NYPD demands Google to Stop Revealing Location Of DWI Checkpoints through Waze

[Evanair]

Federal courts have said flashing lights to warm other drivers of speed traps is legal under the 1st Amendment.

 

I do wonder how this will go.

[Guest]

32 minutes ago, Vanderburg said:

While DUI checkpoints aren't technically unconstitutional, your attitude towards the potential violation of rights is pretty idiotic.

What rights are being violated by being stopped and breathalysed? None. Drunk drivers should have no rights.

 

7 minutes ago, leadeater said:

That's odd, here every car is checked. Maybe it's to do with traffic flow or something? Comparatively we don't have that much traffic and they don't put checkpoints in the middle of a motorway/highway, cos you know, that would be idiotic.

They have some on SH1, but its in Taieri, so not quite a motorway as you have up there. Nearly shat myself last time when I forgot my (Then restricted) licence. In Rarotonga they have them, but if you're white you just get waved through it fine. I don't drink and drive though, I have like an average 1 beer an hour, and I think thats under the limit.

[LAwLz]

19 minutes ago, leadeater said:

That's odd, here every car is checked. Maybe it's to do with traffic flow or something? Comparatively we don't have that much traffic and they don't put checkpoints in the middle of a motorway/highway, cos you know, that would be idiotic. 

Well, maybe I am underestimating it when I said 1/10. Maybe it's more like 1/5, but it's certainly not all of them. The ones I have seen usually has two officers and they stop one car each, with sometimes a third car being asked to stop and wait for their turn. All other cars driving by while the two cops are occupied don't get inspected though.

 

Anyway, damn, if they check every car I would most certainly want to know where these checkpoints are so that I could avoid them even if I am not drunk and driving. Doesn't that slow everything down a lot?

 

 

Anyway, I still think the issue here is that the police are trying to silence people from telling others what is happening on public roads, out in public, by public servants. I think that's why this is a freedom of speech issue. Their goal with this might be admirable, but to me seems like they are making a lot of assumptions, possibly without any any evidence.

 

 

5 minutes ago, RorzNZ said:

What rights are being violated by being stopped and breathalysed? None. Drunk drivers should have no rights.

1) Drunk drivers are still people, and therefore should have all the same rights as everyone else. We should not start giving some rights to some groups of people.

2) It's not a right to "not be stopped and have your breath analyzed". However, saying someone is a criminal for telling others where police are, when they are on public roads is certainly restricting peoples' freedoms. It's essentially a massive gag-order imposed on people.

[mr moose]

1 hour ago, Curufinwe_wins said:

I dont think drunk drivers will be the ones looking at the app to avoid cops. You know because the people drunk to the point where they need off the road generally tend not to be very good at judging those things. Like a previous person mentioned, there are communities that literally warn people about it and you still get the drunkards rolling through. 

Really, I reckon I know a lot of people who would use it because they know they have had too much to drink.

Quote

But I suppose that's the real question. I mean, sure its just a mild inconvenience... for people who dont tend to get targeted by police (I'm a white male myself... heh, but I've traveled enough with brown friends to see the double standards in action all over. If I was brown I'd totally use apps like that solely to avoid police as much as possible regardless.)

That's a different issue that requires a different solution and discussion. 

 

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

I think of it the other way around.

It's actually a pretty big assumption to make that an app where users can tell others where DWI checkpoints are makes the roads more unsafe. It relies on the assumptions that:

