NYPD To Google: Stop Revealing Location Of DWI Checkpoints

[ovi8]

Originally Posted by Nicole111

Having said that, and since I feel we are at a good place (?), I do want to say that I believe we just have fundamental differences of opinion. For instance, I am against "airport security" as it exists in the US today. I would abolish the TSA in a second if I could. I would switch to Israeli-style surveillence where they don't give a damn about being politically correct, but if I understand correctly, people just walk into the airport as if it is a shopping mall, and security pulls the people aside who appear to be threats, and they have a much higher success rate than we do. I think it is a fundamental and inexcusable infringement on my civil liberties to subject me to a body scan and make me take my shoes off and walk on the airport's disgusting floor. Especially when there is no empirical evidence that it's making us safer. [/b]

We have had plenty of discussions in this country about racial profiling so pulling people aside in America vs. Israel would be a lot different considering demographics and racial tensions. You can't escape what would be perceived as prejudice here if it were done that way. Yes, to be politically correct, we screen anyone.

Not to mention, the minute you decide who is more likely a threat to blow up a plane, that would be the minute they start forcing bombs onto kids instead. Do not doubt the extremists. We live in a world where goalposts have to be moved in terms of liberties.

Originally Posted by Joe461

The rate is even worse when you consider these checkpoints are typically manned by up to a dozen police.

Twelve cops, 199 innocent people hassled for one arrest. I don't see how those twelve police could have done any worse if they were spread out and spent their time pulling over people who actually posed a danger.

However that was just 1 study and placement of the checkpoint or timing could also be a factor. Again, you do not know what other police were doing and what these particular present at the checkpoint would otherwise be doing. Convenience in travel for anyone in this country was lost long ago. Be glad checkpoints are not at every freeway entrance. Hey maybe there's a tech idea there, but... privacy. Yet everyone has a GPS voluntarily in their pocket.

Originally Posted by Joe461

Interesting question. I'm not sure what ranks as "first," but reduced reaction time is certainly up there. Interesting because reaction time is also reduced by speed.

It's a hollow argument. 55 is an arbitrary speed limit for roads and vehicles that can safely do more. There are still people who a dangerous at 55 and those that are safe at 65.

Same for BAC. .08 is an arbitrary limit. There are people who are safer at .08 than some who are at .05.

The fact is that you want to pick an choose which laws and limits are good for you and dictate which should apply to others. That is inconsistent and hypocritical. Someone can drive 65 and cause an accident, just like someone can drive at .08 and NOT cause an accident. The reverse is also true.

Your "informed decision" is not morally or intellectually superior to anyone else's. It is the same exact thing.

I would argue that the first thing a person loses when consuming alcohol would be judgment & decision-making. Forget about reaction time. A person drinking at a bar will eventually spew off what they normally would not. Or get frisky with someone when they normally wouldn't. And this person is supposed to make the crucial decision whether they're fit to negotiate minor bends in a road?

[jasper1372]

Originally Posted by ovi8

I agree with claiming 1st amendment and technology is great. But it should be up to the discretion of the technology company on proper and legitimate use of its own IP. From the NYPD's standpoint, they have nothing financial to gain from such a request (re: DWI checkpoints) and only the obvious. So step it up, shut 'er down, Google.

Or what's next? Advising of street corner spots? Why would Google allow its reputation to be tarnished in the name of free speech? They are for-profit and should make these decisions in their own best interest. Not ours. If you're hoping they take a stand against the big bad gov't for the sake of doing it, good luck with that.

Lastly, I find it amazing that people care more about giving the finger to law enforcement than fighting drunk drivers. The posts here are very telling. Ridiculous.

I hate drunk drivers, but I love and vigorously support the first amendment more than I hate drunk drivers!!!
I understand where you're coming from....if we just give us a little bit of our right to free speech, or the right not to be searched without probable cause, just think of the good we can do. However, that's a slippery slope, and once you get on that path, there is no turning back.

I refer to what Benjamin Franklin once said: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety".

Anyone who doesn't get that, is, in my opinion, far to naïve and trusting of government authority over you.

This isn't a knock against law enforcement. They do a very difficult job, and are to be commended for trying to keep us safe, but none the less, given unchecked authority to stop you, for no probably cause reason at all, how long do you think it would be until they will be randomly stopping anyone they darn well felt like or everyone who looks at them funny when they drive by ?

[ovi8]

^ I'm saying from the beginning that it would be wiser for a consumer-entity such as Google to decide what to eliminate versus allow. This practice would be nothing new either.