We love to quote Benjamin Franklin and speak of the 1st Amendment as if it were written by gods. None of those signatories would have wanted to see civil rights used as an excuse to bend the law. We love to think we are blessed with some wider perspicacity that everyone else lacks and we are seeing 1984 in its infancy but the truth is this is stopping mindless, selfish morons from destroying real lives.
I'm sorry but you have it completely backwards. Our 1st Amendment isn't just about standing on a soap box in Hyde Park. Immediately after the Revolution we were on the brink of civil war and the Bill of Rights was specifically set forth to prevent the government, even a democratically elected fully representative one, from encroaching on personal freedoms. The spell out the rights "endowed by our creator." The whole idea of "checkpoints" would be an anathema to the Framers, Franklin especially.
Potential murderers, otherwise known as drunk drivers, should not have any apps that aid them in their crimes. I believe that drunk drivers should be given the death penalty if their actions cause the death of somebody else.
What's next? An app for serial killers, to help them locate potential victims? How about an app for rapists while we're at it? \
Better yet outlaw the internet, news papers, phone books, and TV while you are at it then....
However, I bet your all for DNA screen of all unborn babies so we can determine ahead of time if they fit a profile of someone who may be harmful to society and make sure they are not born.
One thing I like about Hollywood they have a way of making a entertain movie about these subjects so you can get an idea how it could be if you keep up with this kind of attitude.
Check out Judge Dredd, Minority Report, Demolition Man
Potential murderers, otherwise known as drunk drivers, should not have any apps that aid them in their crimes. I believe that drunk drivers should be given the death penalty if their actions cause the death of somebody else.
What's next? An app for serial killers, to help them locate potential victims? How about an app for rapists while we're at it? \
The app itself is not "a crime." Even under control of a sober driver a car can be used to commit a crime. Do you want us to take them away? The kitchen knife can be a deadly weapon, are they next to go? Having the app doesn't mean you are committing a crime.
Given that most states already have to publicize such checkpoints, this is nothing more than a PR gesture.
It's so much easier to demonize a stupid, insignificant piece of software than legislate appropriate penalties for a heinous crime. You can kill someone driving drunk in America and be back on the road in less than a year. DUI should result in permanent license revocation. 95% of the problem would vanish overnight.
America's substance laws are an unmanageable, hypocritical, mess, and will remain so as long as the producers of cigarettes and alcohol can buy Congressmen a six-pack at a time.
Given that most states already have to publicize such checkpoints, this is nothing more than a PR gesture.
It's so much easier to demonize a stupid, insignificant piece of software than legislate appropriate penalties for a heinous crime. You can kill someone driving drunk in America and be back on the road in less than a year. DUI should result in permanent license revocation. 95% of the problem would vanish overnight.
America's substance laws are an unmanageable, hypocritical, mess, and will remain so as long as the producers of cigarettes and alcohol can buy Congressmen a six-pack at a time.
You can also kill someone by driving at all... So your answer to catching someone doing something that's poor driving skills that endangers others is to ban them from driving for life. Ok, well, texters - done, forever. You want to do your makeup? Done, forever. You want to turn your head to check on your 8 month old that's in the back seat crying? Done, forever. Where do we stop? Ever caught going above the speed limit? Done, forever. Listening to the radio (proven to be a distraction btw)? Done, forever.
EDIT: How about we just make driving at all illegal. That would be MUCH safer! Ever taken a prescription that says may cause drowsiness and go to work anyway because you have to? Done, forever...
As you are an Englishman, I can't figure out your context for this issue. Our legal systems and presumptions are very different despite the shared origin.
fwiw; It doesn't bother me that you chime in, proliferately, it just seems that you're not grasping some of the basic problems we have with the "nanny-state-ness" of the Senators proclamation.
You're right to point out that DUIs are a US issue, but Apple being asked to remove an app that may aid someone to avoid a law-enforcement measure may one day affect me here in the UK too if such a request were ever made about a UK enforcement measure.
