Why Apple's DUI Checkpoint App Ban Is Stupid 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."
Re:Really? (Score:2, Insightful)
Blanket statements against blanket statements yields politics.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Really? (Score:2, Insightful)
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:PR-Wise, (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Easy Answer (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Hypothetical (Score:3, Insightful)
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:preachin to the choir (Score:2, Insightful)
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 (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Hypothetical (Score:5, Insightful)
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?.*
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:preachin to the choir (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Hypothetical (Score:1, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Hypothetical (Score:5, Insightful)
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:preachin to the choir (Score:5, Insightful)
And there you have it.
There was a time when "the customer" was "always right" and companies worked hard to give them what they wanted.
Now, the company tells the consumer what he wants, and then rents it to him. But only if he follows the company's rules.
I guess the question finally comes down to "do you really want to live inside a walled garden". For a lot of people, the answer is a resounding "Yes!"
The most ironic part of it all is that the people who choose to live inside the walled garden also somehow believe it makes them superior. But like the newborn that is kept in a sterile environment, away from any germ or environmental stress will lose all resistance and become weak, the people who are happily consuming canned content in the walled garden become weak in other ways.
Apple computers used to be a top choice for creative, adventurous people. Apple computers were used to make things. Now, they're increasingly used to consume things.
You have to decide.
Re:Hypothetical (Score:5, Insightful)
Wow. I want an app that tells me where you're driving so I can avoid you.
Re:preachin to the choir (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple computers used to be a top choice for creative, adventurous people.
Apple computers used to be marketed as a top choice for creative, adventurous people. There is a big difference.
Re:Hypothetical (Score:4, Insightful)
Honestly the currently the US drinking laws are too restrictive. First of all, devices that make far too many assumptions about the person being tested's physical attributes and metabolism are entirely too trusted (sure maybe average is considered when designing these devices, but the variance is so large it sacrifices all its precision for determining drunkenness).
Firstly, DUI really is dangerous. The problem is that it's your judgement that gets screwed up first when you consume alcohol. Don't be a hazard to yourself and everyone else by drinking and driving. Get a sober friend to drive you instead, or take a cab or public transport or even walk.
Secondly, BAC is a really good measure of how drunk you are because it takes into account your body mass (and I'm betting you get equilibrium between the blood level of alcohol and the brain level pretty rapidly; no reason to think there's a gigantic concentration difference there) and the level of alcohol in your breath is actually quite closely tracking the level in your blood; your lungs have a large surface area and alcohol is quite volatile. Hence its reasonable for the police to use it to work out whether you're unfit to drive. (You might or might not have problems with the police, but it's still a good measure that can be used well enough in the field by officers without excessive training.)
The real way to deal with these things? As I said, not driving while drunk. It's that simple. Every time you think that the world ought to be cutting you some special slack because of your circumstances, you're (almost certainly) just being a selfish dangerous jerk. Your right to drive is not as important as everyone else's to not be hit by your car.
Another quick side note, the only other time I've been stopped, the officer drew a gun on me, for going 9MPH over the speed limit on a highway where the speed dropped down 10 MPH a half mile before (cruise control).
So you weren't paying attention when you were driving? Idiot. Jerk. I hope that if you kill anyone through your thoughtlessness and lack of attention, it's just yourself and that nobody else gets hurt.