×

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!

Why Apple's DUI Checkpoint App Ban Is Stupid

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the tip-of-the-corporate-crony-iceberg dept.

Android 228

hookskat writes "Reason.tv Editor in Chief Nick Gillespie reacts to Apple's decision to ban DUI Checkpoint Apps from the App Store, writing: 'Let me add something even more damning of this latest development in corporate cave-ins to legally protected free speech and I'm gonna bold it for emphasis: 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...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.' Last month, after RIM caved on the same question, Reason.tv released this video on the subject of banning DUI checkpoint apps."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

228 comments

preachin to the choir (1)

jhoegl (638955) | more than 2 years ago | (#36394418)

I agree.
The end.

Re:preachin to the choir (4, Informative)

node 3 (115640) | more than 2 years ago | (#36394558)

Except the story is based on a false premise. Apple doesn't ban apps that use the police department's data.

Re:preachin to the choir (3, Informative)

Nerdfest (867930) | more than 2 years ago | (#36394696)

To be fair, the summary says that "Some police departments actually supply the data used". If it's not illegal, they should allow the app, or allow people to install things outside their store, but as usual, that just my opinion, and one of the big reasons I won't buy any of their products anymore. They've lowered their 'Evil' rating in my books a little today already by dropping the "can't charge a lower price somewhere else" portion of their anti-competitive subscription policy though. Sadly, I think that was because of legal ramifications and publishers looking harder at Android than anything else though.

Re:preachin to the choir (-1, Troll)

jo_ham (604554) | more than 2 years ago | (#36394650)

Apple agrees with you, which is why they didn't ban DUI checkpoint apps.

Re:preachin to the choir (2, Insightful)

beelsebob (529313) | more than 2 years ago | (#36394738)

Why this article is stupid...

Because apple didn't ban apps that show DUI checkpoints... they banned ones that weren't sourced from official sources like the police department.

Re:preachin to the choir (2)

hedwards (940851) | more than 2 years ago | (#36394806)

Which strikes me as a relatively reasonable compromise. I'm not sure how much better people were expecting. The iOS is a walled garden, and if you want to use the devices without jailbreaking them, then you're going to have to live with Apple's rules.

Re:preachin to the choir (2, Insightful)

Nerdfest (867930) | more than 2 years ago | (#36394894)

Of course the classic "Pray I don't alter it again" line comes to mind when talking about Apple's rules at times.

Re:preachin to the choir (4, Insightful)

zippthorne (748122) | more than 2 years ago | (#36394978)

The impact of those lines changes quite a bit when you realize they were uttered by a distraught father concerned about the well-being of his only son....

Re:preachin to the choir (2)

Nerdfest (867930) | more than 2 years ago | (#36395146)

Didn't he want him to join the Dark side? I hear it's nice, but a bit of a walled garden.

Really? (-1, Troll)

pjh3000 (583652) | more than 2 years ago | (#36394440)

> Some police departments actually supply the data used in such apps because they reduce the number of drunk drivers on the roads!

Care to back that up with, oh I don't know, FACTS!

Re:Really? (1, Insightful)

jhoegl (638955) | more than 2 years ago | (#36394492)

If you doubt something, research it. Then come back with your information.
Blanket statements against blanket statements yields politics.

Re:Really? (0)

MrEricSir (398214) | more than 2 years ago | (#36394510)

No, he's right -- the burden of proof is on the one making the claim.

Re:Really? (1)

idontgno (624372) | more than 2 years ago | (#36394618)

Yeah, but both sides are making claims, and both sides are disavowing any responsibility to meet any burden of proof. Sounds like it's devolving into a "no, you go first" argument I have to occasionally send my 5-year-olds to time-out to break up.

Good work, Slashdot.

Re:Really? (1)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 2 years ago | (#36395466)

Yeah, but both sides are making claims

It looks like he just asked for a citation.

and both sides are disavowing any responsibility to meet any burden of proof.

Neither of them said anything about doing that.

Re:Really? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36394534)

You mean like this one?? It's not in an app, but this is where the apps get some of their info from...

http://www.hcso.tampa.fl.us/DUI-Enforcement.aspx

Also, why are they banned? You can find them by driving around and seeing them. Why is the sharing of them, even if they are not "advertised"??

Re:Really? (0)

Skidborg (1585365) | more than 2 years ago | (#36394540)

You'll be pleased to know that I just spent way too much time thinking your signature, the benefits of being able to use a superior force in a given situation, and the possible effects of the Ninja Kill Law when applied to clone armies.

