Methinks this won’t be the last politically-motivated removal from Apple’s App Store; the more apps they remove then the more they weaken their own arguments about how a locked-in walled garden is in consumer interests.
What if the government asks for sentiment analysis? Thoughtcrime detection? Always-on audio collection? Always-on location logging?
All the things we were afraid of are simple technically and the only thing stopping it is a few executives of a trillion dollar company who must report earnings to shareholders.
Well, we're talking not just about "corporations", we are talking about entities with more gross earnings than most countries' GDP, e.g. Apple is sitting on billions of dollars in cash. These guys have the tech, the data, and oceans of money. Heck, some of them even have space forces :)
Maybe in our (very near?) cyber punk future, it's not only goverments that we should be concerned about. After all, we have some measure of input regarding the goverment.
>Maybe in our (very near?) cyber punk future, it's not only goverments that we should be concerned about. After all, we have some measure of input regarding the goverment.
Why shouldn't we already be concerned about the corporations? They've been slurping our data and selling it for a profit for my whole life[0].
Sure, that sort of behavior started with banks and other financial institutions, but has extended, over the decades, to consumer products companies (P&G, General Mills, etc.) and to retailers (Walmart, Target, etc.), then into internet search (Google, Bing), "social" media (the Meta conglomerate, etc.), hardware and software companies (Apple, Google, Microsoft, etc.), communication devices (Apple, Google, Samsung, etc.), consumer electronics (LG, Samsung, GE, Maytag), Automobiles (GM, Chrysler, Nissan, Toyota, etc., etc., etc.) and "IoT" devices (Amazon, Google and a host of others) are all hoovering up as much information as they can to both sell (and governments as well as other corporations are buying and paying through the nose) and use for "targeted" ads.
Isn't your refrigerator showing you ads, your TV recording what you're doing while you use it, your phone reporting pretty much everywhere you go, everything you do and everyone with whom you communicate, social media apps recording every key stroke, even if it doesn't end up in a post, your car tracking both your movements and your driving behavior, your internet searches used to create detailed shadow profiles of your interests and purchasing habits. I could go on and on and on. Corporations are collecting levels of private data on people that would have been beyond the Stasi's[1] wildest dreams.
And so I'll ask again, when, exactly, should we "start" to be concerned about corporate surveillance?
Oh, we most certainly should be, but I am just musing about the (not entirely improbable future and possibly inevitable) when corporations are more powerful and lethal than any government.
Yep, anything DNC-labeled or affiliated will be next on the ban list. Truly scary stuff, that tens of millions of fellow Americans are actively cheering on.
The big tech companies bent the knee (or, complied with local policies and laws) to Russia, China, Europe, etc already to do business over there, it's nothing particularly new but we are fully aware that Russia and China are not free countries, and Europe has stricter consumer / data protection laws (so it's less free for companies than the US).
And it won't affect their branding in any relevant way.
As "Amusing Ourselves to Death"[1] would explain, what almost all Apple consumers want is just FaceBook, WhatsApp, memes and games. Anything else is "boooring!".
I've started buying refurb, and will be heavily considering my upcoming electronics purchases. I encourage others to reduce consumption from companies which kowtow to this dangerous administration's demands and rhetoric.
I've been boycotting Amazon as best I can for nearly a decade though since they had ambulances outside their warehouses and delivery workers pissing in gatorade bottles but reducing consumption of toxic brands can be done and is effective at sending messages when done en masse.
I also boycott all the social media companies, Disney, Google as much as possible.
Sadly, there's not a ton of options in this space (computer electronics).
I've also e-mailed tim.cook@apple.com and expressed my opinions in a polite manner. Maybe someone read it. Who knows.
I like the thought, but AFAIK it doesn't really change the bottom line much, as long as you buy a used older product from a brand. Probably because the person selling it is buying a newer model, so you're still helping the company out.
I might be wrong, though. But this was the initial conclusion I arrived at when I was researching whether to buy an iPhone 17, iPhone 15 Pro (used) or Android phone. Only the last option would probably hurt Apple directly. And only a liiiiiittle.
That's nonsense. The choice is between you purchasing a new phone or you not purchasing a new phone. It's post hoc justification to assume that your dollars from buying a used unit will be used for something in particular. You made the decision you wanted and then built the logic to support it.
It is not illegal to notice actions of government agents in public or to report them to others; it was a legal app designed to facility activity protected by the First Amendemnt.
A) it's not illegal, as evidenced by the fact that not a single person has been prosecuted. There is no law being broken, just the feel-feels of the surveillance state getting hurt.
B) Even if there was a law, its the duty of every American to disobey unjust laws. The government serves at the pleasure of the people, not the other way around. There are a lot of people getting awfully comfortable with weak men ordering other jack booted weak men to systematically tear down what actually makes America great. I thought we settled this last time, but maybe we need to revisit the issue.
>"it's the duty of every American to disobey unjust laws..."
Is this what universities are teaching? Where did you get this from, honestly?
This is a terrible assertion. The subjectivity of what is just or unjust would lead to overwhelming violent lawlessness if this were true. Thankfully, we have no such duty.
Please, stand up for what you believe is right within the legal framework. This is a largely just society, by comparison.
Maybe travel a bit to see what an unjust society looks like. Weigh your options, at least, before resorting to criminality as a lifestyle choice.
I don't change my use of such words for other people, I do it mostly to change my own thinking. If others want to join me and also change their thinking that's also good.
It's called "sideloading" because you're sneakily installing software without the manufacturer's consent.
Remember it's never your device, you just have permission to use it.
The previous president, Juncker, was the premier who made Luxembourg a taxhaven. Nowadays buying from Amazon in Europe you still get a purchase receipt from Amazon Luxembourg...
I still think we’re better off with the EU than without. Imagine trumps tariff war without the EU. He would have crushed every country individually… The deal is not great but it would have been worse.
I just don’t see how they will enforce it. Will they force telegram and signal to exit the EU app stores? The won’t offer a different app in the EU.
if we're talking about the EU, for a provider the size of Google, not allowing third party application installs is illegal in the EU under the Digital Markets Act
This doesn't necessarily mean they can't introduce developer verification process. (Meaning only Google verified and approved developers would be able to distribute APKs)
It's really quite worrying how all these things (age verification, chat control, side-loading prevention, etc.) seem to be coming to bear in tandem across many countries.
man... things like this is why I was seeking another mobile OS at one point eg. wanting Pine64 to take off but alas... it needs more money
to clarify I get it's Mobian or Postmarket etc... which you could put on an Android phone but yeah
edit: the other thing was built in ads especially on cheaper phones like what you'd get at say Boost Mobile which I imagine is one of those subsidized costs thing phone is cheap because it's riddled with ads.
Unverified developers can still use adb to install whatever they choose per the link:
“How does developer verification impact my use of Android Studio?
We are working to ensure these changes don’t have an impact on your day-to-day workflow so you can continue building your apps as smoothly as possible. Participating in developer verification will not affect your experience in Android Studio, the official IDE for Android app development. You will continue to be able to build and run an app even if your identity is not verified. Android Studio is unaffected because deployments performed with adb, which Android Studio uses behind the scenes to push builds to devices, is unaffected. You can continue to develop, debug, and test your app locally by deploying to both emulators and physical devices, just as you do now.”
Non-developers are not considered here. Users without a PC and terminal know-how are left without any options. I don't believe that's an actual oversight...
> We are working to ensure these changes don’t have an impact on your day-to-day workflow
Lies
The workflow of Free Software developers, developing consumer software (a vital part of the software ecosystem) will be entirely jammed up and subject to the capricious whims of Google
For clarity, they're requiring apps to be signed by a verified developer on certified Android devices. You can still side load, but the verification is still required for the side loaded apps.
Future HN headline: Pam Bondi orders Google to revoke verification status and code signing certificates of authors of {partisan/politically-unfavourable Android app}
A government probably wouldn't have to push very hard for Google to revoke a dev's signing key, blocking apps signed with that key. So I don't see a difference. Technically sideloading will be possible, but Google will still have control of what apps can run on devices.
Back in 2011, Apple removed apps that crowdsourced warnings about DUI checkpoints. It remains Apple's policy today.
According to Grok, "In March 2011, four Democratic senators—Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), Harry Reid (D-Nev.), Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), and Tom Udall (D-N.M.)—sent letters to Apple, Google, and Research in Motion (BlackBerry's parent company) urging the removal of such apps […]"
So, we have precedent where four Democratic senators pressured Apple to remove an app that allowed people to evade law enforcement.
> to remove an app that allowed people to evade law enforcement.
No, they continued to allow police location apps (Google maps will even tell you where they are).
The language they added to the app store rules were very specific: "Apps may only display DUI checkpoints that are published by law enforcement agencies, and should never encourage drunk driving or other reckless behavior such as excessive speed."
Whether or not that was a good idea at the time (it wasn't), you can't claim this is covered by the same guidelines.
>What purpose outside abetting in avoiding a DUI is there for publishing a live map of DUI checkpoints?
When Churchill made that famous quip about the "average voter" he was talking about the kind of people who complain out of one side of their mouth about law enforcement going hard on a particular class of laws they don't like while stating out the other that anyone who doesn't want to submit to a papers-please stop on the pretext of catching people engaged in a fairly common misdemeanor that they do want to see hard enforcement on is abetting said misdemeanor.
You don't have to be driving impaired to have a strong desire to avoid the checkpoints. I avoid them because they're intrusive, oppressive, and upsetting.
* You or your friends or family have had negative experiences with law enforcement, so you prefer to minimize contact
* You share a car with family members, one of whom smoked cannabis in it; the smell will result in an extended detention and investigation at a checkpoint
* Your license/registration/insurance is not current
The question was "What purpose outside abetting in avoiding a DUI is there for publishing a live map of DUI checkpoints?".
As a technical point, being an undocumented immigrant is still not a crime in the USA though it can result in law enforcement actions with impact as severe as criminal penalties. Expired registration or insurance is a civil infraction rather than a crime in some jurisdictions.
Edit: I should clarify why it matters that some of these are civil infractions rather than crimes. Navigation apps that Apple allows, including Apple's own maps app informs users about police and speed cameras, which helps people violate the speed limit without being punished. There doesn't seem to be a coherent principle at work here though.
Sometimes I take a legally prescribed stimulant / controlled substance for ADHD. Those medicines can be perfectly safe to drive with once you know how the particular dosage affects you, and driving with them is often even safer at the appropriate therapeutic dosage than driving without them. Further, as a person with ADHD and a tic disorder, I would have a fair chance of failing a field sobriety test even if I'm sober. I'm also not thrilled with the idea of lying to cops, since I know that can be a crime separately from the question of DUI.
So, putting all that together, imagine this sequence: cop at a DUI checkpoint asks me to perform a field sobriety test. I refuse, either without giving a reason or citing my ADHD and tic disorder. They ask me if I'm taking any medicine for ADHD. I don't lie and either confirm that fact or plead the fifth, or even if I do lie they still might not believe me. I probably don't have the pills or the bottle with me since I wouldn't usually be taking it in the car anyway. They then insist on a blood test, either with consent or with a quickly obtained warrant. I then have to accept a long detour going for the blood test, and then spend a lot of time and money proving in court both that I had a legal prescription and that I was not legally impaired by the medicine. (Even if I do have the correctly labeled pill bottle with me in the car, the cop still might incorrectly assume the medicine impairs me.)
Avoiding this hassle is a perfectly legal and legitimate reason to want to know where DUI checkpoints are.
Nothing I'm saying is condoning driving drunk - I certainly don't do that. When I drink, I pay attention to the advice of blood alcohol content calculators to figure out when I'm safe to drive and when it's fully out of my system. And when I take medicines that interact with alcohol, I'm even more cautious with drinking than when I don't.
What purpose outside abetting in avoiding a DUI is there for publishing a live map of DUI checkpoints?
That is easy to answer - letting law abiding citizens going about their personal business know that if they go through an area they are likely to be stopped and subjected to being searched by police without cause.
I’m returning home from the store with cold medicine for my toddler late at night and I don’t want to have my trip increased by 15mins due to some police state bullshit.
As useful data for sober civil libertarians who want the choice to route through a DUI checkpoint to exercise their rights.
I wouldn't code it because there's no way to disallow the service for the set of people over the legal limit trying to avoid a DUI checkpoint. But if, say, a group of sober civil libertarians find a way to tell each other how to always choose right-exercising routes, I don't see any obvious ethical problems with that.
We do not have DUI checkpoints in my country, but I would assume they delay the travel due to being, you know, checkpoint. So it might be desirable to take alternative route if you do not want to spend time waiting for the check. I guess?
I strongly doubt this was a reason for the app though.
Why did you ask an LLM which is manipulated by a single person when he doesn't like facts?
> So, we have precedent where four Democratic senators pressured Apple to remove an app that allowed people to evade law enforcement.
Yes, senators sent letters to several companies. Apple listened. What would have happened if it didn't? What would happen to Apple if they don't listen now?
Do you sincerely believe that both situations are comparable?
> Do you sincerely believe that both situations are comparable?
How are they not? In both cases US government officials applied pressure and implied legal action to force private companies to act in ways that enabled law enforcement to act with less resistance. It’s why we should always push back against government overreach and bullying. Because the “slippery slope” might be a logical fallacy, but that doesn’t stop it from also being the most likely outcome of the government pushing the boundaries.
> In both cases US government officials applied pressure and implied legal action to force private companies to act in ways that enabled law enforcement to act with less resistance.
That's like saying cooking is comparable with stabbing someone because both involve moving a knife back and forth. Give me a break.
The intent of using a knife to cut flesh when cooking and the intent of using a knife to cut flesh when stabbing someone is different. Are you saying you believe that the intended outcome of the senator’s request was different?
Oh, please. Senators do not head the department of justice and requested, not demanded under threat of retribution under a "unitary executive". For them to do anything would require a quorum of 50% of the entire government to make a law.
Sure but Senators actually have the power to make law, unlike the executive. Also let’s be honest, if any government official “requests” anything it is always under the threat of retribution. See also the Jimmy Kimmel situation.
I’m reasonably confident that if a sitting US senator called you up personally and “requested” that you stop posting on HN or stop contributing to some open source encryption tool that you would find that event threatening, no matter who was currently president.
And it was wrong then too. Preventing people from sharing publicly available, literally visible from the street, information has got to be the brightest line violation of 1A. I'm really over how much the supreme court—not just this supreme court—has let the government end run around the constitution using tricks like this. Especially with the tax and spend power. If the government couldn't pass a law doing X then the government shouldn't be allowed to achieve X by any means.
Congressional dysfunction isn't an excuse to allow the creation of a shadow government orchestrated by the executive but here we are.
The exact verbiage is this: "Apps may only display DUI checkpoints that are published by law enforcement agencies, and should never encourage drunk driving or other reckless behavior such as excessive speed."
While it's still bad, you can see how it's worse when it's coming directly from a regulator top-down from the president, right?
Senators gave no individual direct control over regulation. They can influence appointments or influence legislation, which is still power backing the implied threat, but that's a much more roundabout threat than a single person with direct power to destroy your business.
Not surprising. The media hyped up the app and the admin hyper focused on it. Was bound to happen eventually since Apple wants to play nice with the government. Nice thing is it isn't the only one and others are multiplatform instead of iOS only. I'm doubtful we'll be seeing ICEblock show up in the iOS side load community.
I'd love for all tech reviewers at future product launches to go: "Yeah cool new iPads thanks... why did you guys block and remove an app that wasn't illegal? One that helped people know if armed forces that could search them and tear apart their homes were in the area?".
Just refuse to report on or post about new product launches without mentioning it.
Press is an large thing for Apple. Multiple times now they've only sprung into action when the press got on their arse about something (faulty HDD cables/video cards in Macbook Pros, faulty keyboards, etc). Press getting on them could push them to take an actual stance, or at least explain why (bowing to the dictator in this case).
Yeah most companies want good PR for access. Apple takes this to the extreme where the first whiff of negatives things to say and you're cut off. Now you won't get invited to events or given devices early. So you'll have to wait until release and buy it yourself. Then take the time to review a device. By that point most people have already seen the other coverage and made up their mind. So you will get very little motion which translates to income.
These corporations have effectively built their own club of chosen mouthpieces who are willing to excuse negatives about a product to make money.
What if all the youtubers eg. MKBHD, Justine, etc. all piss off Apple at the same time? Or one big one goes against Apple and others follow as an act of solidarity?
Which is why all of them should, every single one. Ones who don't should be called out by others.
Same thing at White House press conferences, push push push them relentlessly with questions that make them uncomfortable... make them squirm.
Press who always allow the other side to control the narrative deserve to die out. I know this is all easier said than done, but holy crap we are making it so easy for them to walk over us right now, we could at least do something.
Capital does what serves it best. Values are little more than a fig leaf in capitalism. After all, how many of us sacrifice our income for our values? A very few, indeed.
Which is why people going back and forth about incentives has always driven me nuts. Attempting to make assurances based on this handle we crank called "human incentive" that may map to human behavior in the expected direction, the opposite direction, or no direction at all, is madness! We don't know. Humans are unsolved.
Give me guarantees, or the closest approximation. Federation, distribution, dispersion of authority, interoperability.
Yes, exactly, which is why counting laws as a part of the incentive mechanism is wrong to do. "They won't do that because they don't want to break the law." Laws are impossible to perfectly enforce and States are changeling things. Communities should create more dependable guarantees.
Why do you need one? Or why is there always a presumption of an incentive that maps to capitalist modes?
I want decentralization because States oppress people and I want resistance to that to persist, others think like me such as the inventor of the Signal protocol hence why it was invented. If you need to describe that as incentive, cool beans.
> Why do you need one? Or why is there always a presumption of an incentive that maps to capitalist modes?
it could be that I'm misinterpreting your angle, but I would just point out that "incentives" are not tied to a particular economic model. Incentives are simply things that motivate or encourage people to do something, acting as either a reward for desired behavior or a penalty for unwanted actions.
Apple has always stood up to the government when there was money to be made. Claiming privacy protections sells iPhones.
The people in China see nothing of the "standing up to the government" reputation and never really have. At least Google decided to pull out when the government started demanding they hand over data and apply censorship, Apple just complied and started storing data where the CCP can get to it.
We don't need to respect those companies or the people inside it. They will gladly suck up to any government if it earns them a dollar more. They're trash.
Do you know a good way to do geofencing on PWAs? I'm not saying you can't, but I don't know of any API that can accomplish that (without constantly running GPS location updates in the browser, which no standard phone will allow).
I'm unfamiliar with these apps. What is geofencing used for? Automatically alert you if there is ICE activity nearby so that you can drop what you're doing to converge ?
There's an alerting feature and an attempt to stop false reports. The map part is trivial (and I think someone is already scraping the locations into a web app), but the geofencing capabilities are more difficult.
Maybe have the app server contact a service that knows the user's location? You can probably somehow get the user's location on Google Maps, or Find My. Or... I don't know, Yelp check-ins with a particular hashtag?...
The neat thing about the US is that governments are overthrown regularly by automatic operation of law: 12pm on the 20th of January 2028, in the case of the 47th president. I'm sure you know this but I feel everyone needs to remind themselves of this immutable fact regularly until then.
