6 ms·

While I certainly don't condone driving while impaired - I feel like the government trying to outright ban legal technologies that allow citizens to avoid gover

While I certainly don't condone driving while impaired - I feel like the government trying to outright ban legal technologies that allow citizens to avoid government authority sets a dangerous precedent. this technology should not be promoted to your customers--in fact, it shouldn't even be available. It shouldn't even be available? That sounds sketchy to me. I know slippery slope is a logical fallacy, but if this line of reasoning holds, couldn't you say the same thing about encryption? It enables people who wish to engage in illegal activities to avoid government authority and thus, shouldn't even be available? Scary.

JoeAltmaier 16y ago
That's going a bit far. People May use encryption for illegal activities. What possible use does the DUI checkpoint software have, outside of enabling drunk drivers?
- thecoffman 16y ago
  Avoiding checkpoints if you're sober and don't want the inconvenience of waiting in line at a checkpoint for one. Also see the explanations of other people in this thread describing how announcing the locations of the checkpoints ahead of time can be more effective.
  - JoeAltmaier 16y ago
    Really? All these sales are to upstanding citizens wanting to save a traffic stop? Then why isn't the app called "traffic stop"? Its called "Tipsy" or something like that. It covers only DUI traffic stops. Who is this marketing to? Who is buying it? We all know the answer. Yes, its good to protect freedom of speech. Its also good to make the streets safer. And DUI is a real problem, not a strawman.
    - LordBodak 16y ago
      The average speed trap doesn't affect traffic (unless you happen to be the person pulled over). DUI checkpoints often have miles of stopped cars waiting to go through.
      - checker 16y ago
        I see what you're saying, but speed traps definitely cause significant bottlenecks in the DC area, probably because of rubbernecking and braking (or the fact that everyone is speeding).
      - JoeAltmaier 16y ago
        So you plan to buy 'Tipsy'? Just wondering how much of this is a strawman
        LordBodak 16y ago
        I don't have an iPhone, so I won't be buying it.
- artmageddon 16y ago
  The same reason it would be nice to know if a traffic-stopping car accident occurred: I would use it for shortening commute times. Why should I wait in line to tell an officer that I'm not doing anything illegal when I haven't been doing anything illegal?
  - pyre 16y ago
    Let's just let the officer determine that for himself, shall we? ;)
    - reneherse 16y ago
      Whatever. There's been more than one time where I was coming home from work at night and after the commute found a DUI checkpoint stationed on the main road right in front of my street. No way I was going to sit through the bullshit waiting just to "prove my innocence" as you seem to imply we all should. Just like if it were a major, road-blocking accident, the answer for me (and I'm sure many people who were not sober) was U-turn and reroute. There's no reason why law abiding citizens should have to be inconvenienced by these dubiously effective law enforcement efforts, and if there's a tool based on protected free speech that allows us to avoid them, so much the better. LE can catch drunks in other more effective ways that don't inconvenience the law abiding citizenry.
      - artmageddon 16y ago
        Slightly off topic but still relevant: There's actually legislation in some states that would permit the police to chase you if they see you purposefully trying to evade a DUI checkpoint. It differs by each state(or municipality?), but New Mexico seems to have enacted that: http://www.albuquerquecriminallawyerblog.com/2009/09/uturn-to-avoid-dwidui-checkpoi.html http://www.albuquerquecriminallawyerblog.com/2009/09/uturn-t...