Re:Really? (1, Interesting)

cheeks5965 (1682996) | more than 2 years ago | (#36394566)

dude makes no snese. if you actually read the apple TOS they say that it's ok if the police departments are releasing it.i it's onl not ok if its crowedourced.

Re:Really? (1)

lyinhart (1352173) | more than 2 years ago | (#36394586)

If you haven't the time to watch the video (or maybe you're using elinks or something), they specifically cite the fact that police in Travis County, Texas have willingly supplied checkpoint data to Trapster developers.

And anyway, I don't see how these apps would help people avoid DUI checkpoints. If you're sufficiently wasted, then you probably don't have the judgment skills to use the app and avoid the checkpoint in the first place.

Re:Really? (2)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 2 years ago | (#36394634)

That is the point. The Police know the people who check this app are going to be the kind of people who decide against DUI. The people who do go drinking and driving don't exactly have a a lot of foresight. If you plan your life enough to check a DUI checkpoint app, you are going to stay home, get a ride or take a taxi.

Re:Really? (1)

idontgno (624372) | more than 2 years ago | (#36394722)

If you're sufficiently wasted, then you probably don't have the judgment skills to use the app and avoid the checkpoint in the first place.

I just realized we should all be worried not merely about drunks on the roads, but drunks on the road trying to use their iPhones with this app (or any other app... text messaging, I'm looking at you...) while driving. Or even sober drivers, it they're trying to app while driving.

Re:Really? (1)

basotl (808388) | more than 2 years ago | (#36395052)

I actually leave Trapster running with my phone in it's GPS cradle. Then it beeps and lets me know that I am approaching a traffic enforcement point, school zone or red light camera or any of the other helpful warnings it also gives me. It acts as a great safety mechanism to help me watch out for potential road hazards... including the police.

Re:Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36395016)

If you're sufficiently wasted, you can't even get into your car. Or [insert almost any activity here] either.

I do not ever drink and drive (nor should anyone, it's just plain stupid and moronic), but I've sure been pretty wasted before. What a person can do while wasted is very dependent on the person. I've most definitely been able to use my phone after leaving a bar in a state that I'd surely fail a checkpoint. A statement like "if you're sufficiently wasted, you can't..." is meaningless, because it can be applied to almost anything. I once stumbled out of a bar and sat on the curb because I could barely walk, and used my phone to find the number for a taxi when my normal cab company of preference had a 30 minute wait due to a busy night. And I didn't even use an app, I had to bring up the browser and use Google to search, typing my query on an on-screen keyboard.

Bottom line: if you're wasted enough that you shouldn't be driving, it definitely doesn't mean you can't use your phone. Maybe for some people it does, but you definitely can't generalize like that.

Re:Really? (1)

Gadget_Guy (627405) | more than 2 years ago | (#36395086)

And anyway, I don't see how these apps would help people avoid DUI checkpoints. If you're sufficiently wasted, then you probably don't have the judgment skills to use the app and avoid the checkpoint in the first place.

There is a huge gap between the legal alcohol limit where driving is impaired due to lower reaction times and being so blotto that you can't use an iPhone app. If you can't use an app then you probably can't get the key in your ignition either.

I have known people who take back streets to avoid likely checkpoint areas (making it a more complicated route to navigate) because they knew that they would be over the limit. Being drunk doesn't instantly make you stupid, it starts by making other people look more attractive.

Re:Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36394760)

In many places the police are legally required to announce when and where they will be conducting DUI checkpoints. So, do you like apples?

Not Published (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36394444)

From the summary on slashdot: "I'm gonna bold it for emphasis: Some police departments actually supply the data used in such apps because they reduce the number of drunk drivers on the roads!"

From the article: "Apps which contain DUI checkpoints that are not published by law enforcement agencies, or encourage and enable drunk driving, will be rejected...."

Re:Not Published (4, Interesting)

Mr. X (17716) | more than 2 years ago | (#36394496)

Aren't law enforcement agencies required to publish DUI checkpoints in the newspaper?

Re:Not Published (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36394554)

Yes. The police are evidently only upset about the illegal checkpoints that the app publishes.

That's actually not sarcasm. It seems to be the truth.