I understand the concerns people have about a nanny state. There is a huge debate in the UK about speed cameras that has many parallels to this. What was striking was people arguing that they were just a money-making mechanism, when only those breaking the law were ever fined.
My feelings on the matter are simply that whilst it is clear that these measures should not be abused by the authorities as they appear to be on occasion, they are still ultimately there to prevent crime. I suppose ultimately there is no perfect solution. I can see both sides and I agree that these DUIs seem to be unAmerican (if that is a word) but we are talking about the principle of companies like Apple distributing apps that allow people to avoid a law-enforcement measure. I think that specific principle is wrong and these apps shouldn't be encouraged.
I'm sorry but you have it completely backwards. Our 1st Amendment isn't just about standing on a soap box in Hyde Park. Immediately after the Revolution we were on the brink of civil war and the Bill of Rights was specifically set forth to prevent the government, even a democratically elected fully representative one, from encroaching on personal freedoms. The spell out the rights "endowed by our creator." The whole idea of "checkpoints" would be an anathema to the Framers, Franklin especially.
I understand your objection to the checkpoints. But that for me is slightly separate to helping people avoid the law. The law might be wrong, but the moment you start helping each other to circumvent the statutes of your state you get into dangerous territory.
If you block the apps, the app will move to the web as a service.
Ultimately, censorship does not solve the problem.
The next thing they'll have to outlaw is hashtags on Twitter (#checkpoint, e.g.) - which is the mechanism the Tunisian rebels (and others) used to alert their fellows about "sniper checkpoints."
Quote:
Originally Posted by frugality
I understand the lawmakers' concern, and agree with it. But it's a gray area to navigate. Do we allow everything in a Libertarian manner and keep government bare-bones and essential, or do we have government in every aspect of our lives, making for a 'nanny state'?
Defining that balance has been the front line of the Bill of Rights since the Constitution was ratified and it remains a moving target. Lately, however it's been mostly shifting more and more to the crowd who wants to protect us from ourselves, who fail to realize that every such measure for the "public good" inevitably produces unintended side effects, e.g., in constricting the free flow of information which is not necessarily misused by those participating in its flow.
The question which always needs to be asked is what is the total range of remedies at society's hands and which accomplish the most good while doing the least bad.
Also, as has always been the case, the majority of cases involve teens and younger adults. And 75% of the deaths were associated with failure to wear seat belts. And drinking aside, failure to wear helmets on motorcycles is a prime factor in brain injuries/deaths in two-wheeling accidents.
Bartenders are now (in many or most jurisdictions?) required to stop serving obviously impaired patrons (however often they ignore the requirements, tho' they do risk the loss of their business and livelihood), and private party throwers can be held legally liable if they let their guests leave drunk. But that does nothing to stop people getting drunk on their own.
I threw a large public party - with bands and an open bar - and to follow codes, I had to check ID's and issue bracelets to the over 21's so that I and my co-hosts could seize drinks from non-bracelet wearers - though some certainly brought their own hip flasks or drank their own hooch in their cars. Again, for personal ethical reasons and to avoid the possibility of being co-defendants, we further took the car keys of tipsy acting guests until they demonstrated they could pass at least a quick field sobriety test. It really made the party a lot of work, but there were no accidents or citations among my 150 mostly younger guests.
So there are other approaches (none perfect) that don't involve direct gov't involvement in 1st (or 4th) Amendment rights. (The 4th Amendment gets involved too in places where officers can now perform blood tests on you on the spot, and where refusal can place you at risk of car seizure and impoundment, other penalties or immediate incarceration.)
Not saying I have all the answers, but the first principle of law, as it is in medicine, should always be "do no harm." Especially to constitutional rights.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleStud
I ultimately think the DUI apps will disappear - not because they're illegal, but because Apple's TOS give them the right to pull whatever they want, and there's no sense ruffling feathers in Washington DC over an issue like this.
You're likely right, at least in terms of the "official" app stores (and appstores).
Quote:
Originally Posted by jglavin
I think the bit about DUI checkpoints is just a smokescreen; they really want to get these taken down so people can't report speed traps, the piggy bank of the US police force.
