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 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.
Yes, its called Bitcoin.
ATH0 Bitcoin: 1DnwFLXczVZV8kLJbMYoheUrpqHesjxrSi
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?
Citation?
I agree drunk driving is a bad thing. But frankly, I've never seen any real evidence it's as endemic as you suggest. I've been driving for almost 40 years, and I can only recall seeing ONE (1) guy who was almost certainly drunk while driving (he was going east on the westbound half of a divided highway in the middle of the night).
It's virtually certain that there were other drivers who'd had a drink or three near me on the road in that time, but none that were obvious enough to pick out from the usual fraction of sucky drivers you find everywhere.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
That's kind of a funny insight -- certain legislators being cranked that public information has unexpectedly gotten into a readable, useful format. Implying that newspapers have degenerated to the status of "officially public information" but "assuming no one actually reads them".
We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
I also agree; been driving 30+ years and this 'drunk driving problem' is not any kind of major problem that I've seen.
so much is overblown because its a popular way to raise more power for those in charge and to look like you're tough on 'crime'.
a checkpoint to catch a percent of a percent? isn't that a baby and bathwater situation? sure sounds like one to me. lets suspect everyone who crosses this 'checkpoint' and have them be assumed guilty unless they prove TO US that they're not.
fully turning the american notion of 'innocent until proven guilty' upside down.
I know who the terrorsts are these days. they wear badges or congregate at city hall and other government buildings.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
Hey brainiac, I know reading the fucking article is so last-year around here, but if you had bothered to read it, you would have seen this:
This submission is retardedly inaccurate flamebait. If your app contains information about checkpoints that have been published by law enforcement, then your app meets the requirements set forth in the guidelines.
The new ToS are about removing apps that use information that was not publicly available already. The data published by the police is still fine to use. Of course, the troll summary leaves that out to try to paint Apple in as poor a light as possible, but this is slashdot.
So just to be clear, since it appears ALL checkpoints have to be published publicly, therefore NO apps are to be banned?
Or no?
Automotive analogy: The problem with using BAC is that it's akin to checking the speed of your car by putting strain gages in the tires and measuring the radial strain to get at the rotational speed. It's just as silly.
What you need to do is a functional test: measure reflex speeds, vestibular nystagmus and its suppression, and such. All of that could be done with a portable eye tracker, quite cheaply, too (read: big profits for manufacturer). This would take care of people's varying sensitivity to alcohol, and would automatically catch drug users, too. It tests the performance of the visual system -- kinda important when you're driving.
BAC is an indirect way to measure impairment: it's impairment you're after, not BAC itself. BAC is a very approximate estimate for impairment! Even worse, BAC is measured indirectly again by poorly testing the amount of alcohol in exhaled air. That's two layers of indirection for measuring something that has direct, reproducible measurements available.
A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
This is why I am thankful for Android. You don't have to go to an "App Store" in order to install applications.
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).
The 4th Amendment will be preserved, even without the iCult's help.
the dangers of drunk driving have nothing to do with how your eye vibrates or your nystagmus suppresses or whatever.
There isn't some magic booze fairy that comes down and jerks the wheel. These are well-understood biological processes. You said it yourself above, "The danger is with people who are drunk enough to mess with their distance judgment or reflexes." So which is it? Biology or booze fairy?
At least BAC is a proxy that can be understood and everybody agrees is related to alcohol intake.
So what? It's also an arbitrary measurement that can mean wildly different things depending on any number of factors. If I usually have a six pack a day, and today I drank three beers, I'm probably over the limit, but in no way impaired. You obviously know that. So why are you spreading lies?
I can't stand drunk driving apologists.
I can't stand ad hominems.
Hey, I finally got my first freak! Took you long enough!
the dangers of drunk driving have nothing to do with how your eye vibrates or your nystagmus suppresses or whatever
Sez you. Nystagmus is directly related to the efficacy of the alcohol that is affecting the brain. If you know the alcohol is affecting the eyes a certain amount, you know that it is also affecting motor centers the same amount. It is a proxy, but a very close proxy.
At least BAC is a proxy that can be understood and everybody agrees is related to alcohol intake.
Everybody doesn't agree that, because it's not true. Do you know what your partition ratio is?
BAC measures the amount of OH groups in your breath, which may not be proportional to the amount of alcohol in your breath. Even if it were, the amount of alcohol in your breath may not be proportional to the amount of alcohol in your bloodstream. Even if it were, the amount of alcohol in your bloodstream may not be proportional to the amount of alcohol in your brain. And even if it is, the same amount of alcohol in the brain doesn't impair everyone the same way.
That's 4 degrees of indirection. That's 4 opportunities for reasonable doubt, every time a BAC is read. I hate drunk drivers as much as anyone, but I'd never convict someone on BAC evidence alone.
I can't stand drunk driving apologists.
I can't stand fucking authoritarians who don't even care whether their evidence is scientifically valid.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
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:
Checkpoint Apps that rely on publicly available police department released data are just fine. Crowdsourced (etc) apps are not.
Why is that?
Whether it's immoral or not to provide a method for drunk drivers and normal drivers alike to avoid DUI checkpoints is another question.
Morality has nothing to do with it; for these checkpoints to have passed Constitutional muster, it's required that the public be informed as to their location. So again, why does it matter how the public gets this information? It's not like most checkpoints are disclosed except for a few here and there that those wacky pranksters with their smart phones are spoiling the surprise!!!!!111lol
Personally, I wholeheartedly support DUI checkpoints and would approve of greater punishments for dangerous and erratic drivers.
Personally, I despise any and all fishing expeditions performed by the police and I'm grateful that these DUI checkpoints are required to be disclosed. After all, the police are ostensibly checking for DUIs, but make no mistake about it, any interaction like that with a police officer is a free interrogation for every crime they can pin on you.
"A government is a body of people usually -- notably -- ungoverned." -Shepherd Book
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!
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.)
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.