from the where-there's-a-will-there's-a...waze dept.
NYPD asks Google to scrap Waze's DUI checkpoints
The NYPD has sent Google a cease-and-desist letter, asking it to axe a Waze feature that allows users to mark cops' locations on the navigation app. Based on the letter first seen by Streetsblog NYC and CBS New York, authorities believe the feature is making it harder to enforce the law and keep the roads safe. The NYPD sent the cease-and-desist just a couple of weeks after Waze debuted speed camera notifications, but the cops' letter mostly focused on the fact that the ability allows users to give each other a heads-up about sobriety checkpoints.
[...] [Based] on the statement it provided to NYT, [Google] doesn't have any intention to give in to the NYPD's demand. It told the publication that safety is a top priority for the company and that "informing drivers about upcoming speed traps allows them to be more careful and make safer decisions when they're on the road."
Also at Gizmodo.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday February 08 2019, @03:51AM (16 children)
This is related to the concept that cops can't be video recorded in public.
When do cops learn that they are PUBLIC SERVANTS? They answer to us. We have the right to know what they are up to. If they wanted to be secretive, maybe they should have joint the SECRET service, instead of a civil police service.
Assholes. They may even win this, although as time passes, they are being forced to be more and more transparent. We aren't there, yet, of course.
One more note. Checkpoints are unconstitutional, in and of themselves. The only time they are fully justified, is during a manhunt. Kidnap, bank robbery, terror attack, things like that where they are looking for specific individuals. Stop a vehicle, look at each occupant, maybe ask for ID, then the vehicle goes on. DUI checkpoints are wrong, as well as unconstitutional.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Friday February 08 2019, @04:19AM (2 children)
It's hardly related. NYPD are just reaching here because they are butthurt.
You can find First Amendment audits of DUI checkpoints on YouTube, though. Some pass, some fail.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Friday February 08 2019, @04:13PM (1 child)
What about 4th amendment audits on DUI checkpoints?
Sorry officer, my mistake. When I saw all the police cars parked here I thought I had found the donut shop I was looking for.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Friday February 08 2019, @04:30PM
This might be what you're looking for (results vary by state):
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=DUI+checkpoint+refusal+honoryouroath [youtube.com]
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=4th+amendment+audit+dui [youtube.com]
Violation of the 4th amendment is not unlikely to occur during any situation where you argue with or film cops.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by ShadowSystems on Friday February 08 2019, @04:23AM (7 children)
Google can rightly claim that such an order would violate their customers' 1st Amendment Rights. You can not prohibit the public from publicly & peaceably discussing public affairs, and a DUI checkpoint would fall squarely in this catagory. The cops may not LIKE that the public is discussing the checkpoints in such a way that warns other drivers of the locations of same, but trying to prohibit the public from doing so would instantly get the police sued for Constitutional Rights violations.
An anecdotal example of this was seen in my home town about a decade ago. A man had gotten busted by a DUI checkpoint & thought it had been unfair. He circled back around to a point about two blocks before the checkpoint, stopped beside the road, & held up a sign that read "DUI checkpoint ahead! AVOID!"
The cops tried to arrest him for interfering with the checkpoint, obstruction of justice, & every other bullshit charge they could think of to lob at him. All it took was his one call, made to a lawyer, & the case got dropped faster than you can say "Freedom of Speach". They couldn't stop a public citizen from peaceful protest, & holding up a sign angry about said checkpoint was dead-on "peaceful protest". His lawyer reminded the cops that the STATE didn't have enough money to pay his client's winnings should it go to court much less our CITY, so the city had to drop all charges.
The debate on if a corporation can have Rights is another matter, but their *customers* certainly do, & one of those Rights is the right to post their Free Speach about the actions of public employees engaged in their public duties in a public space.
TL;DR: the cops don't like it, tough shit. The Constitution is on Google's side.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 08 2019, @03:45PM (2 children)
Meanwhile, Mr Activist spent a night in jail, had his car towed, missed work, and paid his lawyer x k$ to make the problem he caused for himself to go away.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday February 08 2019, @04:24PM
AC above is one of the sheeple. There is no price too steep for asserting your rights. Ask the people who rebelled against England, to establish the US of A.
