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.
Aren't law enforcement agencies required to publish DUI checkpoints in the newspaper?
On the other hand, it'd be hard to script a better demonstration of why closed ecosystems, particularly those controlled by an easily-pressured gatekeeper, are bad for consumers.
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.
Yeah, iMacs and iPods were made cool by nerds *facepalm*
If nerds had that much sway, the majority of people would be running Linux on the desktop, with all popular and important commercial apps and games available for it. And there would be no copyright or patents. And they'd be too busy with their girlfriends to use computers much of the time.
which is totally what she said
you know you don't need an app to drive safe, right?
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.
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?!
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.