Senators call for takedown of iPhone apps that locate DUI checkpoints - Page 2

I was amazed to read a poll that actually discovered most people on the internet (I assume that means blogs) spell 'hear, hear' incorrectly as 'here, here'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hear,_hear

Meanwhile I personally feel that it's a bit like saying radar detectors should be banned or as someone else pointed out CB radios should be since they are used all the time for the same purpose. Frankly there are more important issues out there and I seriously doubt removing this app will stop a drunk from driving.

Here is a more serious issue IMHO ... using a cell phone while driving should be illegal. It's easy enough to have hands free systems. I see drivers every day go through red lights and wander all over the road while messing with a cell phone.

See that's what it all comes down to.

We love to quote Benjamin Franklin and speak of the 1st Amendment as if it were written by gods. None of those signatories would have wanted to see civil rights used as an excuse to bend the law. We love to think we are blessed with some wider perspicacity that everyone else lacks and we are seeing 1984 in its infancy but the truth is this is stopping mindless, selfish morons from destroying real lives.

Sure it won't stop it on its own, sure the information is still available, but why present it to people in a nice neat package and let them abuse it?

This is a common sense request and I hope Apple grant it. I believe they will.

I don't even drink and find this totally offensive, it attacks a basic human right to communicate. Beyond that there are a number of good reasons to avoid DUI checkpoints even if you are completely sober. For one the delays can be excessive. Second they are a safety hazard to both the drivers and the officers involved. Third the line of questioning often degrades into things that are no bodies business but your own.

For example I've hit a number of these check points and frankly had questions asked that I really shouldnt have to answer. The where are you coming from or where are you going questions have nothing to do with drunk driving. Frankly I've heard these enough when I was going to college nights four or five times a week. Beyond that is the assumption that everybody on the road after 6:00 PM is drunk. That was years ago but I still run into these roadblocks from time to time and still find them offensive.

As others have stated there are better solutions out there. One of the best would be to simply screen everyone driving away from a bar. At least then you have probably cause.

In any event if these asses get away with this request what do you think will be requested next? If this isn't an example of people using their power in a damaging way I don't know what else would be. More so it looks like the age old technique of making noise over something minor to take focus off your failings.

I'll ignore the patronising spelling correction. Its 4 AM here so you'll forgive the odd brain fart.

It might not stop a drunk from driving, but it will stop him driving and getting away with it as easily as loading an app. That might stop him driving the week after and killing someone.

No, I was seriously surprised that more now spell it that way. It is like people saying 'I could care less' while meaning 'couldn't care less'. Here in the States if enough people change spelling or usage it ends up being accepted as correct. I was not intending to be patronizing. That spelling is now in use more so I assume it will be considered correct soon.

Back on the app ... Perhaps having the app would mean they'd hand over the keys if they knew the blocks were on the way home ... it can be argued both ways.

You say make the bars responsible for your drinking habit, Then maybe we should make Cell Phone companies resposible for putting text messaging app on the phones for those who text and drive who are as dangerous., I could go on all day with the list but I am not going to.
I have been driving for over 38 year, and have gotten 1 ticket and that was speeding because I was trying to make my Dad's funeral, so obey the law and you will be fine.

Not all criticism or corrections are patronizing and based on the phrasing his comment was not patronizing. (BTW, the correct way to spell patronizing is with a z unless youre a limey bastard. )



While technically incorrect and shouldnt be used in any formal writing its one that I let slide and think will be adopted as acceptable in future dictionaries. My reasoning is the original usage of Hear! Hear! was to express agreement with what is being said aloud, yet with internet forums you are quoting what has been expressed previously in text so hearing doesnt work, but the homonym here, as in look here does work. I think it works brilliantly that way for the voice of the internet generation.


OK, this one I do take issue with. The exclusion of not completely alters the meaning and a little critical thinking should make most realize that. Even though we all exclude a negative like not from our writings every now and then, its the excessive exclusion without understand what they could or couldnt care less about that I feel is ignorant.

My cousin was killed by a drunk driver and a friend of mine was killed by a kid on drugs. I know about loss personally yet I know that government will take any bit of power it can. Though a letter isn't a law, it does have more influence due to the people who wrote it and support it being high ranking officials.

