Close

Results 1 to 13 of 13
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    117,697
    Rep Points
    31,533.2
    Mentioned
    2063 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    316


    Reputation: Yes | No

    Apple bows to pressure from congress and removes apps that show DUI checkpoints

    In the apple store there used to be apps that would show you redlight cameras, speed traps, and DUI checkpoints. Letting you fight back legally. I'm not advocating circumventing DUI checkpoints but the police announce where these are anyway so what is wrong with an app that alerts motorists? I want to know where speed traps as well as redlight cameras. Since when does congress get to decide what apps can be sold?

    Senators have been fighting for Apple and Google to do away with PhantomAlert, an app that is geared toward providing awareness to those on the road by alerting them of red light traffic cams, speed traps, and DUI checkpoints. The app has been quite the controversy, but has since generated a tremendous upward trend in downloads and sales.
    The speed trap or the red light camera alerts are not the main concern for Senators, but the information released through the app on DUI checkpoint locations. Senators argue that releasing such information to the public encourages breaking the law by helping drunk drivers evade police. Some other apps, not PhantomAlert, go as far as providing alternate routes around checkpoints.


    Read more: http://wot.motortrend.com/apple-pull...#ixzz1PXQ6LXFv

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    le Paris
    Posts
    6,653
    Rep Points
    -230.0
    Mentioned
    48 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Reputation: Yes | No
    if you are letting people know where are speed cameras, why they are even exist? what's the point of having speed cameras while people slow down when they get close to cameras? doesn't sound logical.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    13,460
    Rep Points
    58.0
    Mentioned
    318 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Reputation: Yes | No
    if your drunk, your not gonna be able to read the app anyway. if the law wants to do something, and they legally can, then the people have the right to know about it. im sober, i dont want to sit through a dui checkpoint. $#@!in $#@!s

    RONPAUL 2012!

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Hanover, MD
    Posts
    1,220
    Rep Points
    697.0
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    7


    Reputation: Yes | No
    I hope this draws more attention to question as to whether or not the checkpoints themselves are constitutional (fourth amendment). The Michigan Supreme Court said no, but the federal Supreme Court said yes (Michigan v. Sitz). From that you can look into the Border Patrol checkpoints in the southwest US (black and white unconstitutional imho).

    "Chief Justice Rehnquist began his majority opinion by admitting that DUI sobriety checkpoints do, in fact, constitute a "seizure" within the language of the Fourth Amendment. In other words, yes, it appears to be a blatant violation of the Constitution. However, he continued, it's only a little one, and something has to be done about the "carnage" on the highways caused by drunk drivers. The "minimal intrusion on individual liberties," Rehnquist wrote, must be "weighed" against the need for -- and effectiveness of -- DUI roadblocks. In other words, the ends justify the means."

    "Rehnquist's justification for ignoring the Constitution rested on the assumption that DUI roadblocks were "necessary" and "effective." Are they? As Justice Stevens wrote in another dissenting opinion, the Michigan court had already reviewed the statistics on DUI sobriety checkpoints/roadblocks: "The findings of the trial court, based on an extensive record and affirmed by the Michigan Court of Appeals," he wrote, "indicate that the net effect of sobriety checkpoints on traffic safety is infinitesimal and possibly negative." "

    +1 on Ron Paul hopefully rolling back some of the drastic shifts we've had in our lifetime
    Click here to enlarge

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    117,697
    Rep Points
    31,533.2
    Mentioned
    2063 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    316



    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by SSDD Click here to enlarge
    I hope this draws more attention to question as to whether or not the checkpoints themselves are constitutional (fourth amendment). The Michigan Supreme Court said no, but the federal Supreme Court said yes (Michigan v. Sitz). From that you can look into the Border Patrol checkpoints in the southwest US (black and white unconstitutional imho).

    "Chief Justice Rehnquist began his majority opinion by admitting that DUI sobriety checkpoints do, in fact, constitute a "seizure" within the language of the Fourth Amendment. In other words, yes, it appears to be a blatant violation of the Constitution. However, he continued, it's only a little one, and something has to be done about the "carnage" on the highways caused by drunk drivers. The "minimal intrusion on individual liberties," Rehnquist wrote, must be "weighed" against the need for -- and effectiveness of -- DUI roadblocks. In other words, the ends justify the means."

