Senator Schumer Wants To Censor Google & Apple; Displays Ignorance Of Law
from the uh,-whoops dept
We already covered the grandstanding by various politicians on the issue of mobile privacy, but the hearing took an odd twist at one point. Senator Chuck Schumer, who has a habit of going off on weird tangents, went after both Google and Apple for not responding to his request that they both remove an app that highlights police check points from their mobile app stores. Apple exec Bud Tribble pointed out that such apps often publish data provided by police departments for the public.Schumer found that to be preposterous:
�I don�t know of a police department that would publish where all of the checkpoints would be,� replies Schumer, calling Tribble�s response �a weak read.�Of course, as Danny Sullivan points out, in California, it's actually required by law for all police departments to provide advance notice of roadblocks to the public. In fact, part of the reasoning is that publishing such info, so that people know there are such checkpoints, actually works as a disincentive for people to drink and drive.
It would appear that Senator Schumer owes Tribble a pretty big apology for calling his response "a weak read," when Tribble's response was completely accurate, and Schumer's belief was incorrect.
Of course, the bigger issue here is that a representative for the US government is asking private companies to censor software and putting significant public pressure on them to do so. That seems to go against an even bigger principle, one found in the First Amendment. Perhaps Schumer can be forgiven for not knowing California state law, seeing as he's not a resident here. But you would think he understood the First Amendment.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: censorship, chuck schumer, dui checkpoints
Companies: apple, google
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
AND SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!
AND THE CENSORSHIP!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But you would think he understood the First Amendment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Most Important Right
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Politicians have no respect for us.
All of them.
They think we are stupid because no matter what they do
for the most part we just keep on electing them.
How could they have any respect for us. We do not deserve it and do not demand it. We for the most part just want free shit and to feel safe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Please take this as our official response to your "request" that we remove an app from our app store.
Response is as follows:
Please read and comprehend the 1st Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
_Very_ Sincerely,
Steve Jobs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
First amendment rights relate to GOVERNMENT censoring free speech. It does not apply to private companies blocking "free speech" on company "grounds" (e.g. Apple's App store).
Though I detest Schumer, he is not asking for Apple to do anything in violation of the First Amendment, since removing an app from the app store is perfectly in Apples purview to do, as they have done numerous times, and is not violating the First Amendment
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Maybe some groups do, but that's not relevant here. Put the axe down, turn off the grinder, and we can all talk about the issue at hand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Freedom of speech is pretty damn broad, but people like you allow it to be narrowed every day by statements like that.
One day it's "don't tell anyone where the cops are setting up roadblocks/checkpoints" and the next day it'll be government telling Average Citizen to "shut up, we haven't granted you the right to speak out against us" and then if you beg to differ, you end up in jail.
Suddenly it's like Communist China and as you sit in a prison cell you are left wondering "when did we lose our freedom of speech?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Censorship
> road blocks fall anywhere near freedom of speech.
That's because you're apparently a moron. Where child porn came from, I have no idea. No one claims child porn should have constitutional protection, certainly not the courts, and it has nothing to do with the issue under discussion.
As for the roadblocks, their existence and location are public information. Suggesting that such information should be censored by the government, either directly or indirectly, is certainly a bright-line 1st Amendment violation, according to 200+ years of constitutional jurisprudence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Frankly, I believe people may be inclined to too quickly raise a First Amendment issue in matters where sensitive data relevant to public safety is being disseminated indiscriminantely. I can envision circumstances where dissemination is quite useful, and even compelling. At the same time, I can envision circumstances where doing so could be very problematic for any number of reasons.
Where to draw a line? I do not know, but I do know that it is not as easy an issue as some may be inclined to believe.
Schumer may not be the paragon of intellectualism, but he and others on the Senate panel are at least trying to garner information that may begin a more comprehensive discussion of the issues(s).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If that is what you have an issue with then you have an issue with the residents of my fine state who demanded this legal requirement.
If you don't live in California, why is it your concern at all?
Texting while driving will net you a ticket for $250 for the first offense and $500 for the second. The ironic part is that if you get that text while driving, then subsequently get pulled over for texting while driving, you'll end up with the DUI anyway! Good luck!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If they don't get the 2nd amendment, 4th amendment or 10th amendment, I can't expect anyone to get the 1st.
That's the matter. If you let them take away rights you don't care about, they'll eventually get to one you do care about.
Mick
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
> you first have to understand the Constitution,
> and they don't.
I think they understand it just fine. They just all too often see it as an inconvenient stumbling block to whatever personal agenda or quest for power in which they happen to be currently engaging.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Its the LAW in FL too!
Its the law in FL as well. So this is not some top secret information.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Its the LAW in FL too!
It is worthwhile noting that at least in California law enforcement officials are not required to identify where checkpoints will be located, but only that checkpoints will be established.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here's an idea for a new law . . .
After all, if legislators cannot be expected to pass laws that at least appear to be constitutional on their face, then who can?
This would have stopped the DMCA dead in its tracks?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Members of Congress
The government in general doesn't give a rats tushie about the Constitution any more. they are only concerned with businesses and catching "terrorists", but the definition of terrorist is now becoming anyone who doesn't agree with government policies or calls them out for violating the constitution. It won't be long before the SCOTUS accepts that people disagreeing with the government are terrorists who should be shot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Members of Congress
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Members of Congress
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
and he probably doesn't know that IP is bad for the public either. He probably still thinks it somehow magically promotes the progress.
That's the problem with our legislatures, they don't know anything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
of course...
Of course he understands the First Amendment but you do not become a senator by following the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]