Senators call for takedown of iPhone apps that locate DUI checkpoints - Page 4

But the speed cameras and average speed gates haven't made a significant difference in recorded safety, they just make a difference in recorded citations and associated fines. Not to mention since you parliament got wise to the police fundraising they cut off the police departments take of the proceeds and now revenue from the cameras is significantly down! Why? My guess is the police's motivation to press the issue went down so fewer tickets are going out. But curiously nobody is saying the accident rates are going up!

I tend to agree. I have to try hard to wrap my mind around the idea that by default 'government' is bad as is anything it does as believed by certain sections of the current political spectrum. Given it is the result of democratic process and the alternatives are pretty bad. After all if we don't like what we have currently we get to vote every few years to change it. In the interim it would be nice to see people accepting those results without all the constant bitching and actually let the process work. Not to mention dialing down the polarizing hatred. Of course those that act like this seem to be happy governing themselves once they get the chance and of course what they want to do is fine.

In the future cars may have breathalyzers built in and sophisticated enough to detect DNA in your saliva and your thumb print on the start button all at the same time so your sober buddy can't help out.

I don't care, so long as they stay off of our roads, keep out of our airports, stop breathing our air, and quit drinking our water.

That's satire too. Or maybe not.

....
Make it as hard as possible for people to find illegal material or material that will help them to commit a crime, and at least then your conscience is clear and there is no blood on your hands. It's a matter of principle as much as a practical matter.

Imagine the public outcry if a child was killed in a drink driving incident after the driver used an iPhone app approved by Apple to avoid police protection.[/QUOTE]



--

I think it's important to remember that the publication of checkpoints is a legal activity, approved by the government, and thus the people.

We need to be careful what we censor, or soon it will be everything aside from what gov't wants us to see.
In this case, why are you stopping at the APP? Why not take away the tool that the driver uses to commit the crime - alcohol?

Is your argument that Alcohol can be used responsibly, so it's okay? I can use the App to avoid getting stuck in a traffic mess, isn't that also responsible use?


First Post! Finally had to join in!

Yes. Also have you noticed that when one political party is in power, half of the country is generally content while the other half is outraged that taxes are too high, the government is unresponsive and politicians are corrupt? Then when the other party comes into power, everyone switches places. It seems to me these complaints about overall government effectiveness are really a cover for complaints about specific government policies. It's a good cover, too, because it lets you forget that half the country voted for the policies that you're outraged about.

That lame argument is used to ban just about anything or any activity where a child could be hurt. Why not just ban cars and be done with it..?

Exactly!!!!!

Thank You.

Meanwhile, the senators get to huff and puff and act like "they're doing something." Gotta love pols... (...even if you don't like 'em.)

That sounds like a good idea if you ask me. I'm not too fond of alcohol, even though I do indulge occasionally, and the hypocritical alcohol laws in this country are a joke.

I wouldn't even mind if marijuana were 100% legalized and alcohol 100% banned. Alcohol is a killer and far more dangerous than many other substances which are currently illegal. There's a lot of money to be made for big business interests and pharmaceutical companies (legalized drug dealers) in keeping those safer substances illegal.

Because the behavior of an officer in this situation is that of someone who presumes a patron is going to be guilty.

Entrapment is when they troll the parking lots, take down license plate numbers, then set up a DUI check point down the street from the bar and wait for cars with these plate numbers to pass through.

That's not entrapment, it's profiling. Profiling is legal when it is based on behavior rather than personal appearance.

That's a load of bull. The presumption therein is that someone's behavior might be illegal, just for stepping into a facility where alcohol is served. Maybe you like to sit in your car across the street from elementary schools and watch children play during recess. Does that make you a child molester?

Entrapment, profiling, spin it however you want: semantics aside, presuming that someone is going to do something illegal, strictly under pretense, is at best unethical and at worst flies in the face of our country's legal system.

If you’re talking about law then words do have very specific meanings. Semantics are not just some silly game.

Without inducing them to commit a crime they would not have otherwise committed there is no entrapment. That is not to say that staking out a bar and writing down license plates is a legal act, but it’s certainly not a situation where the law enforcement in tricking someone into drinking and driving.

You're right - it's a silly game when someone assumes an authoritative posture on the subject without legal reference. On the other hand, common sense and a basic understanding of citizens' rights certainly do apply.

Stopping dozens of vehicles to catch a few drunks is an abuse of power (and tax payer dollars). Taking down license plates under the pretense that a law is about to be broken - and especially without prior knowledge or observation of a driver's condition - is most definitely entrapment.

And, back to the subject - knucklehead Senators who presume that only drunks would have use for such an App is an affront to our civil rights. Like I originally said: "Busy bodies with nothing better to do than minding your business."

You are using a word, entrapment, which has very specific meaning. It means police are using a form of trickery to cause someone to break the law which the person wouldn't have done otherwise.

