Slashdot Mirror
Why Apple's DUI Checkpoint App Ban Is Stupid
hookskat writes "Reason.tv Editor in Chief Nick Gillespie reacts to Apple's decision to ban DUI Checkpoint Apps from the App Store, writing: 'Let me add something even more damning of this latest development in corporate cave-ins to legally protected free speech and I'm gonna bold it for emphasis: Some police departments actually supply the data used in such apps because they reduce the number of drunk drivers on the roads! Somehow, I'm thinking that Steve Jobs circa 1984...would have told U.S. senators sending threatening letters about computer-based info sharing to take a hike. Or at least to spend time on, I don't know, creating a freaking budget for the country rather than worrying about regulating something that helps reduce impaired driving.' Last month, after RIM caved on the same question, Reason.tv released this video on the subject of banning DUI checkpoint apps."
I agree.
The end.
> Some police departments actually supply the data used in such apps because they reduce the number of drunk drivers on the roads!
Care to back that up with, oh I don't know, FACTS!
From the summary on slashdot: "I'm gonna bold it for emphasis: Some police departments actually supply the data used in such apps because they reduce the number of drunk drivers on the roads!"
From the article: "Apps which contain DUI checkpoints that are not published by law enforcement agencies, or encourage and enable drunk driving, will be rejected...."
Does it really decrease the total number on the road, or only the total number counted by police checkpoints?
Also that old line on causation. You know the one.
Supporter of the +1 Over Dramatic mod option. In memory of apk.
This is horrendously bad for apple, cause if I think it's not cool, then I stop recommending it. I stop recommending it, they don't get sold. It took a lot of nerds to make apple get where it is today, IMSHO.
CS majors know the time/space tradeoff, but they never get taught the 3rd, crucial, tradeoff of the set: comprehension!
A motor vehicle with a drunk driver is a deadly weapon. This is our right under the second amendment.
I think the reason RIM caved so quickly is users can easily install apps outside of their 'App World' application.
I once took an excursion to Reddit, and later HN. Unlimited up/down voting sucks when dealing with a hive-mind.
"because they reduce the number of drunk drivers". Really? Where's the proof of this? And it better not be stats from DUI arrests at the checkpoints because well....you're telling them where you are, they go a different way. Not that I agree or disagree with Apple's decision but if you're gonna make such a "bold" statement you better be able to back it up Nicky G.
Really, I used Mac almost since they were put in market.
But that lock-down just makes me mad.
It also looks like in next few versions OS X will be deprecated in favor to iOS (yes I know its a flavor of OSX) and be locked-down.
So bye bye my Macs.....
i've run those kinds of apps before (trapster in my case)
and you know what i'm doing the whole time i'm running it? I'M LOOKING OUT FOR COPS AND STAYING VERY AWARE OF MY SPEED!
in other words, i'm being safe!
Is this news or an opinion? If you actually read the reasoning, Apple WILL allow apps which display publicly available data. If the police department did not release the data of their secret checkpoint then it's not public data. The End.
This doesn't violate the first amendment, because the Apple App Store is definitely not a public forum. Apple has the right to ban any apps it sees fit, with or without good reason.
I also don't see how a DUI checkpoint app could reduce the number of drunk drivers. A determined drunk would try to find an alternate route home then to sit and sober up where they are.
The rules specifically apply to checkpoint information that is NOT published by law enforcement agencies.
Section 22.8 of the updated App Store Review Guidelines reads:
"Apps which contain DUI checkpoints that are not published by law enforcement agencies, or encourage and enable drunk driving, will be rejected."
Some law enforcement agencies publish where DUI checkpoints will be located ahead of time, and these notices have been exempted from the ban.
Source
What the hell passes for "facts" these days?
Apple has *not* banned DUI checkpoint apps. Not even one. All of the checkpoint apps that were up on the store before today are still there.
What they have done is changed their ToS to be explicit about the listing of non-public information, which DUI checkpoints are *not included in* since the police advertise them.
How the fuck this ever (and in the previous article) got twisted into "Apple bans DUI checkpoint apps" is beyond me, other than some serious axe-grinding Apple haters are just making stuff up and posting it as news. Maybe the correction was sent to them via text message from Android, but it somehow got sent to a guy who cleans windows in Atlanta instead.
that Nick Gillespie doesn't actually read what he quotes?