1. Drunk drivers checks the app. Not sure about you, but from what I have seen the people who drink and drives are usually those who do not plan ahead. A quick Google search seems to confirm that, with a large portion of DWI offenders having done so because they were at a party and then started drinking, assuming someone else would drive them home or they forgot that they weren't suppose to drink.
2.  That the app is always very up-to-date. This information is not up to date constantly, so there is a gap between the station going up. If the police would just move the station ever so often the data in the app would be inaccurate quite often. In fact, if we operate under the assumption that the app makes drunk drivers take other roads, this app could be used as a way for the police to trap drunk drivers. They should see this as an opportunity rather than a hindrance. If they move the station every 2 hours or so, people will A) start distrusting the app, B) Believe that there are checkpoints all over the roads and not drive C) Try and avoid the routes with checkpoints, but instead might land on one where the real one is.
3.  That DWI checkpoints manages to catch a significant amount of drunk drivers if their location are unknown. I am not sure how it is in the US, but here in Sweden these checkpoints only check maybe 1/10 cars driving by. The chance of them actually catching someone are incredibly low in those circumstances, and because of that I believe the checks are more of a deterrence rather than a way to try and catch people. If people know the stations are out there, the deterrence factor might even be more efficient.
4.  That the drunk drivers will take another route now that they know there is a check on the one they were going. Alcohol has a pretty big effect on your comprehension skills. People who drive while drunk already has the mentality that they won't get caught.

 

1. you may as well claim all drunks are too drunk to find their keys so they won't be driving.  Of course there are plenty of drinkers who would use this app. Especially those on a .00 license and know they have had one.

2. If it has anywhere near the number of users we think it does and updates live then its a pretty safe bet it's accurate enough to have an effect.

It's certainly effective enough to warrant the police sending a cease and desist.

3. totally a moot point, there is no guarantees any checkpoint will catch any number and they can't logistically check every car, so are you inferring don't bother because you may not get enough?

4. Another moot point, many drink drivers are plenty capable of trying to avoid getting caught using both this app and going a different way.  Fuck me this is so obvious for anyone who grew up in a time when that was common practice.  If I had dollar for every time someone told me to drive home the back way cos they saw the police in the main street I'd be rich.

 

Quote

I would not be surprised if the effects of this app are far smaller than people might assume.

It doesn't matter what would surprise you. The fact is it allows (at the very least attempts to allow) people to do something illegal while endangering other road users.

 

Quote

But more importantly, should Google be responsible for this? They are essentially being accused of allowing users to tell others where the checkpoints are.

It's their app and that is the specific role of the app.

Quote

Back when I lived at home, my mom who works night drove on the same road as I did when I went to work every morning. That meant that she sometimes saw speeding and DWI checkpoints on the road where I'd be driving just 30 minutes later. She usually mentioned those to me, just so that I would not get caught in one and get late for work. Does that mean she is "engaging in criminal conduct and is acting irresponsibly since it only serves to aid impaired and intoxicated drivers to evade checkpoints and encourage reckless driving"? Is she putting others at risk when she told me that info?

 

But even more than that, Google aren't the ones telling users where the checkpoints are, so a more accurate analogy would be that the NYPD would go after my telephone service provider if my mother sent me a text message saying "hey, drive a bit earlier this morning, there is a DWI that might slow you down on the way to work".

 

 

I don't want drunk drivers on the roads either. I totally understand where people supporting this are coming from. But, I believe that we should not have a type of "the ends justify the means" mentality when we don't even know if "the means" are efficient. How about doing some independent studies and research before we take action?

It's not an ends justifies the means argument.  It's a basic observation of reality, if you warn someone where the cops are then the criminal can avoid them.

That's

50 minutes ago, Vanderburg said:

Another example of "the ends justify the means". The rights don't exist to allow someone to drive drunk. There's a very good that police have to have particularized suspicion of a specific crime to be able to detain you. If you don't mind, I'm just going to walk into your house and start rummaging around, because, you know, you could have some crack cocaine in there. I don't know you have it, and I don't even have a reason to suspect that you might, BUT YOU COULD! You don't want people walking around selling crack cocaine, do you?! Think of the children! If you're not doing anything wrong, you shouldn't mind me going through all your stuff.

No it's not an example of that at all. And your analogy is irrelevant and pointless.