(Score: 2) by Oakenshield on Friday February 08 2019, @04:29PM
In other words, you owe him a debt of gratitude for his own self-sacrifice to prevent bullies under color of law from violating the rights of his fellow citizens. You post infers that he must have considerably more intestinal fortitude and honor than you.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Oakenshield on Friday February 08 2019, @04:24PM (2 children)
I'd like to believe this was true but it fails the logic test. If someone were "busted" at a DUI checkpoint, there is very little chance they would be arrested, processed, released, recover their vehicle, make a sign and have time left to return to the scene while the checkpoint was ongoing. This sounds like urban legend or wishful thinking.
(Score: 2) by dx3bydt3 on Friday February 08 2019, @10:10PM
Here in Canada They would be checking vehicle registration, insurance and motor vehicle inspection as well. Expiry or lack of documentation for any of those merits a fine, but you go on your way. Presumably something similar could apply in the state in question.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 09 2019, @04:58AM
That story partially true. Similar things have happened across the country, but the most recent ones I remember happened in Ohio and Connecticut.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday February 08 2019, @07:37PM
I seem to recall, when I was younger, they went after a local radio station that listed all the area speed traps and lost handily.
I couldn't find it with a quick Google, though.
I did find this one from MO, where a guy was flashing his lights to warn people and won on first amendment grounds.
Missouri Judge Says, 'Yes, You Have A Right To Warn Other Drivers About Speed Traps' [thecarconnection.com]
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Friday February 08 2019, @04:10PM (4 children)
A transparent police state with absolute power is still a police state.
Being transparent doesn't make it more desirable.
"Being forced to be more and more transparent" could mean two things:
1. the transparency undermines their bad behavior and may become an effective check on such bad behavior
2. the transparency is despite the bad behavior which is now so deeply entrenched that complete public exposure and transparency cannot possibly threaten their bad behavior
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday February 08 2019, @04:26PM (3 children)
The transparency helps to expose how fraudulent the various police forces, and police practices are. That is a good thing, in and of itself. You can't correct a problem that you don't know about. You MIGHT correct problems that you are aware of.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Friday February 08 2019, @04:48PM (2 children)
I can't disagree with that. But once it moves beyond the event horizon of correctible, then transparency about that fact simply doesn't matter and won't save you.
I seriously wonder if things have already become so dysfunctional that, other than some small gains here and there, the system will implode. I hope not. But I wonder.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday February 08 2019, @05:09PM (1 child)
There is hope. Look at BLM, Black Lives Matter. That bunch is about 70% full of shit, but there is truth to what they say. A lot of unarmed black men, especially of military age, have been more or less executed by the cops. Locally, a young black man ran from the cops, and took refuge in a pond. Officially, he drowned. Nothing mysterious about that, right? Young guy, all out of breath, runs into a pond in the middle of the night, trying to hide from the cops. The coroner finds that he died of drowning. But, Mother examined the body, and found six bullet holes in his back. Hmmmm . . .
Shit like that has been going on for as long as Euros and Afros have lived on this continent. But, public scrutiny seems to be slowing that, somewhat. Ubiquitous video catches more of them than ever before. The status quo is changing. The attitude of judges that a cop's word is reliable is slowly changing, in the face of all that video.
There is hope. Don't expect dramatic changes overnight, but things are changing.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Friday February 08 2019, @06:04PM
I do see the changes you are talking about.
Look at YouTube videos of interactions with cops about five years ago. Photography is a crime. Or police body cams were considered invasive. "Would you want to work with a camera watching you all day?" (was the argument used) Police not releasing camera footage that showed misconduct.
There seems to have been a big change. Departments now seem to be less willing to protect obviously bad cops. This is in part due to the explosion of clear video evidence of bad cop behavior. One in particular was arresting a nurse for refusing to draw blood from an unconscious man . . . who was a reserve cop. Look at recent YouTube videos, and the cops own videos show interactions, even violence, shootings, etc. It's no longer secret, and they seem (mostly) to have adapted to being in the public eye.
But we have many other societal problems. I'm not convinced (but am hopeful) that they can be fixed. The fact that we are so deeply politically divided should be disturbing to people rather than the Rah Rah Rah My Side My Side!!! The lobbying and corruption. Other things that we should all be able to agree about that should not be divisive.