      - pyre 16y ago
        My remark was sarcastic in the extreme. Apparently a </sarcasm> would have been a better hint than the winking smiley.
- JoelSutherland 16y ago
  Maybe I'm sober and don't want to wait in traffic. Or maybe I'm drunk and don't want a ticket. The point is that it doesn't really matter. The very first constitutional amendment ensures that the government's power is limited such that it doesn't need to evaluate the content of its citizens' speech.
  - JoeAltmaier 16y ago
    Which is being stretched pretty thin to include "IPhone App" as "speech". But ok. Freedom of speech is expressly limited in cases such as hollering "Fire!" in a crowded theatre. How about defeating police efforts to catch murderers? Child molestors? Drunk drivers? Seems like its not cut-and-dried is all I'm saying.
- theklub 16y ago
  They do list these stops in most papers and on local TV around the holidays, like someone else commented. Making an app just makes it easier to get the information.
- michaeldhopkins 16y ago
  Feel free to write an app that helps the police arrest drunk drivers if you dislike them so much.
  - mhb 16y ago
    Maybe that could be a map of bars outside of which they could wait for drunks to get into their cars. More efficient, less intrusive.
- mseebach 16y ago
  What possible uses does a blog-post explaining your fifth amendment rights have, outside of helping people who have something to hide, hide it from the police? It's an invariant property of the rule of law that when something isn't explicitly illegal, it's legal. And yes, many "free" western countries do have problems with this.
- tptacek 16y ago
  The DUI checkpoints in Illinois are also revenue generators; they issue compliance tickets there as well.
- gamble 16y ago
  DUI checkpoints are used as a convenient way to peek inside cars the police would have no cause to pull over under normal circumstances. Then, if they don't like your attitude, they can make up an excuse to turn your car inside out looking for something incriminating.
philh 16y ago
To be fair, there's a difference between "you shouldn't do this" and "you shouldn't be allowed to do this". At least in this letter, the senators are not explicitly trying or threatening to ban anything.
- thecoffman 16y ago
  The quote is taken directly from the article: in fact, it shouldn't even be available
  - JoeAltmaier 16y ago
    ...they stated. When they were "asking" to have the app taken down. Not banning, not legislating. Just asking.
    - cjeane 16y ago
      Apple complying with their request and passing legislation have the same outcome.
      - HeyLaughingBoy 16y ago
        Apple complying with the request just means it's unavailable on the Apple/iPhone platform. Legislating it means it's unavailable on any platform.
    - fluidcruft 16y ago
      I think that statement includes an implicit threat of possible legislation action if necessary.
    - danenania 16y ago
      'Just asking' is a lot worse than following the legislative process. They are trying to use their influence to accomplish an effectively legislative outcome without oversight. This creates a dangerous gray area between law and intimidation. It's similar to when Visa, Mastercard, etc. were 'just asked' to stop dealing with Wikileaks. In fact, it is common for dictators and totalitarian regimes to rule through 'just asking' instead of law. Not a good precedent.
wtflolly 16y ago
My local newspaper publishes, at the start of the weekend, the planned locations of DUI checkpoints. Perhaps my local police and newspaper should also be banned by US Senators.