Government never gives back power or influence it has taken from people. Give government power to get results from complaining via a letter and they'll hold that as a precedent for them doing it again. Their ego's will be so inflated that if their letters don't get results they'll feel more offended and come at companies with laws and regulations in retaliation. Even if they fail at getting a specific law passed, they'll still hold sway over companies that don't comply by using tax codes or creating other regulations to spite companies that didn't do as they "requested".

Senators and Representatives can pass whatever unconstitutional legislation they want without fear of prosecution, while they themselves call for the execution of those who publicly expose their traitorous deeds. If it bothers them so much why not pass a law prohibiting this application?

That's all immaterial. For US Government officials to call for removal of information in the public domain it is flat out a priori censorship. The exact kind of governmental censorship the Constitution and the Amendments don't allow except in very controlled circumstances.

There are reasons for the government to quash free speech, like making it illegal to shout "FIRE" in a crowded theater unless there really is reason to believe there is one. If they want these apps out I invite them to write a simple bill to do it, have it ratified, signed and we can let that get challenged in the courts to see if they did a good job of writing it or not.

Short of that, this is just good old publicity hounding at someone else's expense. It all sounds so cut and dried, mostly like a great thing to do. But when you actually think about it, it changes nothing other that letting a couple grandstanding elected officials drop a press release/conference. The chances a drunk will use it are slim to dropped. And if they are going to look ahead of time before getting drunk they are just as likely to watch the 6PM news where it gets announced ahead of time anyway.

I bet all you high and mighty posters that are standing behind these four senators are most guilty of exceeding the speed limit, accelerating upon an amber light and texting while driving. Get off your high horse, hypocrites.

And none of you have ever used or owned a radar detector?

You're talking like people are going to drink more, then get behind the wheel because they have the added security of a DUI checkpoint app. I mean, jeeze.

Yeah, I don’t see how one can be so foolish as to decide to drive drunk yet at the same time to have the presence of mind to check for DUI checkpoints on their iPhone.

If heavy drinking celebrities (like with Kiefer Sutherland and Mel Gibson) with excessive amounts of money can’t think of hiring a driver I can’t think the average person will think of checking for DUI checkpoints.

PS: Do people even use radar detectors anymore? I had friends that had them when i was a teenager. They didn’t seem very helpful.

My man Solip!! I sure do miss you and your balanced, common sense words of wisdom. This forum sure isn't the same without you. Good to see you pop in every now and again in between your busy schedule.

Thanks! My schedule has loosened up quite a bit. I should change my sig, but I was hoping to find something more productive to do with my time than posting on an internet forum for half a day. This place is addicting.

1st Amendment) Congress shall make no law .... abridging the freedom of speech

4th Amendment) The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

I seldom drink, and when I do it's always at home. So a DUI isn't of concern to me, but I want one of these apps. While in most respects I am quite liberal/progressive, I strongly object to my constitutional rights being eroded and having big brother scrutinize me more & more every day.

Sacrifice your freedom for security and soon you will have neither.

Why not just make alcohol illegal or we can make commercials where drinking makes you look the coolest person ever

And that's exactly what CB radio users do, especially in the 70s - tell each other where law enforcement is hanging out.

Folks are having a hard time between avoiding law enforcement and encouraging illegal activity. The re-charting of your path to avoid law enforcement is quite a mental exercise. Speeders can do this - I'm not sure about the drunk.

Law enforcement does have a point with devices made to reduce the radar/ladar cross section of your vehicle - you actually *are* making it easier to break the law in their presence.

They should NOT take the iPhone DUI spot notification apps down.

The smart people can go where these spots are, assuming that the drunks are using other roads.

Potential murderers, otherwise known as drunk drivers, should not have any apps that aid them in their crimes. I believe that drunk drivers should be given the death penalty if their actions cause the death of somebody else.

What's next? An app for serial killers, to help them locate potential victims? How about an app for rapists while we're at it? \

What's really funny is that using a cell phone has been found to impair a driver more than being drunk!
Also if the apps end up making drivers more careful and observant (in the case of photo controlled intersections) or more aware, or even keeps them off the road (in the case of sobriety checkpoint apps,) I see no harm. Although I've never run a light or driven drunk, I doubt these apps will prevent a lawbreaker from being caught. I've always noticed that people with radar/laser detectors always seem to be in trouble with speeding tickets anyway.

