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

Apple defined ICE as a "protected class" in blocking anti-ICE apps

boingboing.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 71 posts

Re: Apple defined ICE as a "protected class" in blocking anti-ICE apps

#41

Post by tremon »

throwawaylaptop wrote: post #40
Crushable-E wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean sure, but ICE is not an intelligence agency or holds classified information.

They're some kind of law enforcement agency that is on a mission to capture people breaking laws. If your local sheriff is on their way to serve a warrant of some kind, and you call the person and warn them to leave or alert them to destroy evidence, is that going to go well? I don't think it should.

Please stop calling ICE law enforcement. Yes, they enforce something but it's not the law.

Re: Apple defined ICE as a "protected class" in blocking anti-ICE apps

#42

Post by intermerda »

tyleo wrote: post #19
intermerda wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know why you feel it's loaded if the language of "targeted group" is accompanied with every single group that is a protected class. > 1.1.1 Defamatory, discriminatory, or mean-spirited content, including references or commentary about religion, race, sexual orientation, gender, national/ethnic origin, or other targeted groups, particularly if the app is likely to humiliate, intimidate, or harm a targeted indi…

It doesn’t cover every protected class. You can look them up. > This "ackchyually" behavior from HN is so bizarre. Folks generally want to discuss the facts here, not hyperbole. The headline is hyperbolic. The fact is that Apple isn’t saying ICE is a “protected class”. The content of the article doesn’t even back this point up.

The fact is that neither the headline nor the article claims that the definition of "protected class" being used is the same exact legal definition used in the US.

The fact is that Apple is saying ICE is a "targeted group" and lays out every single legally protected class along with it. You can look them up if you are unaware.

The fact is that the article backs this point by citing the exact TOS.

You don't care about facts.

Re: Apple defined ICE as a "protected class" in blocking anti-ICE apps

#43

Post by tyleo »

intermerda wrote: post #42
tyleo wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn’t cover every protected class. You can look them up. > This "ackchyually" behavior from HN is so bizarre. Folks generally want to discuss the facts here, not hyperbole. The headline is hyperbolic. The fact is that Apple isn’t saying ICE is a “protected class”. The content of the article doesn’t even back this point up.

The fact is that neither the headline nor the article claims that the definition of "protected class" being used is the same exact legal definition used in the US. The fact is that Apple is saying ICE is a "targeted group" and lays out every single legally protected class along with it. You can look them up if you are unaware. The fact is that the article backs this point by citing the exact TOS. You don't care about…

> You don't care about facts.

And you evidently don’t care about having a discussion. You’d rather criticize.

Re: Apple defined ICE as a "protected class" in blocking anti-ICE apps

#46

Post by nxobject »

throwawaylaptop wrote: post #40
Crushable-E wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean sure, but ICE is not an intelligence agency or holds classified information.

They're some kind of law enforcement agency that is on a mission to capture people breaking laws. If your local sheriff is on their way to serve a warrant of some kind, and you call the person and warn them to leave or alert them to destroy evidence, is that going to go well? I don't think it should.

The analogy doesn't quite match up –

– Parent is talking about making public the identities of ICE employees, doing things in public, which is by far and large true of your local sheriff;

- Individuals are reporting the presence of ICE in the area. A deliberate ambiguity is maintained about what ICE does beyond "detain people" -- whether as "collateral damage" or targeted. Intervening with the two gives us two very different circumstances.

Re: Apple defined ICE as a "protected class" in blocking anti-ICE apps

#47

Post by raw_anon_1111 »

like_any_other wrote: post #12

For anyone remotely surprised: Apple Told Some Apple TV+ Show Developers Not To Anger China - https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/alexkantrowitz/apple-ch... Apple quietly deletes nearly a hundred VPNs that allowed Russians to get around censorship - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41712728 Apple CEO Tim Cook "secretly" signed an agreement worth more than $275 billion with Chinese officials, promising that Apple…

I see ethically there being a difference between what the Chinese and Russian government told them to do where leaders make and enforce the laws with their capitulation to the Trump administration in what is suppose to be a democracy where only the legislative branch and/or court system can demand anything.

I’m also not trying to escuse their heavy handedness about “being nice to China”

Re: Apple defined ICE as a "protected class" in blocking anti-ICE apps

#48

Post by throwawaylaptop »

tremon wrote: post #41
throwawaylaptop wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're some kind of law enforcement agency that is on a mission to capture people breaking laws. If your local sheriff is on their way to serve a warrant of some kind, and you call the person and warn them to leave or alert them to destroy evidence, is that going to go well? I don't think it should.

Please stop calling ICE law enforcement. Yes, they enforce something but it's not the law.

What is it they are enforcing then? I once showed up in Vietnam without my tourist visa approved correctly (long story). Let me tell you, they take that stuff very seriously. Canada won't even let you visit Canada if youve had a DUI in recent years. A semifamous comedian wasn't allowed entry into Canada 20 years after he got charged with some form of statutory rape at 18. (He and two friends, 18 to 20, pressured a 16 year old into sex. Heavily contested). Yet we are supposed to let people in without documentation? Without background checks? What kind of insanity is that.

Re: Apple defined ICE as a "protected class" in blocking anti-ICE apps

#49

Post by bdhe »

throwawaylaptop wrote: post #48
tremon wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please stop calling ICE law enforcement. Yes, they enforce something but it's not the law.

What is it they are enforcing then? I once showed up in Vietnam without my tourist visa approved correctly (long story). Let me tell you, they take that stuff very seriously. Canada won't even let you visit Canada if youve had a DUI in recent years. A semifamous comedian wasn't allowed entry into Canada 20 years after he got charged with some form of statutory rape at 18. (He and two friends, 18 to 20, pressured a 16…

Let's also talk about the how of the enforcement not just the what.

Would you be saying the same thing if you HAD a valid Vietnamese tourist visa and was snatched off the road and detained for several hours without access to a lawyer in terrible conditions by unbadged masked "agents"?

https://abcnews.go.com/US/lawyer-us-born-citizen-detained-ic...

Re: Apple defined ICE as a "protected class" in blocking anti-ICE apps

#50

Post by garbagewoman »

JohnMakin wrote: post #6
uhgseyjnn wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is 404 media banned?

It's not, I see it on the front page all the time. Lots of times the topics they report on get flagged, though. My favorites has a lot of 404 links. My understanding is if there's an archive link it should be fine.

It is banned, apparently because it is paywalled and doesn’t allow people to use paywall bypass links, which isn’t true and so the reasoning doesn’t make any sense, so clearly there is a different reason
Post reply on HN