7 ms·

Google and Waze Must Stop Sharing Drunken-Driving Checkpoints, NYPD Demands

42 points by kposehn 8y ago

upofadown 8y ago
I think the traditional attack on this sort of thing is to have a bunch of concerned citizens drive around and create false checkpoints. Or spoof the GPS and just do it from home.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
mindslight 8y ago
So it's not enough to set up anticonstitutional totalitarian checkpoints, but they complain when their victims have the audacity to report on them?! Given how readily these charlatans will waste public resources, it seems like the best way to "make the streets safer" would be to lay off as many are necessary until their organizations can once again focus on fighting crime rather than creating it. But of course that's just the ongoing issue with these lawless thugs. The noteworthy problem here is the vulnerability caused by centralized applications and centralized app stores. Waze may not immediately succumb to this whining, but the technical foundation of the mobile ecosystem makes it a sitting duck for repeated attacks. Eventually enough pressure will build that they will have no choice but to succumb to the totalitarian ratchet.
- berberous 8y ago
  The Supreme Court has expressly ruled these constitutional: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan_Department_of_State_Police_v._Sitz https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan_Department_of_State_P... You can think it was a bad decision (3 judges dissented) that should be overruled, but they are currently constitutional.
  - mindslight 8y ago
    The Supreme Court ruling something constitutional does not mean that it is constitutional. It's every citizen's duty to understand the law for themselves, in order to know when the government has exceeded its mandate.
    - pmiller2 8y ago
      Good luck with that.
      - escape_goat 8y ago
        Most concise rebuttal.
    - pseudolus 8y ago
      With all due respect the Supreme Court ruling that something is constitutional does make it constitutional regardless of how wrong the decision may be perceived with the benefit of hindsight or even contemporaneously (see a horrible decision like Dredd Scott v. Sandford [0]). The Supreme Court is the final arbiter of constitutionality and even the reversal of a Supreme Court decision by the same body some years after does not render the previous decision unconstitutional. To be blunt, if the Supreme Court says that black is white and white is black then for constitutional purposes black is white and white is black. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford
      - mindslight 8y ago
        > To be blunt, if the Supreme Court says that black is white and white is black then for constitutional purposes black is white and white is black. For legal purposes, you mean. And yes, lower courts would have to follow that fiction. But I would not have to personally agree that white is black, nor would I have to state that the Constitution was written in white ink. So why when the Supreme Court says that a given action is in line with the Constitution, do I have no choice but to agree? I do agree that courts will follow the SC and I think it's fair to call said action "legal" in that it is allowed by the current legal system. But you're asserting that I cannot state my opinion that a given action is not in line with the intention of the Constitution by using the term "constitutional" because it cannot be removed from the legal context. This seems akin to stating that a given program is "working correctly" when it malfunctions due to bad memory. We can construct our assumptions so that this statement is correct, it just seems pointless to do so compared to a more descriptive "this problem isn't due to the code itself". (Of course the real question becomes what happens to the interpretation of private contracts - does the intended qualia prevail, or are the words taken as strict references to terms in White's Law Dictionary?)
thedailymail 8y ago
I am struggling to think of a way in which prohibiting the sharing of such information could be made illegal. The checkpoints are publicly visible activities of public employees. The right to photograph and video record police when acting in an official capacity is well established. If anything, noting their location seems less intrusive and more likely to represent a protected form of speech.
cwkoss 8y ago
It would be disappointing if Google and Waze capitulated to this demand. DUI checkpoints are unconstitutional and of questionable value.
- pseudolus 8y ago
  The Supreme Court confirmed the constitutionality of DUI checkpoints in Michigan Dept. of State v. Sitz [0][1]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan_Department_of_State_Police_v._Sitz https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan_Department_of_State_P... [1] https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/496/444/ https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/496/444/
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - bgentry 8y ago
    Setting aside the legality of the checkpoints themselves, the general public has a clear freedom of speech right to share information about the activities of law enforcement authorities. Barring some exceptional circumstances, there’s no constitutional authority by which they can prohibit an individual or a company from disseminating this information, especially given its clear value to the public. Whether the companies capitulate on their own accord or due to some behind the scenes strong arming is another matter.
lawrenceyan 8y ago
The NYPD have no legal recourse to do so regardless of their demands so it shouldn't make any difference.
everdev 8y ago