Re:Not Published (1, Informative)

zn0k (1082797) | more than 2 years ago | (#36394502)

> From the summary on slashdot: "I'm gonna bold it for emphasis: Some police departments actually supply the data used in such apps because they reduce the number of drunk drivers on the roads!"
> From the article: "Apps which contain DUI checkpoints that are not published by law enforcement agencies, or encourage and enable drunk driving, will be rejected...."

Yeah, but just because of, like, that, and the fact that it was already discussed to death in today's earlier thread about the same topic - well that wouldn't stop Slashdot from posting another piece of shit fucking flamebait article. Right?

Re:Not Published (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36394924)

It's awesome that they bolded that statement so that people will mistake it for a fact. It's quite possible that such apps reduce the number of drunk drivers getting caught! "Hey guys! We're going to fine you if we catch you driving drunk and we'll be looking right... over.... THERE. Oh wow! I totally didn't catch anybody!"

Decrease the number on the road? (3, Interesting)

Skidborg (1585365) | more than 2 years ago | (#36394446)

Does it really decrease the total number on the road, or only the total number counted by police checkpoints?

Also that old line on causation. You know the one.

PR-Wise, (2)

TheCouchPotatoFamine (628797) | more than 2 years ago | (#36394452)

This is horrendously bad for apple, cause if I think it's not cool, then I stop recommending it. I stop recommending it, they don't get sold. It took a lot of nerds to make apple get where it is today, IMSHO.

Re:PR-Wise, (4, Insightful)

MoonBuggy (611105) | more than 2 years ago | (#36394532)

On the other hand, it'd be hard to script a better demonstration of why closed ecosystems, particularly those controlled by an easily-pressured gatekeeper, are bad for consumers.

Re:PR-Wise, (4, Insightful)

somersault (912633) | more than 2 years ago | (#36394624)

Yeah, iMacs and iPods were made cool by nerds *facepalm*

If nerds had that much sway, the majority of people would be running Linux on the desktop, with all popular and important commercial apps and games available for it. And there would be no copyright or patents. And they'd be too busy with their girlfriends to use computers much of the time.

Re:PR-Wise, (1)

LocalH (28506) | more than 2 years ago | (#36395076)

If it weren't for the Apple I and II and classic Macs, there would be no Apple today. It was the classic era where nerds gave Apple enough success to get to where they are today.

Re:PR-Wise, (1)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 2 years ago | (#36395372)

If it weren't for the Apple I and II and classic Macs, there would be no Apple today. It was the classic era where nerds gave Apple enough success to get to where they are today.

If things were different they wouldn't be the same. The same could be said for many, many other companies.

Re:PR-Wise, (2)

Brett Buck (811747) | more than 2 years ago | (#36394812)

Geeks have essentially zero influence on Apple's sales. Smaller than any arbitrarily-chosen epsilon. If you actually believe what you posted, I feel sad for you.

Re:PR-Wise, (2)

Caerdwyn (829058) | more than 2 years ago | (#36395400)

You've just identified the origin of Apple-haters: geeks who think they should be on a pedestal, but aren't.

Re:PR-Wise, (1)

Duradin (1261418) | more than 2 years ago | (#36394996)

Less space than a nomad. No wireless. Lame.

Ya.... I don't think Apple is too concerned about /.ers affecting sales.

Re:PR-Wise, (1)

Dishevel (1105119) | more than 2 years ago | (#36395166)

Ha. Nerds recommending iCrap.
I am guessing that in this case "IMSHO" stands for "In My Stupid and Humble Opinion".

Deadly (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36394458)

A motor vehicle with a drunk driver is a deadly weapon. This is our right under the second amendment.

Re:Deadly (1)

brainboyz (114458) | more than 2 years ago | (#36394688)

Deadly weapon but not considered armament, thus in no way, shape, or form does it have relation to the right to keep and bear arms.

Re:Deadly (1)

zippthorne (748122) | more than 2 years ago | (#36395014)

A motor vehicle with a sober driver is also a deadly weapon. The second amendment is about ownership. You have the right to bear arms. Not to get drunk and stagger around town pointing a loaded weapon at everyone you meet.

Reduces drunk drivers on the road? (2)

jjetson (2041488) | more than 2 years ago | (#36394500)

"because they reduce the number of drunk drivers". Really? Where's the proof of this? And it better not be stats from DUI arrests at the checkpoints because well....you're telling them where you are, they go a different way. Not that I agree or disagree with Apple's decision but if you're gonna make such a "bold" statement you better be able to back it up Nicky G.

