Apple will reject DUI checkpoints app | Hacker News Reader

Apple will reject DUI checkpoints app

bits.blogs.nytimes.com

23 pointsraheemm35 comments

Regardless of whether you believe apps like this have a legitimate purpose, it demonstrates a disturbing aspect of the walled garden model. The government doesn't have to specifically prohibit an app it doesn't like, it just has to "encourage" the gatekeeper to remove it.

That would be a disturbing aspect of government.

EDIT: To be clear, walled garden owners are under no legal obligations to comply with "suggestions" from government that apps be removed. If senators try to get their way by threatening regulation, I would say that's bad behavior on the part of those senators.

To be fair, there are plenty of reasons to avoid DUI checkpoints even if you're not driving impaired.

They tend to substantially slow down traffic, for one.

Not to mention the fact that they violate the 4th amendment and even the founder of MADD is against them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_...

Where society's need is great and no other effective means of meeting the need is available, and intrusion on people's privacy is minimal, checkpoints toward that end may briefly detain motorists. In Michigan v. Sitz 496 U.S. 444 (1990), the Supreme Court allowed discretionless sobriety checkpoints.

not to mention they give out more seatbelt and sticker violations at DUI checkpoints than they do DUIs

Do you check for DUI checkpoints every time you get in your car? Because I don't.

I don't mostly because it's not easy. If there were an easy way to see where police roadblocks are, I would definitely glance at it and avoid them, because I don't really like interacting with police. I've never had any particularly bad experiences, fortunately, but it still slightly creeps me out to have to go through a police checkpoint in my own country, especially absent exigent circumstances like a recent shooting, or prison break, or something. (I don't really like going through the permanent immigration-check roadblock on I-10 in West Texas, either, but no app can do much about that one.)

Although what I'd really prefer is not a separate app I have to consciously check, but integration with a GPS routing device, the way some of them can use real-time traffic info. Just let me program in a police-roadblock penalty (say, call it equal to 30 minutes of traffic), and then reroute based on the real-time roadblocks info; that way I routinely avoid police roadblocks in my daily life without having to think about it.

Most people wouldn't think to do it. But if you have a busted tail light of which you were not aware, for example, rest assured that you'll know about it after passing through a "DUI" checkpoint.

Come on. This is a weak argument. Most people are going to get this app so that they can drink and drive, not to avoid getting busted for a broken taillight.

That may be the case, but my point (which I tried to infer, if unsuccessfully) was that these are much more than "DUI" checkpoints. Apple shouldn't be swallowing the government's line about this.

Note, however, that a good crowd-sourced traffic monitoring app could deal with that, without having to know that it is a DUI checkpoint. It just needs to know that there is an area where traffic is slow.

Don't you guys have friends who died DUI? Here in southern europe it's a big probelm. I hate it that when i learn somebody i knew died or killed this way, i can't help thinking 'he brought it to himself'.

The moral argument in favor of rejecting this app pivots around whether it does in fact enable more drunk driving. If it does, there doesn't seem to be good justification for allowing the app to exist. I don't think the calculus should be any more complicated than this.

Edit: I'll disclaim that I have a bias, having had a friend die drinking and driving.

Perhaps some people take an issue with mandatory police inspections.

Someone who's salary I pay, using equipment I bought, forcibly stopping me on a street that I paid to build, and asking me what business I have being there.

Edit: What is the criminal penalty for having a .08 while performing law enforcement duties?

I disagree. I think the argument is more about who gets to decide what is "moral" and who gets to promote/enforce that morality.

OK, may I ask who that is that should make this call?

If I have a kill switch on my platform for apps that endanger people and I see that the app is endangering people, I'll feel a moral obligation to toggle that kill switch. Again, this is a rather straightforward call.

In Massachusetts it's illegal to drive and use SMS. Similar legislation is being or has been passed in other states. Should Apple then disable SMS during rush hour? Should it detect you're in a car and shut the phone down?

Don't get me wrong. I'm not a fan of drunk drivers and I'm less a fan of people screwing with their phones while they drive, which seems a whole lot less safer. But it's arguably something Apple and/or the carriers could address. However, I don't think it's right for them to do so. I guess it's the whole slippery slope thing.

And FWIW, I do turn around if I think a roadblock is ahead, regardless of whether I've been drinking. It's a hassle and I don't trust I'll get a ticket for something else I'm completely unaware of.

I think it would save lives if Apple figured out a way to be smart with voice recognition and speech to enable hands and eyes free texting. It absolutely should be on the roadmap for them.

The user should make the call, obviously, or perhaps the user's legal guardian if the user is a minor, or maybe the device owner if the user is not the owner, such as a corporate user.

The platform vendor should not have final say over the software an end user may wish to run. The restriction of software distribution to Apple's own app store on such a popular computing platform has serious ramifications to consumer interest if not exercised very carefully to be perfectly aligned with them.

I think the fact that there is s kill switch at all is the problem. The argument being made is that there shouldn't be a person with a platform that has a kill switch. Platforms should be open as opposed to controlled by a single person or entity.

Should the calculus for banning vehicles or alcohol be any more complicated than whether they enable more drunk driving?

When I say "enable," I mean "encourage more of," which implies preexistence of a problem that is being exacerbated.

While I don't condone drunk driving at all and personally don't have a use for this app as I don't drink and drive this is just one more example of why I'm an android user. I don't need papa jobs looking out for me.

You don't have to add a disclaimer about not condoning drunk driving. That you felt it was necessary says quite a bit about how we've been groomed to accept these checkpoints.

The problem is that DUI is actually dangerous and the threat of being punished when you do kill someone does not deter people enough. Plus they obviously have low regard for their own life already. You need to threaten them with something that happens more frequently. Tada DUI checkpoints and losing your license or money.

Problem: these DUI checkpoints are un-Constitutional and violate the 4th amendment. Lawrence Taylor has written an excellent article about the dangers of such "DUI exceptions" to the Constitution - http://www.drunkdrivingdefense.com/general/lawrence-taylor.h...

The actual fundamental problem is that in many locations alternatives to driving (drunk or otherwise) take longer or are more expensive. Cities with strong public transit and better city planning help mitigate drunk driving because it no longer necessary to drive after drinking to go somewhere.

Since DUIs have not stopped, even with checkpoints, what are you suggesting should be done beyond this?

"I don't need papa jobs looking out for me."

I hope you apply similar logic to all of the businesses you use. No onion rings at McDonalds? One more reason why I'm a Burger King customer. I don't need papa Ronald looking out for me.

It would be socially responsible for Android/Google to do the same.

Oh well. The developer will just move it to a web app. If he was smart, he was just using the embedded app version of Safari anyway to access a web site.

Where do they draw the line? What about Trapster/RadarActive?

This is not the first police checkpoint app rejection, as I recall.

I think this is a fairly grey area, and I assume people are aware of the same thing. Instead of taking the gamble, I would looking into contacting someone related to the app review process and check if it would be acceptable.

This is rather annoying, because I have two of them installed. They've never worked especially well, but it would be nice if they did.

Anyone know of a web app that's doing substantially the same thing?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com