Senators call for takedown of iPhone apps that locate DUI checkpoints - Page 3

This thread gave me an idea for a Beer Googles app. You snap a picture of someone, it gets sent to the server, it gets rated, and a thumbs up/down reply is returned. If you send more than 3 pics with a thumbs down the app sends your GPS location to the server which sends a cab to pick you up.

Fk the senators and those saying these apps should be banned. This is a free speech issue. But more importantly, the bar has been set so ridiculously low for "drunk driving" that it is an outrage. I feel total sympathy for those that have lost loved ones to truly drunk drivers but the movement has gone way way too far! It is time to put some sanity back into regulations! When only one or two drinks can make you "impaired" under the law, that is what is a joke.

Give it a rest you arm chair historical hack. Our founding fathers loved to tie on a good one and would be appalled at the suppressive and totally ridiculous limits on blood alcohol limits that are in place today. It is an emotional issue that has gone awry. Yes there should be limits, but it is a joke how low they are now set, and there are those that are pushing for even lower standards. It is time to stand up and say "enough"!

Typical knee jerk reaction from stupid legislators. This senator is simply wasting our taxpayer money. I'm not a fan of drinking and driving at all. Just the opposite. I have zero tolerance for drivers who get behind the wheel impaired. But the law requires that any police check-points be noticed to the public prior to implementation. The check-points will be in the local newspaper prior to happening. Where do you think the apps get their information? It is public record - before the check-point. If this senator didn't want the information out, then he should read case law, understand it and then try to change it. By trying to remove the app, he is simply showing his stupidity.

Oh, stop. As another member noted, DUI checkpoints must be publicized by law in most states...in advance. No one is advocating drunk driving. There is a difference between that and having two light beers and getting a technical DUI. That's what this app is for. I would totally use it. I NEVER drive drunk, but I will have maybe two beers with dinner and then drive an hour later. There is nothing wrong with that. But local BAC limits are sometimes as low as .02-.08 percent. That's half a beer for some people. The issue is that in order to prevent actual drunk driving, we've gone way too far. Frankly. I think random checkpoints are borderline unconstitutional anyway. It's search without probably cause in many cases.

Best solution here is to make the app makers include popups telling people not to drive drunk. People will get these apps if they want them, so taking them down won't do anything.

Of course the detectors are illegal in many states and in the ones where they aren't illegal, if you still manage to get pulled for speeding, when the cop sees it you will probably lose any sense of leeway he had for you


I was curious about specific legality here in the US, so here is what wikipedia says: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radar_detector#Legality

# Illegal in all vehicles: Virginia, Washington D.C., U.S. military bases
# Illegal in commercial vehicles under state law: Illinois, New York, New Jersey (specifically, commercial vehicles over 10,000 pounds (4,500 kg) and all vehicles over 18,000 pounds (8,200 kg)) Also illegal in all commercial vehicles over 10000 lbs under US federal law
# Prohibitions against affixing items to windshield - "obstructing vision"): Minnesota, California

Driving with any level of blood alchohol is dangerous. A very low level won't impair you by much, but it may just be enough that you can't get out of an accident that you might have had you been completely sober.

The only acceptable way to use this app is for sober people to avoid the long lines that inevitably build up behind the check point.

The insult was unnecessary and unfounded.

There were no cars when your 'founding fathers' wrote the Bill of Rights. Getting hammered meant you stumbled home. It didn't mean you drove a lethal weapon home.

The limits on alcohol etc. in the US is a separate matter. Where the limits should be and how those exceeding those limits and driving should be punished are separate issues.

Haha I am indeed a limey bastard!!!