How I hate apple (-1, Troll)

slashstash (2250580) | more than 2 years ago | (#36394512)

Really, I used Mac almost since they were put in market.
But that lock-down just makes me mad.
It also looks like in next few versions OS X will be deprecated [thoughts.com] in favor to iOS (yes I know its a flavor of OSX) and be locked-down.
So bye bye my Macs.....

Re:How I hate apple (0)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 2 years ago | (#36394606)

Goatse, the idiot is using the same thoughts.com link.

Hey moron, try using different links.

Re:How I hate apple (1, Funny)

slashstash (2250580) | more than 2 years ago | (#36394628)

Thanks for the food:

Favorites:
"Ugh. Goatse. NSFW. Asshole (poster and picture, both)."
"Seriously ... new account to post that ... what a douche!"
"You're a fucking douchbag." - "That is the most accurate comment yet"
"I hope you die in a fire before you are old enough to contaminate the gene pool."
"Death to all assholes - Let's put you first into the guillotine"
"Asshole... Ginormous asshole, in fact."
"Ugh. Goatse. You asshole."
"Better than you, you arse bandit."

Hate:
"I hate your guts."
"WTF you fucking asshole."
"Damn! Mod this fucker to hell"
"Fucking troll, do not click there"
"It would be more interesting if I had a piece of pipe and your face, in close proximity so I could smash your face beyond recognition,"
"You fucker" - "I had the same thought as you. What a fucking asshole. The link is nsfw."
"Bravo teeny bopper. You're a really mature mother fucker (or do you prefer father fucking? Damn you homo erotic shittter)."
"Wait! I think I hear your mommy calling to give your tongue a good soap washing. And maybe she'll execute you too"
"You fucking piece of shit!" , "You sorry piece of shit." , "You cunt.", "Fuck you."
"It's because of Assholes like you that I can no longer trust URL shorteners"
"I did not even bother to look, but this same idiot has been doing this for weeks now. Fuck off asshole."
"What a retard..... enough said...."

Funny:
"Didn't click it, but the magic 8-ball says goatse."
"Thanks, I'm reading slashdot in class like a good student and just got tubgirl'd."
"not gonna click it to find out, but I'd be surprised if parent's link wasn't goatse... It appears you would be correct sir. Why oh why do I always forget.."
"Watching second monitor, there was something wrong with the other screen. Control + w. Phew..."
"Doh! One has to also recognize data urls. *sigh*"
"That's somewhat clever, but some of us do know what base-64 encoding is."
"Can you not afford normal entertainment?"
"Hey family! Come look! They're opening the Google Talk client! Now, click here...... (sees goatse)"
"I tried to post warnings about the goaste loving jerk yesterday but was modded into oblivion as a karma whore"
"Turn on TinyUrl previews. It saves lives."
"Posting your picture online again?"
"Really? Are you not tired of this yet?"
"High likelyhood of being a Goatse link. Proceed with caution"
"This is grown up talk, 4chan is that way ->"
"Hey moron, try using different links."

Emotion:
"i WAS eating lunch you ass!"
"Oh dear god my eyes. Haven't seen THAT awful image in a while."
"My eyes are burning... argh! Damn you!"
"MY EYES... dude i am at work here "S "
"WARNING: Don't click on the parent's link! Damn goatse! The first I experienced, no less.
"Oh goddammit. I didn't need that right before bed."
"goatse warning! I'm still recovering."
"Please friends, I beg of you, do not click that link! Do not look at that image, whatever you do! It is a bad image! It is a goatse image."

Frustration:
"Can someone make a fucking goatse blocker firefox plugin please? This is pissing me off now."
"I am sick and tired of that crap on /. "

Philosophy:
"Goatse trolls are getting better these days..."
"Why the sudden coordinated campaign for Goatse? Is someone making money off this?"
"You're right, this is the most coordinated troll campaign in a long time. Multiple accounts, multiple pages."
"Urgh...dammit, am I the only one thinking the goatse trolls are getting worse lately than they have been in the past five years?"
"Who found a way to monetize goatse at this late date? If we got half the effort of that campaign on real stuff we'd all have better software by now."
"Boy Goatsex is out in force today... - Every topic is littered with them..."
"You can't actually expect the Slashdot users to actually know enough not to respond to a goatse troll, right ?"
"Can we start banning people who post that hiding it behind a url shortening link like goo.gl?"

