It's government being government. No government likes to be scrutinized. So they'll oppose all measures citizens take (such as these apps) to monitor the authorities, even if there is no legal grounds to oppose citizen initiatives, after all free speech exists for a reason, and why should we not be able to communicate, citizen to citizen about police activities on public property? But no, authority hates to be held accountable or reported upon... if it were up to them, everything would be "classified secret". It's BS.
I say we find other ways to stop DUI, not through the diminution of our rights.
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.
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?
As for Sen. Shumer's assertion, "You agree that it is a terrible thing, and it probably causes death," intentional lying for political gain is a world-wide pastime. Of course, all it needs to fail is an informed electorate. Oh, yeah....
I have two spots near my home where the police like to stage these inspection points (for DUI and seatbelts) which I just find annoying so it's good to know when I have to drive around them to just get home to my family.
They are the 4 members in the Majority of the Committee. If the Republicans were the majority it would be 4 Republicans. That's how it roles when you have the majority position.
Get it?
I think you have your "facts" mixed up. The four who sent the letter in March have nothing to do with the Senate Judiciary Committee.
The four senators who wrote the March letter and jumped on this issue, with "GOP written all over it", are not the "Majority of the Committee". Only Schumer is even on the committee.
They are the 4 members in the Majority of the Committee. If the Republicans were the majority it would be 4 Republicans. That's how it roles when you have the majority position.
Get it?
They are the face for the entire committee and entire Senate, regarding this matter.
It's akin to Darell Issa now being chairman of his committee requesting businesses from all over to testify for his agenda.
Behind all of these faces are back drop agendas. In this case, it's Law Enforcement [who overwhelmingly vote Republican]. What's ironic is how these tools vote for the party that works at getting their jobs cut.
You are confusing "progressive" as Democrats and conservatives as Republicans. They are not one in the same.
The over extension of the commerce clause under FDR to regulate every aspect of a business is certainly "progressive" no matter if it is used by Democrats or Republicans.
I'm glad Apple sent someone to this "hearing" to stand up to these nimrods. Excuse me Chucky Shumer, do you even know what due process is? Or that US Citizens, as much as this must chafe your sphincter, are innocent until proven guilty?
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
"I hope that you narrowly look at this app. You agree that it is a terrible thing, and it probably causes death," Schumer responded.
This one sentence cheeses me off more than anything. Because a) a narrow perspective is exactly what we do not need our lawmakers to have. They're supposed to serve the greatest number of people with the broadest measure of policy, not self-serving personal crusades. And b) "probably causes death" -- are you frikkin' kidding me?!? Not a single tangible statistic or point of reference, and this idiot wastes tax payer dollars and businesses' time on a witch hunt?
So much for freedom and self determination... this guy doesn't even qualify as a progressive; he's a frikkin' Communist. With baseless finger pointing and more tail chasing on the agenda, these Democrats are setting the stage for even more punishment by voters in coming elections. I wish I lived in New York, because I would be volunteering all my available time to campaign for anyone who is politically an anti-Shumer, to put that imbecile out of a job.
Four U.S. Senators, including Sen. Charles Schumer, sent letters to Apple, Google and Research in Motion in March requesting that the companies remove apps notifying users of police sobriety checkpoints their respective application stores. Schumer raised the issue again at Tuesday's Senate subcommittee hearing on privacy.
I'm chuckling at this one. They don't consider Microsoft to even be a player in the smartphone app market so didn't bother to send them the letter? Ballmer must be throwing chairs by now.
Which simply confirms my personal belief. Our legislators are morons - regardless of party affiliation. Democrats and Republicans are equally moronic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patranus
You are confusing "progressive" as Democrats and conservatives as Republicans. They are not one in the same.
The over extension of the commerce clause under FDR to regulate every aspect of a business is certainly "progressive" no matter if it is used by Democrats or Republicans.
Actually, everyone uses 'progressive' incorrectly. The strict definition of 'progressive' is "favoring or advocating progress, change, improvement, or reform, as opposed to wishing to maintain things as they are, especially in political matters: a progressive mayor." Sadly, none of our politicians are working toward progress or improvement. Instead, they tend to either fight for the status quo or move backwards.
Quote:
Originally Posted by magicj
My congratulations to Senator Shumer for not letting Apple and Google off the hook for hosting these terrible apps.
It's starting to become clear that neither of those companies has the basic respect for human life needed to take such an obvious step on their own.
Nice job in seeing only one side of the issue.