Do not make the mistake of believing laws are as concrete as code. There are many, many instances throughout history of the powerful people who are responsible for enforcing the laws, deciding to suddenly change or ignore them.
You are 8 months in since your last 20th of January and your chief turd already collected all top military officials and started his speech by intimidating them. There is no such thing as "automatic operation of law".
An "overthrow" would be highly undemocratic and it's very curious to hear the same people that claim Trump is literally Hitler talk about "overthrowing" their (democratically elected) political enemies and then "punishing collaborators". Is there no sense of self-awareness at all?
The majority, of course, can decide to get rid of democracy and transform the country into a fascists dictatorship. But in this case they can't expect democrats to treat them by their democratic rules. This is not how it works, sorry. Your self-awarness is broken, I'm afraid.
Why are we asking for profits companies to fight our fights? I am reading lots of comments from keyboard warriors. For profits companies are not there to fight citizens fights. You don't want this kind of stuff to happen, then people need to fight their governments and demand better and stop relying on for profits entities to do so.
Apple makes huge claims about their involvement in advancing things like inclusion and diversity, workers rights, privacy rights, equity and justice. They literally sell pride merch which they make a profit from.
Apple market themselves as being an ethical choice of companies regarding human rights, when they throw that out the window with shit like this, people get pissed.
For-Profit companies have an outsized impact on our day-to-day and have the ear of the current administration. Citizens United allows their voice to be heard politically (where they again have an outsized impact). I'm curious why they can lobby to impact the lives we live and our access to information, and their CEO can donate a million to the inauguration but suddenly they deserve the right to fade into the background and stay out of it all?
I don't see the problem. It was an app specifically developed to help people evade American law and attack people who work for the government, how is it a shock that they took it down?
Those should be removed too then. I don’t think they were nearly as effective as the ice block app was though. Every time I saw an alert in Waze there was nothing or it’s where they park an empty police car.
You need to be careful, the word "incite" does not mean what you think it does here.
Maybe the app enabled violence against law enforcement - but Waymo does that too by telling you where traffic cops are. Or Google Maps and Yellow Pages for documenting the location of police stations. Undercover officers, ICE or otherwise, aren't given any special exemptions to the law here.
Well, native apps are more popular among non tech savvy people because they’re easier to find and install. I was talking to the guy who works on our backyard and they don't even know what a browser is on their phone.
yeah? and what are they gonna do when they get to safari, type the website, and accept geo location?. You don't know humans.
you lost me at "if you told them", who's gonna tell them?
You can't send a push notification without a certificate that apple controls from a website. Push notifications seem to be key here so that you don't have the constantly open the app/webpage.
I have looked into developing a PWA. For starters:
1. Decent storage API. Last time I checked, there were serious limitations on the amount of storage you can use, especially in iOS
2. Mechanism for the user to save a certain . Analogous to saving and running a .exe and being able to compare the file hashes and run different versions of a file without the app developer's intent. This would include the ability to write and edit web apps from your device.
3. Some way of sending TCP/UDP packets directly, and doing port forwarding through UPnP.
4. Mechanism to run processes in the background, and for inter-app communication.
For example, you could not make a decent bittorrent app as a PWA. This is an example of an app which is prohibited on the app store despite having Apple having no legal basis for doing so.
I've often wondered if it would be possible to make some sort of "PWA Browser" that would give web apps hooks to some of this functionality, but it would probably get banned (There are no real rules on the app store, they can just ban you for whatever they want).
this is what I dont understand.
so many apps are almost website-like in functionality, and you can save a shortcut to the desktop / main screen and it will launch / look like an app. complete with notifications (if enabled).
What's the barrier? (another poster mentioned not knnowing anything outside of the appstore, but then "Share -> Add to Home screen" is a pretty damn simple flow.
Hmm, would be a shame if a major mobile operating system provider also ran a website-blocking service used by the largest web browser (Chrome) and the largest open-source web browser (Firefox).
They could even call it something like Google Safe Browsing to make it sound good to people.
Apple is working hard to make sure the answer is no (by not implementing advanced PWA APIs in WebKit and by not allowing other browser engines on iOS).
This is exactly what's wrong with Apple's app store exclusivity. It's also what's wrong with mandatory notarization where regulations forbid that, and Google's plan to require developer verification.
Most people don't know they can "install" a website on their phone, let alone that it allows that website to act like an app.
Discoverability of PWAs is quite bad. I'd love them to become more popular, but attempted solutions range from "user manually needs to hit the install button in a menu" to banners capable of saying "install freewhatsappupdate.xyz for exclusive whatsapp deals"/"click install to verify you're human".
Microsoft actually tried to bring more attention to web apps by adding them to their app store, but nobody uses the MS app store.
Somewhat roundabout, but WEI can make it so you need to have an allowed device-OS-browser combo for important services like banking. The device can then make it impossible to install another OS, and the OS can make it impossible to install another browser. Then the browser (or the OS) just receives blacklists (and possibly eventually whitelists after everything is entirely corporate captured) from Google/Microsoft/Apple.
FWIW, everyone who claims that Apple fundamentally needs the centralized ability to control apps on their platforms "for everyone's safety" -- despite how that obviously and repeatedly makes them become patsies for governments all over the world to enforce their censorship regimes -- are complicit in this stuff (in addition, of course, to the people who build it at Apple...).
This framing is designed to shame people into feeling guilty for their point of view, rather than their actions.
Being complicit means to be knowingly involved in or facilitating an illegal or wrongdoing act. In my books, it requires a level of participation that I don’t think your characterization meets.
You're dismissing the parent argument merely based on a narrow interpretation of the word complicity. The way they use it is common and correct in English language. All it needs is to aid the wrongdoing in some manner. That's exactly what you do when you choose to support and lend credence to Apple's flawed arguments on safety and thus blunt the opposition to their hostile practices. This is significant because Apple has been forced on occasions to backtrack on bad decisions in the face of public backlash. (Anybody remember their plan to scan all photos in the phone for CSAM?)
Now even if you want to go the pedantic or legal route, the meaning of complicity changes according to jurisdictions. Many legal jurisdictions consider interference in the opposition to a crime or even silence in the face of a crime to be complicity if you had sufficient knowledge about wrongdoer's intent. In this particular case, people had been warning for decades of this exact outcome, down to the details of the headline.
You could argue that this is policing of thought and opinion. Obviously, we're talking about moral responsibility here, which is just another opinion too as far as consequences are considered. (Except in cases of astroturfing and sock puppeting where the complicity is more direct. But we will ignore that possibility for now.)
I don't know about this line of thinking. If you truly believe this, then you could point to just about anyone on earth and state they're complicit in some atrocity or oppression.
I would concede there are degrees of proximity, but this particular example, that if you are in any way contributing to Apple's success (not matter the size) that you are complicit, and by implication be held responsible, for fasicm is truly whacky in my books.
> If you truly believe this, then you could point to just about anyone on earth and state they're complicit in some atrocity or oppression.
Ah! I see where it's going now. You can't reinterpret and dismiss others' statements to your liking. If you choose to vocally support an activity that you know to be harmful in some way, then you're actively complicit in it. That's a choice. And not one that everyone takes to end up fighting with their own conscience. And even those who do, weigh their actions against a moral boundary they maintain.
> I would concede there are degrees of proximity, but this particular example, that if you are in any way contributing to Apple's success (not matter the size) that you are complicit, and by implication be held responsible, for fasicm is truly whacky in my books.
Misinformation peddlers actively frustrate and defeat the efforts of those who try to raise awareness and alarm about the problem. That's plenty enough for them to be held morally responsible for the results.
>> everyone who claims that Apple fundamentally needs the centralized ability to control apps on their platforms "for everyone's safety"
This is an action. If you go around defending Apple or advocating for their position then yes, you are complicit. You are not just a bystander, you are actively participating in their propaganda. This is especially true on HN where we expect the average user to be fairly technically literate. Everyone here should know how phones are not unique computers that need extra central authority control to make them safe when compared to your desktops and laptops.
Sure, Apple probably wants to have control over that too, but are we really going to let them destroy the very thing that made these systems magic? Computers are "magic" because we can program them. Because they are environments. You cannot make a product for everybody. But you can make an environment in which everyone can adapt to their individual needs and use cases. That's what makes the computer magical and so special. A smart phone is nothing without its apps.
Okay. So your point was not really: "I disagree on moral philosophy, responsibility and the attribution of guilt", it was: "I support Apple's centralized control on all apps you can run, but I don't want to be criticized for the moral implications of state control, censorship and authoritarianism, nor do I want to defend my position on the merits". That's cheap.
It's more like: "I support Apple's centralized control on all apps you can run, as long as that monopoly is only used to squeeze out competition and not for censorship."
Of course government censorship becomes a lot easier if you only need to put pressure on one company.
I don't know if that's necessarily a charitable interpretation of the comment, keeping in mind the HN commenting guidelines. Despite differences in opinion we should give everyone the chance to state their view, no matter what it is, as long as it generates "curious" discussion.
If you buy apple products, work for the company or own its stock then you are financially facilitating this. I don't know who you are and I don't care, I am just saying this is the basic cause and effect.
Things cannot improve unless stakeholders use their levers to change or abandon the company.
I do 2/3 of those things and have no problem with what Apple is doing. There is no universal right side in this. This being a top comment here doesn't make it true.
FWIW, if you have no problem with what Apple is doing--and a lot of people might not: they might even actively cheer Apple on if they went out of their way to help ICE... not my jam, but a lot of people want to simultaneously be anti-ICE or anti-Trump and pro-Apple--then I don't think my comment becomes "untrue": the point simply would have no serious effect on you, as I guess you are simply OK being "complicit"... today <- which is key, as it isn't like this is the first or last time Apple has become a patsy to governments around the world, restricting access or removing content and software that challenge authoritarian control. I gave an entire talk in 2017 at the Mozilla Privacy Lab on how this happens to centralized systems all the time called "That's How You Get a Dystopia", though Apple is only one segment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vsazo-Gs7ms.
The thing is these are all your opinions and you have a right to them... but you are choosing these words (my guess is they are chosen for you based on your source material) words like "complicit", "patsy", "authoritarian control". Using these words doesn't make them true.
I give you credit for speaking up for what you believe in publicly.
My opinion is that it is pretty self evident that a large or small company would remove an app at the request of the US Government that actively tracks federal agents that are attempting to enforce the law.
Ah, OK, so, that isn't actually the issue I am pointing at directly, which might be the confusion! I am not saying that--if you believe that such apps being pulled is, itself, a bad thing (and, a lot of people do, as they want to claim they are anti-ICE or anti/Trump), the reason that happens at all is not because Apple didn't fight back hard enough today (somehow): it is because Apple didn't make the correct choices years ago, and now they have no choice. Apple is only in a position to do this at all and be asked to remove stuff due to the government's wishes because they set themselves up to have no choice in the matter.
In fact, it is because of just how obviously "self evident" it is that the point can even be made in the first place: if you construct a giant centralized bottleneck on the distribution of software and information, you will end up being asked to use that bottleneck to filter content by governments... not just in the United States, but around the world. If that is truly "self evident" to you, you do not build the centralized bottleneck unless you like the idea of the eventual possible results of such.
And, in that analysis, if you like the result, then you can argue with the tone of the wording, but I don't think the point is "untrue". Apple doesn't really have any choice in the matter, so they are a patsy here. And if you argued to help Apple obtain their centralized position, you are complicit in said result. You might be proud to be complicit, or you might be happy that Apple is a patsy, but that doesn't change the truth of the situation.
So like, great: you say that is self-evident... did you like what happened today? If not, do you like it when Apple does the same thing for counties all over the world--when I said "authoritarian control" it was me talking about other countries, such as China, where I think you would be hard-pressed to argue otherwise--and pulls apps like VPNs and protest coordination tools? If so, again, very not my jam... but it certainly makes sense for you to be happy Apple has no choice and proud of any prior involvement you have with such...
...but, if you ever think Apple is doing stuff that makes your stomach lurch because they have no choice but to follow the edict of a government, the question is: what does that imply for moral product development in this world? Do you build--and then advocate for, or defend on forums--a centralized App Store and deny the ability for third-party software? Or do you, as a principled stance... not do that?
To refrain one more time: we are in intense and powerful agreement that "it is pretty self evident that a large or small company would remove an app at the request of the US Government that actively tracks federal agents that are attempting to enforce the law". That isn't only "your" opinion: that is "our"
opinion! ;P
As the moment of agency then happens well before this moment today, we then can't shy away from the real question: do you like Trump and how he's running ICE, and the result it has on families? If you do, again: not my jam ;P, but I totally get why you'd be happy about the result today or confused as to why you should feel differently about it.
However, it isn't obvious to me you do, as you want to hide behind the action today being "self evident", as if that obviates the need to even verify someone's (I want to say "yours" but you might technically be arguing on behalf of an anonymous third party, and I don't want to leave opening to pivot the discussion into whether or not you personally ever advocated for Apple) opinion on ICE: in fact, that is why that political opinion matters so very very much!
In a world where we decide one company has a bottleneck on information and freedom strong enough to quickly remove access to content and tools from a large percentage of the population, suddenly we must care deeply about how that tool will get used. If you don't like how that tool gets used, you really have to be advocating for that tool to not exist.
> If you buy apple products, work for the company or own its stock then you are financially facilitating this.
I don't know that saying to someone: "hey, you're complicit in fascism because you bought an iPhone" is a reasonable stance.
Imagine you're a factory worker who builds a component for Apple products. Is it fair to shout to that person you're enabling the US government's clampdown on peaceful resistance?
Do you think it makes sense to say to the tens of millions of Americans (and foreign investors) who hold positions in S&P 500 that they are complicity in fascism because Apple decided to remove apps?
I can appreciate your passion and conviction, but I don't know that the world is that black and white.
Everyone in this forum seems to be obsessed with personal guilt and blame because the idea that they are responsible for their actions hurts their feelings. I am just talking about the cause and effect here.
The cause is that you are supporting a company that thinks it has the right to control what its users do on their devices, and the effect is that this relationship is easily hijacked by the government. It actually is very straightforward.
If you want to stop the company, you have to convince the stakeholders to change/abandon the company or disempower the stakeholders themselves directly. This is why I make the case here: I can either convince you or oppose you directly.
>I don't know that saying to someone: "hey, you're complicit in fascism because you bought an iPhone" is a reasonable stance.
Don't worry, I do know that it is a reasonable stance. There are a ton of phones on the market that don't enable this type of control, and they are more affordable and useful than iphones. The barrier to entry is slight inconvenience.
>Imagine you're a factory worker who builds a component for Apple products. Is it fair to shout to that person you're enabling the US government's clampdown on peaceful resistance?
Factory workers are probably living in some third world country where they have very little leverage in negotiating the terms of the company, and they are probably too poor to afford iphones and don't care about US politics, but they still have some leverage. So you could shout that to the factory worker but they probably wouldn't care. It would be futile
>Do you think it makes sense to say to the tens of millions of Americans (and foreign investors) who hold positions in S&P 500 that they are complicity in fascism because Apple decided to remove apps?
I don't use this language of fascism because it has because been overused by the left. But my answer is simply yes. Shareholders are responsible for the actions of their companies.
You are just playing this game of deferring responsibility to some non-existent person. The consumer defers blame onto the company. The worker defers blame onto the management. Management defers blame onto the shareholders. The shareholders can pass the blame onto management. At the end of the game we can all shrug and say "well there was nothing I could have done".
The reality is that all stakeholders are to blame. Everyone has some leverage over the company, and many stakeholders have pivotal positions.
If you can buy individual stocks, then you absolutely do have access to the Dow in the form of a myriad of ETFs [1][2][3]. There are also numerous standard mutual funds which consist of all the companies in the DJIA. This is what I thought you were referring to when you said you'd invest in the Dow, hence my comment.
Bud Tribble was shaming Apple cronies in 1981 when he put "reality distortion effect" in circulation. You can feel however you want, but everyone can see the truth for what it is. Been that way for a while now.
Whatever the word is, the cause and effect is this:
1. Apple users tolerate the status quo through inaction, which is the centralized distribution of software.
2. Governments take advantage of this status quo to control apple users.
If it was the case that the OS was open, then the US Gov. would have no leverage to prevent the distribution of the software mentioned in the article. However apple's stakeholders enable and justify the centralized software distribution as a feature rather than a bug.
Developers are in on it too: the locked-down ecosystem is more lucrative for them because there are higher entry costs to producing software, and thus reduced competition. It prevents piracy for example, at the cost of preventing the distribution of pretty much all open source software.
There's a difference between having a view and spreading apologia for public consumption.
For example, surely anti-abolitionists' apologia made them more complicit in the continued institution of slavery than those who chose not to make excuses for it did, even if they themselves did not own or facilitate the sale of people.
We don't seem to have a problem with assigning some responsibility for abolition with abolitionists' own apologia, some of it still read in schools today.
They knowingly created the systems they built around having centralized control, everyone told them the consequences of doing that, they did it anyway, this is the result, they are responsible.
It’s happened many times before, and people heard about it and aren’t that stupid or forgetful. They just want to believe something incompatible, so they permit themselves a little internal dishonesty: maybe it’s a separate issue that somebody else will surely figure out, or there’s a better solution (that we won’t pursue), or everybody always exaggerates (but we won’t verify that), or they find a way to hate and dismiss everybody who talks about it. Declaring your own shamelessness is more of the same: you’re reframing the problem from the consequences of your actions to your feelings about those consequences, then addressing only your feelings. It’s the same sort of behavior as heroin addicts, who find a route to happiness that doesn’t push them through the good things that the pursuit of happiness was meant to.
> This framing is designed to shame people into feeling guilty for their point of view, rather than their actions.
Having a point of view and then using that point of view to make public claims, often counter-claims in face of precisely this type of criticism, is an action. Examples are easily found on this forum.
Would have Apple done the same if it was any another country?
Probably not. They would have courts and the democratic processes to help them resist.
But in face of authoritarian government who can hurt Apple's sales the company always bows. Be it actions in China or now action in US. The motive is simply profit.
The company cannot have a centralized control to make it "safer" and then give that way if the profits are under threat. Companies should be shamed for that.
I'm skeptical of this angle. If the app in question is being used by some to commit targeted violence, is it really a question of profit and not safety? Does it really take much pressure to want to get out of that position?
Does Apple publish apps designed for reporting locations of immigrants or minority groups? Is that a line of business they want to be in at all?
Please show where these apps have been used to commit targeted violence.
Your second paragraph reads to me like you’re equating the desire to protest and document the atrocities being committed by government agents to physical threats and violence being committed by unhinged private citizens against minority groups. This is a disingenuous argument.
You do not understand. I am equating the desire of unhinged private citizens to commit violence to the desire of other unhinged private citizens to commit violence. Reasonable people aren't the problem.
"An app that gives you real-time updates on the location of people you deeply dislike" is
It's extremely unlikely that there are not more people out there
The point is that If you're in Apple's position it doesn't especially matter who is being targeted and how many people are actually using the app that way. If they don't want to be in the anonymous people-reporting app game on the basis that it may make people unsafe vis a vis said unhinged private citizens, that's not unreasonable or inconsistent, and it doesn't necessarily take an extraordinary government threat to the business for Apple to want to distance themselves from that kind of app.
