I think the apps are a bad idea that encourage deviant behavior that endangers lives, whether they're legal or not. I hope Apple curates its App Store responsibly and takes them down. As others have pointed out, this information is already published elsewhere. There don't need to be apps for that.
Total nonsense. The law requires that they post their times and locations. And besides, the current laws are overly strict - to the point of being ridiculous. When one or two beers can put you "over the limit" the law has gone WAY too far. I sympathize with "madd mothers" but they are pushing an excessive agenda. We've had enough of the puritans interfering with our lives! Enough already!
Honestly this is a total waste of time. Even if the app gets pulled from the app store, whats preventing the creators from just creating a web app for it instead? Since the app isn't doing anything illegal there is nothing they would be able to do to remove it if it simply was accessed via a web browser.
That is unless ICE decides it has reason to illegally seize its domain like it already has done in the past.
(a) Haven't courts ruled that the police must pre-announce these events in the media?
(b) How are you going to stop non-Apps from doing the same thing? 3G can deliver the same information over the Internet.
(c) I can't imagine a drunken person navigating an iphone app. If I'm not drunk, why would I want to be delayed and/or why would police want me to clog their lanes anyway?
(d) Is there an app to avoid having to listen to politicians drunk on themselves?
My partners and I just released an iPhone app that uses a person's GPS to connect them to a sober ride program. We feel it's a better alternative than the avoidance model. Here's the link
That's the way it should work. Someone saw a need and identified a solution. Rather than taking away someone's rights, you created an option to save lives.
If a person is clear enough to use the app, he is not drunk.
I agree. If they're actually drunk they won't be able to operate it, if they're not drunk then they can use it to avoid Big Brother stripping away their rights and freedoms.
Based on that logic I'm assuming the second option is the real reason they don't like these apps.
As a side-note, it blows me away that in the States they have to announce these stops prior to setting them up.
In my county, police have abandoned DUI checkpoints. One reason is the hoops the police departments must jump through to establish a checkpoint. One small skip in a procedure and all the stops get thrown out of court. A much more effective tactic employed is what they call "wolf-packs". A particular area is targeted and several units will patrol the area looking for probable cause to stop a vehicle. No public notification and ops plan requiured. I would imagine that this practice will become much more wide spread across the nation. In this case, the app becomes a moot point. As pointed out by many others, if someone has the presence of mind to check an iPhone app and avoid a certain street, then he's probably okay to drive. The biggest issue is not the app itself - it's a legal app. The biggest issue is not DUI - no one should ever drive when impaired. The biggest issue is our elected officials. They look to take our civil rights away for no just cause. They look to enact legislation from a standpopint of an almost total lack of knowledge about that which they look to make law. And to the poster who suggested that the citizens are also stupid for electing them - you're absolutely right. And the poster who questioned what I would be if I were elected - well I guess I'd be just as stupid as the rest of the Washington DC clowns.
You have all the facts straight -- the information is required to be published, and reporting it via mass media is legal (local TV stations do it all the time) -- yet you hope Apple impedes the dissemination of legally aggregated information. Of course there don't *need* to be apps for that, but that's not among the criteria, is it?
I don't hope any such thing, nor would Apple be doing so by removing the apps. Apple isn't doing, or even being asked to do, anything to block police departments from publishing information about the checkpoints. Apple is merely being asked to consider not providing another outlet for such information, specifically an outlet that would be accessible to the potential perpetrators while in the act of driving under the influence and thereby directly threatening the public.
And no, need is not the issue. Nor is legality. Nor is civil or Constitutional rights, no matter how much screaming fisted "morons" try to make it so. The issue is moral and ethical responsibility. Just because something is possible (technologically or otherwise), or there are no laws against it, doesn't mean that that thing should be done and accepted without question or scrutiny. If that thing (in this case, these apps) has a negative impact on society, our elected officials have the responsibility of investigating that impact and legislating accordingly. That is what's happening. We'll see how it shakes out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by screamingfist
thats why the geniuses crafted the constitution the way they did. so that morons who can't understand or give a damn about freedom (such as yourself) don't get to make policy. unfortunately most of the elected jerks don't understand the constitution either.
The geniuses who crafted the Constitution didn't put anything about driving in it. Nor did they mention any future technologies they had no way of knowing about. How could they? That's a totally flawed argument. It would have been impossible for them to predict the ways in which unknown, or even imagined, technological advances like the automobile or the Internet would transform and mutate our society from the one they envisioned. Maybe if they'd drafted the Constitution in the 21st century amid our society's current travails, they might have addressed issues like driving under the influence, or even the disinhibition effect. Go on, look it up.
As it is, driving is a privilege, NOT a right. That's why we have to be licensed to operate motor vehicles. Clearly there are a lot of, as you might say, "morons who can't understand or give a damn about" that. I would say that while this issue relates to a complicated collection of interrelated social problems, many people here are still making this about something it's not.
