• Your favorite

    Apple

    ,

    iPhone

    ,

    iPad

    ,

    iOS

    ,
    Jailbreak
    , and
    Cydia
    site.
  • DUI Checkpoint Apps Asked To Sober Up



    Senator Charles Schumer has asked Google, Research In Motion, and Apple to remove application that alert users to the locations of nearby DUI checkpoints. Schumer along with Senators Harry Reid, Tome Udall, and Frank R. Lautenberg sent letters to Apple and Google in March asking them to remove apps like Mr. Dui, Trapster, and DUI Dodger from the app store.

    As Michael reported back in March , RIM is the only one to have removed the apps.

    As a recent college graduate I've seen my fair share of poor decisions, and as a result, have had a number of friends pay the price for driving under the influence. Some were drunker than others (three times the legal limit), but they all took the chance, but none were taken down by DUI checkpoints or had an APP on their phone they checked before leaving the bar to see if the coast was clear.

    Also, it is worth noting many police departments publicize the locations and dates of DUI checkpoints and speed traps.

    Still, the possibility of someone using an app to skirt the law and endanger the lives of others and themselves is a rather detestable. That being said, many of the apps named by the Senators do offer more than just tips on where nearby DUI checkpoint are. Many alert drivers to speed traps, red light traffic cameras and include services to prevent drunk driving. Buzzed offers a feature that helps users find taxi's and even lets users call the cab with a single tap.

    An excerpt from DUI Dodger's product description:

    Fight back with DUI Dodger, the app that allows you to view and submit DUI checkpoints in your area. The idea is that knowledge is power, and people will be less inclined to drink and drive if they know that there is a checkpoint in their area, that they are drunk, and that driving drunk carries major consequences.
    DUI Dodger includes a BAC calculator as well as a game that "aims to detect a person's sobriety level by simulating a police field sobriety test."

    DUI Dodger not only allows users to see and submit DUI checkpoints, estimates their BAC level, and tests their sobriety, it also provides a number of useful and interesting facts and myths about drunk driving. This information, coupled with knowledge about a person sobriety level, will hopefully lead to increased awareness about the dangers of drunk driving.
    With all the heat generated by Locationgate and the recent Senate hearings it will be interesting to see how Apple and Google respond. The always mysterious app approval process and moral center of both companies is being questioned. Apple definitely doesn't employ a "anything goes" mentality to app approval, but those usually deterred are pornographic, excessively violent, or viewed as direct competition to basic functions Apple already provides on the phone.

    As the judge, jury and executioner, especially in Apple's case, these companies can generally do as they please. It will be interesting to see if they let all the apps stay, stop them in their tracks, or pick and choose based on what services they actually provide.


    Source: PC World, DUI Dodger
    This article was originally published in forum thread: DUI Checkpoint Apps Asked To Sober Up started by Phillip Swanson View original post
    Comments 58 Comments
    1. KartRacer's Avatar
      KartRacer -
      Quote Originally Posted by mortopher View Post
      It's "pretty clear" you say? The term "unreasonable" opens the door for a whole lot of ambiguity.

      Take a look at the number of drunk driving related fatalities each year and I think you'll find a strong argument for them being "reasonable searches."

