Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Apple Bans DUI Checkpoint Apps

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the knuckling-under-to-the-man dept.

Crime 601

An anonymous reader writes "In late March, four US senators banded together and wrote a letter to Apple asking that they remove apps that alert users as to the whereabouts of DUI checkpoints. Now, Apple has revised its app store guidelines to ban those type of 'illegal' apps."

cancel ×

601 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Makes sense (5, Funny)

Combatso (1793216) | more than 3 years ago | (#36388554)

Just in time for me to release my new "lemonade stand app" it tells you if you are approaching a lemonade stand, and to slow down just in case you are thirsty, or take a different route if you don't like lemonade at all.

Re:Makes sense (2)

softWare3ngineer (2007302) | more than 3 years ago | (#36388622)

don't forget to let users upload the locations of new lemonade stands from the client. Wouldn't want anyone to miss out on such a tasty beverage.

Re:Makes sense (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36388648)

Just in time for me to release my new "lemonade stand app" it tells you if you are approaching a lemonade stand, and to slow down just in case you are thirsty, or take a different route if you don't like lemonade at all.

I'll buy that for 99... Get cracking!

Re:Makes sense (1)

future assassin (639396) | more than 3 years ago | (#36388988)

Don't worry it wont be long before you are branded a pedo since lemonade stands are mostly ran by little girls and boys. Won't someone think about the lemon squeezing children?

Re:Makes sense (1)

Combatso (1793216) | more than 3 years ago | (#36389030)

damnit... ok, new idea... stop driving drunk

Re:Makes sense (4, Insightful)

NinetyOneDegrees (2237352) | more than 3 years ago | (#36389220)

Thing is, a DUI test is an annoyance. If you're driving somewhere you want to get there without being stopped and having to prove your innocence.

I'm sure this is used by a lot of non-drink-drivers for this reason.

so DUI checkpoints are 100% (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36389226)

100% of the people passing a DUI checkpoint is drunk, then, is it?

Or maybe there are sober people who don't want to be stopped at a DUI checkpoint.

Re:Makes sense (1)

Rakshasa Taisab (244699) | more than 3 years ago | (#36389146)

So what you are seeking is a 'lemonade stand finder' app? I'm sure that can be easily made.

Re:Makes sense (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36389166)

Mmm.... squeezed children...

Re:Makes sense (2)

gr8_phk (621180) | more than 3 years ago | (#36389068)

And just in case, make your lemonade stand app a web app so it doesn't require passing through a phone app store for people to use it.

No more apples (4, Interesting)

dynamic_cast (250615) | more than 3 years ago | (#36388590)

So glad I ditched apple and went back to pc/android a couple of years ago when this kind of crap started.

Aside from hype, Apple's real policy... (3, Informative)

sonnejw0 (1114901) | more than 3 years ago | (#36388592)

... is merely to ban apps that contain checkpoint information that is not publicly available. A Checkpoint app that uses data from public police information is still acceptable, and nearly every police department in the nation not only publishes their checkpoint dates and locations, but ADVERTISES THEM on TV and the local news.

Everybody wants so much drama where there actually isn't any. It's annoying.

Re:Aside from hype, Apple's real policy... (4, Informative)

Kenja (541830) | more than 3 years ago | (#36388644)

If you can look at something, and tell others about its existence, it is by definition public information.

Re:Aside from hype, Apple's real policy... (5, Informative)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 3 years ago | (#36388934)

obstruction of justice. that's what they'll get you on.

there used to be a custom on the road: when you saw a speed trap, you blinked your lights to the oncoming traffic to warn them. this, in many states, can you get cited ;(

citizens having power SCARES those in charge. (story at 11)

Re:Aside from hype, Apple's real policy... (0)

tangelogee (1486597) | more than 3 years ago | (#36389052)

Personally, I never flash my lights. Why should I let someone doing something that's worthy of getting pulled over for get a free ride? Spoken as someone in the Washington DC area who is sick of everyone street racing through traffic.

Re:Aside from hype, Apple's real policy... (5, Informative)

Rockoon (1252108) | more than 3 years ago | (#36389158)

50 MPH zone transitioning into a short 35 MPH zone on a straight and level consistently wide road, is for no reason other than to allow the creation of a speed trap so that the town where that 35 MPH zone resides can stick it to people. Yes, I flash my high beams.

