4 ms·

I think that Apple is a company that has to obey the rule of law. Maybe the problem here isn’t Apple but the rules they are being forced to abide by?

JumpCrisscross 1y ago
> Apple is a company that has to obey the rule of law Damn right. Where is the court order? Pursuant to what law?
- imoverclocked 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - magicalist 1y ago
    You left out the pretty important part of § 372 "by force, intimidation, or threat". Please don't just make up cover for capitulation. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/372 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/372
    - imoverclocked 1y ago
      [flagged]
      - magicalist 1y ago
        So you're suggesting that prior restraint on constitutionally protected speech is justified because Pam Bondi, mouthpiece for the president, asserts that publishing publicly observable information about federal officers is designed to put them at risk from waves hands, and not that the risk, if there actually was one, should be dealt with from whatever she's waving her hands about? It's always funny when people are willing to toss the first amendment completely under the bus because of made-up risks but god help you if you suggest putting guardrails on the scope of the second amendment because of actual risks.
        ImPostingOnHN 1y ago
        Some people crave authoritarianism, and the feeling of safety it provides them (at the expense of others), and will repeat any words that make them feel better about doing so, even if the words are lies obvious even to themselves.
        imoverclocked 1y ago
        > Some people crave authoritarianism ... (at the expense of others) Yes, and even to the expense of themselves. The cult of personality is real.
        imoverclocked 1y ago
        > So you're suggesting that prior restraint on constitutionally protected speech is justified I have no idea how you got there but if you brought a case with a team of lawyers to get the apps re-instated based on the 1st amendment, I'd be happy about it. It would be interesting precedent too. However, my point is nothing about that. What should Apple do while following laws and being accused of hosting apps that endanger law enforcement?
        JumpCrisscross 1y ago
        > What should Apple do while following laws and being accused of hosting apps that endanger law enforcement? Ask for a warrant. Same way they did to the FBI years ago.
        scineram 1y ago
        [flagged]
      - deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
      - nofriend 1y ago
        If that opinion had legal weight, then it could have been laundered through a legal instrument like a court order. It is complete nonsense legally. People who have wanted to find ICE agents to attack have succeeded in finding their headquarters and attacking them there. The more obvious purpose of the app is to identify ICE agents in order to avoid being victimized by them. Regardless of the actual purpose of the app, simply identifying a person's location does not legally constitute a threat, and is protected by the first amendment. There's a irony here. Google recently was stuck in front of congress and had to apologize for censoring people at the behest of the previous presidential administration despite not being legally required to. Now we have the current administration pressuring companies to censor their users, and those companies readily complying. Nothing has changed except for the political orientation.
        imoverclocked 1y ago
        > It is complete nonsense legally Agreed. However, the weight of the DOJ and DOD (aka: DOW) are enough to make even Apple flinch, unsurprisingly. > There's a[n] irony here There are so many ironies and strange twists. If I remember the previous apologies, it was because conspiracy theories were being suppressed along with bad vaccine information. It was predominantly Republican lines of questioning during these hearings even though it was "under Biden." The current administration wants to now censure in the opposite direction, weaponizing the very thing Republicans fought against in order to push current agendas. Nothing has really changed, it has just progressed.
jjav 1y ago
> I think that Apple is a company that has to obey the rule of law. Right, so the fundamental problem is having a device where the software that runs on it is controlled by a single company. It creates the attractive nuisance of being able to choke off anything the government doesn't like because, as you said, that single point of contact can't avoid obeying the government. Computing needs to be open and controlled only by each individual owner of each device, so anyone can run whatever they like sourced from wherever they like.
- imoverclocked 1y ago
  That’s your belief and there is a platform that allows just that. The fundamental problem here is not specific to Apple; It’s specific to a regime that is overstepping its bounds daily.
  - scoopdewoop 1y ago
    What platform? Android is removing installing software from "unverified" developers which leads to this exact same scenario.
  - goku12 1y ago
    > That’s your belief and there is a platform that allows just that. A platform that's just about to take it away with user registrations. And that isn't just a 'belief' - that's what a lot of people do with their phones. But the problem here isn't about an alternative. Apple platform is popular enough to make it a juicy target for tyrannical regimes. And when that happens, millions of people find their devices useless or outright hostile towards them, due to lack of user-controlled escape hatches. > The fundamental problem here is not specific to Apple; It’s specific to a regime that is overstepping its bounds daily. Would you have predicted the current situation two years ago? Regimes go rogue unpredictably all the time. That's why people argue against this sort of device lock down all the time! It's meaningless to shift the entire blame on to the regime after Apple failed to take precautions in the face these warnings.
    - imoverclocked 1y ago
thayne 1y ago
The point is that if you could install the app by side loading it, or from a third party app store, then a Government order to remove an app doesn't make it impossible to use that app. But Apples actions, ostensibly to protect its users, but in reality to protect its profits, has put it in a situation where it is a much more effective tool for government censorship.
ajross 1y ago
> Apple [...] has to obey the rule of law. No, Apple has to obey the law. The idea of "rule of law" is a shorthand for the set of norms and practices understood by everyone under a single regime, including both specific laws and authorities and more general principles. One of those, notably, is "the government shouldn't force private companies to censor their app stores".[1] The rule of law is indeed being violated here, but in the other direction. [1] Or "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech", if you swing that way.
- imoverclocked 1y ago
  > The rule of law is indeed being violated here, but in the other direction. I agree. However, the way things work is such that these things take time to sort out, if they get sorted out at all.
jayd16 1y ago
There's no rule that says they need to block other app stores. That's a choice they made. The consequences are also a choice they made.
windexh8er 1y ago
Rule of law? Is that like the token of appreciation Tim Cook presented? There are laws. Rule of law is a slippery slope. There is no law or precedent set that would concern Apple with these apps. Apple is bending the knee. The exact same way they do with China.