      Also, take a look at the stats for European countries where the enforcement is much higher.
      Take a look at the number of people that have been legitimately convicted of DUI and how many are back out driving illegally the next day. Take a look at the number of people that have multiple DUI convictions and are still out in public. Take a look at how much money is made on false convictions and traps. Take a look at your local police blotter to see how many people are obtained on a weekly basis and aren't ever punished. This isn't about safety, it's about revenue generation. Plain and simple. The local convictions paper and website in te town I live in have pictures and dates of people that have been arrested and detained in excess of 100 times. I can provide scanned copies and links to them if you require proof that the police aren't in the business of safety of the general public, they are in the business of making money off tickets and threats of jail time. DUI checkpoints are illegal, and shouting about safety is an excuse. Drunks will drive with or without checkpoints and the cops will do absolutely nothing about it.
    1. mortopher's Avatar
      mortopher -
      Quote Originally Posted by KartRacer View Post
      Take a look at the number of people that have been legitimately convicted of DUI and how many are back out driving illegally the next day. Take a look at the number of people that have multiple DUI convictions and are still out in public. Take a look at how much money is made on false convictions and traps. Take a look at your local police blotter to see how many people are obtained on a weekly basis and aren't ever punished. This isn't about safety, it's about revenue generation. Plain and simple. The local convictions paper and website in te town I live in have pictures and dates of people that have been arrested and detained in excess of 100 times. I can provide scanned copies and links to them if you require proof that the police aren't in the business of safety of the general public, they are in the business of making money off tickets and threats of jail time. DUI checkpoints are illegal, and shouting about safety is an excuse. Drunks will drive with or without checkpoints and the cops will do absolutely nothing about it.
      Take those issues up with your DA. The police enforce the law, the district attorneys and all are the ones that must seek the convictions.
    1. KartRacer's Avatar
      KartRacer -
      Quote Originally Posted by mortopher View Post
      Take those issues up with your DA. The police enforce the law, the district attorneys and all are the ones that must seek the convictions.
      Doesn't excuse the police from having speed traps. Cops are just as crooked as the DA. Police more often than not enforce a law, yet they also abuse it as well. When the person that is conducting the search is abusing their power and giving ******** excuses like safety they will get the brunt of my wrath, they are no less guilty than the people that tell them to do those things. DUI checkpoints aren't put in place for safety, they are there to generate revenue. I guarantee that most of what happens at DUI checkpoints are fix it tickets and illegal searches. THAT is what they are for, not stopping drunks just like the 'war on drugs' isn't about getting rid of illegal/harmful substances. Why do you think the DOJ is being so vocal about this? Big money maker.

      Quote Originally Posted by Phillip Swanson View Post
      As a recent college graduate I've seen my fair share of poor decisions, and as a result, have had a number of friends pay the price for driving under the influence.
      Not attacking you, but were you by chance around them when they took off drunk in their car? I've seen many people drunk and tried to leave and I've been the only person at many parties to stop them. I've also seen the vast majority of my friends bring a DD to a party too. Shame more people don't stop irresponsible and stupid people from getting behind the wheel!

      Quote Originally Posted by Phillip Swanson View Post
      Some were drunker than others (three times the legal limit), but they all took the chance, but none were taken down by DUI checkpoints or had an APP on their phone they checked before leaving the bar to see if the coast was clear.
      This app won't help people that stupid avoid trouble. The only thing that will stop these people is jail time or hitting a tree and being injured or killed. An app is not going to stop people that stupid and that irresponsible.
    1. mortopher's Avatar
      mortopher -
      I guess some people still believe that driving is a birth right.
    1. spice_weasel's Avatar
      spice_weasel -
      Quote Originally Posted by coolguy742 View Post
      Where in the constitution does it say you can't be randomly tested for alcohol?


      Sent from my iPod touch using ModMyi
      Perhaps you should read my earlier quote. The constitution protects you from random search and seizure..

      Just in case you missed it..

      The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

      Where is the probable cause in randomly picking cars driving through a checkpoin?

      Quote Originally Posted by mortopher View Post
      I guess some people still believe that driving is a birth right.
      Not at all. Driving is a priviledge. But I DO have a birth right against search and seizure without probable cause.

      11 states do not allow roadside checkpoints because of the fact that they are illegal according to the constitution. The states that do allow them say that there is a DUI exception to the constitution. Much as I look, I can't find it in there though. Wonder what will be next in the name of public safety?
    1. mortopher's Avatar
      mortopher -
      Quote Originally Posted by spice_weasel View Post
      Perhaps you should read my earlier quote. The constitution protects you from random search and seizure..

      Just in case you missed it..

