This isn't about child porn, it's about publically available information that is legal to have and legal to share. Dodging searches is different than actively committing a crime.
People have the information... it is valuable... they will find a way to sell it.
You're missing my point, but I don't know how to articulate it any more clearly.
If it was a matter of public safety, then drinking and having even the remote possibility of driving wouldn't be allowed at all. But that is to deep of an answer for most, especially a public official.
I don't understand your point. Are you suggesting drunks have their limbs removed by the bartender? :P
I want this app. I do not drink and I'm tired of being delayed waiting in line as irresponsible people are getting checked and arrested ahead of me.
If cops were really concerned about drunk driving they would park outside every bar in America and test the drunks as they come stumbling out and therefore prevent drunk driving. ... but where is the financial profit in that?
I guess it's better to let them drive a bit and then hit them with a heavy fine once they catch them, that is if they have not already killed someone.
It just drives me crazy when I see cars leaving the parking lot at the local bar and I know most of them are drunk ... but no cop is to be seen anywhere near the place we ALL know they are coming from. We do not need a DUI checkpoint in front of a Tacobell or Mc Donnalds, we need them in the parking lots of bars.
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.
This is the argument of people who only think in the now and not of the future benefit of society. Governments at all times ALWAYS evolve into tyranny. It is happening in the USA and will continue.
Giving government control over private messages, and communications (even if it is broadcast via an app on the Apple App Store) is dangerous. The government isn't taking control of these apps directly. The law makers are hoping their position in government will pressure Apple and other companies to make the changes. If they succeed it is really just a short step into taking more control legally in the future.
In the future when the US government via Homeland Security deems certain speech "dangerous to the safety of the population", will you want companies just laying down and turning off internet connections or killing telephone service because government doesn't want a message they don't like spreading to the population?
Think about what happened in Egypt recently. Remember how their government turned off the internet AND cell phone communications. If it weren't for hackers and smart IT people overcoming the government communication blocks, the Egyptian government would have squashed that uprising.
Even if you don't like the app that alerts drunks about checkpoints, you can't support anything that blocks the free communication between people, especially if the government wants it done.
Some day those messages and apps might be about citizens organizing to overturn a corrupt government. It might even be about voting out certain politicians. Two years ago the FBI and other local law enforcement agencies across the USA admitted that they were infiltrating non-violent peace protesting groups "for the safety of the country".
Most people don't think long term about liberty. That is why so many people don't want private citizens to own private weapons. Think long term, centuries. If people have all of their liberties and insurance (ability to fight back) taken away from them bit by bit, eventually there will be no liberties.
Second: By law, most states have to publicize where those checkpoints are anyhow.
If that is correct then those senators had better be trying to get those laws changed as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AllenRockwell
If cops were really concerned about drunk driving they would park outside every bar in America and test the drunks as they come stumbling out and therefore prevent drunk driving. ... but where is the financial profit in that?
Forget that. Make it the bars responsibility. After all they failed to cut someone off and then didn't call a cab. Let them pay the price. One month suspension of your liquor license each time the cops catch a drunk driver that is traced to that location. 3 times within six months and it's a total loss of the license.
And if the person causes an accident etc then the bar is charged with aiding and abetting or whatever.
This is the argument of people who only think in the now and not of the future benefit of society. Governments at all times ALWAYS evolve into tyranny. It is happening in the USA and will continue.
Giving government control over private messages, and communications (even if it is broadcast via an app on the Apple App Store) is dangerous. The government isn't taking control of these apps directly. The law makers are hoping their position in government will pressure Apple and other companies to make the changes. If they succeed it is really just a short step into taking more control legally in the future.
In the future when the US government via Homeland Security deems certain speech "dangerous to the safety of the population", will you want companies just laying down and turning off internet connections or killing telephone service because government doesn't want a message they don't like spreading to the population?
Think about what happened in Egypt recently. Remember how their government turned off the internet AND cell phone communications. If it weren't for hackers and smart IT people overcoming the government communication blocks, the Egyptian government would have squashed that uprising.
Even if you don't like the app that alerts drunks about checkpoints, you can't support anything that blocks the free communication between people, especially if the government wants it done.
Some day those messages and apps might be about citizens organizing to overturn a corrupt government. It might even be about voting out certain politicians. Two years ago the FBI and other local law enforcement agencies across the USA admitted that they were infiltrating non-violent peace protesting groups "for the safety of the country".
Most people don't think long term about liberty. That is why so many people don't want private citizens to own private weapons. Think long term, centuries. If people have all of their liberties and insurance (ability to fight back) taken away from them bit by bit, eventually there will be no liberties.
I enjoyed your comment but I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill. This is about an app that helps people who want to drink and drive to avoid the police that we as citizens pay to do their jobs. We want the police arresting drunk drivers.
I think to make this about the far wider-reaching issue of government control is a stretch. We have to take these things on a case-by-case basis - with an eye to the future and bigger picture like you say - and not just react every time the government tries to do what it is ultimately there to do: protect its people and maintain law and order.