In a nutshell: I see some things get better, gradually. I'm not fully convinced things won't go off the rails. But I am hopeful. Maybe because the alternative would be so awful.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 2) by http on Friday February 08 2019, @03:55AM (22 children)
I've never figured out how Americans stand for DUI checkpoints. Their entire premise is that driving (along a particular roadway) constitutes probable cause. As I understand it, lacking probable cause is a big thing in american jurisprudence.
I browse at -1 when I have mod points. It's unsettling.
(Score: 2) by LVDOVICVS on Friday February 08 2019, @03:56AM
These aren't legal everywhere. In Michigan, where I live, they're considered unconstitutional if I'm not mistaken.
(Score: 2) by RS3 on Friday February 08 2019, @05:13AM (4 children)
> I've never figured out how Americans stand for...
I think there's a Popular Misconception that the American government does what the people want. USA was founded on the principles of self-government, but USA is a Republic run by an elected Congress who say one thing, get elected, then often do another.
USA was supposed to have "checks and balances" but they've mostly been eroded. Sometimes they're put into practice for show and to appease the masses, but generally the courts side with other govt. agencies, unless you have lots of money and really good lawyers and some luck. Think about this: sometimes courts refuse to hear a case. How is that for justice?
All that said, drunk driving is a pretty big problem and nobody has come up with a solution. Some states are passing tougher and tougher repeat-DUI-offender laws. The unconstitutional checkpoints do catch drunks.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by takyon on Friday February 08 2019, @05:24AM (2 children)
2045: ban on non-self-driving vehicles
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by RS3 on Friday February 08 2019, @07:49AM
Yeah, I've thought that too, and maybe much sooner. We have to sabotage the tech. and stave it off.
Come to think of it, what will the cops do then? Catch real criminals?
[sorry to all of the good officers out there, and there are many. but even you good ones are caught up in this get tough on crime no matter the collateral damage or cost culture.]
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Friday February 08 2019, @07:51AM
Lombard Street in Frisco would make a good testbed.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday February 08 2019, @04:32PM
They do catch drunks, I'll grant that. They also catch sundry other fish. Outstanding warrants, FTA (failure to appear), unpaid fines, drugs and other contraband, lapsed licenses and license plates, unregistered vehicles, uninspected vehicles, illegal window tint, and more. A roadblock is a fishing expedition. Drunks are only a small part of the haul when a roadblock is set up.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by AthanasiusKircher on Friday February 08 2019, @03:05PM (6 children)
That's not quite true. The Supreme Court in the U.S. has carved out a few somewhat narrow exceptions for cursory searches. A checkpoint merely has an officer stopping and asking a few questions -- generally, it's only if they smell alcohol or have other reason to believe you're drunk that you are then asked to pull off and take a test for drunkenness. That is -- the "probable cause" is not in driving, as merely stopping you is not considered a "search." The probable cause to do the actual search comes from evidence they spot (supposedly) to then search/test you. (Also, note even in that case that they don't generally have cause to do more than test you for drunkenness -- if they want to search your car, etc., they need specific probable cause to do so. I believe in many cases, police are basically barred from other law enforcement activity that's not DUI-related during such searches -- and if they aren't, they should be.)
Note that I'm not defending this legal reasoning, just noting how it usually works.
I will, however, defend the general concept of DUI checkpoints, assuming they have significant oversight. (By which I mean checkpoints only set up in known areas with high risks of drunk driving and/or on holidays where it is common, required body cams for cops, detailed audit records of who cops flag for testing, as well as stats on how many "false positives" they flag -- if a cop flags too many false positives, they should be retrained or permanently removed from DUI testing, etc.)
The reason I'm somewhat in favor of DUI testing is because the risks of driving are significant. Accidental death in vehicle accidents is one of the top causes of death and serious injury in young people and children. Driving or riding in a car is the single most dangerous activity most people participate in on a regular basis.
A core principle of libertarianism is that you should have all the rights in the world, but only up to the point that your rights begin to infringe significantly on the rights of others. You have no right to put some other person in significant danger of death or serious injury. Given that cars are essentially giant multi-ton projectiles if their driver is incapacitated, you are recklessly endangering others if you choose to drive while intoxicated.
