[thecoffman]

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 line of reasoning holds, couldn't you say the same thing about encryption? It enables people who wish to engage in illegal activities to avoid government authority and thus, shouldn't even be available? Scary.

[philh]

To be fair, there's a difference between "you shouldn't do this" and "you shouldn't be allowed to do this". At least in this letter, the senators are not explicitly trying or threatening to ban anything.

[thecoffman]

The quote is taken directly from the article: in fact, it shouldn't even be available

[JoeAltmaier]

...they stated. When they were "asking" to have the app taken down. Not banning, not legislating. Just asking.

[danenania]

'Just asking' is a lot worse than following the legislative process. They are trying to use their influence to accomplish an effectively legislative outcome without oversight. This creates a dangerous gray area between law and intimidation. It's similar to when Visa, Mastercard, etc. were 'just asked' to stop dealing with Wikileaks. In fact, it is common for dictators and totalitarian regimes to rule through 'just asking' instead of law. Not a good precedent.

[fluidcruft]

I think that statement includes an implicit threat of possible legislation action if necessary.

[cjeane]

Apple complying with their request and passing legislation have the same outcome.

[HeyLaughingBoy]

Apple complying with the request just means it's unavailable on the Apple/iPhone platform. Legislating it means it's unavailable on any platform.

[philh]

I was unclear. "You" was referring to Apple, not the customers. They're saying you shouldn't be making this available, not you shouldn't be allowed to make this available. Not even your customers shouldn't be allowed to use this, and I feel there's a distinction between something being generally unavailable and something being illegal.

But you're right that if Apple makes it unavailable, it will have a similar effect as if their customers weren't allowed to use it.

[JoeAltmaier]

That's going a bit far. People May use encryption for illegal activities. What possible use does the DUI checkpoint software have, outside of enabling drunk drivers?

[JoelSutherland]

Maybe I'm sober and don't want to wait in traffic. Or maybe I'm drunk and don't want a ticket.

The point is that it doesn't really matter. The very first constitutional amendment ensures that the government's power is limited such that it doesn't need to evaluate the content of its citizens' speech.

[JoeAltmaier]

Which is being stretched pretty thin to include "IPhone App" as "speech". But ok.

Freedom of speech is expressly limited in cases such as hollering "Fire!" in a crowded theatre. How about defeating police efforts to catch murderers? Child molestors? Drunk drivers?

Seems like its not cut-and-dried is all I'm saying.

[gamble]

DUI checkpoints are used as a convenient way to peek inside cars the police would have no cause to pull over under normal circumstances. Then, if they don't like your attitude, they can make up an excuse to turn your car inside out looking for something incriminating.

[thecoffman]

Avoiding checkpoints if you're sober and don't want the inconvenience of waiting in line at a checkpoint for one. Also see the explanations of other people in this thread describing how announcing the locations of the checkpoints ahead of time can be more effective.

[JoeAltmaier]

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.

[LordBodak]

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.

[checker]

I see what you're saying, but speed traps definitely cause significant bottlenecks in the DC area, probably because of rubbernecking and braking (or the fact that everyone is speeding).

[JoeAltmaier]

So you plan to buy 'Tipsy'? Just wondering how much of this is a strawman

[LordBodak]

I don't have an iPhone, so I won't be buying it.

[artmageddon]

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?

[pyre]

Let's just let the officer determine that for himself, shall we? ;)

[reneherse]

Whatever. There's been more than one time where I was coming home from work at night and after the commute found a DUI checkpoint stationed on the main road right in front of my street. No way I was going to sit through the bullshit waiting just to "prove my innocence" as you seem to imply we all should.

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.

[artmageddon]

Slightly off topic but still relevant: There's actually legislation in some states that would permit the police to chase you if they see you purposefully trying to evade a DUI checkpoint. It differs by each state(or municipality?), but New Mexico seems to have enacted that:

http://www.albuquerquecriminallawyerblog.com/2009/09/uturn-t...

[pyre]

My remark was sarcastic in the extreme. Apparently a </sarcasm> would have been a better hint than the winking smiley.

[morrow]

Nobody is suggesting that drivers should be free to police themselves as far as the legality of the circumstances of their driving. This is simply a matter of freedom of speech -- if you see a police car doing radar on your drive home, and call your friend (after pulling over ;) ) who you know will be driving this way, to warn him, are you breaking any law?

The principle being defended here is that you are free to share that information under the 1st amendment, however the method of sharing may be performed. It's the reason being a member of the KKK or the Westboro Baptist Church and saying hateful things doesn't automatically make you a criminal. Whether you agree with the speech or not shouldn't affect it's possibility to be spoken.

[mseebach]

What possible uses does a blog-post explaining your fifth amendment rights have, outside of helping people who have something to hide, hide it from the police?

It's an invariant property of the rule of law that when something isn't explicitly illegal, it's legal. And yes, many "free" western countries do have problems with this.

[tptacek]

The DUI checkpoints in Illinois are also revenue generators; they issue compliance tickets there as well.

[theklub]

They do list these stops in most papers and on local TV around the holidays, like someone else commented. Making an app just makes it easier to get the information.

[michaeldhopkins]

Feel free to write an app that helps the police arrest drunk drivers if you dislike them so much.

[mhb]

Maybe that could be a map of bars outside of which they could wait for drunks to get into their cars. More efficient, less intrusive.