Irresponsible, and often deliberate, deviant behavior such as DWI and DUI are flagrant abuses of the driving privilege which directly threaten the safety of the public and have escalated to the point of necessitating police check points. People willing to engage in such reckless activity shouldn't be further empowered, perhaps even emboldened, by the availability of these apps.
The first I'd heard of these apps was on AI a few months ago, and I suspect it was the first most of the posters on these threads about the issue had heard of them too. If one person, just one, had said they already had one of these apps and explained how they used it responsibly in a way that had nothing to do with trying to "beat the cops," I'd be more inclined to give credence to the defenders of these apps. Instead, the vast majority of the arguments have been weakly veiled defenses of the "right" to drive drunk without the "inconvenience" of police intervention or emotionally charged hyperbole that their civil rights are being threatened by this investigation.
As I stated in a previous thread on this issue, these apps have every right to exist. Based on their potential threat to public safety by those who would use them to abuse their driving privileges, Apple has the moral and ethical responsibility to decide whether to offer them on its App Store. I hope they take them down.
Total nonsense. The law requires that they post their times and locations. And besides, the current laws are overly strict - to the point of being ridiculous. When one or two beers can put you "over the limit" the law has gone WAY too far. I sympathize with "madd mothers" but they are pushing an excessive agenda. We've had enough of the puritans interfering with our lives! Enough already!
Not total nonsense. This request of Apple does nothing to change the current laws. With the problem being as bad as it still is, maybe the laws aren't currently strict enough. If anything, things shouldn't be made easier for would-be criminals.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FreeRideHome
My partners and I just released an iPhone app that uses a person's GPS to connect them to a sober ride program. We feel it's a better alternative than the avoidance model. Here's the link
I agree. If they're actually drunk they won't be able to operate it, if they're not drunk then they can use it to avoid Big Brother stripping away their rights and freedoms.
Based on that logic I'm assuming the second option is the real reason they don't like these apps.
As a side-note, it blows me away that in the States they have to announce these stops prior to setting them up.
They need to announce since DUI checkpoints are unconstitutional. It is a blatant violation of the fourth ammendment. Some states have found them to be unconstitutional based on their own state constitution. Yes, the supreme court has ruled they are constitutional, but it is a bad ruling. Furthermore, the reason the government, which should be beholden to the constitution, must advertise these checkpoints ahead of time is because they amount to an unreasonable search and seizure. Rehnquist in his majority opinion admitted as much and still ruled for violating the constitution with a lame excuse that reasonable measures should be used. Advertising these checkpoints ahead of time could be viewed as a loophole that let's the police violate one's rights. Some states have a number of other requirements before a checkpoint may be set up.
The government has no right to stop me, an individual that does not drink and drive, without probable cause. Unfortunately, this is exactly what a DUI checkpoint does.
I don't hope any such thing, nor would Apple be doing so by removing the apps. Apple isn't doing, or even being asked to do, anything to block police departments from publishing information about the checkpoints. Apple is merely being asked to consider not providing another outlet for such information, specifically an outlet that would be accessible to the potential perpetrators while in the act of driving under the influence and thereby directly threatening the public.
And no, need is not the issue. Nor is legality. Nor is civil or Constitutional rights, no matter how much screaming fisted "morons" try to make it so. The issue is moral and ethical responsibility. Just because something is possible (technologically or otherwise), or there are no laws against it, doesn't mean that that thing should be done and accepted without question or scrutiny. If that thing (in this case, these apps) has a negative impact on society, our elected officials have the responsibility of investigating that impact and legislating accordingly. That is what's happening. We'll see how it shakes out.
The geniuses who crafted the Constitution didn't put anything about driving in it. Nor did they mention any future technologies they had no way of knowing about. How could they? That's a totally flawed argument. It would have been impossible for them to predict the ways in which unknown, or even imagined, technological advances like the automobile or the Internet would transform and mutate our society from the one they envisioned. Maybe if they'd drafted the Constitution in the 21st century amid our society's current travails, they might have addressed issues like driving under the influence, or even the disinhibition effect. Go on, look it up.
As it is, driving is a privilege, NOT a right. That's why we have to be licensed to operate motor vehicles. Clearly there are a lot of, as you might say, "morons who can't understand or give a damn about" that. I would say that while this issue relates to a complicated collection of interrelated social problems, many people here are still making this about something it's not.
Irresponsible, and often deliberate, deviant behavior such as DWI and DUI are flagrant abuses of the driving privilege which directly threaten the safety of the public and have escalated to the point of necessitating police check points. People willing to engage in such reckless activity shouldn't be further empowered, perhaps even emboldened, by the availability of these apps.
The first I'd heard of these apps was on AI a few months ago, and I suspect it was the first most of the posters on these threads about the issue had heard of them too. If one person, just one, had said they already had one of these apps and explained how they used it responsibly in a way that had nothing to do with trying to "beat the cops," I'd be more inclined to give credence to the defenders of these apps. Instead, the vast majority of the arguments have been weakly veiled defenses of the "right" to drive drunk without the "inconvenience" of police intervention or emotionally charged hyperbole that their civil rights are being threatened by this investigation.