About the 1984 Steve Jobs part, As we know now that giant screen in the famous Macintosh commercial was not a prop, but rather a real deal space time communicator, where 1984 Steve received orders from 2016 Steve. Also the board removed Steve from his duties shortly thereafter for no other reason than "that communicator thing is really creeping me out"
RIM isn't able to. RIM can remove an application from blackberry world (the BB "app store"), but nothing stops anyone from just putting the application on a website.
RIM doesn't impede what applications YOU install on YOUR blackberry in any way.
I'm at a bar, I've had a couple drinks, but nothing excessive. It's not late and I can safely get myself home as I have done in the past, but there's a plausible chance I'd get busted for a DUI if I got stopped on the way home. I'm a little buzzed and 0.001% over is all it takes. I check my new iPhone app and lo and behold, there's a checkpoint on the only highway between the bar and my house. I don't want to spend the night in jail, so I take a cab instead.
That app would save me money and jail time, save my district a bunch of paperwork, and make the roads safer.
The other side of the argument is that people will know where the checkpoint is and try to drive around it. If anything, this being open should encourage better checkpoint planning. There are plenty of high traffic bottlenecks in every state, so that's a poor excuse. Worst case scenario is the appropriate side roads would need increased patrols.
Why does a libertarian like Nick Gillespie want to force a market participant like Apple to carry certain types of apps in its App Store? Last time I checked, the First Amendment was about the government abridging your right to free speech.
If people want DUI checkpoint apps, they can switch to Android or some other phone platform that allows them to run the types of app they want. The market will reward or punish Apple accordingly. Isn't that how it's supposed to work?
Can someone explain how knowing where the DUI checkpoints are lowers the number of drink drivers? I'm not questioning it, it's just that I don't get the logic and I haven't seen any explanation of it anywhere.
Not good enough.
and all you people need to stop being suprised when apple does something scummy. it's STILL not new.
- is because they plan to use checkpoints for more than just sobriety checks in the future. Say goodbye to the 4th Amendment and hello to FEMA camp abductions under the guise of anti-terrorism searches.
My mobile phone can already share location information via the browser. dart.org's mobile site shows you the closest bus stops, so creating a similar site that shows the closest dui checkpoints is certainly possible ... what would apple do then? ban the site from its browser?
Quote: Some police departments actually supply the data used in such apps because they reduce the number of drunk drivers on the roads!
You mean drunk drivers on the roads *they are patrolling*. There's the same number of drunk drivers either way. Actually I would argue that there are even more drunk drivers out there because they believe they can avoid being caught.
And I would much rather the drunk drivers be on the main thoroughfares where they would more likely to get caught, then to have them cut through my neighborhood in an attempt to not get caught.
Call them donut Connoisseur conventions, problem solved.
Say, somebody DUI comes towards you... Can you shoot such person in self defence?
Privacy is terrorism.
It's from reason magazine, which caters to self-obsessed libertarian wonks.
They specialize in stupid.
I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
Don't confuse the idea of "free markets" spoken of in the realm of economics with the idea of "free" markets where buyers and sellers have the freedom to do whatever they want.
In fhe former, buyers and sellers always act rationally, that is to say sellers always sell at the maximum price that they can get for a good and buyers always buy at the minimum price they can pay for a good. The equilibrium between price taking and price setting is supposed to produce the most efficient price.
Contrast this with a market where sellers act against their economic interest as the result of various other interests. For example, a shop keeper might want to refuse serve customers whose skin hue is a particular shade. Another shop keeper might want to refuse to stock merchandise by a manufacturer that implicitly (or explicitly) supports certain political causes. And then, there are the buyers. Some consumers might choose higher priced items that are functionally equivalent based on ideological reasons. Other consumers might choose to buy products based on advertising campaigns rather than on whether the product actually meets their needs. The market where this sort of thing is "free" in the laissez-faire sense of the term. But it is not the "free market" of Neoclassical economics.
