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

[mr moose]

4 hours ago, Vanderburg said:

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.

I would still argue the same thing, If no one has the right to safe roads to drive on (that being the "there is no right to not have a drunk driver on the street"), then there is no point in have road laws at all.  After all there would be no right not to have anyone doing dangerous stuff on the roads. 

 

 

 

 

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Yes, it is.

Not really, begs the question do you own your breath once it leaves your body? No of course not. Feel free to argue with me, but I don’t enforce the law, as long as you don’t argue with a cop.

[Vanderburg]

4 minutes ago, mr moose said:

I would still argue the same thing, If no one has the right to safe roads to drive on (that being the "there is no right to not have a drunk driver on the street"), then there is no point in have road laws at all.  After all there would be no right not to have anyone doing dangerous stuff on the roads. 

 

 

 

 

The rights can be a bit hard to grasp at times, but they are about individual freedoms. You don't have the right to not have a drunk driver on the streets, but that doesn't mean you have the right to drive drunk on the street. It just can't be the default status that you might be drunk. The police have to already reasonably suspect you of being drunk (by observing you weaving, or whatever). You still have the right to not have your property, or yourself, damaged by a drunk driver, but that right is only violated when that actually happens, not by virtue of them being on the road. It's a perfectly reasonable thing to not want a drunk driver around, but the protections they enjoy that could possibly let them get away with it are a required effect of being able to have all the protections of rights that people who aren't drinking and driving. Either people have rights, or they don't. You can't selectively apply them, or they aren't rights, and at least in America, the rights are fundamental.

[mr moose]

4 minutes ago, Vanderburg said:

The rights can be a bit hard to grasp at times,

Might be,  but I understand them.

 

4 minutes ago, Vanderburg said:

but they are about individual freedoms. You don't have the right to not have a drunk driver on the streets, but that doesn't mean you have the right to drive drunk on the street. It just can't be the default status that you might be drunk. The police have to already reasonably suspect you of being drunk (by observing you weaving, or whatever). You still have the right to not have your property, or yourself, damaged by a drunk driver, but that right is only violated when that actually happens, not by virtue of them being on the road. It's a perfectly reasonable thing to not want a drunk driver around, but the protections they enjoy that could possibly let them get away with it are a required effect of being able to have all the protections of rights that people who aren't drinking and driving. Either people have rights, or they don't. You can't selectively apply them, or they aren't rights, and at least in America, the rights are fundamental.

You can claim everyone has rights, but if there is no way to ensure people can realise those rights then there is no point in having them.  You might claim you have the right not to have a drunk drive into your house, but I would argue that is not a right, that is an expectation.  You expect that people behaving appropriately won't drive into your house.   Technically there is no "you don't have right not to be..." Because those statements aren't about rights, they are about expectations.   This whole issues is not about selectively applying rights, it's about people arguing whether they should be rights in the first place.  Because if you have the right not to be searched or tested then you are effectively claiming the right to drive drunk so long as you keep the vehicle on the road when the police are looking (or filming).    And that is why there will always be debate.

[Syntaxvgm]

To my memory, it was rules that flashing headlight to warn others of a hiding officer was constitutionally protected free speech (disregarding any sometimes strict local laws about what headlights can be on where) 

 

I imagine something similar would apply here. 

[Trik'Stari]

19 hours ago, dizmo said:

I don't think they should be able to report locations of checkpoints. They're there for a reason, and they're more effective than having nothing at all.

I don't think it'd fall under that, because they're not searching your vehicle. I believe they're allowed to insure that you're authorized to operate the vehicle you're in, check licenses, your operational status, etc.

They don't though, really. They're simply checking to make sure you're in compliance. There's nothing wrong with that, and a patrol won't catch nearly as many intoxicated people. People that are intoxicated (to a point they're a serious issue) are also less likely to be able to avoid such checkpoints. Driving around trying to catch drunk drivers is like trying to find a needle in a haystack, and honestly, would have similar issues in relation to guilt as a checkpoint would. Who's to say the person swerving slightly is just tired, a bad driver, etc.

No but a field sobriety test probably does. Although at that point they have probable cause (probably).

 

And honestly, if it's that hard to find drunk drivers, a "needle in a haystack" as you said, are they really common enough to need this? Or are they just hoping to ticket people for anything and everything to get money out of us. Same with speed traps. They aren't there to cut down on anything, but to generate revenue.

 

I've seen too many instances of the law punishing people being responsible (like a group of guys who were arrested on COPS because they were sleeping it off in their car, and had the car running because it was below freezing outside. IIRC it was in Detroit.) to ever believe them at face value when they say something is "for our own good".

19 hours ago, RorzNZ said:

How about don’t drink and drive? 

The majority of people, don't. AFAIK.

