Apple Caves In, Bans DUI Checkpoint Apps For No Good Reason
from the isn't-the-point-deterrence? dept
We've noted that a bunch of senators were on a silly and uninformed grandstanding mission against various apps for the iPhone and Android phones that alert people to the locations of various police DUI checkpoints. Of course, all the grandstanding really did was to massively pump up the sales of those apps. However, it looks like Apple has caved in and banned such apps from the iOS app store. Nick Gillespie does a good job explaining why this doesn't make much sense. First he points out that most of the data for these apps is crowdsourced, meaning that the app maker really shouldn't have any responsibility or liability here, but even more to the point, he notes that (as we pointed out originally) police themselves regularly make this info available as a deterrent:Some police departments actually supply the data used in such apps because they reduce the number of drunk drivers on the roads! Somehow, I'm thinking that Steve Jobs circa 1984 (both the year and the ad) would have told U.S. senators sending threatening letters about computer-based info sharing to take a hike. Or at least to spend time on, I don't know, creating a freaking budget for the country rather than worrying about regulating something that helps reduce impaired driving.
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: apps, dui checkpoints, grandstanding
Companies: apple
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
So, grandstanders are for locking people up, while checkpoint awareness advocates (app makers and users) are for reducing drunk driving.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If intoxicated people took a cab instead of driving because they knew there would be checkpoints, think of the money lost in the economy due to increased cab fares! Not to mention how badly it affects road safety to have these dangerous cab drivers transporting intoxicated passengers.
[ 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:
If you can find such a statute I would be pleased to learn about it so that I can learn more about the subject. Thus far I have not found one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Since these checkpoints all survive only because they're considered a "reasonable" seizure under the 4th amendment since the public safety need outweighs the "minor intrusion" on the public. Checkpoints that are set up without road signs warning motorists in advance and/or are set up on a road which provides the motorist no means to do a U-turn or otherwise avoid it run the risk of being declared "unreasonable" when challenged in court.
That's mainly because the courts have noted that with proper warnings, the public won't be surprised by it and won't be in a situation where they feel they're being singled out. That's also the reason the checkpoints are usually set up on busy roads and not some side road off the beaten path where the encounter would be more intimidating and unexpected.
There are a few somewhat smaller factors that can be used to find the way they do it reasonable or unreasonable, but those are the main points at issue here at least.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is the problem
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This is the problem
There is Amazon's app store. There are other lesser sites offering apps. Best Buy is rumored to be working on an app store for Android.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Good Read
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This system dramatically reduced drink driving in my country, Ireland, where it was a massive problem.
Having lost friends to drunk drivers in the 80's, I fully support apple not having the apps up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The 'damning effect of the loose culture of the 60's was strong in Ireland. Even before the 60's, somehow.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Censorship
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Censorship
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I see an opportunity.
This way, people will stop wasting their time and money.
UPDATE: Failure. Apple pulled my app, created their own, then blocked access to it because senators didn't want people knowing they're targeting apps.
I can see why software patents are big business now. Doing anything else nets a whopping $0.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
However, my opinions are largely meaningless, since I don't really understand the issue at hand. I can't begin to fathom why anyone would be more afraid of being fined for drunk driving than of dying in a car crash. As such, I'll leave things to the experts, and hope that whatever steps are taken reduce the number of drunk drivers to the lowest level possible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Uneducated politicians once again are the problem...
Here's what the majority said in the case that made DUI checkpoints legal:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11348246873623439918&scilh
...And here's some facts that the majority "should" have known back then when they decided the public safety concern outweighed the "limited intrusion" of our privacy, as shown by the breakdown by one of the dissenting justices:
Nowadays with the safety advances, awareness, and greater amount of cars on the road, you're even more likely to die from these causes first:
http://www.getmadd.com/innocent%20victims.htm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
'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.'
