US Senators tell Apple and others to remove DUI checkpoint app

Want to avoid a DUI? There’s an app for that. If four United States Senators get their way, that may soon change. Democrat senators from New York, New Jersey, Nevada and New Mexico have sent a letter to Apple, RIM, and Google, requesting that the application be taken down as soon as possible. Computer World has posted a piece of the letter that states:

"Giving drunk drivers a free tool to evade checkpoints, putting innocent families and children at risk, is a matter of public concern. We hope that you will give our request to remove these applications from your store immediate consideration."

The senators appear to be targeting tools that take user-generated information on the location of red light cameras, speed traps, school zones, and DUI checkpoints and overlay that information on the map in order to warn motorists. There are many tools available that provide this type of functionality, although it appears that the group is specifically targeting PhantomALERT.

Apple controls what can and can’t be installed on their devices via their App Store, so removing access to an application is relatively straight forward: send a letter to the head of Apple's iPhone software store and see if the company pulls the application for you. The other providers have a segmented market, making it nearly impossible to stop the proliferation of tools. While some see Apple’s iron grip on the applications as a good thing for the community, cases like this can cause people to rethink the control.

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Sprint plans to appeal T-mobile takeover by AT&T

Next Story

FaceTime issues on iPad 2

126 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Let's let the government decide which apps should stay and which should go. As a matter of fact, devs should have to get permission from the government to even write apps. You know, while we're at it, let's start prosecuting anybody who speaks out against the government. It also wouldn't hurt to let them decide what we should eat and wear as well. This way, we won't have to use any judgement of our own. We can simply rely on our trustworthy government to think for us! All in favor?

No, drunk drivers do not have the same rights as every1 else, they lost them when they started to drive under the influence. Period.
And when one drives drunk or intoxicated by higher than normal alcohol levels he or she puts every1 at risk of being killed/injured, including themselves.
That alone proves that drinking alcoholic beverages makes one lose proper judgement.
And I thought most human beings have the necessary thought process [gray matter neurons] to realize this all by themselves, I guess I was wrong. ;-(

If I want to avoid a checkpoint because it's a waste of my time that should be my freedom to do so. I don't drink but if I could avoid a checkpoint it should be my freedom to choose. Do I still live in land of the free?

Actually, I think KEEPING this app in the app store would help the drunk driving problem. Keep the app, and make sure it shows DUI checkpoints EVERYWHERE. Maybe this app could convince the bar fly scum to take a damn cab home. Oh wait, people are going to drink and drive regardless this app getting pulled. If anything I truly believe this app would actually keep atleast a few people from driving ther autos after an evening of heavy libation. Really, am I the only person to make this point? Guess everybody else was too busy wadding up their panties on the whole "omg your drunk driving kill babies crash into a daycare lolz" argument

The average alcoholic is too poor to even own an iPhone lol!

As for speed cameras, I would like to know where they are just so I can be damn sure I won't be speeding when I pass through them. I don't speed anyway but I do notice from time to time I catch myself going 6-7mph over limit(35+). If I can avoid a ticket I would do so.

Joshua Lee said,
know whats cool about Australia? You can drink in a car as long as your not driving. Cant do that in the U.S.

Where do people come up with this nonsense.

If you're going to state something about another country's laws, why don't you consider actually looking them up first.

Most states in the USA allow passengers to consume alcohol while the car is being operated. Hell, some states have drive up package stores that serve open mixed drinks through the drive through window.

Do you have drive through windows in Australia that serve Margaritas?

bladebarrier said,

Where do people come up with this nonsense.

If you're going to state something about another country's laws, why don't you consider actually looking them up first.

Most states in the USA allow passengers to consume alcohol while the car is being operated. Hell, some states have drive up package stores that serve open mixed drinks through the drive through window.

Do you have drive through windows in Australia that serve Margaritas?

NC has a no open container law, which in my opinion sucks, because I always have a DD and like to get some what tipsy before going to the club to not have to spend outrageous prices on drinks. As for that drive through windows that server Margaritas, are you talking about Louisiana?

Joshua Lee said,
know whats cool about Australia? You can drink in a car as long as your not driving. Cant do that in the U.S.

Well not quite. Perhaps in your state that's legal. Here in QLD, if you are pulled over, with an open bottle of alcohol. You're done driving for the night. Of course, you'd probably have to get a cop on a bad night to worry about it, but still, that's the law.

I know many of my friends who have been done for having open alcohol.

Well I am originally from California and there is a no open container law, so i was pretty excited when my wife first asked me if I wanted to take a beer for the road. As far as a margarita over here, you got to be kidding, Old El Paso is about as much Mexican I have seen around here.

Has anyone mentioned the fact that you have to have a degree of alertness in order to use this app in the first place?

I think if you're so drunk you're a risk, you probably aren't able to utilize this kind of software.

At any rate, I'm genuinely surprised how many people here in these comments--community sites being breeding grounds for internet libertarians and all--don't seem like they'd have a problem if it was just up and made illegal to tell someone a bunch of cops are stopping people down the street.

See a cop? Shut your mouth, or see him again real soon! --what a lot of y'all are awful cool with

So who is greasing the palm of these senators to have this app removed? Amazing, we can fight for a silly app but can't get a REAL investigation to 9/11. Money Talks

slip400 said,
So who is greasing the palm of these senators to have this app removed? Amazing, we can fight for a silly app but can't get a REAL investigation to 9/11. Money Talks

Start investigating. Comparing an app to a real "investigation" to 9/11 isn't even close to each other. Plus, what's there to investigate? People flew a plane into 2 tall buildings, The End.

Btw, I just downloaded PhantomAlert on my iPhone. If it gets blocked from Apple, then I'm sure it'll be put in Cydia.