      The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

      Where is the probable cause in randomly picking cars driving through a checkpoin?
      Again, you are failing to notice the work "unreasonable."
    1. spice_weasel's Avatar
      spice_weasel -
      Quote Originally Posted by mortopher View Post
      Again, you are failing to notice the work "unreasonable."
      No I'm not. It is unreasonable to stop cars at random. Do you support profiling?
    1. KartRacer's Avatar
      KartRacer -
      Quote Originally Posted by mortopher View Post
      Again, you are failing to notice the work "unreasonable."
      It's completely unreasonable to stop me and interrogate me if I'm not swerving all over the road, running lights/stop signs or throwing beer cans out my window. They have no reason to stop anyone other than to generate revenue by way of fix it tickets or citations for registration paperwork. This has nothing to do with getting drunks off the road, it's revenue generation. Same as victimless crimes like possession of marijuana and red light cameras. They aren't designed or implemented to catch criminals, only to fulfill quotas and generate revenue to buy riot shields and tasers.
    1. mortopher's Avatar
      mortopher -
      Quote Originally Posted by KartRacer View Post
      It's completely unreasonable to stop me and interrogate me if I'm not swerving all over the road, running lights/stop signs or throwing beer cans out my window. They have no reason to stop anyone other than to generate revenue by way of fix it tickets or citations for registration paperwork. This has nothing to do with getting drunks off the road, it's revenue generation. Same as victimless crimes like possession of marijuana and red light cameras. They aren't designed or implemented to catch criminals, only to fulfill quotas and generate revenue to buy riot shields and tasers.
      It's the same logic for security screening at airports...

      I agree with you about marijuana laws. However, I don't consider red light tickets a victimless issue. People run red lights nonstop an many accidents happen as a result of it (though I do believe the use of cameras to mail such tickets is not legal).
    1. ramicio's Avatar
      ramicio -
      Driving is traveling, therefore it IS a birth right. Not every city in the world has public transportation infrastructures in place.

      Traffic tickets from cameras are BS. A lot of the times the police give you a break on stuff anyway...because they are there, and they are human, so they can understand certain circumstances.

      Screening at the airport has proven to do NOTHING.

      Bad stuff is never going to stop happening. Invading everyone's rights and privacy is proven to do nothing but make things worse. Time after time it's been proven throughout history that 100% freedom with consequences wins. This world is turning into punishing thought crime and pre-crime. Freedom to do stuff and learn from mistakes is what makes intelligence. Take that away and humanity just turns into drones.
    1. KartRacer's Avatar
      KartRacer -
      Quote Originally Posted by mortopher View Post
      It's the same logic for security screening at airports...

      I agree with you about marijuana laws. However, I don't consider red light tickets a victimless issue. People run red lights nonstop an many accidents happen as a result of it (though I do believe the use of cameras to mail such tickets is not legal).
      It's flawed logic. And I meant speed cameras, not red light cameras. Sorry about that. Security screening at airports continues to fail at it's prime objective, to prevent unauthorized objects from being brought onto an airplane. Every single incident in the past three years have happened despite these checks and they are ineffective and pointless. There is no legitimate reason to check every single passenger getting on an airplane and do what amounts to sexual molestation if anyone other than some sloven smelly 'security officer' touched you that way. If it worked we wouldn't have had a single incident like we have been happening all over the world. Your example is flawed, airport screenings don't catch anything and all they do is harass the general public. I don't see how one can support smoking marijuana and not support the human right of free travel without being searched. Neither of which are anyones business but the individauls.
    1. mortopher's Avatar
      mortopher -
      Quote Originally Posted by KartRacer View Post
      It's flawed logic. And I meant speed cameras, not red light cameras. Sorry about that. Security screening at airports continues to fail at it's prime objective, to prevent unauthorized objects from being brought onto an airplane. Every single incident in the past three years have happened despite these checks and they are ineffective and pointless. There is no legitimate reason to check every single passenger getting on an airplane and do what amounts to sexual molestation if anyone other than some sloven smelly 'security officer' touched you that way. If it worked we wouldn't have had a single incident like we have been happening all over the world. Your example is flawed, airport screenings don't catch anything and all they do is harass the general public. I don't see how one can support smoking marijuana and not support the human right of free travel without being searched. Neither of which are anyones business but the individauls.
      Well then we should eliminate drinking and smoking ages entirely since minors still wind up getting ahold of both, right?

      Why don't we get rid of speed limits, people break them all the time.

      As long as you demand a 100% success rate in order for you to view it as successful you'll never be satisfied.

      Let's get rid of border patrols, INS, and passports because they all inhibit what you call "the human right of free travel."
    1. jrl_1644's Avatar
      jrl_1644 -
      Quote Originally Posted by spice_weasel View Post

      11 states do not allow roadside checkpoints because of the fact that they are illegal according to the constitution. The states that do allow them say that there is a DUI exception to the constitution. Much as I look, I can't find it in there though. Wonder what will be next in the name of public safety?
      PATRIOT ACT!!! That's what is next. Wake up and quit being mindless lemmings.
      Don't get me wrong, people who drive drunk are chemically retarded and should not be driving. But we know that already, don't we? Do we really need Harry Reid or any other Government law to tell us that? These laws are not made for our safety, they are made to generate revenue. Can you honestly say that by not wearing my seatbelt, I am a danger to society? If anything I might be inclined to drive better knowing I might die if I rear end somebody because I didn't have my belt on.
      The Government has no place or right to protect us from ourselves!
      I ask my fellow citizens this question:
      if safety is the purpose of these checkpoints, why not have an officer standby at the local pub and offer (not force) breathalyzer and assist those people who fail, in getting home safely. Be it in a cab or giving them a ride home without fear of prosecution?
    1. spice_weasel's Avatar
      spice_weasel -
      Just one little baby step at a time embraced by people like Mortipher.
      INDIANAPOLIS | Overturning a common law dating back to the English Magna Carta of 1215, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Hoosiers have no right to resist unlawful police entry into their homes.

      In a 3-2 decision, Justice Steven David writing for the court said if a police officer wants to enter a home for any reason or no reason at all, a homeowner cannot do anything to block the officer's entry.

      "We believe ... a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence," David said. "We also find that allowing resistance unnecessarily escalates the level of violence and therefore the risk of injuries to all parties involved without preventing the arrest."

      David said a person arrested following an unlawful entry by police still can be released on bail and has plenty of opportunities to protest the illegal entry through the court system.

      The court's decision stems from a Vanderburgh County case in which police were called to investigate a husband and wife arguing outside their apartment.

      When the couple went back inside their apartment, the husband told police they were not needed and blocked the doorway so they could not enter. When an officer entered anyway, the husband shoved the officer against a wall. A second officer then used a stun gun on the husband and arrested him.

      Professor Ivan Bodensteiner, of Valparaiso University School of Law, said the court's decision is consistent with the idea of preventing violence.

      "It's not surprising that they would say there's no right to beat the hell out of the officer," Bodensteiner said. "(The court is saying) we would rather opt on the side of saying if the police act wrongfully in entering your house your remedy is under law, to bring a civil action against the officer."

      Justice Robert Rucker, a Gary native, and Justice Brent Dickson, a Hobart native, dissented from the ruling, saying the court's decision runs afoul of the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

      "In my view the majority sweeps with far too broad a brush by essentially telling Indiana citizens that government agents may now enter their homes illegally -- that is, without the necessity of a warrant, consent or exigent circumstances," Rucker said. "I disagree."
    1. KartRacer's Avatar
      KartRacer -
      Quote Originally Posted by mortopher View Post
      Well then we should eliminate drinking and smoking ages entirely since minors still wind up getting ahold of both, right?

      Why don't we get rid of speed limits, people break them all the time.

      As long as you demand a 100% success rate in order for you to view it as successful you'll never be satisfied.

      Let's get rid of border patrols, INS, and passports because they all inhibit what you call "the human right of free travel."

      So you in fact do support the sexual molestation of small children so you can have a safe flight. Wow, you are one sick person.
    1. ramicio's Avatar
      ramicio -
      People who think the molestation of people are airports is right are the kind of people who have no shame whatsoever. They would walk around naked all the time if the law allowed it. They inappropriately touch others and don't care if others touch them. They are open to all kinds of liberal garbage. They don't realize people's bodies are something to be kept private. I don't even agree with a lot of stuff that doctors do on a daily basis. The medical system are a bunch of perverts, and it's conditioning. Hernia exams by touching the balls? Gimme a break. There's are other ways. Same thing with prostate exams, gynos, etc. All just conditioning to get people to not consider their bodies their own and a private thing.
    1. mortopher's Avatar
      mortopher -
      Quote Originally Posted by KartRacer View Post
      So you in fact do support the sexual molestation of small children so you can have a safe flight. Wow, you are one sick person.
      And putting words into peoples mouths has begun. I'm done debating this.
    1. ramicio's Avatar
      ramicio -
      Good day.