These checkpoints are not about catching drunk drivers. They are nets intended to catch people for a anything. For instance, not having a proper drivers license. They are huge money makers for the States that implement them. It used to be the case, if you blew .12 or over you'd be considered drunk. The States then found out they make a lot of money off supposed drunk driving cases, and could make more if they caught more people. So, they lowered the amount. Most convictions are based off the breathalyzer, which is ridiculous because you can blow into the same machine twice back to back and get dramatically different results.
Safety is a noble goal, but checkpoints are a pain in the butt for everybody and the cost is not worth the benefit. So, me opposing the removal of such applications has nothing to do with assisting drunk drivers. It has to do with me not being significantly inconvenienced just so the state can make money off people. Further, what many don't understand is these applications comply with the Supreme Court ruling requiring the DUI checkpoints to be made public prior to setting them up. They decimate readily available public information.
Quote:
Originally Posted by neiltc13
The thing I have never understood about USA and some Americans is the way they will argue for these "rights" and "amendments" and uphold their consitution no matter what.
Do you honestly care so much that people have these "freedoms" that you are willing to assist people who drive under the influence of alcohol or drugs to endanger the lives of others?
The same goes for the whole texting while driving thing. What is it about Americans and road safety that doesn't click?
What use is your bill of rights when you are dead?
The thing I have never understood about USA and some Americans is the way they will argue for these "rights" and "amendments" and uphold their consitution no matter what.
Do you honestly care so much that people have these "freedoms" that you are willing to assist people who drive under the influence of alcohol or drugs to endanger the lives of others?
The same goes for the whole texting while driving thing. What is it about Americans and road safety that doesn't click?
What use is your bill of rights when you are dead?
Without liberty we may as well be dead.
The point is not to assist drunk drivers but to limit police power over the law abiding citizenry. According to US law, police are not supposed to be able to stop or detain anyone with probable cause that they have committed a crime. These checkpoints do not protect the public any more than normal police patrols but they expand on police being able to randomly harass people with no cause.
Bingo. This is a huge money making racket for States.
Quote:
Originally Posted by halhiker
The main reason for them is not drunk drivers but impound fees from taking people's cars over minor violations. They are a waste of time and community resources and it is very weak of Apple to do this.
I see this as a good thing. A drunk moron behind the wheel is a homicide just waiting to happen. There shouldn't be apps that tell people, drunk or otherwise, where checkpoints are so that these people can avoid them. Don't blame Apple for having plain common sense, DUI checkpoints are nothing new and they have been around for ages. Having DUI checkpoints doesn't mean that you live in a police state, only a paranoid, tin foil hat wearing person would suggest such a thing. It means that you live in a civilized, modern society with laws. There wouldn't be any need for checkpoints if drunk idiots didn't murder people on a very consistent basis. They should release all of the harmless potheads from jail and lock up some real potential killers instead, people who get caught driving while drunk.
they should also remove safari from ios devices. i can use it to access the freely, publicly available information about dui checkpoints. i can also use it to access, gasp, porn.
this is simply hypocrisy and pandering to the lcd. sad.
While I agree and sympathize with pretty much everything said here, and while we (supposedly) have 1st, 4th, and 5th amendment rights, that doesn't mean Apple is violating any of those rights by removing the app from the store.
In fact, having this app removed is so unsurprising that I feel like it barely qualifies for an article. If you've read the *published* app store guidelines, I'm am absolutely positive I can find somewhere that says this sort of app is against the rules.
Apple also ban apps that are racist. While I am a vehement supporter of free speech, that doesn't mean I have to like people's bigoted opinions, and nor does Apple. Nor does that mean that they have to include apps that let you circumvent the cops. I had actually thought of making an app like this to avoid speed traps, but the thought of helping people speed even more (and cause more accidents) was an unpleasant thought, so I never pursued it.
The senators know they could never get a law passed, so they just "ask." And because they have so much power to pass economic laws, Apple really has to stay on their good side.
Those who complain when the govt tries to restrict free speech, but say nothing when they tax the rich, well now you see the result of that. They are able to leverage those economic powers to do other things.
I really don't see a problem with this. It's completely reasonable for Apple to have rules against apps that find ways to circumvent the law. That's what an app like this does, it allows people to effectively bypass the law. If people don't like it they should work to change the law, and DUI checkpoints are legal.
4th Amendment right arguments are debatable here. Don't conflate your actual 4th amendment rights with a responsible society that is trying to keep people safe on the roads.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
DUI checkpoints are direct violation of Constitutional Amdendment IV
The Supreme Court of the United States, the sole arbiter of what is constitutional or not, has decided DUI checkpoints are indeed constitutional. Your uninformed, uneducated, personal opinion is irrelevant. If you tried to argue your opinion before a judge you would be shot down immediately. Your opinion simply doesn't matter to anyone.\
Having DUI checkpoints doesn't mean that you live in a police state, only a paranoid, tin foil hat wearing person would suggest such a thing. It means that you live in a civilized, modern society with laws.
Tinfoil hat brigade is out in force today on this thread.
I really don't see a problem with this. It's completely reasonable for Apple to have rules against apps that find ways to circumvent the law. That's what an app like this does, it allows people to effectively bypass the law.
They need to ban the Police Scanner apps too. Criminals monitor them so they can make a clean getaway.
This is interesting. In the San Jose Mercury News, there is a column called Mr. Roadshow, where various traffic-related questions are answered (When will that pothole be fixed? etc.).
The column is often used by police departments to advertise DUI checkpoints, rationale being that by knowing cops are out enforcing that someone will decide to not drink that night--prevention before incarceration, if you will. If by checking the app I see that a party will be too close to a DUI checkpoint and I decide not to drink, isn't that a good thing?
The thing I have never understood about USA and some Americans is the way they will argue for these "rights" and "amendments" and uphold their consitution no matter what.
Do you honestly care so much that people have these "freedoms" that you are willing to assist people who drive under the influence of alcohol or drugs to endanger the lives of others?
The same goes for the whole texting while driving thing. What is it about Americans and road safety that doesn't click?
What use is your bill of rights when you are dead?
prin·ci·ple/ˈprinsəpəl/Noun
1. A fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behavior or for a chain of reasoning.
2. A rule or belief governing one's personal behavior.
Personally, I'm glad for anything that saves lives.
Cars are one of the most dangerous ways to travel. If a politician started a movement to outlaw all motorized vehicles, would you be glad for that? After all, it's certain to save an incredible number of lives.
So which is it AppleInsider? Are they completely banning apps that alert users to DUI checkpoints or just the ones that aren't published by the local police departments? Seeing that you wrote a totally wrong headline to get page clicks, and you didn't read your own article it seems to me you have no clue what you are talking about. Now you have a bunch of retarded commenters debating what people will do with an app when no one actually cares but lying politicians. Congrats. You've gotten click bait down to an art form.
Cars are one of the most dangerous ways to travel. If a politician started a movement to outlaw all motorized vehicles, would you be glad for that? After all, it's certain to save an incredible number of lives.
The Supreme Court of the United States, the sole arbiter of what is constitutional or not, has decided DUI checkpoints are indeed constitutional. Your uninformed, uneducated, personal opinion is irrelevant. If you tried to argue your opinion before a judge you would be shot down immediately. Your opinion simply doesn't matter to anyone.\
They also deemed that cops can literally kick your door in and murder your whole family if you resist and the correct way to stop illegal police entry is to sue them in civil court. Just because the Supreme Court makes a ruling doesn't mean it's factually and logically correct. Any pig kicks my door in in the middle of the night is going to get a bullet to the face, not a request to show up in court so I can sue them. A ruling that is factually and logically incorrect should be resisted at every opportunity that presents itself. By force if necessary. Maybe you should get a damn clue. Your uninformed, uneducated personal opinion is irrelevant.
I see this as a good thing. A drunk moron behind the wheel is a homicide just waiting to happen. There shouldn't be apps that tell people, drunk or otherwise, where checkpoints are so that these people can avoid them. Don't blame Apple for having plain common sense, DUI checkpoints are nothing new and they have been around for ages. Having DUI checkpoints doesn't mean that you live in a police state, only a paranoid, tin foil hat wearing person would suggest such a thing. It means that you live in a civilized, modern society with laws. There wouldn't be any need for checkpoints if drunk idiots didn't murder people on a very consistent basis. They should release all of the harmless potheads from jail and lock up some real potential killers instead, people who get caught driving while drunk.
The problem is that they don't catch drunks, they write fix it tickets, illegally search vehicles, and rake in the cash. I'm all about getting drunks off the road, but our judicial system is at fault, not Apple.
Comments
Safety is a noble goal, but checkpoints are a pain in the butt for everybody and the cost is not worth the benefit. So, me opposing the removal of such applications has nothing to do with assisting drunk drivers. It has to do with me not being significantly inconvenienced just so the state can make money off people. Further, what many don't understand is these applications comply with the Supreme Court ruling requiring the DUI checkpoints to be made public prior to setting them up. They decimate readily available public information.
The thing I have never understood about USA and some Americans is the way they will argue for these "rights" and "amendments" and uphold their consitution no matter what.
Do you honestly care so much that people have these "freedoms" that you are willing to assist people who drive under the influence of alcohol or drugs to endanger the lives of others?
The same goes for the whole texting while driving thing. What is it about Americans and road safety that doesn't click?
What use is your bill of rights when you are dead?
The thing I have never understood about USA and some Americans is the way they will argue for these "rights" and "amendments" and uphold their consitution no matter what.
Do you honestly care so much that people have these "freedoms" that you are willing to assist people who drive under the influence of alcohol or drugs to endanger the lives of others?
The same goes for the whole texting while driving thing. What is it about Americans and road safety that doesn't click?
What use is your bill of rights when you are dead?
Without liberty we may as well be dead.
The point is not to assist drunk drivers but to limit police power over the law abiding citizenry. According to US law, police are not supposed to be able to stop or detain anyone with probable cause that they have committed a crime. These checkpoints do not protect the public any more than normal police patrols but they expand on police being able to randomly harass people with no cause.