Given the greater danger and risks to others posed by driving compared to other activities, I think it's reasonable for the government to intervene to try to curb such a danger to the public. With sufficient cause and limited circumstances (as I mentioned above), with reasonable checks that probable cause is respected, this is one of the few cases where I'm mildly in favor of such government invasions. Unless you have another way to curb drunk driving that is as effective....
(And note that this really is an unusual stance for me: I think the TSA is an abomination against Fourth Amendment rights, I think random invasion of privacy and warrantless searches are a serious problem in the U.S. But if the police have reasonable evidence to believe that a significant number of drivers in an area may have been drinking, I'm not necessarily going to condemn all DUI checkpoints... particularly if police are ONLY allowed to check for DUI there.)
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Friday February 08 2019, @04:27PM
All of that may have been true, before the whole protection racket that's called the "Patriot Act". That sucker pretty much gave the police carte blanche. Unless I've been asleep and the "Patriot Act" has been repealed/not renewed. It should really be called the "We're afraid of the terrorists, so please search everyone, if you feel like it. Then detain them indefinitely, because we're not the bad guys. And we know you're not going to arrest us." Act. Hmm..., maybe that's a bit too long for the name of a bill? How about the
Terrorist Act"? Or the "Unpatriotic Act"?
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 2) by DavePolaschek on Friday February 08 2019, @05:20PM (2 children)
If you want more about the history of these sorts of stops (including stop & frisk) check the Wikipedia article on Terry Stop https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_stop [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Friday February 08 2019, @06:38PM (1 child)
IANAL, but I'm pretty sure in most states (if not all), a DUI checkpoint doesn't constitute a Terry stop. A Terry stop requires "reasonable suspicion," which is less than "probable cause," but it still requires specific facts arguing for the detention of an individual. Once a motorist has been flagged for a sobriety test because of alcohol breath, slurred speech, or other drunken behavior, then one can argue it becomes a "Terry stop" (as is true of just about any time a police officer stops and car and detains the driver even temporarily). But Terry doesn't justify a general roadblock that checks all cars (even cursorily).
Or in other words, when the police are stopping all cars, they obviously don't have reasonable suspicion against all motorists, so they're not legal stops under Terry. Instead, the justification for DUI checkpoints comes out of Martinez-Fuerte [wikipedia.org], which was the SCOTUS decision that legalized immigration checkpoints that weren't necessarily on the border itself. (They now commonly operate at points as far as 100 miles internal to the U.S.)
That was the precedent relied on when SCOTUS ruled DUI stops legal [wikipedia.org]. It's a much broader -- and more Constitutionally questionable -- category than Terry stops.
(Sidenote: If I remember correctly, Terry stops were sort of how pre-TSA airport security worked in part. That is: prior to 9/11, airport security was run privately by airports/airlines. Which means (1) you weren't being searched by the government, and (2) you consented to the searches as a condition of travel. So, you went through the metal detector and your luggage was scanned because you consented to it. If you didn't want to consent, the airlines could deny you passage, since they were partnering with the airports to conduct searches. However, if something bad did show up when you went through the metal detector or in scanning your luggage, then an actual law enforcement person could potentially be called in, who could then detain you on "reasonable suspicion" though a Terry stop procedure. Police could also stand near security lines if they had a tip that someone might be trying to bring something through, and pull you out of line for search if you acted suspiciously or had a weird bulge or whatever, similar to what happens in a DUI checkpoint. Again, "reasonable suspicion" was required for law enforcement intervention, and police/government agent supervision could only happen at airports during elevated security risks for limited times.. After the Patriot Act and the TSA, all of that complex legal balancing was gradually thrown in the trash, so it's hard to see how we have any Fourth Amendment operating at airports anymore.)
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Wednesday February 13 2019, @03:58PM
There was also up until the hijackings crisis from the late 60s to the early 80s the ability to go with family or friends straight up to the gate.
You could kiss someone goodbye (or more platonic equivalents) right at the jetway and watch the plane back away from the gate. Wired ( https://www.wired.com/2013/06/fa_planehijackings/ [wired.com] ) says that through the early 70s metal detectors were only used on passengers who displayed suspicious traits but it was presumed you were innocent unless you did something.
