Earlier quoted context omitted.
You left out the pretty important part of § 372 " by force, intimidation, or threat ". Please don't just make up cover for capitulation. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/372
[flagged]
[deleted]
Apple takes down ICE tracking apps after pressure from DOJ
221–230 of 645 posts
Re: Apple takes down ICE tracking apps after pressure from DOJ
#222Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
So you're suggesting that prior restraint on constitutionally protected speech is justified because Pam Bondi, mouthpiece for the president, asserts that publishing publicly observable information about federal officers is designed to put them at risk from waves hands , and not that the risk, if there actually was one, should be dealt with from whatever she's waving her hands about? It's always funny when people are…
Some people crave authoritarianism, and the feeling of safety it provides them (at the expense of others), and will repeat any words that make them feel better about doing so, even if the words are lies obvious even to themselves.
Re: Apple takes down ICE tracking apps after pressure from DOJ
#223[flagged]
The app doesn't do that.
It gives people a heads up that constitution-hating armed forces are in the area, forces that can search you and tear up your home without a warrant. This is happening now.
Armed and masked intruders who don't have to identify themselves should be forced out of cities. Those federal employees should be shunned for the rest of their lives for blindly enforcing the whims of a dictator.
Re: Apple takes down ICE tracking apps after pressure from DOJ
#224Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 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'm also a shareholder. The most important thing is having principles and sticking to them.
Re: Apple takes down ICE tracking apps after pressure from DOJ
#225Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wish Steve was still around for these battles. Tim Cook is such a pussy.
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.
I think Steve would’ve packed it in and retired if he was still around today.
Re: Apple takes down ICE tracking apps after pressure from DOJ
#226Earlier quoted context omitted.
Google disputes that: https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2025/09/lets-talk-...
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}
Re: Apple takes down ICE tracking apps after pressure from DOJ
#227Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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
PWAs can’t use Sockets, for one thing.
Re: Apple takes down ICE tracking apps after pressure from DOJ
#228Earlier quoted context omitted.
You left out the pretty important part of § 372 " by force, intimidation, or threat ". Please don't just make up cover for capitulation. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/372
[flagged]
If that opinion had legal weight, then it could have been laundered through a legal instrument like a court order. It is complete nonsense legally. People who have wanted to find ICE agents to attack have succeeded in finding their headquarters and attacking them there. The more obvious purpose of the app is to identify ICE agents in order to avoid being victimized by them. Regardless of the actual purpose of the app, simply identifying a person's location does not legally constitute a threat, and is protected by the first amendment.
There's a irony here. Google recently was stuck in front of congress and had to apologize for censoring people at the behest of the previous presidential administration despite not being legally required to. Now we have the current administration pressuring companies to censor their users, and those companies readily complying. Nothing has changed except for the political orientation.
Re: Apple takes down ICE tracking apps after pressure from DOJ
#229Not 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).
Re: Apple takes down ICE tracking apps after pressure from DOJ
#230FWIW, 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...).
When’s your next court date against Apple? Let’s hope the California government can stand against this type of federal overreach.
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 :(.