Maybe you guys changed the spelling when you changed the meaning of the word and followed an outlaw I tease, of course

180 lb man takes 4 drinks to get to .08. 120 lb woman takes 2.

http://bloodalcoholcalculator.org/#LinkURL

Yes a 120 lb woman could get to .02 BAC with half a beer in a 1 hr timeframe. All states have a .08 BAC mark as the hard "You're drunk and under arrest point". Some states have pretty harsh aspects to their drunk driving policy. I went to traffic school recently for a speeding ticket and found out that here in Kentucky, if you are asleep in the backseat of your car sleeping off being drunk, you can (and people have) been jailed for drunk driving. Why? You still had your keys and could have woken up and driven home at any time prior to the alcohol all passing out of your system.

Luckily I don't drink anyway. Here is a link to the Kentucky statutes on DUI and the penalties. Some nasty stuff. http://transportation.ky.gov/drlic/dui/dui_laws.htm I don't know where you live that has a .02 BAC, but I would just say that if you know it's that low, either don't drink while you're out or learn the formulas for figuring BAC. Or keep that cab money handy.

Oh yeah and for our UK friends, blowing a .08 is also the definition of DUI

Some people think the whole concept of picking people at random out of traffic for testing, or blanket testing everyone, pushes the bounds of what police ought to be able to do, because strictly speaking they should have some reason to suspect you are breaking the law before interfering with your activities. So it's ok for them to park on the side of the road and watch for people driving wonky, but not ok to just stop everyone.

I like your sentiment, but you're wrong. In 2008 Congress passed the banker bail out bill. All senators and congressmen were called by millions of their constituents. It was reported that the calls were 1000 to 1 against it. They still passed it.

The Patriot Act decimated the real freedoms of privacy. Millions of people were against it. The ratio of for and against was close but most were against it, yet congress passed it. Even today after parts of it were renewed against the will of most of the citizenry it continues.

Government officials now operate with the attitude that they will continue to do illegal things and go against the constitution until a judge in federal court tells them what they're doing is illegal. Even after that police agencies refuse to obey the laws.

It is illegal for any government organization to maintain a database of gun owners yet the BATF continues to store the names of people buying guns after their background checks.

There must be some huge secret agency that hypnotizes government employees in law enforcement. When they are hired their sense of right and wrong is removed and replaced with the mantra that government can do no wrong and that the government only does things for the people even if the people don't see it that way.

So they aren't illegal in "many" states - they are illegal in 2 and military bases. Most people here don't drive commercial vehicles and they sell mounts that sit on your dash instead of your windshield if you're in MN or CA.

Also, if you get pulled over take it off your windshield on your way over to the curb - it's really not that hard.

And, as another poster pointed out, radar detectors actually help decrease speeders and, if everyone had them, we wouldn't have to deal with that moron that slams on their brakes the second they see a cop and causes a rear-end collision.

Again, if it was actually about safety and not just a money grab they would institute minimum speed limits actually close to the actual speed limit. Most wrecks aren't caused by people speeding - they are caused by people going different speeds and/or being stupid and not checking their mirrors etc. Truth be told when a cop pulls someone over for speeding on a major highway at any point during a heavy traffic time the chances of wrecks increases dramatically because people always slam on their breaks so that second you take to check your blind spot the person in front of you has slammed on their breaks and, boom, wreck even though you were doing exactly what you were supposed to be doing.

As an aside - drunk driving is much the fault of the bar as it is the patron IMO.

Anyone who thinks "small government" is better, I invite you to come live in India for a year.

That bit about getting arrested because you were sleeping in your car with the keys is the most egregious abuse of police power that exists. You're being a responsible citizen and not driving and you get arrested anyway. It's absolutely embarrassing that that law exists in so many states but anyone that fights it is going to have to deal with MADD protesters even though they are doing what they should be doing and NOT DRIVING.

I knew this one was going to cause all kind of discussion...

First which app are these senators talking about, I am not aware of DUI check point only app. I have not seen anyone specifically state which app it is. Now there is Trapster and it does have the ability for users to identify the location of police check points. These check points can be for any number of reasons not specifically DUI. I also believe these check points are not called DUI check points anymore, and this was done for legal reasons since they can also cite you for any number of things if you like.