Since civil rights don't mean anything to you, let's just lock everyone up because some percentage of people are going to murder their children. If we lock EVERYONE up, that won't happen. If you're opposed to that proposal, you have no respect for human life.
Since civil rights don't mean anything to you, let's just lock everyone up because some percentage of people are going to murder their children. If we lock EVERYONE up, that won't happen. If you're opposed to that proposal, you have no respect for human life.
Sheesh.
I have to admit, on a board filled with weak sauce defenses of Apple's miscues, equating drunk driving with civil rights really takes the cake.
I have to admit, on a board filled with weak sauce defenses of Apple's miscues, equating drunk driving with civil rights really takes the cake.
Who did that?
I equated the legal right to know where police check points are - which is required by law - with civil rights.
No one is defending drunk driving. Sadly, people like you are so incapable of rational discussion that you have to make up stupid arguments to defend your indefensible positions.
I equated the legal right to know where police check points are - which is required by law - with civil rights.
No one is defending drunk driving. Sadly, people like you are so incapable of rational discussion that you have to make up stupid arguments to defend your indefensible positions.
Baloney. There's no need to know where DUI checkpoints are unless you're trying to avoid getting picked up for DUI.
Don't try to cloak your crap in civil rights and logic, because it's neither.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Baloney. There's no need to know where DUI checkpoints are unless you're trying to avoid getting picked up for DUI.
Don't try to cloak your crap in civil rights and logic, because it's neither.
You're just plain wrong.
First, the LAW states that checkpoint locations need to be public. Not my opinion, but the law.
Second, there are very legitimate, legal reasons to know where the DUI checkpoints are. They tie up traffic. If you're in a hurry to get somewhere, you may want to avoid them. There's nothing illegal about that, nor does it have anything to do with DUI. Furthermore, there's a freedom of the press issue. If the press wants to take pictures of the police checkpoints, they have a legal right to do so - which requires that they know where they are (again, according to the law).
It really disgusts me that so many people are so eager to take away civil rights - and then base them on such fallacious arguments as "anyone who wants to know where police checkpoints are must be in favor of drunk driving".
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.
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.
Baloney. There's no need to know where DUI checkpoints are unless you're trying to avoid getting picked up for DUI.
Don't try to cloak your crap in civil rights and logic, because it's neither.
DUI checkpoints will write tickets for anything and everything they can find wrong, headlight out, etc, etc but that isn't the point really. sorry you are so dim you can't understand this at a higher level and what the real issue is.
First, the LAW states that checkpoint locations need to be public. Not my opinion, but the law.
Second, there are very legitimate, legal reasons to know where the DUI checkpoints are. They tie up traffic. If you're in a hurry to get somewhere, you may want to avoid them. There's nothing illegal about that, nor does it have anything to do with DUI. Furthermore, there's a freedom of the press issue. If the press wants to take pictures of the police checkpoints, they have a legal right to do so - which requires that they know where they are (again, according to the law).
It really disgusts me that so many people are so eager to take away civil rights - and then base them on such fallacious arguments as "anyone who wants to know where police checkpoints are must be in favor of drunk driving".
so true. people who use the 'if you ain't got nuttin to hide you shouldn't worry' are devoid of mental capability. would they also agree to allowing police to come into their homes at any time at any day just to look things over? sadly they would probably agree to that until it started happening then they would start to cry about it. these are the people that keep electing morons into office.
It really disgusts me that so many people are so eager to take away civil rights - and then base them on such fallacious arguments as "anyone who wants to know where police checkpoints are must be in favor of drunk driving".
Hear hear, jragosta. "Innocent until proven guilty" has been the mantra of our judicial system since the beginning, and if we don't fight for our inalienable rights, then we lose our freedoms to an idiot mob of nannies.
The opposite argument was also made in favor of the Patriot Act. And how many terrorist acts or crimes against humanity can its proponents truthfully claim it prevented? About the same number of drunk driving incidents directly related to the use of apps for avoiding police checkpoints (regardless of Chucky Shumer's biased intuition). ZERO.
would they also agree to allowing police to come into their homes at any time at any day just to look things over? sadly they would probably agree to that until it started happening then they would start to cry about it. these are the people that keep electing morons into office.
Yep. Most people aren't aware that police do not have a right to search your vehicle on a routine traffic stop without probable cause, and without obtaining a warrant. Unless of course they ask and you allow it.
Human nature lends itself towards this allowance since most people don't have anything to hide. But at the same time there is a huge lack of awareness of how easy it is to give up your freedoms and right to privacy.