There're apps for that!
There're called Facebook, Twitter, Linkedin, Craig's List, etc.
Apparently they are also great for child molesters and, worst of all, . . . marketing and advertising executives.

The government, I would point out, is us.
Legislators are incredibly responsive to what the electorate thinks they want (since they want to get reelected.) Which is why they do so many stupid things. A vocal, politically active, and ignorant but effective portion of the electorate think sobriety check points, "just say no" (to sex, drugs or whatever) "nuclear free" zones, subsidies for big business, low taxes but big budgets, climate denial, etc. etc. are effective policy/great ideas/smart laws, etc. It covers left, right, centerall the viewpoints. We are the government. And we are simultaneously both the problem and solution.

It's just information. You can use it any way you want. So the app itself doesn't encourage anything.
To illustrate: I never drink alcohol, but if I see a checkpoint I'll circumvent it if I can, just because it's cumbersome and time consuming. This in turn will make the checkpoint more effective because one sure negative test is out and a possible positive replaces it.

If your forbidding information exchange, you must forbid people to use a phone and the internet. God forbid if someone calls another about a checkpoint...

J.

Your mistaken. We're not the government.
The point is that government consists of institutions with a lot more momentum than the next election. Some institutes like the CIA are almost completely autonomous and have inherent needs and intentions in conflict with the free use of data encryption and anonymity of people, just to be able to obtain the objective.

@Smallwheels: couldn't agree more.

J.

Agreed that if one was drunk they wouldn't even bother with these apps in the first place. Also they're not really meant for drunk people. They're meant for people who want to get a heads up that they might be stopped for the monthly check that cops need to do for their "quota". Just another way for government to try to control what people can and cannot do. They figure people are dumb enough to comply with doing things like going through heavy-radiation, privacy-invading full body scanners at the airport (oh, yeah right, it's for "terrorists"), then they sure would comply with having less tools and information about protecting themselves against more privacy invasion. They don't want the masses smart and informed and deciding for themselves. From federal laws all the way down to phone apps.

I do like the way you think sir!

Agreed. As others have pointed out, there *are* legitimate reasons for non drinkers to use the apps. Several suggestions (alternative or concurrent) for the senators and others who are rightly concerned about DUI:

1. Regulate alcohol consumption (unlike the first amendment, it's not constitutionally protected), i.e. at bars. As other posters have suggested, you could set-up mandatory DUI checks on the doorsteps of bars.
2. Regulate alcohol sales (probably not popular with the alcohol companies)
3. Require sobriety-check devices to be built into cars.
4. Stiffen penalties for DUI - lifetime *drinking* bans and mandatory jail terms.

Excessive? Tell that to the parent of a kid killed by a drunk driver. If, in spite of the significant numbers of people killed by drunk drivers, any of these measures seem too harsh, then America is clearly not ready to get serious about DUI.

Any of these measures will save FAR more lives than banning apps that share information that the state is apparently required to make public, and without infringing on anyone's pesky constitutional rights. I hope the senators are readying their letters to beer and alcohol companies, bar trade associations, state law enforcement and legislatures, and automobile manufacturers.

Dear Senators Steinheinner, Bleegel, Shpock, and Glikenstein,

Please go flatter President Hamlet some more and leave me alone.

Signed,
Steve.

Am I the only one who noticed Senator Schumer signed twice, and Udall not at all? I'm assuming that's a mistake on AI's part...

Incidentally I think it's a perfectly reasonable request. Apple should comply.

How is it entrapment to sit outside a bar and catch intoxicated people as they attempt to operate a motor vehicle? The police are not selling the alcohol. They are not encouraging the use of alcohol. THey are not misleading or falsely representing themselves either. In fact - have a uniformed officer standing right outside the door as people enter - and checking them via breathalizer as they leave.

Now if the police departments where to get on the apps and enter false information about where the checkpoints were located - thus directing the drunk drivers TO the checkpoints rather than AWAY from the checkpoints then *maybe* you would have a case - but then you would also rather quickly stop using the app.

Or you could end up with stories like this:

Recently a routine Police patrol parked outside a local neighborhood tavern. Late in the evening the officer noticed a man leaving the bar so intoxicated that he could barely walk. The man stumbled around the car park for a few minutes, with the officer quietly observing.