While there is thankfully no "US police force" (yet), it is true that meeting "ticket quotas" - for violations from overtime parking thru DUI's - is a major source of revenue for many local governments - and is often applied capriciously and hypocritically. Luck of the draw in many cases.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dukemeiser
People who want to save the world from everybody will never win because people will always be stupid.
These and most other politicians have no respect for the Constitution -- why start now? Someone reports something in an app like Trapster, another receives it -- it is the 1st Amendment, and these politicians are tyrants because they do not understand the oath of office they took when they swore to uphold the Constitution.
How is this a constitutional issue? Four Senators can't force Apple to remove an app, and they aren't attempting to do so. They are bringing a problem to Apple's attention and requesting that they address it of their own free will. I don't see anything wrong with that.
If Apple declines to act, I can imagine these Senators trying some other tactics: 1) publicizing the issue and trying to bring more public pressure to bear, 2) working with police departments to update practices that might be affected by the app, or even 3) passing a law to prohibit this kind of app. None of those are constitutional issues either ... all are well within the bounds of a working democracy.
P.S. It's nice to see that some members of Congress are tuned into the world of technology.
I may not have a Constitutional right to drive drunk, but I do have a Constitutional right to use any means at my disposal to avoid getting caught. I also have the Constitutional right to fire a gun in a crowded room, so long as I don't hit anyone.
The above is intended as satire. Sorry if it doesn't come off entirely. It's so hard for rational people to twist their minds around the concept that discouraging any type of inherently reckless behavior is a form of tyranny.
Schumer is simply appeasing his voters (senior citizens, conservatives, the ones who show up to the voting booth). Apple won't be removing the app unless the courts step in.
Schumer is simply appeasing his voters (senior citizens, conservatives, the ones who show up to the voting booth). Apple won't be removing the app unless the courts step in.
Wait, what? All 4 are democrats and Schumer is strangely trying to appease the republicans main constituents? Uh, yeah, ok.
If you block the apps, the app will move to the web as a service.
Ultimately, censorship does not solve the problem.
Agreed, as much as I'd like to see them throw everything they got at stopping drunk drivers, censorship is a very slippery slope. Already we see things like hate speech laws being twisted to persecute people who aren't in the least bit racist or violent.
Instead how about changing the laws so that if a person is caught driving drunk they can investigate their app purchases to see if they used an app to attempt avoidance of these things. This would show malicious intent & they ought to have much harsher punishment if it can be shown they most likely intended to be driving drunk.
It would be nice if we could stop all violent crime (yes I consider drunk driving a violent crime) from occurring in the first place but it is unrealistic. Only culture can change these behaviors & unfortunately ours glorifies drug & alcohol abuse.
Not all criticism or corrections are patronizing and based on the phrasing his comment was not patronizing. (BTW, the correct way to spell patronizing is with a ?z? unless you?re a limey bastard. )
While technically incorrect and shouldn?t be used in any formal writing it?s one that I let slide and think will be adopted as acceptable in future dictionaries. My reasoning is the original usage of ?Hear! Hear!? was to express agreement with what is being said aloud, yet with internet forums you are quoting what has been expressed previously in text so ?hearing? doesn?t work, but the homonym ?here?, as in ?look here? does work. I think it works brilliantly that way for the voice of the internet generation.
OK, this one I do take issue with. The exclusion of ?not? completely alters the meaning and a little critical thinking should make most realize that. Even though we all exclude a negative like ?not? from our writings every now and then, it?s the excessive exclusion without understand what they could or couldn?t care less about that I feel is ignorant.
Interesting take on the spelling changes. I guess we'll be saying ... "I here you buddy" in emails soon then I totally agree on the last one, it drives me nuts too. I mentioned it as a <sigh> really. Re the z in patronizing ... remember the simplification of spelling Roosevelt managed to achieve was really the brain child of Carnegie who was a Scott so most likely had it in for the English anyway
You're right to point out that DUIs are a US issue, but Apple being asked to remove an app that may aid someone to avoid a law-enforcement measure may one day affect me here in the UK too if such a request were ever made about a UK enforcement measure.