Comments
I say we find other ways to stop DUI, not through the diminution of our rights.
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.
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?
As for Sen. Shumer's assertion, "You agree that it is a terrible thing, and it probably causes death," intentional lying for political gain is a world-wide pastime. Of course, all it needs to fail is an informed electorate. Oh, yeah....
I have two spots near my home where the police like to stage these inspection points (for DUI and seatbelts) which I just find annoying so it's good to know when I have to drive around them to just get home to my family.
They are the 4 members in the Majority of the Committee. If the Republicans were the majority it would be 4 Republicans. That's how it roles when you have the majority position.
Get it?
I think you have your "facts" mixed up. The four who sent the letter in March have nothing to do with the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Here is the Committee list: 18 of them.
http://judiciary.senate.gov/about/members.cfm
The four senators who wrote the March letter and jumped on this issue, with "GOP written all over it", are not the "Majority of the Committee". Only Schumer is even on the committee.
Here is Schumer's blurb:
http://schumer.senate.gov/record.cfm?id=332783&
They are the 4 members in the Majority of the Committee. If the Republicans were the majority it would be 4 Republicans. That's how it roles when you have the majority position.
Get it?
They are the face for the entire committee and entire Senate, regarding this matter.
It's akin to Darell Issa now being chairman of his committee requesting businesses from all over to testify for his agenda.
Behind all of these faces are back drop agendas. In this case, it's Law Enforcement [who overwhelmingly vote Republican]. What's ironic is how these tools vote for the party that works at getting their jobs cut.
You are confusing "progressive" as Democrats and conservatives as Republicans. They are not one in the same.
The over extension of the commerce clause under FDR to regulate every aspect of a business is certainly "progressive" no matter if it is used by Democrats or Republicans.
"I hope that you narrowly look at this app. You agree that it is a terrible thing, and it probably causes death," Schumer responded.
This one sentence cheeses me off more than anything. Because a) a narrow perspective is exactly what we do not need our lawmakers to have. They're supposed to serve the greatest number of people with the broadest measure of policy, not self-serving personal crusades. And b) "probably causes death" -- are you frikkin' kidding me?!? Not a single tangible statistic or point of reference, and this idiot wastes tax payer dollars and businesses' time on a witch hunt?
So much for freedom and self determination... this guy doesn't even qualify as a progressive; he's a frikkin' Communist. With baseless finger pointing and more tail chasing on the agenda, these Democrats are setting the stage for even more punishment by voters in coming elections. I wish I lived in New York, because I would be volunteering all my available time to campaign for anyone who is politically an anti-Shumer, to put that imbecile out of a job.
It's starting to become clear that neither of those companies has the basic respect for human life needed to take such an obvious step on their own.
Four U.S. Senators, including Sen. Charles Schumer, sent letters to Apple, Google and Research in Motion in March requesting that the companies remove apps notifying users of police sobriety checkpoints their respective application stores. Schumer raised the issue again at Tuesday's Senate subcommittee hearing on privacy.
I'm chuckling at this one. They don't consider Microsoft to even be a player in the smartphone app market so didn't bother to send them the letter? Ballmer must be throwing chairs by now.
I think you have your "facts" mixed up. The four who sent the letter in March have nothing to do with the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Here is the Committee list: 18 of them.
http://judiciary.senate.gov/about/members.cfm
Which simply confirms my personal belief. Our legislators are morons - regardless of party affiliation. Democrats and Republicans are equally moronic.
You are confusing "progressive" as Democrats and conservatives as Republicans. They are not one in the same.
The over extension of the commerce clause under FDR to regulate every aspect of a business is certainly "progressive" no matter if it is used by Democrats or Republicans.
Actually, everyone uses 'progressive' incorrectly. The strict definition of 'progressive' is "favoring or advocating progress, change, improvement, or reform, as opposed to wishing to maintain things as they are, especially in political matters: a progressive mayor." Sadly, none of our politicians are working toward progress or improvement. Instead, they tend to either fight for the status quo or move backwards.
My congratulations to Senator Shumer for not letting Apple and Google off the hook for hosting these terrible apps.
It's starting to become clear that neither of those companies has the basic respect for human life needed to take such an obvious step on their own.
Nice job in seeing only one side of the issue.
Since civil rights don't mean anything to you, let's just lock everyone up because some percentage of people are going to murder their children. If we lock EVERYONE up, that won't happen. If you're opposed to that proposal, you have no respect for human life.
Sheesh.
