7 ms·

Apple will reject DUI checkpoints app

23 points by raheemm 15y ago

orangecat 15y ago
Regardless of whether you believe apps like this have a legitimate purpose, it demonstrates a disturbing aspect of the walled garden model. The government doesn't have to specifically prohibit an app it doesn't like, it just has to "encourage" the gatekeeper to remove it.
- siglesias 15y ago
  That would be a disturbing aspect of government. EDIT: To be clear, walled garden owners are under no legal obligations to comply with "suggestions" from government that apps be removed. If senators try to get their way by threatening regulation, I would say that's bad behavior on the part of those senators.
Urgo 15y ago
While I don't condone drunk driving at all and personally don't have a use for this app as I don't drink and drive this is just one more example of why I'm an android user. I don't need papa jobs looking out for me.
- noarchy 15y ago
  You don't have to add a disclaimer about not condoning drunk driving. That you felt it was necessary says quite a bit about how we've been groomed to accept these checkpoints.
  - nasmorn 15y ago
    The problem is that DUI is actually dangerous and the threat of being punished when you do kill someone does not deter people enough. Plus they obviously have low regard for their own life already. You need to threaten them with something that happens more frequently. Tada DUI checkpoints and losing your license or money.
    - noarchy 15y ago
      Since DUIs have not stopped, even with checkpoints, what are you suggesting should be done beyond this?
    - yolesaber 15y ago
      Problem: these DUI checkpoints are un-Constitutional and violate the 4th amendment. Lawrence Taylor has written an excellent article about the dangers of such "DUI exceptions" to the Constitution - http://www.drunkdrivingdefense.com/general/lawrence-taylor.htm http://www.drunkdrivingdefense.com/general/lawrence-taylor.h...
    - king_jester 15y ago
      The actual fundamental problem is that in many locations alternatives to driving (drunk or otherwise) take longer or are more expensive. Cities with strong public transit and better city planning help mitigate drunk driving because it no longer necessary to drive after drinking to go somewhere.
- ignifero 15y ago
  It would be socially responsible for Android/Google to do the same.
- Steko 15y ago
  "I don't need papa jobs looking out for me." I hope you apply similar logic to all of the businesses you use. No onion rings at McDonalds? One more reason why I'm a Burger King customer. I don't need papa Ronald looking out for me.
redrobot5050 15y ago
Oh well. The developer will just move it to a web app. If he was smart, he was just using the embedded app version of Safari anyway to access a web site.
ianferrel 15y ago
To be fair, there are plenty of reasons to avoid DUI checkpoints even if you're not driving impaired. They tend to substantially slow down traffic, for one.
- siglesias 15y ago
  Do you check for DUI checkpoints every time you get in your car? Because I don't.
  - noarchy 15y ago
    Most people wouldn't think to do it. But if you have a busted tail light of which you were not aware, for example, rest assured that you'll know about it after passing through a "DUI" checkpoint.
    - siglesias 15y ago
      Come on. This is a weak argument. Most people are going to get this app so that they can drink and drive, not to avoid getting busted for a broken taillight.
      - noarchy 15y ago
        That may be the case, but my point (which I tried to infer, if unsuccessfully) was that these are much more than "DUI" checkpoints. Apple shouldn't be swallowing the government's line about this.
  - _delirium 15y ago
    I don't mostly because it's not easy. If there were an easy way to see where police roadblocks are, I would definitely glance at it and avoid them, because I don't really like interacting with police. I've never had any particularly bad experiences, fortunately, but it still slightly creeps me out to have to go through a police checkpoint in my own country, especially absent exigent circumstances like a recent shooting, or prison break, or something. (I don't really like going through the permanent immigration-check roadblock on I-10 in West Texas, either, but no app can do much about that one.) Although what I'd really prefer is not a separate app I have to consciously check, but integration with a GPS routing device, the way some of them can use real-time traffic info. Just let me program in a police-roadblock penalty (say, call it equal to 30 minutes of traffic), and then reroute based on the real-time roadblocks info; that way I routinely avoid police roadblocks in my daily life without having to think about it.
tlrobinson 15y ago
Where do they draw the line? What about Trapster/RadarActive?
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
siglesias 15y ago
The moral argument in favor of rejecting this app pivots around whether it does in fact enable more drunk driving. If it does, there doesn't seem to be good justification for allowing the app to exist. I don't think the calculus should be any more complicated than this. Edit: I'll disclaim that I have a bias, having had a friend die drinking and driving.
- mw1234 15y ago
  Should the calculus for banning vehicles or alcohol be any more complicated than whether they enable more drunk driving?
  - siglesias 15y ago
    When I say "enable," I mean "encourage more of," which implies preexistence of a problem that is being exacerbated.
- qubit 15y ago
  I disagree. I think the argument is more about who gets to decide what is "moral" and who gets to promote/enforce that morality.
  - siglesias 15y ago
    OK, may I ask who that is that should make this call? If I have a kill switch on my platform for apps that endanger people and I see that the app is endangering people, I'll feel a moral obligation to toggle that kill switch. Again, this is a rather straightforward call.
    - WiseWeasel 15y ago
      The user should make the call, obviously, or perhaps the user's legal guardian if the user is a minor, or maybe the device owner if the user is not the owner, such as a corporate user. The platform vendor should not have final say over the software an end user may wish to run. The restriction of software distribution to Apple's own app store on such a popular computing platform has serious ramifications to consumer interest if not exercised very carefully to be perfectly aligned with them.
jseliger 15y ago
This is rather annoying, because I have two of them installed. They've never worked especially well, but it would be nice if they did. Anyone know of a web app that's doing substantially the same thing?
kmfrk 15y ago
This is not the first police checkpoint app rejection, as I recall. I think this is a fairly grey area, and I assume people are aware of the same thing. Instead of taking the gamble, I would looking into contacting someone related to the app review process and check if it would be acceptable.