I understand the concerns people have about a nanny state. There is a huge debate in the UK about speed cameras that has many parallels to this. What was striking was people arguing that they were just a money-making mechanism, when only those breaking the law were ever fined.
My feelings on the matter are simply that whilst it is clear that these measures should not be abused by the authorities as they appear to be on occasion, they are still ultimately there to prevent crime. I suppose ultimately there is no perfect solution. I can see both sides and I agree that these DUIs seem to be unAmerican (if that is a word) but we are talking about the principle of companies like Apple distributing apps that allow people to avoid a law-enforcement measure. I think that specific principle is wrong and these apps shouldn't be encouraged.
But the speed cameras and average speed gates haven't made a significant difference in recorded safety, they just make a difference in recorded citations and associated fines. Not to mention since you parliament got wise to the police fundraising they cut off the police departments take of the proceeds and now revenue from the cameras is significantly down! Why? My guess is the police's motivation to press the issue went down so fewer tickets are going out. But curiously nobody is saying the accident rates are going up!
I may not have a Constitutional right to drive drunk, but I do have a Constitutional right to use any means at my disposal to avoid getting caught. I also have the Constitutional right to fire a gun in a crowded room, so long as I don't hit anyone.
The above is intended as satire. Sorry if it doesn't come off entirely. It's so hard for rational people to twist their minds around the concept that discouraging any type of inherently reckless behavior is a form of tyranny.
I tend to agree. I have to try hard to wrap my mind around the idea that by default 'government' is bad as is anything it does as believed by certain sections of the current political spectrum. Given it is the result of democratic process and the alternatives are pretty bad. After all if we don't like what we have currently we get to vote every few years to change it. In the interim it would be nice to see people accepting those results without all the constant bitching and actually let the process work. Not to mention dialing down the polarizing hatred. Of course those that act like this seem to be happy governing themselves once they get the chance and of course what they want to do is fine.
Comments
We love to quote Benjamin Franklin and speak of the 1st Amendment as if it were written by gods. None of those signatories would have wanted to see civil rights used as an excuse to bend the law. We love to think we are blessed with some wider perspicacity that everyone else lacks and we are seeing 1984 in its infancy but the truth is this is stopping mindless, selfish morons from destroying real lives.
I'm sorry but you have it completely backwards. Our 1st Amendment isn't just about standing on a soap box in Hyde Park. Immediately after the Revolution we were on the brink of civil war and the Bill of Rights was specifically set forth to prevent the government, even a democratically elected fully representative one, from encroaching on personal freedoms. The spell out the rights "endowed by our creator." The whole idea of "checkpoints" would be an anathema to the Framers, Franklin especially.
Potential murderers, otherwise known as drunk drivers, should not have any apps that aid them in their crimes. I believe that drunk drivers should be given the death penalty if their actions cause the death of somebody else.
What's next? An app for serial killers, to help them locate potential victims? How about an app for rapists while we're at it?
Better yet outlaw the internet, news papers, phone books, and TV while you are at it then....
However, I bet your all for DNA screen of all unborn babies so we can determine ahead of time if they fit a profile of someone who may be harmful to society and make sure they are not born.
One thing I like about Hollywood they have a way of making a entertain movie about these subjects so you can get an idea how it could be if you keep up with this kind of attitude.
Check out Judge Dredd, Minority Report, Demolition Man
Potential murderers, otherwise known as drunk drivers, should not have any apps that aid them in their crimes. I believe that drunk drivers should be given the death penalty if their actions cause the death of somebody else.
What's next? An app for serial killers, to help them locate potential victims? How about an app for rapists while we're at it?
The app itself is not "a crime." Even under control of a sober driver a car can be used to commit a crime. Do you want us to take them away? The kitchen knife can be a deadly weapon, are they next to go? Having the app doesn't mean you are committing a crime.
It gets interesting when you replace "apps" with "guns" and "drink and drive" with "kill".