However, you said: "If the app in question is being used by some to commit targeted violence, ..."
Was this a pure hypothetical? If so, I don't think it needs to be addressed until it actually becomes a real problem. Apple itself ships an app that alerts me when a police officer is nearby (Maps), but I haven't heard about any police being targeted with violence because of that.
If it was not a pure hypothetical, I'd be interested to see a link, as I'm not aware of any violence committed due to the existence of ICE-tracking apps. To my previous point though, I am aware of private citizens committing violence against the same groups that ICE targets with kidnapping and trafficking.
It's a hypothetical in that while a) the primary purpose of the app is to locate a certain group and b) people have died due to attacks targeting that group (i.e. Dallas) there is no concrete causative connection between the two.
While it might better satisfy our sense of justice to wait until we can definitely say that a enabled b, the hazard is obvious, and Apple can reasonably determine that they don't want to be party to it.
> I am aware of private citizens committing violence against the same groups that ICE targets ..
Of course. Does Apple host apps whose primary purpose is reporting the location of those groups?
> It's a hypothetical in that while a) the primary purpose of the app is to locate a certain group and b) people have died due to attacks targeting that group (i.e. Dallas) there is no concrete causative connection between the two.
Cool, then I stand by what I said previously: it doesn't need to (and actually shouldn't) be addressed now. The app has value for journalists, protesters, people looking to prevent family or friends from being kidnapped, and others. All of those benefits outweigh purely hypothetical concerns around possible violence.
May be not complicit, but I think people need to be reminded that the context that Apple claims privacy is a fundamental human right and they are the defender of it. Both PR and in court.
And this centralised censorship regimes isn't new. It is exactly the same during Hong Kong protest in 2019.
Okay, but that's not what's being asked now is it? What's being asked is the explanation. They aren't telling saying to the public "we love the taste of boots" even if it is true.
Okay, but you haven't answered the question either.
Do you not think I'm not aware that Apple is bending the knee? I'm pretty confident JumpCrissCross knows that too.
The question isn't about what's underneath the mask. The question is about what the mask is. What they're pretending the actual reason is. No one here is asking for the real reason because we're already aware. We're indicating it in the comments too. So by trying to tell us what's beneath the mask you're just creating more noise and making it harder to identify the mask
Oh, well, a quick Google gives you the answer I think you're looking for:
> In an email to ICEBlock creator Joshua Aaron, Apple wrote that “upon re-evaluation,” the app does not comply with its app store guidelines around “objectionable” and “defamatory, discriminatory, or mean-spirited content,” according to a copy of the message viewed by CNN.
> Oh, well, a quick Google gives you the answer I think you're looking for
The reason I made the first comment was not because I was unable to find the answer myself but because I wanted to push back against this type of commenting. To respond to what people are actually asking. Pressure to help push the culture of our community to be more productive.
It seems to me that the best way to "help push the culture of our community to be more productive" is to be more productive yourself, instead of engaging in meta-discussion about the community not being productive enough for your tastes. In other words, you could have just actually posted the answer to the question instead of scolding two other commenters for not doing so.
I have no hope that the solution can be solved through lawfare. The ability of one company to control what the vast majority of people can do with their phones is unacceptable, regardless of what happens with this one app.
The vast majority of the people on this planet have never touched an iphone. Android dominates basically everywhere outside north america and, interestingly, the DPRK.
I lost--not on the facts, or even on the relevant law, and not even in the district court where we were being heard, but in appeals on a narrow technicality of statute of limitations that we bet our case on (I am explicit about this as Apple didn't "win", so much as "we failed"; I even feel like our case just wasn't argued very well once we got to that level, which hurts)--over a year and a half ago... so, never :(.
Sorry to hear it, that's the justice system for you.
IMO, you're in a unique position where you can make your case to the public, not only is it intensely relevant now, but people will listen to you. Your name/brand carries good will for many.
Even a blog post that can be shared would be valuable. If that's something you'd be interested in, of course.
It’s a shame too, because Apple has the money and brand wherewithal to fight the government. See the FBI vs Apple stuff that happened years ago. That actually won them some real converts.
Capitulating over this is Apple showing their supposed core values have significantly hollowed
Isn’t Apple mostly interested in making more money, though, instead of spending money?
The way I see it of all the top tech giants, Apple has the most to lose with all the tariff shenanigans, so it’s in their [shareholders] interest to stay friends with the current administration.
Apple has never had moral values other than earning money by making great products.
And I say this as someone who is deeply embedded in the Apple ecosystem.
Part of the brand after the FBI fiasco was about being a privacy forward company that didn’t simply capitulate to government demands on a whim. They demonstrated in smaller tests they were willing to put up a fight for those principles.
That of course was now almost a decade ago. They seem to have changed their entire messaging and with it, seemingly their interest in being more than a ROI machine.
It’s a regression not a step forward. Apple was never a paragon but this was legitimately a step in the right direction I felt, but alas, I suspect in today’s culture I am increasingly in the minority position
> but this was legitimately a step in the right direction I felt
I'll steelman against this, but only because I really enjoy entertaining the idea. Even back then, it was a branding farce. The San Bernadino event was in 2015, pretty close proximity to the Snowden leaks which disclosed Apple's 2012 cooperation with PRISM. Best-case scenario, it was an extremely lucky press junket; worst case scenario it was a false-flag operation designed to manufacture trust from the ground-up. In the aftermath, Apple cooperated with local police and federal authorities perfectly well, and the passcode to the shooter's phone did eventually come out. Apple continued providing device access in situations where warrants were issued. They even dropped their eventual charges against NSO Group.
If your tinfoil hat isn't tight enough yet, we're talking about events that happened over a decade after the Halloween documents. Apple's executives (and the three-letter spooks) know that Open Source can ship attestable and secure software that trounces their best paid UNIX or Windows Server subscription on the open market. If the goal is to expand surveillance and you've got a coalition of sycophantic tech executives (somehow, imagine that haha), then it would almost be trivial to program endless RCEs into the client-side with "secure" binary blobs. All the "E2EE" traffic can get copied onto tapes and sent to a warehouse in Langley. Would be like taking candy from a baby.
Tim Cook is a very shareholder-friendly CEO. One of the first things he did after he became CEO, which jobs always refused, was to start stock buybacks.
I have a hard time believing Apple getting in legal fights with the current administration is something that shareholders will appreciate, even if it’s better in the long term.
Regardless, if shareholders care about long term instead of short term, shareholders - as a whole - put the wrong CEO in charge.
> “Steve Jobs created a loyalty with users that is unparalleled in the consumer technology world. What Tim Cook has done, he’s built a loyalty with shareholders,” Sculley said on “Squawk on the Street.”
> Regardless, if shareholders care about long term instead of short term, shareholders - as a whole - put the wrong CEO in charge.
FWIW, while I keep wondering just how different the entire world would have ended up if Scott Forstall had ended up in charge of Apple instead of Tim Cook, I believe he was also one of the big reasons the App Store ended up as evil as it was (not Steve) :(. Is there anyone whom we could take seriously as having been in serious contention who actually would have done a better job?
> Cook's aim since becoming CEO has been reported to be building a culture of harmony, which meant "weeding out people with disagreeable personalities—people Jobs tolerated and even held close, like Forstall," although Apple Senior Director of Engineering Michael Lopp "believes that Apple's ability to innovate came from tension and disagreement." Steve Jobs was referred to as the "decider" who had the final say on products and features while he was CEO, reportedly keeping the "strong personalities at Apple in check by always casting the winning vote or by having the last word", so after Jobs' death many of these executive conflicts became public.
The tragedy of Apple, and perhaps Steve's biggest oversight, was his own irreplaceability. He failed to procure a suitable successor. Or perhaps there was not enough time. People are Culture. And Steve was a big part of it. The hopes of Apple living on without him are just that, hopes. He built Apple like an orchestra with himself as the conductor; when he left, the music didn’t fall apart immediately, but the score became safer, flatter, more repetitive.
And the number of shares you personally own is irrelevant. The only public companies that ever take long term bets are those that are still founder led.
> Cook, clearly trying to remain calm, shot back: “When we work on making our devices accessible by the blind, I don’t consider the bloody ROI [return on investment]. When I think about doing the right thing, I don’t think about an ROI.”
> Cook then offered his own bottom line to Danhof, or any other critic, one which perfectly sums up his belief that social and political and moral leadership are not antithetical to running a business. “If that’s a hard line for you,” Cook continued, “then you should get out of the stock.”
Making devices accessible cost pennies compared to their revenue and didn’t take any real courage. Come back to me when they stand by their convictions when it can cost them billions in tariffs
The thing is no one really stand by conviction against overwhelming force. Apple take billions in loss, cut supply globally resulting in hundred of thousands laid off at vendor or Apple locations.
These grandstanding activists will move on but real people will suffer due to Apple's action.
I'm also a shareholder and I'd say I'm pretty happy with Apple not needlessly getting involved in fights. The most important thing is not getting tariffed.
Their reputation will be fine, no one but the terminally online are going to stop buying an iPhone because of this.
Pretty sure most of their shareholders feel similarly.
I agree that most people will not hear about this app being removed. (Though note that it's being reported here in "normal people" news, not tech news.)
But it's far from the only way Cook has aligned himself with Trump in just the last few months. The dumb gold-glass plaque and the UK royal visit are two much more visible examples.
> Doing what he needs to avoid tariffs is fine in my book.
And from above:
> The most important thing is not getting tariffed.
I am curious where your personal line is. Surely you have one. If the only way Cook could avoid tariffs were to go on live TV and swear his allegiance to the KKK, would you still support that? What if the only way were for him to pursue direct legal action against you and your family until you’re bankrupt? Eating live puppies? What exactly would you consider to be “too much”?
Exactly this, we are not talking the normal cycle of 4 years and then they are out, we are talking a possible "forever" fascism in the US so sticking to points of "I'm happy as long as my sticks are fine" is completey sticking your head in the sand hopping this all goes away soon.
the only time apple fights the government is when they want to keep illegally firing people and then the NLRB just goes, well sorry they just have too much money to stop them. They use bribe money for everything else.
Steve was never tested like this was he? Everyone’s about values until they are put into a fucked up situation like Tim Cook. The man had to literally deliver a Roman tribute to this president personally.
And that shouldn't have happened either. Apple doesn't need the US government, and Tim is himself a billionaire— he sure as hell doesn't personally need them either.
The government is a centralization of power, it doesn't matter if our devices are "decentralized" if the government can simply make it illegal to use unlocked devices. Or encryption. Or VPNs. Etc.
But that isn't how this has worked, even in places like China where the regime would seem to have that level of power: while they absolutely require Apple--who went out of their way to create a bottleneck on software and information that is just too juicy not to assert external control over--to remove various apps from their store, it is not actually illegal to own or use unlocked devices.
> The government is a centralization of power, it doesn't matter if our devices are "decentralized" if the government can simply make it illegal to use unlocked devices.
That is a very binary view of the world, but the world is nothing but shades of gray.
At the very extreme of the most totalitarian government, you're right. Such a government can ban one thing or ban everything.
But in nearly every country, it's vastly easier to go choke a single neck (Apple) and tell them to shut something down, than to chase after tens of millions of individual people with individual devices, if all of them can run whatever they want from wherever they want.
The governments will always have the power, that's pretty much built into the definition of government.
Not the definition of our government. Our founding documents state that "Congress shall make no law" along the lines of what Apple is being pressured to do here.
And the executive branch isn't supposed to be making laws at all, even though that's what they're doing.
As the GP says: the problem is the power. But when some of us argue that maybe the government shouldn't have this kind of power, we get shouted down with "HURR DURR MOVE TO SOMALIA THEN," and worse.
It isn't just our government: Apple sells these devices around the world and they pull the same shit in every jurisdiction, and so the Chinese government has been granted by them an extremely powerful axe to just ban software they dislike, a tool they use quite often, forcing Apple to pull apps for VPNs and other P2P tools used by protesters to coordinate in a world where the Internet is locked down. If you are going to create a device and sell it in this world, you have to understand how this world works, and in this world, if you create and defend a centralized bottleneck, you WILL become a patsy.
> Not the definition of our government. Our founding documents state that "Congress shall make no law" along the lines of what Apple is being pressured to do here.
I suggest read up on NSLs.
Sure, that should not be legal if the constitution meant anything, but there it is.
> the problem is the power
Tell me about a single government ever in history that has not abused its power at least sometimes?
While you're right, we should strive for that, we also need to strive for not building centralization that can be abused. Because it will always be abused.
It's both. Apple very intentionaly designs their phones so that they can immediately cut off their user's access to various apps with the flip of a switch and no recourse. It's obvious that this has and will continue to be abused.
At the same time the government of an ostensibly free country that values free speech should absolutely not be making these demands.
At this point I expect such behavior from this administration, they aren't pretending to be anything other than incompetent and corrupt.
Shame on Apple for helping these scumbags, now and in the future.
> I think that Apple is a company that has to obey the rule of law.
Right, so the fundamental problem is having a device where the software that runs on it is controlled by a single company. It creates the attractive nuisance of being able to choke off anything the government doesn't like because, as you said, that single point of contact can't avoid obeying the government.
Computing needs to be open and controlled only by each individual owner of each device, so anyone can run whatever they like sourced from wherever they like.
> That’s your belief and there is a platform that allows just that.
A platform that's just about to take it away with user registrations. And that isn't just a 'belief' - that's what a lot of people do with their phones.
But the problem here isn't about an alternative. Apple platform is popular enough to make it a juicy target for tyrannical regimes. And when that happens, millions of people find their devices useless or outright hostile towards them, due to lack of user-controlled escape hatches.
> The fundamental problem here is not specific to Apple; It’s specific to a regime that is overstepping its bounds daily.
Would you have predicted the current situation two years ago? Regimes go rogue unpredictably all the time. That's why people argue against this sort of device lock down all the time! It's meaningless to shift the entire blame on to the regime after Apple failed to take precautions in the face these warnings.
> Would you have predicted the current situation two years ago?
Yes. There is nothing surprising to me about the current situation.
> Apple platform is popular enough to make it a juicy target for tyrannical regimes.
Agreed, if for nothing else than its size alone. It is also a target for so many folks to say, "if it was different in this one way, it would be amazing (for me.)"
> Yes. There is nothing surprising to me about the current situation.
That would mean that you willfully defended a vulnerability that you could foresee being exploited.
> It is also a target for so many folks to say, "if it was different in this one way, it would be amazing (for me.)"
Apple has been consistent in their messaging. You have to give up your freedom over your devices to ensure security. Not make it hard or explicit to override safety measures. Not make it safe through careful design. But you have to give up your freedom. And there is no limit to the steps they took in this direction.
People had already pointed out that all those measures were for profit squeezing, disguised as security measures. The most important observation though, was that it's a very flawed argument. Security by centralized control is a vulnerability in itself, as evidenced by this incident.
Apple and its supporters fought this argument in a consistent manner too. With shallow dismissals of the concerns, accompanied by the contemptuous implication that the detractors are overreacting. As if the critics should be ashamed for even bringing them up. They never really address the concern directly. You can see this in action in interviews where their top management justify such decisions. I don't see that having changed much.
But, Apple or any other company doesn't deserve to be let off the hook for incidents like this. There is no reason to consider all their decisions as enlightened, especially when corporate profit seeking is involved.
The point is that if you could install the app by side loading it, or from a third party app store, then a Government order to remove an app doesn't make it impossible to use that app. But Apples actions, ostensibly to protect its users, but in reality to protect its profits, has put it in a situation where it is a much more effective tool for government censorship.
The idea of "rule of law" is a shorthand for the set of norms and practices understood by everyone under a single regime, including both specific laws and authorities and more general principles. One of those, notably, is "the government shouldn't force private companies to censor their app stores".[1]
The rule of law is indeed being violated here, but in the other direction.
[1] Or "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech", if you swing that way.
I don't want to fall into the fallacy of implying that this is somehow justified because of something "the left" did a few years ago but I would like to highlight the hypocrisy of how many people were totally okay with this sort of executive censorship when Biden was in charge.
> "We reached out to Apple today demanding they remove the ICEBlock app from their App Store — and Apple did so," Bondi said in a statement to Fox News Digital.
I don't think this is something that trump or biden should be allowed to do, but the classic argument that your constitutional right to free speech ends when the president "politely" asks a software company to censor you on his behalf and they acquiesce is equally [in]valid in both situations.
I have never voluntarily owned an Apple smartphone or tablet, and a huge reason why is because I care a lot about being able to run software on it that Apple doesn't approve of for whatever reason.
So let’s level set… ICE can buy data from data brokers, and has active contracts with Cellubrite and Pegasus… but an organized opposition can only use rocks and spears. This isn’t a fascist regime at all.
another day, another example of why we must all vigorously reject the campaign to stop users from installing software on their computers. stallman was right!
> Surely an app designed to help circumvent the law is a bad thing, even if it doesn't make one legally a criminal merely by association?
Much like Miranda rights. Surely outright informing people in custody they have the right to remain silent is a bad thing, right? Actually, thinking about it now, there's a whole lot of things people have the right to do that make enforcing the law way harder than it needs to be.
Or maybe it's more important to maintain your rights as a human being and citizen, especially in the face of an overreaching executive branch willing to justify anything in order to overreach a little more.
In a society with rule of law, it is generally understood that adhering to laws, even ones you don't personally like, is a good thing; and that it would be a bad thing to pick and choose which laws to follow and enforce.
I suppose you're making the argument that current US immigration law is unjust and immoral to begin with and therefore should be actively circumvented?
We no longer have a society with the rule of law. The fish rots from the head. You can thank everyone who voted for the wanton criminal promising everything yet nothing but destruction, now creating cruel spectacle after cruel spectacle to distract from the fundamental fact that he should be in prison. And additionally his enablers in Congress and on the Supreme Council who've decided that our Constitution is worth less than toilet paper.
VPNs can serve a legitimate purpose, like shielding your traffic while using a public network. Seems to me the better technology analogue to ICEBlock is The Pirate Bay; maybe there's some flimsy pretext of it being used for a legitimate purpose, and maybe it's not outright illegal, but everyone knows that it's almost always used for an illegal purpose.
> but everyone knows that it's almost always used for an illegal purpose
And I would argue that to the general population (non-HN/tech types) a VPN is the "Pirates Bay" of banned or ID law content. Porn ID law goes into effect, tens of thousands of people suddenly sign up for a VPN. If they thought of it as "shielding your traffic while using a public network" they wouldn't be signing up en masse when laws happen that they want to circumvent; they would have already been using it.
As for ICEBlock et al, knowing they are raiding in a part of a city that happens to be on someones running or cycling/walking route while being a darkly pigmented citizen is a valid use of the app to know to stay clear of the area. It should not be a thing, but it is.
ICE is abducting citizens and generally stirring up chaos to make pretexts for escalating federal occupations. Anyone would be an utter fool to voluntarily put themselves in the presence of the new "American" Gestapo. And since the number of citizens is much larger than the number of iLlEgAlS (regardless of what the fearmongering on boomers' TVs would have you believe), an app to help avoid the lawless thugs is in the same exact category as a VPN.
