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

[Guest]

1 hour ago, leadeater said:

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.

Everyone I know who drives a 370Z is a lot older than you (unless ur 50) lol. I started out with a 2 door Toyota, but the whole time I just wanted a bigger car. No tow bar either. Such a life changer now because I don't need to grab the truck to go to the landfill down the road, or just to hitch a bike. I know a mate of mine used to hide his weed in his GTS, and used to indulge a little, however it got a little conspicuous, so he traded it in for a wagon. 

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, leadeater said:

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.

I don't know.   I don't even understand half the things the US does.    I just don't have what it takes to work out why people think they are morally superior in any argument like this.

[Sunako]

3 minutes ago, mr moose said:

I don't know.   I don't even understand half the things the US does.    I just don't have what it takes to work out why people think they are morally superior in any argument like this.

I don’t believe it is a moral argument here. It is what is lawful and what is not. You have the mind set that people that have done something wrong lose all right. When the government that this pertains to has come to the conclusion that even people that have done wrong still have rights and that law enforcement must follow their own rules as well.

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, Sunako said:

I don’t believe it is a moral argument here. It is what is lawful and what is not. You have the mind set that people that have done something wrong lose all right. When the government that this pertains to has come to the conclusion that even people that have done wrong still have rights and that law enforcement must follow their own rules as well.

 

As soon as someone uses the term "rights" then it becomes a moral argument.  Do your rights trump my rights?  Does my rights to free speech trump your right to have the police do their job unhindered?  is the job even hindered? is free speech a right that is causing more losses of rights?  They are all moral questions and all have different answers depending on who you are and your experience. 

 

That is the problem with this discussion, the issue is quite simple, there are drunk drivers and the police don't know which ones they are, therefore how do they remove the drink drivers without innocent non drunk people having their rights not to be tested trampled on?

[Sunako]

2 minutes ago, mr moose said:

 

As soon as someone uses the term "rights" then it becomes a moral argument.  Do your rights trump my rights?  Does my rights to free speech trump your right to have the police do their job unhindered?  is the job even hindered? is free speech a right that is causing more losses of rights?  They are all moral questions and all have different answers depending on who you are and your experience. 

 

That is the problem with this discussion, the issue is quite simple, there are drunk drivers and the police don't know which ones they are, therefore how do they remove the drink drivers without innocent non drunk people having their rights not to be tested trampled on?

Ok so you want to say every thing is a right? You do not have the right to drive. You are permitted to use a car with a valid drivers license in which you agree to submit to a breath, blood, urine test if requested by a officer of the law for that jurisdiction if the driver of any mechanical vehicle.  A passenger is free to refuse. This is the law not a right. Second is you do not have the right to use a vehicle on a public road unless said vehicle is registered with the dmv for one of the 50 states or the District of Columbia. All others are allowed travel permission only when passing thru a legal port of entry. There is no rights involved here only established rule of law. I’m sorry you can’t disconnect your feeling from what has been deemed lawful. You are free to lobby to have these laws changed at your own expense.

[LAwLz]

17 minutes ago, mr moose said:

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.

But you try to claim that I said no drunk driver ever checks the app. I never said anything like that. I never said drunk drivers don't check the app either. Pointing out that you are making an assumption does not mean I am assuming the opposite.

Also, you saying the opposite does not make my point moot. Sorry but when it's word against word, your word does not weight more than mine.

Actually, in this case where it is you making a claim (that the function in the app should be banned and I question if that's really necessary) the burden of proof is on you. You have a bigger responsibility to actually prove that what you say is true than I do. I am merely questioning if this is actually efficient, not making any claims that it will or won't be efficient (unlike you).

 

 

24 minutes ago, leadeater said:

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.

I think it's important to once again state how Waze works. Google/Waze are not the ones adding the police to the map. It is the users doing that. Waze is essentially a messaging app.

So I would argue that even if the police didn't post where and when the checkpoints would be, it would still be "public information" because it is the public reporting it, it's about public servants and it is happening on public roads.

 

Anyway, I think it's just the police are scared of potential change. If I worked as a police, and some private company made it easier for the public to monitor what I was doing, and it could potentially, maybe, have a slight impact on my job, then I would probably not be that happy either. I want to just go about my day like normal and not have to worry about how the world is changing around me.

[leadeater]

24 minutes ago, RorzNZ said:

Everyone I know who drives a 370Z is a lot older than you (unless ur 50) lol.

Did you just assume, correctly, my age!?! .

