6 ms·

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 Dem

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.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
Spivak 1y ago
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 1y ago
  Just side load it apple user! Surely the great apple would never lock you in to a walled garden?
magicalist 1y ago
> 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 1y ago
  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.
  - ishouldbework 1y ago
    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.
  - JohnFen 1y ago
    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.
  - nickthegreek 1y ago
    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.
  - potato3732842 1y ago
    >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 1y ago
    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
unethical_ban 1y ago
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.
- ThrowawayTestr 1y ago
  >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
  - xbar 1y ago
    oh, right.
  - zenethian 1y ago
    1st amendment is irrelevant here: Apple doesn't have to abide by it at all, as Apple is not the government.
  - atemerev 1y ago
    While I am all for ICEBlock, I am not sure about this one. Is doxxing protected by the first amendment?
    - 15155 1y ago
      https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/119 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/119
    - unethical_ban 1y ago
      Did ICEBlock reveal names of agents that is not publicly available? Location of law enforcement is not doxxing.
- closewith 1y ago
  > 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.
intermerda 1y ago
> 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 1y ago
  > 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 1y ago
    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 1y ago
      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 1y ago
        > 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.
SkiFire13 1y ago
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/ 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 1y ago
  Ctrl-f DUI https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/ https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/
bjacobel 1y ago
> According to Grok Do you have any sources that aren't prone to hallucination and fits of partisan, racially-charged, conspiratorial hysteria?
- dmix 1y ago
  https://www.autoblog.com/news/apple-to-reject-apps-that-include-dui-checkpoints https://www.autoblog.com/news/apple-to-reject-apps-that-incl...
draw_down 1y ago
[dead]
Pxtl 1y ago
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.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

Spivak 1y ago

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 1y ago
Just side load it apple user! Surely the great apple would never lock you in to a walled garden?

magicalist 1y ago

> 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 1y ago
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.
- ishouldbework 1y ago
  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.
- JohnFen 1y ago
  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.
- nickthegreek 1y ago
  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.
- potato3732842 1y ago
  >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 1y ago
  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

unethical_ban 1y ago

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.

ThrowawayTestr 1y ago
>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
- xbar 1y ago
  oh, right.
- zenethian 1y ago
  1st amendment is irrelevant here: Apple doesn't have to abide by it at all, as Apple is not the government.
- atemerev 1y ago
  While I am all for ICEBlock, I am not sure about this one. Is doxxing protected by the first amendment?
  - 15155 1y ago
    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/119 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/119
  - unethical_ban 1y ago
    Did ICEBlock reveal names of agents that is not publicly available? Location of law enforcement is not doxxing.
closewith 1y ago
> 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.

intermerda 1y ago

> 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 1y ago
> 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 1y ago
  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 1y ago
    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 1y ago
      > 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.

SkiFire13 1y ago

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/ 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 1y ago
Ctrl-f DUI https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/ https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/

bjacobel 1y ago

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

dmix 1y ago
https://www.autoblog.com/news/apple-to-reject-apps-that-include-dui-checkpoints https://www.autoblog.com/news/apple-to-reject-apps-that-incl...

draw_down 1y ago

[dead]

Pxtl 1y ago

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.