[mr moose]

27 minutes ago, leadeater said:

That's odd, here every car is checked. Maybe it's to do with traffic flow or something? Comparatively we don't have that much traffic and they don't put checkpoints in the middle of a motorway/highway, cos you know, that would be idiotic.

Depending on the flow of traffic the police here take every car, every second or groups of three, ETC.

[leadeater]

18 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Doesn't that slow everything down a lot?

Not really since driver's licenses and regos aren't checked, you just babble in to the breath tester and get let go which all gets done in about 15-30 seconds. You get pulled aside if there is any suspicion or for an evidential breath test.

 

Sometimes the checkpoint is for only one direction of the road as well.

 

The checkpoints are actually rather useful for getting people with pending arrest warrants too, because they are idiots and U-turn or do something else dumb to give themselves away. There's always a marked or unmarked car positioned back to catch U-turners.

[leadeater]

29 minutes ago, RorzNZ said:

They have some on SH1, but its in Taieri, so not quite a motorway as you have up there. Nearly shat myself last time when I forgot my (Then restricted) licence. In Rarotonga they have them, but if you're white you just get waved through it fine. I don't drink and drive though, I have like an average 1 beer an hour, and I think thats under the limit.

That's one of the reasons I like my 4 door 370GT, police don't give a damn about it. If it were the 2 door or the 370Z then I bet I'd be getting 'random' stops and checks which I've never had but I know people do get for the 2 doors. Mind you the number of dickheads I see driving the 2 doors I understand why lol.

[Rohith_Kumar_Sp]

People when involved in a crime: We must catch criminals at all cost
Also people : But i don't want to google to remove DUI checkpoint locations if in case i become a criminal.

[LAwLz]

25 minutes ago, mr moose said:

1. you may as well claim all drunks are too drunk to find their keys so they won't be driving.  Of course there are plenty of drinkers who would use this app. Especially those on a .00 license and know they have had one. 

2. If it has anywhere near the number of users we think it does and updates live then its a pretty safe bet it's accurate enough to have an effect. 

It's certainly effective enough to warrant the police sending a cease and desist. 

3. totally a moot point, there is no guarantees any checkpoint will catch any number and they can't logistically check every car, so are you inferring don't bother because you may not get enough? 

4. Another moot point, many drink drivers are plenty capable of trying to avoid getting caught using both this app and going a different way.  Fuck me this is so obvious for anyone who grew up in a time when that was common practice.  If I had dollar for every time someone told me to drive home the back way cos they saw the police in the main street I'd be rich. 

I don't think you understood my point. My point was that in order for this change to have a meaningful effect on reducing the number of drunk drivers on the roads all of these 4 things must be true. Besides, your response relies on even more assumptions. "It must be effective otherwise the police wouldn't send a cease and desist notice". Just more and more assumptions, without any evidence.

 

And before you say I also make assumptions, please note that you and I are in two different situations. You're pushing for a change, while I question the legitimacy of that change.

 

 

25 minutes ago, mr moose said:

It doesn't matter what would surprise you. The fact is it allows (at the very least attempts to allow) people to do something illegal while endangering other road users.

Well, a lot of things "allows" people to do illegal things. The car itself allows people to drive while drunk. Does that mean we should ban all cars too? That would make DWI rates drop to 0%.

 

 

25 minutes ago, mr moose said:

It's their app and that is the specific role of the app.

What exactly are you claiming Waze's "specific role" is? The police says that it allows drunk drivers to avoid getting caught. Are you saying that the specific role of this app was to allow that? Because I find that hard to believe.

Are you saying that the specific purpose of the app is to map out DWI checkpoints? Because that is not true either.

Waze is a GPS app which crowd sources traffic information. Things like heavy traffic, accidents or other things which slows traffic down gets reported by the users to improve the navigation and route selection capabilities of the app. That is the purpose, not to let people avoid getting caught driving drunk.

 

 

19 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Not really since driver's licenses and regos aren't checked, you just babble in to the breath tester and get let go which all gets done in about 15-30 seconds. You get pulled aside if there is any suspicion or for an evidential breath test.

