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."
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!
Aren't law enforcement agencies required to publish DUI checkpoints in the newspaper?
"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.
You mean like this one?? It's not in an app, but this is where the apps get some of their info from...
http://www.hcso.tampa.fl.us/DUI-Enforcement.aspx
Also, why are they banned? You can find them by driving around and seeing them. Why is the sharing of them, even if they are not "advertised"??
Yes. The police are evidently only upset about the illegal checkpoints that the app publishes.
That's actually not sarcasm. It seems to be the truth.
Except the story is based on a false premise. Apple doesn't ban apps that use the police department's data.
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.
you know you don't need an app to drive safe, right?
That is the point. The Police know the people who check this app are going to be the kind of people who decide against DUI. The people who do go drinking and driving don't exactly have a a lot of foresight. If you plan your life enough to check a DUI checkpoint app, you are going to stay home, get a ride or take a taxi.
If the police department did not release the data of their secret checkpoint then it's not public data.
If it is something I can SEE WHILE WALKING DOWN THE STREET than it is public data, by definition. You can't argue the opposite without descending into hopeless contradictions.
The End.
Indeed.
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.
To be fair, the summary says that "Some police departments actually supply the data used". If it's not illegal, they should allow the app, or allow people to install things outside their store, but as usual, that just my opinion, and one of the big reasons I won't buy any of their products anymore. They've lowered their 'Evil' rating in my books a little today already by dropping the "can't charge a lower price somewhere else" portion of their anti-competitive subscription policy though. Sadly, I think that was because of legal ramifications and publishers looking harder at Android than anything else though.
Why this article is stupid...
Because apple didn't ban apps that show DUI checkpoints... they banned ones that weren't sourced from official sources like the police department.
Which strikes me as a relatively reasonable compromise. I'm not sure how much better people were expecting. The iOS is a walled garden, and if you want to use the devices without jailbreaking them, then you're going to have to live with Apple's rules.
Of course the classic "Pray I don't alter it again" line comes to mind when talking about Apple's rules at times.
The impact of those lines changes quite a bit when you realize they were uttered by a distraught father concerned about the well-being of his only son....
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
This is true; and we can and do vote with our wallets. Griping is just fair warning.
Didn't he want him to join the Dark side? I hear it's nice, but a bit of a walled garden.
Your examples are a bit twisted. Reading your appointments in a public street wouldn't make them public simply because they were private information obviously intended to be kept secret. The same with the credit card example.
It's the same difference between taking a photo of someone on the street without their permission (legal), or taking one of them in their home (illegal), even if the home is clearly visible from the street where you're standing with your super-zoom lens.
It'd be hard to argue that a police operation on the middle of a public road is intended to be kept secret and that you're not supposed to look at it.
And there you have it.
There was a time when "the customer" was "always right" and companies worked hard to give them what they wanted.
Now, the company tells the consumer what he wants, and then rents it to him. But only if he follows the company's rules.
I guess the question finally comes down to "do you really want to live inside a walled garden". For a lot of people, the answer is a resounding "Yes!"
The most ironic part of it all is that the people who choose to live inside the walled garden also somehow believe it makes them superior. But like the newborn that is kept in a sterile environment, away from any germ or environmental stress will lose all resistance and become weak, the people who are happily consuming canned content in the walled garden become weak in other ways.
Apple computers used to be a top choice for creative, adventurous people. Apple computers were used to make things. Now, they're increasingly used to consume things.
You have to decide.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Apple computers used to be a top choice for creative, adventurous people.
Apple computers used to be marketed as a top choice for creative, adventurous people. There is a big difference.
No, states moved the limit down to 0.08% because the feds made them do it (on pain of losing highway funding). The feds did it because the neo-prohibitionist lobby groups like MADD waved the bloody shirt until they did.
A BAC of 0.08% is low enough to make the classic "2 beers" illegal in many people. The idea isn't to prevent drinking and driving; it's to prevent drinking by making it impractical to get home from the bar without risking jail time.
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.
The FACTS are that DUI checkpoints are only legal in the U.S. if the police department informs the public in advance where and when they will be. So, in order for a DUI checkpoint to not be considered a violation of the Fourth Ammendment, the police department MUST provide such data to the public.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
I would, too.
Although I still say the best thing to do to reduce drunken driving would be to make sure the busses continue to run for at least an hour after the bars close....
I think the real problem, in many areas, is that advocates are taking their eyes off of the prize, and instead going for the goal of using drunk driving as a cudgel to curtail drinking at all.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!