As I stated in a previous thread on this issue, these apps have every right to exist. Based on their potential threat to public safety by those who would use them to abuse their driving privileges, Apple has the moral and ethical responsibility to decide whether to offer them on its App Store. I hope they take them down.
I don't hope any such thing, nor would Apple be doing so by removing the apps. Apple isn't doing, or even being asked to do, anything to block police departments from publishing information about the checkpoints. Apple is merely being asked to consider not providing another outlet for such information, specifically an outlet that would be accessible to the potential perpetrators while in the act of driving under the influence and thereby directly threatening the public.
And no, need is not the issue. Nor is legality. Nor is civil or Constitutional rights, no matter how much screaming fisted "morons" try to make it so. The issue is moral and ethical responsibility. Just because something is possible (technologically or otherwise), or there are no laws against it, doesn't mean that that thing should be done and accepted without question or scrutiny. If that thing (in this case, these apps) has a negative impact on society, our elected officials have the responsibility of investigating that impact and legislating accordingly. That is what's happening. We'll see how it shakes out.
The geniuses who crafted the Constitution didn't put anything about driving in it. Nor did they mention any future technologies they had no way of knowing about. How could they? That's a totally flawed argument. It would have been impossible for them to predict the ways in which unknown, or even imagined, technological advances like the automobile or the Internet would transform and mutate our society from the one they envisioned. Maybe if they'd drafted the Constitution in the 21st century amid our society's current travails, they might have addressed issues like driving under the influence, or even the disinhibition effect. Go on, look it up.
As it is, driving is a privilege, NOT a right. That's why we have to be licensed to operate motor vehicles. Clearly there are a lot of, as you might say, "morons who can't understand or give a damn about" that. I would say that while this issue relates to a complicated collection of interrelated social problems, many people here are still making this about something it's not.
Irresponsible, and often deliberate, deviant behavior such as DWI and DUI are flagrant abuses of the driving privilege which directly threaten the safety of the public and have escalated to the point of necessitating police check points. People willing to engage in such reckless activity shouldn't be further empowered, perhaps even emboldened, by the availability of these apps.
The first I'd heard of these apps was on AI a few months ago, and I suspect it was the first most of the posters on these threads about the issue had heard of them too. If one person, just one, had said they already had one of these apps and explained how they used it responsibly in a way that had nothing to do with trying to "beat the cops," I'd be more inclined to give credence to the defenders of these apps. Instead, the vast majority of the arguments have been weakly veiled defenses of the "right" to drive drunk without the "inconvenience" of police intervention or emotionally charged hyperbole that their civil rights are being threatened by this investigation.
As I stated in a previous thread on this issue, these apps have every right to exist. Based on their potential threat to public safety by those who would use them to abuse their driving privileges, Apple has the moral and ethical responsibility to decide whether to offer them on its App Store. I hope they take them down.
you seem to think that 'morals and ethics' has some bind or hold on humans in a way that the laws of physics does. this is absolutely false. that is why we have Laws. one persons morals and ethics have nothing to do with anothers and could stand in opposition. hence the value in a good legal system. whining and complaining or 'not liking something' is not a Law. true if enough people complain then the govt MIGHT look into it but they don't have to.
and as for your 'the writers of the constitution couldn't have forseen the future and this makes the constitution suspect' then the constitution was worthless the moment the ink dried. it clearly isn't worthless.
'people making this about something it is not'? that is what you are doing your best to do. not i.
some people seem to think that the police/govt have a right to break the law or misuse their power it in the name of 'good'. so sick of this and the people that are too brain-dead to see the problem.
The issue is moral and ethical responsibility. Just because something is possible (technologically or otherwise), or there are no laws against it, doesn't mean that that thing should be done and accepted without question or scrutiny. If that thing (in this case, these apps) has a negative impact on society, our elected officials have the responsibility of investigating that impact and legislating accordingly. That is what's happening. We'll see how it shakes out.
n.
nothing wrong with questioning or scrutiny. but i believe they asked for it to be removed? that is not the same thing.
read this and you will get a better idea of what is going on and the type of thing most of us are getting at. mozilla is doing it the right way. the gov/power that be is doing it the wrong way.
you seem to think that 'morals and ethics' has some bind or hold on humans in a way that the laws of physics does. this is absolutely false. that is why we have Laws. one persons morals and ethics have nothing to do with anothers and could stand in opposition. hence the value in a good legal system. whining and complaining or 'not liking something' is not a Law. true if enough people complain then the govt MIGHT look into it but they don't have to.
and as for your 'the writers of the constitution couldn't have forseen the future and this makes the constitution suspect' then the constitution was worthless the moment the ink dried. it clearly isn't worthless. 'people making this about something it is not'? that is what you are doing your best to do. not i. some people seem to think that the police/govt have a right to break the law or misuse their power it in the name of 'good'. so sick of this and the people that are too brain-dead to see the problem.
