If Google forcibly revoked the signature of the app, Android users can still build and access versions of Android with the app. Alternative app stores are a huge boon, but the real coup-de-grace is an Open Source OS.
The admin would effectively achieve their goals if they took the user base down to the 6 people willing to do this for ICEBlock
Google has been squeezing custom roms for the past 10 years. They barely work, and this is both on purpose and unavoidable. Google shoves DRM anywhere they can get their grubby little hands into.
Also, AOSP doesn't even run on any devices. Anywhere. You need mountains of supplemental proprietary blobs and Google systems to get it onto a phone.
Also, Google is trying to kill all apps outside the play store anyway.
But I'm also thinking a lot about the impact on ordinary non-tech-literate folks. They really don't have great options. I think we need some serious technical focus into FOSS and freedom-respecting alternatives
Reach out and let's talk.
Or if PWA's were reasonably supported
I'd consider smart phones as being general-purposes, same as laptops/desktops/servers.
It’s harder to blame politicians, and harder still to blame the root of their power: the people.
And it’s hardest of all to blame yourself. Show me the article that calls these companies evil for caving into political pressure and refusing to immolate themselves, that also argues to neuter government power so that the companies don’t face existential threats from the whims of whatever gang happens to run the show in the moment.
Nope, instead every time there is an implicit argument that even more political power and guns and force are needed.
If the article was instead giving a pitch to the government, there'd be 0% chance.
It's an article criticizing Apple for caving in to dictatorial demands, and for other failures. It's not an article on government failures.
And it's not an article that claims that government needs more guns as you claim that every article is.
You cannot ever expect any company to have a backbone, but you also can't expect the government to be perfectly honest. The real culprit is our software habits, and companies are the main driver in neutering your software freedom.
Apple is not going to save us. https://sixcolors.com/post/2025/10/apples-iceblock-capitulat...
…even if the company does “the right thing,” it won’t be a decision taken from a moral standpoint. It will be practical. Mercenary. Because that is what is demanded by this technological/capitalist terror we’ve devised for ourselves. That’s the rules of the game. Them’s the breaks. When Apple made the decision to stand firm in the San Bernardino case, it did so not because it was the right thing to do, but because its business reputation relies on its claims of privacy and security.
This wasn’t about written rules. Obeying a social media post by a joke of an attorney general is apparently now the standard Apple hold themselves to.
Democrats: 10,396,792 (44.80%)
Republicans: 5,896,203 (25.41%)
Third Party/Other: 1,577,083 (6.80%)
Unaffiliated: 5,336,441 (23.00%)
The article states that the government did not have this power to begin with!
> Apple insists that it is only complying with lawful orders, which is patently untrue. Pam Bondi has no authority to order the censorship of this legal speech tool, which is likely why she didn't seek a court order and instead merely rage-tweeted about it. This was sufficient to get Apple CEO Tim Cook [...] to cave in.
> You could not ask for a better example of the failure of feudal security. Nor could you ask for a better rebuttal to the "Surveillance Capitalism" claim that Google is a "rogue capitalist" (because it spies on you for profit) while Apple is a good capitalist (because they extract money, not private data):
Hear-hear! As always, in many ways this isn't a "bad actor" problem (or at least, not just that) but rather a legal problem of monopolies and individuals not being able to really own what they bought.
And Russia: https://novayagazeta.eu/articles/2024/09/25/apple-removes-ne...
There's only one government that Apple fights with every single weapon in its arsenal: the EU.
Apple wouldn't need to make fake threats of leaving EU if people just didn't buy their shitty toys.
For example, we might think that tools like ICEBlock can solve the issue of ICE, or that duress PINs on GrapheneOS can protect whistleblowers, or that VPNs in China can defeat censorship. While these technologies can certainly help mitigate specific challenges, they don't address the underlying political issues. They also often backfire - ICEBlock could theoretically be subpoenaed, duress PIN use can come with mandatory prison sentences, VPNs in China can be detected and blocked at a network level, then traced back to your SIM card.
Historically, technological solutions alone have not resolved political problems. At best, they act as temporary workarounds. To believe otherwise risks oversimplifying complex social and political dynamics, which contributes to the us-versus-them, good-versus-evil narrative that almost never holds in reality. The banning of technological solutions does not necessarily push us towards a more authoritarian future, but forces us to confront reality without a band-aid.
