7 ms·
Wife of ICEBlock app founder speaks out after DOJ fires her
- arunabha 1y agoFrom the article The DOJ told Newsweek: "For several weeks, the Department of Justice inquired into this former employee's activities and discovered she has a sizable interest in All U Chart, Inc., the company that holds the IP for ICEBlock. ICEBlock is an app that illegal aliens use to evade capture while endangering the lives of ICE officers by disclosing their location. This DOJ will not tolerate threats against law enforcement or law enforcement officers."
- catlover76 1y ago[dead]
- amanaplanacanal 1y agoTwo comments about this bunch of BS: 1. I would guess that ICE agent isn't even in the top 20 most dangerous occupations in the US. 2. If knowing the location of law enforcement endangers their lives, why do the great majority of law enforcement officers wear distinctive uniforms and drive around in clearly marked vehicles?
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- defrost 1y agoThe "massive (percentage) increase" in assaults on ICE officers is a good example of How to Lie with Statistics * (1954, still a good book, worth a read). For comment, see: We now know that an “830% increase” is an increase from 10 assaults in 6 months to 93 assaults in 6 months, at a time when DHS has *massively* increased at-large arrests and officers deployed in the community. For comparison, NYPD is averaging 194 assaults on officers per MONTH. from: DHS Still Pretending 15 Assaults A Month Is Evidence Of Widespread Violence Against ICE Officers https://www.techdirt.com/2025/07/23/dhs-still-pretending-15-assaults-a-month-is-evidence-of-widespread-violence-against-ice-officers/ https://www.techdirt.com/2025/07/23/dhs-still-pretending-15-... * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Lie_with_Statistics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Lie_with_Statistics
- malcolmgreaves 1y ago[flagged]
- toomuchtodo 1y agoIdentifying and catalog law enforcement actors are not threats. Certainly, they feel threatened by the threat of current or future accountability, but that is their feeling. https://www.rcfp.org/reporters-recording-sections/right-to-record/ https://www.rcfp.org/reporters-recording-sections/right-to-r... https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/stopped-by-police https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/stopped-by-police
- pessimizer 1y ago[flagged]
- aqme28 1y ago> Surveilling the police obviously enables crime, and in this case is specifically intended to enable crime. Sure, some kinds of crime would be easier when we can track the police. However, crime caused by police is a real threat to people and they are right to be worried. We don't want a world where the people with the badge and the gun cannot be held accountable at all.
- cogman10 1y agoAnd, let's be super clear, there is no "crime" that can be committed by knowing the location of ICE agents, particularly in the middle of a city. ICE's jurisdiction is specifically over immigration and border control. They aren't going to stop a robbery, murder, or theft. They won't save someone from a kidnapping. The extent of their legal power is to terrorize undocumented individuals. In fact, this ICE crackdown is very likely to make everyone less safe. Someone who's undocumented or, frankly, just a latino will need to think twice before they ever want to interact with any police force. That means less witnesses to crimes, less reports of crimes, less cooperation to stop crime. They won't want to engage in the justice system and in some cases might end up getting violent for fear of being sent to a sweltering hot torture tent in florida for the crime of speeding. And, when there's a protection vacuum, what inevitably happens? People turn to gangs for security and justice. So many violent groups started because the Justice system decided they didn't need justice. I know and have known undocumented workers that have lived in the US for decades as valued community members. By and large these are not dangerous people and they should get citizenship.
- Mobil1 1y agoShe owns half of the company is why she was fired!
- 1659447091 1y agoShe is married to the owner of the company, it's (most likely) communal property anyway
- dboreham 1y agoAnyone married owns a 1/2 interest of whatever their spouse is engaged in for business (modulo pre-nups and what not).
- 0xy 1y agoNonsense. She's a shareholder personally. This isn't theoretical.
- disgruntledphd2 1y agoIt's really really common for partners to be shareholders in their spouses businesses because AFAIK you need two directors (where I am, at least).