I'm not naïve enough to think that any set of morals or ethics are absolutes, least of all mine. But within given cultures or societies, they generally run along similar lines. When they don't, as is sometimes the case, a good legal system should be able to find an acceptable compromise, and legislate accordingly if necessary. On that, we agree.
Implying that I'm saying the Constitution was "worthless the moment the ink dried" because I pointed out that the framers couldn't have predicted the future is the wrong takeaway from my point. Please try to consider my words within the extremes.
Of course, the Constitution is a valuable document, but it was signed in 1787. The world has changed a lot in the intervening 224 years. In today's world, strict interpretations of the Constitution can be more difficult and loose interpretations can be inflammatory and dangerous. Perhaps some passages in the Constitution need to be revisited to reflect the world we live in now.
You and others seem to have a bigger problem with authority than I do and regard this as a civil rights issue, and I simply don't see it as that. In fact, I regard seeing this issue in that light as a forced conflation of the real issue (the threat drunk driving poses to the public) and civil liberties. Driving's a privilege, as I mentioned, and abuses of that privilege by some have created an imposition on all in the form of police check points. If such measures keep would-be drunk drivers, and other criminals, off the streets, I'm fine with them.
Do police/governments misuse their power? Sometimes, yes. I'm not arguing that they don't. I am arguing that the process unfolding now regarding this issue is merely the government looking into what it sees as an issue that poses a threat to public safety. That's the role of government. That's what they're supposed to do. And I've stated my position on it: the issue is real, it exists, and these apps potentially contribute to the problem more than they offer a solution. You and others disagree with me. And that's fine.
Just because people don't agree with your opinion doesn't mean they're morons or are brain dead.
nothing wrong with questioning or scrutiny. but i believe they asked for it to be removed? that is not the same thing.
read this and you will get a better idea of what is going on and the type of thing most of us are getting at. mozilla is doing it the right way. the gov/power that be is doing it the wrong way.
They asked that the apps be taken down because they scrutinized the issue to their satisfaction and reached their conclusion. Now a discussion is taking place between them and the app store curators. We'll see how it shakes out.
As to your link: it's a related issue to be sure, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the best solution (whatever it may be) in the case of one would be the best solution in the case of the other. As Mozilla's blog notes:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mozilla
Longterm, the challenge is to find better mechanisms that provide both real due process and transparency without infringing upon developer and user freedoms traditionally associated with the Internet.
Very well put and easily applicable to the apps (and their usage) in question here. Thanks for the link. Digital technologies have given us very complex issues that affect many aspects of our lives. Many of them will require complex solutions (that likely won't please everyone) and may have to be implemented on a case by case basis. Only together will we be able to sort through it all responsibly. It'd be great if we could do that without all the unnecessary hostility, but we'll have to see how that shakes out too I guess.
Acting like Fox News, repeating an assertion over-and-over so that it becomes a fact, is not what I elect my Senators for.
There have been a lot of posts that say that the whole committee should be castigated for this. No, Chuck Schumer should be castigated for this.
He took a hearing that was about protecting the rights and privacy of Americans by investigating tracking methods used by Apple and Google, and then started asking questions about his pet-project. This same pet-project that aims to eliminate apps by intimidation that he can't legally demand be removed. Drunk driving checkpoints are questionable legally for violating the 4th, 5th, 6th & 9th Amendments. Bringing up anything about them at a hearing meant to protect our rights is disgusting.
Mr. Schumer, you have done worse than offend drunk drivers and people who love freedom. You have offended someone who has had a friend killed by a drunk driver, and who was harassed over 15 times by the same officer at a checkpoint and had to spend money that he didn't have to get a lawyer and an injunction just to be able to drive home from work after a long bartending shift (no, I never blew above a .001 on a breathalizer, and always 'miraculously' failed the field sobriety test).
Yeah! Damned if I'm gonna let some liberul take away my god given right to get shit faced and kill me some kids!
Are you suggesting that someone who is "shit faced" is capable of launching the Fuzz Alert app while driving, locating one or more DUI checkpoints along their intended route, then navigating around those checkpoints successfully?
Apple should ban these types of apps as they help drivers create dangerous driving conditions. Driving is not a liberty guaranteed under the constitution. It's a privilege given by the states. If people don't think ahead, they can use the only app in the app store to assist drunk drivers in finding a sober ride program servicing their current location.
[sigh]... I shouldn't be surprised that a discussion about the loss of personal liberties would be trailed by someone who has a product to pimp.
Three glaring flaws with your comment:
1. Driving is not a liberty. But accessing publicly available information is an inalienable right for every American citizen.
2. Driving is absolutely a state privilege, not a Constitutional one. Which means that these Senators don't have any business sticking their beaks in this, as their contention is based a privilege regulated by state law, not federal law.