Admiration:
"You are one dedicated troll."
"Well played, sir. Well played."
"A link that redirects to a page containing goatse? How clever of you!"
"Congrats. It's been a long time since I saw goatse."
"Thank you for that informational link"
"Interesting use of Data URLs for Goatse linking."
"Link is self portrait of ME"
"Goatse URL - Haven't seen that guy in a while"
"Well played, sir. It's been a while since I've been Goatse'd"

Misc:
"The fuck is a goatse? it's some dude pulling his arse open."
"Could not someone at slashdot write a small script to blacklist url's that have been flagged troll? I'll do it if you pay me a slave wage..."
"Parent should be modded down. Link is NSFW and mentally scarring."
"Just post the damn url, i'm not going to click on a tinyurl link and get goatse'd or something.."
"Someone please mod this guy down... Don't click his link."
"Mod to -1, please. this guy is an 'asshole'.... (yes, you guessed it)"
"Don't click the link! Goatse wannabe."
"Danger, goatse"

Re:How I hate apple (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36394836)

Goatse turns me right on every time.

banning IS stoopid - wanna know why?? (1)

sandawgscorch (1106917) | more than 2 years ago | (#36394518)

i've run those kinds of apps before (trapster in my case)

and you know what i'm doing the whole time i'm running it? I'M LOOKING OUT FOR COPS AND STAYING VERY AWARE OF MY SPEED!

in other words, i'm being safe!

Re:banning IS stoopid - wanna know why?? (3, Informative)

ArAgost (853804) | more than 2 years ago | (#36394626)

you know you don't need an app to drive safe, right?

Re:banning IS stoopid - wanna know why?? (1)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 2 years ago | (#36394946)

Funny. I am aware of my speed without any apps. My car has a speedometer, and I look at it. Even if there aren't cops :-o

Easy Answer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36394530)

Is this news or an opinion? If you actually read the reasoning, Apple WILL allow apps which display publicly available data. If the police department did not release the data of their secret checkpoint then it's not public data. The End.

Re:Easy Answer (4, Insightful)

Toonol (1057698) | more than 2 years ago | (#36394658)

If the police department did not release the data of their secret checkpoint then it's not public data.

If it is something I can SEE WHILE WALKING DOWN THE STREET than it is public data, by definition. You can't argue the opposite without descending into hopeless contradictions.

The End.

Indeed.

Re:Easy Answer (1, Troll)

Obfuscant (592200) | more than 2 years ago | (#36395456)

If it is something I can SEE WHILE WALKING DOWN THE STREET than it is public data, by definition.

Interesting definition.

You walk down the street, see someone's credit card laying on the sidewalk where they dropped it. Obviously, it is now public information. There can be nothing wrong with selling that information to the Russian mob, right?

You go to the ATM machine and the person ahead of you forgot to pull the receipt. You take it and get their account number. You wait a few minutes before looking so you can look at it while you "walk down the street". It is obviously public information now. Oh, you were also able to shoulder-surf their PIN, so that's public information, too.

You pull the PDA out of your pocket while walking down the street to check your appointments and see that you have an appointment with Mistress Dominica tonight at 7 and you better not be late you slimy worm kiss my feet bastard! This information is now, by definition, public data.

No, I think your definition is a little incorrect. Ok, a lot incorrect. People using this kind of definition for "public data" are why the ECPA was written and why scanners have large gaps in coverage of the cell phone bands. They could hear cell phone conversations on their radio, so they thought it became "public data" they could pass around freely.

Bull. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36394580)

This doesn't violate the first amendment, because the Apple App Store is definitely not a public forum. Apple has the right to ban any apps it sees fit, with or without good reason.

I also don't see how a DUI checkpoint app could reduce the number of drunk drivers. A determined drunk would try to find an alternate route home then to sit and sober up where they are.

Published checkpoint data is exempt from this ban (1)

wo1verin3 (473094) | more than 2 years ago | (#36394594)

The rules specifically apply to checkpoint information that is NOT published by law enforcement agencies.

Section 22.8 of the updated App Store Review Guidelines reads:
"Apps which contain DUI checkpoints that are not published by law enforcement agencies, or encourage and enable drunk driving, will be rejected."

Some law enforcement agencies publish where DUI checkpoints will be located ahead of time, and these notices have been exempted from the ban.