I will not get into the whole save our kids from drunks discussion.

However, people have to decide at what points are you willing to stop giving up your rights. As it was pointed out, this app is not going anything illegal if it was the government would have shut them down a long time ago. The app is just facilitating communications of information which is allowed to be share. As it was also pointed out the police and local government are required in most stated to publish any special enforcement they plan to do. So if your issue is to save kids from drunks, then out law the news paper as well since I see the same information in my local paper.

So what is more important you, having your rights or making sure people do not do things you do not approve with. Is it this about you and your personal fears or keeping others from doing things you do not like.

BTW, England has outlawed these kinds of things which tells the public where the police are running enforcements, it is all about cash. If you are concern and you do not want people having communication technology, you can move to England and give it a try

There are probably an enormous amount of apps currently available or yet to be developed that are or will be offensive to someone.

Anytime we submit to the emotions of a few and the political theater of politicians we hurt ourselves and the nation in the process. Life is dangerous period. We export our violence and pretend to be mindful of human life.

You want to stop drunk driving do something constructive about it. Banning such an app is ridiculous as one only has to read about the locations in the local rag.

I thought so too at first, but this is where it starts. I am most confuzzeled by that these are all very liberal democrats coming down on the side of big brother censorship. Isn't that odd?

What do you call FourSquare?


Be careful with your logic, it has holes and those holes can lead to some very unpleasant futures. Pre-emptive absolutism and zero tolerance lawmaking is a good way to get stuck with some very bad social policies. Once the policies are in place, they will be almost impossible to remove, despite widespread acknowledgement that they are flawed, and the acknowledgement will be because of some high profile stupid case based on a technicality combination nobody imagined when the original law was passed.

Once an app or book or document succumbs to peer pressured censorship, it becomes easier to emplace formal "safety"-driven censorship because the peer pressure proved successful. Once you have formal censorship, the radical element looking for it's next press event looks to make a law formalizing illegality of that something. Both sides, left and right are guilty of treating the citizens this way -- just look at the gun control and abortion issues. There is no monopoly on who owns the nanny-state position. Best to not let the camel leave it's nose under the tent flap in the first place.

Not at all. Read the last para above^^^^^

This is what people do not realize, the easiest thing in the world for governments to do is catch someone going over the speed limit and claim it for safety and they make money at it. The hardest thing for them to do is catch bad or poor drivers who do far worse than anyone driving a little fast. Speeding and having an accident is a symptom not the cause, the cause is bad driving skills. It easy to prove someone was going fast hard to prove they are a bad driver, well not hard it just not cost effective.

Again if our government and the idiot we all tend to vote in were really interested in your safety they would go after poor drives, actually they would never allow a poor driver to be license and put any of us at risk. But they do not, they rather have all the bad drivers out on the road so they can fine them can collect more money.

If you do not believe me, just research the Autobahn and Germany's licensing process. It cost lots of $$$ to get a license and you have to prove you drive at Autobahn speeds and follow the laws of road. If you can not you are not allowed to drive. Also the Autobahn accident rate is lower then the US and most of that highway does not have speed limits so why don't they have higher accident rates.

As you are an Englishman, I can't figure out your context for this issue. Our legal systems and presumptions are very different despite the shared origin.

fwiw; It doesn't bother me that you chime in, proliferately, it just seems that you're not grasping some of the basic problems we have with the "nanny-state-ness" of the Senators proclamation.

I'm sorry but you have it completely backwards. Our 1st Amendment isn't just about standing on a soap box in Hyde Park. Immediately after the Revolution we were on the brink of civil war and the Bill of Rights was specifically set forth to prevent the government, even a democratically elected fully representative one, from encroaching on personal freedoms. The spell out the rights "endowed by our creator." The whole idea of "checkpoints" would be an anathema to the Framers, Franklin especially.

Better yet outlaw the internet, news papers, phone books, and TV while you are at it then....

