There's not. But it attempts to thwart the administration's efforts into conducting raids.
The DoJ is supposed to uphold the law, and not be criminals themselves.
The easier it is to pay off officials. The easier it is to escape juris diction. The easier it is to live the way you want, laws be damned.
That was just as accurate a description back in that day as it was of the 80s-00s "hackers" that people associate with counter-culturalism and building cool shit. I remember what technologists were like in the 90s. The same amount of effort that went into building the world wide web went into insane shit like cryogenics. Y'all complain about the fringe ideologies of people like Musk and Thiel, but that's exactly who we're talking about when we're talking about old school hackers. That and a half dozen other fringe personalities with fringe ideologies.
If we were to talk about people working at the frindges of respectability, "Salesforce for Killing People" is exactly the kind of company that they would work for. Heck, back in those early decades your options were also research labs or defense industry...
We were never all one team of good guys with good intentions. I mean, a sizeable percentage of people in our industry have at some point worked for Meta...
Technical solutions may give you a temporary upper hand in pursuit of a political resolution. But without the latter, technical solutions will simply devolve into a technical arms race that you cannot possibly win, due to the near infinite resources the regime commands. If at all they can't defeat you technically, they'll just order an indiscriminate crackdown.
But yes, it's probably wishful thinking because as I said, they would be able to track you down with the signal your device emits and stomp you with the boot of authoritarianism. Maybe in the future we'll able to communicate anonymously with quantum entanglement :)
Please, if you haven't noticed, network effects are designed to work against you punching up.
ICEBlock, an app for anonymously reporting ICE sightings, goes viral
ICEBlock, an app for anonymously reporting ICE sightings, goes viral - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44445646 - July 2025 (836 comments)
Pretty authoritarian but it's not like this just didn't happen under previous administrations. It just didn't happen publicly. You could definitely get someone visiting you at your door if you made apps that make certain things too easy.
Real police would not be alarmed at having their presence noted. Secret police that are masked up to avoid identification, and equipped with more military equipment than was typical for daytime patrol by soldiers in Fallujah is not anything like what happened under prior administrations.
Trump officials want to prosecute over the ICEblock app
The topic of the app's launch was on the front page for several hours last week and generated a huge discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44496729
This latest story doesn't seem to carry any "significant new information", which is a critical qualifier for a new HN thread.
The article's topic is the quote by the United States Attorney General on a cable news interview, and even that was made – and reported – last week when the topic was still active on HN. It's a detail in the overall story that has already had major coverage here. If there was an arrest or some other material legal action, that would likely warrant a new thread.
Edit: I updated the comment to remove the incorrect implication that there is any new information in the article at all.
Not disagreeing with the action just curious about the ambiguity in your comment
This feels like an illustration of just how unhinged the US has become, that the _AG threatening a private citizen_ is not considered major news. The frog is, if not boiled, at least sous-vide'd.
Here it is referenced in two comments in that thread, posted over five days ago:
there was only a single time i can recall there being something completely nuked and me raising an eyebrow being like "uhhhh that's pretty sus" but couldnt even tell you what it was about, it was years ago. and i can chalk that up to me having my own biases too
ipnon•7mo ago
jkaplowitz•7mo ago
> "We are looking at him," she said on Fox News, "and he better watch out."
(Source: The submitted Apple Insider article, citing Wired, which as noted in the quote was citing Fox News.)
When the head of the DOJ publicly threatens someone, saying that she "goes after" that person is entirely accurate.
gorlilla•7mo ago
akerl_•7mo ago
This is the kind of bluster that has certainly become more common in recent years, but has to some extent always been part of political theater. You'll see the same kind of thing every now and then if somebody tweets about how they'd love to feed a political figure into a wood chipper, or that the government should be launched into the sun. The Secret Service or some executive official will post that they're "investigating the matter and will take all available action", only for it to turn out that the comment was obviously protected speech.
Fluorescence•7mo ago
e.g.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bantam_Books,_Inc._v._Sullivan
"Justice William J. Brennan Jr. delivered the majority opinion that stated that the actions of the Rhode Island commission to Encourage Morality in Youth were unconstitutional due to their actions violating the First Amendment by placing a prior restraint on free speech. Justice Brennan's opinion stated that the commission's practice of notifying book distributors and retailers about "objectionable" publications, combined with implied threats of legal action, effectively made a system of informal censorship."
jkaplowitz•7mo ago
msgodel•7mo ago
vdfs•7mo ago
msgodel•7mo ago
spacemadness•7mo ago
haswell•7mo ago
> "We're working with the Department of Justice to see if we can prosecute them for that because what they're doing is actively encouraging people to avoid law enforcement activities and operations," Homeland Security secretary Kristi Noem said to press, "and we're going to actually go after them and prosecute them... because what they're doing, we believe, is illegal."
epistasis•7mo ago
bb88•7mo ago
epistasis•7mo ago
burnt-resistor•7mo ago
burnt-resistor•7mo ago
i80and•7mo ago
man 1: "They have no reason to come to our place." man 2: "Don't worry, they'll find one"
felt so abstract
i80and•7mo ago
bb88•7mo ago
burnt-resistor•7mo ago
akerl_•7mo ago
i80and•7mo ago
ajross•7mo ago
bb88•7mo ago
If you dig into someone's past, you can probably find something, or make it look like there's something. Pay informants. Frame people for other crimes. Etc.
When a justice department doesn't believe in the laws they're supposed to uphold, they don't have to follow their own rules. They can send people through the judicial wringer by merely filing a complaint against them.
That in itself is a punishment.
burnt-resistor•7mo ago
roody15•7mo ago
spacemadness•7mo ago