Source [macrumors.com]

Massively, massively troll article! (4, Informative)

jo_ham (604554) | more than 2 years ago | (#36394600)

What the hell passes for "facts" these days?

Apple has *not* banned DUI checkpoint apps. Not even one. All of the checkpoint apps that were up on the store before today are still there.

What they have done is changed their ToS to be explicit about the listing of non-public information, which DUI checkpoints are *not included in* since the police advertise them.

How the fuck this ever (and in the previous article) got twisted into "Apple bans DUI checkpoint apps" is beyond me, other than some serious axe-grinding Apple haters are just making stuff up and posting it as news. Maybe the correction was sent to them via text message from Android, but it somehow got sent to a guy who cleans windows in Atlanta instead.

Re:Massively, massively troll article! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36394666)

Wow, going from blaming fanbois to showing how much of one you are. What a dickhead you must be.

Re:Massively, massively troll article! (0, Redundant)

jo_ham (604554) | more than 2 years ago | (#36394838)

If I'm a dickhead for lamenting that slashdot is posting demonstrably obvious lies, as shown in the very articles they link to and thinking 'oh how far /. has falled, it used to be ok', then that's what I am.

Re:Massively, massively troll article! (-1)

pclminion (145572) | more than 2 years ago | (#36394904)

What they have done is changed their ToS to be explicit about the listing of non-public information

Define non-public information. Suppose I'm driving and I see a checkpoint, and I put the checkpoint on some app. How is this not public information? A checkpoint on a public road, seen by a member of the public, is not public information? Please explain.

Re:Massively, massively troll article! (1)

jo_ham (604554) | more than 2 years ago | (#36395244)

It remains to be seen - and crucially, the app on the store that works precisely that way *is still available on the store*. So I would say it *is* public information... and so, it would seem, does Apple.

Re:Massively, massively troll article! (1)

pclminion (145572) | more than 2 years ago | (#36395276)

Then I have a hard time understanding what sort of app WOULD fall afoul of the rule. How else would you acquire this info other than by its publication in a newspaper or by someone seeing it themselves?

Re:Massively, massively troll article! (4, Informative)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 2 years ago | (#36394960)

How the fuck this ever (and in the previous article) got twisted into "Apple bans DUI checkpoint apps" is beyond me, other than some serious axe-grinding Apple haters are just making stuff up and posting it as news.

I used to think that but now I think Slashdot has noticed that stories about Android and iPhone generate a lot of ad-serving content. People still fall for this shit.

Re:Massively, massively troll article! (1)

Adam Appel (1991764) | more than 2 years ago | (#36395442)

You query "are people just making stuff up and posting it as news?"

My friend, that is news.

If it was FOX or MSNBC someone would get paid to post that in a "news blog".

I disagree (1)

Osgeld (1900440) | more than 2 years ago | (#36394630)

About the 1984 Steve Jobs part, As we know now that giant screen in the famous Macintosh commercial was not a prop, but rather a real deal space time communicator, where 1984 Steve received orders from 2016 Steve. Also the board removed Steve from his duties shortly thereafter for no other reason than "that communicator thing is really creeping me out"

RIM can't ban an application... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36394674)

RIM isn't able to. RIM can remove an application from blackberry world (the BB "app store"), but nothing stops anyone from just putting the application on a website.

RIM doesn't impede what applications YOU install on YOUR blackberry in any way.

Hypothetical (3, Insightful)

screwzloos (1942336) | more than 2 years ago | (#36394676)

I'm at a bar, I've had a couple drinks, but nothing excessive. It's not late and I can safely get myself home as I have done in the past, but there's a plausible chance I'd get busted for a DUI if I got stopped on the way home. I'm a little buzzed and 0.001% over is all it takes. I check my new iPhone app and lo and behold, there's a checkpoint on the only highway between the bar and my house. I don't want to spend the night in jail, so I take a cab instead.

That app would save me money and jail time, save my district a bunch of paperwork, and make the roads safer.

The other side of the argument is that people will know where the checkpoint is and try to drive around it. If anything, this being open should encourage better checkpoint planning. There are plenty of high traffic bottlenecks in every state, so that's a poor excuse. Worst case scenario is the appropriate side roads would need increased patrols.

Re:Hypothetical (1, Troll)

jo_ham (604554) | more than 2 years ago | (#36394782)

And the app will still be on the store. Apple has not banned DUI checkpoint apps, even hypothetical ones.