Re:Aside from hype, Apple's real policy... (1)

langelgjm (860756) | more than 3 years ago | (#36389198)

Eh, 35 on the open parts of New York Avenue is pretty weak... also, leaving work-zone speed restrictions up when the work has been finished for weeks... and $125 is the minimum fine... yeah, people speed, but I don't wish tickets on most of them.

Re:Aside from hype, Apple's real policy... (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 3 years ago | (#36388652)

You mean seeing that there is a check being done somewhere somehow means that it isn't "publicly available"? Where else would this app get its info if it wasn't from public records, or people reporting checks in? Both of which should be legal.

Re:Aside from hype, Apple's real policy... (1)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | more than 3 years ago | (#36388712)

Actually, if I remember correctly, they are REQUIRED to advertise them. I believe there was a court ruling that said DUI checkpoints were only Constitutional if they were well advertised in advance.

Re:Aside from hype, Apple's real policy... (2)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 3 years ago | (#36389128)

There's an exemption in the Apple Store policy about DUI checkpoints that are published by the authorities.

Re:Aside from hype, Apple's real policy... (1)

flaming error (1041742) | more than 3 years ago | (#36389160)

REQUIRED, huh? That may be, but who could and would enforce that?

Numerous SCOTUS rulings indicate the Constitution can be safely ignored by the Government. Worse thing that happens is SCOTUS says Congress needs to make the infringing activity legal, which they promptly do.

Re:Aside from hype, Apple's real policy... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36388752)

If you park a police car by the side of the road and flag motorists to pull over this information is publicly available.

Re:Aside from hype, Apple's real policy... (0, Flamebait)

FatAlb3rt (533682) | more than 3 years ago | (#36388952)

Annoying? What's annoying is people who apologize on Apple's behalf. That's kinda what you're doing after all.

What exactly is illegal about those apps? (5, Interesting)

NeutronCowboy (896098) | more than 3 years ago | (#36388594)

As far as I can tell, the Senators decided to write Apple precisely because there was nothing illegal about those apps. Reporting on police activity isn't illegal - yet, I guess. I'm not entirely surprised that those apps specifically were banned from the app store, because Apple has an interest in keeping legislators off its back and keep up the image of offering a wholesome version of the Internet. At the same time, I'm curious what other apps would fall under this, or if Apple is going to keep this little bit of TOS around only to remove apps that generate too much bad publicity. My guess is it's going to be the latter.

Re:What exactly is illegal about those apps? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36388632)

They're not illegal, the submitter just threw that word in and put it in quotes because they're an 'idiot'.

Re:What exactly is illegal about those apps? (1)

geoffrobinson (109879) | more than 3 years ago | (#36388942)

I doubt Apple or most other companies want to help drunk drivers avoid detection.

Re:What exactly is illegal about those apps? (1)

ArsonSmith (13997) | more than 3 years ago | (#36389124)

but they would probably love to help sober drivers avoid the inconvenience of sitting in line at a checkpoint.

Hypocritical (1)

jhoegl (638955) | more than 3 years ago | (#36388602)

This seems a "wag the dog" or some sort of odd complaint that came up.
Every time checkpoints went up, police told the media, who told the public.
Why this is a big deal, I dont know.
I do know that drunk driving IS a huge problem and these checkpoints do save a lot of lives.
I also know that punishment for DUIs are pretty lax, so if they want to stop them, make it tougher.

Re:Hypocritical (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36388744)

Why this is a big deal, I dont know.

Because it's excessively intrusive and checkpoints are basically searches without cause.

I do know that drunk driving IS a huge problem and these checkpoints do save a lot of lives.

It is, but do checkpoints work better than just patrolling the streets? Nice point about watching for reckless and impaired drivers as opposed to a breathalyzer number is that people driving to cause an accident is a superset of those merely driving drunk. Aside from the doctored numbers from MADD, is there any evidence whatsoever that checkpoints reduce incidents?

I also know that punishment for DUIs are pretty lax, so if they want to stop them, make it tougher.

Agreed. But don't make me wait in a street turned parking lot for an hour just because Rummy over there seems to get a slap on the wrist every time he runs over a kid.

Re:Hypocritical (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#36388782)

I also know that punishment for DUIs are pretty lax...

That's because so many good ol' boys like to drink 'n drive

...so if they want to stop them, make it tougher.