But that doesn't change the facts pertaining to this app and the stupidity of Sen. Al Franken, et.al.
Since civil rights don't mean anything to you, let's just lock everyone up because some percentage of people are going to murder their children. If we lock EVERYONE up, that won't happen. If you're opposed to that proposal, you have no respect for human life.
Sheesh.
I have to admit, on a board filled with weak sauce defenses of Apple's miscues, equating drunk driving with civil rights really takes the cake.
I have to admit, on a board filled with weak sauce defenses of Apple's miscues, equating drunk driving with civil rights really takes the cake.
Who did that?
I equated the legal right to know where police check points are - which is required by law - with civil rights.
No one is defending drunk driving. Sadly, people like you are so incapable of rational discussion that you have to make up stupid arguments to defend your indefensible positions.
Who did that?
I equated the legal right to know where police check points are - which is required by law - with civil rights.
No one is defending drunk driving. Sadly, people like you are so incapable of rational discussion that you have to make up stupid arguments to defend your indefensible positions.
Baloney. There's no need to know where DUI checkpoints are unless you're trying to avoid getting picked up for DUI.
Don't try to cloak your crap in civil rights and logic, because it's neither.
Baloney. There's no need to know where DUI checkpoints are unless you're trying to avoid getting picked up for DUI.
Don't try to cloak your crap in civil rights and logic, because it's neither.
You're just plain wrong.
First, the LAW states that checkpoint locations need to be public. Not my opinion, but the law.
Second, there are very legitimate, legal reasons to know where the DUI checkpoints are. They tie up traffic. If you're in a hurry to get somewhere, you may want to avoid them. There's nothing illegal about that, nor does it have anything to do with DUI. Furthermore, there's a freedom of the press issue. If the press wants to take pictures of the police checkpoints, they have a legal right to do so - which requires that they know where they are (again, according to the law).
It really disgusts me that so many people are so eager to take away civil rights - and then base them on such fallacious arguments as "anyone who wants to know where police checkpoints are must be in favor of drunk driving".
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.
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.
Baloney. There's no need to know where DUI checkpoints are unless you're trying to avoid getting picked up for DUI.
Don't try to cloak your crap in civil rights and logic, because it's neither.
DUI checkpoints will write tickets for anything and everything they can find wrong, headlight out, etc, etc but that isn't the point really. sorry you are so dim you can't understand this at a higher level and what the real issue is.
You're just plain wrong.
First, the LAW states that checkpoint locations need to be public. Not my opinion, but the law.
Second, there are very legitimate, legal reasons to know where the DUI checkpoints are. They tie up traffic. If you're in a hurry to get somewhere, you may want to avoid them. There's nothing illegal about that, nor does it have anything to do with DUI. Furthermore, there's a freedom of the press issue. If the press wants to take pictures of the police checkpoints, they have a legal right to do so - which requires that they know where they are (again, according to the law).
It really disgusts me that so many people are so eager to take away civil rights - and then base them on such fallacious arguments as "anyone who wants to know where police checkpoints are must be in favor of drunk driving".
so true. people who use the 'if you ain't got nuttin to hide you shouldn't worry' are devoid of mental capability. would they also agree to allowing police to come into their homes at any time at any day just to look things over? sadly they would probably agree to that until it started happening then they would start to cry about it. these are the people that keep electing morons into office.
It really disgusts me that so many people are so eager to take away civil rights - and then base them on such fallacious arguments as "anyone who wants to know where police checkpoints are must be in favor of drunk driving".
Hear hear, jragosta. "Innocent until proven guilty" has been the mantra of our judicial system since the beginning, and if we don't fight for our inalienable rights, then we lose our freedoms to an idiot mob of nannies.
The opposite argument was also made in favor of the Patriot Act. And how many terrorist acts or crimes against humanity can its proponents truthfully claim it prevented? About the same number of drunk driving incidents directly related to the use of apps for avoiding police checkpoints (regardless of Chucky Shumer's biased intuition). ZERO.
would they also agree to allowing police to come into their homes at any time at any day just to look things over? sadly they would probably agree to that until it started happening then they would start to cry about it. these are the people that keep electing morons into office.
Yep. Most people aren't aware that police do not have a right to search your vehicle on a routine traffic stop without probable cause, and without obtaining a warrant. Unless of course they ask and you allow it.
Human nature lends itself towards this allowance since most people don't have anything to hide. But at the same time there is a huge lack of awareness of how easy it is to give up your freedoms and right to privacy.