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."
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.
So if you check your app and you find that there isn't a checkpoint on the only highway between the bar and your house, does that mean you would happily drive home drunk and possibly cause an accident? That doesn't sound like it made the roads safer at all!
However, if you did not know if there was a checkpoint set up, then you may just decide not to risk it and take a cab anyway. Thus by not having the facts the road becomes safer.
I like how you fail to quote the part of his statement where GP chooses to not drive home, then fail to respond to any point that he makes. Good job!
I like how you fail to recognize the other outcome from checking with the checkpoint app: "no checkpoints reported, I'm just a little buzzed, so I hop in the car and drive home." He didn't say that explicitly, but that's the other side of the coin of what he did say. Or did you think that he was checking the app just for fun and had already decided not to drive home? No, that's not what he said.
What happens without that app? If he thought "maybe I'm too drunk to drive and I might get caught at a checkpoint" every time he was drunk and needed to "drive home", instead of being able to see if there was a high probability of getting caught, and took a cab instead, THAT would make the roads safer.
And then, what if the only way home wasn't the road where the checkpoint was? Do you think he might have decided to take the backroads to avoid the cops, thus making for a longer drive over less well maintained roads and increasing the danger to himself and others?
Good job, yourself.
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.
Wow. I want an app that tells me where you're driving so I can avoid you.
Attention deficit disorder is a complicated issue, spanning several major... HEY LET'S GO RIDE BIKES!
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.