The liquor industry is resisting... cuts into sales.. Al Capone still carries a lot of influence in this business

Re:Hypocritical (3, Insightful)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | more than 3 years ago | (#36388814)

I do know that drunk driving IS a huge problem and these checkpoints do save a lot of lives.

Citation?

I agree drunk driving is a bad thing. But frankly, I've never seen any real evidence it's as endemic as you suggest. I've been driving for almost 40 years, and I can only recall seeing ONE (1) guy who was almost certainly drunk while driving (he was going east on the westbound half of a divided highway in the middle of the night).

It's virtually certain that there were other drivers who'd had a drink or three near me on the road in that time, but none that were obvious enough to pick out from the usual fraction of sucky drivers you find everywhere.

Re:Hypocritical (0)

cheeks5965 (1682996) | more than 3 years ago | (#36389002)

I think this is a pretty stupid comment. But i'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say you're being willfully obtuse.

the danger with drunk driving is not that you have people blasted so far out of their mind that they drive the wrong way n a highway, or they stop in the middle of an intersection to take a pee. The danger is with people who are drunk enough to mess with their distance judgment or reflexes, and they end up plowing down pedestrians.

that's why the BAC threshold is so low. If the only risks were your friend who thinks his car is a hot air balloon, then the br could be much higher.

a better question would be, how many people do you know or know of (politicians, celebrities, etc.) who have gotten DUIs? That's a better reflection of the extent of the problem.

Re:Hypocritical (1)

FatAlb3rt (533682) | more than 3 years ago | (#36389012)

Wow, you should probably look into the ride-along program of your local emergency responders - PD/Fire/EMS.

Re:Hypocritical (1)

swb (14022) | more than 3 years ago | (#36389172)

Does seeing a high concentration of DUIs being with a first responder actually increase their overall statistical frequency, or does it merely make it feel like there are a lot of them?

Re:Hypocritical (2)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 3 years ago | (#36389032)

I also agree; been driving 30+ years and this 'drunk driving problem' is not any kind of major problem that I've seen.

so much is overblown because its a popular way to raise more power for those in charge and to look like you're tough on 'crime'.

a checkpoint to catch a percent of a percent? isn't that a baby and bathwater situation? sure sounds like one to me. lets suspect everyone who crosses this 'checkpoint' and have them be assumed guilty unless they prove TO US that they're not.

fully turning the american notion of 'innocent until proven guilty' upside down.

I know who the terrorsts are these days. they wear badges or congregate at city hall and other government buildings.

Re:Hypocritical (1)

jhoegl (638955) | more than 3 years ago | (#36389200)

Nice, so if you get hit by a drunk driver, will you then blame the "gubbernment" for not doing its job, thus being overpaid and lazy?

The actual reason Drunk driving is a problem is the random deaths on the roads caused by people driving drunk.
If you live out in the boonies and dont see many cars, then of course you wont notice any.
What you should do is go to a bar, wait till closing and follow a few cars home.

Live in the city? You should have notcied some by now, but if you havent. Drive around between 1am or 2am.

Re:Hypocritical (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36389136)

Surely a citation to the previous comment wouldn't hurt, but don't you think your anecdotal evidence is a bit weak? First of all, if casually observing someone driving was enough to determine sobriety, the police would hardly have an incentive to run checkstops. But back to your anecdotal observations...

In all of this 40 years of driving, how many traffic fatalities have you observed occur? I'm not talking about driving by afterwards, I mean actually witnessed. I'll assume the number is low or zero. Would you draw therefore the conclusion that traffic accidents are not a huge problem? In fact, there were 42,031 traffic fatalities in 2008 in the US according to this page [cdc.gov] .

I just don't get how "I haven't seen many obviously drunk drivers" translates into evidence that drunk driving is not a big problem. As an invincible youngster, I drove drunk and severely buzzed on numerous occasions. As a grown up, I'm horrified by this. However, I routinely see people drive home from parties or functions after having consumed far more alcohol than myself at times when I have had too much (for me personally) to drive safely.

It's not about being obviously drunk while driving. You can pull off reasonably ok driving when drunk. It's about not being able to respond to an unexpected situation when drunk. Someone else does something unexpected and instead of swerving or otherwise avoiding an accident, the buzzed/drunk driver does not react fast enough and contributes to a tragedy.

Side note: I don't know if endemic [wikipedia.org] means what you think it means.