After what seemed an eternity and trying his keys on five vehicles, the man managed to find his car, which he fell into. He was there for a few minutes as a number of other patrons left the bar and drove off.

Finally he started the car, switched the wipers on and off (it was a fine, dry night), flicked the indicators on and off, tooted the horn and then switched on the lights. He moved the vehicle forward a few inches, reversed a little and then remained stationary for a few more minutes as more patrons left in their vehicles. At last he pulled out of the car park and started to drive slowly down the road!

The police officer, having patiently waited all this time, now started up the patrol car, put on the flashing lights, promptly pulled the man over and carried out a Breathalyser test.

To his amazement the breathalyser indicated no evidence of the man having consumed alcohol at all!

Dumbfounded, the officer said "I'll have to ask you to accompany me to the Police Station, this Breathalyser equipment must be broken."

"I doubt it," said the man, "Tonight I'm the designated decoy."

Here the police make them mobile checkpoints. Any police car can pull you over and test your blood alcohol concentration in a simple breathe test. Problem solved.

Sure do and they work very, very well - if a cop is using radar mine goes off at least 1/2 mile before I get to them and often times much more than that. You have to know how to use it and not just slam on your breaks every time it goes off but they do work and they work very well if the cops are using radar. If they are using laser you're probably screwed but that's where being a smart driver comes into play.

Where is the accountability from the bars? Yeah, let's all just blame the drivers and take the high and mighty road. These bars are using the allure of alcohol just as much as fast food is use the allure of french fries. Bars don't give a crap if you're too drunk to drive - I have never, ever seen a bar stop someone on the way out because they had, say, 4 or 5 beers.

I proposed this on MR but what would be wrong with a "Taxi-tax" where there's a 5 or 10 cent tax on each and every drink and every bar is responsible for the BAC of their patrons. If they blow .08 or higher they can either 1) get a ride with a cab that's paid for by the tax or 2) sit around and drink water/eat food until you're under .08. If this was really about public safety and not about padding the police coffers they'd do this and save thousands of lives each year but, right, yeah, we don't do that. We'd rather pull them over, throw them in jail and fine the ever living crap out of them and give the bar that took their money to get them drunk off scott-free.

Yes, this is way too reasonable, and no, it won't happen and we'll just continue to allow innocent people to die because the city police want the money...

It gets interesting when you replace "apps" with "guns" and "drink and drive" with "kill".

The question in my mind is whether the checkpoints are effective anyway. Seems that we should be writing letters to have the senators do more to prevent the issue in the first place.

Smart keys would be cool. When I buy a drink, I hand my card and key, the key get's put into a machine which deactivates the device for X minutes, based on the drink. After 3 glasses of wine, no starting the car.

This would actually curb the issue. The checkpoints, IMHO, only make it look like they are trying to solve the problem, and firing at Apple makes it look like they care about it. I suspect the truth is revenue related since these stops net $$$ for non-drunk driver related fines.

USDOT has studies that show that radar detectors actually act as a deterrent to speeding: people don't want to get caught so they slow down when it pings.

The police can only catch so many people, or set up so many traps. Habitual speeders are going to speed elsewhere anyway. At least they get them to slow down for a period, and maybe keep them afraid of getting caught for a while.
I see the same effect for this app. Maybe someone who's legally drunk will check the app before leaving the bar and decide against it, sober up a bit and wait.

If not, they still were going to drive home drunk, with or without this app.

Sobriety checkpoints tend to be on heavily trafficked routes. This at least will divert them to routes with less traffic.

This is completely stupid and I hope Apple writes them back a letter telling the senators to 'shove it!'. It's a simply issue of control and censorship. What will the request they take down next?

I'm suggesting that bars should be accountable for the drunks they let out on the roads. So yea, remove their arms if it keeps your wife and kids alive. :P

Actualy, It is funny, very funny. Also it is already public available. So forbidding this app is a laugh.
If they catch the guy, they should check if he did use the app to avoid the catch and judge him for that.

Also, if they feel that the app is helping to a crime, they should ask and go for the creator. It is a very stupid idea, to put responsabilty, in someone else hands, like a coorp. This stinks as a start to corparated global controll.

In addition, the process of looking up the checkpoints may make the drunk have second thoughts about whether he should be driving - and possibly keep him off the road in the first place.