3. It goes without saying that FRH has a slanted perspective on this topic since he (she? they? it?) has something to sell. Which is why its comments are oblique, such as "apps that help drivers create dangerous driving conditions".
It's been said before on this topic, many times: some people are bound to use a checkpoint app specifically to avoid traffic delays. Neither you nor Chucky Shumer has one particle of evidence to support your contention, so unfortunately, your presumption of your perceived customer base is going to alienate people, not help you sell your product to them.
Comments
I think the apps are a bad idea that encourage deviant behavior that endangers lives, whether they're legal or not. I hope Apple curates its App Store responsibly and takes them down. As others have pointed out, this information is already published elsewhere. There don't need to be apps for that.
Total nonsense. The law requires that they post their times and locations. And besides, the current laws are overly strict - to the point of being ridiculous. When one or two beers can put you "over the limit" the law has gone WAY too far. I sympathize with "madd mothers" but they are pushing an excessive agenda. We've had enough of the puritans interfering with our lives! Enough already!
That is unless ICE decides it has reason to illegally seize its domain like it already has done in the past.
(b) How are you going to stop non-Apps from doing the same thing? 3G can deliver the same information over the Internet.
(c) I can't imagine a drunken person navigating an iphone app. If I'm not drunk, why would I want to be delayed and/or why would police want me to clog their lanes anyway?
(d) Is there an app to avoid having to listen to politicians drunk on themselves?
My partners and I just released an iPhone app that uses a person's GPS to connect them to a sober ride program. We feel it's a better alternative than the avoidance model. Here's the link
http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/freer...5258?mt=8&ls=1
That's the way it should work. Someone saw a need and identified a solution. Rather than taking away someone's rights, you created an option to save lives.
Thank you for your effort. I hope it does well.
If a person is clear enough to use the app, he is not drunk.
I agree. If they're actually drunk they won't be able to operate it, if they're not drunk then they can use it to avoid Big Brother stripping away their rights and freedoms.
Based on that logic I'm assuming the second option is the real reason they don't like these apps.
As a side-note, it blows me away that in the States they have to announce these stops prior to setting them up.
You have all the facts straight -- the information is required to be published, and reporting it via mass media is legal (local TV stations do it all the time) -- yet you hope Apple impedes the dissemination of legally aggregated information. Of course there don't *need* to be apps for that, but that's not among the criteria, is it?
I don't hope any such thing, nor would Apple be doing so by removing the apps. Apple isn't doing, or even being asked to do, anything to block police departments from publishing information about the checkpoints. Apple is merely being asked to consider not providing another outlet for such information, specifically an outlet that would be accessible to the potential perpetrators while in the act of driving under the influence and thereby directly threatening the public.
And no, need is not the issue. Nor is legality. Nor is civil or Constitutional rights, no matter how much screaming fisted "morons" try to make it so. The issue is moral and ethical responsibility. Just because something is possible (technologically or otherwise), or there are no laws against it, doesn't mean that that thing should be done and accepted without question or scrutiny. If that thing (in this case, these apps) has a negative impact on society, our elected officials have the responsibility of investigating that impact and legislating accordingly. That is what's happening. We'll see how it shakes out.
thats why the geniuses crafted the constitution the way they did. so that morons who can't understand or give a damn about freedom (such as yourself) don't get to make policy. unfortunately most of the elected jerks don't understand the constitution either.
The geniuses who crafted the Constitution didn't put anything about driving in it. Nor did they mention any future technologies they had no way of knowing about. How could they? That's a totally flawed argument. It would have been impossible for them to predict the ways in which unknown, or even imagined, technological advances like the automobile or the Internet would transform and mutate our society from the one they envisioned. Maybe if they'd drafted the Constitution in the 21st century amid our society's current travails, they might have addressed issues like driving under the influence, or even the disinhibition effect. Go on, look it up.
As it is, driving is a privilege, NOT a right. That's why we have to be licensed to operate motor vehicles. Clearly there are a lot of, as you might say, "morons who can't understand or give a damn about" that. I would say that while this issue relates to a complicated collection of interrelated social problems, many people here are still making this about something it's not.
Irresponsible, and often deliberate, deviant behavior such as DWI and DUI are flagrant abuses of the driving privilege which directly threaten the safety of the public and have escalated to the point of necessitating police check points. People willing to engage in such reckless activity shouldn't be further empowered, perhaps even emboldened, by the availability of these apps.
The first I'd heard of these apps was on AI a few months ago, and I suspect it was the first most of the posters on these threads about the issue had heard of them too. If one person, just one, had said they already had one of these apps and explained how they used it responsibly in a way that had nothing to do with trying to "beat the cops," I'd be more inclined to give credence to the defenders of these apps. Instead, the vast majority of the arguments have been weakly veiled defenses of the "right" to drive drunk without the "inconvenience" of police intervention or emotionally charged hyperbole that their civil rights are being threatened by this investigation.