It's amazing. You can see the drink drivers on Neowin. The very ones who think it's a travesty that this app is even being considered for removal.

I just can't believe anyone would be for this app. A Random Roadside Breath Test takes about 10 seconds of your time. If you're not drunk, then you have nothing to worry about.

If you are drunk, then you deserve to be arrested.

These tools should NOT be allowed to encourage more young people (anyone for that matter) to drink and drive. As I said above. They never seem to kill themselves in the carnage they cause, it's always the innocent person they hit, and that persons family, who have to suffer the consequences of some other brainless idiot deciding to drive while intoxicated.

Anyone who thinks DUI is alright, even sometimes, even once, you should be ashamed of yourselves.

Nashy said,
It's amazing. You can see the drink drivers on Neowin. The very ones who think it's a travesty that this app is even being considered for removal.

I just can't believe anyone would be for this app. A Random Roadside Breath Test takes about 10 seconds of your time. If you're not drunk, then you have nothing to worry about.

I am not an advocate of drinking and driving. I am an advocate for your constitutional rights. Just because I disagree with you, or anyone else, on this matter does not make me a criminal who is guilty of driving while intoxicated.
This guy was detained ..... http://censorshipinamerica.com/category/fourth-amendment/ .... for paying a toll booth with a $100 bill. Where was the probable cause in this case. Where is the probable cause in detaining anyone to blow into a Breathalyzer even if it was for 10 seconds. There is absolutely no probable cause to pull someone over just because they are number 13 in the list. Or because they have a green car or are hispanic or for any other reason other than a probable cause of some crime.

themousepad said,

I am not an advocate of drinking and driving. I am an advocate for your constitutional rights. Just because I disagree with you, or anyone else, on this matter does not make me a criminal who is guilty of driving while intoxicated.
This guy was detained ..... http://censorshipinamerica.com/category/fourth-amendment/ .... for paying a toll booth with a $100 bill. Where was the probable cause in this case. Where is the probable cause in detaining anyone to blow into a Breathalyzer even if it was for 10 seconds. There is absolutely no probable cause to pull someone over just because they are number 13 in the list. Or because they have a green car or are hispanic or for any other reason other than a probable cause of some crime.

Blah Blah Blah. I couldn't care less about the United States constitution. I don't live there. But This has NOTHING to do with your examples.

You're saying people should be allowed to drink drive and get away with it, by looking at an app which tells them where not to go.

Nashy said,

Blah Blah Blah. I couldn't care less about the United States constitution. I don't live there. But This has NOTHING to do with your examples.

You're saying people should be allowed to drink drive and get away with it, by looking at an app which tells them where not to go.

Then if you dont live here and it doesnt affect you, so why argue and defend your stance against a request by US senators that have nothing to do with you. Your point is made ... you are against drunk driving, as am I. I am also against crooked cops and making up laws that infringe on your personal liberty. Next you will tell us all its ok for the local authorities to censure the internet just because some one out-there somewhere ( in my country or yours ) is using it to research illegal firearms or questionable, unpopular beliefs. Or that its alright for those same police officers to randomly pull you and all guests out of hotel rooms because they are checking to see if you are a foreigner in our country and have the proper identification to prove you are here legally.
Just because you are interested in something on the net or driving down the street or visiting the U.S. doesn't make it right for those who protect and serve to violate your personal freedoms.
Or perhaps you have no personal freedoms where you come from, I don't know.
But here in the UNITED STATES we USED to have them.
And my examples have everything to do with the loss of freedom under the 4th amendment.
This REQUEST by US SENATORS has nothing to do with you or infringe upon YOUR freedoms where you live. But it does here. Perhaps you have a skewed perspective on it.

themousepad said,

Then if you dont live here and it doesnt affect you, so why argue and defend your stance against a request by US senators that have nothing to do with you. Your point is made ... you are against drunk driving, as am I. I am also against crooked cops and making up laws that infringe on your personal liberty. Next you will tell us all its ok for the local authorities to censure the internet just because some one out-there somewhere ( in my country or yours ) is using it to research illegal firearms or questionable, unpopular beliefs. Or that its alright for those same police officers to randomly pull you and all guests out of hotel rooms because they are checking to see if you are a foreigner in our country and have the proper identification to prove you are here legally.
Just because you are interested in something on the net or driving down the street or visiting the U.S. doesn't make it right for those who protect and serve to violate your personal freedoms.
Or perhaps you have no personal freedoms where you come from, I don't know.
But here in the UNITED STATES we USED to have them.
And my examples have everything to do with the loss of freedom under the 4th amendment.
This REQUEST by US SENATORS has nothing to do with you or infringe upon YOUR freedoms where you live. But it does here. Perhaps you have a skewed perspective on it.

You're right. But this app does infringe on MY safety, and the safety of MY friends. Hence my stance against this app. I don't care about the laws, I don't care that your senators are calling for it to be removed. I'm simply arguing that this app is a bad idea, and is aiding people in committing, in my opinion, the worst traffic violation in the world. Drink Driving.

I am all for free speech, but NOT when it puts the public in danger.

Here is what I would do about this problem.

1.) Fine Companies, Like Apple For Allowing This Crap In The First Place, They Know Better..

A.) If I Could Prove Such Individuals At The Company Had Malicious Indent For Allowing Such An App (Like Getting Paid To Allow, Some Sort Of Stake), I would Prosecute Them Criminally

2.) Would Make Developing And/Or Disrupting Such A Thing A Class G Felony (That's A Max Of 10 Years, I Feel That Fits The Crime, At Least For First Offenders)

3.) Would Make! The Companies Remove Said Apps ASAP

4.) Would Arrest Developers Of Apps For Endangerment Of Public Well Being

Something like that.

