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.
I run a store. I don't want to sell beans in my store. I remove all beans from my store.
Do I have a legal leg to stand on here?
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"
According to some at /., no. In the name of freedom you must be forced to sell any and all beans, whether you want to or not.
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.
No competition? What about Android?
It's either totally crushing iOS and being a triumph for "open over closed" *or* Apple has a monopoly on mobile apps.... you can't have your cake and eat it.
It is not illegal to have a monopoly, or to have a homogenous system - another analogous position would be Xbox Live and the online store there, or the PSN (when it's working, I kid, I kid).
Crucially no one is forcing you to use an iOS device, or an Xbox 360, or a Playstation, and using one of those does not restrict the competitors at all.
Correction. It is a publicly traded business, owned by private citizens and collectives. A municipally held utility would be an example of a publicly owned business.
I'm using all of my mod points to mod ancient memes down. Please join me.
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!
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