 

Far as I know my birth date is public on my profile 

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, Sunako said:

Ok so you want to say every thing is a right? You do not have the right to drive. You are permitted to use a car with a valid drivers license in which you agree to submit to a breath, blood, urine test if requested by a officer of the law for that jurisdiction if the driver of any mechanical vehicle.  A passenger is free to refuse. This is the law not a right. Second is you do not have the right to use a vehicle on a public road unless said vehicle is registered with the dmv for one of the 50 states or the District of Columbia. All others are allowed travel permission only when passing thru a legal port of entry. There is no rights involved here only established rule of law. I’m sorry you can’t disconnect your feeling from what has been deemed lawful. You are free to lobby to have these laws changed at your own expense.

I don't care bout your laws. not even sure you understand what a right is, it cannot be entrapped in a law.  A law can both uphold a right and oppress a right depending on the individual.   The argument is about rights, individual rights, rights of others.

[TetraSky]

No point to this.

Even if Google stops showing the DWI checkpoints, a different app will popup to do the same.

[mr moose]

3 hours 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.

 

Right here, you are arguing that in order for the app to make the roads less safe,  drunk drivers have to check the app and that they don't plan ahead. What you are trying to argue is that drunk drivers don't check the app thus the apps does not make the roads less safe.

 

I am telling you that is a foolish assumption to make.  I really don't care about freedom of speech, many countries don't have it and work just fine without it.  this is just the police trying to mitigate one more avenue of drink drivers dodging getting caught, it is not the Spanish inquisition.

[ZacoAttaco]

38 minutes ago, leadeater said:

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.

I guess it's one of those things were the NYPD publish were the DWI stops are but don't actively promote the fact that it's publicly available. So in the end, no one really utilises that information. Waze makes it convenient for people to find exactly where they are but so far from this thread it seems like they are vain in their quest to stop this. I suppose it would take major legislative changes for a request like this to be acknowledged.

[Sunako]

4 minutes ago, mr moose said:

I don't care bout your laws. not even sure you understand what a right is, it cannot be entrapped in a law.  A law can both uphold a right and oppress a right depending on the individual.   The argument is about rights, individual rights, rights of others.

You have In alienableriggts that all peoples are entitled to and rights granted to you by the rule of law. You are arguing all rights are dictated by morality but they are not. Many rights are granted or revoked based on the safety or wellbeing of the collective. It might not be morally right to put a person in prison for life but for the safety of other it is.  This is based in law. So you have a romantic view of rights and mortality which you need to be able to disconnect the two to make and informed  decision.

[mr moose]

7 minutes ago, Sunako said:

You have In alienableriggts that all peoples are entitled to and rights granted to you by the rule of law.

Just becasue you have rights granted to you by law doesn't mean you don't have any other rights that are not, or that some current law don't oppress your rights.

Quote

You are arguing all rights are dictated by morality but they are not. Many rights are granted or revoked based on the safety or wellbeing of the collective. It might not be morally right to put a person in prison for life but for the safety of other it is.

All this means is the people who wrote the law thought the morally superior act was to imprison a person, that the rights of the innocent trumped those of the criminal.  They are still rights that are being debated.  The law doesn't dictate the morals, the moral opinions are always there regardless. 

 

Quote

 This is based in law. So you have a romantic view of rights and mortality which you need to be able to disconnect the two to make and informed  decision.

No, I have a slightly more grounded view of morals, I don't decide which are right and wrong because of man made laws, anything made by man is just as feeble as man himself.  Law doesn't make something moral, people make the laws and they base those laws of their own morals.  

[Mr.Dingle]

Dont know how checkpoints in the US work but here , its usually known where to expect them . Besides , why even think about checkpoints if you havent done anything wrong ?

[ravenshrike]

5 hours ago, mr moose said:

When these topics come up I am somewhat dismayed by the number of people who don't understand the importance of getting drink drivers of the road.  Sure it's an inconvenience, but do you really want to balance that inconvenience against being in an accident because of drink driving? And to the point of demanding it be a free speech issue!  Free speech is so you can question the government and vocally protest their actions, it should not give you the right to undermine the polices legitimate attempts at keeping people safe. 

 

Unless off course drink driving is protected in the bill of rights?

 

 

If you want to get drunk drivers off the road, make the penalties worthwhile and consistently enforce them. Case in point, any drunk driver who kills or injures someone should have that considered to be either premeditated murder or aggravated battery. If caught driving drunk after your first offense, it should be an automatic 5 year prison sentence. Remove the laws limiting bottled alcohol sales to certain times and types of stores. These actions would put a significant dent in the rate of drunk driving incidents. DUI checkpoints don't.

[mr moose]

6 minutes ago, ravenshrike said:

If you want to get drunk drivers off the road, make the penalties worthwhile and consistently enforce them. Case in point, any drunk driver who kills or injures someone should have that considered to be either premeditated murder or aggravated battery. If caught driving drunk after your first offense, it should be an automatic 5 year prison sentence. Remove the laws limiting bottled alcohol sales to certain times and types of stores. These actions would put a significant dent in the rate of drunk driving incidents. DUI checkpoints don't.