Re:Hypothetical (1)

chuckugly (2030942) | more than 2 years ago | (#36395416)

And the app will still be on the store. Apple has not banned DUI checkpoint apps, even hypothetical ones.

Are you sure? PhantomAlert seems to be MIA.

Re:Hypothetical (4, Insightful)

DerekLyons (302214) | more than 2 years ago | (#36394926)

there's a plausible chance I'd get busted for a DUI if I got stopped on the way home

That app would save me money and jail time, save my district a bunch of paperwork, and make the roads safer.

How does giving you the tools to drive impaired and avoid being caught doing so make the roads safer? Seriously, what kind of doublethink does it take to think that "I'm too buzzed to risk a field sobriety test, but I'm still a safe driver"* is a reasonable statement?.*
 

Worst case scenario is the appropriate side roads would need increased patrols.

No. The worst case scenario is an impaired driver that might have been caught, isn't - and plows into something or someone.
 
*No, blowing 0.001% isn't all it takes.
 
** No, "I think I'm a safe driver, therefore I am" isn't a reasonable answer. Study after study has shown people don't realize how impaired they are. Nor is "I've played Russian Roulette with other people's lives many times and not had a problem".

Re:Hypothetical (1, Insightful)

scot4875 (542869) | more than 2 years ago | (#36395148)

How does giving you the tools to drive impaired and avoid being caught doing so make the roads safer? Seriously, what kind of doublethink does it take to think that "I'm too buzzed to risk a field sobriety test, but I'm still a safe driver"* is a reasonable statement?.*
   

I like how you fail to quote the part of his statement where GP chooses to not drive home, then fail to respond to any point that he makes. Good job!

--Jeremy

Re:Hypothetical (5, Insightful)

Obfuscant (592200) | more than 2 years ago | (#36395346)

I like how you fail to quote the part of his statement where GP chooses to not drive home, then fail to respond to any point that he makes. Good job!

I like how you fail to recognize the other outcome from checking with the checkpoint app: "no checkpoints reported, I'm just a little buzzed, so I hop in the car and drive home." He didn't say that explicitly, but that's the other side of the coin of what he did say. Or did you think that he was checking the app just for fun and had already decided not to drive home? No, that's not what he said.

What happens without that app? If he thought "maybe I'm too drunk to drive and I might get caught at a checkpoint" every time he was drunk and needed to "drive home", instead of being able to see if there was a high probability of getting caught, and took a cab instead, THAT would make the roads safer.

And then, what if the only way home wasn't the road where the checkpoint was? Do you think he might have decided to take the backroads to avoid the cops, thus making for a longer drive over less well maintained roads and increasing the danger to himself and others?

Good job, yourself.

Re:Hypothetical (2)

gknoy (899301) | more than 2 years ago | (#36395422)

His point was that if you feel impaired enough not to want to risk a field sobriety test, you are (almost by definition) not sober enough to drive. Whether or not there's a checkpoint in your way should have no impact on your choosing not to drive, whereas the GGP's post implied that the only reason he'd take a cab would be to avoid the checkpoint and that otherwise he would have, and has in the past, just driven home.

Re:Hypothetical (2)

flimflammer (956759) | more than 2 years ago | (#36395482)

In this hypothetical scenario, he only chose not to drive home because he could have been caught. Meaning he acknowledged he's likely over the legal limit for driving while intoxicated no matter how sober he thinks he is at the moment. Remember that many people outright drunk think they are safe to drive home, when in fact they are not.

Had there not been a hypothetical checkpoint, he would have driven home on his own.

The correct choice every time should have been to take a cab home, if he even thinks for a moment a checkpoint might result in a DUI.

Re:Hypothetical (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36395192)

Very well said, Mr Lyons. I was going to go with "GP is a douche," so it's nice to know people like you are here to put a better argument across!

Re:Hypothetical (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36395118)

Yes appropriate side roads where most people are out walking. Brilliant.

Re:Hypothetical (5, Insightful)

Gadget_Guy (627405) | more than 2 years ago | (#36395196)

So if you check your app and you find that there isn't a checkpoint on the only highway between the bar and your house, does that mean you would happily drive home drunk and possibly cause an accident? That doesn't sound like it made the roads safer at all!

However, if you did not know if there was a checkpoint set up, then you may just decide not to risk it and take a cab anyway. Thus by not having the facts the road becomes safer.

