US Senators ask Apple to pull DUI checkpoint apps

I can't understand that at all. I would agree if it were a victimless crime, or perhaps if they were actually baiting them. But this sounds like a great and efficient use of police time. Are there any circumstances where they shouldn't stop drunk drivers??

If thieves predictably showed up at a store to steal something, should the police not camp out and take advantage of their predictability?

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.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1493749

If Congress or a state legislature tries to ban these apps, I think the laws will probably get overturned. However, if Apple decides that they think these apps are in poor taste and shouldn't be part of their ecosystem, I'm fine with that. They've blocked apps that are far less offensive to me.

The other interesting question is liability. If a driver were to use one of these apps to circumvent a DUI checkpoint and then kill or injure someone in a car accident, I wonder if the app maker (or Apple?) would bear some liability. I don't think that free speech would offer much protection in this kind of case.

1) If a person is so impaired to drive, he will be even more impaired to operate and understand an app on a tiny freakn device.

2) Maybe the police shouldn't setup any checkpoint. Instead the check should happen in random places on the street.

3) Think of legislation or creating better safety standards for Cars, so the manufacturers are forced device cars that can detect impairment of the driver and not start at all. This option can create more jobs, inovations, etc.

These morons are freakn shame to our democracy!

Contrary to popular libertarian thought, I'm happy with new laws as long as they are consistent. If we want to do things to reduce risk of death while driving I don't especially like having government rules, but I'll take them as long as they are self-consistent.

The thing with drinking and driving is that, contrary to popular belief, you don't drink four beers and go run over a school bus full of orphans. Most drunk people drive fine for hundreds of trips.

What the actual situation is that drinking increases your odds of having an accident. It does not make it a certainty. Not by any means.

So as long as we equally prosecute all of those things that increases the odds of having an accident by the same percentage by the same punishment, I'm happy with a compromise. That means cell phone usage, arguing while speeding, etc. If it's as dangerous as X and society needs to intervene, it's as dangerous as X.

Of course, framing the issue this way brings up the great problem with DUI -- it's an emotional, moral issue that somebody wants the law to fix. We are "offended" by the drunk driver running over the orphan in a way that we are not by the cell phone user doing the same thing.

When people talk about "legislating morality", they are not talking about pulling words from some holy book and trying to make a constitutional amendment out of it. I wish that it were so simple. Instead, it happens when people of all faiths, including atheists, become morally outraged at some sort of behavior and seek to punish it in a way different from other behavior with similar effects on society.

I'll probably get downvoted into oblivion for this comment, but all I'm pleading for is a little dispassionate logic here. I fully understand this is a very emotional issue for lots of people. (And I sympathize with those people) In no way at all do I condone drinking and driving.