The main reason for them is not drunk drivers but impound fees from taking people's cars over minor violations. They are a waste of time and community resources and it is very weak of Apple to do this.
this is simply hypocrisy and pandering to the lcd. sad.
In fact, having this app removed is so unsurprising that I feel like it barely qualifies for an article. If you've read the *published* app store guidelines, I'm am absolutely positive I can find somewhere that says this sort of app is against the rules.
Apple also ban apps that are racist. While I am a vehement supporter of free speech, that doesn't mean I have to like people's bigoted opinions, and nor does Apple. Nor does that mean that they have to include apps that let you circumvent the cops. I had actually thought of making an app like this to avoid speed traps, but the thought of helping people speed even more (and cause more accidents) was an unpleasant thought, so I never pursued it.
Those who complain when the govt tries to restrict free speech, but say nothing when they tax the rich, well now you see the result of that. They are able to leverage those economic powers to do other things.
4th Amendment right arguments are debatable here. Don't conflate your actual 4th amendment rights with a responsible society that is trying to keep people safe on the roads.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
DUI checkpoints are direct violation of Constitutional Amdendment IV
The Supreme Court of the United States, the sole arbiter of what is constitutional or not, has decided DUI checkpoints are indeed constitutional. Your uninformed, uneducated, personal opinion is irrelevant. If you tried to argue your opinion before a judge you would be shot down immediately. Your opinion simply doesn't matter to anyone.
Having DUI checkpoints doesn't mean that you live in a police state, only a paranoid, tin foil hat wearing person would suggest such a thing. It means that you live in a civilized, modern society with laws.
Tinfoil hat brigade is out in force today on this thread.
It's a bit of a conundrum, but ultimately I'm not surprised by Apple's decision.
Personally, I'm glad for anything that saves lives.
If those drunks want to drive, let them use Android phones!
I really don't see a problem with this. It's completely reasonable for Apple to have rules against apps that find ways to circumvent the law. That's what an app like this does, it allows people to effectively bypass the law.
They need to ban the Police Scanner apps too. Criminals monitor them so they can make a clean getaway.
The column is often used by police departments to advertise DUI checkpoints, rationale being that by knowing cops are out enforcing that someone will decide to not drink that night--prevention before incarceration, if you will. If by checking the app I see that a party will be too close to a DUI checkpoint and I decide not to drink, isn't that a good thing?
So...what's the difference here?
The thing I have never understood about USA and some Americans is the way they will argue for these "rights" and "amendments" and uphold their consitution no matter what.
Do you honestly care so much that people have these "freedoms" that you are willing to assist people who drive under the influence of alcohol or drugs to endanger the lives of others?
The same goes for the whole texting while driving thing. What is it about Americans and road safety that doesn't click?
What use is your bill of rights when you are dead?
prin·ci·ple/ˈprinsəpəl/Noun
1. A fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behavior or for a chain of reasoning.
2. A rule or belief governing one's personal behavior.
Personally, I'm glad for anything that saves lives.
Cars are one of the most dangerous ways to travel. If a politician started a movement to outlaw all motorized vehicles, would you be glad for that? After all, it's certain to save an incredible number of lives.
Cars are one of the most dangerous ways to travel. If a politician started a movement to outlaw all motorized vehicles, would you be glad for that? After all, it's certain to save an incredible number of lives.
Straw man.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
The Supreme Court of the United States, the sole arbiter of what is constitutional or not, has decided DUI checkpoints are indeed constitutional. Your uninformed, uneducated, personal opinion is irrelevant. If you tried to argue your opinion before a judge you would be shot down immediately. Your opinion simply doesn't matter to anyone.
They also deemed that cops can literally kick your door in and murder your whole family if you resist and the correct way to stop illegal police entry is to sue them in civil court. Just because the Supreme Court makes a ruling doesn't mean it's factually and logically correct. Any pig kicks my door in in the middle of the night is going to get a bullet to the face, not a request to show up in court so I can sue them. A ruling that is factually and logically incorrect should be resisted at every opportunity that presents itself. By force if necessary. Maybe you should get a damn clue. Your uninformed, uneducated personal opinion is irrelevant.
Straw man.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
Eric Schmidt doesn't think so.
I see this as a good thing. A drunk moron behind the wheel is a homicide just waiting to happen. There shouldn't be apps that tell people, drunk or otherwise, where checkpoints are so that these people can avoid them. Don't blame Apple for having plain common sense, DUI checkpoints are nothing new and they have been around for ages. Having DUI checkpoints doesn't mean that you live in a police state, only a paranoid, tin foil hat wearing person would suggest such a thing. It means that you live in a civilized, modern society with laws. There wouldn't be any need for checkpoints if drunk idiots didn't murder people on a very consistent basis. They should release all of the harmless potheads from jail and lock up some real potential killers instead, people who get caught driving while drunk.
The problem is that they don't catch drunks, they write fix it tickets, illegally search vehicles, and rake in the cash. I'm all about getting drunks off the road, but our judicial system is at fault, not Apple.