Muahahaha I already have it, and it is backed up as well. But for it to be any use I would have to start drinking again.... That is not happening, too expensive.

Evn. says: " I have a right to privacy, to not be hassled by the government, and to generally be left alone. "
I say : Not on a public highway.

BavonWW said,
Evn. says: " I have a right to privacy, to not be hassled by the government, and to generally be left alone. "
I say : Not on a public highway.

How about your own house, built connected to public roadways and public utilities?

its amazing our government can perform a check and infringe on your constitutional rights. Put up a check point and illegally detain you with out probable cause. They can use technology to send you speeding tickets, parking tickets or track you with gps all in the name of safety for the public, when the public is the one losing their safety and well being to uncle sam or other agencies. Yet those same Govt agencies cry foul when we choose to use the same technology to avoid the constitutionally illegal activities that are forced upon us to begin with.
Local municipalities, and states pass ordinances to their laws that consistently infringe upon the us constitution and like lemmings to the cliff we all accept it.
Probable cause, illegal detention, illegal search and seizure just to start. In fact there is much case law referring to illegal detention and illegal search and seizure available if you just take a look on the net. Yet... our courts constantly allow this exact activity to continue. Why ??? money, greed, power.
Having technology, information and knowledge is a good thing. It helps keep those in power honest. ....

themousepad said,
its amazing our government can perform a check and infringe on your constitutional rights. Put up a check point and illegally detain you with out probable cause. They can use technology to send you speeding tickets, parking tickets or track you with gps all in the name of safety for the public, when the public is the one losing their safety and well being to uncle sam or other agencies. Yet those same Govt agencies cry foul when we choose to use the same technology to avoid the constitutionally illegal activities that are forced upon us to begin with.
Local municipalities, and states pass ordinances to their laws that consistently infringe upon the us constitution and like lemmings to the cliff we all accept it.
Probable cause, illegal detention, illegal search and seizure just to start. In fact there is much case law referring to illegal detention and illegal search and seizure available if you just take a look on the net. Yet... our courts constantly allow this exact activity to continue. Why ??? money, greed, power.
Having technology, information and knowledge is a good thing. It helps keep those in power honest. ....

This doesn't violate the constitution and lemmings don't really walk off of things all that much.

oops sorry for the incorrect use of reply button

omnicoder said,

This doesn't violate the constitution and lemmings don't really walk off of things all that much.

I never said the app being requested for removal was a constitutional infringement. The request to remove the app is just that ... a request. If the govt REQUIRES apple to remove the app or for you as a consumer to remove it from your device it THEN becomes a constitutional violation under the 4th amendment. Just as police setting up illegal check points to determine if you have been drinking, or if you have your green card. ( I am not for the criminal in anyway but it works both ways. The police, FBI, CIA, Court system or anyone else that stop you to check and see if you are obeying the law is breaking the 4th amendment. The portion it breaks....Illegal search and seizure without a court order due to the lack of probable cause. Therefor breaking the 4th amendment again through due process. AND since there is no probable cause to pull you over you are also being illegally detained. Illegally detained does not mean you have been hauled off to jail. It means you are detained against your will or fear of being arrested for not stopping at one of the check points.
It isnt just dui, seat belt or traffic issues either.... How about being detained because you pay a toll at a toll booth with a $20, $50, or $100 bill...
http://censorshipinamerica.com/category/fourth-amendment/

As far as lemmings off a cliff I think most readers understand it as a metaphor and not a literal statement.

You are correct and incorrect as far as whether it violates the constitution. Up until ( i believe ... and I need to research it a bit more ) 1990 it was unconstitutional ...
DELAWARE v. PROUSE, 440 U.S. 648 (1979)
http://www.roadblock.org/federal/caseUSprouse.htm

In 1990, or there abouts, the following took place... a stripping of our constitutional rights.
http://www.roadblock.org/federal/caseUSprouse.htm

Somewhere around 1990 it was determined not to be unconstitutional IF CERTAIN rules were followed.
Such as.
A notification to potential motorists of a spot check be in place.
An alternative route that allows motorists to by pass the spot check.
A check of drivers license and registration.

So as I stated earlier... we the citizens of the United States are losing more and more of our constitutional freedoms on a daily basis.

The Issue is not just the request to have an app removed from an app store or device. It is also about the constitutionality of such REQUIREMENT.

families and children!!! The do anything for the families and children!!. Give me a break. If they start bitching with this, then no one can stop them to make this a dictatorship. All in the name of the children. I wonder if the NATO will invade USA like in Libya, to save us from a tyranny like this.

Depending on where you are, there are signs set up ahead. You are allowed to turn around if I remember correctly. It's a quick thing though. Stop, say hello, and thats it.

Dane said,
Depending on where you are, there are signs set up ahead. You are allowed to turn around if I remember correctly. It's a quick thing though. Stop, say hello, and thats it.

If that is the case then it makes even less sense to oppose this app.

You're either so drunk you can't read signs (and likely too drunk to read or comprehend the results given to you by it.)

Or slightly over the limit but believe you are within it and wouldn't bother using it.

Sure, avoid speed cameras. Avoid radar traps. Avoid roadworks and avoid traffic. But drink driving is the most unforgivable thing anyone can do.

Too many young people now days think they can get away with it, and when they don't, they complain, and try and get sympathy. Too bad. I hate drink drivers. They don't kill themselves, they kill innocent people.

Nashy said,
Sure, avoid speed cameras. Avoid radar traps. Avoid roadworks and avoid traffic. But drink driving is the most unforgivable thing anyone can do.

Too many young people now days think they can get away with it, and when they don't, they complain, and try and get sympathy. Too bad. I hate drink drivers. They don't kill themselves, they kill innocent people.

Agreed. The inconvenience of being delayed when you are not in the wrong pales in comparison to the inconvenience of being killed by a drunk driver.