As I stated in a previous thread on this issue, these apps have every right to exist. Based on their potential threat to public safety by those who would use them to abuse their driving privileges, Apple has the moral and ethical responsibility to decide whether to offer them on its App Store. I hope they take them down.
Total nonsense. The law requires that they post their times and locations. And besides, the current laws are overly strict - to the point of being ridiculous. When one or two beers can put you "over the limit" the law has gone WAY too far. I sympathize with "madd mothers" but they are pushing an excessive agenda. We've had enough of the puritans interfering with our lives! Enough already!
Not total nonsense. This request of Apple does nothing to change the current laws. With the problem being as bad as it still is, maybe the laws aren't currently strict enough. If anything, things shouldn't be made easier for would-be criminals.
My partners and I just released an iPhone app that uses a person's GPS to connect them to a sober ride program. We feel it's a better alternative than the avoidance model. Here's the link
http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/freer...5258?mt=8&ls=1
I applaud you and your partners! This is a much more responsible solution. Hopefully people will be responsible, and humble, enough to use your app.
But that doesn't change the facts pertaining to this app and the stupidity of Sen. Al Franken, et.al.
Not to nitpick, but I doubt Franken had anything to do with the DUI app part of the hearing. The article only quotes Schumer as taking issue with it.
I agree. If they're actually drunk they won't be able to operate it, if they're not drunk then they can use it to avoid Big Brother stripping away their rights and freedoms.
Based on that logic I'm assuming the second option is the real reason they don't like these apps.
As a side-note, it blows me away that in the States they have to announce these stops prior to setting them up.
They need to announce since DUI checkpoints are unconstitutional. It is a blatant violation of the fourth ammendment. Some states have found them to be unconstitutional based on their own state constitution. Yes, the supreme court has ruled they are constitutional, but it is a bad ruling. Furthermore, the reason the government, which should be beholden to the constitution, must advertise these checkpoints ahead of time is because they amount to an unreasonable search and seizure. Rehnquist in his majority opinion admitted as much and still ruled for violating the constitution with a lame excuse that reasonable measures should be used. Advertising these checkpoints ahead of time could be viewed as a loophole that let's the police violate one's rights. Some states have a number of other requirements before a checkpoint may be set up.
The government has no right to stop me, an individual that does not drink and drive, without probable cause. Unfortunately, this is exactly what a DUI checkpoint does.
I don't hope any such thing, nor would Apple be doing so by removing the apps. Apple isn't doing, or even being asked to do, anything to block police departments from publishing information about the checkpoints. Apple is merely being asked to consider not providing another outlet for such information, specifically an outlet that would be accessible to the potential perpetrators while in the act of driving under the influence and thereby directly threatening the public.
And no, need is not the issue. Nor is legality. Nor is civil or Constitutional rights, no matter how much screaming fisted "morons" try to make it so. The issue is moral and ethical responsibility. Just because something is possible (technologically or otherwise), or there are no laws against it, doesn't mean that that thing should be done and accepted without question or scrutiny. If that thing (in this case, these apps) has a negative impact on society, our elected officials have the responsibility of investigating that impact and legislating accordingly. That is what's happening. We'll see how it shakes out.
The geniuses who crafted the Constitution didn't put anything about driving in it. Nor did they mention any future technologies they had no way of knowing about. How could they? That's a totally flawed argument. It would have been impossible for them to predict the ways in which unknown, or even imagined, technological advances like the automobile or the Internet would transform and mutate our society from the one they envisioned. Maybe if they'd drafted the Constitution in the 21st century amid our society's current travails, they might have addressed issues like driving under the influence, or even the disinhibition effect. Go on, look it up.
As it is, driving is a privilege, NOT a right. That's why we have to be licensed to operate motor vehicles. Clearly there are a lot of, as you might say, "morons who can't understand or give a damn about" that. I would say that while this issue relates to a complicated collection of interrelated social problems, many people here are still making this about something it's not.
Irresponsible, and often deliberate, deviant behavior such as DWI and DUI are flagrant abuses of the driving privilege which directly threaten the safety of the public and have escalated to the point of necessitating police check points. People willing to engage in such reckless activity shouldn't be further empowered, perhaps even emboldened, by the availability of these apps.
The first I'd heard of these apps was on AI a few months ago, and I suspect it was the first most of the posters on these threads about the issue had heard of them too. If one person, just one, had said they already had one of these apps and explained how they used it responsibly in a way that had nothing to do with trying to "beat the cops," I'd be more inclined to give credence to the defenders of these apps. Instead, the vast majority of the arguments have been weakly veiled defenses of the "right" to drive drunk without the "inconvenience" of police intervention or emotionally charged hyperbole that their civil rights are being threatened by this investigation.
As I stated in a previous thread on this issue, these apps have every right to exist. Based on their potential threat to public safety by those who would use them to abuse their driving privileges, Apple has the moral and ethical responsibility to decide whether to offer them on its App Store. I hope they take them down.
(Ginormous facepalm)....
