Cases Study When Making a Database of Public Information Available to the Public Can Be Bad You can find an app for just about anything you want. Many of them are focused on helping drivers on the road-directions, reviews of local entertainment venues, and so on. But in early 2011 a wave of apps aimed at helping drivers avoid law enforcement checkpoints were made available in the iPhone, Blackberry, and Android markets. Some were free, some cost the standard 99 cents, and a few even cost upwards of $100 for a lifetime subscription. A few of the more popular ones included: Cobra's iRadar, which connects to an iPhone. Trapster, which relies on a database of information supplied by other drivers. Fuzz Alert, which works with iPhones and iPads.. Phantom Alert, an online database that drivers download to their GPS devices and smartphones. What had many people concerned was that most of these apps included information for DUI checkpoints. When nearing a DUI checkpoint contained in the database, the device (smartphone, GPS device, or iPad) would provide an audible alert so the driver could find an alternate route. According to Capt. Paul Starks of the Montgomery County Police Department, "If people are going to use those, what other purpose are they going to use them for except to drink and drive? They're only thinking of one consequence, and that's not being arrested. They're not thinking of ending the lives of other motorists, pedestrians, other passengers in their cars or themselves." Several lawmakers jumped on the checkpoint app-bashing bandwagon as well. In a letter to Apple, Research In Motion, and Google, Senators Harry Reid, Charles Schumer, Frank Lautenberg, and Tom Udall wrote, "We know that your companies share our desire to end the scourge of drunk driving, and we therefore ask you to remove these applications from your store unless they are altered to remove the DUI/DWI checkpoint functionality." The senators went on to explain, "One application contains a database of DUI checkpoints updated in real-time. Another application, with more than 10 million users, also allows users to alert each other to DUI checkpoints in real-time. We appreciate the technology that has allowed millions of Americans to have information at their fingertips, but giving drunk drivers a free tool to evade checkpoints, putting families and children at risk, is a matter of public concern." These checkpoint apps use huge databases of information (supplied by both users and law enforcement agencies) to inform drivers of DUI checkpoints, speed traps, and red-light camera programs. Most people agree that the DUI checkpoint feature should be disabled, but there are mixed feelings regarding information on speed traps and red-light camera programs. According to Officer Brian Walters, who operates a red-light camera program in Virginia Beach, "I'm all for them. A couple of GPS companies have sent me requests to verify and validate where our cameras are. I helped them. If that's what gets them to comply, that's fine." In early summer 2011, Research In Motion pulled all the checkpoint apps from its market for the Blackberry smartphone. Apple and Google, however, did not. Instead, Apple released a new policy stating: "Apps which contain DUI checkpoints that are not published by law enforcement agencies, or encourage and enable drunk driving, will be rejected." But the policy only restricts future checkpoint apps; checkpoint apps currently in Apple's market will remain. In response, Senator Charles Schumer explained, "This victory will remain only half-won until the existing apps are removed from the store Questions 1. Let's separate the two issues. First, law enforcement agencies frequently publish the location of red-light camera programs and speed traps. Should that published information be made available through an app to help drivers avoid getting a ticket? Why or why not? 2. Second, let's consider location information for DUI checkpoints. If law enforcement agencies publish this information, is it okay to have an app for drivers? Why or why not? If law enforcement agencies do not publish DUI checkpoint information, is it okay to have an app that alerts drivers to those locations? Why or why not? 3. Many people believe that drivers should not use a smartphone at all, even for making phone calls, while operating a vehicle. What kind of potential danger does this added distraction create? 4. Isn't the sharing of information, such as the location of a DUI checkpoint, protected freedom of speech by the Constitution? Can the government really create laws to prohibit this? On the other hand, is it ethical for drivers to share this type of information so that a drunk driver can avoid being caught? 1/2