Re:Hypocritical (1)

TheCouchPotatoFamine (628797) | more than 3 years ago | (#36389142)

that's the thing about driving, it takes TWO people to mess up usually. It's a stable system, which is what I finally understood to be the reason we're not all dead. It's pretty damned amazing isn't it? That we get into these things and impart so many newtons of force all bent on a person with, most likely, only a finger on the device that could with an idle flick cause all that energy to release at once, always only a few seconds away.

Drunk Drivers cause the system to only require ONE person to mess up. It makes the system rather more unreliable. Because if you swerve and avoid any issues, power to you. When you mess up though.. there's no buffer. The drunk driver is not going to flinch away. That's the problem man, kinda obvious really.

Re:Hypocritical (1)

tompaulco (629533) | more than 3 years ago | (#36389204)

Well, that is your anecdote. My anecdote is that I personally know three people who have been killed by drunk drivers. And I know from watching the news and reading the paper that in my relatively small metro area, a drunk person kills someone almost every single day. Alcohol was a factor in 37% of fatalities in my state, and my state is only slightly above the average. So, by ending drunk driving we could save 15,000 lives a year in the U.S. That seems like a significant issue.

Re:Hypocritical (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36388850)

Make it tougher. And more zero tolerance!

You know what they do now, as a cash cow, is set up the DUI checkpoints the MORNING AFTER a big event like new years, or the 4rth. You see, even though you're stone sober, and did the right thing staying overnight at the party, there's still enough alcohol in your system for supercop to rack up another bust.

FUCK THE POLICE WHO MILITARIZED AND DECLARED WAR ON ME

Die, pigs, you are and shall remain the enemy of the american citizen.

Re:Hypocritical (1)

HungryHobo (1314109) | more than 3 years ago | (#36389236)

You do know alcohol can still be in your system, slowing you reactions and making you unfit to drive even after you've got 5 or 6 hours sleep on someones couch right?

A pint or 2 will be well out of your system the next morning, a half bottle of tequila and 6 beers not so much.

Re:Hypocritical (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36388880)

I also know that punishment for DUIs are pretty lax, so if they want to stop them, make it tougher.

So King Solomon, what punishment would you recommend for a DUI?

I am actually serious and curious.

Re:Hypocritical (1)

shadowrat (1069614) | more than 3 years ago | (#36389176)

Maybe the checkpoints helped to reduce drunk driving, but the number of accidents caused by people looking for checkpoints on their iphones while driving went up.

Choose Freedom. Choose Android. (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36388616)

This is what freedom is all about.

Choose Android.

Choose Freedom.

Fuck the police.

Police missing perfect opportunity (2)

RichMan (8097) | more than 3 years ago | (#36388638)

The police definitly need more hackers.

Lets put the check on route #1. Ok now start the application that reports check points on routes #2, #3, #4. Suddenly you have lots of people that are directed into the actual check point. Especially people that were actually looking to avoid the check point and are the actual ones you want to check.

Re:Police missing perfect opportunity (1)

MBGMorden (803437) | more than 3 years ago | (#36388778)

Any politician caught up in such a thing would have a terrible campaign next time around however as people suggest that they intentionally LIED to the population to force them into a certain area. Even outside of the obvious deceitfulness there, it also could have implications for negatively affecting the traffic.

Probably not illegal, but such a thing could quickly turn into a PR nightmare.

Re:Police missing perfect opportunity (1)

obarthelemy (160321) | more than 3 years ago | (#36389022)

would it ? it seems kinda hypocritical to vote for laws that institute checkpoints, and then to whine against a smart use of technology to make them more efficient ?

Re:Police missing perfect opportunity (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36388834)

I've only driven once in my life where I thought I might be impaired. It was only after several minutes of driving that I though, I could have pressed the brake a little quicker. Nothing ever came of it.

But, I have been stopped many times in my life at check points only to be hassled and being repeatedly asked to violate my personal rights. I avoid them not because I had one too many 22 years ago and got behind the wheel, but because I don't enjoy being harassed by the police for no reason at all.

Re:Police missing perfect opportunity (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36388854)

Lets put the check on route #1. Ok now start the application that reports check points on routes #2, #3, #4. Suddenly you have lots of people that are directed into the actual check point.

Usually they call that entrapment.

Re:Police missing perfect opportunity (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36388954)

Entrapment is about getting people to commit a crime they wouldn't otherwise have committed.
You make it sound like the crime here is getting caught.