I don't hope any such thing, nor would Apple be doing so by removing the apps. Apple isn't doing, or even being asked to do, anything to block police departments from publishing information about the checkpoints. Apple is merely being asked to consider not providing another outlet for such information, specifically an outlet that would be accessible to the potential perpetrators while in the act of driving under the influence and thereby directly threatening the public.
And no, need is not the issue. Nor is legality. Nor is civil or Constitutional rights, no matter how much screaming fisted "morons" try to make it so. The issue is moral and ethical responsibility. Just because something is possible (technologically or otherwise), or there are no laws against it, doesn't mean that that thing should be done and accepted without question or scrutiny. If that thing (in this case, these apps) has a negative impact on society, our elected officials have the responsibility of investigating that impact and legislating accordingly. That is what's happening. We'll see how it shakes out.
The geniuses who crafted the Constitution didn't put anything about driving in it. Nor did they mention any future technologies they had no way of knowing about. How could they? That's a totally flawed argument. It would have been impossible for them to predict the ways in which unknown, or even imagined, technological advances like the automobile or the Internet would transform and mutate our society from the one they envisioned. Maybe if they'd drafted the Constitution in the 21st century amid our society's current travails, they might have addressed issues like driving under the influence, or even the disinhibition effect. Go on, look it up.
As it is, driving is a privilege, NOT a right. That's why we have to be licensed to operate motor vehicles. Clearly there are a lot of, as you might say, "morons who can't understand or give a damn about" that. I would say that while this issue relates to a complicated collection of interrelated social problems, many people here are still making this about something it's not.
Irresponsible, and often deliberate, deviant behavior such as DWI and DUI are flagrant abuses of the driving privilege which directly threaten the safety of the public and have escalated to the point of necessitating police check points. People willing to engage in such reckless activity shouldn't be further empowered, perhaps even emboldened, by the availability of these apps.
The first I'd heard of these apps was on AI a few months ago, and I suspect it was the first most of the posters on these threads about the issue had heard of them too. If one person, just one, had said they already had one of these apps and explained how they used it responsibly in a way that had nothing to do with trying to "beat the cops," I'd be more inclined to give credence to the defenders of these apps. Instead, the vast majority of the arguments have been weakly veiled defenses of the "right" to drive drunk without the "inconvenience" of police intervention or emotionally charged hyperbole that their civil rights are being threatened by this investigation.
As I stated in a previous thread on this issue, these apps have every right to exist. Based on their potential threat to public safety by those who would use them to abuse their driving privileges, Apple has the moral and ethical responsibility to decide whether to offer them on its App Store. I hope they take them down.
you seem to think that 'morals and ethics' has some bind or hold on humans in a way that the laws of physics does. this is absolutely false. that is why we have Laws. one persons morals and ethics have nothing to do with anothers and could stand in opposition. hence the value in a good legal system. whining and complaining or 'not liking something' is not a Law. true if enough people complain then the govt MIGHT look into it but they don't have to.
and as for your 'the writers of the constitution couldn't have forseen the future and this makes the constitution suspect' then the constitution was worthless the moment the ink dried. it clearly isn't worthless.
'people making this about something it is not'? that is what you are doing your best to do. not i.
some people seem to think that the police/govt have a right to break the law or misuse their power it in the name of 'good'. so sick of this and the people that are too brain-dead to see the problem.
.
The issue is moral and ethical responsibility. Just because something is possible (technologically or otherwise), or there are no laws against it, doesn't mean that that thing should be done and accepted without question or scrutiny. If that thing (in this case, these apps) has a negative impact on society, our elected officials have the responsibility of investigating that impact and legislating accordingly. That is what's happening. We'll see how it shakes out.
n.
nothing wrong with questioning or scrutiny. but i believe they asked for it to be removed? that is not the same thing.
read this and you will get a better idea of what is going on and the type of thing most of us are getting at. mozilla is doing it the right way. the gov/power that be is doing it the wrong way.
http://lockshot.wordpress.com/2011/0...aafire-add-on/
you seem to think that 'morals and ethics' has some bind or hold on humans in a way that the laws of physics does. this is absolutely false. that is why we have Laws. one persons morals and ethics have nothing to do with anothers and could stand in opposition. hence the value in a good legal system. whining and complaining or 'not liking something' is not a Law. true if enough people complain then the govt MIGHT look into it but they don't have to.
and as for your 'the writers of the constitution couldn't have forseen the future and this makes the constitution suspect' then the constitution was worthless the moment the ink dried. it clearly isn't worthless. 'people making this about something it is not'? that is what you are doing your best to do. not i. some people seem to think that the police/govt have a right to break the law or misuse their power it in the name of 'good'. so sick of this and the people that are too brain-dead to see the problem.
I'm not naïve enough to think that any set of morals or ethics are absolutes, least of all mine. But within given cultures or societies, they generally run along similar lines. When they don't, as is sometimes the case, a good legal system should be able to find an acceptable compromise, and legislate accordingly if necessary. On that, we agree.
