* to be aware of this law.
Which speaks to one my points, that just because it was on the test, even for 17 years, that doesn't mean most drivers on the street are aware of, let alone actually have knowingly agreed to, this abridgment of their constitutional rights.
And completely ignores the point of whether states can, or should be able to, take away people's constitutional rights as a requirement for something as fundamental to Americans' lives as driving.
Yes, but most cops trolling for speeders are going to be using some form of speed gun. It's harder, but not impossible, to get a cyclist with one. Plus, they're generally after those going +10 or more over - +5 is only if they're not getting bites otherwise.
It's fairly rare, but has happened. Like I said - the bicyclist in question tends to be PROUD of his speeding ticket. ;)
Thus they tend to not hand them out much.
I don't read AC A human right
I would say it depends where you live as well. Very near where I got my written warning, though not in the same town, the local police were not equipped with radar guns. They still handed out speeding tickets, so the radar gun may not be the weakness you think.
Maybe you are right. There probably is no perfect ethical system in place.
Hypothetically, if this were a religion issue, or a race issue, or any issue with blatantly segmented groups- how can it be ethical to make a decision regarding one group, without having to make a similar decision for all groups?
The example that comes to mind is back when there was an uproar about showing a cartoon Muhammad on the air and the possible repercussions. There was a southpark episode all about it. If you agree to censorship demands from one group, can you comfortably ignore the other groups? or do you continue to agree to further censorship demands because everyone can get away with it and demands it now?
Maybe I am getting far from the original point- is freedom of speech and censorship an ethics issue?
The rationalization is that you can seriously hurt someone by hitting them with a bicycle, too.
Not only that, but you could swerve in front of traffic, causing a vehicle to either hit you, or swerve to avoid you and cause another accident.
Either you get to use crosswalks and be a pedestrian, or you get to move with traffic, not both.
Why? Why shouldn't a cyclist get to use both, as long as they do it in a safe manner, and when the signals show it is ok?
Extremely few people are aware of such laws, so how can the rest be said to have actually "agreed" to it?
Around here, it's in your DMV handbook. If you didn't read it, that's your fault.
Which speaks to one my points, that just because it was on the test, even for 17 years, that doesn't mean most drivers on the street are aware of, let alone actually have knowingly agreed to, this abridgment of their constitutional rights.
Whether or not it's on the test is irrelevant; it's in the handbook, and I'm sure when the law was changed it was publicized. So everyone who hadn't taken the test recently would know about it, and anyone who got their license afterward would have read it in the book.
I hadn't thought of the swerving into traffic, that's a good example as well.
As for why cyclists shouldn't get to pick and choose which set of rules to follow, that should be fairly obvious. Besides, they're perfectly capable of both while staying within the laws of most jurisdictions - get off the bike and push it if you want to use pedestrian ways. Same as the driver of a car would have to park and walk if they want to travel using the sidewalks.
Why cannot my ethical system rely on individual case by case basis as a primary component of the decision making process instead of a secondary one? Or at least ce-Equal with the Ethical Guidelines.
What I mean is, why must an arbitrary (however well "thought out") set of Rules be hierarcically more important than the details of the Event? The Event is reality, the rules merely a behavioural map to navigate this.
Most problems I see with "ethical systems" is that they try to shoehorn inappropriate Events into Systemitized Categories. This either ends up distorting or dropping the actual details involved, and this is a mistake.
It just gets worse when you get your ethical Hammer and decide you must apply it to every situation a priori - that is without having an actual detailed situation that you have skin in.
This is what I see by advocating that if an individual ethical decision is made one MUST rest on THIS framework, and therefore one is WRONG, because when applied to these OTHER cases it turns out to be a horrible idea.
I hope that this makes my point clearer.
Regards.
It's been shown that you do not have a right to privacy in public.
That's quite bizarre, because it implies several weird things - that the lawn mower was taxed, licensed and safe to drive on the road (which must take time to arrange, unless it had been done previously) ; that the lawnmower travelled significantly faster than walking pace ; that there weren't taxi companies around that could do the transport job faster if the distance was significant ; that the guy was unwilling to walk a mile or so if he had to wait more than a few minutes for the taxi.
Someone driving a lawnmower along the pedestrian pavements at 40 miles per hour across miles of town ... hmmm, I'll bet that he had some conversations with the cops on the way. which would really have helped with getting him to work on time.
Video, or it didn't happen.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
It was a small town, the guy was quite overweight and not accustomed to walking, beyond that I don't know.
...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.