I haven't heard about ICE detaining any US citizens who weren't either actively interfering with ICE activity as part of a deliberate anti-immigration-law-enforcement protest, or closely associating with actual illegal immigrants.
Detaining people who are actively interfering with ICE activity as part of a deliberate protest is something I think it's reasonable for any kind of police to be able to do - there's no reason why fellow citizens in a democracy should inherently privilege the violence protesters do in order to prevent the enforcement of a law over the violence that the police do to in order to carry out that enforcement, it all comes down to your political opinion of the law.
Detaining US citizens while in the process of detaining illegal immigrants also seems reasonable, since there's no way to tell if a suspected illegal immigrant claiming to be a US citizen is lying or not until law enforcement actually checks. This is no different than cops being able to arrest a person on suspicion of a crime and then let them go with no charges when they realize they were mistake, which is a power cops already have in our society.
> The new lawsuit describes repeated raids on workplaces despite agents having no warrants nor suspicion that specific workers were in the U.S. illegally, and a string of U.S. citizens — many with Latino-sounding names — who were detained.
Working at a workplace that has a large immigration workforce is also not a crime or a reason to be detained. Yes, these things are working their way through the legal system -- as it should. But US citizen rights are being violated and sticking one's head in the sand or hand waving away these things is crazy to me, a US citizen, it's not how I was raised in the South. I can understand non-citizens/residents thinking that way though. They have their own experience
Having brown pigmented skin, working with brown pigmented skin people or speaking spanish doesn't weaken a citizens rights to make these rights violations "reasonable". If someone is "actively interfering" with ICE that's not immigration enforcers job to deal with, and should be handled/handed over to the local police force and taken to a police center, not immigration detention.
> Working at a workplace that has a large immigration workforce is also not a crime or a reason to be detained.
It's not a crime to work at a workplace with a large immigration workforce, but it is a reason why you might reasonably be detained by federal officers specifically investigating workplaces with large numbers of immigrants where it's widely known that many of those immigrant workers are not legally in the country.
> If someone is "actively interfering" with ICE that's not immigration enforcers job to deal with, and should be handled/handed over to the local police force and taken to a police center, not immigration detention.
In a lot of places where ICE is operating the local police have been ordered by local political leadership not to assist ICE because local political leadership is anti-immigration-law-enforcement. There have been cases in New York, Portland, the Bay Area, probably other places too where local law enforcement refused to assist ICE, or did assist ICE in violation of local law banning this. There are reasonable constitutional justifications for states or localities to be able to pass laws banning local law enforcement from assisting with federal law enforcement, but that also implies that detaining people actively interfering with their investigation is in fact part of the job of federal law enforcement.
Depends on the law and how it's enforced. You could argue the current status-quo is law breaking by law enforcement, so circumventing them is enforcing the law.
I assume your point is that not all laws are just only by virtue of being laws. I agree with this. And of course, not all lawbreaking is equal in severity. We all can tell that jaywalking is not the same as vehicular homicide. At the same time, we should also be able to agree that selective following and enforcement of laws is disparaging to the spirit of a nation of laws.
Do you find the current American immigration laws, and the enforcement thereof, to be unjust? Do you see it as your moral duty to abrogate them, and help others do so? If so, can you explain why?
No need for actual free speech. Host it in Russia, China, Venezuela, Iran, DPRK, or any other strategic adversary of the United States. The success of ICEBlock is 100% inline with their information warfare goals. The more strife they can spread, the more protests, the more violence, the more confrontations, and the more 'noise' that gets made about ICE in the US, the better for them.
That doesn't mean the developer of ICEBlock is anti-American, just that there's a common interest in seeing his project succeed.
Make ICE spotting a plausibly deniable covert subtext via an otherwise popular medium.
Like (probably apocryphal) Jesus fish.
Both Pokemon and Polytopia have ice themed combatants, right?
Whenever you see some masked thugs staging for another round of terror, start a match as one of those tribes, trainers, or whatever. Build a certain kind of (creature) deck recognizable by anyone "in the know". Use some kind of slang. Like WWII's code talkers.
I don't actually know how Pokemon and the multiplayer Polytopia work. But y'all get the idea.
I keep thinking of the "slug bug" game bored kids play in the back seat. See a VW Beetle, yell "slug bug" first, and then punch your sibling. I think "Eye Spy" is the nice version.
Do mobile games like that exist? Surely someone's done it. A Foursquare for kids. Or something.
IMHO, this is just another example of something that would be better off as a website/webapp than a native app. If anything, having an app that tracks ICE agents installed on your device seems more like a liability than an asset.
> Authorities said the suspect, Joshua Jahn, searched his phone for tracking apps, including ICEBlock, before opening fire on the facility from a rooftop.
Thats weird because you dont need iceblock to know that ICE is at an ICE facility
Everything in the ICE tracking apps can be done as a web page. Good luck to MAGA trying to stop this, but the ugliness of ICE tactics will inspire a lot of people to build some very good technology to stop it.
They also removed app that tracked us drone strikes all over the world IIRC like 13 years ago. So probably nothing new under the sun. The joy of appstores and walled gardens.
No surprise here, all companies would do the same. But I was planning on moving to Apple once my current Android fails, not now.
I am hoping the Linux Phone I hear about advances to the point where my Cell Service supports it. Will see because I am pretty much done with Android and Apple.
17 years on from the App Store we're still trying to get people to wrap their heads around just using websites. And to think probably all of the users of the app are finding out about it via a LINK in a message or social post.
This is the problem with the modern "app" way of doing things. This sort of thing would be best handled as a website so that users need not run specific software on thier phones. Reports can come in as basic emails parsed for a lat/long or grid. Then a kml file can be pushed as needed to a basic web-facing map. The bandwidth would be minimal and very resistant to shutdown. Heck, share the kml files via torrents or put the map server in tor if necessary. No apps required.
In practice this seems much more difficult to do than going after the app in the app store, particularly if you choose your registrar and hosting provider carefully.
Ya, the pirate bay is still online, so too innumerable similar sites once targeted by various agencies. A smallish map running on a RP plugged into tor would be very resiliant. But there is a bittorent protocol that allows for rolling updates to a torrent. That would be the best way to distribute kml files imho.
What’s this updatable BitTorrent protocol? I wished for something like this years ago as an auto-updating torrent for downloading Wikipedia with live (or daily or whatever) changes.
this is really neat. I've been looking for this sort of functionality with IPNS, but it seems like bittorrent could be better. Do clients implement this yet?
Website can't provide notification on iOS. You may find workaround but that would be either expensive or under Apple's control. This use-case without notifications is quite useless.
Reading the comments on that Fox site is depressing. A lot of hate for Apple, but for the wrong reasons (as in, completely missing the danger of centralized app stores..).
If you created an app that essentially doxed police and schemed ways to circumvent their ability to enforce the law, I'd hope you would get in trouble for that, especially if it compromised the safety of those you care about, don't you agree?
What word games is he playing? You're making a factual claim about the legality of something, and you're being directly queried on the veracity of that claim.
Given that it's legal (in the US) to film/livestream cops so long as they are not obstructed in the commission of their duties, and in the wider context of the First Amendment, I find it relatively hard to believe that merely reporting cop sightings is illegal. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/02/yes-you-have-right-fil...
It is widely agreed that transparency and accountability in policing makes for better policing.
ICE tracking apps put ICE agents in danger, and the same kind of app for, say, tracking Meta employees or “people who wear Team Blue T-shirts” or any other group would obviously be a danger as well. How on earth do people find this controversial..?
There's individual cases of unconstitutional behaviour, but ICE itself isn't unconstitutional. It was unconstitutional to effectively lock people in their homes during covid, but it was done anyway.
It’s unconstitutional to raid an entire apartment building and force everyone out as they search for potential “illegals” to take away without due process.
We are far beyond a couple an individual cases, it’s become the norm.
Stay at home orders for health reasons are constitutional. Also, in countries that had stricter rules far fewer people died.
When bringing comparisons to a discussion… check if you’re right, and maybe check if it’s even a good comparison.
Methinks this won’t be the last politically-motivated removal from Apple’s App Store; the more apps they remove then the more they weaken their own arguments about how a locked-in walled garden is in consumer interests.
Who thinks it will stop at app removals?
Remember CSAM and how it got withdrawn? https://www.apple.com/child-safety/pdf/CSAM_Detection_Techni...
What if the government asks for sentiment analysis? Thoughtcrime detection? Always-on audio collection? Always-on location logging?
All the things we were afraid of are simple technically and the only thing stopping it is a few executives of a trillion dollar company who must report earnings to shareholders.
All that you said coupled with (snooping) edge AI is the future.
Sure, yes. The question is, will the corporations provide open access to the government for warrantless mass surveillance?
Well, we're talking not just about "corporations", we are talking about entities with more gross earnings than most countries' GDP, e.g. Apple is sitting on billions of dollars in cash. These guys have the tech, the data, and oceans of money. Heck, some of them even have space forces :)
Maybe in our (very near?) cyber punk future, it's not only goverments that we should be concerned about. After all, we have some measure of input regarding the goverment.
>Maybe in our (very near?) cyber punk future, it's not only goverments that we should be concerned about. After all, we have some measure of input regarding the goverment.
Why shouldn't we already be concerned about the corporations? They've been slurping our data and selling it for a profit for my whole life[0].
Sure, that sort of behavior started with banks and other financial institutions, but has extended, over the decades, to consumer products companies (P&G, General Mills, etc.) and to retailers (Walmart, Target, etc.), then into internet search (Google, Bing), "social" media (the Meta conglomerate, etc.), hardware and software companies (Apple, Google, Microsoft, etc.), communication devices (Apple, Google, Samsung, etc.), consumer electronics (LG, Samsung, GE, Maytag), Automobiles (GM, Chrysler, Nissan, Toyota, etc., etc., etc.) and "IoT" devices (Amazon, Google and a host of others) are all hoovering up as much information as they can to both sell (and governments as well as other corporations are buying and paying through the nose) and use for "targeted" ads.
Isn't your refrigerator showing you ads, your TV recording what you're doing while you use it, your phone reporting pretty much everywhere you go, everything you do and everyone with whom you communicate, social media apps recording every key stroke, even if it doesn't end up in a post, your car tracking both your movements and your driving behavior, your internet searches used to create detailed shadow profiles of your interests and purchasing habits. I could go on and on and on. Corporations are collecting levels of private data on people that would have been beyond the Stasi's[1] wildest dreams.
And so I'll ask again, when, exactly, should we "start" to be concerned about corporate surveillance?
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Credit_Reporting_Act#Hist...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stasi
Oh, we most certainly should be, but I am just musing about the (not entirely improbable future and possibly inevitable) when corporations are more powerful and lethal than any government.
Oh absolutely. Bondi demanded (!) they remove the app. Why would anyone think she won't demand they remove others?
Yep, anything DNC-labeled or affiliated will be next on the ban list. Truly scary stuff, that tens of millions of fellow Americans are actively cheering on.
Apple removed a lot of apps from the store in order to stay present in Russia.
Just business
The big tech companies bent the knee (or, complied with local policies and laws) to Russia, China, Europe, etc already to do business over there, it's nothing particularly new but we are fully aware that Russia and China are not free countries, and Europe has stricter consumer / data protection laws (so it's less free for companies than the US).
> Europe has stricter consumer / data protection laws (so it's less free for companies than the US)
More free for the general populace, though (at least in this regard: I'm not making a holistic assessment in this sentence).
> we are fully aware that Russia and China are not free countries
Pot to kettle....
Only goes to show how the U.S. are becoming more like Russia by the day.
Yes
Just business under an authoritarian regime. Things happening the way they happen in Russia is not exactly something I'd aspire to, or readily accept…
Did anyone actually believe {MEGACORP} would prefer political alignment to money?
"Just business"
The slogan of fascists.
Negative. It was Credere, Obbedire, Combattere
Yep they reap what they sow
This wasn't the first one either.
And it is certainly also not the first.
What was the first?
No idea, but i know that apple regularly responds to government takedown requests. This was from last year:
https://www.wsj.com/tech/apple-removes-whatsapp-threads-from...
Apple even has a website about it: (there dozens of such takedowns each year.)
https://www.apple.com/legal/transparency/app-removal-request...
Apple's "transparency" website is a website, but adds very little transparency
It's by no means the first if you've been outside of the US. Glad to see we're moving in the direction of China, Russia, Europe, etc.
And it won't affect their branding in any relevant way.
As "Amusing Ourselves to Death"[1] would explain, what almost all Apple consumers want is just FaceBook, WhatsApp, memes and games. Anything else is "boooring!".
We live in an Idiocracy[2]. Deal with it.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amusing_Ourselves_to_Death
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiocracy
I've started buying refurb, and will be heavily considering my upcoming electronics purchases. I encourage others to reduce consumption from companies which kowtow to this dangerous administration's demands and rhetoric.
I've been boycotting Amazon as best I can for nearly a decade though since they had ambulances outside their warehouses and delivery workers pissing in gatorade bottles but reducing consumption of toxic brands can be done and is effective at sending messages when done en masse.
I also boycott all the social media companies, Disney, Google as much as possible.
Sadly, there's not a ton of options in this space (computer electronics).
I've also e-mailed tim.cook@apple.com and expressed my opinions in a polite manner. Maybe someone read it. Who knows.
Stand up, fight back!
I like the thought, but AFAIK it doesn't really change the bottom line much, as long as you buy a used older product from a brand. Probably because the person selling it is buying a newer model, so you're still helping the company out.
I might be wrong, though. But this was the initial conclusion I arrived at when I was researching whether to buy an iPhone 17, iPhone 15 Pro (used) or Android phone. Only the last option would probably hurt Apple directly. And only a liiiiiittle.
That's nonsense. The choice is between you purchasing a new phone or you not purchasing a new phone. It's post hoc justification to assume that your dollars from buying a used unit will be used for something in particular. You made the decision you wanted and then built the logic to support it.
It was an illegal app designed to aid in illegal interference with law enforcement.
It is unsurprising for it to get removed, as companies must follow the law.
It is not illegal to notice actions of government agents in public or to report them to others; it was a legal app designed to facility activity protected by the First Amendemnt.
it is actually not illegal at all to report on the locations of law enforcement. This is, in fact, protected speech.
A) it's not illegal, as evidenced by the fact that not a single person has been prosecuted. There is no law being broken, just the feel-feels of the surveillance state getting hurt.
B) Even if there was a law, its the duty of every American to disobey unjust laws. The government serves at the pleasure of the people, not the other way around. There are a lot of people getting awfully comfortable with weak men ordering other jack booted weak men to systematically tear down what actually makes America great. I thought we settled this last time, but maybe we need to revisit the issue.
>"it's the duty of every American to disobey unjust laws..."
Is this what universities are teaching? Where did you get this from, honestly?
This is a terrible assertion. The subjectivity of what is just or unjust would lead to overwhelming violent lawlessness if this were true. Thankfully, we have no such duty.
Please, stand up for what you believe is right within the legal framework. This is a largely just society, by comparison.
Maybe travel a bit to see what an unjust society looks like. Weigh your options, at least, before resorting to criminality as a lifestyle choice.
Being law abiding in a society run by lawless and violent thugs isn't contributing to a social fabric. It is a survival mechanism at best.
Google is making it so sideloading APKs on Android is no longer possible. This is one of many great reasons why that should not happen.
I agree with you, but can we stop calling installing software on the hardware you own "sideloading"?
Yeah, we should just ironically lean into it even harder and call it “backdooring”.
Jokes aside, when has pandering to people to change the status quo of colloquial word use ever worked?
Well, obviously changing "installing software" to "sideloading" worked somehow.
It could be called "liberty-loading". You are at liberty to load/install software from anywhere
"free-loading"
25+ years and it's a bit of variation on the term.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sideloading
I don't change my use of such words for other people, I do it mostly to change my own thinking. If others want to join me and also change their thinking that's also good.
"queer"?
It's called "sideloading" because you're sneakily installing software without the manufacturer's consent. Remember it's never your device, you just have permission to use it.
Offline installation.
Conversely, this and EU Chat Control are precisely why the powers that be will ensure it will happen.
The importance of FOSS mobile OSes is greater than ever now.
Still waiting to see chatcontrol happen. Maybe I’m naive, but I don’t believe it will happen.
As an EU citizen, I never doubt the ability for the EU to do the wrong thing...
The current European Commision president: https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/zensursula
The previous president, Juncker, was the premier who made Luxembourg a taxhaven. Nowadays buying from Amazon in Europe you still get a purchase receipt from Amazon Luxembourg...
I still think we’re better off with the EU than without. Imagine trumps tariff war without the EU. He would have crushed every country individually… The deal is not great but it would have been worse.
I just don’t see how they will enforce it. Will they force telegram and signal to exit the EU app stores? The won’t offer a different app in the EU.
It's better than the shitshow that people like Farage, LePen, Orban, maybe Miloni too, want; but it's still far from great, competent governance...
if we're talking about the EU, for a provider the size of Google, not allowing third party application installs is illegal in the EU under the Digital Markets Act
This doesn't necessarily mean they can't introduce developer verification process. (Meaning only Google verified and approved developers would be able to distribute APKs)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45411426
It's really quite worrying how all these things (age verification, chat control, side-loading prevention, etc.) seem to be coming to bear in tandem across many countries.
man... things like this is why I was seeking another mobile OS at one point eg. wanting Pine64 to take off but alas... it needs more money
to clarify I get it's Mobian or Postmarket etc... which you could put on an Android phone but yeah
edit: the other thing was built in ads especially on cheaper phones like what you'd get at say Boost Mobile which I imagine is one of those subsidized costs thing phone is cheap because it's riddled with ads.
Shocking no one, Google pulls the app too. https://www.404media.co/google-calls-ice-agents-a-vulnerable...
This is why you should be developing for the web and not the App Store in the first place.
Only works if everyone stops helping Google to turn the Web into ChromeOS Platform.
Google disputes that: https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2025/09/lets-talk-...
>Verified developers will have the same freedom to distribute their apps directly to users through sideloading or through any app store they prefer.
So it’s the same then. Google can just “unverify” a developer who has published an app the kings don’t approve of.
Unverified developers can still use adb to install whatever they choose per the link:
“How does developer verification impact my use of Android Studio?
We are working to ensure these changes don’t have an impact on your day-to-day workflow so you can continue building your apps as smoothly as possible. Participating in developer verification will not affect your experience in Android Studio, the official IDE for Android app development. You will continue to be able to build and run an app even if your identity is not verified. Android Studio is unaffected because deployments performed with adb, which Android Studio uses behind the scenes to push builds to devices, is unaffected. You can continue to develop, debug, and test your app locally by deploying to both emulators and physical devices, just as you do now.”
Non-developers are not considered here. Users without a PC and terminal know-how are left without any options. I don't believe that's an actual oversight...
> We are working to ensure these changes don’t have an impact on your day-to-day workflow
Lies
The workflow of Free Software developers, developing consumer software (a vital part of the software ecosystem) will be entirely jammed up and subject to the capricious whims of Google
For clarity, they're requiring apps to be signed by a verified developer on certified Android devices. You can still side load, but the verification is still required for the side loaded apps.