Re:Police missing perfect opportunity (1)

Combatso (1793216) | more than 3 years ago | (#36389004)

or the police could, you know... f* off and only stop people who are suspected of commiting a crime, instead assuming we are all drunk, or criminals all the time...

A-PPolice State. (2)

mrthoughtful (466814) | more than 3 years ago | (#36388640)

Erm. IANAL, but isn't liberty an important part of the American cultural and political identity?
Do AAPL have a leg to stand on here?

Re:A-PPolice State. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36388742)

AAPL has a legal leg to stand on, it's their walled-garden and they can do whatever they damn well please.

The Senators had no legal legs to stand on.

Re:A-PPolice State. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36388776)

Certainly there's no law against Apple being police-state-loving fascist toadies. But it still sucks.

It's their monopoly (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36388826)

As long as they're the only ones allowed to sell apps to the Apple iPod/iPad/whatever then they have a monopoly. And refusing for no good reason is an illegal abuse of that monopoly.

Re:It's their monopoly (1)

wygit (696674) | more than 3 years ago | (#36388902)

Not as long as you don't have to buy in iPhone/iPad and can choose to buy Android or Blackberry or whatever.
Go look up "monopoly".

Re:It's their monopoly (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36388996)

Go learn what a monopoly is, and stop abusing the term. Hint: It does not mean, "business practices that make me so ANGWY!"

Re:A-PPolice State. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36388768)

The perception of liberty is an important part of the American cultural and political identity?

FTFY

Re:A-PPolice State. (1)

lostfayth (1184371) | more than 3 years ago | (#36388794)

Sure they have a legal leg to stand on, they don't want to publish those apps so they won't.

The constitution only says that the government may not limit free speech, it says nothing of corporations.

Re:A-PPolice State. (1)

dcollins (135727) | more than 3 years ago | (#36388802)

"Erm. IANAL, but isn't liberty an important part of the American cultural and political identity?"

Allegedly, it was at one point. In the imperial era, nicht soviel.

Re:A-PPolice State. (1)

nomadic (141991) | more than 3 years ago | (#36388876)

Allegedly, it was at one point.

...if you were a white male protestant landowner.

Re:A-PPolice State. (5, Insightful)

jo_ham (604554) | more than 3 years ago | (#36388808)

I run a store. I don't want to sell beans in my store. I remove all beans from my store.

Do I have a legal leg to stand on here?

Re:A-PPolice State. (3, Insightful)

Duradin (1261418) | more than 3 years ago | (#36388860)

According to some at /., no. In the name of freedom you must be forced to sell any and all beans, whether you want to or not.

Re:A-PPolice State. (0)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 3 years ago | (#36389086)

you are the only store, essentially, in the world, for the things your customers want.

if you don't supply it, they can't have it. you have decided FOR THEM.

no, you have no leg to stand on since your store analogy is 100% faulty.

Re:A-PPolice State. (1)

Duradin (1261418) | more than 3 years ago | (#36389122)

You'd have to wipe out all the other bean growers, the black and grey bean markets and all the people with the $99/year bean licenses to have a point.

Re:A-PPolice State. (1)

The Moof (859402) | more than 3 years ago | (#36389110)

That's not quite a good metaphor. It'd be more like this:

I run a store. I don't want to sell beans in my store. I remove all beans from my store. I also exercise my proprietary lock down on your mouth and digestive system to prevent you from eating beans from anyone else. You can try to remove my bean-locking, but it might kill you, and I will be unhappy if you succeed. I did try to push legislation to stop that, but it didn't go my way. Oh, and I will periodically push out an update to you that might actually kill you because you unlocked yourself to enjoy beans. And there's nothing you can do about it because I covered my ass with 63 pages of a legal agreement.

Apple AppStore doesn't equate to a real store because there is no competition for it, and you can't run apps not from their store on your device short of jail-breaking it.

Re:A-PPolice State. (1)

Savantissimo (893682) | more than 3 years ago | (#36389264)

Sure. But you "don't want to sell beans in your store" because the city council told you not to - they want to reduce politically-oriented flatulence in town meetings.

But I won't buy anything from you at all, and I'm going to tell everyone you hate the tasty beans of freedom.

Re:A-PPolice State. (2, Insightful)

wygit (696674) | more than 3 years ago | (#36388828)

Apple doesn't have to allow apps showing photos of kittens if it chooses to ban those. It's a privately owned business.
Yes, Apple has a leg to stand on.