Yeah, but if each control takes 15-30 seconds, doesn't that mean queues will build up if more than n+1 number of cars drive past the road, where n is the number of police officers working each 15-30 seconds?

So if you got two police working, each control takes an average of 20 seconds, and 3 cars drive past the road each 20 seconds, one car should be added to the queue every 20 seconds. After 2 minutes that's 6 cars in the queue resulting in an average delay of 1 minute. The numbers just goes up the longer time goes on.

After just a few minutes, there will be a 5 minute delay because of the very long queue.

 

 

1 minute ago, Rohith_Kumar_Sp said:

People when involved in a crime: We must catch criminals at all cost
Also people : But i don't want to google to remove DUI checkpoint locations if in case i become a criminal. 

Not really an apples to apples comparison though. In the first example a crime has been committed and the result of that has inconvenienced you.

In this example, the police is trying to make it illegal for people to talk about where the police is and what they are doing, and the result of that is that people may be that law abiding citizens may be inconvenienced (by being stopped), and the justification is that it might prevent future crimes from happening.

 

Think of it this way, are you against people doing cocaine? You are? Great!

Then you must give me your house key and unlimited access to your passwords and browser history. What, you don't want to do that? Such a hypocrite. First you say you want to catch people doing it but then you don't want me to be able to verify that you aren't doing it yourself. Also, you're not allowed to tell anyone that I asked you this because if you do, you're clearly trying to warn other cocaine abusers that I am on to them!

[leadeater]

Just now, LAwLz said:

Yeah, but if each control takes 15-30 seconds, doesn't that mean queues will build up if more than n+1 number of cars drive past the road, where n is the number of police officers working each 15-30 seconds?

If the traffic was dense enough sure, but they are usually at night when there is less traffic and I typically see 2 or 3 officers doing the checks.

 

Even when there is a peak that creates a queue there are still ebbs in the flow, more so than peaks. They are also rather well timed and often are only there for an hour or so. I've driven through one, watched a movie and driven back the same way to have it no longer there.

[LAwLz]

4 minutes ago, leadeater said:

If the traffic was dense enough sure, but they are usually at night when there is less traffic and I typically see 2 or 3 officers doing the checks. 

 

Even when there is a peak that creates a queue there are still ebbs in the flow, more so than peaks. They are also rather well timed and often are only there for an hour or so. I've driven through one, watched a movie and driven back the same way to have it no longer there. 

In that case I question the entire idea that they are catching a significant amount of drunk drivers to begin with, if they are not out while a lot of people are driving, and they are only there for a short period of time.

If the roads are not controlled more than let's say 0.01% of the time, can we really expect them to catch more than 0.01% of the drunk drivers?

 

Like I said earlier, I think these controls are more there in order to deter people. To show that roads are sometimes controlled. I don't believe that their primary function is to actually catch drunk drivers, although that most likely happens sometimes too.

[leadeater]

6 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

In that case I question the entire idea that they are catching a significant amount of drunk drivers to begin with, if they are not out while a lot of people are driving, and they are only there for a short period of time.

If the roads are not controlled more than let's say 0.01% of the time, can we really expect them to catch more than 0.01% of the drunk drivers?

 

Like I said earlier, I think these controls are more there in order to deter people. To show that roads are sometimes controlled.

They are timed with end of events when people are leaving, common times large groups leave bars to go home etc. Why would you have a traffic stop operating for 4 hours when you only really need it for 1?

 

Example, the end of a Rugby game. Known time, known amount of people, known routes of traffic flow and expected time to clear traffic all known before setting up the traffic stop(s).

[mr moose]

Just now, LAwLz said:

I don't think you understood my point. My point was that in order for this change to have a meaningful effect on reducing the number of drunk drivers on the roads all of these 4 things must be true.