Future HN headline: Pam Bondi orders Google to revoke verification status and code signing certificates of authors of {partisan/politically-unfavourable Android app}
This still means that Google is effectively gatekeeping what can be installed on the hardware you own and what cannot.
This is just flat out false. They're requiring developer registration. Sideloading is still possible if the developer key is registered.
> Sideloading is still possible if the developer key is registered
To all intents and purposes it is not allowed, then. Google becomes the gate keeper by controlling registration
"Trust us"
There is a caveat, sure, but to just say that sideloading will not be allowed is false.
The whole reason to sideloading in the first place is to circumvent Google's control.
https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2025/09/lets-talk-...
A government probably wouldn't have to push very hard for Google to revoke a dev's signing key, blocking apps signed with that key. So I don't see a difference. Technically sideloading will be possible, but Google will still have control of what apps can run on devices.
What a coincidence ?
Back in 2011, Apple removed apps that crowdsourced warnings about DUI checkpoints. It remains Apple's policy today.
According to Grok, "In March 2011, four Democratic senators—Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), Harry Reid (D-Nev.), Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), and Tom Udall (D-N.M.)—sent letters to Apple, Google, and Research in Motion (BlackBerry's parent company) urging the removal of such apps […]"
So, we have precedent where four Democratic senators pressured Apple to remove an app that allowed people to evade law enforcement.
> to remove an app that allowed people to evade law enforcement.
No, they continued to allow police location apps (Google maps will even tell you where they are).
The language they added to the app store rules were very specific: "Apps may only display DUI checkpoints that are published by law enforcement agencies, and should never encourage drunk driving or other reckless behavior such as excessive speed."
Whether or not that was a good idea at the time (it wasn't), you can't claim this is covered by the same guidelines.
What purpose outside abetting in avoiding a DUI is there for publishing a live map of DUI checkpoints?
I’m not questioning whether you should be able to do it. I’m really curious.
>What purpose outside abetting in avoiding a DUI is there for publishing a live map of DUI checkpoints?
When Churchill made that famous quip about the "average voter" he was talking about the kind of people who complain out of one side of their mouth about law enforcement going hard on a particular class of laws they don't like while stating out the other that anyone who doesn't want to submit to a papers-please stop on the pretext of catching people engaged in a fairly common misdemeanor that they do want to see hard enforcement on is abetting said misdemeanor.
You don't have to be driving impaired to have a strong desire to avoid the checkpoints. I avoid them because they're intrusive, oppressive, and upsetting.
Here are some possibilities:
* You don't want your trip to be delayed
* You object to police checkpoints in principle
* You or your friends or family have had negative experiences with law enforcement, so you prefer to minimize contact
* You share a car with family members, one of whom smoked cannabis in it; the smell will result in an extended detention and investigation at a checkpoint
* Your license/registration/insurance is not current
* You are an undocumented immigrant
* There is a warrant for your arrest
The last 3 are actual crimes. Sure they aren't DUIs, but I wouldn't list them as valid reasons to avoid checkpoints.
"I want to avoid interacting with the cops because I committed other crimes they might punish me for" is not a good argument.
The question was "What purpose outside abetting in avoiding a DUI is there for publishing a live map of DUI checkpoints?".
As a technical point, being an undocumented immigrant is still not a crime in the USA though it can result in law enforcement actions with impact as severe as criminal penalties. Expired registration or insurance is a civil infraction rather than a crime in some jurisdictions.
Edit: I should clarify why it matters that some of these are civil infractions rather than crimes. Navigation apps that Apple allows, including Apple's own maps app informs users about police and speed cameras, which helps people violate the speed limit without being punished. There doesn't seem to be a coherent principle at work here though.
Sometimes I take a legally prescribed stimulant / controlled substance for ADHD. Those medicines can be perfectly safe to drive with once you know how the particular dosage affects you, and driving with them is often even safer at the appropriate therapeutic dosage than driving without them. Further, as a person with ADHD and a tic disorder, I would have a fair chance of failing a field sobriety test even if I'm sober. I'm also not thrilled with the idea of lying to cops, since I know that can be a crime separately from the question of DUI.
So, putting all that together, imagine this sequence: cop at a DUI checkpoint asks me to perform a field sobriety test. I refuse, either without giving a reason or citing my ADHD and tic disorder. They ask me if I'm taking any medicine for ADHD. I don't lie and either confirm that fact or plead the fifth, or even if I do lie they still might not believe me. I probably don't have the pills or the bottle with me since I wouldn't usually be taking it in the car anyway. They then insist on a blood test, either with consent or with a quickly obtained warrant. I then have to accept a long detour going for the blood test, and then spend a lot of time and money proving in court both that I had a legal prescription and that I was not legally impaired by the medicine. (Even if I do have the correctly labeled pill bottle with me in the car, the cop still might incorrectly assume the medicine impairs me.)
Avoiding this hassle is a perfectly legal and legitimate reason to want to know where DUI checkpoints are.
Nothing I'm saying is condoning driving drunk - I certainly don't do that. When I drink, I pay attention to the advice of blood alcohol content calculators to figure out when I'm safe to drive and when it's fully out of my system. And when I take medicines that interact with alcohol, I'm even more cautious with drinking than when I don't.
You can be charged with a DUI despite being 100% sober, and you can be convicted, too. Both will upend your life.
I’m returning home from the store with cold medicine for my toddler late at night and I don’t want to have my trip increased by 15mins due to some police state bullshit.
As useful data for sober civil libertarians who want the choice to route through a DUI checkpoint to exercise their rights.
I wouldn't code it because there's no way to disallow the service for the set of people over the legal limit trying to avoid a DUI checkpoint. But if, say, a group of sober civil libertarians find a way to tell each other how to always choose right-exercising routes, I don't see any obvious ethical problems with that.
We do not have DUI checkpoints in my country, but I would assume they delay the travel due to being, you know, checkpoint. So it might be desirable to take alternative route if you do not want to spend time waiting for the check. I guess?
I strongly doubt this was a reason for the app though.
> It remains Apple's policy today.
What is that policy?
> According to Grok
Why did you ask an LLM which is manipulated by a single person when he doesn't like facts?
> So, we have precedent where four Democratic senators pressured Apple to remove an app that allowed people to evade law enforcement.
Yes, senators sent letters to several companies. Apple listened. What would have happened if it didn't? What would happen to Apple if they don't listen now?
Do you sincerely believe that both situations are comparable?
> Do you sincerely believe that both situations are comparable?
How are they not? In both cases US government officials applied pressure and implied legal action to force private companies to act in ways that enabled law enforcement to act with less resistance. It’s why we should always push back against government overreach and bullying. Because the “slippery slope” might be a logical fallacy, but that doesn’t stop it from also being the most likely outcome of the government pushing the boundaries.
> In both cases US government officials applied pressure and implied legal action to force private companies to act in ways that enabled law enforcement to act with less resistance.
That's like saying cooking is comparable with stabbing someone because both involve moving a knife back and forth. Give me a break.
The intent of using a knife to cut flesh when cooking and the intent of using a knife to cut flesh when stabbing someone is different. Are you saying you believe that the intended outcome of the senator’s request was different?
Oh, please. Senators do not head the department of justice and requested, not demanded under threat of retribution under a "unitary executive". For them to do anything would require a quorum of 50% of the entire government to make a law.
Sure but Senators actually have the power to make law, unlike the executive. Also let’s be honest, if any government official “requests” anything it is always under the threat of retribution. See also the Jimmy Kimmel situation.
> Also let’s be honest, if any government official “requests” anything it is always under the threat of retribution.
If you wanted to be honest you would say this government, not any government.
I’m reasonably confident that if a sitting US senator called you up personally and “requested” that you stop posting on HN or stop contributing to some open source encryption tool that you would find that event threatening, no matter who was currently president.
And it was wrong then too. Preventing people from sharing publicly available, literally visible from the street, information has got to be the brightest line violation of 1A. I'm really over how much the supreme court—not just this supreme court—has let the government end run around the constitution using tricks like this. Especially with the tax and spend power. If the government couldn't pass a law doing X then the government shouldn't be allowed to achieve X by any means.
Congressional dysfunction isn't an excuse to allow the creation of a shadow government orchestrated by the executive but here we are.
Just side load it apple user! Surely the great apple would never lock you in to a walled garden?
Why is Waze allowed since it let's you report speed traps?
Probably because it doesn't technically advertise it as such, just "hey something requiring police presence is around".
ICEBlock should rebrand as a generic "police activity" app and have a category "other" that everyone understands is ICE but isn't labelled as such.
The exact verbiage is this: "Apps may only display DUI checkpoints that are published by law enforcement agencies, and should never encourage drunk driving or other reckless behavior such as excessive speed."
> Why is Waze allowed since it let's you report speed traps?
Nominally the purpose of speed enforcement is to reduce vehicle speeds, which Waze notifications achieve.
Waze - at least in my country - did remove COVID checkpoints during lockdowns, so they don't allow all reports.
What is that?
>Why is Waze allowed since it let's you report speed traps?
Because the right to share police locations is protected by the 1st amendment
1st amendment is irrelevant here: Apple doesn't have to abide by it at all, as Apple is not the government.
While I am all for ICEBlock, I am not sure about this one. Is doxxing protected by the first amendment?
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/119
Did ICEBlock reveal names of agents that is not publicly available? Location of law enforcement is not doxxing.
oh, right.
While it's still bad, you can see how it's worse when it's coming directly from a regulator top-down from the president, right?
Senators gave no individual direct control over regulation. They can influence appointments or influence legislation, which is still power backing the implied threat, but that's a much more roundabout threat than a single person with direct power to destroy your business.
> According to Grok
Do you have any sources that aren't prone to hallucination and fits of partisan, racially-charged, conspiratorial hysteria?
https://www.autoblog.com/news/apple-to-reject-apps-that-incl...
Source? Not even your quoted Grok output is claiming that Apple removed the apps, just that the senators asked them to.
At least one source I found says that "Apple and Google did not give in" https://reason.com/2011/05/23/no-app-for-that/
I don't think a situation like this is impossible, quite the opposite, but let's try to not invent facts please.
Ctrl-f DUI https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/
It’s Hong Kong and HKMap.live all over again.
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-49995688
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21210678 ("Apple Removes HKmap.live from the App Store" (2019); 893 comments)
Tyranny demands its control.
Not surprising. The media hyped up the app and the admin hyper focused on it. Was bound to happen eventually since Apple wants to play nice with the government. Nice thing is it isn't the only one and others are multiplatform instead of iOS only. I'm doubtful we'll be seeing ICEblock show up in the iOS side load community.
I'd love for all tech reviewers at future product launches to go: "Yeah cool new iPads thanks... why did you guys block and remove an app that wasn't illegal? One that helped people know if armed forces that could search them and tear apart their homes were in the area?".
Just refuse to report on or post about new product launches without mentioning it.
Press is an large thing for Apple. Multiple times now they've only sprung into action when the press got on their arse about something (faulty HDD cables/video cards in Macbook Pros, faulty keyboards, etc). Press getting on them could push them to take an actual stance, or at least explain why (bowing to the dictator in this case).
Yeah but the press has to make money. They don't want to lose access, ultimately most of them want to be PR contractors for big companies
Getting people off of for-profit news would be great, though I admit it's a blue sky proposal
Yeah most companies want good PR for access. Apple takes this to the extreme where the first whiff of negatives things to say and you're cut off. Now you won't get invited to events or given devices early. So you'll have to wait until release and buy it yourself. Then take the time to review a device. By that point most people have already seen the other coverage and made up their mind. So you will get very little motion which translates to income.
These corporations have effectively built their own club of chosen mouthpieces who are willing to excuse negatives about a product to make money.
What if all the youtubers eg. MKBHD, Justine, etc. all piss off Apple at the same time? Or one big one goes against Apple and others follow as an act of solidarity?
There's (effectively) a single iPhone to review, and millions that want to be the next major reviewer.
I guarantee someone is willing to play ball
Which is why all of them should, every single one. Ones who don't should be called out by others.
Same thing at White House press conferences, push push push them relentlessly with questions that make them uncomfortable... make them squirm.
Press who always allow the other side to control the narrative deserve to die out. I know this is all easier said than done, but holy crap we are making it so easy for them to walk over us right now, we could at least do something.
Capital does what serves it best. Values are little more than a fig leaf in capitalism. After all, how many of us sacrifice our income for our values? A very few, indeed.
Of course this gets downvoted. HN is after all first about capital. Startups.
As soon as incentives start to diverge, centralized app stores look less benevolent.
Which is why people going back and forth about incentives has always driven me nuts. Attempting to make assurances based on this handle we crank called "human incentive" that may map to human behavior in the expected direction, the opposite direction, or no direction at all, is madness! We don't know. Humans are unsolved.
Give me guarantees, or the closest approximation. Federation, distribution, dispersion of authority, interoperability.
> Give me guarantees,
What’s the incentive?
Exactly. As long as this isn’t enforced by laws, it won’t happen. And then there are administrations that get away with just ignoring the law.
Yes, exactly, which is why counting laws as a part of the incentive mechanism is wrong to do. "They won't do that because they don't want to break the law." Laws are impossible to perfectly enforce and States are changeling things. Communities should create more dependable guarantees.
Why do you need one? Or why is there always a presumption of an incentive that maps to capitalist modes?
I want decentralization because States oppress people and I want resistance to that to persist, others think like me such as the inventor of the Signal protocol hence why it was invented. If you need to describe that as incentive, cool beans.
> Why do you need one? Or why is there always a presumption of an incentive that maps to capitalist modes?
it could be that I'm misinterpreting your angle, but I would just point out that "incentives" are not tied to a particular economic model. Incentives are simply things that motivate or encourage people to do something, acting as either a reward for desired behavior or a penalty for unwanted actions.
Ah, yes. Apple - the "standing up to the government" company
Apple did the whole show with FBI because it was convenient for them. They bend the knee faster than anyone when things get a little uncomfortable.
Apple has always stood up to the government when there was money to be made. Claiming privacy protections sells iPhones.
The people in China see nothing of the "standing up to the government" reputation and never really have. At least Google decided to pull out when the government started demanding they hand over data and apply censorship, Apple just complied and started storing data where the CCP can get to it.
Why would they make you do that, Tim? You gave them a trophy and everything.
The trophy was just a down payment.
Something somethjng leopards are my face.
We don't need to respect those companies or the people inside it. They will gladly suck up to any government if it earns them a dollar more. They're trash.
Exhibit A on why sideloading must be allowed and why Europe is right on this
Yet even there Apple still require apps be notarised, and presumably that signature could be revoked.
Yep that needs to go as well
Are people using non app work arounds ? Could the app be replaced with a SMS tree https://notbau.com/how-to-create-and-manage-a-manual-call-tr...
It could be replaced with a fucking web app if they built it properly the first time around.
Do you know a good way to do geofencing on PWAs? I'm not saying you can't, but I don't know of any API that can accomplish that (without constantly running GPS location updates in the browser, which no standard phone will allow).
I'm unfamiliar with these apps. What is geofencing used for? Automatically alert you if there is ICE activity nearby so that you can drop what you're doing to converge ?
There's an alerting feature and an attempt to stop false reports. The map part is trivial (and I think someone is already scraping the locations into a web app), but the geofencing capabilities are more difficult.
I believe it serves two purposes:
1. Reduce false reports by ensuring that activity reports are reasonably geographically near the reporter's location
2. Send alerts to people who are near a cluster of reports.
Maybe have the app server contact a service that knows the user's location? You can probably somehow get the user's location on Google Maps, or Find My. Or... I don't know, Yelp check-ins with a particular hashtag?...
Like TXTMOB, the precursor to Twitter.
Add Apple to the list of collaborators who need to be punished once the regime is overthrown.
Overthrown by whom? Aliens? Power supports power, there is no way out of this black hole.
The neat thing about the US is that governments are overthrown regularly by automatic operation of law: 12pm on the 20th of January 2028, in the case of the 47th president. I'm sure you know this but I feel everyone needs to remind themselves of this immutable fact regularly until then.
> immutable
Do not make the mistake of believing laws are as concrete as code. There are many, many instances throughout history of the powerful people who are responsible for enforcing the laws, deciding to suddenly change or ignore them.
True. But not if the game is rigged by gerrymandering. Or a false emergency used as an excuse to delay the election. Or...
He seems set on causing enough turmoil that elections would be postponed due to war, civil or otherwise.
I bet he got the idea from looking at Zelensky in Ukraine.
You are 8 months in since your last 20th of January and your chief turd already collected all top military officials and started his speech by intimidating them. There is no such thing as "automatic operation of law".
Not just power, but ~50% of the voting public.
An "overthrow" would be highly undemocratic and it's very curious to hear the same people that claim Trump is literally Hitler talk about "overthrowing" their (democratically elected) political enemies and then "punishing collaborators". Is there no sense of self-awareness at all?
The majority, of course, can decide to get rid of democracy and transform the country into a fascists dictatorship. But in this case they can't expect democrats to treat them by their democratic rules. This is not how it works, sorry. Your self-awarness is broken, I'm afraid.
Why are we asking for profits companies to fight our fights? I am reading lots of comments from keyboard warriors. For profits companies are not there to fight citizens fights. You don't want this kind of stuff to happen, then people need to fight their governments and demand better and stop relying on for profits entities to do so.
> Why are we asking for profits companies to fight our fights?
Why not? If you can pressure someone into fighting your fight for you, you do it.
That profit is an effective lever. I don’t have a lever in elections because of the electoral college.
Apple makes huge claims about their involvement in advancing things like inclusion and diversity, workers rights, privacy rights, equity and justice. They literally sell pride merch which they make a profit from.
Apple market themselves as being an ethical choice of companies regarding human rights, when they throw that out the window with shit like this, people get pissed.
For-Profit companies have an outsized impact on our day-to-day and have the ear of the current administration. Citizens United allows their voice to be heard politically (where they again have an outsized impact). I'm curious why they can lobby to impact the lives we live and our access to information, and their CEO can donate a million to the inauguration but suddenly they deserve the right to fade into the background and stay out of it all?
I don't see the problem. It was an app specifically developed to help people evade American law and attack people who work for the government, how is it a shock that they took it down?
Apple maps tells you when you are near a cop on the highway in order to evade the law.
Those should be removed too then. I don’t think they were nearly as effective as the ice block app was though. Every time I saw an alert in Waze there was nothing or it’s where they park an empty police car.
As does Google maps
Or was the takedown designed to help ICE evade American law?
Same. This app was specifically used to incite violence against law enforcement.
ICE is not law enforcement.
Sure it is, enforcement is even its name.
Just like the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is democratic - flawless logic.
You need to be careful, the word "incite" does not mean what you think it does here.
Maybe the app enabled violence against law enforcement - but Waymo does that too by telling you where traffic cops are. Or Google Maps and Yellow Pages for documenting the location of police stations. Undercover officers, ICE or otherwise, aren't given any special exemptions to the law here.
“It’s ok when our guy does it!”
-SCOTUS majority, American GOP.
He is just joking...
Why are people so obsessed about apps. could be a website that couldn’t easily be taken down.
Well, native apps are more popular among non tech savvy people because they’re easier to find and install. I was talking to the guy who works on our backyard and they don't even know what a browser is on their phone.