This is some bull****. Removing apps because we disagree with them? What's next, removing articles from blogs we don't like?

Oh Constitution how I miss you.

stormlifter said,
This is some bull****. Removing apps because we disagree with them? What's next, removing articles from blogs we don't like?

Oh Constitution how I miss you.


We don't like your comment. Neowin, please remove it.

I don't see any issue with the app... I like to avoid checkpoints when I'm not drinking just cause they take up alot of time and give the police too much reason to be dcks.

To think that someone is sober enough to check points where they will not be pulled over is a frightening thought.

What's next ?

owaun said,
To think that someone is sober enough to check points where they will not be pulled over is a frightening thought.

What's next ?

That would make him pass the sobriety test though wouldn't it? So that is why this is so stupid. If you can open an app and be able to follow the picture that is the same as sighting the alphabet backwards or standing on the curb with one foot. I am drunk 24/7/365 since for the god I can't do that. I can't say the alphabet backwards. I just refuse to be backwards. I refuse to go backwards.

some moron will use the app to avoid a DUI and end up killing somone...and then sue Apple for telling him to drive a different route.

jwjw1 said,
some moron will use the app to avoid a DUI and end up killing somone...and then sue Apple for telling him to drive a different route.

And the judge will throw it out immediately for all the reasons listen above.

Given the pattern of similar pandering hypocrisies, I expect any or all of these senators to be pulled over for DUI in the next 10 years...if they haven't already.

Wouldn't this app fall under?

Aiding and Abetting/Accessory

A criminal charge of aiding and abetting or accessory can usually be brought against anyone who helps in the commission of a crime, though legal distinctions vary by state. A person charged with aiding and abetting or accessory is usually not present when the crime itself is committed, but he or she has knowledge of the crime before or after the fact, and may assist in its commission through advice, actions, or financial support. Depending on the degree of involvement, the offender's participation in the crime may rise to the level of conspiracy.

master_viper said,
Wouldn't this app fall under?

Aiding and Abetting/Accessory

A criminal charge of aiding and abetting or accessory can usually be brought against anyone who helps in the commission of a crime, though legal distinctions vary by state. A person charged with aiding and abetting or accessory is usually not present when the crime itself is committed, but he or she has knowledge of the crime before or after the fact, and may assist in its commission through advice, actions, or financial support. Depending on the degree of involvement, the offender's participation in the crime may rise to the level of conspiracy.

That's an intentional crime, so no it would not. It's like charging a gun store owner with the crime commited by the customer.

bankajac said,

That's an intentional crime, so no it would not. It's like charging a gun store owner with the crime commited by the customer.

Exactly.

The "knowledge of the crime before" is the important aspect here. They have no idea whether the vehicle owner is drunk or intends to drive, so I can't see this as being "aiding and abetting."

master_viper said,
Wouldn't this app fall under?

Aiding and Abetting/Accessory

A criminal charge of aiding and abetting or accessory can usually be brought against anyone who helps in the commission of a crime, though legal distinctions vary by state. A person charged with aiding and abetting or accessory is usually not present when the crime itself is committed, but he or she has knowledge of the crime before or after the fact, and may assist in its commission through advice, actions, or financial support. Depending on the degree of involvement, the offender's participation in the crime may rise to the level of conspiracy.

With this kind of reasoning you could charge microsoft! Could you not? Their operating system aids frodsters around the world by being insecure. It also contains time logic bombs. If you upgrade your video card it says that your software is pirated and you need to buy a new license. You upgrade your cpu it does the same. You upgrade the memory it does the same.

Wouldn't this be under?

Aiding and Abetting/Accessory
A criminal charge of aiding and abetting or accessory can usually be brought against anyone who helps in the commission of a crime, though legal distinctions vary by state. A person charged with aiding and abetting or accessory is usually not present when the crime itself is committed, but he or she has knowledge of the crime before or after the fact, and may assist in its commission through advice, actions, or financial support. Depending on the degree of involvement, the offender's participation in the crime may rise to the level of conspiracy.

are they allowed to do checkpoints on private property? Last summer the state police where doing it in a local walmart parking lot basically, the road that went from the lot to the highway they where set up stopping everyone leaving the plaza... sure the road has a name, but its private property until the point it turns into a state road, there was a line waiting to get out about 200 cars long it was horrible and that is the only way out of the lot

What if your not drunk and just want to avoid the checkpoint because you have a body in the trunk? Won't anyone think of the murders?!

Xero said,
What if your not drunk and just want to avoid the checkpoint because you have a body in the trunk? Won't anyone think of the murders?!

lmao!

Xero said,
What if your not drunk and just want to avoid the checkpoint because you have a body in the trunk? Won't anyone think of the murders?!

Yep good point. You should be able to buried the body in peace without being freaked out by police checkpoints. There is an app for that! hehehehe....

There is a big difference between the words "tell" and "request" in regards to the news title.
Tell implies censorship demands by pulling rank while request would more accurately reflect what's actually happening here.

DUI Check points should be Illegal imo!!! All they do is slow down the already slow traffic and give the police authority to check for other things besides DUI! NATZI Germany: "Papers please..." Welcome to socialism!

Ravensky said,
DUI Check points should be Illegal imo!!! All they do is slow down the already slow traffic and give the police authority to check for other things besides DUI! NATZI Germany: "Papers please..." Welcome to socialism!

yeah here the first thing they ask for is license and registration, honestly I think they shouldn't be allowed to ask for that unless they find you breaking a law.... not every freaking person at a checkpoint

Ravensky said,
DUI Check points should be Illegal imo!!! All they do is slow down the already slow traffic and give the police authority to check for other things besides DUI! NATZI Germany: "Papers please..." Welcome to socialism!

