• Your favorite

    Apple

    ,

    iPhone

    ,

    iPad

    ,

    iOS

    ,
    Jailbreak
    , and
    Cydia
    site.
  • Apple Officially Bans DUI Checkpoint Apps



    All the noise made earlier this year about a number of iOS apps that alert drivers to DUI checkpoints got Apple's attention. The apps are now explicitly banned by Apple.

    A change in the App Store Review Guidelines was spurred by a letter from four democratic U.S. senators addressing the issue. The senators specifically asked for the removal of apps that provide "a database of DUI checkpoints updated in real-time.

    The change in the guidelines is in section 22.8 and reads as follows:

    Apps which contain DUI checkpoints that are not published by law enforcement agencies, or encourage and enable drunk driving, will be rejected.
    It seems the new verbiage only applies to applications that only offer ways to highlight and avoid DUI checkpoints. Many of the Apps that offer information on DUI checkpoints also offer a ton of other information on red lights, speed cameras, accidents and other traffic information. It has yet to be seen what the fallout from this change will be for current applications in the App Store, whether they will be removed or must have the DUI information removed.

    Source: PC World
    This article was originally published in forum thread: Apple Officially Bans DUI Checkpoint Apps started by Phillip Swanson View original post
    Comments 40 Comments
    1. Jcbzr's Avatar
      Jcbzr -
      Quote Originally Posted by ramicio View Post
      The correct way of thinking? So now everyone is supposed to think a certain way, toe a line? You are only proving my point that they are a power for themselves and not the greater good of everyone's freedom. In these times they only hire <100 IQ jocks who were picked on and now take steroids and feed on power. To be a police officer is not supposed to be a 9-5 job. It's supposed to be a public service and you are called only when needed. They are supposed to be a normal person with a job, and volunteer their duty. Give the people their guns back and we won't need cops to be on duty 24/7. I can absolutely not wait until these low-IQ roid-head cops are tossed aside by their government because they've served their purpose, and are otherwise useless to the end goal of the elite. I am going to laugh. Oh, and by saying police officers are citizens, too, you prove another point of mine. They are citizens, not better than anyone else, so they should not hold any power over anyone.
      "F*ck the police"... lol.
    1. coolguy742's Avatar
      coolguy742 -
      YES, now just to get trapster down. and let me point this out once again, it is called using an application to avoid the law....
    1. PatrickGSR94's Avatar
      PatrickGSR94 -
      Quote Originally Posted by ramicio View Post
      The correct way of thinking? So now everyone is supposed to think a certain way, toe a line? You are only proving my point that they are a power for themselves and not the greater good of everyone's freedom. In these times they only hire <100 IQ jocks who were picked on and now take steroids and feed on power. To be a police officer is not supposed to be a 9-5 job. It's supposed to be a public service and you are called only when needed. They are supposed to be a normal person with a job, and volunteer their duty. Give the people their guns back and we won't need cops to be on duty 24/7. I can absolutely not wait until these low-IQ roid-head cops are tossed aside by their government because they've served their purpose, and are otherwise useless to the end goal of the elite. I am going to laugh. Oh, and by saying police officers are citizens, too, you prove another point of mine. They are citizens, not better than anyone else, so they should not hold any power over anyone.
      Give us our guns back? No one has taken away our guns. The gov't has yet to go that far. You want a gun? Get the required permits and go get one. It's still your constitutional right.

      What's with all the stereotyping when it comes to police officers? Yes there are some who like to act all bad@$$ and hard to people who may seem weaker. But not all of them are that way. A daily grind of being in harms way and possibly being shot and killed tends to give some people that type of attitude, though.

      My police officer friends are people I went to high school with and have known over the years and are absolutely NOT how you stereotype them out to be. One of my good friends I've known for over 10 years and is an ASE Certified mechanic and worked at a dealership a good number of years until he was laid off. Now he has joined his local town's police department, graduating from the academy less than a year ago and is now on patrol.