JumpCrisscross 1y ago

> Apple is a company that has to obey the rule of law Damn right. Where is the court order? Pursuant to what law?

imoverclocked 1y ago
[flagged]
- magicalist 1y ago
  You left out the pretty important part of § 372 "by force, intimidation, or threat". Please don't just make up cover for capitulation. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/372 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/372
  - imoverclocked 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - magicalist 1y ago
      So you're suggesting that prior restraint on constitutionally protected speech is justified because Pam Bondi, mouthpiece for the president, asserts that publishing publicly observable information about federal officers is designed to put them at risk from waves hands, and not that the risk, if there actually was one, should be dealt with from whatever she's waving her hands about? It's always funny when people are willing to toss the first amendment completely under the bus because of made-up risks but god help you if you suggest putting guardrails on the scope of the second amendment because of actual risks.
      - ImPostingOnHN 1y ago
        Some people crave authoritarianism, and the feeling of safety it provides them (at the expense of others), and will repeat any words that make them feel better about doing so, even if the words are lies obvious even to themselves.
        imoverclocked 1y ago
        > Some people crave authoritarianism ... (at the expense of others) Yes, and even to the expense of themselves. The cult of personality is real.
      - imoverclocked 1y ago
        > So you're suggesting that prior restraint on constitutionally protected speech is justified I have no idea how you got there but if you brought a case with a team of lawyers to get the apps re-instated based on the 1st amendment, I'd be happy about it. It would be interesting precedent too. However, my point is nothing about that. What should Apple do while following laws and being accused of hosting apps that endanger law enforcement?
        JumpCrisscross 1y ago
        > What should Apple do while following laws and being accused of hosting apps that endanger law enforcement? Ask for a warrant. Same way they did to the FBI years ago.
      - scineram 1y ago
        [flagged]
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
    - nofriend 1y ago
      If that opinion had legal weight, then it could have been laundered through a legal instrument like a court order. It is complete nonsense legally. People who have wanted to find ICE agents to attack have succeeded in finding their headquarters and attacking them there. The more obvious purpose of the app is to identify ICE agents in order to avoid being victimized by them. Regardless of the actual purpose of the app, simply identifying a person's location does not legally constitute a threat, and is protected by the first amendment. There's a irony here. Google recently was stuck in front of congress and had to apologize for censoring people at the behest of the previous presidential administration despite not being legally required to. Now we have the current administration pressuring companies to censor their users, and those companies readily complying. Nothing has changed except for the political orientation.
      - imoverclocked 1y ago
        > It is complete nonsense legally Agreed. However, the weight of the DOJ and DOD (aka: DOW) are enough to make even Apple flinch, unsurprisingly. > There's a[n] irony here There are so many ironies and strange twists. If I remember the previous apologies, it was because conspiracy theories were being suppressed along with bad vaccine information. It was predominantly Republican lines of questioning during these hearings even though it was "under Biden." The current administration wants to now censure in the opposite direction, weaponizing the very thing Republicans fought against in order to push current agendas. Nothing has really changed, it has just progressed.

jjav 1y ago

> I think that Apple is a company that has to obey the rule of law. Right, so the fundamental problem is having a device where the software that runs on it is controlled by a single company. It creates the attractive nuisance of being able to choke off anything the government doesn't like because, as you said, that single point of contact can't avoid obeying the government. Computing needs to be open and controlled only by each individual owner of each device, so anyone can run whatever they like sourced from wherever they like.

imoverclocked 1y ago
That’s your belief and there is a platform that allows just that. The fundamental problem here is not specific to Apple; It’s specific to a regime that is overstepping its bounds daily.
- scoopdewoop 1y ago
  What platform? Android is removing installing software from "unverified" developers which leads to this exact same scenario.
- goku12 1y ago
  > That’s your belief and there is a platform that allows just that. A platform that's just about to take it away with user registrations. And that isn't just a 'belief' - that's what a lot of people do with their phones. But the problem here isn't about an alternative. Apple platform is popular enough to make it a juicy target for tyrannical regimes. And when that happens, millions of people find their devices useless or outright hostile towards them, due to lack of user-controlled escape hatches. > The fundamental problem here is not specific to Apple; It’s specific to a regime that is overstepping its bounds daily. Would you have predicted the current situation two years ago? Regimes go rogue unpredictably all the time. That's why people argue against this sort of device lock down all the time! It's meaningless to shift the entire blame on to the regime after Apple failed to take precautions in the face these warnings.
  - imoverclocked 1y ago

thayne 1y ago

The point is that if you could install the app by side loading it, or from a third party app store, then a Government order to remove an app doesn't make it impossible to use that app. But Apples actions, ostensibly to protect its users, but in reality to protect its profits, has put it in a situation where it is a much more effective tool for government censorship.

ajross 1y ago

> Apple [...] has to obey the rule of law. No, Apple has to obey the law. The idea of "rule of law" is a shorthand for the set of norms and practices understood by everyone under a single regime, including both specific laws and authorities and more general principles. One of those, notably, is "the government shouldn't force private companies to censor their app stores".[1] The rule of law is indeed being violated here, but in the other direction. [1] Or "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech", if you swing that way.

imoverclocked 1y ago
> The rule of law is indeed being violated here, but in the other direction. I agree. However, the way things work is such that these things take time to sort out, if they get sorted out at all.

jayd16 1y ago

There's no rule that says they need to block other app stores. That's a choice they made. The consequences are also a choice they made.

windexh8er 1y ago

Rule of law? Is that like the token of appreciation Tim Cook presented? There are laws. Rule of law is a slippery slope. There is no law or precedent set that would concern Apple with these apps. Apple is bending the knee. The exact same way they do with China.