The National Socialist party of Germany was NOT socialist, despite the name. If anything, it was a fascist totalitarian regime. Economic policy regarding redistribution of wealth has very little to do with issues of privacy and social liberalism.

I suppose little details like that don't matter when you're not a fan of history or facts -- or are you just another conservative scaremonger who enjoys needlessly throwing around the phrase 'socialism' as if it were a naughty word?

I don't think the time delay that sober drivers will face is a big deal compared to the ability for irresponsible drivers to get away with driving drunk etc is a great deal.

I think the app should be pulled. And I believe that speed camera apps (Tom Tom has the facility too) should not exist. If you're hiding from speed cameras or trying to bypass them, you're going to be speeding. And if you're speeding, you can and will very possibly cause someone a great deal of pain depending on the outcome of your actions.

Spirit Dave said,
you can and will very possibly cause someone a great deal of pain depending on the outcome of your actions.

I would like to cause you a great deal of pain because of your overbearing attitude towards safety.

dotf said,

I would like to cause you a great deal of pain because of your overbearing attitude towards safety.

Oh dear. You're being silly now.

Spirit Dave said,
I don't think the time delay that sober drivers will face is a big deal compared to the ability for irresponsible drivers to get away with driving drunk etc is a great deal.

I think the app should be pulled. And I believe that speed camera apps (Tom Tom has the facility too) should not exist. If you're hiding from speed cameras or trying to bypass them, you're going to be speeding. And if you're speeding, you can and will very possibly cause someone a great deal of pain depending on the outcome of your actions.

Those who would give up liberty to obtain security will receive neither.

Some cops just camp out in one spot and pull over anybody going over the speed limit. No matter how much to meet their quota. Its complete bull****.

Spirit Dave said,
I don't think the time delay that sober drivers will face is a big deal compared to the ability for irresponsible drivers to get away with driving drunk etc is a great deal.

I think the app should be pulled. And I believe that speed camera apps (Tom Tom has the facility too) should not exist. If you're hiding from speed cameras or trying to bypass them, you're going to be speeding. And if you're speeding, you can and will very possibly cause someone a great deal of pain depending on the outcome of your actions.

Yep its no big deal unless that delay puts your wife in the path of another drunk driver. How would you like to find out that your wife went through a checkpoint and got delayed 5 minutes and than died in a car crash cuz that just happen to delay her and match her perfectly with a drunk driver. That would be great ha and not a big deal. I mean you wanted a divorce anyway since you like the neighbor with the bigger breakfast table.

Right, because someone who is so hammered and smashed will usually remember to not only pull out their phone and launch the app, but manage to make coherent sense of it and which streets to take to avoid the checkpoints.

The theory behind the idea is great to SOBER people. Have you ever been driving, completely sober, and accidentally run into a DUI checkpoint? When you do, you're stuck waiting there as they inspect each and every car, question the drivers, and search their cars. Oh, and guess what? Once you realize it's a checkpoint, you can't turn around. Doing so will result in a police officer chasing you down in his car and vigorously questioning, testing, and searching you under the suspicion that you fled because you were drunk or high.

The whole DUI checkpoint system should be illegal. Why is it a cop has to have a reason based on reasonable suspicion to pull you over on the road, but then is allowed to turn around, set up a road block, interrogate every single driver without probable cause, and chase down anyone who wants to avoid 30 - 60 minutes of waiting in line? If you support checkpoints, I hope you support warrentless searches of your house as well.

hevidac said,
Right, because someone who is so hammered and smashed will usually remember to not only pull out their phone and launch the app, but manage to make coherent sense of it and which streets to take to avoid the checkpoints.

The theory behind the idea is great to SOBER people. Have you ever been driving, completely sober, and accidentally run into a DUI checkpoint? When you do, you're stuck waiting there as they inspect each and every car, question the drivers, and search their cars. Oh, and guess what? Once you realize it's a checkpoint, you can't turn around. Doing so will result in a police officer chasing you down in his car and vigorously questioning, testing, and searching you under the suspecian that you fled because you were drunk or high.

The whole DUI checkpoint system should be illegal. Why is it a cop has to have a reason based on reasonable suspicion to pull you over on the road, but then is allowed to turn around, set up a road block, interrogate every single driver without probable cause, and chase down anyone who wants to avoid an 30 - 60 minutes waiting in line? If you support checkpoints, I hope you support warrentless searches of your house as well.

I agree 100%.

hevidac said,
If you support checkpoints, I hope you support warrentless searches of your house as well.

I hear your point ... but feel that it's not strong enough. Support them or not, this isn't about supporting them. It's about an app that tells people if there's one there. Don't like the checkpoints? Campaign against them. The app and the checkpoints are related, but not directly connected.

hevidac said,
Right, because someone who is so hammered and smashed will usually remember to not only pull out their phone and launch the app, but manage to make coherent sense of it and which streets to take to avoid the checkpoints.

The theory behind the idea is great to SOBER people. Have you ever been driving, completely sober, and accidentally run into a DUI checkpoint? When you do, you're stuck waiting there as they inspect each and every car, question the drivers, and search their cars. Oh, and guess what? Once you realize it's a checkpoint, you can't turn around. Doing so will result in a police officer chasing you down in his car and vigorously questioning, testing, and searching you under the suspicion that you fled because you were drunk or high.

The whole DUI checkpoint system should be illegal. Why is it a cop has to have a reason based on reasonable suspicion to pull you over on the road, but then is allowed to turn around, set up a road block, interrogate every single driver without probable cause, and chase down anyone who wants to avoid 30 - 60 minutes of waiting in line? If you support checkpoints, I hope you support warrentless searches of your house as well.