[mr moose]

58 minutes ago, Trik'Stari said:

And honestly, if it's that hard to find drunk drivers, a "needle in a haystack" as you said, are they really common enough to need this? Or are they just hoping to ticket people for anything and everything to get money out of us. Same with speed traps. They aren't there to cut down on anything, but to generate revenue.

Having seen the results of drink driving (country fire fighter that turned out to all road accidents), I can assure you that while some make it home safe, they do so only on dumb luck or the responsiveness of other drivers.    I certainly don't agree with the revenue raising debate, you have to actually break the law to pay a fine.

58 minutes ago, Trik'Stari said:

I've seen too many instances of the law punishing people being responsible (like a group of guys who were arrested on COPS because they were sleeping it off in their car, and had the car running because it was below freezing outside. IIRC it was in Detroit.) to ever believe them at face value when they say something is "for our own good".

The majority of people, don't. AFAIK.

This I do agree is bullshit, but that is a different issue to drink driving, that issue is cops being fucking pathetic rather than sympathetic.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Trik'Stari said:

The majority of people, don't. AFAIK.

Just because the majority of people don't do it doesn't mean there shouldn't be checkpoints. Only take one drunk driver on the road to kill someone. 

[dizmo]

11 hours ago, Curufinwe_wins said:

Ignoring the part where police do on a non-insignficant number of times violate your due cause and search based on racial profiling or other illegitimate reason...

 

Part of the real reason why people want to know where the cops are is to avoid the inevitable massive slow down to traffic that occurs as people gawk or get stressed out around them. Same reasons why people want to know where construction is. So they can plan around it. 

Which has nothing to do with the topic at hand, so why mention it.

It's part, sure, but it still catches people that shouldn't be on the road. Which saves lives. Shouldn't matter if people are slightly inconvenienced. Suck it up.

[dizmo]

6 hours ago, Trik'Stari said:

No but a field sobriety test probably does. Although at that point they have probable cause (probably).

 

And honestly, if it's that hard to find drunk drivers, a "needle in a haystack" as you said, are they really common enough to need this? Or are they just hoping to ticket people for anything and everything to get money out of us. Same with speed traps. They aren't there to cut down on anything, but to generate revenue.

 

I've seen too many instances of the law punishing people being responsible (like a group of guys who were arrested on COPS because they were sleeping it off in their car, and had the car running because it was below freezing outside. IIRC it was in Detroit.) to ever believe them at face value when they say something is "for our own good".

The majority of people, don't. AFAIK.

Well think about it. You have one car, driving down one street, and you're hoping to just find someone at the exact right moment? The road check makes infinitely more sense, since the person would have to travel through said point (if it's set up properly) to get to their likely destination.

 

Speed traps ticket people breaking the speed limit. Do they generate revenue? Absolutely. There's no denying that. But the people are also speeding, and thus, breaking the law. It's not like they're giving tickets out to people who are driving within the speed limit...

 

There's nothing responsible about living in your car Having it running all night is horrible for the planet.

[RejZoR]

On 2/7/2019 at 5:02 AM, Drak3 said:

Checkpoints that operate on guilty until proven innocent aren't going to really be that effective compared to patrols that act on reasonable suspicion (meaning your driving is really unsafe). Once a checkpoint is known, it's easy to avoid.

No, they operate on basis of "monitoring" or "traffic control" and not "guilty until proven innocent". You're innocent until they find you were either speeding or being drunk or stoned and issue a fine or arrest. But people just can't shut up about it, usually those same people who regularly drive drunk or stoned. Last year I was stopped by a routine check as I was going home from work in the evening. Cops stopped me via routine traffic monitoring checkpoint, asked me for documents and asked if I was drinking. Said no, because I really haven't. Cops thanked me and wished me a good evening. I wished them the same and drove off. It all took a minute or two. No conflict, no issues. This isn't like they are invading your privacy or anything, cops are allowed to demand legitimization from you because that's their job. Yesterday they were monitoring speed and he was pointing the radar at me as I could see him for a bit and then he just lowered it and turned around when he saw I'm going at the speed limit. Again, no issues there.

[Vanderburg]

58 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

cops are allowed to demand legitimization from you because that's their job

This is so incredibly wrong.

[LAwLz]

8 hours ago, mr moose said:

Having seen the results of drink driving (country fire fighter that turned out to all road accidents), I can assure you that while some make it home safe, they do so only on dumb luck or the responsiveness of other drivers.    I certainly don't agree with the revenue raising debate, you have to actually break the law to pay a fine. 

Nobody is arguing that drunk driving should be legal, so I think you can drop the entire "drunk driving is bad" angle.

The debate is, do you or do you not believe it should be illegal for one person to tell another that there is a cop on a public road? And if that is illegal, should the operator of the service used to exchange that information be punished too? Because that is what is happening in this case.

 

One person sends a public message about a public servant (a police) on a public road through Google's service, and now Google are being threatened with legal action for allowing that to happen.

