“U.S. senators wrote a letter this week to Apple, Google and BlackBerry maker Research In Motion seeking the removal of programs that they said provide the locations of DUI checkpoints — and RIM, at least, is quickly complying,” Jennifer Valentino-DeVries blogs for The Wall Street Journal.
“On Tuesday, Democratic senators Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer, Frank Lautenberg and Tom Udall sent the letter to the smartphone makers, calling the DUI apps ‘harmful to public safety.’ ‘Giving drunk drivers a free tool to evade checkpoints, putting innocent families and children at risk, is a matter of public concern,’ they wrote,” Valentino-DeVries reports. “The apps in question have names like ‘FuzzAlert’ and ‘Buzzed’ and either maintain a list of DUI checkpoints or ask users to report them when they see them. Some of the apps also maintain information on speed traps and red-light cameras, but those features haven’t drawn the same level of ire.”
Valentino-DeVries reports, “The maker of “FuzzAlert,” Steve Croke, says he didn’t design the app to help people evade DUIs but to let people know where things like red-light cameras and speed traps are. He added information on DUI checkpoints because other apps had it and it publicizes the existence of such checks, he said. ‘I don’t think anybody realistically is going to go into a bar and get smashed and then check my app,’ he said. ‘Is government really allowed to come in and say ‘You can’t do this?’'”
“By Wednesday, the senators reported that RIM had said it would comply with the request and remove the apps, likely within the day,” Valentino-DeVries reports. “‘We appreciate RIM’s immediate reply and urge the other smartphone makers to quickly follow suit,’ the lawmakers said in a press release.”
Full article here.
In an editorial today, The Washington Times writes, “It wasn’t so long ago that ‘Papers, please’ checkpoints could only be found in Eastern European countries under the thumb of the Soviet Union. They were tools of oppression designed to keep the populace in check. In 1990, the Supreme Court decided that such techniques could be used in the United States because of the ‘carnage’ caused by drunk driving – the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures notwithstanding. The advent of smartphones has enabled drivers to note the locations of these stops and dispatch a warning notice to anyone who may be in the vicinity. It’s the digital equivalent of flashing one’s headlights to warn of an upcoming speed trap – a form of free speech as old as the automobile itself.”
“There’s good reason to question the constitutionality and effectiveness of checkpoints,” The Washington Times writes. “Michigan’s highest court outlawed roadblocks under the state constitution. Most other jurisdictions, however, have jumped on the bandwagon because checkpoints bring in big cash. As a typical example, police in Costa Mesa, Calif., gladly accepted federal grants to set up a roadblock on Jan. 7. A total of 1,005 vehicles passed through with two DUI arrests made, which equals a 99.8 percent sobriety rate. The officers confiscated five vehicles and issued 53 tickets for various infractions wholly unrelated to the DUI ‘carnage’ used to justify the stops in the first place.”
The Washington Times writes, “Real drunk drivers deserve severe punishment, but the best way to catch them is to respect the Fourth Amendment. Instead of having cops stand around behind barricades interrogating soccer moms, have them patrol the streets looking for evidence of impaired driving. It works. In the meantime, high-tech companies ought to email these senators a free Constitution app for their smart phones.”
Read more in the full article here.
Note to police:
You wanna catch drunks? Put your roadblocks outside country clubs after social events as the drunken wealthy slosh home.
Right outside bars is another likely spot as are the roads just outside casinos where free drinks are served.
Oh, that’s right, it’s not about public safety- it’s about the appearance that the doughnut patrol is actually doing something.
funny, the majority of drunks… are not “rich” but YOUNG
why dont you read the stats out there before you post that.
whats the highest age group with DUI’s? 20-34… hardly country clubbing wealthy.
Extremist Argument A: If you are against this application, you stand for socialism, and the loss of individual constitutional rights. And by extension, you’ll next be asking for the government to require all smart-phone venders and carriers who have GPS information to report any phone that travels faster than the posted speed limit on any street, or rolls through a stop sign or red light. It is already possible to collect all of this information, and it won’t be long before we have the computer processing power to interpret it. Think of the lives saved, perpetrators fined, revenue generation, and general improvement in driver behavior and ethics. At least until people stop carrying cellphones, but then you’ll still have ‘homeland security’ cameras everywhere.
Extremist Argument B: If you are FOR this application, you spit in the face of everyone who ever lost a loved one to a drunk driver, and you throw the safety of your own friends and family (and any other person in this country) under the proverbial bus, and enable the equivalent of several major terrorist attacks in death tolls, injuries, and property damage.
It’s easy to be an extremist. No thinking is required. The hardest part is always finding the sensible middle. There’s a lot of gray in there.
I support DUI traps, but not on the roads. Rather they should be located right outside the doors of bar rooms so police can nab the perpetrators before they pull out of the parking lot. Then the locations of DUI traps will be no secret and the only app the drunken fools will need is FindaLawyer.
If the currency of the internet is human ignorance, this comments thread is a veritable Fort Knox.
@SouthRoad:
I usually don’t get into the political scene here too much, but you are WAY off base with your assessment of the healthcare law. Seriously, if you’d like me to review this with you, I will- you unfortunately have fallen prey to the Washington, DC rhetoric and media madness. Just some background- I’m a physician, and have been in private practice for 12 years. I currently sit on the MedExec board at my hospital, and have been involved in strategic planning, especially with regards to the new bill, for the past 3 years. This bill does nothing more than propagate everything we’ve been doing wrong since 1929, when the first ‘incentive’ to treat people in hospitals with ‘insurance’ came about. Please review the history- you’ll see that this bill fixes nothing. Until we have a true and honest focus on value for our patients, we will continue to overspend and overtreat.
As far as the current topic- if the apps are not illegal, then the public should be able to purchase them. The Senators listed should work on legislation to ban such apps if they feel so strongly about it, instead of trying to strong-arm companies into compliance.
All this really did was spike interest in these apps. Heck, I downloaded two just to try them out. I don’t plan on drinking and driving. It would be cool knowing the location of speed traps. 🙂 See…. before I had no interest, now I do.