      So you tell me, how in the hell would a person hold a separate 9-5 job and then expect to go attend to some "situation" when called on during those 9-5 hours of said job? That's the most idiotic thing I've ever heard.
    1. ramicio's Avatar
      ramicio -
      We have a right to guns. We shouldn't have to register them or get permission to own them, it's supposed to be a right. You don't have to register to speak freely...YET! If citizens were allowed to roam free with guns then maybe these crooks would think twice. What they have to worry about now is police response time. If they had to maybe think about a citizen might stick a barrel in their face things might change. You don't see Switzerland having crime problems.

      So to call this application one that violates the law, is somewhat true. However, it helps citizens escape tyrannical law that is unconstitutional in the first place. Michigan doesn't allow checkpoints of any kind because of this.

      I don't feel pity for cops whatsoever. EVERYONE in society is constantly in harm's way and anything can happen to anyone. They mainly create bad situations instead of stumble into them.

      Give us freedom to any kind of gun we want (yes, fully automatic) and we will need fewer police. Probably to the point of where it becomes something that can be on call for while holding a normal job. Fire fighters do it just about everywhere, why can't cops?
    1. delusion950's Avatar
      delusion950 -
      boys and girls had to our favorite other store get it there ! lol
    1. PatrickGSR94's Avatar
      PatrickGSR94 -
      Well I don't know about anyone else, but I don't want anyone who's been drinking behind the wheel of a car and possibly wrecking into my car or my wife's car and hurting or killing one of us or our child. If police officers are public servants, I want them to serve us by getting them the hell off the road.

      What's wrong ramicio, were you busted for driving after you had a few and feel the need to take out your anger on all law enforcement in this country?
    1. ramicio's Avatar
      ramicio -
      Why would you be driving around with your wife kid at like 2:30 at night, shouldn't you all be safe and asleep in your house? I don't know about anyone else, but from what I've observed DUI check points are not usually set up at logical times to catch drunk drivers, like a few hours before bars actually close... Bad things are always going to happen. To think a DUI checkpoint catches all these bad evil drunk drivers is just ignorant, and it does very little. And they are announced in the paper beforehand anyway. If you can read a paper you know when and where they will be...but this app is illegal??? And not everyone who gets behind the wheel with alcohol in their system is a threat. The people you see driving around sober with dents in their cars from normal driving...those are the people who can't drive with any bit of alcohol in their system. If someone is driving smashed drunk they will likely just get pulled over from their terrible driving. It would be logical for the cops to provide a public service to get a drunk person home safely, not let them drive, catch them, and fine them! They could have already done damage in the meantime. But an idiot wouldn't understand this. Everyone has a right to drive, even drunk people.
    1. i.Annie's Avatar
      i.Annie -
      Disagreeing is okay, don't get too personal and don't attack people directly. Keep it under control everyone
    1. javiert30's Avatar
      javiert30 -
      To all Trapster users...

      We are removing Checkpoint Trap from Trapster

      There have been some recent news stories claiming that Trapster and similar applications will be removed from app store over the concern of drivers using these apps to avoid DUI Checkpoints. We want to make sure Trapster stays available to you, so we have decided to remove the Checkpoint trap type from Trapster. Our goal is to enable you to have access to the data you rely on. Removing Checkpoints will allow us to now quickly meet the requirements of the app store that have raised this issue.

      We have been in discussions with you users and felt it was appropriate to get your input before making the final decision. Most of you thought that removing the checkpoint trap type would eliminate all of the debate over the purpose of our app.

      We believe the inclusion of DUI checkpoints is a positive deterrent, a point of view which has been shared by law enforcement as well. We continue to believe that is the case, but place a greater importance on our ability to continue to offer the application and its entire range of benefits to our large community of users.

      We believe it is important to provide a consistent consumer experience regardless of platform, so we plan on removing Checkpoints from all platforms that we are available on.

      I will keep updating if something else change.
      Lots of cool new features and more efficient versions are coming.

      Long life Trapster. Trapster IS NOT going down
    1. ramicio's Avatar
      ramicio -
      Let's see, they can continue to provide data for speed traps. Speed kills, too. Sharing where speed traps are is the exact same thing as where DUI Stasi checkpoints are. But no one ******* about that because there is nothing like MADD for speeding. I'd be willing to bet more deaths are caused from people just driving like reckless assholes sober than intoxicated people just trying to make it home from the bar. A person who causes an accident drunk is going to be one of those morons who drive fast everywhere, so it wasn't a matter of being drunk, it's a matter of when they will cause an accident.
    1. PatrickGSR94's Avatar
      PatrickGSR94 -
      Most often collisions caused by drunk drivers aren't a result of speed but more so a result of the greatly reduced reaction times of the intoxicated driver. So they are much more likely to run red lights, stop signs, not slow down for cars in front of them and the like.

      Driving a hunk of deadly glass and metal down the road is a privilege, not a right. And no, intoxicated drivers absolutely DO NOT have the right to get behind the wheel. Period.
    1. ramicio's Avatar
      ramicio -
      To travel is a RIGHT. It's pretty ridiculous how people think you have a right to ride a bike on public roads without needing to be insured or pay registrations, yet driving a car is a privilege...it's pretty asinine. Everyone has the right to get behind the wheel, even intoxicated people. There is a HUGE difference between someone with 0.08% and someone blowing through red lights and stop signs. Again, those are the people who can't even drive in the first place. There should also be no pity for those who choose to be passengers of those people. Everyone cries about the "innocent" passengers dying, but they made just as stupid of a decision as the person driving.

      Nothing will ever stop bad things from happening in the world, much less a government. In life, **** happens. If you need a nanny to hold your hand your whole life, maybe you should just get a lobotomy, live in a tard hatch, and have a nurse wipe your *** and spoon feed you until you die.
    1. Stu Man's Avatar
      Stu Man -
      WHen I was in law school, I studied under a law professor who successfully got out state to declare drunk driving checkpoints invalid under our state constitution. At least back then all the research showed they didn't work, but they are politically popular. These lines can back up traffic for hours and are often a pretext to search for other ills. I am sorry that people caved into the will of a small amount of legislators loook for a cheap political pick them up.
    1. PatrickGSR94's Avatar
      PatrickGSR94 -
      Quote Originally Posted by ramicio View Post
      To travel is a RIGHT. It's pretty ridiculous how people think you have a right to ride a bike on public roads without needing to be insured or pay registrations, yet driving a car is a privilege...it's pretty asinine. Everyone has the right to get behind the wheel, even intoxicated people. There is a HUGE difference between someone with 0.08% and someone blowing through red lights and stop signs. Again, those are the people who can't even drive in the first place. There should also be no pity for those who choose to be passengers of those people. Everyone cries about the "innocent" passengers dying, but they made just as stupid of a decision as the person driving.
      So, by your line of thinking, do you also oppose the requirement of needing a license to drive? Do you think some 10 year old kid has the right to drive a machine capable of killing people? You're not going to kill other people riding your bike, but you most certainly can driving a car. "With great power comes great responsibility", and the human nature precludes us from taking proper responsibilities without having laws and authorities in place. If you don't like the law or government, then go find some desert island and live there by yourself. Otherwise don't go around b*tching about this and that and how you have the right to do this or that.