However, I bet your all for DNA screen of all unborn babies so we can determine ahead of time if they fit a profile of someone who may be harmful to society and make sure they are not born.

One thing I like about Hollywood they have a way of making a entertain movie about these subjects so you can get an idea how it could be if you keep up with this kind of attitude.

Check out Judge Dredd, Minority Report, Demolition Man

The app itself is not "a crime." Even under control of a sober driver a car can be used to commit a crime. Do you want us to take them away? The kitchen knife can be a deadly weapon, are they next to go? Having the app doesn't mean you are committing a crime.

One constitutional amendment under discussion at a time, please!

Being killed in an accident by a drunk driver isn't even close to the top of how kids die.

Given that most states already have to publicize such checkpoints, this is nothing more than a PR gesture.

It's so much easier to demonize a stupid, insignificant piece of software than legislate appropriate penalties for a heinous crime. You can kill someone driving drunk in America and be back on the road in less than a year. DUI should result in permanent license revocation. 95% of the problem would vanish overnight.

America's substance laws are an unmanageable, hypocritical, mess, and will remain so as long as the producers of cigarettes and alcohol can buy Congressmen a six-pack at a time.

You can also kill someone by driving at all... So your answer to catching someone doing something that's poor driving skills that endangers others is to ban them from driving for life. Ok, well, texters - done, forever. You want to do your makeup? Done, forever. You want to turn your head to check on your 8 month old that's in the back seat crying? Done, forever. Where do we stop? Ever caught going above the speed limit? Done, forever. Listening to the radio (proven to be a distraction btw)? Done, forever.

EDIT: How about we just make driving at all illegal. That would be MUCH safer! Ever taken a prescription that says may cause drowsiness and go to work anyway because you have to? Done, forever...

You're right to point out that DUIs are a US issue, but Apple being asked to remove an app that may aid someone to avoid a law-enforcement measure may one day affect me here in the UK too if such a request were ever made about a UK enforcement measure.

I understand the concerns people have about a nanny state. There is a huge debate in the UK about speed cameras that has many parallels to this. What was striking was people arguing that they were just a money-making mechanism, when only those breaking the law were ever fined.

My feelings on the matter are simply that whilst it is clear that these measures should not be abused by the authorities as they appear to be on occasion, they are still ultimately there to prevent crime. I suppose ultimately there is no perfect solution. I can see both sides and I agree that these DUIs seem to be unAmerican (if that is a word) but we are talking about the principle of companies like Apple distributing apps that allow people to avoid a law-enforcement measure. I think that specific principle is wrong and these apps shouldn't be encouraged.

I understand your objection to the checkpoints. But that for me is slightly separate to helping people avoid the law. The law might be wrong, but the moment you start helping each other to circumvent the statutes of your state you get into dangerous territory.

It's an interesting debate

The next thing they'll have to outlaw is hashtags on Twitter (#checkpoint, e.g.) - which is the mechanism the Tunisian rebels (and others) used to alert their fellows about "sniper checkpoints."


Defining that balance has been the front line of the Bill of Rights since the Constitution was ratified and it remains a moving target. Lately, however it's been mostly shifting more and more to the crowd who wants to protect us from ourselves, who fail to realize that every such measure for the "public good" inevitably produces unintended side effects, e.g., in constricting the free flow of information which is not necessarily misused by those participating in its flow.

The question which always needs to be asked is what is the total range of remedies at society's hands and which accomplish the most good while doing the least bad.

Various measures, like tougher DUI/DWI laws, safer car designs and seat-belt campaigns combined to cut impaired driving deaths in half between 1979-2003, but they've lately inched up again.

Also, as has always been the case, the majority of cases involve teens and younger adults. And 75% of the deaths were associated with failure to wear seat belts. And drinking aside, failure to wear helmets on motorcycles is a prime factor in brain injuries/deaths in two-wheeling accidents.