That's not how the free market works, Nick (1)

TrentC (11023) | more than 2 years ago | (#36394756)

Why does a libertarian like Nick Gillespie want to force a market participant like Apple to carry certain types of apps in its App Store? Last time I checked, the First Amendment was about the government abridging your right to free speech.

If people want DUI checkpoint apps, they can switch to Android or some other phone platform that allows them to run the types of app they want. The market will reward or punish Apple accordingly. Isn't that how it's supposed to work?

Re:That's not how the free market works, Nick (1)

DaMattster (977781) | more than 2 years ago | (#36395026)

In ideal world, it is supposed to work this way but anyone thinking that our markets are truly free is naive. In the days of heavy emphasis on IP protection enforcement, much of the free market has disappeared. Sure, someone can come up with a device as an alternative to Apple but they risk the wrath of Apple suing for IP rights violation. Don't tell me that is a free market! Look at the law suits that happen to Google over Android. The only true way to vote with your wallet is to say, "The hell with smart phones, who needs them anyway?" If a million or more people were doing that, Apple would keel over to its consumers. But, sadly, Americans are largely apathetic, lazy, and uneducated being really only concerned with the likes of Paris Hilton, Lady Gaga, or themselves etc. Americans willingly and wontonly outsource their thinking to corporate America. After all, it's so easy to have someone else think for you. This creates a problem when you let someone with decided low intelligence or politically motivated think for you. The big name content and device manufacturers bank on this consumer mentality and are able to capitalize on it to the tunes of billions with a capital "B". I voted with my wallet, I took my iPhone, sold it, and bought an Android.

Re:That's not how the free market works, Nick (1)

Duradin (1261418) | more than 2 years ago | (#36395034)

It's for FREEEDOMMMM!!! In the name of freedom, we must force every store to carry everything, whether they want to or not, otherwise they are taking away our freedom.

Re:That's not how the free market works, Nick (2)

iSzabo (1392353) | more than 2 years ago | (#36395072)

This is true; and we can and do vote with our wallets. Griping is just fair warning.

Re:That's not how the free market works, Nick (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36395152)

Why does a libertarian like Nick Gillespie want to force a market participant like Apple to carry certain types of apps in its App Store?

Why do you think he wants to "force" them to do anything? He certainly doesn't say that. He's criticizing the decision, not saying they shouldn't be allowed to make it.

I don't get the logic (1)

akamad (1308139) | more than 2 years ago | (#36394778)

Can someone explain how knowing where the DUI checkpoints are lowers the number of drink drivers? I'm not questioning it, it's just that I don't get the logic and I haven't seen any explanation of it anywhere.

Re:I don't get the logic (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36394914)

The Assumption that if you know there are checkpoints between Bar "A" and Home "B" you would either not drink and then Drive, Drink lees then drive, or make other travel arrangements before drinking.

Re:I don't get the logic (1)

zippthorne (748122) | more than 2 years ago | (#36395064)

Presumably by reminding that there are checkpoints. A dozen tiny red dots on the map drives the point home pretty strongly.

Re:I don't get the logic (1)

akamad (1308139) | more than 2 years ago | (#36395100)

I guess that makes sense. I'd be interested to know what studies have been done on this and how they were conducted.

fuck apple (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36394868)

and all you people need to stop being suprised when apple does something scummy. it's STILL not new.

The reason the government is so scared about this- (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36394916)

- is because they plan to use checkpoints for more than just sobriety checks in the future. Say goodbye to the 4th Amendment and hello to FEMA camp abductions under the guise of anti-terrorism searches.

just make it a website (1)

tukang (1209392) | more than 2 years ago | (#36395000)

My mobile phone can already share location information via the browser. dart.org's mobile site shows you the closest bus stops, so creating a similar site that shows the closest dui checkpoints is certainly possible ... what would apple do then? ban the site from its browser?

On roads they are patrolling... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36395024)

Quote: Some police departments actually supply the data used in such apps because they reduce the number of drunk drivers on the roads!

You mean drunk drivers on the roads *they are patrolling*. There's the same number of drunk drivers either way. Actually I would argue that there are even more drunk drivers out there because they believe they can avoid being caught.

And I would much rather the drunk drivers be on the main thoroughfares where they would more likely to get caught, then to have them cut through my neighborhood in an attempt to not get caught.

Don't call them DUI checkpoints (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36395184)

Call them donut Connoisseur conventions, problem solved.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...