One constitutional amendment under discussion at a time, please!
Excessive? Tell that to the parent of a kid killed by a drunk driver.
Being killed in an accident by a drunk driver isn't even close to the top of how kids die.
It's so much easier to demonize a stupid, insignificant piece of software than legislate appropriate penalties for a heinous crime. You can kill someone driving drunk in America and be back on the road in less than a year. DUI should result in permanent license revocation. 95% of the problem would vanish overnight.
America's substance laws are an unmanageable, hypocritical, mess, and will remain so as long as the producers of cigarettes and alcohol can buy Congressmen a six-pack at a time.
Given that most states already have to publicize such checkpoints, this is nothing more than a PR gesture.
It's so much easier to demonize a stupid, insignificant piece of software than legislate appropriate penalties for a heinous crime. You can kill someone driving drunk in America and be back on the road in less than a year. DUI should result in permanent license revocation. 95% of the problem would vanish overnight.
America's substance laws are an unmanageable, hypocritical, mess, and will remain so as long as the producers of cigarettes and alcohol can buy Congressmen a six-pack at a time.
You can also kill someone by driving at all... So your answer to catching someone doing something that's poor driving skills that endangers others is to ban them from driving for life. Ok, well, texters - done, forever. You want to do your makeup? Done, forever. You want to turn your head to check on your 8 month old that's in the back seat crying? Done, forever. Where do we stop? Ever caught going above the speed limit? Done, forever. Listening to the radio (proven to be a distraction btw)? Done, forever.
EDIT: How about we just make driving at all illegal. That would be MUCH safer! Ever taken a prescription that says may cause drowsiness and go to work anyway because you have to? Done, forever...
As you are an Englishman, I can't figure out your context for this issue. Our legal systems and presumptions are very different despite the shared origin.
fwiw; It doesn't bother me that you chime in, proliferately, it just seems that you're not grasping some of the basic problems we have with the "nanny-state-ness" of the Senators proclamation.
You're right to point out that DUIs are a US issue, but Apple being asked to remove an app that may aid someone to avoid a law-enforcement measure may one day affect me here in the UK too if such a request were ever made about a UK enforcement measure.
I understand the concerns people have about a nanny state. There is a huge debate in the UK about speed cameras that has many parallels to this. What was striking was people arguing that they were just a money-making mechanism, when only those breaking the law were ever fined.
My feelings on the matter are simply that whilst it is clear that these measures should not be abused by the authorities as they appear to be on occasion, they are still ultimately there to prevent crime. I suppose ultimately there is no perfect solution. I can see both sides and I agree that these DUIs seem to be unAmerican (if that is a word) but we are talking about the principle of companies like Apple distributing apps that allow people to avoid a law-enforcement measure. I think that specific principle is wrong and these apps shouldn't be encouraged.
I'm sorry but you have it completely backwards. Our 1st Amendment isn't just about standing on a soap box in Hyde Park. Immediately after the Revolution we were on the brink of civil war and the Bill of Rights was specifically set forth to prevent the government, even a democratically elected fully representative one, from encroaching on personal freedoms. The spell out the rights "endowed by our creator." The whole idea of "checkpoints" would be an anathema to the Framers, Franklin especially.
I understand your objection to the checkpoints. But that for me is slightly separate to helping people avoid the law. The law might be wrong, but the moment you start helping each other to circumvent the statutes of your state you get into dangerous territory.
It's an interesting debate
If you block the apps, the app will move to the web as a service.
Ultimately, censorship does not solve the problem.
The next thing they'll have to outlaw is hashtags on Twitter (#checkpoint, e.g.) - which is the mechanism the Tunisian rebels (and others) used to alert their fellows about "sniper checkpoints."
I understand the lawmakers' concern, and agree with it. But it's a gray area to navigate. Do we allow everything in a Libertarian manner and keep government bare-bones and essential, or do we have government in every aspect of our lives, making for a 'nanny state'?