Can I avoid Senators with an app? (1)

thomasdz (178114) | more than 3 years ago | (#36388668)

Is there some app that will allow me to avoid politicians?

Re:Can I avoid Senators with an app? (2)

Beautyon (214567) | more than 3 years ago | (#36388772)

Yes, its called Bitcoin.

Re:Can I avoid Senators with an app? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36389010)

Move to western NY. The only evidence that our senators are aware of a portion of the state west of Albany is a few blurry photographs. Or maybe those are of bigfoot.

Newpapers? (1)

lavaforge (245529) | more than 3 years ago | (#36388674)

Most DUI checkpoints are published in newspapers ahead of time.

Will Apple also be banning newspaper apps?

Re:Newpapers? (1)

DoubleParadoxx (928992) | more than 3 years ago | (#36388734)

Who reads newspapers?

Re:Newpapers? (1)

Kufat (563166) | more than 3 years ago | (#36388840)

If you read the article, you'd see that the rule only applies to "Apps which contain DUI checkpoints that are not published by law enforcement agencies".

Re:Newpapers? (1)

jo_ham (604554) | more than 3 years ago | (#36388886)

The new ToS are about removing apps that use information that was not publicly available already. The data published by the police is still fine to use. Of course, the troll summary leaves that out to try to paint Apple in as poor a light as possible, but this is slashdot.

The answer to your question is thus "no", as answered in TFA.

Re:Newpapers? (3, Interesting)

chuckugly (2030942) | more than 3 years ago | (#36389104)

The new ToS are about removing apps that use information that was not publicly available already. The data published by the police is still fine to use. Of course, the troll summary leaves that out to try to paint Apple in as poor a light as possible, but this is slashdot.

So just to be clear, since it appears ALL checkpoints [wikipedia.org] have to be published publicly, therefore NO apps are to be banned?

Or no?

Re:Newpapers? (2)

dcollins (135727) | more than 3 years ago | (#36388904)

That's kind of a funny insight -- certain legislators being cranked that public information has unexpectedly gotten into a readable, useful format. Implying that newspapers have degenerated to the status of "officially public information" but "assuming no one actually reads them".

Re:Newpapers? (2)

Americano (920576) | more than 3 years ago | (#36389078)

Hey brainiac, I know reading the fucking article is so last-year around here, but if you had bothered to read it, you would have seen this:

In revised app store guidelines discovered by Mac Rumors, Apple has updated Section 22.8 to now read:
Apps which contain DUI checkpoints that are not published by law enforcement agencies, or encourage and enable drunk driving, will be rejected.

This submission is retardedly inaccurate flamebait. If your app contains information about checkpoints that have been published by law enforcement, then your app meets the requirements set forth in the guidelines.

DUI Checkpoints (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36388696)

Are technically illegal.

Yet, the apps that alert people to the illegal checkpoints are being criticized.

Fuck, nevermind. I forgot, this is America. Illegal != Not Legal for The Gummit

Re:DUI Checkpoints (1)

jpapon (1877296) | more than 3 years ago | (#36388872)

How are they technically illegal? IANAL, but I was under the impression that a cop could stop you for any reason they like while on a public roadway. They can't ask you to get out of the car and frisk you, or search your car (without probable cause), but I see no reason why they can't stop you and check your license, registration, and/or sobriety.

They do it to truckers all the time with weigh stations, how are cars any different?

Re:DUI Checkpoints (1)

mistiry (1845474) | more than 3 years ago | (#36389238)

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.

What probable cause have I given the police to stop me, require me to prove my legal standing to operate the vehicle (my license), show that I am insured, and PROVE that I am innocent (not driving above the legal BAC), by simply driving home from Wal Mart at 2am? I am subjected to sobriety tests and breathalyzers when I have given no cause or reason for anyone to believe I am over the legal BAC.

A checkpoint forces the driver to prove his innocence, however the law states that you are already innocent until they can prove you guilty.

Stopping a driver that is driving erratically, or failing to abide by the laws of the road, are a reason for police to stop you.

Stopping EVERY driver on a road and forcing them to prove their legality on multiple levels* in hopes of catching a handful of actual offenders is NOT legal.

* You have to prove:
- You hold a legal driver's license.
- You hold valid insurance.
- You are up to date on registration and inspections.
- You are not above the legal limit.