[mr moose]

14 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Nobody is arguing that drunk driving should be legal, so I think you can drop the entire "drunk driving is bad" angle.

For goodness sake, are  you incapable of following the train of conversation?  I was replying to a post that insinuated there were likely so little drink drivers on the road that there wasn't a need for any of this.  It was a very legitimate response indicating that there is always a need for this because the end result of letting it go are disastrous.   So drop insinuation that I am using an irrelevant angle to promote a personal agenda.

14 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

The debate is, do you or do you not believe it should be illegal for one person to tell another that there is a cop on a public road? And if that is illegal, should the operator of the service used to exchange that information be punished too? Because that is what is happening in this case.

Why is that the debate? why would you quote me and then start talking about things I haven't mentioned?  But if you really need an answer then here it is:

 

No it shouldn't be illegal, especially not at an individual level,  but common sense dictates you don't go and maintain an app that makes it so easy to dodge the cops.

 

14 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

One person sends a public message about a public servant (a police) on a public road through Google's service, and now Google are being threatened with legal action for allowing that to happen.

They are being asked to fix the app from being able to be used that way, you , I and everyone else knows this carries as much legal weight as a three year old have a tantrum in the supermarket.

[LAwLz]

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

For goodness sake, are  you incapable of following the train of conversation?  I was replying to a post that insinuated there were likely so little drink drivers on the road that there wasn't a need for any of this.  It was a very legitimate response indicating that there is always a need for this because the end result of letting it go are disastrous.   So drop insinuation that I am using an irrelevant angle to promote a personal agenda. 

You have to apply a risk assessment methodology, not just look at the consequence of something happening.

I have seen the consequences of regular car crashes as well, even the aftermath of a driver running over a pedestrian. Does that mean I should try and get all cars banned? No, because I look at the probability of occurrence as well, not just the severity of the impact.

 

 

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

Why is that the debate? why would you quote me and then start talking about things I haven't mentioned?  But if you really need an answer then here it is:

 

No it shouldn't be illegal, especially not at an individual level,  but common sense dictates you don't go and maintain an app that makes it so easy to dodge the cops.

It is a debate because that is what is actually going on with the NYPD sending out cease and desist letters to Google and you have refused to answer that despite me asking you several times when I used my mother as an example.

Anyway, good that you finally said that you don't think it should be illegal.

 

 

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

They are being asked to fix the app from being able to be used that way, you , I and everyone else knows this carries as much legal weight as a three year old have a tantrum in the supermarket. 

I can't think of a way to fix that without limiting the freedom of expression though.

They are asked to remove the ability for users to tell others about potential slowdowns in the form of police controls on roads. Hell, since they are required by law to publicly post where and when controls are the police are by extent even asking people to not talk about public information the police are required to provide to the citizens.

 

I think it is completely absurd that someone can agree with the police that it should not be allowed to inform others of where they are.

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

You have to apply a risk assessment methodology, not just look at the consequence of something happening.

I have seen the consequences of regular car crashes as well, even the aftermath of a driver running over a pedestrian. Does that mean I should try and get all cars banned? No, because I look at the probability of occurrence as well, not just the severity of the impact.

 

Again you retreat to those silly analogies.  All I said was driving while under the influence increases your risk of having an accident substantially.  I don't know why you feel it so important to try and argue that point.

2 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

It is a debate because that is what is actually going on with the NYPD sending out cease and desist letters to Google and you have refused to answer that despite me asking you several times when I used my mother as an example.

Anyway, good that you finally said that you don't think it should be illegal.

 

Then take it up with them, don't quote me when I am replying to another person about a different issue and demand II address you concerns.

2 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

I can't think of a way to fix that without limiting the freedom of expression though.

Even if the app was canceled altogether that would not limit free

2 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

They are asked to remove the ability for users to tell others about potential slowdowns in the form of police controls on roads. Hell, since they are required by law to publicly post where and when controls are the police are by extent even asking people to not talk about public information the police are required to provide to the citizens.

 

I think it is completely absurd that someone can agree with the police that it should not be allowed to inform others of where they are.

That's nice, I think iit's absurd that people think this is akin to dictatorships or some low level dictatorship.

[DeScruff]

11 hours ago, Trik'Stari said:

They aren't there to cut down on anything, but to generate revenue.

*ding ding ding*
I dunno about every part of NY, but I can say in my neck of the woods, the police practically have to ticket anything and everything cause their funding keeps going down, all cause a lot of wealthy individuals ' hate paying taxes for a town we only live in for half of the year.' - Their words, not mine. (And yeah it is true they only live in the state for half the year, yet make 90% of the decisions.)
Sucks for us regular folk who live and work in the area all year and end up with all the parking tickets, traffic, and a buncha other stuff...