JoeAltmaier 16y ago

That's going a bit far. People May use encryption for illegal activities. What possible use does the DUI checkpoint software have, outside of enabling drunk drivers?

thecoffman 16y ago
Avoiding checkpoints if you're sober and don't want the inconvenience of waiting in line at a checkpoint for one. Also see the explanations of other people in this thread describing how announcing the locations of the checkpoints ahead of time can be more effective.
- JoeAltmaier 16y ago
  Really? All these sales are to upstanding citizens wanting to save a traffic stop? Then why isn't the app called "traffic stop"? Its called "Tipsy" or something like that. It covers only DUI traffic stops. Who is this marketing to? Who is buying it? We all know the answer. Yes, its good to protect freedom of speech. Its also good to make the streets safer. And DUI is a real problem, not a strawman.
  - LordBodak 16y ago
    The average speed trap doesn't affect traffic (unless you happen to be the person pulled over). DUI checkpoints often have miles of stopped cars waiting to go through.
    - checker 16y ago
      I see what you're saying, but speed traps definitely cause significant bottlenecks in the DC area, probably because of rubbernecking and braking (or the fact that everyone is speeding).
    - JoeAltmaier 16y ago
      So you plan to buy 'Tipsy'? Just wondering how much of this is a strawman
      - LordBodak 16y ago
        I don't have an iPhone, so I won't be buying it.
artmageddon 16y ago
The same reason it would be nice to know if a traffic-stopping car accident occurred: I would use it for shortening commute times. Why should I wait in line to tell an officer that I'm not doing anything illegal when I haven't been doing anything illegal?
- pyre 16y ago
  Let's just let the officer determine that for himself, shall we? ;)
  - reneherse 16y ago
    Whatever. There's been more than one time where I was coming home from work at night and after the commute found a DUI checkpoint stationed on the main road right in front of my street. No way I was going to sit through the bullshit waiting just to "prove my innocence" as you seem to imply we all should. Just like if it were a major, road-blocking accident, the answer for me (and I'm sure many people who were not sober) was U-turn and reroute. There's no reason why law abiding citizens should have to be inconvenienced by these dubiously effective law enforcement efforts, and if there's a tool based on protected free speech that allows us to avoid them, so much the better. LE can catch drunks in other more effective ways that don't inconvenience the law abiding citizenry.
    - artmageddon 16y ago
      Slightly off topic but still relevant: There's actually legislation in some states that would permit the police to chase you if they see you purposefully trying to evade a DUI checkpoint. It differs by each state(or municipality?), but New Mexico seems to have enacted that: http://www.albuquerquecriminallawyerblog.com/2009/09/uturn-to-avoid-dwidui-checkpoi.html http://www.albuquerquecriminallawyerblog.com/2009/09/uturn-t...
    - pyre 16y ago
      My remark was sarcastic in the extreme. Apparently a </sarcasm> would have been a better hint than the winking smiley.
JoelSutherland 16y ago
Maybe I'm sober and don't want to wait in traffic. Or maybe I'm drunk and don't want a ticket. The point is that it doesn't really matter. The very first constitutional amendment ensures that the government's power is limited such that it doesn't need to evaluate the content of its citizens' speech.
- JoeAltmaier 16y ago
  Which is being stretched pretty thin to include "IPhone App" as "speech". But ok. Freedom of speech is expressly limited in cases such as hollering "Fire!" in a crowded theatre. How about defeating police efforts to catch murderers? Child molestors? Drunk drivers? Seems like its not cut-and-dried is all I'm saying.
theklub 16y ago
They do list these stops in most papers and on local TV around the holidays, like someone else commented. Making an app just makes it easier to get the information.
michaeldhopkins 16y ago
Feel free to write an app that helps the police arrest drunk drivers if you dislike them so much.
- mhb 16y ago
  Maybe that could be a map of bars outside of which they could wait for drunks to get into their cars. More efficient, less intrusive.
mseebach 16y ago
What possible uses does a blog-post explaining your fifth amendment rights have, outside of helping people who have something to hide, hide it from the police? It's an invariant property of the rule of law that when something isn't explicitly illegal, it's legal. And yes, many "free" western countries do have problems with this.
tptacek 16y ago
The DUI checkpoints in Illinois are also revenue generators; they issue compliance tickets there as well.
gamble 16y ago
DUI checkpoints are used as a convenient way to peek inside cars the police would have no cause to pull over under normal circumstances. Then, if they don't like your attitude, they can make up an excuse to turn your car inside out looking for something incriminating.

philh 16y ago

To be fair, there's a difference between "you shouldn't do this" and "you shouldn't be allowed to do this". At least in this letter, the senators are not explicitly trying or threatening to ban anything.

thecoffman 16y ago
The quote is taken directly from the article: in fact, it shouldn't even be available
- JoeAltmaier 16y ago
  ...they stated. When they were "asking" to have the app taken down. Not banning, not legislating. Just asking.
  - cjeane 16y ago
    Apple complying with their request and passing legislation have the same outcome.
    - HeyLaughingBoy 16y ago
      Apple complying with the request just means it's unavailable on the Apple/iPhone platform. Legislating it means it's unavailable on any platform.
  - fluidcruft 16y ago
    I think that statement includes an implicit threat of possible legislation action if necessary.
  - danenania 16y ago
    'Just asking' is a lot worse than following the legislative process. They are trying to use their influence to accomplish an effectively legislative outcome without oversight. This creates a dangerous gray area between law and intimidation. It's similar to when Visa, Mastercard, etc. were 'just asked' to stop dealing with Wikileaks. In fact, it is common for dictators and totalitarian regimes to rule through 'just asking' instead of law. Not a good precedent.

wtflolly 16y ago

My local newspaper publishes, at the start of the weekend, the planned locations of DUI checkpoints. Perhaps my local police and newspaper should also be banned by US Senators.