Exactly. Most often these are pure revenue generation anyways. Look through the news reports after one of these is run. They ring up a ******** of minor violations (because there are so many rules almost *everyone* is violating one), and rack up a ton of fine money from it.

The government, by the 4th amendment, has no right to be pulling over people with no suspicion of doing anything wrong.

hevidac said,
Right, because someone who is so hammered and smashed will usually remember to not only pull out their phone and launch the app, but manage to make coherent sense of it and which streets to take to avoid the checkpoints.

The theory behind the idea is great to SOBER people. Have you ever been driving, completely sober, and accidentally run into a DUI checkpoint? When you do, you're stuck waiting there as they inspect each and every car, question the drivers, and search their cars. Oh, and guess what? Once you realize it's a checkpoint, you can't turn around. Doing so will result in a police officer chasing you down in his car and vigorously questioning, testing, and searching you under the suspicion that you fled because you were drunk or high.

The whole DUI checkpoint system should be illegal. Why is it a cop has to have a reason based on reasonable suspicion to pull you over on the road, but then is allowed to turn around, set up a road block, interrogate every single driver without probable cause, and chase down anyone who wants to avoid 30 - 60 minutes of waiting in line? If you support checkpoints, I hope you support warrentless searches of your house as well.

Yep good point. Now you notice how stupid this senators request is. I know when I drive drunk I can work a cell phone while eating my sandwich and hold the dog and the stir wheel at the same time while yelling at my wife to shut the F*** up cuz i am not lost. I know the way to the next bar. There is an app for that!

thatguyandrew1992 said,
I think it should stay. If they can take down one app, they will take any app down that they don't like.

It's not about 'not liking' it ... it's about the possible danger to life. Sorry but in this case, I agree with taking it down.

dotf said,

And that's why our children are growing up fat and lazy in a bubble-wrapped world.

This has nothing to do with fat and lazy children.

dotf said,

And that's why our children are growing up fat and lazy in a bubble-wrapped world.

No, our children grow up fat and lazy because they think they can say/do/eat/drink whatever they want without consequences.

Seems like the app is more for speed traps etc. A practice in the uk that is quite common. Speed cameras are a much debated topic in the uk as their often set up on fast safe motorways to moo cash out of motorists and rarely near schools and unsafe roads.

Their just playing on the "Drink Driving Avoidance" on order to win the "Oh Noeeeeeees" sympathy vote from the public.

This is pretty stupid anyway, it is federal regulation that DUI checkpoints be setup a specific way.

Some of that details proper sign-age so may feet before the entrance to the check point. And also there must be an alternate route that the person can take prior passing the signs, like a side street etc. So you are not forced into driving through it.

So next time you approach one, you should notice a sign like 250 feet before, and right before that sign you should be able to make a left or right to divert around the DUI checkpoint if you so choose. Yea it's a bit weird, but thats how it is mandated.

xendrome said,
This is pretty stupid anyway, it is federal regulation that DUI checkpoints be setup a specific way.

Do you have a link to this? Because of constitutional issues and legal rulings, not all states conduct sobriety checkpoints.

master_viper said,

Do you have a link to this? Because of constitutional issues and legal rulings, not all states conduct sobriety checkpoints.

I don't know about federal regs, but I know the local regulations here say that. Also that turning around or using the alternate route is no reason to pull someone over. It's pretty strict on what the police can/cannot do, here at least. Not to mention the arrest rate at dui checkpoints is pathetically low to begin with. It's far more effective for the police to do saturation patrols. I bet there are a lot of sober drivers that are using the app for cameras/speed traps and why not just avoid the whole hassle of a dui checkpoint as well? I know I would.

master_viper said,

Do you have a link to this? Because of constitutional issues and legal rulings, not all states conduct sobriety checkpoints.

You know I actually can't find the guidelines, but that also rang a bell. I think the states control the guidelines, and put it on file with the feds. If it meets specific fed rules/guidelines the state can qualify for extra funding, so they will place their guidelines on file with the feds. So as shinoo said above, check your state's laws on the DUI checkpoint guidelines. They are typically very strict.

The thought process is, eliminate anything that could come up in court which would cause the state to lose a conviction and waste tax-payers dollars. Typical drunk drivers don't even notice the sign since they are so drunk so they just drive right up to it thinking it's an accident or something.

master_viper said,

Do you have a link to this? Because of constitutional issues and legal rulings, not all states conduct sobriety checkpoints.

Yeah, the 4th Amendment of the US Constitution.

xendrome said,
This is pretty stupid anyway, it is federal regulation that DUI checkpoints be setup a specific way.

Some of that details proper sign-age so may feet before the entrance to the check point. And also there must be an alternate route that the person can take prior passing the signs, like a side street etc. So you are not forced into driving through it.

So next time you approach one, you should notice a sign like 250 feet before, and right before that sign you should be able to make a left or right to divert around the DUI checkpoint if you so choose. Yea it's a bit weird, but thats how it is mandated.

around here if you go an alternate route when you see them, they have a cop trail you... which sucks in itself.... they have them waiting for it......

abysal said,
I agree regarding the DUI portion of the App, however freedom of speech trumps that.

Freedom of speech does *not* mean you can say whatever you want.

Aethec said,

Freedom of speech does *not* mean you can say whatever you want.

+1

Freedom of speech, but that does not mean you are free of any consequences.

abysal said,
I agree regarding the DUI portion of the App, however freedom of speech trumps that.

Freedom of speech is not relevant unless this becomes a law. They can ask all they want, it is up to Apple, Google and RIM if they want to do it. Senators ask me for money all the time, doesn't mean I have to give it to them :-)

sphbecker said,
Senators ask me for money all the time, doesn't mean I have to give it to them :-)

Right, leave that to the corporations, they will run your country soon enough.