Ultimately, libertarians have to decide whether the freedom of the seller to sell (or not to sell) takes priority (or not) over the freedom of they buyer to buy (or not to buy). Some try to argue that there is no tension in these freedoms. They are deluded as the lunch counter boycotts of the sixties demonstrated. Libertarians that are not deluded sometimes come down on the side of the sellers and sometimes on the side of the sellers. And, very infrequently, on the side of neither in support of the "free market" of Neoclassical economics.
The scariest part of these apps for me is that they may allow someone to drive home impaired without being caught. Possibly driving further than they normally would to avoid the checkpoint. Possibly getting into an accident.... If even one person does this, it's one too many.
R.Y.O.F.A.
Out of curiosity, at what point does the existence of the checkpoint itself count as "published by law enforcement?" At the very least it would be at the point where the first ticket was written, since the ticket is a public record and it contains the address closest to the infraction. Right?
What bothers me about this is that Apple has, essentially, banned an app for publishing a certain class of facts. Is there any way that this sounds OK once it's been framed that way? I get the motivation but I'm just not willing to advocate for censoring facts unless you prove to me that there's no viable alternative.
if (SteveJobsIsAGiantFlamingVagina = true)
{
int buyandroid ()
}
else
{
SteveJobsIsAGiantFlamingVagina = true
cout "Duh!";
break;
}
I for one welcome our new Twitter banning overlords
In 1984 Steve Jobs replaced the fabulously open Apple ][ with the incredibly closed Macintosh.
Apple's 1984 campaign was clever marketing not a presentation of Steve Jobs' personal philosophy. Jobs has always been a slick character. He only played the freedom card in to serve himself. He hasn't changed a bit.
Nick Gillespie should know better. Perhaps he's being disingenuous to try to get some shame leverage here. But he ought to know Jobs has never given a damn.
He hung out with people who blueboxed AT&T. Now he's partnered with them. He made PCs for the masses. Now he controls tiny little PCs used by the masses.
Revolutionaries have a bad habit of ending up worse than what they revolted against. This makes Woz that much cooler, since he didn't fall into that trap.
Saying it's "stupid" somehow makes your argument look lame, kind of like calling that someone you don't like a "big poopy head".
Flat out, it's police-state anti-democracy in action. Apple caved to political pressure placed upon it by sleazy politicians pandering to police organizations/unions.
FTA: Somehow, I'm thinking that Steve Jobs circa 1984...would have told U.S. senators sending threatening letters about computer-based info sharing to take a hike.
All companies that go public will eventually drop or morph core values when these conflict with shareholder value (variously defined as profit or share price). Apple are no different.
Backward%20compatibility%20is%20over-rated
Talking about search points which are legal yet unpublished. This pretty only things these guys are talking about. It has nothing to do with DUI; http://www.frtv.org/2010/06/constitution-free-zone-border-patrol-security-search-and-seizure-laws/
Does it occur to the writer that the only people that would use these dui avoidance apps are intoxicated, driving and actually need to avoid dui checkpoints? And the only people who are upset by this app ban are the people who need to use the apps, who should also be calling a cab? It might not occur until someone smashes into you or a friend, who shouldn't be driving because of alcohol.
I think you can cut out a few words from the title: "Why Apple is stupid?"
Most geeks spend so much time in basements that being at ground level gives us^H them vertigo.
What's more, they're so physically uncoordinated that if you put them on a pedestal we, umm, they'd fall off.
Luckily, most geeks are smart enough to know that and take active steps to avoid pedestalization.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
How about a different hypothetical situation. One where I am driving home completely sober. I happen upon a DUI check point and the PIGS there are being their usual piggy selves. So I swipe one of their guns and blow them all away. Wouldn't there have been less death and destruction if I had checked the app and taken a different route home.
These hypothetical situation stories are fun!
-- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
MOST CITIES REQUIRE DUI CHECK POINTS TO BE PUBLISHED. in order to avoid constitutional issues. In most states its illegal to run a checkpoint without first publishing the location and time ahead of time. all these apps do is further diseminate the info instead of hiding it on page 39..
GMHOWELL's an ADMITTED TROLL: HIS OWN WORDS PROVE IT HERE http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1907528&cid=34543612 You're online trolling trash gmhowell, period. Nobody takes your "kind" seriously online. Get used to it.