No they don't.  That's the problem, they don;t have to bne true at all, your assumption that no drunk is going to use this app is silly.  I personally know plenty of people who would use apps like this to avoid booze buses.  People are dumb because they think they should be allowed to drink and drive, but they are not that stupid that they don't think they'll get caught and so do things to reduce that chance.

 

Just now, LAwLz said:

Besides, your response relies on even more assumptions. "It must be effective otherwise the police wouldn't send a cease and desist notice". Just more and more assumptions, without any evidence.

No, at best your post concludes you can't prove this app would even work,  I don't need to prove it will work to claim people are being moronic if they think their freedom of speech has been violated because they wish to warn people where the cops are doing their job.

 

Just now, LAwLz said:

 

And before you say I also make assumptions, please note that you and I are in two different situations. You're pushing for a change, while I question the legitimacy of that change.

I am arguing it is stupid to demand you have the right to warn drink drivers where the police are and to somehow think that is ok with no consequences. .

Just now, LAwLz said:

 

Well, a lot of things "allows" people to do illegal things. The car itself allows people to drive while drunk. Does that mean we should ban all cars too? That would make DWI rates drop to 0%.

 

Another silly argument. 

 

Just now, LAwLz said:

What exactly are you claiming Waze's "specific role" is? The police says that it allows drunk drivers to avoid getting caught. Are you saying that the specific role of this app was to allow that? Because I find that hard to believe.

No, but it is a specific part of the app.  It even says on one of the screen shots "avoid traffic, police, and accidents".

 

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.waze&hl=en_AU

 

Just now, LAwLz said:

Are you saying that the specific purpose of the app is to map out DWI checkpoints? Because that is not true either.

Waze is a GPS app which crowd sources traffic information. Things like heavy traffic, accidents or other things which slows traffic down gets reported by the users to improve the navigation and route selection capabilities of the app. That is the purpose, not to let people avoid getting caught driving drunk.

Crikey, way to read way too far into something.

 

 

This is hardly a big concept to get your head around, the app allows one person to tell every other user (including those who have been drinking) where the police are.  If that's isn't an issue for you then I don't want to live in a world where you have a say in the morals and ethics.

 

[Mihle]

1 hour ago, leadeater said:

That's odd, here every car is checked. Maybe it's to do with traffic flow or something? Comparatively we don't have that much traffic and they don't put checkpoints in the middle of a motorway/highway, cos you know, that would be idiotic.

Yes it have to do with traffic flow, they don't want to stop the traffic. At least here in Norway, how many they stop really depends on how many cars drive on the road and how many people they have to check people, the more people on the road, the fewer % they actually stop. Same if they have fewer people.

 

So sometimes they do stop almost everyone, but sometimes they don't.

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, Mihle said:

Yes it have to do with traffic flow, they don't want to stop the traffic. At least here in Norway, how many they stop really depends on how many cars drive on the road and how many people they have to check people, the more people on the road, the fewer % they actually stop. Same if they have fewer people.

 

So sometimes they do stop almost everyone, but sometimes they don't.

 

1 minute ago, Mihle said:

Yes it have to do with traffic flow, they don't want to stop the traffic. At least here in Norway, how many they stop really depends on how many cars drive on the road and how many people they have to check people, the more people on the road, the fewer % they actually stop. Same if they have fewer people.

 

So sometimes they do stop almost everyone, but sometimes they don't.

OH NO, @Mihle is stuck in a time loop.

[LAwLz]

21 minutes ago, mr moose said:

No they don't.  That's the problem, they don;t have to bne true at all, your assumption that no drunk is going to use this app is silly.

I never made that assumption. Stop putting words in my mouth right now.

What I said was that in order for this ban to be effective a large number of people must use this app in addition to the app being up-to-date with the information, the drunk drivers must taking another route because of the app and the DWI would have caught the drivers if it weren't for the app.

Those are the 4 criteria for this ban to actually have any effect in the real world.