[Drak3]

4 hours ago, RejZoR said:

o, they operate on basis of "monitoring" or "traffic control" and not "guilty until proven innocent". You're innocent until they find you were either speeding or being drunk or stoned and issue a fine or arrest.

They stop you and attempt to force an illegal search on you, and if you let them, they only let you go once you're proven innocent. And them letting you go if you don't let them isn't always a given either, they might still arrest you for "interfering with a police investigation" or hold you until they get a drug sniffing dog to perform a more in depth illegal search.

 

There is no reasonable suspicion. There is no warrant. Therefore, they're breaking the 4th Amendment of the US constitution and they're operating on the premise of Guilty until proven Innocent.

 

If they were monitoring, they'd patrol common places where drunkards get drunk, and only act when there is reasonable suspicion of driving intoxicated.

[Curufinwe_wins]

7 hours ago, dizmo said:

Which has nothing to do with the topic at hand, so why mention it.

It's part, sure, but it still catches people that shouldn't be on the road. Which saves lives. Shouldn't matter if people are slightly inconvenienced. Suck it up.

Why bring up a legitimate reason for law abiding citizens to want the ability to tell other law abiding citizens where police are and thus distance themselves from possible unwarranted discrimination?

 

I wonder why I'd bring it up. 

 

But I fundamentally think that the extreme hyper majority of users who would actually pay attention to these things are the people not drunk on the road, and that most drunk people most of the time wouldnt pay attention or change their path regardless. If they were capable of that proper decision making, a decent proportion of them wouldn't be on the road in the first place.

 

 

I dont have a problem with police going out on the road to catch people for drunk driving etc. But I also dont think there is anything wrong with people communicating to each other where they are if they are going to do that.

[79wjd]

 

13 hours ago, mr moose said:

I certainly don't agree with the revenue raising debate, you have to actually break the law to pay a fine.

You have to break a law by going above the speed limit, but doing so while not being reckless should be fine, but it will very often get you a ticket. There is one town by me where for years they would frequently change the speed limit on a particular hill with a blind spot at the bottom and a cop sitting in it.

 

Most speeding tickets are purely in the name of generating revenue.

 

[Drak3]

1 hour ago, 79wjd said:

You have to break a law by going above the speed limit

Not even that. Impeding the flow of traffic, if you're going 65 in a 65, and everyone else is going 75, you're still likely to get the ticket. Why? You're easy to single out, despite being the only one following the law, you're also the one creating an "unsafe" situation.

 

Or out of state plates, also easy to single out. Also easy to get tickets out of those people.

[Vanderburg]

9 hours ago, dizmo said:

Which has nothing to do with the topic at hand, so why mention it.

It's part, sure, but it still catches people that shouldn't be on the road. Which saves lives. Shouldn't matter if people are slightly inconvenienced. Suck it up.

So, screw your rights, because the cause is moral and you're only slightly inconvenienced? That's the equivalent of saying you don't have a right at all. And if we don't have to protect the 4th amendment, then what's preventing us from taking away the 1st amendment? Or the 8th? Or the 14th? The rights have to mean something, to be exercised at any time, or they aren't rights, and you have to considered the consequences of what you're suggesting beyond just this "slight inconvenience".

[peanuts104]

On 2/6/2019 at 10:17 PM, dizmo said:

I believe they're allowed to insure that you're authorized to operate the vehicle you're in, check licenses, your operational status, etc.

Not in the US.  In the US you can't pull someone over just to make sure they have a license.  There's case law on it.  Now, if the police officer runs the plate and it comes back that the owner has a suspended license, then you could pull them over via probable cause, but you can't just stop people without probable cause, which is why DWI checkpoints should be illegal, but there's a litany of case law from both the state and federal level that contradict each other and most states just don't give a f and do it anyway (like New York).

[Sunako]

3 hours ago, peanuts104 said:

Not in the US.  In the US you can't pull someone over just to make sure they have a license.  There's case law on it.  Now, if the police officer runs the plate and it comes back that the owner has a suspended license, then you could pull them over via probable cause, but you can't just stop people without probable cause, which is why DWI checkpoints should be illegal, but there's a litany of case law from both the state and federal level that contradict each other and most states just don't give a f and do it anyway (like New York).

You are correct that they can not just pull any one over. But when it is a check point it is publicly safety and every one is checked it is legal. As long as they check every one and and not picking and choosing who to check it is legal. You will find at check points they will have other officers or cones at turns leading up to the check point. Those that try and avoid have given cause for the police to believe the person is trying to avoid an invounter.

 

    You will encounter similar check points in some states that require imissions equipment on the car.  All are legal as long as you are not picking and choosing which vehicles to inspect unless they would have imissions in this case.

[Techstorm970]

On 2/7/2019 at 1:12 AM, leadeater said:

Out of court settlement: "Google now owns NYPD."

"Welcome to Cyberpunk New York!!!"