Leave it to Chucky Schumer and his fellow stooges to pontificate about the smaller issues. "14 trillion in debt? Meh. Liberties being taken away by mandatory social welfare programs? Meh. But we must thwart people from potentially committing a crime by using technology! To the Idiotmobile!!!"
First of all, DUI enforcement is a state issue, not a federal issue. If these nimrod "Senators" really want to go after App curators, they need to be handling it from a state referendum, not from the Capitol. Second, Chucky is a proven Apple fanboi with nothing better to do than pester Steve Jobs about his favorite trivial causes. He needs to be booted from office and replaced with someone who knows how a Senator should spending his time. Third, the idea that only people who drink and drive will have use for an app such as a DUI locator is presumptuous at best, and at worst assuming that said users are guilty of a crime.
Talk about busybodies who can't think of anything better to do than mind other people's business!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by bdub52MOsox
Entrapment.
There's a nice one-word summary from someone who knows the old edict, "innocent until proven guilty".
Quote:
Originally Posted by libertyforall
Might as well dispose with the 1st Amendment, while you're at it if you follow these hack politicians trying to steal freedom!
This isn't about "government control"! It's about a common-sense request to not enable would-be criminals to circumvent the law in a way that poses an obvious, and proven, threat to public safety. These Senators didn't bring legal action against Apple, Google, and RIM to remove the apps (the 1st Amendment grants and protects the existence of these apps? that's not the argument!); they sent a letter requesting the apps be removed because their availability is irresponsible and negligent, particularly for Apple, which is known for its ethical curation of its App Store. This is a matter of corporate ethical responsibility. Google has complied by removing the apps. I hope Apple does the same.
Idiots. Technology will always find a way. The developers will release a jail broken version or a web version. People who want to save the world from everybody will never win because people will always be stupid.
This isn't about "government control"! It's about a common-sense request to not enable would-be criminals to circumvent the law in a way that poses an obvious, and proven, threat to public safety. These Senators didn't bring legal action against Apple, Google, and RIM to remove the apps (the 1st Amendment grants and protects the existence of these apps? that's not the argument!); they sent a letter requesting the apps be removed because their availability is irresponsible and negligent, particularly for Apple, which is known for its ethical curation of its App Store. This is a matter of corporate ethical responsibility. Google has complied by removing the apps. I hope Apple does the same.
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'.
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.
Comments
This isn't about child porn, it's about publically available information that is legal to have and legal to share. Dodging searches is different than actively committing a crime.
People have the information... it is valuable... they will find a way to sell it.
You're missing my point, but I don't know how to articulate it any more clearly.
If it was a matter of public safety, then drinking and having even the remote possibility of driving wouldn't be allowed at all. But that is to deep of an answer for most, especially a public official.
I don't understand your point. Are you suggesting drunks have their limbs removed by the bartender? :P
I want this app. I do not drink and I'm tired of being delayed waiting in line as irresponsible people are getting checked and arrested ahead of me.
If cops were really concerned about drunk driving they would park outside every bar in America and test the drunks as they come stumbling out and therefore prevent drunk driving. ... but where is the financial profit in that?
I guess it's better to let them drive a bit and then hit them with a heavy fine once they catch them, that is if they have not already killed someone.
It just drives me crazy when I see cars leaving the parking lot at the local bar and I know most of them are drunk ... but no cop is to be seen anywhere near the place we ALL know they are coming from. We do not need a DUI checkpoint in front of a Tacobell or Mc Donnalds, we need them in the parking lots of bars.
Entrapment.
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.
This is the argument of people who only think in the now and not of the future benefit of society. Governments at all times ALWAYS evolve into tyranny. It is happening in the USA and will continue.
Giving government control over private messages, and communications (even if it is broadcast via an app on the Apple App Store) is dangerous. The government isn't taking control of these apps directly. The law makers are hoping their position in government will pressure Apple and other companies to make the changes. If they succeed it is really just a short step into taking more control legally in the future.
In the future when the US government via Homeland Security deems certain speech "dangerous to the safety of the population", will you want companies just laying down and turning off internet connections or killing telephone service because government doesn't want a message they don't like spreading to the population?
Think about what happened in Egypt recently. Remember how their government turned off the internet AND cell phone communications. If it weren't for hackers and smart IT people overcoming the government communication blocks, the Egyptian government would have squashed that uprising.
Even if you don't like the app that alerts drunks about checkpoints, you can't support anything that blocks the free communication between people, especially if the government wants it done.
Some day those messages and apps might be about citizens organizing to overturn a corrupt government. It might even be about voting out certain politicians. Two years ago the FBI and other local law enforcement agencies across the USA admitted that they were infiltrating non-violent peace protesting groups "for the safety of the country".
Most people don't think long term about liberty. That is why so many people don't want private citizens to own private weapons. Think long term, centuries. If people have all of their liberties and insurance (ability to fight back) taken away from them bit by bit, eventually there will be no liberties.
Second: By law, most states have to publicize where those checkpoints are anyhow.
If that is correct then those senators had better be trying to get those laws changed as well.