I agree making the punishments worse is necessary. It's hard to prove murder, but it could certainly be manslaughter and treated as a grievous act of endangerment.

[Tristerin]

These are public roads, owned by the public, with public servants setting up illegal detention zones.  Show us your Papers is a Gastapo tactic Ill never support and will continue to only roll down my window enough to inform the officer of my rights and the illegal activities they are doing.  Ive yet to do anything but give them sight of my ID and insurance as a COURTESY.  Then its move along, because I know my rights (and I don't drink and drive, Im sure they would violate them if they felt like it)

 

It is not illegal to report DWI checkpoints.  It is illegal to hamper a police investigation.  The line that has to be proven here is that an Investigation was hampered...by Google by proxy of User Reports. 

 

If the Investigation cannot happen (because the person was deterred from going down that road by the App) than a crime cannot be committed. 

 

First face crimes, now thought crimes.  Way to go 2019.

 

*I don't care to argue this with anyone, I work with law enforcement, its all about the TIME the events occur* 

 

*EDIT - and a cease and desist letter isn't the law.  They are trying to strongarm by throwing out legality and using scare tactics.  Googles lawyers are better than the NYPDs you better believe.

[BuckGup]

8 hours ago, Trik'Stari said:

IIRC aren't DWI checkpoints considered unconstitutional? Something about Search and Seizure, reasonable suspicion?

 

Who am I kidding, the NY state government probably views the Constitution as more of a suggestion at this point.

Yeah they need probable cause

[DeScruff]

Ok. Heres the thing though... We want to avoid these checkpoints cause it slows down traffic to an absolute crawl.
But even if Google removed the ability for people to report "Police". The navigation would still cause people to avoid these roads because the app would still show that traffic is getting congested at a certain point in the road... - And people would probably just report 'Police' as 'Accident', or 'Construction', which the app still has you avoid.
 

Like having looked at the Waze App while driving around with my father, I can actually guess if and where an accident is, even without anyone specifically reporting that there has been one. Like if right in the middle of a specific point in the highway there is extremely heavy traffic.

[Drak3]

5 hours ago, RorzNZ said:

What rights are being violated by being stopped and breathalysed? 

US' 4th amendment. No infringement is minor.

[aisle9]

10 hours ago, Skiiwee29 said:

The Verge as a website is good and have no issues with them what so ever, so no need to drag the website down. The YT channel is a different story... 

Anything written by the guy who did the PC build video is most likely junk, imo. He did a ThinkPad T480 review not too long ago and bitched about the system going back to the old ways and putting physical mouse buttons on their trackpad--something that they have done with every single ThinkPad going back over 20 years except the Haswell generation.

[Vanderburg]

4 hours ago, mr moose said:

 

As soon as someone uses the term "rights" then it becomes a moral argument.  Do your rights trump my rights?  Does my rights to free speech trump your right to have the police do their job unhindered?  is the job even hindered? is free speech a right that is causing more losses of rights?  They are all moral questions and all have different answers depending on who you are and your experience. 

 

That is the problem with this discussion, the issue is quite simple, there are drunk drivers and the police don't know which ones they are, therefore how do they remove the drink drivers without innocent non drunk people having their rights not to be tested trampled on?

Reading this and realizing that you might not be from the US makes me think I was harsh on you earlier and so I apologize for that. Here in the US, our constitution establishes that we have rights that are granted to us by virtue of being human. Our rights aren't made rights by law - we already have those rights with or without the constitution, the constitution simply says what some of them are. It can be a weird concept for some. To be free from unreasonable searches or seizures is one of those fundamental rights, so we require that police have particularized, articulable suspicion of a specific crime before they can stop you, or the sarcastic situation I presented to you about the cocaine could become very real (or any other number of things you might not anticipate). Our fundamental philosophy (at least, as originated, even if not in practice anymore) is that these individual rights are paramount, and everyone has them, even if you're driving drunk on the road. As weird as it sounds, there is no right to not have a drunk driver on the street, but there is the right not to be detained absent that particular suspicion.

[DrMacintosh]

If I were Google, I would fight this. 

 

I don’t like the type of argument the police department is using here. Knowing where a DWI checkpoint is could save you a lot of time since traffic is significantly slowed down in these areas. 

 

Wanting to know where a DWI checkpoint is doesn’t make you guilty of driving drunk. 

[Guest]

5 hours ago, Drak3 said:

US' 4th amendment. No infringement is minor.

Its not really a search though is it.

[Drak3]

22 minutes ago, RorzNZ said:

Its not really a search though is it.

Yes, it is.