In SF, I drove by a big road sign that said "DUI checkpoint ahead". It seemed like the SFPD was advertising it a few blocks in advance and it was easy enough to take another street to avoid it if you wanted to.
- sajohn6 8y ago
  Where I'm from (Midwest), they'll set up the same checkpoint signs and then have an alt checkpoint waiting after the most likely exit point.
  - ams6110 8y ago
    To optimize, they should probably have the checkpoint only on the alternate route.
buildingsramen 8y ago
I'm shocked at the comments in this thread decrying DUI checkpoints. Does anyone not see drunk driving as a serious threat to public safety?
- ceejayoz 8y ago
  Drunk driving is a serious threat to public safety. Giving the police the right to stop people without probable cause is also a serious threat to public safety.
- function_seven 8y ago
  We have lots of threats. We don’t arbitrarily stop every single person to ferret them out. A free society demands some level of risk at the hands of other citizens. Freedom of movement without harassment is important to me. More important than catching every drunk driver.
  - buildingsramen 8y ago
    I reject your reasoning of pushing things into absolutes - drunk driving needs to be minimized, and people need to get where they are going. There's a balance between those needs that is optimal. Nobody is preventing you from reaching your destination, "how fast" is the only question.
    - geofft 8y ago
      As a wise man once said, "Drunk driving may kill a lot of people, but it also helps a lot of people get to work on time, so, it's impossible to say if it's bad or not."
    - function_seven 8y ago
      I never mentioned speed or fear of delay. DUI checkpoints are not that. They’re generalized fishing expeditions. If you’re sober, but have contraband, they can arrest you for that. Or for having and expired license. Maybe you’re late on your registration. And I’m not pushing absolutes here. I’m just prioritizing freedom over the moral panic of the day. (Yes, drunk driving is bad. But checkpoints are still an overreaction and there’s little political will to go against MADD. It’s the same dynamic of “won’t somebody think of the children!”)
Simulacra 8y ago
This is laughable. It's our freedom of speech to alert others to DUI checkpoints, speed traps, or coupons at at the donut shop. Whatever we want. It's the same as flash the brights, which the police have tried (and failed) to stop [1]. I hope the NYPD does try to push this so they can get smacked down in court. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/02/05/flashing-headlights-to-warn-drivers-of-a-speed-trap-constitutionally-protected-speech/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201...
- anigbrowl 8y ago
  That's true, but something tells me the same people opposing this will scream like banshees when people start sharing lists of known speeders and bad drivers publicly.
  - geofft 8y ago
    The government doesn't have freedom of speech rights, and in any case accusing people of being "bad drivers" likely gets into issues of slander in a way that pointing out the fact of the existence of checkpoints or cameras doesn't.
    - apatters 8y ago
      Indeed, it's almost as if the laws were designed to defend liberty and hinder authoritarianism. As if even when authoritarianism sounds like a good idea, it is not...
    - fabianhjr 8y ago
      Just an FYI, the comment you replied to didn't imply that the government do the publishing. There are several initiatives to tag evidence to plates and locations so that people can watch out for bad and dangerous drivers. Eg, https://baddrivers.com/ https://baddrivers.com/
  - toomuchtodo 8y ago
    Court records that relate to traffic citations are public record already (with the exceptions of those who can use traffic school to avoid a conviction or violations that are granted expungement for whatever reason).
mhb 8y ago
Maybe they could move the checkpoints into close proximity of drinking establishments.
dgzl 8y ago
Makes me think that the NYPD doesn't have any direct connections to Google.
joecool1029 8y ago
In NJ they announce the checkpoints ahead of time in local newspapers. This is (presumably) to avoid breaching the 4th amendment.[1] Otherwise police would have to establish reasonable cause to pull a car over. Or at least that's what a shitload of case law looks like (they had a window obstruction or were driving 'erratically', for instance) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan_Department_of_State_Police_v._Sitz https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan_Department_of_State_P...
kevin_thibedeau 8y ago
I've never seen a checkpoint in Manhattan. Where do they typically operate?
- xfitm3 8y ago
  I've been through one right before the Holland tunnel.
rundmc 8y ago
It would be smarter for NYPD cops to start posting fake DUI checkpoints on Waze all over the city. If any Waze users were thinking they could DUI safely, this will persuade them otherwise.
- geofft 8y ago
  I imagine that even perfectly sober people are interested in skipping these checkpoints, and so a checkpoint on Waze, whether real or not, causes enough traffic diversion that fake checkpoints will just make traffic even more of a mess, which seems unlikely to be a politically popular decision.
Jedd 8y ago
> ... the group expresses concern that people who abduct children could use the app to plot routes that avoid police checkpoints. That's some spectacularly tenuous, desperate, ludicrous, over-reaching rationalising. Once I got to that point I wasn't sure if the whole thing wasn't a sophisticated trolling exercise.
sliken 8y ago
It does make you wonder. Exactly how much should the government be able to inconvenience the large majority of law abiding citizens to catch the rare few? This isn't just about checkpoints, but implies to privacy, encryption, etc.