Bartenders are now (in many or most jurisdictions?) required to stop serving obviously impaired patrons (however often they ignore the requirements, tho' they do risk the loss of their business and livelihood), and private party throwers can be held legally liable if they let their guests leave drunk. But that does nothing to stop people getting drunk on their own.

I threw a large public party - with bands and an open bar - and to follow codes, I had to check ID's and issue bracelets to the over 21's so that I and my co-hosts could seize drinks from non-bracelet wearers - though some certainly brought their own hip flasks or drank their own hooch in their cars. Again, for personal ethical reasons and to avoid the possibility of being co-defendants, we further took the car keys of tipsy acting guests until they demonstrated they could pass at least a quick field sobriety test. It really made the party a lot of work, but there were no accidents or citations among my 150 mostly younger guests.

So there are other approaches (none perfect) that don't involve direct gov't involvement in 1st (or 4th) Amendment rights. (The 4th Amendment gets involved too in places where officers can now perform blood tests on you on the spot, and where refusal can place you at risk of car seizure and impoundment, other penalties or immediate incarceration.)

Not saying I have all the answers, but the first principle of law, as it is in medicine, should always be "do no harm." Especially to constitutional rights.


You're likely right, at least in terms of the "official" app stores (and appstores).


While there is thankfully no "US police force" (yet), it is true that meeting "ticket quotas" - for violations from overtime parking thru DUI's - is a major source of revenue for many local governments - and is often applied capriciously and hypocritically. Luck of the draw in many cases.


Amen.

How is this a constitutional issue? Four Senators can't force Apple to remove an app, and they aren't attempting to do so. They are bringing a problem to Apple's attention and requesting that they address it of their own free will. I don't see anything wrong with that.

If Apple declines to act, I can imagine these Senators trying some other tactics: 1) publicizing the issue and trying to bring more public pressure to bear, 2) working with police departments to update practices that might be affected by the app, or even 3) passing a law to prohibit this kind of app. None of those are constitutional issues either ... all are well within the bounds of a working democracy.

P.S. It's nice to see that some members of Congress are tuned into the world of technology.

I may not have a Constitutional right to drive drunk, but I do have a Constitutional right to use any means at my disposal to avoid getting caught. I also have the Constitutional right to fire a gun in a crowded room, so long as I don't hit anyone.

The above is intended as satire. Sorry if it doesn't come off entirely. It's so hard for rational people to twist their minds around the concept that discouraging any type of inherently reckless behavior is a form of tyranny.

Schumer is simply appeasing his voters (senior citizens, conservatives, the ones who show up to the voting booth). Apple won't be removing the app unless the courts step in.

Wait, what? All 4 are democrats and Schumer is strangely trying to appease the republicans main constituents? Uh, yeah, ok.

Agreed, as much as I'd like to see them throw everything they got at stopping drunk drivers, censorship is a very slippery slope. Already we see things like hate speech laws being twisted to persecute people who aren't in the least bit racist or violent.

Instead how about changing the laws so that if a person is caught driving drunk they can investigate their app purchases to see if they used an app to attempt avoidance of these things. This would show malicious intent & they ought to have much harsher punishment if it can be shown they most likely intended to be driving drunk.

It would be nice if we could stop all violent crime (yes I consider drunk driving a violent crime) from occurring in the first place but it is unrealistic. Only culture can change these behaviors & unfortunately ours glorifies drug & alcohol abuse.

sounds innocent, doesn't it.
mobilize everything for your police state agenda.

Interesting take on the spelling changes. I guess we'll be saying ... "I here you buddy" in emails soon then I totally agree on the last one, it drives me nuts too. I mentioned it as a <sigh> really. Re the z in patronizing ... remember the simplification of spelling Roosevelt managed to achieve was really the brain child of Carnegie who was a Scott so most likely had it in for the English anyway

Uh, I never mentioned the word republican. There are conservative and moderate democrats. So yes.