Then again, planes hadn't been hijacked all that much until the late 60s/early 70s, and hadn't been used as impact weapons since World War II AFAIK until 2001.
This sig for rent.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 09 2019, @02:29AM
Once you're willing to surrender liberties in exchange for safety - whether that safety is real or imagined - you have opened the door to tyranny. Since the US is supposed to be the country of 'give me liberty or give me death,' everyone should be willing to die in the name of freedom.
Which doesn't mean that the government can violate everyone's liberties because a small number of people endanger others. Go after the specific people who are harming others. This may make it harder to catch them, but that's worth it in the name of liberty.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 10 2019, @08:29PM
The search part shouldn't even matter. We are supposed to have "free and unrestricted travel through these united states". Checkpoints are unconstitutional and should be attacked.
(Score: 4, Informative) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Friday February 08 2019, @03:55PM (4 children)
First, because driving is a privilege and not a right. And there is never a right to drive intoxicated.
Probable cause has to do with search and seizure, not investigation. Investigation only requires reasonable cause.
The following is mostly from nolo (source [drivinglaws.org])
The Supreme Court in 1990 ruled that checkpoints are legal. They are not aimed at any one particular driver, but all drivers in an area. Typically the police establish the checkpoints at places that are known for higher accident rates. The court felt there is an overriding safety concern which overrides the "limited intrusion" that is stopping drivers (but one must stop either all, or at a set random interval, to avoid discrimination). 11 states do not permit them and most states have strict requirements for establishing them.
Away from Nolo.... The choking point for a lot of people are the beliefs that rights are absolute and can never be intruded upon whatsoever for any reason. The reality is that if there are overriding responsibilities to society then rights can in fact be redefined and limited, and in my opinion they should be. There are limitations that I balk at also (free-speech zones for one) but since there are drunk drivers and since I've both been with families who were victimized by a drunk-driving caused death and since I want them stopped, I'm willing to accept yielding my rights if it pulls someone off the streets who should not be behind the wheel.
Let's look at the first ten amendments and how they might be limited:
1st: A religion that actively promotes overthrow of the government won't fly (yeah, you can say Christianity but wrong and hopefully that's not too red a herring). While never actually tested the "falsely shout fire in a theatre" question by Holmes is another.
2nd: You will not be able to purchase a firearm if the government doesn't think you should have one. That includes mental instability, being a convicted felon, and restrictions on whether you could own a nuclear weapon (or the allowable-but-regulated destructive devices and NFAs).
3rd: Hard to find an exception, but if there literally was a foreign invasion of soil I don't think you'd find an army unit sympathetic to saying they can't quarter in a hotel - there's a potential provision for that anyway, but I hope this one is never tested. (It certainly was in the Revolution by the British, which is why it was prohibited).
4th: Unreasonable is the key, and there are certainly known exceptions to requiring a warrant - start with stop & frisk and go on to the automobile exception.
5th: Two words: Extraordinary rendition. Even if it was non-citizens only there are limits.
6th: Martial law and military tribunals.
7th: Mandatory Arbitration / "You can't sue."
8th: Well, that's all pretty relative. There are lots of people who can't make bail and it's a lot more than just having skin-in-the-game unless you're rich.
9th/10th: The Federal government is excellent at finding reasons why they need to be involved in otherwise reserved issues. Let's begin with Education and Healthcare. But the tension here keeps us from failing the way the Articles of Confederation did.
YMMV.
This sig for rent.
(Score: 2) by http on Friday February 08 2019, @07:47PM (1 child)
Sorry, my bad. I should have posted that as suspicious behaviour as opposed to probable cause. Be thankful I am not your lawyer.
I browse at -1 when I have mod points. It's unsettling.
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Friday February 08 2019, @11:49PM
And yes, it is noteworthy that they can stop people who aren't behaving suspiciously. Form objection noted and you have rephrased.
We do just seem to take it that when it comes to drunk driving that all drivers may be regarded with suspicion. OTOH, as several police officers and highway patrolmen have told me, EVERY car sooner or later does something in the course of normal driving that can warrant a traffic stop -and field interview. Slight weaves, "improper" cornering, speed variations - it takes WAY more attention to drive perfectly than any given driver is willing to do normally and nobody practices enough to be perfect enough when the squad car is behind you and you're nervous anyway. That said, many officers do indeed recognize patterns of drivers who are actually impaired, too.