This also causes any restraint on such technological solutions to become rather confused. For example, the article calls out Apple for blocking and removing VPNs in China as "evil." Tell me, what's the alternative? Apple defies the Chinese government, allows VPNs, gets iPhones blocked from all carrier networks in seconds, has their Chinese employees arrested, and almost everyone is forced to use spyware-infested Huawei devices? Amazing moral stand there. Same with ICEBlock - if Apple didn't ban it, who is to say their server company, or the author himself, wouldn't receive a visit?
It's an issue of fundamental freedoms. Freedom of speech and freedom to control your own device and your own data. Freedom to decide for yourself how you use it to communicate with others.
The problem boils down to Apple's consolidatation of power in their walled garden. The fact that they can unilaterally decide to ban an app that people want to run. The fact that an authotarian government can simply apply pressure to manifest their will.
If Apple didn't have such a closed walled-gardrn, they'd be unable to do it even if they wanted to; even if an authotarian regime demanded it.
It's about separation/distribution of power.
This is delusional - the government can easily attack the server, and arrest the people who operate it, using any obscure law from 1790 that does the job. They did it to Silk Road, they did it to The Pirate Bay, they can do it to ICEBlock. Removing it from Apple is just the asking nicely method that doesn't require putting the creator behind bars on a technicality.
The power dynamics for technical solutions are "you can resist the government insofar as the government allows," here and everywhere, and always will be. The solution is not better technical solutions, better band-aids on a severed limb, but better government.
> If Apple didn't have such a closed walled-gardrn, they'd be unable to do it even if they wanted to; even if an authotarian regime demanded it.
If we truly lived under an authoritarian regime, 90% of phones could be open source, and they would still have no qualms about kicking you off the cellular network until you purchased an approved device. No technological solution can truly resist a determined authoritarian regime. Control the infrastructure, control the border letting hardware in, control the manufacturing processes, and who cares about the devices subject to it?
I think you have an uncalibrated frame of reference for what "delusional" means here. My Android phone isn't being DDOSed for having sideloading capabilities, neither would your iPhone.
You’re on Hacker News. This is a place where users primarily discuss technology, which includes activist technology. There are plenty of people here interested in that sort of technology, and some who may build it and provide it to the less technically inclined over at Reddit (or some political forum). Then those people can do the work that they are more inclined to do, including the difficult work of organizing and mobilizing popular opposition.
I just don’t get the point of posts like this. Would you prefer that everyone be an organizer even if they lack the skills or personality for that? Or is it some kind of accelerationist argument, and you think that people will be more willing to protest if they lack the tools to organize? We don’t yet live under a regime where technology is completely locked down and restricted; the point is to fight back now before that happens!
An authoritarian government never cares about the widespread availability of anything. If anything, people using it, only becomes a greater impetus to shut it down before it gets larger. The government holds the cards for shutting it down at any time, regardless of size and popularity.
> We don’t yet live under a regime where technology is completely locked down and restricted; the point is to fight back now before that happens!
If we respond by adding duress PINs on GrapheneOS and encrypting the messaging to the 9s, and then bad actors use said technologies, the government has all the ammunition they need for public opinion. We made it easier to ban with a straight face, not harder.
An authoritarian government can also just start rounding up and shooting anyone suspected of being a dissident. Typically that doesn’t end well for the government!
Military-grade technologies make you a threat to be dealt with by the military. An opponent with weapons is more directly an opponent to be crushed than an opponent with a microphone. Standing in the streets mourning with candlelight would probably be more effective than an encrypted messaging app. The encrypted messaging app definitely feels cooler though, but feelings don't determine reality.
The most successful revolutions in history that built cultural inertia as morally righteous were never known for their sophisticated weapons and planning. China was more freaked out over blank paper than they would have been if tens of thousands of rebels had been armed. Heck, blank paper probably rattled China more than every citizen having Signal would have.
Activism is about changing hearts and minds. It's never a logistics problem. Enter a direct competition with the government and you've already lost. From that perspective, ICEBlock has done nothing for activism.
> The most successful revolutions in history that built cultural inertia as morally righteous were never known for their sophisticated weapons and planning.
Maybe you should spend some more time studying revolutions. Often there is a great amount of coordination that must happen, especially when going up against a strong adversary. And it’s important to match or exceed your adversary’s reaction time in order to disrupt their planning and cause them to make tactical errors of judgement. This is what leads to events like in Nepal, where the government overreacted and shut down the tools being used for organizing. This was the breaking point that led to mass mobilization, but the revolution was only possible because of the groundwork that had been laid in advance—through careful planning by activists and organizers. Planning that was carried out using modern technology!
> China was more freaked out over blank paper than they would have been if tens of thousands of rebels had been armed.
A hypothetical “just so” statement that (a) cannot be tested and (b) is unlikely to be true. China would see tens of thousands of armed rebels as an existential threat and would be “freaked out” enough to deploy the military immediately. If the population was unhappy enough and ground was prepared for revolution, this would lead to revolution as it did in the USSR. (The big problem with would-be revolutions in China is that the population is pretty happy overall, for now, thanks to improved standards of living. This effect will likely wear off in the future.)
> It's never a logistics problem.
Wrong. Activists make extensive use of technology in order to coordinate and achieve their aims. For all the reasons explained above.
> Enter a direct competition with the government and you've already lost.
Civil Rights era activists were in direct conflict with the FBI, police, and in some cases the National guard. They won.
Encryption, weapons? These create tactical fear. Governments have no fear of your tactics when they can shut down cell towers and roll in the tanks. Governments have no fear when they can also easily identify bad actors, highlight them, and win public opinion.
Blank paper, candlelight? These create existential fear. Governments have no playbook to deal with them without looking absurd. If they try to do so anyway, then it converts into tactical fear. Every successful revolution starts with the existential before the tactical.
China has no tactical fear, at all, if tens of thousands of rebels were armed. They'll be solved by next month. China has enormous amounts of existential fear when tens of thousands of people are putting blank pages everywhere. Blank pages could turn into tactical later, but tactical never leads to existential.
The Civil Rights movement you cite? They won through lunch counter sit-ins and bus boycotts - existential challenges to segregation's legitimacy. The tactics was a side show that didn't contribute much. There never was some defining moment where the Civil Rights Warriors won a victory in the Battle of Seville through the superiority of their communication methods. Same with the Civil War - it didn't start with shooting until after the existential battle had been blazing since the Missouri compromise four decades earlier.
Untrue. Governments are not all powerful. Armed unrest is a very serious thing to deal with, especially when facing outside pressures. The people in government aren’t generally villains sitting around waiting for their excuse to roll tanks. They have friends and families and take things very seriously when they reach that point. Besides, sending in the tanks most often biases people against, not for, the ruling government—it’s bad optics. Hence why China still forbids discussion of Tianenmen, for example. And why Kent State led to a shift in public opinion, despite preceding violence from the protesters.
I'm afraid it's only a matter of time before somebody tries to extend this to the world of computers.
So on one hand, there is a legitimate precedent to be concerned about this being used for targeted attacks. But also Google never caved to pressure in that situation, and the benefits and legal rights seem much more important than the risks.
Apple provides the tools to sideload software you build from source in Xcode, whether it’s your own code or someone else’s.
You have to use a Mac, and with an unpaid account there are limitations like app signing timing out after a week.
It’s much more hassle than the App Store, but you can run whatever you want for free if you build it yourself.
I know it’s not the same as ‘download app and tap on it’, but it’s possible. iPhone developers do it all the time.
Granted, the vast majority of apps don't have such needs, but it's something to keep in mind.
> Apple claims that it must be able to override its customers' choices about which software they'd like to run, lest those customers make foolish software choices and compromise their own security
This is putting words in their mouth. Here's their actual statement:
> We created the App Store to be a safe and trusted place to discover apps. Based on information we’ve received from law enforcement about the safety risks associated with ICEBlock, we have removed it and similar apps from the App Store
This is a perfectly reasonable and cogent statement, and you can easily challenge this on multiple points:
1. Apple is being too credulous with the claim about any safety risk. This should meet a high burden such as demonstrated actual harm, not hypothetical ponderings.
2. The current administration has been proven as liars many times, and deals in misinformation, so their claims can be dismissed a priori.
3. There is a legitimate use even for apps that pose a "safety risk". Users can make informed choices whether they want to engage with those apps. Some examples: generative AI can be used to create false and misleading images; ride-sharing and dating apps can put users in risky situations with strangers.
4. Apple is simply lying.
The reality is that Apple has a corrupt financial relationship with the administration, involving both carrots and sticks. Billions of dollars are at stake. Trump can offer Apple exemption from tariffs, protection from regulation and regulatory action (for example, labor laws), threats to the EU to protect Apple from DMA fines, massive corporate tax cuts, etc. Trump can also punish Apple in various ways that we've seen him punish others.
The underlying issue has nothing specifically to do with ICEBlock. The administration wanted to get rid of the app, and Apple did them a favor, helping to preserve Apple's overall financial interests.
If you’re building a phone app, make sure the progressive web app version has feature parity.
I’m extremely late to the party, but recently found react native, and my software runs on android, ios, pwa, macos, windows and linux, “for free”.
This not only bypasses potential future app store censorship, but, with critical mass, is an enabling technology for “daily driver” quality open source (or at least not ios/android) phones.
Are there other enabling technologies like this that I should know about?
The problem in this specific case is privacy protections:
> Aaron told The Verge ICEBlock is built around a single database in iCloud. When a user taps on the map to report ICE sightings, the location data is added to that database, and users within five miles are automatically sent a push notification alerting them. Push notifications require developers to have some way of designating which devices receive them, and while Aaron declined to say precisely how the notifications function, he said alerts are sent through Apple’s system, not ICEBlock’s, letting him avoid keeping his own database of users or their devices. “We utilized iCloud in kind of a creative way,” Aaron said. [...]
* https://www.theverge.com/cyber-security/707116/iceblock-data...
The app developer does not want to keep a database of people on who to notify (and track their location for "near-by" locations).
I wonder if there are tor proxies that accept incoming https, and forward to service endpoints that opt in.
That’d help.
Anyway, the first step is getting it working at all.
You need a database of everyone who signs up for the service so you can know who to send notifications to. That database needs some kind of unique ID plus a regular location updates.
That's a tempting target to go after, as it's a list of potential ICE targets plus 'political sympathizers'. The app developer does not (AIUI) want the responsibility of keeping that database secure against attack, exposure, or warrant requests.
Yeah, that’s a good thing to prevent browser monopoly.
> Apple's own browser engine, Webkit, is riddled with longstanding, grave security vulnerabilities, and there is no way to distribute more secure browsers on iOS.
Adding a new browser will just increase the attack vector. Especially since webkit is used everywhere in iOS, not just in Safari…
More potential ways to attack? Sure. More actual attacks in practice? Not necessarily.
Let's imagine we have a hypothetical 100% secure browser, and we can get people to use it 50% of the time on on iOS. Then 50% of potential attacks become impossible. It doesn't matter that vulnerable Safari is hanging out in another part of the OS if attackers can't actually get their code to run in that context.
codyb•1h ago
It is getting harder and harder to continue buying Apple products and I have moved to buying refurbs as the electronics space is quite limited in options and the ecosystem lock in is real.
It's a shame, because I was a huge fan of Apple's privacy stances and their work on accessibility.
I emailed tim.cook@apple.com directly the day he stood behind Trump at his inauguration. Didn't get a bounce back, so maybe someone read it.
Stand up, fight back!
greatgib•1h ago
Vote and impact them with your money. Just don't buy their stuff. Buying refurb is not much better, because it still raise the value of their products and brand by showing that devices have a big second hand value so it worth to buy as it will not lose value. And also, you will be proudly showing off your Apple devices all around instead of setting an example.
codyb•1h ago
I plan to slow purchases to the bare minimum as well. Sadly, there's not a ton of competition in the electronics space.
And yea, refurbs bolster the market since it increases resale value.
That being said, I'm doing something, and all these small actions add up when they're done by many. If we all piss in the wind a little, it can add up to a waterfall.
karmelapple•1h ago
So yes, scale back your purchasing, but as you said: the options are limited, just like political candidates. Choose who matches up best with you, support them, but unlike your relationship to Apple, political participation has a VERY different piece.
You can't just show up and start influencing policy at Apple headquarters.
But you CAN just show up to some local organizing meetings of local grassroots organizations and political parties and influence things. You can have a direct impact, and these groups are usually small enough with few enough participants in your town that you WILL have a decent impact.
codyb•1h ago