In other words, [0] somebody in Apple declared that ICE agents, on duty, operating in public, executing federally-authorized violence, have somehow qualified as a "targeted group" just like transgender people.
> Pressure on the tech platforms seemed to come from the Trump Administration; after a deadly shooting at an ICE field office in Dallas in late September, the Attorney General, Pam Bondi, said in a statement to Fox News Digital that ICEBlock “put ICE agents at risk just for doing their jobs.”
It makes for an extra-ridiculous backdrop, since absolutely nobody needed any kind of app to determine that ICE agents will be present at... the big building near the highway with a huge concrete sign on the lawn proclaiming "US Immigration and Custom Enforcement."
... I mean, what're the odds?
> Like other forms of self expression, digital-communication technology has become dangerously circumscribed under Trump; only the tools that exist independent of Big Tech seem like safe bets for dissent.
As these platforms start banning software written by private individuals, we'll have to see what kind of incident tracker some Democrats have promised to arrange. [1] I would expect the niche to be long-term documentation like the banned Eyes Up app, rather than real-time notification of, er, road conditions.
Either way, it highlights a different problem with Apple and Google working to prohibit us (users) from freely installing software we onto hardware we own.
___________
[0] https://www.techdirt.com/2025/10/10/apple-decides-ice-agents...
[1] https://gizmodo.com/democrats-will-launch-a-master-ice-track...
/s
The problem is that those tools will never be easy for the general public to use, and the big data problem requires the genpop to be onboard. I honestly don't see a good way out of this. At a certain point in the evolution of any authoritarian state, those apps or devices which run them will just be banned and punishable to possess. In America, we're just running up against the outskirts of what hard power can do to silence and intimidate people.
I don't want to be too harsh on people who made these apps but I am pretty peeved. They completely wasted the opportunity as now any new apps they'll get banned before they get onto the stores. I think all of us on HN could've told them this was inevitable ages ago and especially since they're engaged enough to be making these apps surely they knew themselves. If they from day 1 also hosted it as a webapp (as an alternative), that would be the immediate migration path. Heck, they could've advertised/linked it in the app itself. This is allowed and doesn't get one blocked from the stores unless there's payment options involved which is explicitly not the case here.
Comparing ICE agents to transgender people might be the most inflammatory thing you could say to them or their masters.
Quite a lot of things this statement applies to lately.
It’s only a dangerous precedent if you believe your opponents will ever gain power. If you believe your political opponents will never have power again, then who cares about precedent?
Or are already in power.
This is a dangerous president.
1. People are not harassing traffic enforcement, like they are harassing immigration enforcement.
2. Waze's information incentivizes people to follow traffic laws more deligently than they would which results in safer driving conditions for other people driving. ICEBlock did not have the benefit of making people follow immigration law better, or turn themselves in faster.
What you need is a gapless panopticon so that every suspect feels like being at the verge of getting caught, to enforce eg. traffic laws.
ICE does not target criminal behavior though. They literally disappear people based on appearance and any criminal record. Such a panopticon is an entirely different beast.
This is selective enforcement of ToS?
It's like saying "pardoning a human trafficker sets a dangerous precedent for pardoning human traffickers".
In other words, a "well regulated Militia" in the Second Amendment is more important than "bear arms".
But no one talks about creating a Militia (yet) for some reason.
What examples are you drawing from when making this conclusion?
> In other words, a "well regulated Militia" in the Second Amendment is more important than "bear arms".
Originally standing armies were not allowed. Each state was expected to perform it's own defense. The governor could create and disband a militia to defend the state. It was expected they would appear with their own arms.
> But no one talks about creating a Militia (yet) for some reason.
Subservient to what power?
so you’re saying a governor could declare their state to be under attack and organize a militia maybe even using state funds?
The line between "private militia" and "terrorism" isn't very well defined. If the people are unsuccessful, they will be labeled as terrorists and potentially put to death. Most people don't want to be executed, and as far as I am aware there's only been one successful violent insurrection in the US [1], so the odds are very much not in your favor.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilmington_massacre#Aftermath
Also, "come and enforce it" is not undermining democracy. A law is only a piece of paper until a court upholds it. Even the federal government can write whatever it wants, if it's then ruled unconstitutional that's the end of that.
The problem going on right now is that so much is being broken that the already slow court system just cannot keep up.
This was written re: IP law, but applies to your comment as well.
I bet that one could refactor it into a PWA.
1) https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/doj-indi...
And the example you linked to support this non-sequitur is of a person indicted for obstructing government law enforcement?
I think Biden administration's spying on US Senators[1] creates a much more dangerous precedent.
[1] https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/press/rep/releases/biden-fb...
>The FBI in 2023 sought and obtained data about the senators’ phone use from January 4 through January 7, 2021. That data shows when and to whom a call is made, as well as the duration and general location data of the call. The data does not include the content of the call.
fortran77•6h ago