Out of maybe a dozen roadblock field stops I've been at over the years, one... maybe two... were anything more than ten seconds of "Hello, where are you going? OK, goodnight!" Then again, I know I have privilege and I don't drive drunk.
This sig for rent.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 09 2019, @02:34AM
That's bad reasoning. Even if that is true, it doesn't follow that the government can therefore force you to surrender any and all liberties in exchange for being able to exercise that "privilege." People put forth that argument frequently, because they are authoritarians and have no critical thinking skills.
Also, most of the exceptions you list to the first ten amendments were totally invented by authoritarian courts. That doesn't mean those things are actually constitutional, much like how Japanese internment camps weren't constitutional, even though those were approved by the courts.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 10 2019, @08:31PM
"First, because driving is a privilege and not a right. And there is never a right to drive intoxicated."
BS, you fucking whore piece of shit. they have conned people into getting "licenses" for what is supposed to be a right.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Friday February 08 2019, @04:19PM (3 children)
The justification seems to be that driving is a privilege and not a right. I won't disagree with that. Nor with requiring licenses.
But continuing . . . the justification then is that under the state law the driver license requires you to produce your driver license upon request by an officer.
That becomes the devil's narrow wedge toe in the door or camel's nose under the tent which leads to searching your entire online digital life, social graph of contacts, associations, anything you've ever said or done, especially if offensive to the police, etc.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Friday February 08 2019, @11:42PM (2 children)
Coupled with the notion that the state has an legitimate interest in preventing drunk driving in the name of highway safety.
The camel's nose might also say that in the name of national security if your digital life is unintentionally hoovered while looking for ISIS operatives that it isn't a serious thing..... Or, come to that, establishing checkpoints along border highways and stopping vehicles to inquire of citizenship status. Which *is* what they're doing now, both. Not saying that's good or right. But just because that's wrong (and it's wrong that they didn't approve Thin Thread at that time), doesn't mean the state doesn't have an overriding interest in stopping drunk driving.
This sig for rent.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 09 2019, @02:37AM
The state's interest in stopping drunk driving shouldn't extend to the point where they can stop everyone's car to make sure they're not drunk driving. This is another 'the ends don't justify the means' scenario, and people really need to understand that.
The "legitimate interest" argument is almost always used to curtail our liberties, as we see here. It has no validity.
(Score: 3, Touché) by DannyB on Sunday February 10 2019, @09:26PM
Why don't we just require everyone to wear a 24/7 bodycam that uploads to the cloud. Put cameras on every building. Look at Great Briton as an example of a good start. Look at police states where you can safely walk the street at 3 AM and not expect to get mugged.
Police work is easy in a police state.
There is some line where you cannot police people more than they want to be policed. Or protect them more than they want to be protected. Or criminalize substances based only on watching reefer madness.
TSA is ineffective. Yet we pay for it and suffer through it on every flight.
I'm all for states requiring people show a drivers license as a condition of being allowed to drive. Everyone pulled over should produce their driver license. But my support ends once you erect "your papers please" checkpoints that indiscriminately target everyone.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 08 2019, @04:20AM
Dear pigs,
Fuck you.
Sincerely,
The Constitution.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Friday February 08 2019, @04:26AM (5 children)
-are, Mister Google.”
“It would be a shame for all your employees to be held without charge for seventy two hours as the law allows.”
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 4, Insightful) by takyon on Friday February 08 2019, @04:32AM (3 children)
Remember that time when the FBI got Apple to unencrypt phones to protect against da terrorists?
Oh wait, it didn't work and the FIB's months-long PR campaign amounted to nothing.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 08 2019, @04:46AM (2 children)
The NYPD does not have to worry about anything. Short term yeah kind of a pain.
But long term google will get bored with it and shut it down. They are a one trick pony. It is a hell of a pony. But one trick none the less.
Remember how google was going to be the next ISP. Me too. But here I sit in a city that sells it and I can not buy it. One guy I know all the neighbors on all sides of him can get it. Yet he has been trying for 4 years now. They even are closing out a town today. Because they munched it that badly.
