Google won’t pull DUI-evasion apps

March 25, 2011 By Aemon Malone

RIM has taken down apps that point out sobriety checkpoints. Google says it won't take any action. And Apple remains silent

Google has declined to bow to the demands of U.S. senators who want app purveyors to drop apps that promise to help users avoid sobriety checkpoints. A source cited in an International Business Times report said that Google will only remove apps for violating Android content policies. The “DUI-evasion” apps appear to be OK by Google’s standards and the company won’t be taking any action, according to the report.

Fuzz Alert, Phantom Alert and Trapster are examples of apps that give users a variety of information about various police activities along roads and highways including speed traps, red light cameras and DUI checkpoints.

Senators Harry Reid, Charles E. Schumer, Frank R. Lautenberg and Tom Udall recently addressed letters to Google, Research in Motion (RIM) and Apple asking the companies to remove the apps from their respective mobile app stores.

“Giving drunk drivers a free tool to evade checkpoints, putting innocent families and children at risk, is a matter of public concern,” the senators said. “We hope that you will give our request to remove these applications from your store immediate consideration.”

The senators didn’t specifically name any individual apps in their letters.

While Google remains resolute, RIM has capitulated and removed the apps in question from its BlackBerry World Store.

“RIM’s decision to remove these apps from their online store prove that when it comes to drunk driving, there should not be an app for that,” said senator Charles Schumer.

Apple has not inidcated if it will take any action. And a quick check of the iTunes App Store shows that apps in question remain available for download.

Showing 10 comments

mangan at 9:28pm 18th August 2011 Sober drivers kill people everyday. Correlation doesn't mean causation, and yes Im defending drunk drivers because they've become societies most hated scapegoat for much larger societal problems that are the root causes of these results. Hypocrites and double standards abound.
Ryan at 2:01pm 11th July 2011 Good for Google! Foremost, I don't support drunk driving and nor do I drive drunk myself. Maybe I just don't want to get pulled over?! That is what I really like about Google, they're fair and don't bend to unreasonable demands. Unlike Apple, trying to be the worlds holier-than-thou moral compass. A-hole senators; "...putting innocent families and children at risk" He forgot to say puppies and grandma. ...pathetic.
1. rmidgett at 7:05am 1st August 2011 Bad for Google, and their users. The facts are simple, most drunk drivers survive the crash while the sober people they involve in their drunken state by causing automobile accidents die or are injured for life. Innocent families of all ages are put at risk by the lacking judgment of drunk drivers. If people drank & drove responsibly there wouldn't be a cause for check points in the first place. Your view reveals a lack of responsibility, maturity and concern for the general well being of people around you. You just don't want to be inconvenienced by a check point...whoopee! If that check point removes the drunk that would have injured you or your loved one(s), is it worth the 30 second inconvenience to you? Would your view be changed if any of your family members were killed or severely injured by a drunk driver? What if you were the injured person? I like the occasional beer or glass of wine, but I typically imbibe while sitting on my sofa so I don't have to drive anywhere afterward.
2. rmidgett at 7:05am 1st August 2011 Bad for Google, and their users. The facts are simple, most drunk drivers survive the crash while the sober people they involve in their drunken state by causing automobile accidents die or are injured for life. Innocent families of all ages are put at risk by the lacking judgment of drunk drivers. If people drank & drove responsibly there wouldn't be a cause for check points in the first place. Your view reveals a lack of responsibility, maturity and concern for the general well being of people around you. You just don't want to be inconvenienced by a check point...whoopee! If that check point removes the drunk that would have injured you or your loved one(s), is it worth the 30 second inconvenience to you? Would your view be changed if any of your family members were killed or severely injured by a drunk driver? What if you were the injured person? I like the occasional beer or glass of wine, but I typically imbibe while sitting on my sofa so I don't have to drive anywhere afterward.
bearcomputertech at 1:27pm 26th March 2011 Would the person who was intoxicated actually have the ability to use the app?
Lynn Wheeler at 6:22pm 25th March 2011 they are usually announced on radio and tv!! duh.. what's the problem...
Trevor Whitlock at 10:01am 25th March 2011 oooh, another waste of tax dollars, at least in MD- the cops are required to inform citizens of where the Checkpoint Strikeforce is going to be via media outlets like TV and Radio and the info must be open to the public.. Guess he didnt get that memo. When I drove to bars and saw a checkpoint, i drove home on a different road, try blindfolding drivers. That will keep them from knowing too.-FYI I do not support Driving Drunk, it kills!
PeepingTom at 9:43am 25th March 2011 While I don't have a problem with these apps I do not support drunk driving nor DUI traps. I also do not think legal the state laws that do not allow a person to refuse a breathalyzer and blood test when arrested to drunk driving as this is giving evidence against oneself.
Cee at 9:24am 25th March 2011 Doesn't anybody realize that DUI traps are search without probable cause?
1. Ian at 3:49pm 28th March 2011 Doesn't anybody realize that DUI evasion apps help keep drunk drivers on the road? One of these days someone like you (or you) will get hit by a drunk driver, and find out they used one of these apps to be able to evade the cops -- that is if they survive.