That would be a clear violation of the US Constitution. Any numbnut can see that!

a) the apps are free speech.
b) saying "to protect families", though lovely jargon, doesn't make your desire to ban things constitutional or right.
c) I'd rather avoid the inconvenience of being slowed down and harassed at a road block whether I'm drinking or not.
d) There's nothing wrong with turning the tables on the cops and attorneys that seem to LOVE anything that gives them power over the lives of others while avoiding any oversight into their own jobs. Period.

Anonymous, that's why no one is talking about passing a law. What's going on here is even more insidious.

Rather than go through the normal legislative process and debate and pass a law which would then be subject to judicial review, Gansler and his ilk are attempting to use the power of their office to strongarm businesses.

It's Mafia tactics: "Nice network you have there, RIM... it's be a shame if anything happened to it..."

Playing devil's advocate here: Couldn't aps like this actually reduce drunk driving under certain circumstances? If you know there's a check point on a road you need to drive on, maybe you eat a snack and wait a while so you can sober up before hopping in that car after drinking.

Remember those old radar detection devices people used to have in their cars (Don't know if they're around anymore, haven't seen one in years- maybe obsolete with speed cameras and such)? When people with them detected radar, they'd quickly slow down and be more cautious about their driving. Same affect when people notice a cop car near them on the road, or see one of those signs that says "speed cameras in use".

In a way, if people see something and clean up their act *before* getting caught, everyone wins. There's one less driver doing something dangerous on the road, and the driver doesn't get ticketed or detained.

It's also possible that some completely sober drivers might want to install an ap like this just to avoid the hassle of stopping their car and having a light shined in their eyes and being questioned and so on and so forth. Some people get a touch of nerves in a situation like that, even if they are completely innocent. You never know.

I'm not totally sure what I think about this issue, but I lean towards the side that says "The more information people have, the better." (as long as it doesn't constitute an invasion of privacy). My knee-jerk reaction is that restricting access to public information is usually bad -- there are some exceptions to that, but people should have to make a rock solid case that it is in fact an exception before telling people they can't have access to public information.

Liberalism fostered the aggressive defense of the First Amendment for most of the 20th century. Douglas,Black,Murphy and Brandeis stood fast as government tried to suppress unpopular speech. Today the greatest threat to liberty and free speech comes from feminists, racial "equity" advocates, govt regulators who want to protect us they say,and health and econuts who can't stand it that people aren't immortal and intend to ban fun and good tasting food. Gansler may have gotten away with this crap in the Peoples Montgomery soviet republic, but this is enough. We are going to communicate with each other about your police state no matter what you do. Swallow your meds Doug and stay out of our private lives!

If they can operate the app, they can't be that drunk.

Police will have to work harder. That's all there is to it. The time they are saving on robotic speed and red light ticket cameras, and the boom time revenues those are producing, police can put toward finding the drunk drivers.

I went to the Phantom/Alert web site to see how this works. Basically, it is driver reported information which is then verified and databased. You have to subscribe to the service to have access to the database. It is not instantaneous so unless they are setting up in the same location every time, it would be virtually useless. If the Maryland Attorney General Office doesn't have anything better to do with its time, perhaps we could find some savings for the deficit there.

This information is available already if you know where to look. Most check points are printed in the newspaper, and you can call your local police department (use the non-emergency number) and ask where the checkpoints are, and they are required by law to tell you.

It's global fear and loathing with release of radiation, but what's the comparison between people maimed or killed by the nuclear plant failings compared with those maimed or killed by drunk drivers in the US this past week?

The pop defense of drunk driving detection as an assault on liberty is just too stupid for words.

Hasn't our sense of entitlement gotten out of hand? I read this as, "I'm entitled to have some drinks, and I'm entitled to drive home, regardless of my capability to do so safely. Therefore, I must have an app that allows me to circumvent the law."

This isn't a First Amendment issue. Banning this app is no more an attack on free speech or free expression than shutting down a hardware store owner that sells lock-picking tools - except more people die in accidents involving a drunk driver than in bungled burglaries.

Let's find ways to use the technology for good purposes, rather than simply banning in for nefarious purposes. Perhaps someone could create an app making easier to report drunk drivers?

Congrats to Michael Dresser. Keeping that anti-car streak alive, I see!

You fail to mention in your article that the DUI checkpoints are published in advance by the government and that these apps are simply another way to present data that is publicly available. It would be a violation of the Constitution to ban such apps.

Of course, we know how much you hate those pesky motorists. Constitution be damned.

COMMENT: It would be a violation of the Constitution for the government to ban dissemination of this app, but that's not what the Maryland and Delaware attorneys general are urging. They are calling upon private companies to voluntarily exclude these apps from their smartphone platforms on the grounds they are contrary to the public interest in highway safety. The AGs are well within their constitutional right to do so and the companies are within their rights to say yes or no. The writer of this posting makes a valid point that the programs repackage publicly available information. Perhaps the attorneys general are off-base from a policy perspective. But the constitutional argument does not stand up to examination.

As to the argument that reporting on the controversy over a checkpoint-avoidance program makes one anti-car, that's a little like calling someone anti-gun because they report the facts of a shooting. In order to be pro-car, must one love drunk driving?--MTD

I wonder if Snowden told Gansler about the app................

The intention may be noble but think it will be short lived. Despite the Apps stopping - more powerful information tools like Twitter will still be around.