Apple to reject apps that include DUI checkpoints

“In conjunction with this week’s Worldwide Developers Conference, Apple has updated its App Store Review Guidelines, and part of the new approval process includes a section that prohibits the inclusion of DUI checkpoints in iOS apps,” Damon Lavrinc reports for Autoblog.

Section 22.8 states:
Apps which contain DUI checkpoints that are not published by law enforcement agencies, or encourage and enable drunk driving, will be rejected.

Lavrinc reports, “Neither Google or RIM have modified their app review guidelines yet, but if history holds true, where Apple goes, so goes the industry.”

Read more in the full article here.

[Attribution: Jalopnik via MacRumors. Thanks to MacDailyNews Reader “Lynn Weiler” for the heads up.]

Related articles:
U.S. Senate Democrats ask Apple to pull police-evasion apps – March 23, 2011
D.C. police chief denounces ‘cowardly’ iPhone users for monitoring speed traps – July 13, 2009

52 Comments

    1. Once more Apple does the right thing. People who drink and drive deserve to be treated harshly. They should not be helped to avoid discovert. If you don’t drink and drive you have nothing to worry about.

      1. If you want to avoid being in a long line of cars as each one has flashlights shined into it and obnoxious cops asking you questions that are none of their business, you’d want to avoid these even if you haven’t had a drink.

      2. NO, they are doing the wrong thing. It’s this little thing the cops love to ignore: The 4th Amendment.

        I have been caught in one of these and let me tell you it sucked. Left my house at a little after 9pm to go to the store, ran into a checkpoint, was selected and asked to pull off into a parking lot, a cop asked for id, insurance, registration, they asked to search my car. I said NO you have no cause, I have places to be. He said “Oh Really” and proceed to walk away with my documents, 30 minutes later he brings them to me and tells me I can leave. Illegally detained for no good reason other than he had a badge. SO yeah, the app could be used by people who are not drunk and just want to avoid delays and being hassled.

      3. Applesmack, say you don’t drink but on some other minor pretense of which you may not be guilty you are rousted and threatened with temporary loss of your car, to be picked up at a later date after paying hefty recovery and court fees. As a result you lose sleep. This happens on a regular basis by Gestapo style checkpoints that cost more per DUI than regular street patrols. Please read “First they came…” to understand the error of your position.

  1. Bastards. Those Gestapo “checkpoints” are bullshit. They have to be made public but, of course, the notices are hidden better than a New York Times retraction.

    1. Never understood why they ‘have to be made public’?!? Seems like if you’re trying to catch someone for doing something they “shouldn’t” be doing you shouldn’t have to tell them ahead of time!?!

    2. Apple only prohibits listings which are not published by law enforcement. Seems like people could still write Apps that make these hard-to-find publishings easier to find.

    1. Yeah… if it was actually used for that purpose, maybe. Statistics and reality show that they are really just trolling to find things to bust people on. It’s like red light cameras that ‘are for the public safety’ when they are shown to actually increase accident rates in those intersections. It’s all about getting money, not crime (although, once in a while, they might actually stop some. Might.)

      1. A decent argument for banning checkpoints entirely, but that’s not what we’re talking about. We’re talking about apps that help people avoid them. If checkpoints are about “trolling to find things to bust people on,” that presumably means issuing lots of minor, revenue-enhancing tickets for stuff people aren’t even very aware of… broken lights / mirrors, expired registration, etc. But by definition, those aren’t the people who would use these apps. Rather, the apps would be downloaded and used overwhelmingly by “bad people” who are aware they are doing something illegal, and want to get away with it. I’m all for banning the checkpoints, but allowing them to harass mostly innocent people AND allowing the worst people to avoid them is the worst of both worlds.

        1. I disagree.

          I don’t drink and drive. I don’t do drugs. I don’t expect to have any legal problem with a checkpoint.

          Still, I don’t like the thought of the government stopping me and going through whatever they want without cause to check for anything that might be amiss.

          Given the choice of two routes, I’d much rather take the route that doesn’t have the police search without probably cause. But apparently our corporatocracy won’t allow free speech when it comes to activities of the police in public.

  2. Ignorance wields its ugly head once again.

    Good on Apple. I don’t want some drunk asshole circumventing the system, plowing into and killing a family of five, who then turns the tables on Apple in a suit claiming Apple enabled them to continue to drive drunk.

    What’s the matter with people?

  3. Don’t drink and drive and your all set. Getting high would actually be more preferred over drunk since you’d actually be more focused or over focused. I’m glad I got the app a while ago “trapster” notifies you where speed traps are. Cops shouldn’t be hiding to bust people, they should be clearly out in the open as a reminder to stay at the limit and if you are dumb enough to keep going then you deserve a ticket

  4. Bravo apple and mr.jobs and I bet you wouldn’t say gestpo if your family was killed by some drunk driver .. You alcoholics kill more innocent people than all the wars in the world .. Glad apple won’t help slaughter millions

  5. I don’t have a problem with this. Now if Apple were going to reject apps that indicated red-light cameras or speed traps, THAT would be different. The ostensible point of those cameras or traps are to get drivers to stop or slow down, which the apps also do. But indicating sobriety checkpoints can actually promote the behavior rather than deter it.

  6. At least those of us who value the Fourth Amendment can still utilize Web apps and sites to prevent the local gestapos from padding their budgets with stolen lucre via illegal tickets.

    1. You must live in a shitty place if that’s what occurs at checkpoints in your community, or is the place filled with people who drink and drive; which would also qualify it as a shithole.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.