      I sure hope you vote in all federal, state, and local elections.
    1. ramicio's Avatar
      ramicio -
      An unsupervised 10 year old kid CAN get in a car and drive. The license, registration, and insurance ONLY serve to generate revenue, they do not serve any function to keeping the roads safe. If they did there would only be accidents be mechanical failures and such...freak things...not accidents by negligence. A person riding a bike on the road is perfectly capable of causing an accident and killing people, though they are not directly driving a "death machine." They can still cause property damage, and their use of the road does not pay for the road whatsoever...a problem that's plaguing the world with these gas-saving cars. If you think voting does so much you are a serious dumbass. Yea, you can vote, but the vast majority are zombie idiots like you who vote for who the boob tube tells you to. Yeah, life is full of responsibility, PERSONAL responsibility. I don't need a government to hold my hand and:

      1. Protect me from what can't hurt me in the first place
      2. Protect me from my own decisions (food, media, drugs)
      3. Tax my income and try to tell me it's going to my retirement, while retirement age keeps rising and the SS cache is dwindling.

      I am an adult, I make my own decisions, and I don't need to lose my right to certain things because lazy retards can't act as functional adults. You have the right to do so, but you SHOULD NOT be taken care of with my tax money, and infringe on my rights. We are truly raising a consequence-free generation and it's sickening. The only consequences anyone will soon have are monetary. You murder someone, pay up. Molest and rape, just give the townships money and be free to do more of it so long as you have the cash.
    1. PatrickGSR94's Avatar
      PatrickGSR94 -
      well, I do agree that most American drivers are idiots (in my city most especially) and the licensing process in this country is a joke compared to most European countries and other places of the world. And while I would not have thought so at 16, I now do believe that 16 is too young to get full driving privileges. Maybe it should be 18 or even 21, who knows. That's a debate for another topic, though.

      I do not appreciate the rude posts and name-calling, though. I do not vote based on who others tell me I should vote for. That in itself is irresponsible. But seriously, if you don't bother to vote for public officials during elections then you have no right to voice an opinion against policies made by those officials.
    1. ramicio's Avatar
      ramicio -
      It's not a privilege, it's a right. Educating about driving has nothing to do with being allowed to drive, or not. It's not the age that's the cause, it's the fact that people are being immature for far too long anymore. I see people who are almost 30 act like gossipy foolish teenagers.

      So by your logic, if I vote, and the candidate I like lost, that I have no right to complain about the candidate I did not want get elected? What about the Presidential bid? Only 2 people ever get to the very last stage. If the government controlled media doesn't like a candidate, they have no chance of even making it to the ballot. And do you also trust votes are counted honestly? They groom a candidate and they know who they want, they can just cook up some vote numbers to favor their choice. Voting, as it stands, is pointless. Obama or McCain? Neither. You also have no voice with neither. Not voting is the only logical choice. I will vote when a candidate I want to be president makes it to the ballot. Voting also loses you other rights...you are subject to jury duty and military draft.
    1. PatrickGSR94's Avatar
      PatrickGSR94 -
      no no no, what I meant was if you chose not to vote at all, then you have no place speaking out against a voted official you don't like or policies enacted by that official. If you took advantage of your American right to vote, and those you voted for didn't make it, then sure, speak out all you want against the ones you're against.

      The right to vote is a pretty important freedom in this country, one that many people in other parts of the world do not have. And yes, sometimes voting comes down to the "lesser of two evils" in this day and age. But not voting at all is pretty pointless. It surely doesn't make it any less likely that either person will get elected. Don't like the person who got elected? Well if you didn't cast your vote in the first place then you really have no place complaining about his/her policies.
    1. ramicio's Avatar
      ramicio -
      If the ballot doesn't contain people you want in office how do you still not have a right to complain? That's a pretty bold claim to say one doesn't have the right to complain. To complain is freedom of speech. So you must vote to voice your opinion on who is in office? Sounds like a privilege to me. So because I didn't want Obama or McCain, I have to choose between the two? And because I chose not to vote (which is the only way to voice the opinion I want NEITHER) I have no right to complain? Sounds pretty asinine to me. It wouldn't be asinine if the ballot had a choice for "neither." I bet a lot of elections would have to be completely scrapped if there was an option for neither. That is, if votes even directly counted, which they don't.
    1. Simon's Avatar
      Simon -
      Please keep the name-calling and inappropriate language out of the discussion.