[mariodiana]

Back in 2011, Apple removed apps that crowdsourced warnings about DUI checkpoints. It remains Apple's policy today.

According to Grok, "In March 2011, four Democratic senators—Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), Harry Reid (D-Nev.), Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), and Tom Udall (D-N.M.)—sent letters to Apple, Google, and Research in Motion (BlackBerry's parent company) urging the removal of such apps […]"

So, we have precedent where four Democratic senators pressured Apple to remove an app that allowed people to evade law enforcement.

[magicalist]

> to remove an app that allowed people to evade law enforcement.

No, they continued to allow police location apps (Google maps will even tell you where they are).

The language they added to the app store rules were very specific: "Apps may only display DUI checkpoints that are published by law enforcement agencies, and should never encourage drunk driving or other reckless behavior such as excessive speed."

Whether or not that was a good idea at the time (it wasn't), you can't claim this is covered by the same guidelines.

[koolba]

What purpose outside abetting in avoiding a DUI is there for publishing a live map of DUI checkpoints?

I’m not questioning whether you should be able to do it. I’m really curious.

[JohnFen]

You don't have to be driving impaired to have a strong desire to avoid the checkpoints. I avoid them because they're intrusive, oppressive, and upsetting.

[potato3732842]

>What purpose outside abetting in avoiding a DUI is there for publishing a live map of DUI checkpoints?

When Churchill made that famous quip about the "average voter" he was talking about the kind of people who complain out of one side of their mouth about law enforcement going hard on a particular class of laws they don't like while stating out the other that anyone who doesn't want to submit to a papers-please stop on the pretext of catching people engaged in a fairly common misdemeanor that they do want to see hard enforcement on is abetting said misdemeanor.

[Zak]

Here are some possibilities:

* You don't want your trip to be delayed

* You object to police checkpoints in principle

* You or your friends or family have had negative experiences with law enforcement, so you prefer to minimize contact

* You share a car with family members, one of whom smoked cannabis in it; the smell will result in an extended detention and investigation at a checkpoint

* Your license/registration/insurance is not current

* You are an undocumented immigrant

* There is a warrant for your arrest

[scottLobster]

The last 3 are actual crimes. Sure they aren't DUIs, but I wouldn't list them as valid reasons to avoid checkpoints.

"I want to avoid interacting with the cops because I committed other crimes they might punish me for" is not a good argument.

[Zak]

The question was "What purpose outside abetting in avoiding a DUI is there for publishing a live map of DUI checkpoints?".

As a technical point, being an undocumented immigrant is still not a crime in the USA though it can result in law enforcement actions with impact as severe as criminal penalties. Expired registration or insurance is a civil infraction rather than a crime in some jurisdictions.

Edit: I should clarify why it matters that some of these are civil infractions rather than crimes. Navigation apps that Apple allows, including Apple's own maps app informs users about police and speed cameras, which helps people violate the speed limit without being punished. There doesn't seem to be a coherent principle at work here though.

[jkaplowitz]

Sometimes I take a legally prescribed stimulant / controlled substance for ADHD. Those medicines can be perfectly safe to drive with once you know how the particular dosage affects you, and driving with them is often even safer at the appropriate therapeutic dosage than driving without them. Further, as a person with ADHD and a tic disorder, I would have a fair chance of failing a field sobriety test even if I'm sober. I'm also not thrilled with the idea of lying to cops, since I know that can be a crime separately from the question of DUI.

So, putting all that together, imagine this sequence: cop at a DUI checkpoint asks me to perform a field sobriety test. I refuse, either without giving a reason or citing my ADHD and tic disorder. They ask me if I'm taking any medicine for ADHD. I don't lie and either confirm that fact or plead the fifth, or even if I do lie they still might not believe me. I probably don't have the pills or the bottle with me since I wouldn't usually be taking it in the car anyway. They then insist on a blood test, either with consent or with a quickly obtained warrant. I then have to accept a long detour going for the blood test, and then spend a lot of time and money proving in court both that I had a legal prescription and that I was not legally impaired by the medicine. (Even if I do have the correctly labeled pill bottle with me in the car, the cop still might incorrectly assume the medicine impairs me.)

Avoiding this hassle is a perfectly legal and legitimate reason to want to know where DUI checkpoints are.

Nothing I'm saying is condoning driving drunk - I certainly don't do that. When I drink, I pay attention to the advice of blood alcohol content calculators to figure out when I'm safe to drive and when it's fully out of my system. And when I take medicines that interact with alcohol, I'm even more cautious with drinking than when I don't.

[alyandon]

  What purpose outside abetting in avoiding a DUI is there for publishing a live map of DUI checkpoints?

That is easy to answer - letting law abiding citizens going about their personal business know that if they go through an area they are likely to be stopped and subjected to being searched by police without cause.

[heavyset_go]

You can be charged with a DUI despite being 100% sober, and you can be convicted, too. Both will upend your life.

[nickthegreek]

I’m returning home from the store with cold medicine for my toddler late at night and I don’t want to have my trip increased by 15mins due to some police state bullshit.

[jancsika]

As useful data for sober civil libertarians who want the choice to route through a DUI checkpoint to exercise their rights.