- threatofrain 1y agoThe DOJ goes further than that. They believe she was threatening the lives of their officers.
- ukshariapatrol 1y ago[dead]
- Terr_ 1y agoIn addition to the obvious problems of the US government illegally firing one family-member solely to punish a different family-member's constitutionally-protected free-speech... I'd also highlight these aren't even the same part of the federal government. ICE is under the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), whereas she is/was employed as a forensic accountant at the Department of Justice (DOJ). To make an throw-back reference, this like the DOJ firing one of their forensic accountants just because her spouse gave out t-shirts at a convention with DeCSS source code on them and pissed off the Copyright Office.
- readthenotes1 1y agoNot a different person "discovered she has a sizable interest in All U Chart, Inc., the company that holds the IP for ICEBlock" I'm not sure what hen's employee contract reads. There are some limitations on US government employees engaging in political action though (Hatch act). Perhaps hen sent a text relating to All U during work hours?
- heyoni 1y agoSince when is dissemination of publicly facing information considered political action under the Hatch Act? The latter requires the person to use their influence or be on duty for it to count. The raids being reported by the app aren’t using insider information, they’re in progress and out in the open. This situation is pretty clear cut. The administration isn’t being coy about purging anyone they think might be less than blindly loyal.
- shkkmo 1y agoAFAIK, ownership interest in a company doesn't violate any of the Hatch restrictions, even on the "further restricted" category of employees. So unless she took specific political actions while on the job, using her authority, or using federal resources, this is not a Hatch violation.
- dragonwriter 1y ago> There are some limitations on US government employees engaging in political action though (Hatch act). In both terms, the Trump Administration has been full of top-to-bottom, flagrant violations off the Hatch Act by loyalists.
- pstuart 1y agoWhere all all the "Free Speech Absolutists" on this?
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- thrance 1y ago[flagged]
- pstuart 1y ago[flagged]
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- Terr_ 1y agoIn this case parent-poster is sarcastically using that phrase/quotation-marks to refer to a different group, one which is lying and supports censorship in their own interests.
- readthenotes1 1y ago[flagged]
- cmiles74 1y agoIf this was a Hatch Act violation, I cannot imagine why the DOJ would not be shouting it from the rooftops.
- tootie 1y agoHusband wasn't endorsing candidates. Hatch Act does not forbid activism. Clarence Thomas' wife was very active in conservative causes including explicit support for Trump's candidacy and the Jan 6 insurrection. No charges have ever been filed against her or Justice Thomas.
- wand3r 1y agoHappy for her. She can retire early with an excellent settlement or get another job she is passionate about without worrying about money. It's pretty despicable, but I think in the end it will turn out for the better.
- lapetitejort 1y agoThis administration has fired thousands of workers without cause with almost no legal ramifications. What is special about this case?
- tootie 1y agoAnd the SC has been exceedingly lenient in allowing them.
- WarOnPrivacy 1y agoICE Speak: - ICEBlock is an app that illegal aliens use to evade capture - while endangering the lives of ICE officers - by disclosing their location. - This DOJ will not tolerate threats against law enforcement or law enforcement officers." Reality speak: - ICEBlock is an app used by citizens who reasonably want to 1) be aware of what their government does 2) provide the only known oversight of ICE agents 3) avoid areas where risky, hostile militaristic patrols operate - The DOJ will not tolerate citizen empowerment that it does not expressly approve of. - This DOJ will disingenuously reframe any attempt at oversight of LEO as "a threat to law enforcement officers" and will freely deploy government resources as revenge against those citizens.
- dathinab 1y agobtw. this > ICEBlock is an app that illegal aliens use to evade capture is highly dehumanizing language you normally find only and autocratic regimes ruled by force and despotism instead of law if you read that in you country and it's not a exception but the now norm you alarm bells should ring in overdrive historically speaking language like this has pretty reliably an indicator of a country going to commit mass murder (lets hope it doesn't come to this)
- nilespotter 1y ago[flagged]
- zb3 1y agoSo what about "ICEBlock is an app that people being in the US illegally use to evade capture"?
