3 ms·

This was the correct move from apple. Tools like this used to crowdsource location data of law enforcement can be used for malicious purposes.

by t1234s 1y ago

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
Hikikomori 1y ago
"law enforcement" is charitable.
ajross 1y ago
As gets pointed out, that justification is post hoc; the argument wasn't made when the app was introduced, only after the ban. It's also leaning hard on "can be" and just letting the reader infer what "malicious" means. Clearly the intent is that protestors can show up to disrupt enforcement actions. Is that what you mean? If so, you should say so. But it's also just plain overbroad: the same logic applies to Waze flagging of speed traps, which are also "crowd sourced law enforcement location data". Basically this is bunk. The app got banned because the government doesn't want its enforcement actions disrupted by protestors, and whined[1] to Apple to coerce them into a ban. [1] Plausibly threatened. It's not alleged here but they did it to Disney and Paramount already.
- pseudalopex 1y ago
  > Clearly the intent is that protestors can show up to disrupt enforcement actions. Was this your claim or your description of someone else's claim? You and the ICEBlock developer compared it to Waze. People use Waze to avoid speed traps. Not protest them.
  - ajross 1y ago
    > People use Waze to avoid speed traps. Not protest them. Exactly! So it is about protest then? You don't want people to show up and display their displeasure at the execution of a particular policy? Y'know, peaceably assembling and petitioning for redress of grievances and all? You don't maybe see a first amendment argument here? Upthread commenter dropped "malicious" to imply something presumably worse, like threats to law enforcement officers that haven't been made. But if it's just about protest then we have a prior restraint on speech. And that's worse.
    - pseudalopex 1y ago
      > So it is about protest then? You don't want people to show up and display their displeasure at the execution of a particular policy? I questioned the claim ICEBlock was intended clearly for protest.
penultimatename 1y ago
That same justification can be applied to block web browsers, any social media platform, and any navigation app that allows user alert inputs. The entire thing reeks of the same Biden-era pressures on companies that had pandemic misinformation that Republicans were so vehemently opposed to. Somehow harming law enforcement is a better justification than harming random citizens.

This was the correct move from apple. Tools like this used to crowdsource location data of law enforcement can be used for malicious purposes.

by t1234s 1y ago

This was the correct move from apple. Tools like this used to crowdsource location data of law enforcement can be used for malicious purposes.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

Hikikomori 1y ago

"law enforcement" is charitable.

ajross 1y ago

As gets pointed out, that justification is post hoc; the argument wasn't made when the app was introduced, only after the ban. It's also leaning hard on "can be" and just letting the reader infer what "malicious" means. Clearly the intent is that protestors can show up to disrupt enforcement actions. Is that what you mean? If so, you should say so. But it's also just plain overbroad: the same logic applies to Waze flagging of speed traps, which are also "crowd sourced law enforcement location data". Basically this is bunk. The app got banned because the government doesn't want its enforcement actions disrupted by protestors, and whined[1] to Apple to coerce them into a ban. [1] Plausibly threatened. It's not alleged here but they did it to Disney and Paramount already.

pseudalopex 1y ago
> Clearly the intent is that protestors can show up to disrupt enforcement actions. Was this your claim or your description of someone else's claim? You and the ICEBlock developer compared it to Waze. People use Waze to avoid speed traps. Not protest them.
- ajross 1y ago
  > People use Waze to avoid speed traps. Not protest them. Exactly! So it is about protest then? You don't want people to show up and display their displeasure at the execution of a particular policy? Y'know, peaceably assembling and petitioning for redress of grievances and all? You don't maybe see a first amendment argument here? Upthread commenter dropped "malicious" to imply something presumably worse, like threats to law enforcement officers that haven't been made. But if it's just about protest then we have a prior restraint on speech. And that's worse.
  - pseudalopex 1y ago
    > So it is about protest then? You don't want people to show up and display their displeasure at the execution of a particular policy? I questioned the claim ICEBlock was intended clearly for protest.

penultimatename 1y ago

That same justification can be applied to block web browsers, any social media platform, and any navigation app that allows user alert inputs. The entire thing reeks of the same Biden-era pressures on companies that had pandemic misinformation that Republicans were so vehemently opposed to. Somehow harming law enforcement is a better justification than harming random citizens.