Flat out your use of the word entrapment is utterly wrong. Just because you don't like something does not make it entrapment.

You also continue to fail in the analogy department because I never posited that anyone who went into the bar was guilty of DUI. That's entirely your own doing. As for your sitting across the street from the school watching children play, if you avoid playing with your wank and you don't offer anyone candy you probably won't get arrested. But I wouldn't see a problem with an officer walking by your car if you sat across that street more than once, your profile would start to look like you were worth further investigation.

Hiro, I read through your previous posts and for the most part we're on the same page. You have failed to connect the dots with your own analogy though.

Observation of behavior warrants further investigation. Cop sees someone stumbling out of a bar and unable to get his key in the lock? Probably warrants further investigation. Targeting patrons at a bar under that sole pretense (and thus, anyone else who happens to be driving down the same stretch of road) does not. No, police are not handing out the booze, and you can call it what you want. I call a broad measure of police force around the area of a drinking establishment entrapment - not only of customers, but anyone else who happens to be driving by. So just deal with it. As there are bound to be a huge majority of innocents over offenders who get pulled over, this use of authority sure as hell is not "profiling".

You're picking the wrong fight. It is profiling, whether it is acceptable profiling would be up to debate.

Using and abusing terminology in support of any position is only handing the means of your own debating defeat to the other side. Don't get all emotional and munge up the terminology by sprinkling it with personal redefinition, it doesn't help anything.

Let me see if I understand this debate. We're arguing about whether cops should look for drunks near bars.

Only goes to show, on the net, any debate is a worthy debate.

I'm fine with how I've termed this type of policing. Apparently you're hung up on that and keep bringing it up - sounds to me like you're the one who is getting emotional, Hiro.

I agree with Dr Millross; anything is up for debate. Cops should absolutely patrol around trouble areas. My point of concern is how they go about it - which should be from an observable offense as opposed to broad enforcement. And as far as those grandstanding nitwit Senators go: maybe they should tackle larger issues, like the $14 trillion hole in the United States' pocket? Let the states handle their own enforcement.

On the internet, nobody can hear you scream.

I'm not emotional, I'm just pointing out repeatedly that you are redefining an important term and doing damage to your cause by looking reactionary and uninformed. For the most part that's your problem, not mine. Where it does become some of my problem though is that munging terminology up the way you are, and then saying in effect ~I don't care, I'll rewrite my own dictionary~ is making it harder to get a coldly unemotional free speech is more important than nanny-state shenanigans message out.

Your poor choices in terminology and example to champion are just as bad as those grandstanding senators, even if you fall on the opposite end of the spectrum from them. It's one of those two wrongs don't make a right things.

OBTW, I'm also not so sure the good Dr meant what you think he did. Maybe you need to use the common dictionary to parse meanings rather than a personal version...

Require that the app include some sort of sobriety test before showing the DUI checkpoints - maybe a math test - or a dexterity test - or a reaction time test. Can't pass the test - can't know where the checkpoints are.

This whole debate is along the lines of passing out condoms encourages kids to have sex. Which is really a way of saying you would much rather be in the dark as to how much sex kids are having regardless so you can be properly outraged when they come home pregnant with STDs.

Stopping a car that was just at an establishment which servers alcohol to check if the driver is intoxicated is not entrapment and I don't even think that is profiling - that is just common sense - and misses all the folks who drank at home or a friends house or at any of the millions of places where alcohol can be purchased and consumed.

Then you shouldn't throw stones. I believe you were the one accusing me of being emotional while vehemently opposing the way I framed my comments. Sounds like a pretty emotional response, to me. I'm also very informed of civil rights and have a pretty good understanding of Constitutional law, and I'm sure you are, too.


My, aren't we judgmental. Once again, I have to shrug my shoulders, because it doesn't matter. We have much larger issues on the plate, like your civil rights slipping away by a bunch of busy-body lawmakers. Massive increase of social welfare programs (along with rising food & gas costs) that are going to crush the middle class. And... the fact that Congressmen declare and agreement to trim $40B off a yearly budget a high-falutin' victory, when we we have a 14 TRILLION hole in our pockets scares the living s#!t out of me.

That's actually not a bad idea. A compromise, but I think a fair one. However...


Obviously you believe in police states, since you failed to acknowledge the large percentage of people along these stops who have done nothing wrong, haven't had a drop to drink, and are being forced to pull over for a sobriety test under threat of imprisonment because they were driving in the vicinity of a drinking establishment. What if you were walking down a sidewalk minding your own business and a cop decided to give you a strip search, because there might be a shoplifter in the area. When your pants are around your ankles while bystanders look on, will you be thinking "this is common sense"?

Wow, somebody's insecure. I thought you said you were fine with your position and terminology? And you say it doesn't matter, but you show that to be a false statement because if it doesn't matter you wouldn't continue to post lame non-defenses. Judgmental, yes I am as far as the position goes. Making a stand for not allowing governmental prior restraint in freedom of speech is worth being judgmental over. Identifying points and arguments that damage that position are definitely a judgement call. No apologies coming there.