Aethec said,

Freedom of speech does *not* mean you can say whatever you want.

Yes it does. And you cannot be prosecuted for that. However, as the poster above said, it doesn't mean there are no consequences. Threatening someone's life, for example, is a crime unto itself. Though you can't be prosecuted for the speech itself, you can for the threat, if there is sufficient evidence of intent to carry through.

enocheed said,

Freedom of speech? The app talks?

I'll assume you are being inappropriately facetious rather than profoundly ignorant...

The dev/s of this app should be smacked up the side their head, what would they think if someone had their app, was DWI hitting and killing one of their loved ones?

master_viper said,
The dev/s of this app should be smacked up the side their head, what would they think if someone had their app, was DWI hitting and killing one of their loved ones?

My guess is that they would agree that this drunk should get the book through at them. It's not the information that's the problem. It's people drinking and driving. Blame the criminal.

master_viper said,
The dev/s of this app should be smacked up the side their head, what would they think if someone had their app, was DWI hitting and killing one of their loved ones?

I wonder if someone who hit someone that avoided a checkpoint because of the app, could be charged with aiding the driver or sued by a parent or family?

hagjohn said,

I wonder if someone who hit someone that avoided a checkpoint because of the app, could be charged with aiding the driver or sued by a parent or family?

No.

Freedom of speech? I mean I'm all for removing the app as drunk drivers should be put in jail for being so retarded, but these senators need to focus on the future and mandate new (and eventually old?) cars are equipped with sensors for drunk drivers.

Elessar said,
Freedom of speech? I mean I'm all for removing the app as drunk drivers should be put in jail for being so retarded, but these senators need to focus on the future and mandate new (and eventually old?) cars are equipped with sensors for drunk drivers.

Freedom of speech has nothing to do with aiding drunks to avoid check points.

master_viper said,

Freedom of speech has nothing to do with aiding drunks to avoid check points.


Yes it does. The application itself and its users are not doing anything illegal by law. This is guilt by association. While yes I am willing to bet a large population uses it to drive drunk, not all of them are, nor is the application breaking any laws. It's the same thing as with torrents. Apply your same ****ty logic to torrents and you see your argument break down. Just because there is a medium that can be used break laws does not mean it itself is illegal in any manner. This is absolutely a case of freedom violation.

Elessar said,
Freedom of speech? I mean I'm all for removing the app as drunk drivers should be put in jail for being so retarded, but these senators need to focus on the future and mandate new (and eventually old?) cars are equipped with sensors for drunk drivers.

If they passed a law against this app I think that would be unconstitutional, but this was nothing more than a written request. If Apple ignores the request they have done nothing but make a little ill will among those 4 senators.

OuchOfDeath said,

Yes it does. The application itself and its users are not doing anything illegal by law. This is guilt by association. While yes I am willing to bet a large population uses it to drive drunk, not all of them are, nor is the application breaking any laws. It's the same thing as with torrents. Apply your same ****ty logic to torrents and you see your argument break down. Just because there is a medium that can be used break laws does not mean it itself is illegal in any manner. This is absolutely a case of freedom violation.

Please tell us why someone would use this kind of app without being drunk?

Aethec said,

Please tell us why someone would use this kind of app without being drunk?

I get off work at 12:30 AM, and work weekends, this app would help me avoid those illegal "checkpoints" when all I want to do is go home and go to bed

Aethec said,

Please tell us why someone would use this kind of app without being drunk?

In the summer I drive my motorcycle home from either my girlfriends house, or from the race track after dark. I don't want to find waring black leather at 2 AM standing in a street the police think are frequented by drunks: being a stationary target for people in 6 ton SUVs isn't how I plan to keep myself alive.

From a purely self-interested point of view: It's horrible on hot evenings after track day where you've got 30 pounds of sweat drenched leather sticking to you to be forced to stand around sucking in exhaust. In fall/spring where night time temperatures can drop to freezing which makes the situation more dangerous (hemets take a while to acclimatize to the temperature, 20 minutes at a check stop means I'm concerned about fogging for the next 10-minutes) and it's bloody cold.

Lastly, if I'm not accused of a crime nor the victim thereof then I don't particularly feel like spending my time chatting with the police. I have a right to privacy, to not be hassled by the government, and to generally be left alone. I might agree with the states opinion that some impingement of personal freedom is acceptable for some greater good but that doesn't mean I'm not allowed to minimize my exposure to it.

In the city I live roadside checks, speed traps, and photo radar are announced by the police and locations are reported on the radio. Apparently they think that people are more likely to plan not to drink & drive if they know that checkstops are happening and that knowledge of enforcement somewhere increases the likelihood that people will drive responsibly everywhere.

sphbecker said,

If they passed a law against this app I think that would be unconstitutional, but this was nothing more than a written request. If Apple ignores the request they have done nothing but make a little ill will among those 4 senators.

And Apple, and everyone else, should ignore this obnoxious, unconstitutional, and far overreaching request.

While I despise drunk drivers in the worst possible way, I will defend EVERYONE'S constitutional right to free speech and free information, even if I despise the content and/or presenter.

And so should ALL of you.

z0phi3l said,
I get off work at 12:30 AM, and work weekends, this app would help me avoid those illegal "checkpoints" when all I want to do is go home and go to bed

Yeah, right. Because you are more important than the safety of people who might get in an accident because of a drunk driver *facepalm*

master_viper said,
OuchOfDeath said
Freedom of speech does not mean you can say or do whatever you want.