> they don't even know what a browser is on their phone.
Why should they? There’s no app called “web browser” on the phone. But there may be “Safari” or “Google Chrome”. Do they know what those are?
If you told them “go to <some web address>”, could they do it?
yeah? and what are they gonna do when they get to safari, type the website, and accept geo location?. You don't know humans. you lost me at "if you told them", who's gonna tell them?
Your outrage and accusations are nonsensical, you didn’t understand my post at all. I was asking about that person specifically.
You can't send a push notification without a certificate that apple controls from a website. Push notifications seem to be key here so that you don't have the constantly open the app/webpage.
They could send a message instead (sms, email, etc) which then can be configured to pop up as a notification.
PWAs are limited in functionality, and websites on the clearnet are easily taken down or blocked.
> websites on the clearnet are easily taken down or blocked.
As are apps, as this submission demonstrates. Websites at least have quick methods of recovery by changing domains or servers.
> PWAs are limited in functionality
By Apple, because it's Apple that a) refuses to implement advanced PWA features in WebKit and b) refuses to allow apps to use other browser engines.
So exactly which festures would be needed in a PWA that’s not currently available in iOS?
It’s just a meaningless talking point without specifics
I have looked into developing a PWA. For starters:
1. Decent storage API. Last time I checked, there were serious limitations on the amount of storage you can use, especially in iOS
2. Mechanism for the user to save a certain . Analogous to saving and running a .exe and being able to compare the file hashes and run different versions of a file without the app developer's intent. This would include the ability to write and edit web apps from your device.
3. Some way of sending TCP/UDP packets directly, and doing port forwarding through UPnP.
4. Mechanism to run processes in the background, and for inter-app communication.
For example, you could not make a decent bittorrent app as a PWA. This is an example of an app which is prohibited on the app store despite having Apple having no legal basis for doing so.
I've often wondered if it would be possible to make some sort of "PWA Browser" that would give web apps hooks to some of this functionality, but it would probably get banned (There are no real rules on the app store, they can just ban you for whatever they want).
And this has nothing to do with my question - what features are lacking that would prevent this particular app from being a web app?
Looking at the changelog, ICEBlock uses push notifications, background jobs, and networking. https://www.iceblock.app/
There's also mention of a GPS fallback which doesn't sound like something you could do in a PWA.
PWAs can’t use Sockets, for one thing.
What on earth would you need that for in this instance?
As a side note, when Apple finally gets their shit together WebTransport is excellent for most socket like use cases.
web transport requires HTTPS, which requires a domain name and PKI for everyone you connect to
what if you want a push notification when ICE agents appear in your work area?
https://web.dev/articles/push-notifications-web-push-protoco...
Without a VAPID key identifiable by Apple, those notifications won't arrive.
Yes, but in that case, it will be less likely to be blocked because the people requesting the blocking are not competent enough to ask for it.
Don't get me wrong, I wish this were not the case, but why let the perfect be the enemy of the good enough?
Maybe an SMS based approach would be preferred over an app notification.
Expensive for the host though
this is what I dont understand. so many apps are almost website-like in functionality, and you can save a shortcut to the desktop / main screen and it will launch / look like an app. complete with notifications (if enabled). What's the barrier? (another poster mentioned not knnowing anything outside of the appstore, but then "Share -> Add to Home screen" is a pretty damn simple flow.
You would be surprised, I have never seen anyone who doesn't work in tech in my life who even knows that this is an option.
Hmm, would be a shame if a major mobile operating system provider also ran a website-blocking service used by the largest web browser (Chrome) and the largest open-source web browser (Firefox).
They could even call it something like Google Safe Browsing to make it sound good to people.
Most people's technical acumen (and access) maxes out at using an iPhone. Often an old one.
Can the same functionality be accomplished with mobile web?
can they do push notification (e.g. when ICE agents show up near your zipcode)
Yes push notifications are possible on mobile web.
Not on iOS.
https://developer.apple.com/documentation/usernotifications/...
Does email work on iOS?
Apple is working hard to make sure the answer is no (by not implementing advanced PWA APIs in WebKit and by not allowing other browser engines on iOS).
so now you are going to list the unavailable features that would make a web app impossible…
This is exactly what's wrong with Apple's app store exclusivity. It's also what's wrong with mandatory notarization where regulations forbid that, and Google's plan to require developer verification.
Websites don’t need an App Store.
Most people don't know they can "install" a website on their phone, let alone that it allows that website to act like an app.
Discoverability of PWAs is quite bad. I'd love them to become more popular, but attempted solutions range from "user manually needs to hit the install button in a menu" to banners capable of saying "install freewhatsappupdate.xyz for exclusive whatsapp deals"/"click install to verify you're human".
Microsoft actually tried to bring more attention to web apps by adding them to their app store, but nobody uses the MS app store.
The brightest minds are working on this problem as we speak
Government agent: "We have top men working on it right now" Indiana Jones: " Who?" Government agent: "Top. Men."
I like this
For how long?
The software on our primary machines used to not need blessing, but that too changed.
as long as it needs to be uploaded onto to monopolies running cloud servers, domain hosters or financial processors
this is why any corrupt government allows the monopolies like Google and Apple proliferate. easier to contain a few
Still don’t? I use FreeBSD.
Did we forget about WEI already? I'm sure Google is waiting for the right time to try it again.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_Environment_Integrity
How would WEI prevent you from running a web-site with functionality similar to the removed apps?
Somewhat roundabout, but WEI can make it so you need to have an allowed device-OS-browser combo for important services like banking. The device can then make it impossible to install another OS, and the OS can make it impossible to install another browser. Then the browser (or the OS) just receives blacklists (and possibly eventually whitelists after everything is entirely corporate captured) from Google/Microsoft/Apple.
Precisely. They could simply say "not our problem" and move along if they didn't have this capability.
But since it exists, it can be abused.
I keep hoping enough people inside Google still give a shit to push back on their plan, but I'm not banking on it.
The idea of a world where users have no control over their own devices is just too attractive for the oligarchs.
Thankfully, there is no reason why any of these apps need to be native apps.
FWIW, everyone who claims that Apple fundamentally needs the centralized ability to control apps on their platforms "for everyone's safety" -- despite how that obviously and repeatedly makes them become patsies for governments all over the world to enforce their censorship regimes -- are complicit in this stuff (in addition, of course, to the people who build it at Apple...).
> are complicit in this stuff
I don’t know that that is fair.
This framing is designed to shame people into feeling guilty for their point of view, rather than their actions.
Being complicit means to be knowingly involved in or facilitating an illegal or wrongdoing act. In my books, it requires a level of participation that I don’t think your characterization meets.
You're dismissing the parent argument merely based on a narrow interpretation of the word complicity. The way they use it is common and correct in English language. All it needs is to aid the wrongdoing in some manner. That's exactly what you do when you choose to support and lend credence to Apple's flawed arguments on safety and thus blunt the opposition to their hostile practices. This is significant because Apple has been forced on occasions to backtrack on bad decisions in the face of public backlash. (Anybody remember their plan to scan all photos in the phone for CSAM?)
Now even if you want to go the pedantic or legal route, the meaning of complicity changes according to jurisdictions. Many legal jurisdictions consider interference in the opposition to a crime or even silence in the face of a crime to be complicity if you had sufficient knowledge about wrongdoer's intent. In this particular case, people had been warning for decades of this exact outcome, down to the details of the headline.
You could argue that this is policing of thought and opinion. Obviously, we're talking about moral responsibility here, which is just another opinion too as far as consequences are considered. (Except in cases of astroturfing and sock puppeting where the complicity is more direct. But we will ignore that possibility for now.)
Thanks.
I don't know about this line of thinking. If you truly believe this, then you could point to just about anyone on earth and state they're complicit in some atrocity or oppression.
I would concede there are degrees of proximity, but this particular example, that if you are in any way contributing to Apple's success (not matter the size) that you are complicit, and by implication be held responsible, for fasicm is truly whacky in my books.
> If you truly believe this, then you could point to just about anyone on earth and state they're complicit in some atrocity or oppression.
Ah! I see where it's going now. You can't reinterpret and dismiss others' statements to your liking. If you choose to vocally support an activity that you know to be harmful in some way, then you're actively complicit in it. That's a choice. And not one that everyone takes to end up fighting with their own conscience. And even those who do, weigh their actions against a moral boundary they maintain.
> I would concede there are degrees of proximity, but this particular example, that if you are in any way contributing to Apple's success (not matter the size) that you are complicit, and by implication be held responsible, for fasicm is truly whacky in my books.
Misinformation peddlers actively frustrate and defeat the efforts of those who try to raise awareness and alarm about the problem. That's plenty enough for them to be held morally responsible for the results.
Sure, Apple probably wants to have control over that too, but are we really going to let them destroy the very thing that made these systems magic? Computers are "magic" because we can program them. Because they are environments. You cannot make a product for everybody. But you can make an environment in which everyone can adapt to their individual needs and use cases. That's what makes the computer magical and so special. A smart phone is nothing without its apps.
So yes, complicit.
The wrongdoing is supporting this company's dominance, which enables this level of censorship.
You’re still not shaming me.
Okay. So your point was not really: "I disagree on moral philosophy, responsibility and the attribution of guilt", it was: "I support Apple's centralized control on all apps you can run, but I don't want to be criticized for the moral implications of state control, censorship and authoritarianism, nor do I want to defend my position on the merits". That's cheap.
It's more like: "I support Apple's centralized control on all apps you can run, as long as that monopoly is only used to squeeze out competition and not for censorship."
Of course government censorship becomes a lot easier if you only need to put pressure on one company.
I don't know if that's necessarily a charitable interpretation of the comment, keeping in mind the HN commenting guidelines. Despite differences in opinion we should give everyone the chance to state their view, no matter what it is, as long as it generates "curious" discussion.
Maybe the framing was not intended to do so?
If you buy apple products, work for the company or own its stock then you are financially facilitating this. I don't know who you are and I don't care, I am just saying this is the basic cause and effect.
Things cannot improve unless stakeholders use their levers to change or abandon the company.
I do 2/3 of those things and have no problem with what Apple is doing. There is no universal right side in this. This being a top comment here doesn't make it true.
FWIW, if you have no problem with what Apple is doing--and a lot of people might not: they might even actively cheer Apple on if they went out of their way to help ICE... not my jam, but a lot of people want to simultaneously be anti-ICE or anti-Trump and pro-Apple--then I don't think my comment becomes "untrue": the point simply would have no serious effect on you, as I guess you are simply OK being "complicit"... today <- which is key, as it isn't like this is the first or last time Apple has become a patsy to governments around the world, restricting access or removing content and software that challenge authoritarian control. I gave an entire talk in 2017 at the Mozilla Privacy Lab on how this happens to centralized systems all the time called "That's How You Get a Dystopia", though Apple is only one segment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vsazo-Gs7ms.
The thing is these are all your opinions and you have a right to them... but you are choosing these words (my guess is they are chosen for you based on your source material) words like "complicit", "patsy", "authoritarian control". Using these words doesn't make them true.
I give you credit for speaking up for what you believe in publicly.
My opinion is that it is pretty self evident that a large or small company would remove an app at the request of the US Government that actively tracks federal agents that are attempting to enforce the law.
Ah, OK, so, that isn't actually the issue I am pointing at directly, which might be the confusion! I am not saying that--if you believe that such apps being pulled is, itself, a bad thing (and, a lot of people do, as they want to claim they are anti-ICE or anti/Trump), the reason that happens at all is not because Apple didn't fight back hard enough today (somehow): it is because Apple didn't make the correct choices years ago, and now they have no choice. Apple is only in a position to do this at all and be asked to remove stuff due to the government's wishes because they set themselves up to have no choice in the matter.
In fact, it is because of just how obviously "self evident" it is that the point can even be made in the first place: if you construct a giant centralized bottleneck on the distribution of software and information, you will end up being asked to use that bottleneck to filter content by governments... not just in the United States, but around the world. If that is truly "self evident" to you, you do not build the centralized bottleneck unless you like the idea of the eventual possible results of such.
And, in that analysis, if you like the result, then you can argue with the tone of the wording, but I don't think the point is "untrue". Apple doesn't really have any choice in the matter, so they are a patsy here. And if you argued to help Apple obtain their centralized position, you are complicit in said result. You might be proud to be complicit, or you might be happy that Apple is a patsy, but that doesn't change the truth of the situation.
So like, great: you say that is self-evident... did you like what happened today? If not, do you like it when Apple does the same thing for counties all over the world--when I said "authoritarian control" it was me talking about other countries, such as China, where I think you would be hard-pressed to argue otherwise--and pulls apps like VPNs and protest coordination tools? If so, again, very not my jam... but it certainly makes sense for you to be happy Apple has no choice and proud of any prior involvement you have with such...
...but, if you ever think Apple is doing stuff that makes your stomach lurch because they have no choice but to follow the edict of a government, the question is: what does that imply for moral product development in this world? Do you build--and then advocate for, or defend on forums--a centralized App Store and deny the ability for third-party software? Or do you, as a principled stance... not do that?
To refrain one more time: we are in intense and powerful agreement that "it is pretty self evident that a large or small company would remove an app at the request of the US Government that actively tracks federal agents that are attempting to enforce the law". That isn't only "your" opinion: that is "our" opinion! ;P
As the moment of agency then happens well before this moment today, we then can't shy away from the real question: do you like Trump and how he's running ICE, and the result it has on families? If you do, again: not my jam ;P, but I totally get why you'd be happy about the result today or confused as to why you should feel differently about it.
However, it isn't obvious to me you do, as you want to hide behind the action today being "self evident", as if that obviates the need to even verify someone's (I want to say "yours" but you might technically be arguing on behalf of an anonymous third party, and I don't want to leave opening to pivot the discussion into whether or not you personally ever advocated for Apple) opinion on ICE: in fact, that is why that political opinion matters so very very much!
In a world where we decide one company has a bottleneck on information and freedom strong enough to quickly remove access to content and tools from a large percentage of the population, suddenly we must care deeply about how that tool will get used. If you don't like how that tool gets used, you really have to be advocating for that tool to not exist.
> If you buy apple products, work for the company or own its stock then you are financially facilitating this.
I don't know that saying to someone: "hey, you're complicit in fascism because you bought an iPhone" is a reasonable stance.
Imagine you're a factory worker who builds a component for Apple products. Is it fair to shout to that person you're enabling the US government's clampdown on peaceful resistance?
Do you think it makes sense to say to the tens of millions of Americans (and foreign investors) who hold positions in S&P 500 that they are complicity in fascism because Apple decided to remove apps?
I can appreciate your passion and conviction, but I don't know that the world is that black and white.
Everyone in this forum seems to be obsessed with personal guilt and blame because the idea that they are responsible for their actions hurts their feelings. I am just talking about the cause and effect here.
The cause is that you are supporting a company that thinks it has the right to control what its users do on their devices, and the effect is that this relationship is easily hijacked by the government. It actually is very straightforward.
If you want to stop the company, you have to convince the stakeholders to change/abandon the company or disempower the stakeholders themselves directly. This is why I make the case here: I can either convince you or oppose you directly.
>I don't know that saying to someone: "hey, you're complicit in fascism because you bought an iPhone" is a reasonable stance.
Don't worry, I do know that it is a reasonable stance. There are a ton of phones on the market that don't enable this type of control, and they are more affordable and useful than iphones. The barrier to entry is slight inconvenience.
>Imagine you're a factory worker who builds a component for Apple products. Is it fair to shout to that person you're enabling the US government's clampdown on peaceful resistance?
Factory workers are probably living in some third world country where they have very little leverage in negotiating the terms of the company, and they are probably too poor to afford iphones and don't care about US politics, but they still have some leverage. So you could shout that to the factory worker but they probably wouldn't care. It would be futile
>Do you think it makes sense to say to the tens of millions of Americans (and foreign investors) who hold positions in S&P 500 that they are complicity in fascism because Apple decided to remove apps?
I don't use this language of fascism because it has because been overused by the left. But my answer is simply yes. Shareholders are responsible for the actions of their companies.
You are just playing this game of deferring responsibility to some non-existent person. The consumer defers blame onto the company. The worker defers blame onto the management. Management defers blame onto the shareholders. The shareholders can pass the blame onto management. At the end of the game we can all shrug and say "well there was nothing I could have done".
The reality is that all stakeholders are to blame. Everyone has some leverage over the company, and many stakeholders have pivotal positions.
Do you have a 401k that somehow doesn’t hold Apple stock? Or are you complicit too?
I don't contribute to my 401k or I liquidate whatever is in it as soon as feasible within the tax model.
I think I have some index funds but I am going to try to put them into the DOW or gold or something.
I have some bad news for you about the Dow: the top 4 companies by market cap in the Dow are Nvidia, Microsoft, Apple, and Amazon.
I wasn't planning on investing in those. Aside from ideological reasons, I am pessimistic about their role in the economy.
I don't have access to the DOW directly, I would still have to choose individual stocks.
If you can buy individual stocks, then you absolutely do have access to the Dow in the form of a myriad of ETFs [1][2][3]. There are also numerous standard mutual funds which consist of all the companies in the DJIA. This is what I thought you were referring to when you said you'd invest in the Dow, hence my comment.
[1] https://investor.vanguard.com/investment-products/etfs/profi...
[2] https://investor.vanguard.com/investment-products/etfs/profi...
[3] https://investor.vanguard.com/investment-products/etfs/profi...
It is simple really. "I do things when they are feasible do me. so others must do things when they are feasible to me"
Bud Tribble was shaming Apple cronies in 1981 when he put "reality distortion effect" in circulation. You can feel however you want, but everyone can see the truth for what it is. Been that way for a while now.
Supporting it is still not complicity though. Wrongdoing, sure.
Whatever the word is, the cause and effect is this:
1. Apple users tolerate the status quo through inaction, which is the centralized distribution of software. 2. Governments take advantage of this status quo to control apple users.
If it was the case that the OS was open, then the US Gov. would have no leverage to prevent the distribution of the software mentioned in the article. However apple's stakeholders enable and justify the centralized software distribution as a feature rather than a bug.
Developers are in on it too: the locked-down ecosystem is more lucrative for them because there are higher entry costs to producing software, and thus reduced competition. It prevents piracy for example, at the cost of preventing the distribution of pretty much all open source software.
There's a difference between having a view and spreading apologia for public consumption.
For example, surely anti-abolitionists' apologia made them more complicit in the continued institution of slavery than those who chose not to make excuses for it did, even if they themselves did not own or facilitate the sale of people.
We don't seem to have a problem with assigning some responsibility for abolition with abolitionists' own apologia, some of it still read in schools today.
They knowingly created the systems they built around having centralized control, everyone told them the consequences of doing that, they did it anyway, this is the result, they are responsible.
It’s happened many times before, and people heard about it and aren’t that stupid or forgetful. They just want to believe something incompatible, so they permit themselves a little internal dishonesty: maybe it’s a separate issue that somebody else will surely figure out, or there’s a better solution (that we won’t pursue), or everybody always exaggerates (but we won’t verify that), or they find a way to hate and dismiss everybody who talks about it. Declaring your own shamelessness is more of the same: you’re reframing the problem from the consequences of your actions to your feelings about those consequences, then addressing only your feelings. It’s the same sort of behavior as heroin addicts, who find a route to happiness that doesn’t push them through the good things that the pursuit of happiness was meant to.