Defining that balance has been the front line of the Bill of Rights since the Constitution was ratified and it remains a moving target. Lately, however it's been mostly shifting more and more to the crowd who wants to protect us from ourselves, who fail to realize that every such measure for the "public good" inevitably produces unintended side effects, e.g., in constricting the free flow of information which is not necessarily misused by those participating in its flow.
The question which always needs to be asked is what is the total range of remedies at society's hands and which accomplish the most good while doing the least bad.
Various measures, like tougher DUI/DWI laws, safer car designs and seat-belt campaigns combined to cut impaired driving deaths in half between 1979-2003, but they've lately inched up again.
Also, as has always been the case, the majority of cases involve teens and younger adults. And 75% of the deaths were associated with failure to wear seat belts. And drinking aside, failure to wear helmets on motorcycles is a prime factor in brain injuries/deaths in two-wheeling accidents.
Bartenders are now (in many or most jurisdictions?) required to stop serving obviously impaired patrons (however often they ignore the requirements, tho' they do risk the loss of their business and livelihood), and private party throwers can be held legally liable if they let their guests leave drunk. But that does nothing to stop people getting drunk on their own.
I threw a large public party - with bands and an open bar - and to follow codes, I had to check ID's and issue bracelets to the over 21's so that I and my co-hosts could seize drinks from non-bracelet wearers - though some certainly brought their own hip flasks or drank their own hooch in their cars. Again, for personal ethical reasons and to avoid the possibility of being co-defendants, we further took the car keys of tipsy acting guests until they demonstrated they could pass at least a quick field sobriety test. It really made the party a lot of work, but there were no accidents or citations among my 150 mostly younger guests.
So there are other approaches (none perfect) that don't involve direct gov't involvement in 1st (or 4th) Amendment rights. (The 4th Amendment gets involved too in places where officers can now perform blood tests on you on the spot, and where refusal can place you at risk of car seizure and impoundment, other penalties or immediate incarceration.)
Not saying I have all the answers, but the first principle of law, as it is in medicine, should always be "do no harm." Especially to constitutional rights.
I ultimately think the DUI apps will disappear - not because they're illegal, but because Apple's TOS give them the right to pull whatever they want, and there's no sense ruffling feathers in Washington DC over an issue like this.
You're likely right, at least in terms of the "official" app stores (and appstores).
I think the bit about DUI checkpoints is just a smokescreen; they really want to get these taken down so people can't report speed traps, the piggy bank of the US police force.
While there is thankfully no "US police force" (yet), it is true that meeting "ticket quotas" - for violations from overtime parking thru DUI's - is a major source of revenue for many local governments - and is often applied capriciously and hypocritically. Luck of the draw in many cases.
People who want to save the world from everybody will never win because people will always be stupid.
Amen.
These and most other politicians have no respect for the Constitution -- why start now? Someone reports something in an app like Trapster, another receives it -- it is the 1st Amendment, and these politicians are tyrants because they do not understand the oath of office they took when they swore to uphold the Constitution.
How is this a constitutional issue? Four Senators can't force Apple to remove an app, and they aren't attempting to do so. They are bringing a problem to Apple's attention and requesting that they address it of their own free will. I don't see anything wrong with that.
If Apple declines to act, I can imagine these Senators trying some other tactics: 1) publicizing the issue and trying to bring more public pressure to bear, 2) working with police departments to update practices that might be affected by the app, or even 3) passing a law to prohibit this kind of app. None of those are constitutional issues either ... all are well within the bounds of a working democracy.
P.S. It's nice to see that some members of Congress are tuned into the world of technology.
The above is intended as satire. Sorry if it doesn't come off entirely. It's so hard for rational people to twist their minds around the concept that discouraging any type of inherently reckless behavior is a form of tyranny.
Schumer is simply appeasing his voters (senior citizens, conservatives, the ones who show up to the voting booth). Apple won't be removing the app unless the courts step in.
Wait, what? All 4 are democrats and Schumer is strangely trying to appease the republicans main constituents? Uh, yeah, ok.
If you block the apps, the app will move to the web as a service.