 

That is in no way the same as saying that "no drunk is going to use this app".

 

 

21 minutes ago, mr moose said:

No, at best your post concludes you can't prove this app would even work,  I don't need to prove it will work to claim people are being moronic if they think their freedom of speech has been violated because they wish to warn people where the cops are doing their job.

You are completely misinterpreting my post if that's what you think I am arguing.

I am NOT saying that the app doesn't work. What I am saying is that I question the practical effect banning this feature, and that the people who say it would be effective are making a lot of assumptions.

 

And yes, I do believe that making it illegal to inform others where police are, when they are out on the public road, is a heavy violation of freedom of speech. I should not be sentenced and a criminal for telling someone "hey, drive a bit earlier than you usually do because you might get stopped on the way to work".

 

21 minutes ago, mr moose said:

I am arguing it is stupid to demand you have the right to warn drink drivers where the police are and to somehow think that is ok with no consequences. .

I am not demanding that I should be allowed to inform drunk drivers where the police are. I am demanding that people should be allowed to tell other people about where the police are and what they are doing. Two very distinct arguments, and I would appreciate it if you stopped assuming and treating everyone as criminals who should be caught. I did not drive drunk to work when my mom told me about the checkpoint for example.

 

21 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Another silly argument. 

Just as silly as your "it allows people to do illegal things so therefore it should not be allowed". You can't use "people CAN use it for this purpose so it should be illegal" as an argument for why something which has other applications should be banned. If the main purpose if Waze was to inform drunk drivers how to avoid the police then you would have a much stronger point, but it isn't. The information about things such as DWI controls are there to assist in the navigation and route selection to make the GPS better.

That it could be misused is a side effect.

 

 

21 minutes ago, mr moose said:

No, but it is a specific part of the app.  It even says on one of the screen shots "avoid traffic, police, and accidents".

 

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.waze&hl=en_AU

Not sure what your point is. Avoid police does not mean "hey criminals, here is how to get away with crime".

It can also mean "this road might slow you down because a police is there doing controls". That is most likely why they lumped the police in together with traffic and accidents, which also cause delays. It's three things which cause certain roads to not be as fast as they usually are.

Again, you have this mentality that people are criminals and have to be stopped at all cost, even if it means removing useful things for perfectly law abiding citizens, and you are assuming that people have malicious intent in mind rather than the legitimate and useful purposes.

 

21 minutes ago, mr moose said:

This is hardly a big concept to get your head around, the app allows one person to tell every other user (including those who have been drinking) where the police are.  If that's isn't an issue for you then I don't want to live in a world where you have a say in the morals and ethics.

I have no problem with people being allowed to tell others where the police are or what they are doing in public areas. Sorry.

I believe people should be free to talk to each other about those things and not be forced into silence.

My mother should not be a criminal for telling me that I might need some extra time to get to work because the police are doing controls on the road I drive on to work.

[Sunako]

The  NYPD will most certainly lose as police are alrdy required to post sobriety check points publicly at least 24 hours ahead of time. 

 

https://guardianinterlock.com/blog/police-announce-checkpoints/

[mr moose]

4 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

I never made that assumption. Stop putting words in my mouth right now.

 

35 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

I don't think you understood my point. My point was that in order for this change to have a meaningful effect on reducing the number of drunk drivers on the roads all of these 4 things must be true.

2 hours ago, LAwLz said:

 It relies on the assumptions that:

1. Drunk drivers checks the app. 

So there you have it. 

4 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

What I said was that in order for this ban to be effective a large number of people must use this app in addition to the app being up-to-date with the information, the drunk drivers must taking another route because of the app and the DWI would have caught the drivers if it weren't for the app.

Those are the 4 criteria for this ban to actually have any effect in the real world.

 

That is in no way the same as saying that "no drunk is going to use this app".

 

 

You are completely misinterpreting my post if that's what you think I am arguing.