42 points by kposehn 8y ago

I think the traditional attack on this sort of thing is to have a bunch of concerned citizens drive around and create false checkpoints. Or spoof the GPS and just do it from home.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

mindslight 8y ago

So it's not enough to set up anticonstitutional totalitarian checkpoints, but they complain when their victims have the audacity to report on them?! Given how readily these charlatans will waste public resources, it seems like the best way to "make the streets safer" would be to lay off as many are necessary until their organizations can once again focus on fighting crime rather than creating it. But of course that's just the ongoing issue with these lawless thugs. The noteworthy problem here is the vulnerability caused by centralized applications and centralized app stores. Waze may not immediately succumb to this whining, but the technical foundation of the mobile ecosystem makes it a sitting duck for repeated attacks. Eventually enough pressure will build that they will have no choice but to succumb to the totalitarian ratchet.

berberous 8y ago
The Supreme Court has expressly ruled these constitutional: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan_Department_of_State_Police_v._Sitz https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan_Department_of_State_P... You can think it was a bad decision (3 judges dissented) that should be overruled, but they are currently constitutional.
- mindslight 8y ago
  The Supreme Court ruling something constitutional does not mean that it is constitutional. It's every citizen's duty to understand the law for themselves, in order to know when the government has exceeded its mandate.
  - pmiller2 8y ago
    Good luck with that.
    - escape_goat 8y ago
      Most concise rebuttal.
  - pseudolus 8y ago
    With all due respect the Supreme Court ruling that something is constitutional does make it constitutional regardless of how wrong the decision may be perceived with the benefit of hindsight or even contemporaneously (see a horrible decision like Dredd Scott v. Sandford [0]). The Supreme Court is the final arbiter of constitutionality and even the reversal of a Supreme Court decision by the same body some years after does not render the previous decision unconstitutional. To be blunt, if the Supreme Court says that black is white and white is black then for constitutional purposes black is white and white is black. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford
    - mindslight 8y ago
      > To be blunt, if the Supreme Court says that black is white and white is black then for constitutional purposes black is white and white is black. For legal purposes, you mean. And yes, lower courts would have to follow that fiction. But I would not have to personally agree that white is black, nor would I have to state that the Constitution was written in white ink. So why when the Supreme Court says that a given action is in line with the Constitution, do I have no choice but to agree? I do agree that courts will follow the SC and I think it's fair to call said action "legal" in that it is allowed by the current legal system. But you're asserting that I cannot state my opinion that a given action is not in line with the intention of the Constitution by using the term "constitutional" because it cannot be removed from the legal context. This seems akin to stating that a given program is "working correctly" when it malfunctions due to bad memory. We can construct our assumptions so that this statement is correct, it just seems pointless to do so compared to a more descriptive "this problem isn't due to the code itself". (Of course the real question becomes what happens to the interpretation of private contracts - does the intended qualia prevail, or are the words taken as strict references to terms in White's Law Dictionary?)

thedailymail 8y ago

I am struggling to think of a way in which prohibiting the sharing of such information could be made illegal. The checkpoints are publicly visible activities of public employees. The right to photograph and video record police when acting in an official capacity is well established. If anything, noting their location seems less intrusive and more likely to represent a protected form of speech.

cwkoss 8y ago

It would be disappointing if Google and Waze capitulated to this demand. DUI checkpoints are unconstitutional and of questionable value.

pseudolus 8y ago
The Supreme Court confirmed the constitutionality of DUI checkpoints in Michigan Dept. of State v. Sitz [0][1]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan_Department_of_State_Police_v._Sitz https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan_Department_of_State_P... [1] https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/496/444/ https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/496/444/
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- bgentry 8y ago
  Setting aside the legality of the checkpoints themselves, the general public has a clear freedom of speech right to share information about the activities of law enforcement authorities. Barring some exceptional circumstances, there’s no constitutional authority by which they can prohibit an individual or a company from disseminating this information, especially given its clear value to the public. Whether the companies capitulate on their own accord or due to some behind the scenes strong arming is another matter.

lawrenceyan 8y ago

The NYPD have no legal recourse to do so regardless of their demands so it shouldn't make any difference.

everdev 8y ago

In SF, I drove by a big road sign that said "DUI checkpoint ahead". It seemed like the SFPD was advertising it a few blocks in advance and it was easy enough to take another street to avoid it if you wanted to.

sajohn6 8y ago
Where I'm from (Midwest), they'll set up the same checkpoint signs and then have an alt checkpoint waiting after the most likely exit point.
- ams6110 8y ago
  To optimize, they should probably have the checkpoint only on the alternate route.

