Live data from Hacker News

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

boingboing.net

61–70 of 71 posts

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

#61
baffling that in this day and age Apple can have some sort of a dictatorship in deciding what people can or cannot install in their own phones they purchased with their own money, and Google taking similar steps towards that direction as well. I guess people just got used to this.

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

#62
post #57

I'm generally very anti-Apple when it comes to their draconian control over the code I'm allowed to execute on hardware I've purchased. However, I'm going to devil's advocate this situation for a minute (and I do mean the devil , because that is what Apple is): Very broadly speaking, my position that I feel strongly on is: Apple should enjoy a right to distribute or restrict whatever apps they want through their app…

> ...but let's pretend like it isn't...

You can't just do this. If you assume 1=2 all of math falls apart, and the same is true when you assume obviously un-true facts: the reason all of this matters at all is only because Apple wants to ban this kind of software from being native AT ALL, not merely because they don't want to themselves distribute something they dislike. I'd happily stand up to defend their right to do the latter if-and-only-if they stop doing the former, and you can't separate these two issues.

> ...the anti-ICE app wants in the App Store because of the marketing and ease of distribution it enables...

And so like, here: I don't care if the app doesn't get to be in the App Store, and I don't care if it gets "marketing" or "ease of distribution" from Apple. I do care that it gets to be a native app. I deeply deeply care about that.

(BTW, the App Store in fact DOES NOT provide marketing, and if you ever go to any developer conference that focuses on mobile apps that's extremely common knowledge. Except in extremely narrow circumstances, users do not discover apps inside the App Store: they discover apps from advertisements, word of mouth / viral features, and searching for things on Google. The search engine inside of the App Store is pitiful and, to the extent to which it works at all, often surfaces your competitor's app before yours.)

> Why is this situation better for the anti-ICE app than just being a web app? This should be a web app, right? It shouldn't really rely on any native capabilities.

I mean, in a perfect world, this app wouldn't be a web app, because a web app makes it really easy to go to the servers and shut it down, allows for a network choke-point to discover its users by traffic analysis, and generally harass (whether legally or illegally) the people who are paying for the service to exist.

What you want here is a peer-to-peer service, which requires a native app that you can download from numerous sources, one that is published anonymously, one which uses DHTs to store information and which builds on a platform capable of hidden services... and yet you also want to have things like push notifications (possible from native apps using local notifications that are surfaced after background updates).

Like, I dunno: this entire discussion is always so broken as it relies on so many assumptions made by people about what actually should happen... but every single one of these assumptions is buying into a narrative frame that Apple themselves have set through the years by choosing what to cripple in their quest to own app distribution.

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

#63

Why don't citizens have the right to track federal agencies? Don't they serve us? Apple is capitulating to autocratic rule.

I'm gonna steelman an argument I don't hold: What about CIA? Revealing the identity of a CIA operative is a crime. I'm just responding to the part "Don't they serve us?" > Intentionally disclosing the identity of a U.S. intelligence agent, including a CIA officer, is a federal crime under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act (IIPA), which can result in up to 10 years in prison and fines. This law applies to ind…

Revealing the identity of a CIA officer is not a crime unless you hold/held a clearance or it is part of a 'pattern of activities' designed to reveal such identities. Regular people have freedom of speech.

Such a law protecting ICE would not withstand scrutiny by the courts.

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

#65
post #58
post #26

Ok so what do we do? I'm serious. I'm sick of this corruption.

The corruption is allowing illegal immigrants into the country in the first place. Its a mess that needs cleaned up. I dont condone excessive use of violence unless it's warranted, but open your eyes. Biden allowed the flood gates open. You have to recognize this reality. Trumps deportation numbers are not out of trend with prior presidents. Its on par with Obama. Make immigration easier for law abiding productive me…

Your post is really using alternative facts.

Trump's deportation numbers, despite being wildly disrespectful of the Courts and lacking legality, are way down from Biden and Obama. Instead he's arresting and harassing citizens and people with legal status based on their ethnicity.

Trump is pushing to deport people fleeing authoritarian dictators and war zones, and stripping resources from counter narcotics and people smuggling operations. People smuggling is actually increasing and communities will no longer co-operate with police, leading to increased gang activity. This suits Trump perfectly.

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

#66
post #60

Why don't citizens have the right to track federal agencies? Don't they serve us? Apple is capitulating to autocratic rule.

Yes - you have the right to observe public actions of federal agencies and agents and to report on them. However a private entity, including Apple, is free to censor whatever they want on their platforms. For example, I have the right to voraciously criticize or praise the current Administration or the prior Administration without government interference. However if you own a grocery store you are generally free to b…

> a private entity, including Apple, is free to censor whatever they want on their platforms

In case of the duopoly, when the consumers have no practical choice of the platform, this should be illegal, too.

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

#68
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…

The examples you mentioned would not fall into ICE scope of action, but CBP.

> Yet we are supposed to let people in without documentation? Without background checks? What kind of insanity is that.

Let me tell you that, in my experience, the US very much enforces all these requirements, to the point where foreigners have to pay the US government hundreds of dollars for the _chance_ of getting a temporary visa. And again, ICE has nothing to do with the process.

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

#69

It's REALLY weird the Apple's app store supports generic "targeted groups". Looks like Apple literally is chasing the lowest common denominator of risk management by not upsetting groups.

> not upsetting groups

Have you been following Apple's China policies and decisions?

Post reply on HN