I am NOT saying that the app doesn't work. What I am saying is that I question the practical effect banning this feature, and that the people who say it would be effective are making a lot of assumptions.

 

And yes, I do believe that making it illegal to inform others where police are, when they are out on the public road, is a heavy violation of freedom of speech. I should not be sentenced and a criminal for telling someone "hey, drive a bit earlier than you usually do because you might get stopped on the way to work".

 

I am not demanding that I should be allowed to inform drunk drivers where the police are. I am demanding that people should be allowed to tell other people about where the police are and what they are doing. Two very distinct arguments, and I would appreciate it if you stopped assuming and treating everyone as criminals who should be caught. I did not drive drunk to work when my mom told me about the checkpoint for example.

 

Just as silly as your "it allows people to do illegal things so therefore it should not be allowed". You can't use "people CAN use it for this purpose so it should be illegal" as an argument for why something which has other applications should be banned. If the main purpose if Waze was to inform drunk drivers how to avoid the police then you would have a much stronger point, but it isn't. The information about things such as DWI controls are there to assist in the navigation and route selection to make the GPS better.

That it could be misused is a side effect.

 

 

Not sure what your point is. Avoid police does not mean "hey criminals, here is how to get away with crime".

It can also mean "this road might slow you down because a police is there doing controls". That is most likely why they lumped the police in together with traffic and accidents, which also cause delays. It's three things which cause certain roads to not be as fast as they usually are.

Again, you have this mentality that people are criminals and have to be stopped at all cost, even if it means removing useful things for perfectly law abiding citizens, and you are assuming that people have malicious intent in mind rather than the legitimate and useful purposes.

 

I have no problem with people being allowed to tell others where the police are or what they are doing in public areas. Sorry.

I believe people should be free to talk to each other about those things and not be forced into silence.

My mother should not be a criminal for telling me that I might need some extra time to get to work because the police are doing controls on the road I drive on to work. If you believe that should be illegal then I don't want to live in a world where you have a say in the law.

Your arguments are so missing the point, how you can take a simple concept like forewarning drink drivers where the police are as being foolish and stupid and try to exclude consequences of that action so you can pretend some major silencing of the masses is occurring is beyond me.  They are simply asking for the app to not report where the police are carrying out drink driving testing, they are not forcing you into subjugation and taking away your rights.

 

 

 

 

[leadeater]

15 minutes ago, Sunako said:

The  NYPD will most certainly lose as police are alrdy required to post sobriety check points publicly at least 24 hours ahead of time. 

 

https://guardianinterlock.com/blog/police-announce-checkpoints/

Well this makes the whole thing even more weird.

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Well this makes the whole thing even more weird.

Not really, the NYPD know they haven't a hope in hell, but they'll try anyway, because the most they have to lose is a bit a lawyer time while the best is a change in the app of some description.

[LAwLz]

21 minutes ago, Sunako said:

The  NYPD will most certainly lose as police are alrdy required to post sobriety check points publicly at least 24 hours ahead of time.  

 

https://guardianinterlock.com/blog/police-announce-checkpoints/

Interesting article.

So DWI checkpoints has to be announced ahead of time otherwise they are ruled unconstitutional on the account of detention without reasonable suspicion (violation of the 4th amendment). But like the article says, people still get caught, and it might even be so that the announcement itself deters people from driving drunk.

 

 

14 minutes ago, mr moose said:

So there you have it. 

Your extremely poor reading comprehension skills amazes me every single day...

I was not saying that all those 4 things are (must) be true. What I said that was that in order for this to reduce drunk driving, those 4 criteria must be true.

The must does not mean "this is the way things are". It means "these are the ways things have to be in order for it to be true".

 

Here is how the conversation went, with other words to help you understand.

You: Banning this feature will result in more drunk drivers getting caught.

Me: That is only true if the app is accurate, a large number of people are stopped, drunk people use the app and as a result they pick a different, unchecked road.

You: Aha! You just said all drunk drivers must use this app!

