Apple will reject DUI checkpoints app • Hacker News Board

Re: Apple will reject DUI checkpoints app

#31

Post by johngalt » Thu, Jun 09, 2011, 9:20 PM UTC

siglesias wrote: post #18

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.

Perhaps some people take an issue with mandatory police inspections.

Someone who's salary I pay, using equipment I bought, forcibly stopping me on a street that I paid to build, and asking me what business I have being there.

Edit: What is the criminal penalty for having a .08 while performing law enforcement duties?

Re: Apple will reject DUI checkpoints app

#32

Post by Steko » Thu, Jun 09, 2011, 9:33 PM UTC

Urgo wrote: post #3

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.

"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.

Re: Apple will reject DUI checkpoints app

#33

Post by WiseWeasel » Thu, Jun 09, 2011, 9:38 PM UTC

siglesias wrote: post #25

qubit wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree. I think the argument is more about who gets to decide what is "moral" and who gets to promote/enforce that morality.

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.

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.

Re: Apple will reject DUI checkpoints app

#34

Post by nirvdrum » Thu, Jun 09, 2011, 9:45 PM UTC

siglesias wrote: post #25

qubit wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree. I think the argument is more about who gets to decide what is "moral" and who gets to promote/enforce that morality.

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.

In Massachusetts it's illegal to drive and use SMS. Similar legislation is being or has been passed in other states. Should Apple then disable SMS during rush hour? Should it detect you're in a car and shut the phone down?

Don't get me wrong. I'm not a fan of drunk drivers and I'm less a fan of people screwing with their phones while they drive, which seems a whole lot less safer. But it's arguably something Apple and/or the carriers could address. However, I don't think it's right for them to do so. I guess it's the whole slippery slope thing.

And FWIW, I do turn around if I think a roadblock is ahead, regardless of whether I've been drinking. It's a hassle and I don't trust I'll get a ticket for something else I'm completely unaware of.

Re: Apple will reject DUI checkpoints app

#35

Post by siglesias » Thu, Jun 09, 2011, 10:15 PM UTC

nirvdrum wrote: post #34

siglesias wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

In Massachusetts it's illegal to drive and use SMS. Similar legislation is being or has been passed in other states. Should Apple then disable SMS during rush hour? Should it detect you're in a car and shut the phone down? Don't get me wrong. I'm not a fan of drunk drivers and I'm less a fan of people screwing with their phones while they drive, which seems a whole lot less safer. But it's arguably something Apple an…

I think it would save lives if Apple figured out a way to be smart with voice recognition and speech to enable hands and eyes free texting. It absolutely should be on the roadmap for them.

Re: Apple will reject DUI checkpoints app

#36

Post by tzs » Thu, Jun 09, 2011, 10:34 PM UTC

ianferrel wrote: post #6

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.

Note, however, that a good crowd-sourced traffic monitoring app could deal with that, without having to know that it is a DUI checkpoint. It just needs to know that there is an area where traffic is slow.

Re: Apple will reject DUI checkpoints app

#37

Post by qubit » Fri, Jun 10, 2011, 7:02 AM UTC

siglesias wrote: post #25

qubit wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree. I think the argument is more about who gets to decide what is "moral" and who gets to promote/enforce that morality.

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.

I think the fact that there is s kill switch at all is the problem. The argument being made is that there shouldn't be a person with a platform that has a kill switch. Platforms should be open as opposed to controlled by a single person or entity.