If cops were really concerned about drunk driving they would park outside every bar in America and test the drunks as they come stumbling out and therefore prevent drunk driving. ... but where is the financial profit in that?
Forget that. Make it the bars responsibility. After all they failed to cut someone off and then didn't call a cab. Let them pay the price. One month suspension of your liquor license each time the cops catch a drunk driver that is traced to that location. 3 times within six months and it's a total loss of the license.
And if the person causes an accident etc then the bar is charged with aiding and abetting or whatever.
Apple removing the apps won't solve the problem but I hope Apple does comply with the request.
If that is correct then those senators had better be trying to get those laws changed as well.
This is the argument of people who only think in the now and not of the future benefit of society. Governments at all times ALWAYS evolve into tyranny. It is happening in the USA and will continue.
Giving government control over private messages, and communications (even if it is broadcast via an app on the Apple App Store) is dangerous. The government isn't taking control of these apps directly. The law makers are hoping their position in government will pressure Apple and other companies to make the changes. If they succeed it is really just a short step into taking more control legally in the future.
In the future when the US government via Homeland Security deems certain speech "dangerous to the safety of the population", will you want companies just laying down and turning off internet connections or killing telephone service because government doesn't want a message they don't like spreading to the population?
Think about what happened in Egypt recently. Remember how their government turned off the internet AND cell phone communications. If it weren't for hackers and smart IT people overcoming the government communication blocks, the Egyptian government would have squashed that uprising.
Even if you don't like the app that alerts drunks about checkpoints, you can't support anything that blocks the free communication between people, especially if the government wants it done.
Some day those messages and apps might be about citizens organizing to overturn a corrupt government. It might even be about voting out certain politicians. Two years ago the FBI and other local law enforcement agencies across the USA admitted that they were infiltrating non-violent peace protesting groups "for the safety of the country".
Most people don't think long term about liberty. That is why so many people don't want private citizens to own private weapons. Think long term, centuries. If people have all of their liberties and insurance (ability to fight back) taken away from them bit by bit, eventually there will be no liberties.
I enjoyed your comment but I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill. This is about an app that helps people who want to drink and drive to avoid the police that we as citizens pay to do their jobs. We want the police arresting drunk drivers.
I think to make this about the far wider-reaching issue of government control is a stretch. We have to take these things on a case-by-case basis - with an eye to the future and bigger picture like you say - and not just react every time the government tries to do what it is ultimately there to do: protect its people and maintain law and order.
First of all, DUI enforcement is a state issue, not a federal issue. If these nimrod "Senators" really want to go after App curators, they need to be handling it from a state referendum, not from the Capitol. Second, Chucky is a proven Apple fanboi with nothing better to do than pester Steve Jobs about his favorite trivial causes. He needs to be booted from office and replaced with someone who knows how a Senator should spending his time. Third, the idea that only people who drink and drive will have use for an app such as a DUI locator is presumptuous at best, and at worst assuming that said users are guilty of a crime.
Talk about busybodies who can't think of anything better to do than mind other people's business!!
Entrapment.
There's a nice one-word summary from someone who knows the old edict, "innocent until proven guilty".
Might as well dispose with the 1st Amendment, while you're at it if you follow these hack politicians trying to steal freedom!
Tru dat, libertyforall. Thank you.
Might as well dispose with the 1st Amendment, while you're at it if you follow these hack politicians trying to steal freedom!
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
-Benjamin Franklin
Giving government control [?] is dangerous?
This isn't about "government control"! It's about a common-sense request to not enable would-be criminals to circumvent the law in a way that poses an obvious, and proven, threat to public safety. These Senators didn't bring legal action against Apple, Google, and RIM to remove the apps (the 1st Amendment grants and protects the existence of these apps? that's not the argument!); they sent a letter requesting the apps be removed because their availability is irresponsible and negligent, particularly for Apple, which is known for its ethical curation of its App Store. This is a matter of corporate ethical responsibility. Google has complied by removing the apps. I hope Apple does the same.
Leave the apps up because this is America, information should flow freely and innocent people shouldn't have to be subjected to DUI checkpoints.
AND replace "3 strikes and your out" with "1 strike and your out"
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
-Benjamin Franklin
A great quote misused.
A great quote misused.
A great quote used properly. The government isn't your wet nurse.
This isn't about "government control"! It's about a common-sense request to not enable would-be criminals to circumvent the law in a way that poses an obvious, and proven, threat to public safety. These Senators didn't bring legal action against Apple, Google, and RIM to remove the apps (the 1st Amendment grants and protects the existence of these apps? that's not the argument!); they sent a letter requesting the apps be removed because their availability is irresponsible and negligent, particularly for Apple, which is known for its ethical curation of its App Store. This is a matter of corporate ethical responsibility. Google has complied by removing the apps. I hope Apple does the same.
Here here!
A great quote used properly. The government isn't your wet nurse.
A great quote requoted.
A great quote used properly. The government isn't your wet nurse.
Tell that to the parents whose child has been run down by a drunk driver.
Here here!
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.