 

I think you got confused because I used the word "must" when referring to the collection of 4 different criteria which has to be true in order for the ban to be effective, but you assumed that the "must" were referring to only point 1 in the list.

 

You claimed that I assumed "NO DRUNK IS GOING TO USE THIS APP". I never said anything even close to that. I said that drunk people using this app is one of the 4 criteria for the ban to be efficient. I never said anything about "no drunks" or "all drunks" either. You added the "all" part. Some people may fit one criteria but not all of them. That's the point I was trying to make. This ban will only have an effect on people who fit all 4 of the criteria I listed. The ban will have no impact on those who fit 3 or less of them.

 

 

14 minutes ago, mr moose said:

They are simply asking for the app to not report where the police are carrying out drink driving testing, they are not forcing you into subjugation and taking away your rights. 

That is not what they are asking. Do you even know how Waze works? It's essentially a messaging app. It's not Waze or Google informing users where the police are. It is users posting to other users where the police are, and the police are trying to take that away from the users.

[Sunako]

The other thing that I have seen some people argue that the stops are unconstitutional. They are as long as they have been posted ahead of time. Every car is checked verbally meaning showing a note or  license through the window Is not enough and give the officers reason to further detain the person.  And all states have a clause when you receive a  drivers license  That you will submit to a   sobriety test  or lose the right to the license and are there for in voilation of the law and can be jailed for not submitting.

[leadeater]

1 minute ago, mr moose said:

Not really, the NYPD know they haven't a hope in hell, but they'll try anyway, because the most they have to lose is a bit a lawyer time while the best is a change in the app of some description.

I don't know why they are bothering though, if they are pre-publicizing where they are all they are doing is weighing up the reach of their publication versus another. Their's is too public so it needs to go, or it's not done by us so it needs to go. If it's public information you could just take that directly and display it on the map, like any other public piece of information already displayed on most map apps.

 

If they are pre-announced then this to me is entirely pointless, must have better things to spend money on than to put it in to the legal system to issue cease and desist plus more if non compliance.

[Sunako]

As a note to my above post a sobriety test does not include a field sobriety test that is only a tool for officers to read the person. Sobriety test are breath, blood, and urine.

[mr moose]

3 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Interesting article.

So DWI checkpoints has to be announced ahead of time otherwise they are ruled unconstitutional on the account of detention without reasonable suspicion (violation of the 4th amendment). But like the article says, people still get caught, and it might even be so that the announcement itself deters people from driving drunk.

 

 

Your extremely poor reading comprehension skills amazes me every single day...

I was not saying that all those 4 things are (must) be true. What I said that was that in order for this to reduce drunk driving, those 4 criteria must be true.

The must does not mean "this is the way things are". It means "these are the ways things have to be in order for it to be true".

 

Here is how the conversation went, with other words to help you understand.

You: Banning this feature will result in more drunk drivers getting caught.

Me: That is only true if the app is accurate, a large number of people are stopped, drunk people use the app and as a result they pick a different, unchecked road.

You: Aha! You just said all drunk drivers must use this app!

 

I think you got confused because I used the word "must" when referring to the collection of 4 different criteria which has to be true in order for the ban to be effective, but you assumed that the "must" were referring to only point 1 in the list.

 

You claimed that I assumed "NO DRUNK IS GOING TO USE THIS APP". I never said anything even close to that. I said that drunk people using this app is one of the 4 criteria for the ban to be efficient. I never said anything about "no drunks" or "all drunks". You added the "all" part.

 

 

That is not what they are asking. Do you even know how Waze works? It's essentially a messaging app. It's not Waze or Google informing users where the police are. It is users posting to other users where the police are, and the police are trying to take that away from the users.

really?  Your argument is that drunk drivers don't plan ahead, you said it yourself, your argument tried to claim that the app would only work if drunk drivers checked the app,  I argued that they do, so your point is moot.  Sorry you don't understand that.