As for the police state thing, how can anyone take a libertarian government "get out of my library" equivalent position and logically turn it into a police state support statement? That takes some imagination. But the real imagination and your quite successful attempt at reductio ad absurdum show you to be intellectually bankrupt. You ran out of real supporting thoughts and went straight for public sexual humiliation. Real smooth. At least there is no doubt left in an readers mind that you are completely out to lunch.

Thanks for clearing that up for us. It was an important public service.

I am <yaaaawwn>. Throwing stones won't do you any good; you keep responding with asinine accusations, so I say it is you who is the insecure one...
Yet you continue to post lame non-starter arguments over something we fundamentally agree on? Yes, don't apologize for hypocrisy, or for fighting little fights over trivial nonsense.

Your failure to connect the logic in my prior comments shows as you jump the shark from what I said about "strip searching" and somehow turn that into sexual humiliation. Useful analogies are never going to be understood by people whose only intent is useless commentary.

My comments about these politics might be fairly sensationalist, but at least they are directed towards the topic as opposed to petty potshots at someone who I don't agree with. Regarding my so-called "intellectual bankruptcy" or being "out to lunch": sorry "Hiro", but you only have your own presumptions and do not speak for everyone else here. Grow up.

At least you're consistent with the strawman and redefinitions. I give reasons for my positions, and show contrast with others, not straight ad homs with no backup.



You say you agree, but use over the top arguments that are completely self defeating. Tactics that are part and parcel to folks that are trying to discredit what they say they are arguing for. if that's not you, you have to modify to using same arguments that don't automatically create a boomerang effect.



What hypocrisy? It's not a little fight, it's a big one, and I am quite open about the position, no duplicity or hiding behind something. Are you just using your previously stated leave to redefine terms the way you want them so they fit your mental model? Because that's the only way you can bring hypocrisy into that sentence.



So I jump the shark because you bring up the strip search and I call you on being over the top. Riiiight. What else other than sexual humiliation could this sentence of your earlier example be about:

"When your pants are around your ankles while bystanders look on, will you be thinking this is common sense? "

I'm supposed to take an action everyone I have run across finds humiliating, the strip search; have it executed in public with bystanders watching; and think you aren't trying to press a sexual humiliation button to get me to change an opinion over freedom of speech because in your police state the strip search can happen?

I'll let that little bit of wonderment sit on its own. You do an ever better job of tying your point up in incomprehensible ways.



Well, that surely doesn't change my mind. Now admittedly sensationalist, that's supposed to make it all better? And how could I speak for all here. You're here and I assuredly do not speak for you. Still sloppy with your logic and writing.

...at pointing out your flawed self-assurance and faulty logic.
Read back through the whole thread, genius. The context of this topic is, "Senators are trying to censor consumers from using a piece of software", which one way or the other, we've both said is wrong. You're creating your own controversy.
Your hypocrisy. And it is a small argument; don't get so emotional over trivial things.
Yes, you did. A) Had I said "groped" or made a suggestion of sexual contact, you might have a valid point. But, B) You've come to a wildly false conclusion, and have taken umbrage over a comment that wasn't even directed at you... lilgto64 can speak for himself. That being the case, you're obviously taking this whole thread very personally, which makes all your accusations of me "getting emotional" all the more asinine.
I made a pointed analogy that you completely drew the wrong conclusion about. Deal.
Yeah, I don't want you speaking for me. And while you're at it, don't take up my responses to other posters for your own personal crusade. Speak for yourself.

Wow, well developed sense of self importance there. I don't care about you. I care about getting the issue right. Your style of ridiculous argument hurts that, and that's not a small thing.

I wasn't responding for lilgto64, I was responding to you on to your publicly stated opinion (merely in a post to lilgto64) that supporting sobriety checks equated to a poster believing in a police state. You can't take that back after the fact and say it "only applies in the case of a certain poster when you were feeling a certain way on a certain day...".

Maybe a little less ego and a whole lot more purposeful writing will keep you out of the debate dog house.

Wow, you really care about something since you haven't had a single constructive comment in that regard since you've been responding to me. Since you're only good for cheap potshots you don't care about "getting it right". You haven't had anything intelligent to say about the topic, so this does not qualify as a "debate" either. Until then (and believe me- I am not holding my breath), you're the only one here writing to nurture his bruised ego.

Charming, and yes I care. I have said that several times, and it's why I'm not giving you a free stage. Ignoring content has become one of your strengths too. Anyone can go back and see the string of posts with my consistent content of protecting freedom of speech; advocating debate reasonably, don't default to extremism; and that resorting to extremism hurts the point supposedly supported. Each of those content points has repeatedly been discussed with relation to the violating examples you so graciously provided. The thread does not lie.

That you don't like that is only your issue.