> This framing is designed to shame people into feeling guilty for their point of view, rather than their actions.
Having a point of view and then using that point of view to make public claims, often counter-claims in face of precisely this type of criticism, is an action. Examples are easily found on this forum.
> or wrongdoing act
Which includes simple dishonesty.
Their action is supporting and promoting the model to other people, if they do that
Businessisknowinglyinvolvedinfascism.
Here's a simple thought experiment.
Would have Apple done the same if it was any another country?
Probably not. They would have courts and the democratic processes to help them resist.
But in face of authoritarian government who can hurt Apple's sales the company always bows. Be it actions in China or now action in US. The motive is simply profit.
The company cannot have a centralized control to make it "safer" and then give that way if the profits are under threat. Companies should be shamed for that.
I'm skeptical of this angle. If the app in question is being used by some to commit targeted violence, is it really a question of profit and not safety? Does it really take much pressure to want to get out of that position?
Does Apple publish apps designed for reporting locations of immigrants or minority groups? Is that a line of business they want to be in at all?
Please show where these apps have been used to commit targeted violence.
Your second paragraph reads to me like you’re equating the desire to protest and document the atrocities being committed by government agents to physical threats and violence being committed by unhinged private citizens against minority groups. This is a disingenuous argument.
You do not understand. I am equating the desire of unhinged private citizens to commit violence to the desire of other unhinged private citizens to commit violence. Reasonable people aren't the problem.
"An app that gives you real-time updates on the location of people you deeply dislike" is
It's extremely unlikely that there are not more people out there
The point is that If you're in Apple's position it doesn't especially matter who is being targeted and how many people are actually using the app that way. If they don't want to be in the anonymous people-reporting app game on the basis that it may make people unsafe vis a vis said unhinged private citizens, that's not unreasonable or inconsistent, and it doesn't necessarily take an extraordinary government threat to the business for Apple to want to distance themselves from that kind of app.
Fair enough.
However, you said: "If the app in question is being used by some to commit targeted violence, ..."
Was this a pure hypothetical? If so, I don't think it needs to be addressed until it actually becomes a real problem. Apple itself ships an app that alerts me when a police officer is nearby (Maps), but I haven't heard about any police being targeted with violence because of that.
If it was not a pure hypothetical, I'd be interested to see a link, as I'm not aware of any violence committed due to the existence of ICE-tracking apps. To my previous point though, I am aware of private citizens committing violence against the same groups that ICE targets with kidnapping and trafficking.
It's a hypothetical in that while a) the primary purpose of the app is to locate a certain group and b) people have died due to attacks targeting that group (i.e. Dallas) there is no concrete causative connection between the two.
While it might better satisfy our sense of justice to wait until we can definitely say that a enabled b, the hazard is obvious, and Apple can reasonably determine that they don't want to be party to it.
> I am aware of private citizens committing violence against the same groups that ICE targets ..
Of course. Does Apple host apps whose primary purpose is reporting the location of those groups?
> It's a hypothetical in that while a) the primary purpose of the app is to locate a certain group and b) people have died due to attacks targeting that group (i.e. Dallas) there is no concrete causative connection between the two.
Cool, then I stand by what I said previously: it doesn't need to (and actually shouldn't) be addressed now. The app has value for journalists, protesters, people looking to prevent family or friends from being kidnapped, and others. All of those benefits outweigh purely hypothetical concerns around possible violence.
May be not complicit, but I think people need to be reminded that the context that Apple claims privacy is a fundamental human right and they are the defender of it. Both PR and in court.
And this centralised censorship regimes isn't new. It is exactly the same during Hong Kong protest in 2019.
> Apple claims privacy is a fundamental human right
And what is “privacy”? An iPhone user is not entitled to keep the apps that they run on their phone private.
Any clue how Apple is justifying this? What rules did these apps allegedly break?
Is it blocked globally, or only for U.S. app store phones? Are downloads blocked, or is the app being removed from phones it's already on?
The rule it breaks is Trump doesn’t like it. So Tim Cook bends the knee as the spineless little man he is.
Okay, but that's not what's being asked now is it? What's being asked is the explanation. They aren't telling saying to the public "we love the taste of boots" even if it is true.
No one would ever say this explicitly, but Tim Cook has very clearly shown it by his own personal actions and those of his company.
Okay, but you haven't answered the question either.
Do you not think I'm not aware that Apple is bending the knee? I'm pretty confident JumpCrissCross knows that too.
The question isn't about what's underneath the mask. The question is about what the mask is. What they're pretending the actual reason is. No one here is asking for the real reason because we're already aware. We're indicating it in the comments too. So by trying to tell us what's beneath the mask you're just creating more noise and making it harder to identify the mask
Oh, well, a quick Google gives you the answer I think you're looking for:
> In an email to ICEBlock creator Joshua Aaron, Apple wrote that “upon re-evaluation,” the app does not comply with its app store guidelines around “objectionable” and “defamatory, discriminatory, or mean-spirited content,” according to a copy of the message viewed by CNN.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/10/03/tech/iceblock-apple-removed-t...
It seems to me that the best way to "help push the culture of our community to be more productive" is to be more productive yourself, instead of engaging in meta-discussion about the community not being productive enough for your tastes. In other words, you could have just actually posted the answer to the question instead of scolding two other commenters for not doing so.
When’s your next court date against Apple? Let’s hope the California government can stand against this type of federal overreach.
I have no hope that the solution can be solved through lawfare. The ability of one company to control what the vast majority of people can do with their phones is unacceptable, regardless of what happens with this one app.
Indeed. Web app, SMS, Signal, etc. Have to decouple from centralized systems.
The vast majority of the people on this planet have never touched an iphone. Android dominates basically everywhere outside north america and, interestingly, the DPRK.
Google does the same with the rest of the population, don't they? The methods are different, but the results are the same.
They make some policies, restrictions and changes to their revenue confiscation schemes in lockstep with Apple, or they lag behind them by some years.
But yes, eventually the results are the same: the frog gets boiled.
Except the phones that aren't useing googles app store, such as many Chinese phones and grapheneos users.
I lost--not on the facts, or even on the relevant law, and not even in the district court where we were being heard, but in appeals on a narrow technicality of statute of limitations that we bet our case on (I am explicit about this as Apple didn't "win", so much as "we failed"; I even feel like our case just wasn't argued very well once we got to that level, which hurts)--over a year and a half ago... so, never :(.
Sorry to hear it, that's the justice system for you.
IMO, you're in a unique position where you can make your case to the public, not only is it intensely relevant now, but people will listen to you. Your name/brand carries good will for many.
Even a blog post that can be shared would be valuable. If that's something you'd be interested in, of course.
It’s a shame too, because Apple has the money and brand wherewithal to fight the government. See the FBI vs Apple stuff that happened years ago. That actually won them some real converts.
Capitulating over this is Apple showing their supposed core values have significantly hollowed
Isn’t Apple mostly interested in making more money, though, instead of spending money?
The way I see it of all the top tech giants, Apple has the most to lose with all the tariff shenanigans, so it’s in their [shareholders] interest to stay friends with the current administration.
Apple has never had moral values other than earning money by making great products.
And I say this as someone who is deeply embedded in the Apple ecosystem.
Part of the brand after the FBI fiasco was about being a privacy forward company that didn’t simply capitulate to government demands on a whim. They demonstrated in smaller tests they were willing to put up a fight for those principles.
That of course was now almost a decade ago. They seem to have changed their entire messaging and with it, seemingly their interest in being more than a ROI machine.
It’s a regression not a step forward. Apple was never a paragon but this was legitimately a step in the right direction I felt, but alas, I suspect in today’s culture I am increasingly in the minority position
> but this was legitimately a step in the right direction I felt
I'll steelman against this, but only because I really enjoy entertaining the idea. Even back then, it was a branding farce. The San Bernadino event was in 2015, pretty close proximity to the Snowden leaks which disclosed Apple's 2012 cooperation with PRISM. Best-case scenario, it was an extremely lucky press junket; worst case scenario it was a false-flag operation designed to manufacture trust from the ground-up. In the aftermath, Apple cooperated with local police and federal authorities perfectly well, and the passcode to the shooter's phone did eventually come out. Apple continued providing device access in situations where warrants were issued. They even dropped their eventual charges against NSO Group.
If your tinfoil hat isn't tight enough yet, we're talking about events that happened over a decade after the Halloween documents. Apple's executives (and the three-letter spooks) know that Open Source can ship attestable and secure software that trounces their best paid UNIX or Windows Server subscription on the open market. If the goal is to expand surveillance and you've got a coalition of sycophantic tech executives (somehow, imagine that haha), then it would almost be trivial to program endless RCEs into the client-side with "secure" binary blobs. All the "E2EE" traffic can get copied onto tapes and sent to a warehouse in Langley. Would be like taking candy from a baby.
I am an Apple shareholder.
My Apple shareholder interest is for Apple to preserve its reputation in the long term, including when Trump is long gone.
Please stop repeating this "shareholders only care about short-term money" idea.
I’m also an Apple shareholder.
Tim Cook is a very shareholder-friendly CEO. One of the first things he did after he became CEO, which jobs always refused, was to start stock buybacks.
I have a hard time believing Apple getting in legal fights with the current administration is something that shareholders will appreciate, even if it’s better in the long term.
Regardless, if shareholders care about long term instead of short term, shareholders - as a whole - put the wrong CEO in charge.
> Tim Cook is a very shareholder-friendly CEO.
I feel like John Sculley of all people praising Tim Cook on this point was pretty damning ;P.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/03/ex-apple-ceo-john-sculley-co...
> “Steve Jobs created a loyalty with users that is unparalleled in the consumer technology world. What Tim Cook has done, he’s built a loyalty with shareholders,” Sculley said on “Squawk on the Street.”
> Regardless, if shareholders care about long term instead of short term, shareholders - as a whole - put the wrong CEO in charge.
FWIW, while I keep wondering just how different the entire world would have ended up if Scott Forstall had ended up in charge of Apple instead of Tim Cook, I believe he was also one of the big reasons the App Store ended up as evil as it was (not Steve) :(. Is there anyone whom we could take seriously as having been in serious contention who actually would have done a better job?
this excerpt from Forstall's wiki seems fitting:
> Cook's aim since becoming CEO has been reported to be building a culture of harmony, which meant "weeding out people with disagreeable personalities—people Jobs tolerated and even held close, like Forstall," although Apple Senior Director of Engineering Michael Lopp "believes that Apple's ability to innovate came from tension and disagreement." Steve Jobs was referred to as the "decider" who had the final say on products and features while he was CEO, reportedly keeping the "strong personalities at Apple in check by always casting the winning vote or by having the last word", so after Jobs' death many of these executive conflicts became public.
The tragedy of Apple, and perhaps Steve's biggest oversight, was his own irreplaceability. He failed to procure a suitable successor. Or perhaps there was not enough time. People are Culture. And Steve was a big part of it. The hopes of Apple living on without him are just that, hopes. He built Apple like an orchestra with himself as the conductor; when he left, the music didn’t fall apart immediately, but the score became safer, flatter, more repetitive.
And the number of shares you personally own is irrelevant. The only public companies that ever take long term bets are those that are still founder led.
> Cook, clearly trying to remain calm, shot back: “When we work on making our devices accessible by the blind, I don’t consider the bloody ROI [return on investment]. When I think about doing the right thing, I don’t think about an ROI.”
> Cook then offered his own bottom line to Danhof, or any other critic, one which perfectly sums up his belief that social and political and moral leadership are not antithetical to running a business. “If that’s a hard line for you,” Cook continued, “then you should get out of the stock.”
https://alearningaday.blog/2016/03/12/tim-cook-on-roi/
Making devices accessible cost pennies compared to their revenue and didn’t take any real courage. Come back to me when they stand by their convictions when it can cost them billions in tariffs
The thing is no one really stand by conviction against overwhelming force. Apple take billions in loss, cut supply globally resulting in hundred of thousands laid off at vendor or Apple locations.
These grandstanding activists will move on but real people will suffer due to Apple's action.
I'm also a shareholder and I'd say I'm pretty happy with Apple not needlessly getting involved in fights. The most important thing is not getting tariffed.
Their reputation will be fine, no one but the terminally online are going to stop buying an iPhone because of this.
Pretty sure most of their shareholders feel similarly.
I agree that most people will not hear about this app being removed. (Though note that it's being reported here in "normal people" news, not tech news.)
But it's far from the only way Cook has aligned himself with Trump in just the last few months. The dumb gold-glass plaque and the UK royal visit are two much more visible examples.
Doing what he needs to avoid tariffs is fine in my book. It's practically his responsibility towards shareholders.
> Doing what he needs to avoid tariffs is fine in my book.
And from above:
> The most important thing is not getting tariffed.
I am curious where your personal line is. Surely you have one. If the only way Cook could avoid tariffs were to go on live TV and swear his allegiance to the KKK, would you still support that? What if the only way were for him to pursue direct legal action against you and your family until you’re bankrupt? Eating live puppies? What exactly would you consider to be “too much”?
> Doing what he needs to avoid tariffs is fine in my book
So are we talking anything?
I'm also a shareholder. The most important thing is having principles and sticking to them.
Bending for fascism is fine as long as you get your dividend?
Exactly this, we are not talking the normal cycle of 4 years and then they are out, we are talking a possible "forever" fascism in the US so sticking to points of "I'm happy as long as my sticks are fine" is completey sticking your head in the sand hopping this all goes away soon.
It was obvious Apple was going to bend the knee with that gold plaque.
the only time apple fights the government is when they want to keep illegally firing people and then the NLRB just goes, well sorry they just have too much money to stop them. They use bribe money for everything else.
I wish Steve was still around for these battles. Tim Cook is such a pussy.
It was Steve who decided to make the iphones like this.
Steve was never tested like this was he? Everyone’s about values until they are put into a fucked up situation like Tim Cook. The man had to literally deliver a Roman tribute to this president personally.
He could have refused. Few things would sway public opinion on tariffs like more expensive i devices.
I think Steve would’ve packed it in and retired if he was still around today.
And that shouldn't have happened either. Apple doesn't need the US government, and Tim is himself a billionaire— he sure as hell doesn't personally need them either.
Why would you expect Apple to fight the same administration that it has been prostrating itself for both this term and the last term?
Apple hasn’t had any values aside from its bottom line since Cook took over.
Genuinely hope you're successful with your suit, if that's still ongoing.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45458944 (a quick update in another thread fork)
What exactly do you mean by “complicit” in “this stuff”? What are you accusing?
Quite clearly accusing them of reducing public pressure against Apple putting itself in a position where it's doing exactly what it's doing right now.
Yep. If you're advocating for a policy that leads directly to something, then you're kind of arguing in favor of that something
The problem isn't the centralized control, it's the power the governments have.
> The problem isn't the centralized control, it's the power the governments have.
The governments will always have the power, that's pretty much built into the definition of government.
So, technology needs to be built with this reality in mind. Thus, avoid all centralization.
The government is a centralization of power, it doesn't matter if our devices are "decentralized" if the government can simply make it illegal to use unlocked devices. Or encryption. Or VPNs. Etc.
But that isn't how this has worked, even in places like China where the regime would seem to have that level of power: while they absolutely require Apple--who went out of their way to create a bottleneck on software and information that is just too juicy not to assert external control over--to remove various apps from their store, it is not actually illegal to own or use unlocked devices.
it is not actually illegal to own or use unlocked devices
See also: "Let a hundred flowers bloom!"
> The government is a centralization of power, it doesn't matter if our devices are "decentralized" if the government can simply make it illegal to use unlocked devices.
That is a very binary view of the world, but the world is nothing but shades of gray.
At the very extreme of the most totalitarian government, you're right. Such a government can ban one thing or ban everything.
But in nearly every country, it's vastly easier to go choke a single neck (Apple) and tell them to shut something down, than to chase after tens of millions of individual people with individual devices, if all of them can run whatever they want from wherever they want.
That is the power of decentralization.
The governments will always have the power, that's pretty much built into the definition of government.
Not the definition of our government. Our founding documents state that "Congress shall make no law" along the lines of what Apple is being pressured to do here.
And the executive branch isn't supposed to be making laws at all, even though that's what they're doing.
As the GP says: the problem is the power. But when some of us argue that maybe the government shouldn't have this kind of power, we get shouted down with "HURR DURR MOVE TO SOMALIA THEN," and worse.
It isn't just our government: Apple sells these devices around the world and they pull the same shit in every jurisdiction, and so the Chinese government has been granted by them an extremely powerful axe to just ban software they dislike, a tool they use quite often, forcing Apple to pull apps for VPNs and other P2P tools used by protesters to coordinate in a world where the Internet is locked down. If you are going to create a device and sell it in this world, you have to understand how this world works, and in this world, if you create and defend a centralized bottleneck, you WILL become a patsy.
> Not the definition of our government. Our founding documents state that "Congress shall make no law" along the lines of what Apple is being pressured to do here.
I suggest read up on NSLs.
Sure, that should not be legal if the constitution meant anything, but there it is.
> the problem is the power
Tell me about a single government ever in history that has not abused its power at least sometimes?
While you're right, we should strive for that, we also need to strive for not building centralization that can be abused. Because it will always be abused.
It's both. Apple very intentionaly designs their phones so that they can immediately cut off their user's access to various apps with the flip of a switch and no recourse. It's obvious that this has and will continue to be abused.
At the same time the government of an ostensibly free country that values free speech should absolutely not be making these demands.
At this point I expect such behavior from this administration, they aren't pretending to be anything other than incompetent and corrupt.
Shame on Apple for helping these scumbags, now and in the future.
I guess that iphones will be alright when no government in the world will have that power anymore, then
I think that Apple is a company that has to obey the rule of law. Maybe the problem here isn’t Apple but the rules they are being forced to abide by?
> I think that Apple is a company that has to obey the rule of law.
Right, so the fundamental problem is having a device where the software that runs on it is controlled by a single company. It creates the attractive nuisance of being able to choke off anything the government doesn't like because, as you said, that single point of contact can't avoid obeying the government.
Computing needs to be open and controlled only by each individual owner of each device, so anyone can run whatever they like sourced from wherever they like.
That’s your belief and there is a platform that allows just that.
The fundamental problem here is not specific to Apple; It’s specific to a regime that is overstepping its bounds daily.
> That’s your belief and there is a platform that allows just that.
A platform that's just about to take it away with user registrations. And that isn't just a 'belief' - that's what a lot of people do with their phones.
But the problem here isn't about an alternative. Apple platform is popular enough to make it a juicy target for tyrannical regimes. And when that happens, millions of people find their devices useless or outright hostile towards them, due to lack of user-controlled escape hatches.
> The fundamental problem here is not specific to Apple; It’s specific to a regime that is overstepping its bounds daily.
Would you have predicted the current situation two years ago? Regimes go rogue unpredictably all the time. That's why people argue against this sort of device lock down all the time! It's meaningless to shift the entire blame on to the regime after Apple failed to take precautions in the face these warnings.
> Would you have predicted the current situation two years ago?
Yes. There is nothing surprising to me about the current situation.