23 points by raheemm 15y ago

Regardless of whether you believe apps like this have a legitimate purpose, it demonstrates a disturbing aspect of the walled garden model. The government doesn't have to specifically prohibit an app it doesn't like, it just has to "encourage" the gatekeeper to remove it.

siglesias 15y ago
That would be a disturbing aspect of government. EDIT: To be clear, walled garden owners are under no legal obligations to comply with "suggestions" from government that apps be removed. If senators try to get their way by threatening regulation, I would say that's bad behavior on the part of those senators.

Urgo 15y ago

While I don't condone drunk driving at all and personally don't have a use for this app as I don't drink and drive this is just one more example of why I'm an android user. I don't need papa jobs looking out for me.

noarchy 15y ago
You don't have to add a disclaimer about not condoning drunk driving. That you felt it was necessary says quite a bit about how we've been groomed to accept these checkpoints.
- nasmorn 15y ago
  The problem is that DUI is actually dangerous and the threat of being punished when you do kill someone does not deter people enough. Plus they obviously have low regard for their own life already. You need to threaten them with something that happens more frequently. Tada DUI checkpoints and losing your license or money.
  - noarchy 15y ago
    Since DUIs have not stopped, even with checkpoints, what are you suggesting should be done beyond this?
  - yolesaber 15y ago
    Problem: these DUI checkpoints are un-Constitutional and violate the 4th amendment. Lawrence Taylor has written an excellent article about the dangers of such "DUI exceptions" to the Constitution - http://www.drunkdrivingdefense.com/general/lawrence-taylor.htm http://www.drunkdrivingdefense.com/general/lawrence-taylor.h...
  - king_jester 15y ago
    The actual fundamental problem is that in many locations alternatives to driving (drunk or otherwise) take longer or are more expensive. Cities with strong public transit and better city planning help mitigate drunk driving because it no longer necessary to drive after drinking to go somewhere.
ignifero 15y ago
It would be socially responsible for Android/Google to do the same.
Steko 15y ago
"I don't need papa jobs looking out for me." I hope you apply similar logic to all of the businesses you use. No onion rings at McDonalds? One more reason why I'm a Burger King customer. I don't need papa Ronald looking out for me.

