Live data from Hacker News

Apple takes down ICE tracking apps after pressure from DOJ

foxbusiness.com

521–530 of 645 posts

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

#521
post #514

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Clearly the intent is that protestors can show up to disrupt enforcement actions. Was this your claim or your description of someone else's claim? You and the ICEBlock developer compared it to Waze. People use Waze to avoid speed traps. Not protest them.

> People use Waze to avoid speed traps. Not protest them. Exactly! So it is about protest then? You don't want people to show up and display their displeasure at the execution of a particular policy? Y'know, peaceably assembling and petitioning for redress of grievances and all? You don't maybe see a first amendment argument here? Upthread commenter dropped "malicious" to imply something presumably worse, like threat…

> So it is about protest then? You don't want people to show up and display their displeasure at the execution of a particular policy?

I questioned the claim ICEBlock was intended clearly for protest.

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

#522
post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> 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.

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

#525
post #518

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

#526

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.

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.

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

#528

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 mus…

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?

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

#529
post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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…

> 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.

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

#530

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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 y…

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.

Post reply on HN