41–50 of 60 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The quote is taken directly from the article: in fact, it shouldn't even be available
...they stated. When they were "asking" to have the app taken down. Not banning, not legislating. Just asking.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> They used to tell me they didn't feel right "baiting" drunk drivers, for instance sitting hidden outside of popular bars and waiting for closing time. They felt like if they observed you driving impaired, you got pulled over, and if you were drunk you got a ticket. To them this was just the right way to act. I can't understand that at all. I would agree if it were a victimless crime, or perhaps if they were actuall…
I think the point is that, instead of camping out and waiting for them to get into their cars so they can ticket them, maybe something more proactive should be done to prevent them from getting in their cars at all. There is, of course, the argument that punishing people that try to drive after drinking too much may get them to change their behavior. Regardless, doing it this way makes one wonder if income from ticke…
About income from tickets vs safety, catching people who are in the act this way is both. It's not like they get the ticket and then let them drive away. When you catch and prevent someone from driving drunk you improve safety as well.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
Let's just let the officer determine that for himself, shall we? ;)
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.
Is the content legal? Then it's available on the app store. Is it illegal? Then it's not.
Does it offend some group or the other? It doesn't matter. Does it cause displeasure to a bunch of lawmakers? Tough luck.
But when Apple starts to pull apps that offend minorities, it has to take all those requests into consideration, and produce justification as to why it pulls this and allows that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The quote is taken directly from the article: in fact, it shouldn't even be available
...they stated. When they were "asking" to have the app taken down. Not banning, not legislating. Just asking.
Instead there was a 3rd party site where you could download an updated database of accident black spots - the ones where they put speed cameras.
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 li…
Perhaps my local police and newspaper should also be banned by US Senators.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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.