redrobot5050 15y ago

Oh well. The developer will just move it to a web app. If he was smart, he was just using the embedded app version of Safari anyway to access a web site.

ianferrel 15y ago

To be fair, there are plenty of reasons to avoid DUI checkpoints even if you're not driving impaired. They tend to substantially slow down traffic, for one.

siglesias 15y ago
Do you check for DUI checkpoints every time you get in your car? Because I don't.
- noarchy 15y ago
  Most people wouldn't think to do it. But if you have a busted tail light of which you were not aware, for example, rest assured that you'll know about it after passing through a "DUI" checkpoint.
  - siglesias 15y ago
    Come on. This is a weak argument. Most people are going to get this app so that they can drink and drive, not to avoid getting busted for a broken taillight.
    - noarchy 15y ago
      That may be the case, but my point (which I tried to infer, if unsuccessfully) was that these are much more than "DUI" checkpoints. Apple shouldn't be swallowing the government's line about this.
- _delirium 15y ago
  I don't mostly because it's not easy. If there were an easy way to see where police roadblocks are, I would definitely glance at it and avoid them, because I don't really like interacting with police. I've never had any particularly bad experiences, fortunately, but it still slightly creeps me out to have to go through a police checkpoint in my own country, especially absent exigent circumstances like a recent shooting, or prison break, or something. (I don't really like going through the permanent immigration-check roadblock on I-10 in West Texas, either, but no app can do much about that one.) Although what I'd really prefer is not a separate app I have to consciously check, but integration with a GPS routing device, the way some of them can use real-time traffic info. Just let me program in a police-roadblock penalty (say, call it equal to 30 minutes of traffic), and then reroute based on the real-time roadblocks info; that way I routinely avoid police roadblocks in my daily life without having to think about it.

tlrobinson 15y ago

Where do they draw the line? What about Trapster/RadarActive?

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

siglesias 15y ago

The moral argument in favor of rejecting this app pivots around whether it does in fact enable more drunk driving. If it does, there doesn't seem to be good justification for allowing the app to exist. I don't think the calculus should be any more complicated than this. Edit: I'll disclaim that I have a bias, having had a friend die drinking and driving.

mw1234 15y ago
Should the calculus for banning vehicles or alcohol be any more complicated than whether they enable more drunk driving?
- siglesias 15y ago
  When I say "enable," I mean "encourage more of," which implies preexistence of a problem that is being exacerbated.
qubit 15y ago
I disagree. I think the argument is more about who gets to decide what is "moral" and who gets to promote/enforce that morality.
- siglesias 15y ago
  OK, may I ask who that is that should make this call? If I have a kill switch on my platform for apps that endanger people and I see that the app is endangering people, I'll feel a moral obligation to toggle that kill switch. Again, this is a rather straightforward call.
  - WiseWeasel 15y ago
    The user should make the call, obviously, or perhaps the user's legal guardian if the user is a minor, or maybe the device owner if the user is not the owner, such as a corporate user. The platform vendor should not have final say over the software an end user may wish to run. The restriction of software distribution to Apple's own app store on such a popular computing platform has serious ramifications to consumer interest if not exercised very carefully to be perfectly aligned with them.

jseliger 15y ago

This is rather annoying, because I have two of them installed. They've never worked especially well, but it would be nice if they did. Anyone know of a web app that's doing substantially the same thing?

kmfrk 15y ago

This is not the first police checkpoint app rejection, as I recall. I think this is a fairly grey area, and I assume people are aware of the same thing. Instead of taking the gamble, I would looking into contacting someone related to the app review process and check if it would be acceptable.