- dathinab 1y agomuch better but the app is protected by free speech so using it isn't illegal "ICEBlock is a free speech protected app that illegal immigrants in the US use to evade capture" would be more precise and still objective would explain why the government used questionable (and actual illegal) roundabout ways to "punish" the creator instead of normal legal actions there is no problem with saying illegal immigrants are illegal immigrants, the problem is with removing the human factor, by calling them aliens, or by pretending all are supper criminal gang members etc. that ICE also goes after people with legal status is another problem and the argument of "it's aliens because they are foreigner non residents" also falls apart because many illegal immigrants have become residents. Not citizens, and not always with legal status. But they are 1) civilians 2) long term residing in the US so residents anyway. What ICE does here beside hypocritically pretending alien doesn't has de-humanizing connotations is expanding the term from "foreigners trying to illegally enter the US" to people living in the US for years and often are also in the process to try to get legal status even through they entered illegally. anyway illigal immigrants are still illegally so no need to reduce it to just people
- docdeek 1y agoThere’s a bit more context in this article: https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/bondi-takes-revenge-family-man-180841002.html https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/bondi-takes-revenge-fami... According to this article, she self-reported to the DOJ ("Feinstein says that she took it upon herself to inform the DOJ of her relationship with Aaron after the backlash first kicked off more than three weeks ago.”). The people from the DOJ who contacted her initially were looking into ethical issues ("Within a week, she said that she was then contacted by the Office of the U.S. Trustee, which said it was reaching out on behalf of an ethics committee.”). She told the investigators that she didn’t have anything much to do with the app ("They asked me about my relationship to the ICEBlock App,” she said. “And I informed them in so many words that I really didn’t have any relationship or involvement in the app, I was married to the creator.”) However, she also admits to the journalist that she is a ‘minority shareholder’ in the app development company. The Newsweek article on HN seems to have a lot less info than this one, though both have pretty inflammatory headlines.
- Aurornis 1y ago> However, she also admits to the journalist that she is a ‘minority shareholder’ in the app development company. That’s a lot more than a footnote. If the app development company owned the app and she had ownership in the app development company, there’s no way to argue she didn’t have an interest in the app. Nobody can expect to have a side interest in an app that works against their employer and continue to keep their job. You have to be divested from one or the other. Due to the marriage, there likely any way to divest from the app unless her husband also divested from it. Even then, the damage was done.
- dboreham 1y ago> Nobody can expect to have a side interest in an app that works against their employer Really? So if my wife works for Google and I work for Facebook, she has to get me to quit Facebook? Or if my wife works for Google and I found a start up making a search app, then she has to get me to wind up my start up?
- 1y ago
- sleight42 1y agoFlagged. Of course. It's technology meets politics and it's anti-alt-right so of course someone has to flag it.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- BonoboIO 1y agoI found this article via https://hn.algolia.com/ https://hn.algolia.com/ and immediately knew, that I would see the flagged mark. Is this because readers don’t want to be reminded how absurd the world outside has become?
- Karawebnetwork 1y agoWhat does [flagged] mean? Users flagged the post as breaking the guidelines or otherwise not belonging on HN. Moderators sometimes also add [flagged] (though not usually on submissions), and sometimes turn flags off when they are unfair.
- spacemadness 1y agoGo ahead and see with your own eyes what a lot of HN commenters really think about other humans. It’s pretty plain to see and very sad. They’re the folks flagging everything.
- arunabha 1y agoNo, the flagging brigade on HN is largely composed of a small minority of ultra right wing tech bros who had their wet dream come true when Trump got elected again. Also, HN's algorithms have been set up to encourage and abet such behaviour and then blame the 'algorithm'. Not surprising given who owns this site.