I wouldn't code it because there's no way to disallow the service for the set of people over the legal limit trying to avoid a DUI checkpoint. But if, say, a group of sober civil libertarians find a way to tell each other how to always choose right-exercising routes, I don't see any obvious ethical problems with that.

[ishouldbework]

We do not have DUI checkpoints in my country, but I would assume they delay the travel due to being, you know, checkpoint. So it might be desirable to take alternative route if you do not want to spend time waiting for the check. I guess?

I strongly doubt this was a reason for the app though.

[Spivak]

And it was wrong then too. Preventing people from sharing publicly available, literally visible from the street, information has got to be the brightest line violation of 1A. I'm really over how much the supreme court—not just this supreme court—has let the government end run around the constitution using tricks like this. Especially with the tax and spend power. If the government couldn't pass a law doing X then the government shouldn't be allowed to achieve X by any means.

Congressional dysfunction isn't an excuse to allow the creation of a shadow government orchestrated by the executive but here we are.

[Nervhq]

Just side load it apple user! Surely the great apple would never lock you in to a walled garden?

[intermerda]

> It remains Apple's policy today.

What is that policy?

> According to Grok

Why did you ask an LLM which is manipulated by a single person when he doesn't like facts?

> So, we have precedent where four Democratic senators pressured Apple to remove an app that allowed people to evade law enforcement.

Yes, senators sent letters to several companies. Apple listened. What would have happened if it didn't? What would happen to Apple if they don't listen now?

Do you sincerely believe that both situations are comparable?

[tpmoney]

> Do you sincerely believe that both situations are comparable?

How are they not? In both cases US government officials applied pressure and implied legal action to force private companies to act in ways that enabled law enforcement to act with less resistance. It’s why we should always push back against government overreach and bullying. Because the “slippery slope” might be a logical fallacy, but that doesn’t stop it from also being the most likely outcome of the government pushing the boundaries.

[Tadpole9181]

Oh, please. Senators do not head the department of justice and requested, not demanded under threat of retribution under a "unitary executive". For them to do anything would require a quorum of 50% of the entire government to make a law.

[tpmoney]

Sure but Senators actually have the power to make law, unlike the executive. Also let’s be honest, if any government official “requests” anything it is always under the threat of retribution. See also the Jimmy Kimmel situation.

[intermerda]

> Also let’s be honest, if any government official “requests” anything it is always under the threat of retribution.

If you wanted to be honest you would say this government, not any government.

[tpmoney]

I’m reasonably confident that if a sitting US senator called you up personally and “requested” that you stop posting on HN or stop contributing to some open source encryption tool that you would find that event threatening, no matter who was currently president.

[intermerda]

> In both cases US government officials applied pressure and implied legal action to force private companies to act in ways that enabled law enforcement to act with less resistance.

That's like saying cooking is comparable with stabbing someone because both involve moving a knife back and forth. Give me a break.

[tpmoney]

The intent of using a knife to cut flesh when cooking and the intent of using a knife to cut flesh when stabbing someone is different. Are you saying you believe that the intended outcome of the senator’s request was different?

[unethical_ban]

Why is Waze allowed since it let's you report speed traps?

Probably because it doesn't technically advertise it as such, just "hey something requiring police presence is around".

ICEBlock should rebrand as a generic "police activity" app and have a category "other" that everyone understands is ICE but isn't labelled as such.

[closewith]

> Why is Waze allowed since it let's you report speed traps?

Nominally the purpose of speed enforcement is to reduce vehicle speeds, which Waze notifications achieve.

Waze - at least in my country - did remove COVID checkpoints during lockdowns, so they don't allow all reports.

[niij]

What is that?

[dghlsakjg]

The exact verbiage is this: "Apps may only display DUI checkpoints that are published by law enforcement agencies, and should never encourage drunk driving or other reckless behavior such as excessive speed."

[ThrowawayTestr]

>Why is Waze allowed since it let's you report speed traps?

Because the right to share police locations is protected by the 1st amendment

[zenethian]

1st amendment is irrelevant here: Apple doesn't have to abide by it at all, as Apple is not the government.

[atemerev]

While I am all for ICEBlock, I am not sure about this one. Is doxxing protected by the first amendment?

[unethical_ban]

Did ICEBlock reveal names of agents that is not publicly available? Location of law enforcement is not doxxing.

[15155]

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/119

[xbar]

oh, right.

[Pxtl]

While it's still bad, you can see how it's worse when it's coming directly from a regulator top-down from the president, right?

Senators gave no individual direct control over regulation. They can influence appointments or influence legislation, which is still power backing the implied threat, but that's a much more roundabout threat than a single person with direct power to destroy your business.

[bjacobel]

> According to Grok

Do you have any sources that aren't prone to hallucination and fits of partisan, racially-charged, conspiratorial hysteria?

[dmix]

https://www.autoblog.com/news/apple-to-reject-apps-that-incl...

[SkiFire13]

Source? Not even your quoted Grok output is claiming that Apple removed the apps, just that the senators asked them to.

At least one source I found says that "Apple and Google did not give in" https://reason.com/2011/05/23/no-app-for-that/

I don't think a situation like this is impossible, quite the opposite, but let's try to not invent facts please.

[dmix]

Ctrl-f DUI https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/