Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple takes down ICE tracking apps after pressure from DOJ

foxbusiness.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 645 posts

Re: Apple takes down ICE tracking apps after pressure from DOJ

#281

Post by komali2 »

andsoitis wrote: post #133
komali2 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 author…

> Give me guarantees, What’s the incentive?

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.

Re: Apple takes down ICE tracking apps after pressure from DOJ

#282

Post by imoverclocked »

ImPostingOnHN wrote: post #222
magicalist wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Some people crave authoritarianism ... (at the expense of others)

Yes, and even to the expense of themselves. The cult of personality is real.

Re: Apple takes down ICE tracking apps after pressure from DOJ

#283

Post by komali2 »

tempodox wrote: post #253
andsoitis wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Re: Apple takes down ICE tracking apps after pressure from DOJ

#284

Post by JumpCrisscross »

imoverclocked wrote: post #275
magicalist wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> So you're suggesting that prior restraint on constitutionally protected speech is justified I have no idea how you got there but if you brought a case with a team of lawyers to get the apps re-instated based on the 1st amendment, I'd be happy about it. It would be interesting precedent too. However, my point is nothing about that. What should Apple do while following laws and being accused of hosting apps that enda…

> What should Apple do while following laws and being accused of hosting apps that endanger law enforcement?

Ask for a warrant. Same way they did to the FBI years ago.

Re: Apple takes down ICE tracking apps after pressure from DOJ

#287

Post by dialup_sounds »

thisisit wrote: post #264
andsoitis wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

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 t…

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?

Re: Apple takes down ICE tracking apps after pressure from DOJ

#288

Post by sschueller »

amazingamazing wrote: post #67

Why are people so obsessed about apps. could be a website that couldn’t easily be taken down.

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.

Re: Apple takes down ICE tracking apps after pressure from DOJ

#289

Post by godelski »

andsoitis wrote: post #63
saurik wrote: post #8

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.

  > rather than their actions.
OP's comments are about action

  >> 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.

So yes, complicit.

Re: Apple takes down ICE tracking apps after pressure from DOJ

#290

Post by JuniperMesos »

DaiPlusPlus wrote: post #3

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.

This wasn't the first one either.
Post reply on HN