    "Rehnquist's justification for ignoring the Constitution rested on the assumption that DUI roadblocks were "necessary" and "effective." Are they? As Justice Stevens wrote in another dissenting opinion, the Michigan court had already reviewed the statistics on DUI sobriety checkpoints/roadblocks: "The findings of the trial court, based on an extensive record and affirmed by the Michigan Court of Appeals," he wrote, "indicate that the net effect of sobriety checkpoints on traffic safety is infinitesimal and possibly negative." "

    +1 on Ron Paul hopefully rolling back some of the drastic shifts we've had in our lifetime
    The Supreme Court has approved plenty of stuff they later found to be unconstitutional. I'm amazed our system even works.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    13,460
    Rep Points
    58.0
    Mentioned
    318 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by SSDD Click here to enlarge
    I hope this draws more attention to question as to whether or not the checkpoints themselves are constitutional (fourth amendment). The Michigan Supreme Court said no, but the federal Supreme Court said yes (Michigan v. Sitz). From that you can look into the Border Patrol checkpoints in the southwest US (black and white unconstitutional imho).

    "Chief Justice Rehnquist began his majority opinion by admitting that DUI sobriety checkpoints do, in fact, constitute a "seizure" within the language of the Fourth Amendment. In other words, yes, it appears to be a blatant violation of the Constitution. However, he continued, it's only a little one, and something has to be done about the "carnage" on the highways caused by drunk drivers. The "minimal intrusion on individual liberties," Rehnquist wrote, must be "weighed" against the need for -- and effectiveness of -- DUI roadblocks. In other words, the ends justify the means."

    "Rehnquist's justification for ignoring the Constitution rested on the assumption that DUI roadblocks were "necessary" and "effective." Are they? As Justice Stevens wrote in another dissenting opinion, the Michigan court had already reviewed the statistics on DUI sobriety checkpoints/roadblocks: "The findings of the trial court, based on an extensive record and affirmed by the Michigan Court of Appeals," he wrote, "indicate that the net effect of sobriety checkpoints on traffic safety is infinitesimal and possibly negative." "

    +1 on Ron Paul hopefully rolling back some of the drastic shifts we've had in our lifetime
    ugh.... Do you know had badly this aggravates me to read BS liek that, ends dont justify $#@!, thats why it was written and there was a revolution, small or large.

    ugh.. my blood boils over that, especially since my chosen proffession..

    to relate, and i think you were miitary, so you know, but for anyone else, its like this site. I support it and believe in it and will do everything i can for it because its values are also mine, but in the end, its only to further and enable a POS like Sticky...

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    117,697
    Rep Points
    31,533.2
    Mentioned
    2063 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    316



    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by LostMarine Click here to enlarge
    to relate, and i think you were miitary, so you know, but for anyone else, its like this site. I support it and believe in it and will do everything i can for it because its values are also mine, but in the end, its only to further and enable a POS like Sticky...
    Wow, thanks.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    13,460
    Rep Points
    58.0
    Mentioned
    318 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
    Wow, thanks.
    and the fact that I can say that w/o banned or time-out is why i continue to support

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    117,697
    Rep Points
    31,533.2
    Mentioned
    2063 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    316



    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by LostMarine Click here to enlarge
    and the fact that I can say that w/o banned or time-out is why i continue to support
    I hope you get AIDS.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    2,439
    Rep Points
    2,602.0
    Mentioned
    37 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    27


    Reputation: Yes | No
    That's cool. When im drunk, I don't pay attention to lights and stuff anyway :/

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Hanover, MD
    Posts
    1,220
    Rep Points
    697.0
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    7


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by LostMarine Click here to enlarge
    ugh.... Do you know had badly this aggravates me to read BS liek that, ends dont justify $#@!, thats why it was written and there was a revolution, small or large.

    ugh.. my blood boils over that, especially since my chosen proffession..

    to relate, and i think you were miitary, so you know, but for anyone else, its like this site. I support it and believe in it and will do everything i can for it because its values are also mine, but in the end, its only to further and enable a POS like Sticky...
    Yeah it infuriates me as well. There's only so much 'check roger hooah' you can do
    Click here to enlarge

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    117,697
    Rep Points
    31,533.2
    Mentioned
    2063 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    316



    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by e92 Click here to enlarge
    That's cool. When im drunk, I don't pay attention to lights and stuff anyway :/
    Click here to enlarge

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,215
    Rep Points
    1,142.0
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    12


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by e92 Click here to enlarge
    That's cool. When im drunk, I don't pay attention to lights and stuff anyway :/
    Click here to enlarge

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •