4 ms·

Is it illegal for Americans to track their authorities or are the corporations all doing this quite voluntarily?

nsxwolf 1y ago
It’s perfectly legal, but also perfectly legal for a corporation to choose not to sell or distribute a particular software application.
- codedokode 1y ago
  In a free market the consumer always has a choice between companies doing censorship and companies doing censorship.
  - nsxwolf 1y ago
    How many times are we going to re-litigate this? Until there’s a law requiring side loading options, you have the web. Everyone here was totally fine with the “gay cure” apps being pulled.
    - Amezarak 1y ago
      Most people also seemed to celebrate Parler and Gab being pulled/denied. It was perfectly obvious that the same logic could be used to do things like this, but many people seem to be totally surprised or oblivious.
      - myko 1y ago
        The difference is the government's hands in such actions
        Amezarak 1y ago
        We've had multiple leaks and reports that the government was directly involved in these censorship cases prior to January 20, 2025. So no, that's not the difference. On this very forum, people (not you) argued it was perfectly acceptable because the government was only "asking", not requiring. Unfortunately, the civil libertarians have been drowned out for years by people who believed that it was right to do whatever it took to shut down right-wingers/misinformation/disinformation/hate speech/Russian propaganda/conspiracy theorists/Hunter laptop posters/whatever. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, they are shocked and outraged, even as they built the tools, institutions, mechanisms, and political support used to do this.
      - deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
    - 93po 1y ago
      there's a difference between not allowing very harmful hatespeech and saying something like "I saw a cop at this address" yes, the web exists, and while it's not functionally preventing all possible phone access to the app, it's increasing the barrier to entry in a way that meaningfully massively reduces its use
      - nsxwolf 1y ago
        “I saw an abortion provider at this address”
        93po 1y ago
        the difference is there is an implicit call to violence there and it's private people, not representatives of the government. the idea behind the ICE agent tracking is to avoid them. you don't need to avoid abortion providers, they're not sneaking up on people on the street and giving them abortions. someone doesnt need ICE tracking apps to attack ICE agents, they're wearing vests with giant "ICE" text on them. that someone allegedly misused the app in this way is like saying we need to ban knives because someone used one to stab someone else
    - UncleMeat 1y ago
      I have no problem saying that good things are good and bad things are bad. The idea that nobody is allowed to have content preferences is ridiculous and not actually a thing that anybody believes.
  - noir_lord 1y ago
    Yep and one day maybe we'll get one on mobile devices. Today isn't that day alas.
  - Waterluvian 1y ago
    Not sure you intended the double positive but I think it’s funny and apt.
    - codedokode 1y ago
      Intended.
- Hizonner 1y ago
  It is not legal for the government to induce a corporation to do that with threats of unrelated, bogus litigation, enforcement fishing expeditions, interference with the legally required government contracting process, or the like. Since the Trump administration has a consistent, well-established pattern of doing all those things, we can all assume that's what's going on.
- myko 1y ago
  When it's removed due to the chilling effect of the government attacking our first amendment rights this gets murkier. Do you think they make this choice if the regime weren't going after their political enemies?
  - nsxwolf 1y ago
    Yes, I believe they would have removed this app during the Obama and Biden administrations if it had become associated with political assassination.
    - myko 1y ago
      This hasn't happened.
ranger_danger 1y ago
IANAL but I research this stuff quite a bit. Doxxing of federal employees' personal information in certain circumstances is technically illegal (but many people think it isn't): https://www.robertreeveslaw.com/blog/doxing-arrested/ https://www.robertreeveslaw.com/blog/doxing-arrested/ But publishing location information of where authorities happen to be in public at a certain time... I don't think is actually illegal. The Apple app author also believes he is 100% legal and is seeking to go to court over this. https://www.kpbs.org/news/science-technology/2025/10/03/legal-experts-condemn-apple-bowing-to-white-houses-request-to-remove-ice-tracking-app https://www.kpbs.org/news/science-technology/2025/10/03/lega...
- ranger_danger 1y ago
  Another point I forgot to make (can't edit anymore)... It could possibly be found that the government illegally pressured or "coerced" a company like Apple/Google to remove "speech" (an app) they didn't want. https://robertslaw.org/1st-amendment-protection-against-using-3rd-party-to-silence-or-punish/ https://robertslaw.org/1st-amendment-protection-against-usin...
arnath 1y ago
Not illegal, not exactly voluntary either. Companies are caving to threats from the Trump administration
davidw 1y ago
It's the equivalent of posting on social media that you just saw some ice agents at such and such an address. Completely protected speech... At least it is unless the Roberts court shadow dockets it.

It’s perfectly legal, but also perfectly legal for a corporation to choose not to sell or distribute a particular software application.

codedokode 1y ago
In a free market the consumer always has a choice between companies doing censorship and companies doing censorship.
- nsxwolf 1y ago
  How many times are we going to re-litigate this? Until there’s a law requiring side loading options, you have the web. Everyone here was totally fine with the “gay cure” apps being pulled.
  - Amezarak 1y ago
    Most people also seemed to celebrate Parler and Gab being pulled/denied. It was perfectly obvious that the same logic could be used to do things like this, but many people seem to be totally surprised or oblivious.
    - myko 1y ago
      The difference is the government's hands in such actions
      - Amezarak 1y ago
        We've had multiple leaks and reports that the government was directly involved in these censorship cases prior to January 20, 2025. So no, that's not the difference. On this very forum, people (not you) argued it was perfectly acceptable because the government was only "asking", not requiring. Unfortunately, the civil libertarians have been drowned out for years by people who believed that it was right to do whatever it took to shut down right-wingers/misinformation/disinformation/hate speech/Russian propaganda/conspiracy theorists/Hunter laptop posters/whatever. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, they are shocked and outraged, even as they built the tools, institutions, mechanisms, and political support used to do this.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
  - 93po 1y ago
    there's a difference between not allowing very harmful hatespeech and saying something like "I saw a cop at this address" yes, the web exists, and while it's not functionally preventing all possible phone access to the app, it's increasing the barrier to entry in a way that meaningfully massively reduces its use
    - nsxwolf 1y ago
      “I saw an abortion provider at this address”
      - 93po 1y ago
        the difference is there is an implicit call to violence there and it's private people, not representatives of the government. the idea behind the ICE agent tracking is to avoid them. you don't need to avoid abortion providers, they're not sneaking up on people on the street and giving them abortions. someone doesnt need ICE tracking apps to attack ICE agents, they're wearing vests with giant "ICE" text on them. that someone allegedly misused the app in this way is like saying we need to ban knives because someone used one to stab someone else
  - UncleMeat 1y ago
    I have no problem saying that good things are good and bad things are bad. The idea that nobody is allowed to have content preferences is ridiculous and not actually a thing that anybody believes.
- noir_lord 1y ago
  Yep and one day maybe we'll get one on mobile devices. Today isn't that day alas.
- Waterluvian 1y ago
  Not sure you intended the double positive but I think it’s funny and apt.
  - codedokode 1y ago
    Intended.
Hizonner 1y ago
It is not legal for the government to induce a corporation to do that with threats of unrelated, bogus litigation, enforcement fishing expeditions, interference with the legally required government contracting process, or the like. Since the Trump administration has a consistent, well-established pattern of doing all those things, we can all assume that's what's going on.
myko 1y ago
When it's removed due to the chilling effect of the government attacking our first amendment rights this gets murkier. Do you think they make this choice if the regime weren't going after their political enemies?
- nsxwolf 1y ago
  Yes, I believe they would have removed this app during the Obama and Biden administrations if it had become associated with political assassination.
  - myko 1y ago
    This hasn't happened.

ranger_danger 1y ago

IANAL but I research this stuff quite a bit. Doxxing of federal employees' personal information in certain circumstances is technically illegal (but many people think it isn't): https://www.robertreeveslaw.com/blog/doxing-arrested/ https://www.robertreeveslaw.com/blog/doxing-arrested/ But publishing location information of where authorities happen to be in public at a certain time... I don't think is actually illegal. The Apple app author also believes he is 100% legal and is seeking to go to court over this. https://www.kpbs.org/news/science-technology/2025/10/03/legal-experts-condemn-apple-bowing-to-white-houses-request-to-remove-ice-tracking-app https://www.kpbs.org/news/science-technology/2025/10/03/lega...

ranger_danger 1y ago
Another point I forgot to make (can't edit anymore)... It could possibly be found that the government illegally pressured or "coerced" a company like Apple/Google to remove "speech" (an app) they didn't want. https://robertslaw.org/1st-amendment-protection-against-using-3rd-party-to-silence-or-punish/ https://robertslaw.org/1st-amendment-protection-against-usin...

arnath 1y ago

Not illegal, not exactly voluntary either. Companies are caving to threats from the Trump administration

davidw 1y ago

It's the equivalent of posting on social media that you just saw some ice agents at such and such an address. Completely protected speech... At least it is unless the Roberts court shadow dockets it.