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110511/02321514239/senator-schumer-wants-to-censor-google-a pple-displays-ignorance-law.shtml
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
General notice that checkpoints are going to be used on some specific day are commonplace, but where they will be located is not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But on the other hand, this claim that listing the locations of the checkpoints "helps reduce impaired driving" is as flagrantly stupid as the flagrantly stupid claims that radar detectors reduce speeding.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
At the end of the day the public have a clear idea of the law on these matters. We're not talking about some lawyer using a little known loophole to bait and trap someone.
If you are in possession of drugs or other illegal substances or are breaking the speed limit for the road you're driving on or drunk at the wheel then you're breaking the law irrespective of being caught or not.
In that sense I see little justification for a law abiding citizen to make the claim they "need" these apps. Unless there are broader implications here I don't see why this should be an issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Drinking and Driving
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Drinking and Driving
The fact is only 2,932 innocent people were killed because of drunk drivers in 2002....and the numbers have only gone down. In 2009 there were 10,839 total deaths versus 13,472 in 2002, so obviously the innocent victims of drunk driving would be even less now.
Not to mention the increase of the number of cars on the road means we have more cars, more people driving, more people driving after drinking(but not drunk), and likely more people driving over the limit also....yet we're at the lowest chance of being effected by a drunk driver ever and the death numbers have gone down. On the other hand, the % has stayed the same for decades because you can't stop drunk driving with laws, it's predominantly an emotional problem/disease. Non-alcohol fatalities have been right at 62% and alcohol fatalities have stayed at 32% for 10+ years.
Still think MADD does ANYTHING besides pay themselves higher salaries and try to get us closer to prohibition? If you do, you don't believe in your own government statistics that MADD used to convince you deaths have gone down because of their efforts in the 1st place. (Sure they've gone down, but so have the total fatalities...percentage-wise though, nope.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hafeez centre
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Breakdown
2) Publicized random checkpoints will scare some people into compliance, and will reduce the amount of overall DUI. But it allows an "entrapment" defense.
3) Publicized locations of checkpoints will scare some people into compliance, but probably fewer than #2). You will get slightly fewer convictions, as some drunks use the app to re-route. However, publicizing locations disempowers the entrapment argument. I still think there could be a 4th Amendment argument made in defense - there is no reasonable suspicion in a random traffic checkpoint. The laws around our privacy were not designed to make law enforcement easy, they were designed to protect us from intrusive and overbearing government. Nonetheless, many enforcement divisions choose this option.
4) Repeating DUI checkpoint locations to friends, building a crowdsourced app, or even a centrally sourced app of checkpoint data is a free speech issue. If there is a checkpoint, citizens should have the right to say there is a checkpoint. Plain and simple. This may make policework harder, but tough, our Rights are of higher importance. The Gov't should not interfere with the freaking First Amendment - that is illegal. Apple shouldn't either, but it is not illegal, just a douche move.
I'll say it again: There is an Aesop's Fable about the Dog and The Wolf. http://ancienthistory.about.com/library/bl/bl_aesop_dog_wolf.htm The dog is the Apple user, the Wolf is the Open system user. I'm a wolf, and it's a struggle. May the Apple users enjoy their leash.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Breakdown
2) You fail epicly if you believe that's true, even by a long shot. People will take another route, that's it. Why are there so many recidivists? Yeah.
3) Defending yourself already? I guess you got caught a few times yourself, huh?
4) Telling friends (word to mouth) is NOT like broadcasting it on TV or the Radio or all your friend's portable devices. See "Aiding and abetting".
And yeah, I much prefer my wireless "leash" to your invisible one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Breakdown
Under that theory, everything the government doesn't like is "aiding and abetting".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In any case, the programmer/coder/owner is in no way immune to these laws.
Now... before the fanboys jump at me and try to rip my throat off, I completely agree it was ridiculous for Apple to pull the plug. They are (or will probably be shortly) already available elsewhere... if you know where to look.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Does that mean he's aiding and abetting the aiding and abetting of drunk driving, possibly?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]