Implying that I'm saying the Constitution was "worthless the moment the ink dried" because I pointed out that the framers couldn't have predicted the future is the wrong takeaway from my point. Please try to consider my words within the extremes.
Of course, the Constitution is a valuable document, but it was signed in 1787. The world has changed a lot in the intervening 224 years. In today's world, strict interpretations of the Constitution can be more difficult and loose interpretations can be inflammatory and dangerous. Perhaps some passages in the Constitution need to be revisited to reflect the world we live in now.
You and others seem to have a bigger problem with authority than I do and regard this as a civil rights issue, and I simply don't see it as that. In fact, I regard seeing this issue in that light as a forced conflation of the real issue (the threat drunk driving poses to the public) and civil liberties. Driving's a privilege, as I mentioned, and abuses of that privilege by some have created an imposition on all in the form of police check points. If such measures keep would-be drunk drivers, and other criminals, off the streets, I'm fine with them.
Do police/governments misuse their power? Sometimes, yes. I'm not arguing that they don't. I am arguing that the process unfolding now regarding this issue is merely the government looking into what it sees as an issue that poses a threat to public safety. That's the role of government. That's what they're supposed to do. And I've stated my position on it: the issue is real, it exists, and these apps potentially contribute to the problem more than they offer a solution. You and others disagree with me. And that's fine.
Just because people don't agree with your opinion doesn't mean they're morons or are brain dead.
nothing wrong with questioning or scrutiny. but i believe they asked for it to be removed? that is not the same thing.
read this and you will get a better idea of what is going on and the type of thing most of us are getting at. mozilla is doing it the right way. the gov/power that be is doing it the wrong way.
http://lockshot.wordpress.com/2011/0...aafire-add-on/
They asked that the apps be taken down because they scrutinized the issue to their satisfaction and reached their conclusion. Now a discussion is taking place between them and the app store curators. We'll see how it shakes out.
As to your link: it's a related issue to be sure, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the best solution (whatever it may be) in the case of one would be the best solution in the case of the other. As Mozilla's blog notes:
Longterm, the challenge is to find better mechanisms that provide both real due process and transparency without infringing upon developer and user freedoms traditionally associated with the Internet.
Very well put and easily applicable to the apps (and their usage) in question here. Thanks for the link. Digital technologies have given us very complex issues that affect many aspects of our lives. Many of them will require complex solutions (that likely won't please everyone) and may have to be implemented on a case by case basis. Only together will we be able to sort through it all responsibly. It'd be great if we could do that without all the unnecessary hostility, but we'll have to see how that shakes out too I guess.
There have been a lot of posts that say that the whole committee should be castigated for this. No, Chuck Schumer should be castigated for this.
He took a hearing that was about protecting the rights and privacy of Americans by investigating tracking methods used by Apple and Google, and then started asking questions about his pet-project. This same pet-project that aims to eliminate apps by intimidation that he can't legally demand be removed. Drunk driving checkpoints are questionable legally for violating the 4th, 5th, 6th & 9th Amendments. Bringing up anything about them at a hearing meant to protect our rights is disgusting.
Mr. Schumer, you have done worse than offend drunk drivers and people who love freedom. You have offended someone who has had a friend killed by a drunk driver, and who was harassed over 15 times by the same officer at a checkpoint and had to spend money that he didn't have to get a lawyer and an injunction just to be able to drive home from work after a long bartending shift (no, I never blew above a .001 on a breathalizer, and always 'miraculously' failed the field sobriety test).
Worse than offending me, you've lost my vote.
Yeah! Damned if I'm gonna let some liberul take away my god given right to get shit faced and kill me some kids!
Are you suggesting that someone who is "shit faced" is capable of launching the Fuzz Alert app while driving, locating one or more DUI checkpoints along their intended route, then navigating around those checkpoints successfully?
Apple should ban these types of apps as they help drivers create dangerous driving conditions. Driving is not a liberty guaranteed under the constitution. It's a privilege given by the states. If people don't think ahead, they can use the only app in the app store to assist drunk drivers in finding a sober ride program servicing their current location.
[sigh]... I shouldn't be surprised that a discussion about the loss of personal liberties would be trailed by someone who has a product to pimp.
Three glaring flaws with your comment:
1. Driving is not a liberty. But accessing publicly available information is an inalienable right for every American citizen.
2. Driving is absolutely a state privilege, not a Constitutional one. Which means that these Senators don't have any business sticking their beaks in this, as their contention is based a privilege regulated by state law, not federal law.
3. It goes without saying that FRH has a slanted perspective on this topic since he (she? they? it?) has something to sell. Which is why its comments are oblique, such as "apps that help drivers create dangerous driving conditions".
It's been said before on this topic, many times: some people are bound to use a checkpoint app specifically to avoid traffic delays. Neither you nor Chucky Shumer has one particle of evidence to support your contention, so unfortunately, your presumption of your perceived customer base is going to alienate people, not help you sell your product to them.