Google Won't Pull Checkpoint Evasion App 343
RedEaredSlider writes "Don't expect Google to remove apps that help users avoid DUI checkpoints — the company says it is leaving the controversial apps on its Android Marketplace. A source said the company only removes apps that violate its Android content policies and the apps in question do not appear to violate these policies." We'll see if Apple caves to pressure to remove them.
I expect no less (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple is practically obligated to pull the app, given the fact they're willing to act as the morality police for their users, though it might take them awhile because they like to pretend they 'think different'. RIM is a lily-livered chicken with no willingness to take any kind of stand for fear of offending anybody. It's also not a surprise they pulled the app. And Google is standing by their principles, and won't pull the app unless its actually illegal.
The world is acting according to my expectations in this regard. And once again, its Google I have the most respect for.
I don't see a problem (Score:4, Insightful)
Search and Seizure has Constitutional Limits (Score:4, Insightful)
This application just allows users to enforce their constitutional rights.
Americans once had a right under the constitution to protection from illegal search and seizure. Now even someone who is driving in total compliance with the law is subject to being interrogated by the police and having their blood forcibly taken from them.
Personally, I'd rather not have the police stick me with a needle in violation of my constitutional rights.
This app will be very useful until unconstitutional police checkpoints can be banned.
Re:This should violate their ToS (Score:4, Insightful)
That's kind of like saying the 4th and 5th Amendments are "aiding and abetting a person to break the law".
You're free to speak and to associate. That's what this app does. You're free not to incriminate yourself. That's what this app does. This is true whether you're committing a crime or not.
It's the responsibility of the police to observe you doing it, not the privilege of the police to make you prove it. And if it weren't for the ridiculous "driving is a privilege not a right" rulings, police checkpoints of any kind would be entirely unconstitutional stops, as they are based on no reasonable suspicion.
Checkpoints (Score:5, Insightful)
I find checkpoints annoying, and I don't drink and drive. Seems to me if I want to know how to avoid them, I should be able.
Re:Unexpected benefits (Score:5, Insightful)
Because cops just love seeing all the dead, mutilated bodies drunk drivers leave behind right? How the hell did you get modded up for this ignorance?
Re:Unexpected benefits (Score:1, Insightful)
It's not common sense, which is the problem, it's a deeply paranoid and cynical view point which doesn't have any support given. Hence the requirement of a citation.
I'd be surprised if he can cite anything because he's full of it.
Re:Unexpected benefits (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously, I say lets take all the fines for traffic violations, and rather than give them to the police or govt....let's pool it and redistribute it BACK to the citizens at EOY that haven't committed any infractions, as a type of reward.
I'd love to see how much enthusiasm and vigor law enforcement would continue to be for these type of stake outs, speed traps and checkpoints then when they didn't get any money out of it.
Frankly, I'd rather give bounties and rewards for preventing hard crimes like murder....I'm much more worried about that than some traffic infractions.
Don't get me wrong, if you're driving poorly and too inebriated to operate a vehicle safely, get them off the road, but other than that...go out and hunt REAL criminals.
Re:This should violate their ToS (Score:5, Insightful)
What law does this kind of app aid a person in breaking?
I do not jest when I ask this, because it is NOT illegal to avoid contact with the police. Driving is not a right, but rather a privilege. However, you DO have the right to travel from one place to another free of undue and unwarranted harassment. Because of the way that DUI checkpoints are conducted, they absolutely qualify as undue and unwarranted harassment. You personally may not mind being the presumption of guilt that hovers over you at a DUI checkpoint, but most reasonable people resent the mindset of police who are looking for any excuse to slap you with a ticket--or worse. I consider the ability to avoid unnecessary interaction with an agency that does not have my best interests in mind to be a legitimate use. If you don't, then you really need to get a clue.
Furthermore, the locations of DUI checkpoints are published beforehand. Would you also take newspapers to task for publishing this information? You could certainly use it to get plastered and then avoid the cops. The checkpoint locations are intended to be public knowledge, and trying to restrict that knowledge is not too good an idea.
Yes, it is illegal to drive when drunk. Here's the thing, though--as soon as you get behind the wheel of a car you can't control (for nearly any reason) and start driving it, you've already broken the law. Once you're truly drunk, you don't have the mental capacity to take a route home based on where the police aren't. If you can think ahead and plan out your trip home based on a DUI checkpoint alert program and actually stick to it, then you probably aren't the danger to the driving public that MADD and the police say you are.
I haven't even gone into the inaccuracy of breathalyzer readings, nor the fact that field tests are designed to be failed. I could, but I trust that I've made my point.
Re:I expect no less (Score:5, Insightful)
I would support the right of a KKK or Nazi sympathist to say or publish whatever he likes before I support you in oppressing him. You are no better than the religious lunatics who indoctrinate their offspring. Enjoy your 'freedom,' serf.
Re:Unexpected benefits (Score:4, Insightful)