Four U.S. Senators want Apple to remove police checkpoint apps for public safety reasons, but really it's just a way to control what apps we can or cannot buy.

This looks like some well-meaning, do-gooder idea, but I can assure you that it's the camel sticking its head in a tent. I'm referring to the breaking news about how four U.S. Senators (who apparently have nothing better to do) want to control what apps you can or cannot buy. They began their effort by nearly demanding that Apple eliminate any iPhone apps that help consumers find police checkpoints, so they can avoid them.

The rationale behind removing these apps is the Senators say the only reason people would want to avoid a police checkpoint is because they're drunk. Thus, they've rationalized that the apps are a hazard to the public.

The four U.S. Senators, all Democrats, are Charles Schumer of New York, Harry Reid of Nevada, Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey and Tom Udall of New Mexico, and they should be voted out of office as soon as possible. What's wrong with the voters?

In a widely quoted joint letter to Apple's iPhone VP, Scott Forstall, the Senators wrote:

We write today with grave concern regarding the ease with which downloadable applications for the iPhone, iPad, and other Apple products allow customers to identify where local police officers have set up DUI checkpoints. With more than 10,000 Americans dying in drunk-driving crashes every year, providing access to iPhone and iPad applications that alert users to DUI checkpoints is harmful to public safety.

If this is actually about public safety, then why don't the Senators also advocate removing all the apps that show the numerous speed traps around the country? After all, speeders are a danger too, no? In fact, speeding is the leading cause of death not drunk driving.

By the way, sober people like to avoid police checkpoints, too, if you haven't noticed. Who the heck wants to go through a police checkpoint to be grilled like a criminal for doing nothing more than driving down the street?

This whole thing is an attempt to regulate apps. Already we've seen the FCC poke its nose into regulating the Internet by getting involved in net neutrality issues. As this column is being written, meetings are taking place all over Washington to find ways to regulate the distribution and use of the Internet. Watch CSPAN sometime and you can see the guys ready to set up shop to do this.

This will eventually mean licensing. In the early 1900s, when the radio hobby was blossoming, you didn't need a license to broadcast anything. We thought free access was going to change the world. Then the government jumped in because things were supposedly getting too chaotic. The hobbyists were shoved into a few specific bands and the pros (commercial companies) were required to have a license. Soon the hobbyists (ham operators) were required to have a license too.

And where is all the real action in the radio spectrum? The unlicensed bands. Now, another Legislator, Peter King wants to ban the ham radio folksthe only people who manage to communicate during real emergenciesfrom operating. Again there is a bogus rationale. In this case, it's because of the idea that Muslim hams can plan terrorist attacks. This is our government at work.

The nerve of these four Senators to pressure a private company like Apple to sell or not sell something is incredible to me. This crap is just going to get worse as long as guys like this remain in office.