Will all avoiding-authority apps be banned? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36388708)

Will Apple next ban "Libyan Rape-Squad" location apps? Or can Apple tell when the authorities are doing the right thing by stopping everyone and inspecting them, and when they're not?

How laws are written (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36388766)

I'm not so familiar with US democracy, but do four senators represent a quorum, so that they can write a letter that has the power of law? This sounds unusual.

Re:How laws are written (1)

MBGMorden (803437) | more than 3 years ago | (#36388818)

Of course not. They didn't say Apple responded to a legal requirement. They voluntarily responded to a REQUEST.

"not published" (2)

Reverberant (303566) | more than 3 years ago | (#36388790)

According to TFA, the terms ban:

Apps which contain DUI checkpoints that are not published by law enforcement agencies,

But aren't all DUI checkpoints supposed to be publicized ahead of time? [wikipedia.org]

Remove safari (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36388806)

because you know, folks can go to wikileaks.

Public Knowledge (1)

gubers33 (1302099) | more than 3 years ago | (#36388810)

There is absolutely nothing illegal about those apps. Senators stating they are illegal is an outright lie and violation of the 1st amendment. DUI checkpoints are in fact public knowledge because the public must be informed the checkpoints are in place, because they can prevent people from getting places on time. The general public is usually informed by putting in a newspaper. Because it is public knowledge, the apps are a extension of freedom of speech. It would be the same as an application that allows you to read newspaper articles on sports.

Re:Public Knowledge (1)

nomadic (141991) | more than 3 years ago | (#36388916)

Senators stating they are illegal is an outright lie and violation of the 1st amendment.

Nonsequitur.

more governmnet intervention (1)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 3 years ago | (#36388830)

so now the apps are 'illegal', and they are not even drugs or weapons.

Re:more governmnet intervention (1)

jo_ham (604554) | more than 3 years ago | (#36388928)

They're not illegal. The troll summary writer used the word illegal.

Not Apple! (1)

RottenJ (2060834) | more than 3 years ago | (#36388882)

I would think a company like Apple would respond differently to political pressure. Checkpoints to begin with skirt a fine line with the 4th amendment, being stopped by the police for no reason so they can observe you up-close and perform an interrogation. The last time I went through one of those things there must have been about 20 or 30 cops standing around. I would think having those guys driving around looking for erratic drivers would be a better use of resources.

Gov Official Reporting Apps (1)

future assassin (639396) | more than 3 years ago | (#36388950)

How about an app that you enter the name of a politician and you can enter details of something they have done that you heard about or check what others have reported about your favorite/hated officials. Info like where they are available in the public or where they are making public speeches just in-case you want to communicate with them or throw a sign at them.

Future US Gov APP agency? (0)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 3 years ago | (#36388998)

Ahh, so now I know why Obama met with Steve Jobs. Maybe it was to create new federal agency with Apple behind its control?

Lets be creative shall we? It might be called APP = Apple Policy of Protection. Yup, there's an APP for that.

Some food for thought (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36389066)

http://www.reason.tv/video/show/banning-dui-apps

Seriously stupid knee-jerk reaction... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36389106)

I freely admit I'm an Apple fanboy. I cut my ML/assembly teeth on an Apple //+ for cripes sake. Next to my *undying* love affair with my Commodore Amiga, Apple makes the coolest tech out there (I know, not a popular opinion here on slash, but my opinion nonetheless). Anyway, even for a lock-step-kool-aid-drinking-jobs-diciple like me, this is a really stupid move by Apple. You can find plenty of legitimate arguments for applications like this, just like you can find legitimate uses for bit-torrent, and legitimate uses for a 9mm handgun. Tools are simply tools (both the sense of inanimate objects and people). - Geo...

Sobriety (1)

Hellpop (451893) | more than 3 years ago | (#36389150)

What if I just want to avoid these checkpoints when I'm sober? If avoiding checkpoints is criminal then only criminals will avoid checkpoints.

Make sure those senators are not voted back in! (1)

plastick (1607981) | more than 3 years ago | (#36389162)

When I was 14, I watched my best friend get run over and drug 88 feet under a pickup truck by a drunk driver. I abhor drinking and driving. But it's wrong on Apple's part, and it's just edging us that much further into a police state with fewer and fewer liberties, freedom, free speech, or choices.

easy fix.. (1)

romanval (556418) | more than 3 years ago | (#36389284)

make it a mobile HTML5 web page with map overlay
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>