They have good engineers there. They probably even make good stuff. But they seem to have ADHD for any sort of long term goals.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Friday February 08 2019, @04:54AM (1 child)
If Waze gets the axe there will probably be some other app for reporting DUI checkpoint locations. Only problem is that it might be less popular and comprehensive.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Friday February 08 2019, @07:49AM
Who shall be the first to market, M'Kay?
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Friday February 08 2019, @04:24PM
One day, they will do something that galvanizes public opinion against them with dramatic results.
You never know what it will be. It will seem routine. Like the Arab Spring started by one event. But one day there is that straw that broke the dam or the finger in the camel's back hole, not to mix incompatible metaphores.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 08 2019, @05:13AM (2 children)
Where I live, the cops advertise where they are going to set up DUI checkpoints. If you are too drunk to remember where they are, you are too drunk to drive.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 08 2019, @02:10PM
That's actually a good idea.
So Google can save the Cops a lot of work screening folks who are sober enough to drive and use their cell phones at the same time.
Sounds testable. With Google providing information, what sort of folks still got to the checkpoint.
Was the resulting mix easier to sort, but still effective at improving safety?
(Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Sunday February 10 2019, @12:45PM
I think in some areas it is just used to create awareness and hopefully frighten drivers into better behavior (having a designated driver for example). In NJ I remember there being a frequent DUI checkpoint on Route 9 just before a group of popular night clubs. One had to pass through it on the way out to the clubs*, but it was taken down by 2:30 am which is coincidentally just when the clubs started trying to shoo their customers out the door.
*If I recall they just checked license and registration and handed you a brochure about why they do the stops.
(Score: 2) by Entropy on Friday February 08 2019, @01:41PM
Part of why NY can do dui checkpoints is they announce both the location and method utilized beforehand in a public fashion. These things are not a secret, but they try to make them so. This kind of demand is absurd of course, who wants to sit through that?
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Friday February 08 2019, @04:09PM (2 children)
Yes, it is obstructive of justice for Waze to publicize the location.
Yes, it would seem to be a free speech right in at least some jurisdictions. [startribune.com] In at least one district, anyway. [wsj.com]
I'd expect were both sides to push it, one might expect the Supreme Court to finally weigh in about it.
This sig for rent.
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Friday February 08 2019, @04:13PM (1 child)
On second thought, reading the actual opinion from wsj above.... Maybe it's not obstruction after all. The point of a speed trap is to keep people from speeding. The point of a DUI checkpoint is to keep drivers off the road. If warning drivers about them achieves those purposes then it isn't obstructive. If warning drivers about them simply means that drivers take other routes and thus evade justice, then it is. Hmm..... Kif, we have a conundrum! Search Waze for Paper, and someone bring me a rock!
This sig for rent.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Freeman on Friday February 08 2019, @04:31PM
We can get the lizard too, but sadly Spock is dead. Guess we'll have to go back to the tried and true rock/paper/scissors.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 2) by legont on Friday February 08 2019, @05:03PM (2 children)
I may be wrong, but I don't think google has anything to do with Waze app which is, as far as I know, an Israeli one. Wase maps allow (and stimulate) users to upload all kind of information about road hazards, including police activities. Other driving apps, Yandex being a good example, offer similar service. Because google does not, I use it much less. I'd stop using google completely, but they have better traffic information so far. However, this advantage is disappearing and google probably noticed it is loosing market share.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Saturday February 09 2019, @04:14AM (1 child)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waze [wikipedia.org]
Here's the letter. It's addressed to Google in Mountain View, California:
https://cbsnewyork.files.wordpress.com/2019/02/googlellcdwicheckpoints-020219.pdf [wordpress.com]
Maybe the confusion here is that Waze is not Google Maps. But it's not uncommon for a company to own multiple "competitors". Just look at Facebook's messaging services [soylentnews.org] or the many Procter & Gamble products at the supermarket. However, it could lead you to predict that Waze will eventually be shut down with some features merged into Google Maps.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by legont on Saturday February 09 2019, @04:24PM
Wow, I did not know. So, Google probably collects user data from Waze, uses it to improve Google maps, but does not share back to Waze. Time to switch to Yandex indeed.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.