> Apple platform is popular enough to make it a juicy target for tyrannical regimes.
Agreed, if for nothing else than its size alone. It is also a target for so many folks to say, "if it was different in this one way, it would be amazing (for me.)"
> Yes. There is nothing surprising to me about the current situation.
That would mean that you willfully defended a vulnerability that you could foresee being exploited.
> It is also a target for so many folks to say, "if it was different in this one way, it would be amazing (for me.)"
Apple has been consistent in their messaging. You have to give up your freedom over your devices to ensure security. Not make it hard or explicit to override safety measures. Not make it safe through careful design. But you have to give up your freedom. And there is no limit to the steps they took in this direction.
People had already pointed out that all those measures were for profit squeezing, disguised as security measures. The most important observation though, was that it's a very flawed argument. Security by centralized control is a vulnerability in itself, as evidenced by this incident.
Apple and its supporters fought this argument in a consistent manner too. With shallow dismissals of the concerns, accompanied by the contemptuous implication that the detractors are overreacting. As if the critics should be ashamed for even bringing them up. They never really address the concern directly. You can see this in action in interviews where their top management justify such decisions. I don't see that having changed much.
But, Apple or any other company doesn't deserve to be let off the hook for incidents like this. There is no reason to consider all their decisions as enlightened, especially when corporate profit seeking is involved.
> That would mean that you willfully defended a vulnerability that you could foresee being exploited.
Nope, I voted against it.
That's not what I am referring to.
What platform? Android is removing installing software from "unverified" developers which leads to this exact same scenario.
The point is that if you could install the app by side loading it, or from a third party app store, then a Government order to remove an app doesn't make it impossible to use that app. But Apples actions, ostensibly to protect its users, but in reality to protect its profits, has put it in a situation where it is a much more effective tool for government censorship.
Rule of law? Is that like the token of appreciation Tim Cook presented?
There are laws. Rule of law is a slippery slope.
There is no law or precedent set that would concern Apple with these apps. Apple is bending the knee. The exact same way they do with China.
> Apple is a company that has to obey the rule of law
Damn right.
Where is the court order? Pursuant to what law?
There's no rule that says they need to block other app stores. That's a choice they made. The consequences are also a choice they made.
> Apple [...] has to obey the rule of law.
No, Apple has to obey the law.
The idea of "rule of law" is a shorthand for the set of norms and practices understood by everyone under a single regime, including both specific laws and authorities and more general principles. One of those, notably, is "the government shouldn't force private companies to censor their app stores".[1]
The rule of law is indeed being violated here, but in the other direction.
[1] Or "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech", if you swing that way.
> The rule of law is indeed being violated here, but in the other direction.
I agree. However, the way things work is such that these things take time to sort out, if they get sorted out at all.
Theres so much technology out there that reports a location with an alert you would figure you could literally make this app with an ios shortcut
I guess all it will take is for all bird-watcher apps to add an option for ICE Agents? We do have those right?
I don't want to fall into the fallacy of implying that this is somehow justified because of something "the left" did a few years ago but I would like to highlight the hypocrisy of how many people were totally okay with this sort of executive censorship when Biden was in charge.
> "We reached out to Apple today demanding they remove the ICEBlock app from their App Store — and Apple did so," Bondi said in a statement to Fox News Digital.
I don't think this is something that trump or biden should be allowed to do, but the classic argument that your constitutional right to free speech ends when the president "politely" asks a software company to censor you on his behalf and they acquiesce is equally [in]valid in both situations.
I have never voluntarily owned an Apple smartphone or tablet, and a huge reason why is because I care a lot about being able to run software on it that Apple doesn't approve of for whatever reason.
Absolutely. The Biden administration was censoring posts (even memes) on Meta platforms during COVID, according to Zuckerberg.
Isn't this the company that was commended for not bowing down to pressure from FBI?
So every issue in the world is same issue?
So let’s level set… ICE can buy data from data brokers, and has active contracts with Cellubrite and Pegasus… but an organized opposition can only use rocks and spears. This isn’t a fascist regime at all.
Fascism comes later.
and until it happens and even after it happens people will be saying “it’s not so bad”
makes me think of alternative ways to share apps like through QR codes but that's a potential honeypot too and also the extra knowledge to do that
really sucks ease of use is a 2 edge sword
What's next, Waze?
The analogy here is porn apps vs Safari.
another day, another example of why we must all vigorously reject the campaign to stop users from installing software on their computers. stallman was right!
Not to refute your point, but a trivial enough thing to create as a web site. I'm guessing that will come next (if one doesn't already exist).
I guess the developers will need to learn HTML+CSS and self host this app on a Russian server. Will be good to showcase the freedom of the web!
I am going to use this news to hit every lemming in the face - those who claim corpo-controlled walled gardens are good for you and grandma.
I’m not sure who you’re expecting to convert. Most people- thinking of people like my parents- think any app that hinders police must be a bad thing.
The idea that something like ICEBlock is benevolent and doesn’t make the user a criminal by association just doesn’t register.
Surely an app designed to help circumvent the law is a bad thing, even if it doesn't make one legally a criminal merely by association?
> Surely an app designed to help circumvent the law is a bad thing, even if it doesn't make one legally a criminal merely by association?
Much like Miranda rights. Surely outright informing people in custody they have the right to remain silent is a bad thing, right? Actually, thinking about it now, there's a whole lot of things people have the right to do that make enforcing the law way harder than it needs to be.
Or maybe it's more important to maintain your rights as a human being and citizen, especially in the face of an overreaching executive branch willing to justify anything in order to overreach a little more.
Why is that a bad thing? Was the Underground Railroad a bad thing?
In a society with rule of law, it is generally understood that adhering to laws, even ones you don't personally like, is a good thing; and that it would be a bad thing to pick and choose which laws to follow and enforce.
I suppose you're making the argument that current US immigration law is unjust and immoral to begin with and therefore should be actively circumvented?
> In a society with rule of law
We no longer have a society with the rule of law. The fish rots from the head. You can thank everyone who voted for the wanton criminal promising everything yet nothing but destruction, now creating cruel spectacle after cruel spectacle to distract from the fundamental fact that he should be in prison. And additionally his enablers in Congress and on the Supreme Council who've decided that our Constitution is worth less than toilet paper.
https://xkcd.com/3081/
Immigration is a veneer around "grab whoever we want with no due process".
In the norms of its time, I am sure many thought it was a bad thing. Slave owners, certainly.
It’s only looking at it through today’s drastically different norms that it’s an obviously good thing.
Only if subjectively cherry picking. VPN apps "help circumvent the law", I wouldn't call them a bad thing
VPNs can serve a legitimate purpose, like shielding your traffic while using a public network. Seems to me the better technology analogue to ICEBlock is The Pirate Bay; maybe there's some flimsy pretext of it being used for a legitimate purpose, and maybe it's not outright illegal, but everyone knows that it's almost always used for an illegal purpose.
> but everyone knows that it's almost always used for an illegal purpose
And I would argue that to the general population (non-HN/tech types) a VPN is the "Pirates Bay" of banned or ID law content. Porn ID law goes into effect, tens of thousands of people suddenly sign up for a VPN. If they thought of it as "shielding your traffic while using a public network" they wouldn't be signing up en masse when laws happen that they want to circumvent; they would have already been using it.
As for ICEBlock et al, knowing they are raiding in a part of a city that happens to be on someones running or cycling/walking route while being a darkly pigmented citizen is a valid use of the app to know to stay clear of the area. It should not be a thing, but it is.
ICE is abducting citizens and generally stirring up chaos to make pretexts for escalating federal occupations. Anyone would be an utter fool to voluntarily put themselves in the presence of the new "American" Gestapo. And since the number of citizens is much larger than the number of iLlEgAlS (regardless of what the fearmongering on boomers' TVs would have you believe), an app to help avoid the lawless thugs is in the same exact category as a VPN.
I haven't heard about ICE detaining any US citizens who weren't either actively interfering with ICE activity as part of a deliberate anti-immigration-law-enforcement protest, or closely associating with actual illegal immigrants.
Detaining people who are actively interfering with ICE activity as part of a deliberate protest is something I think it's reasonable for any kind of police to be able to do - there's no reason why fellow citizens in a democracy should inherently privilege the violence protesters do in order to prevent the enforcement of a law over the violence that the police do to in order to carry out that enforcement, it all comes down to your political opinion of the law.
Detaining US citizens while in the process of detaining illegal immigrants also seems reasonable, since there's no way to tell if a suspected illegal immigrant claiming to be a US citizen is lying or not until law enforcement actually checks. This is no different than cops being able to arrest a person on suspicion of a crime and then let them go with no charges when they realize they were mistake, which is a power cops already have in our society.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/u-s-citizen-wrongfully-d...
> The new lawsuit describes repeated raids on workplaces despite agents having no warrants nor suspicion that specific workers were in the U.S. illegally, and a string of U.S. citizens — many with Latino-sounding names — who were detained.
Working at a workplace that has a large immigration workforce is also not a crime or a reason to be detained. Yes, these things are working their way through the legal system -- as it should. But US citizen rights are being violated and sticking one's head in the sand or hand waving away these things is crazy to me, a US citizen, it's not how I was raised in the South. I can understand non-citizens/residents thinking that way though. They have their own experience
Having brown pigmented skin, working with brown pigmented skin people or speaking spanish doesn't weaken a citizens rights to make these rights violations "reasonable". If someone is "actively interfering" with ICE that's not immigration enforcers job to deal with, and should be handled/handed over to the local police force and taken to a police center, not immigration detention.
> Working at a workplace that has a large immigration workforce is also not a crime or a reason to be detained.
It's not a crime to work at a workplace with a large immigration workforce, but it is a reason why you might reasonably be detained by federal officers specifically investigating workplaces with large numbers of immigrants where it's widely known that many of those immigrant workers are not legally in the country.
> If someone is "actively interfering" with ICE that's not immigration enforcers job to deal with, and should be handled/handed over to the local police force and taken to a police center, not immigration detention.
In a lot of places where ICE is operating the local police have been ordered by local political leadership not to assist ICE because local political leadership is anti-immigration-law-enforcement. There have been cases in New York, Portland, the Bay Area, probably other places too where local law enforcement refused to assist ICE, or did assist ICE in violation of local law banning this. There are reasonable constitutional justifications for states or localities to be able to pass laws banning local law enforcement from assisting with federal law enforcement, but that also implies that detaining people actively interfering with their investigation is in fact part of the job of federal law enforcement.
Depends on the law and how it's enforced. You could argue the current status-quo is law breaking by law enforcement, so circumventing them is enforcing the law.
With that attitude in 1775-76, the US wouldn't have won independence. Would you tug your forelock (and empty your purse) and Kneel to the King ?
I assume your point is that not all laws are just only by virtue of being laws. I agree with this. And of course, not all lawbreaking is equal in severity. We all can tell that jaywalking is not the same as vehicular homicide. At the same time, we should also be able to agree that selective following and enforcement of laws is disparaging to the spirit of a nation of laws.
Do you find the current American immigration laws, and the enforcement thereof, to be unjust? Do you see it as your moral duty to abrogate them, and help others do so? If so, can you explain why?
Depends on your opinion of the law that people are circumventing.
Then the government will just force ISP DNS not to answer queries for the domain. That's how easy you can block 99% of users, which is good enough.
And eventually, when all our hardware is runs-software-and-settings-signed-by-approved-entity-only, that last 1% can't do anything about it either.
Aren't mobile apps more or less already HTML+CSS?
A basic website should be easier to write and maintain than any app, because you don't have to maintain both the server and the client.
Indeed, not sure why it wasn’t a website already!
Does it have to be an application? Why not just a website?
Those can be requested to be taken down as well...
Host it in a country with free speech then
No need for actual free speech. Host it in Russia, China, Venezuela, Iran, DPRK, or any other strategic adversary of the United States. The success of ICEBlock is 100% inline with their information warfare goals. The more strife they can spread, the more protests, the more violence, the more confrontations, and the more 'noise' that gets made about ICE in the US, the better for them.
That doesn't mean the developer of ICEBlock is anti-American, just that there's a common interest in seeing his project succeed.
That doesn’t prevent being blocked in other countries.
Sure, but "fuck you, make me" continues to be the best course of action. If they threaten to block you, make them, don't give up in advance.
Yup, that's what I wish Apple would do here.
Which is...?
can website do push notification? (e.g. when ICE agents show up near your zipcode)
> can website do push notification?
Text or e-mail.
Not exactly fool proof though. An adversarial government could force Google or the telecoms providers to block such email/text messages?
> An adversarial government could force Google or the telecoms providers to block such email/text messages?
Texts, probably. E-mail, improbably. At least not trivially in America.
Yes
Need to get crafty.
Make ICE spotting a plausibly deniable covert subtext via an otherwise popular medium.
Like (probably apocryphal) Jesus fish.
Both Pokemon and Polytopia have ice themed combatants, right?
Whenever you see some masked thugs staging for another round of terror, start a match as one of those tribes, trainers, or whatever. Build a certain kind of (creature) deck recognizable by anyone "in the know". Use some kind of slang. Like WWII's code talkers.
I don't actually know how Pokemon and the multiplayer Polytopia work. But y'all get the idea.
I keep thinking of the "slug bug" game bored kids play in the back seat. See a VW Beetle, yell "slug bug" first, and then punch your sibling. I think "Eye Spy" is the nice version.
Do mobile games like that exist? Surely someone's done it. A Foursquare for kids. Or something.
Again, y'all get the idea.
IMHO, this is just another example of something that would be better off as a website/webapp than a native app. If anything, having an app that tracks ICE agents installed on your device seems more like a liability than an asset.
Monopolies are bad ideas for so many reasons. The government has recently learned they actually like them
> Authorities said the suspect, Joshua Jahn, searched his phone for tracking apps, including ICEBlock, before opening fire on the facility from a rooftop.
Thats weird because you dont need iceblock to know that ICE is at an ICE facility
Its for when they’re spotted in neighborhoods
dumb rationale, dumb response
Jahn wasn't a big thinker. He used an iron-sighted old surplus rifle to shoot at vans that were filled with detainees rather than employees.
https://archive.is/ZIqOO
Will teach some friends how to side load this and tell them to each teach 2-3 friends.
Everything in the ICE tracking apps can be done as a web page. Good luck to MAGA trying to stop this, but the ugliness of ICE tactics will inspire a lot of people to build some very good technology to stop it.
They also removed app that tracked us drone strikes all over the world IIRC like 13 years ago. So probably nothing new under the sun. The joy of appstores and walled gardens.
I do not go to any fox sites, so here is a dup using a different news site for this:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45461951
No surprise here, all companies would do the same. But I was planning on moving to Apple once my current Android fails, not now.
I am hoping the Linux Phone I hear about advances to the point where my Cell Service supports it. Will see because I am pretty much done with Android and Apple.
17 years on from the App Store we're still trying to get people to wrap their heads around just using websites. And to think probably all of the users of the app are finding out about it via a LINK in a message or social post.
Why does this need to be an app?
This is the problem with the modern "app" way of doing things. This sort of thing would be best handled as a website so that users need not run specific software on thier phones. Reports can come in as basic emails parsed for a lat/long or grid. Then a kml file can be pushed as needed to a basic web-facing map. The bandwidth would be minimal and very resistant to shutdown. Heck, share the kml files via torrents or put the map server in tor if necessary. No apps required.
The DOJ would just have the website host, the ISP, or the domain registrar revoke and terminate everything
In practice this seems much more difficult to do than going after the app in the app store, particularly if you choose your registrar and hosting provider carefully.
Ya, the pirate bay is still online, so too innumerable similar sites once targeted by various agencies. A smallish map running on a RP plugged into tor would be very resiliant. But there is a bittorent protocol that allows for rolling updates to a torrent. That would be the best way to distribute kml files imho.
What’s this updatable BitTorrent protocol? I wished for something like this years ago as an auto-updating torrent for downloading Wikipedia with live (or daily or whatever) changes.
https://www.bittorrent.org/beps/bep_0046.html
They were called mutable torrents. A private key would allow the originator to push out updates via dhts.
this is really neat. I've been looking for this sort of functionality with IPNS, but it seems like bittorrent could be better. Do clients implement this yet?
It has been 15+ years since i looked into it. I do remember using it with transmission so it may be out there already.
Website can't provide notification on iOS. You may find workaround but that would be either expensive or under Apple's control. This use-case without notifications is quite useless.
It can just fine
https://www.mobiloud.com/blog/pwa-push-notifications
"Do what we say or you get the tariffs". Straight up corrupt mob boss shit.
No worries apple users! Just side load it.... Oh.. Wait...
We're preemptively complying with the fascists. It's illegal to talk about what you see in public now.
America, you really owned the libs.
I cannot believe it's really happening. Few months ago it was just jokes...
it was never jokes. that's what we tried to tell everyone ten years ago.
I saw it incomment on some other HN post, but:
The acquiescence of megacorps is essential for fascism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_collaboration_with_Na...
JUST SAY NO!
Reading the comments on that Fox site is depressing. A lot of hate for Apple, but for the wrong reasons (as in, completely missing the danger of centralized app stores..).
The median age for a Fox News viewer is 69, according to Nielsen.
I think this website overestimates the halo effect Apple garners with the commonfolk.
I wouldn't make the mistake of thinking comments on a Fox article are indicative of... anything, really.
Most smell of foreign propaganda bots or unhinged political obsessives that I've seen
"Apple takes down illegal app criminals used to circumvent law enforcement"
FTFY Fox :)
what's illegal about talking to people about what you saw in public?
Give me a break, don't play word games.
If you created an app that essentially doxed police and schemed ways to circumvent their ability to enforce the law, I'd hope you would get in trouble for that, especially if it compromised the safety of those you care about, don't you agree?
What word games is he playing? You're making a factual claim about the legality of something, and you're being directly queried on the veracity of that claim.
Given that it's legal (in the US) to film/livestream cops so long as they are not obstructed in the commission of their duties, and in the wider context of the First Amendment, I find it relatively hard to believe that merely reporting cop sightings is illegal. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/02/yes-you-have-right-fil...
It is widely agreed that transparency and accountability in policing makes for better policing.
define doxxing. I saw a guy with a hat on on main st. is telling you that fact doxxing him?
ICE tracking apps put ICE agents in danger, and the same kind of app for, say, tracking Meta employees or “people who wear Team Blue T-shirts” or any other group would obviously be a danger as well. How on earth do people find this controversial..?
ICE puts people in danger and disregards their due process.
When a group is performing unconstitutional activities they should be tracked and stopped where possible.
There's individual cases of unconstitutional behaviour, but ICE itself isn't unconstitutional. It was unconstitutional to effectively lock people in their homes during covid, but it was done anyway.
It’s unconstitutional to raid an entire apartment building and force everyone out as they search for potential “illegals” to take away without due process.
We are far beyond a couple an individual cases, it’s become the norm.
Stay at home orders for health reasons are constitutional. Also, in countries that had stricter rules far fewer people died.
When bringing comparisons to a discussion… check if you’re right, and maybe check if it’s even a good comparison.
Are masked Meta employees kidnapping people at gunpoint and deporting them to foreign gulags?
Is turnabout no longer fair play, then?