buildingsramen 8y ago

I'm shocked at the comments in this thread decrying DUI checkpoints. Does anyone not see drunk driving as a serious threat to public safety?

ceejayoz 8y ago
Drunk driving is a serious threat to public safety. Giving the police the right to stop people without probable cause is also a serious threat to public safety.
function_seven 8y ago
We have lots of threats. We don’t arbitrarily stop every single person to ferret them out. A free society demands some level of risk at the hands of other citizens. Freedom of movement without harassment is important to me. More important than catching every drunk driver.
- buildingsramen 8y ago
  I reject your reasoning of pushing things into absolutes - drunk driving needs to be minimized, and people need to get where they are going. There's a balance between those needs that is optimal. Nobody is preventing you from reaching your destination, "how fast" is the only question.
  - geofft 8y ago
    As a wise man once said, "Drunk driving may kill a lot of people, but it also helps a lot of people get to work on time, so, it's impossible to say if it's bad or not."
  - function_seven 8y ago
    I never mentioned speed or fear of delay. DUI checkpoints are not that. They’re generalized fishing expeditions. If you’re sober, but have contraband, they can arrest you for that. Or for having and expired license. Maybe you’re late on your registration. And I’m not pushing absolutes here. I’m just prioritizing freedom over the moral panic of the day. (Yes, drunk driving is bad. But checkpoints are still an overreaction and there’s little political will to go against MADD. It’s the same dynamic of “won’t somebody think of the children!”)

Simulacra 8y ago

This is laughable. It's our freedom of speech to alert others to DUI checkpoints, speed traps, or coupons at at the donut shop. Whatever we want. It's the same as flash the brights, which the police have tried (and failed) to stop [1]. I hope the NYPD does try to push this so they can get smacked down in court. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/02/05/flashing-headlights-to-warn-drivers-of-a-speed-trap-constitutionally-protected-speech/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201...

anigbrowl 8y ago
That's true, but something tells me the same people opposing this will scream like banshees when people start sharing lists of known speeders and bad drivers publicly.
- geofft 8y ago
  The government doesn't have freedom of speech rights, and in any case accusing people of being "bad drivers" likely gets into issues of slander in a way that pointing out the fact of the existence of checkpoints or cameras doesn't.
  - apatters 8y ago
    Indeed, it's almost as if the laws were designed to defend liberty and hinder authoritarianism. As if even when authoritarianism sounds like a good idea, it is not...
  - fabianhjr 8y ago
    Just an FYI, the comment you replied to didn't imply that the government do the publishing. There are several initiatives to tag evidence to plates and locations so that people can watch out for bad and dangerous drivers. Eg, https://baddrivers.com/ https://baddrivers.com/
- toomuchtodo 8y ago
  Court records that relate to traffic citations are public record already (with the exceptions of those who can use traffic school to avoid a conviction or violations that are granted expungement for whatever reason).

mhb 8y ago

Maybe they could move the checkpoints into close proximity of drinking establishments.

dgzl 8y ago

Makes me think that the NYPD doesn't have any direct connections to Google.

joecool1029 8y ago

In NJ they announce the checkpoints ahead of time in local newspapers. This is (presumably) to avoid breaching the 4th amendment.[1] Otherwise police would have to establish reasonable cause to pull a car over. Or at least that's what a shitload of case law looks like (they had a window obstruction or were driving 'erratically', for instance) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan_Department_of_State_Police_v._Sitz https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan_Department_of_State_P...

kevin_thibedeau 8y ago

I've never seen a checkpoint in Manhattan. Where do they typically operate?

xfitm3 8y ago
I've been through one right before the Holland tunnel.

rundmc 8y ago

It would be smarter for NYPD cops to start posting fake DUI checkpoints on Waze all over the city. If any Waze users were thinking they could DUI safely, this will persuade them otherwise.

geofft 8y ago
I imagine that even perfectly sober people are interested in skipping these checkpoints, and so a checkpoint on Waze, whether real or not, causes enough traffic diversion that fake checkpoints will just make traffic even more of a mess, which seems unlikely to be a politically popular decision.

Jedd 8y ago

> ... the group expresses concern that people who abduct children could use the app to plot routes that avoid police checkpoints. That's some spectacularly tenuous, desperate, ludicrous, over-reaching rationalising. Once I got to that point I wasn't sure if the whole thing wasn't a sophisticated trolling exercise.

sliken 8y ago

It does make you wonder. Exactly how much should the government be able to inconvenience the large majority of law abiding citizens to catch the rare few? This isn't just about checkpoints, but implies to privacy, encryption, etc.