Ultimately, censorship does not solve the problem.
Agreed, as much as I'd like to see them throw everything they got at stopping drunk drivers, censorship is a very slippery slope. Already we see things like hate speech laws being twisted to persecute people who aren't in the least bit racist or violent.
Instead how about changing the laws so that if a person is caught driving drunk they can investigate their app purchases to see if they used an app to attempt avoidance of these things. This would show malicious intent & they ought to have much harsher punishment if it can be shown they most likely intended to be driving drunk.
It would be nice if we could stop all violent crime (yes I consider drunk driving a violent crime) from occurring in the first place but it is unrealistic. Only culture can change these behaviors & unfortunately ours glorifies drug & alcohol abuse.
mobilize everything for your police state agenda.
Not all criticism or corrections are patronizing and based on the phrasing his comment was not patronizing. (BTW, the correct way to spell patronizing is with a ?z? unless you?re a limey bastard.
While technically incorrect and shouldn?t be used in any formal writing it?s one that I let slide and think will be adopted as acceptable in future dictionaries. My reasoning is the original usage of ?Hear! Hear!? was to express agreement with what is being said aloud, yet with internet forums you are quoting what has been expressed previously in text so ?hearing? doesn?t work, but the homonym ?here?, as in ?look here? does work. I think it works brilliantly that way for the voice of the internet generation.
OK, this one I do take issue with. The exclusion of ?not? completely alters the meaning and a little critical thinking should make most realize that. Even though we all exclude a negative like ?not? from our writings every now and then, it?s the excessive exclusion without understand what they could or couldn?t care less about that I feel is ignorant.
Interesting take on the spelling changes. I guess we'll be saying ... "I here you buddy" in emails soon then
Wait, what? All 4 are democrats and Schumer is strangely trying to appease the republicans main constituents? Uh, yeah, ok.
Uh, I never mentioned the word republican. There are conservative and moderate democrats. So yes.
You're right to point out that DUIs are a US issue, but Apple being asked to remove an app that may aid someone to avoid a law-enforcement measure may one day affect me here in the UK too if such a request were ever made about a UK enforcement measure.
I understand the concerns people have about a nanny state. There is a huge debate in the UK about speed cameras that has many parallels to this. What was striking was people arguing that they were just a money-making mechanism, when only those breaking the law were ever fined.
My feelings on the matter are simply that whilst it is clear that these measures should not be abused by the authorities as they appear to be on occasion, they are still ultimately there to prevent crime. I suppose ultimately there is no perfect solution. I can see both sides and I agree that these DUIs seem to be unAmerican (if that is a word) but we are talking about the principle of companies like Apple distributing apps that allow people to avoid a law-enforcement measure. I think that specific principle is wrong and these apps shouldn't be encouraged.
But the speed cameras and average speed gates haven't made a significant difference in recorded safety, they just make a difference in recorded citations and associated fines. Not to mention since you parliament got wise to the police fundraising they cut off the police departments take of the proceeds and now revenue from the cameras is significantly down! Why? My guess is the police's motivation to press the issue went down so fewer tickets are going out. But curiously nobody is saying the accident rates are going up!
I may not have a Constitutional right to drive drunk, but I do have a Constitutional right to use any means at my disposal to avoid getting caught. I also have the Constitutional right to fire a gun in a crowded room, so long as I don't hit anyone.
The above is intended as satire. Sorry if it doesn't come off entirely. It's so hard for rational people to twist their minds around the concept that discouraging any type of inherently reckless behavior is a form of tyranny.
I tend to agree. I have to try hard to wrap my mind around the idea that by default 'government' is bad as is anything it does as believed by certain sections of the current political spectrum. Given it is the result of democratic process and the alternatives are pretty bad. After all if we don't like what we have currently we get to vote every few years to change it. In the interim it would be nice to see people accepting those results without all the constant bitching and actually let the process work. Not to mention dialing down the polarizing hatred. Of course those that act like this seem to be happy governing themselves once they get the chance and of course what they want to do is fine.