That is correct. It does not. There are laws in place for various reasons, and this doesn't break any of them. The general gist of freedom is it gives you the right to say or do whatever you like as long as it does not hurt anyone else directly. This application is simply information. What anyone choses to do with that information is entirely up to them. The information itself is not illegal, therefore there are no legal, or frankly moral reasons to have the app removed. There are thousands of guides out there on how to produce lethal substances. We don't ban those. They are simply information. There are guides out there on how to produce explosives, how to efficiently kill people with knifes or guns, and we don't ban those either. It's just information, and it's entirely up to the individual to make use of the information for legal or illegal purposes.

Frankly I'm really discouraged by how many people have zero knowledge on what constitutes fundamental freedom and free speech, and even further discouraged how quick people are to have something banned the moment any sort of possible malicious activity from it arises. This is not how a free society functions. People do not get to chose what they get to ban based on their bull**** SAVE THE CHILDREN gut sensations.

Edited by OuchOfDeath, Mar 23 2011, 8:54pm :

excalpius said,

And Apple, and everyone else, should ignore this obnoxious, unconstitutional, and far overreaching request.

While I despise drunk drivers in the worst possible way, I will defend EVERYONE'S constitutional right to free speech and free information, even if I despise the content and/or presenter.

And so should ALL of you.

Amazing how quickly people will play the unconstitutional card these days...

They are not passing a bill to ban the app. This letter is no more unconstitutional than the app existing in the first place. It's just a few senators asking for the app to be taken away.

z0phi3l said,

I get off work at 12:30 AM, and work weekends, this app would help me avoid those illegal "checkpoints" when all I want to do is go home and go to bed

since when are Police Checkpoints Illegal????

personally I thought it would have been better for this app to actually guide drunk/drugged drivers right into police checkpoints thereby getting them caught and off the road (wouldn't that be great)

sphbecker said,

If they passed a law against this app I think that would be unconstitutional, but this was nothing more than a written request. If Apple ignores the request they have done nothing but make a little ill will among those 4 senators.

Yes, but isn't there about a 1% chance of Apple not removing it?

z0phi3l said,

I get off work at 12:30 AM, and work weekends, this app would help me avoid those illegal "checkpoints" when all I want to do is go home and go to bed

Checkpoints are not illegal in the least!!

What do you have to hide that you need to avoid them? Perhaps you would be better of sitting in a jail cell right now.

war said,
Checkpoints are not illegal in the least!!

What do you have to hide that you need to avoid them? Perhaps you would be better of sitting in a jail cell right now.

He wants to avoid them so police don't harass him for doing nothing whatsoever wrong.

OuchOfDeath said,

Yes it does. The application itself and its users are not doing anything illegal by law. This is guilt by association. While yes I am willing to bet a large population uses it to drive drunk, not all of them are, nor is the application breaking any laws. It's the same thing as with torrents. Apply your same ****ty logic to torrents and you see your argument break down. Just because there is a medium that can be used break laws does not mean it itself is illegal in any manner. This is absolutely a case of freedom violation.

Torrents don't kill people you idiot. Driving drunk causes many unnecessary deaths and potentially tears up families. When you step into that driver seat drunk, you give up your rights. There is no other reason for this application to even exist. If Apple is willing to do pull something stupid like a Wi-Fi sharing program, they should definately pull this.

OblivionSHO said,

Torrents don't kill people you idiot. Driving drunk causes many unnecessary deaths and potentially tears up families. When you step into that driver seat drunk, you give up your rights. There is no other reason for this application to even exist. If Apple is willing to do pull something stupid like a Wi-Fi sharing program, they should definately pull this.

Don't rage so hard...OuchOfDeath made a valid point - and honestly the day I run into a police checkpoint when I just happen to be out late, is the day I would use such an app.

Elessar said,
Freedom of speech? I mean I'm all for removing the app as drunk drivers should be put in jail for being so retarded, but these senators need to focus on the future and mandate new (and eventually old?) cars are equipped with sensors for drunk drivers.

Yep and all off us pay for others stupid behavior now that is so liberal of you. Why don't you pay for that out of your pocket. Also have you consider the fact that some of us don't drink at all. So why should I blow my car at every start if I don't even drink. That is absurd.

De.Bug said,
He wants to avoid them so police don't harass him for doing nothing whatsoever wrong.
I have never had police harass me, never!

Every time I here about people getting so called harass are either lying about being harassed or lying about what the did to get so called harassed.

Fourjays said,
IMO such an app should do only one thing - tell the idiot NOT to drive!
Indeed, an app that tests your blood alcohol level and tells you not to drive is nice!

Skwerl said,
This sort of app is as irresponsible as drinking and driving. I wish these folks the worst.

Dont understand how this is any different then when the radio tells you where the speed traps are because those people are breaking the law as well.. If people want to skip checkpoints thats their choice.. I would love to skip these check points because police can be such jerks when you are just out driving with your GF. This is not freedom of speech but is freedom of assembly so that people can come together and defend their interests no matter what they are..

I dont like defending drunk drivers but they have rights just like every other person.

Skwerl said,
This sort of app is as irresponsible as drinking and driving. I wish these folks the worst.
Not me, I wish they would get the help they need.

Skwerl said,
This sort of app is as irresponsible as drinking and driving. I wish these folks the worst.

Oh yeah? You can say that to those of us that don't drink at all. So why should I not be warned about avoiding a traffic jam caused by irresponsible police that don't sit at the bar parking lot. Instead they clutter my road and hares everyone there. I used to watch state police and other police for hours when I was a cab driver. Drunks would walk by them and drive off while they were having a good time talking to cute blonds walking out of the bar. So the road block is so much more affective then just stoping them before they get in the car and putting them in a cab. Let me guess the road block would cut into their money cow. It so much easier to pose as a concerned citizen for safety and rake in cash on a road block then putting them to a bar to get drunks in a cab. Also why is there no Breathalyzer test when the valley gets your car for you. I watch that too where the valley pulls up the car in a hurry to a staggering person. People are so stupid at times.