It's not, I see it on the front page all the time. Lots of times the topics they report on get flagged, though. My favorites has a lot of 404 links. My understanding is if there's an archive link it should be fine.
I'm gonna steelman an argument I don't hold: What about CIA? Revealing the identity of a CIA operative is a crime.
I'm just responding to the part "Don't they serve us?"
> Intentionally disclosing the identity of a U.S. intelligence agent, including a CIA officer, is a federal crime under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act (IIPA), which can result in up to 10 years in prison and fines. This law applies to individuals with authorized access to classified information and those without access who intentionally expose agents, knowing their actions could harm U.S. foreign intelligence operations.
But intelligence and law enforcement aren't the same thing, and the CIA is specifically prohibited from operating domestically. Valiant attempt, but talking about law enforcement (again, as opposed to intelligence) activities that take place in public is a matter of settled law. We decided that you're allowed to warn people that the police are around, even if it will help people get away with crimes, as a first amendment matter when we decided that police can't make it illegal for you to flash your lights at an oncoming driver to warn them (https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/headlight-flashing/). There's no steelman for this, Apple is just trying to preemptively comply with an administration that considers civil rights inconvenient.
Revealing the identity of a CIA officer is not a crime unless you hold/held a clearance or it is part of a 'pattern of activities' designed to reveal such identities. Regular people have freedom of speech.
Such a law protecting ICE would not withstand scrutiny by the courts.
Yes - you have the right to observe public actions of federal agencies and agents and to report on them.
However a private entity, including Apple, is free to censor whatever they want on their platforms.
For example, I have the right to voraciously criticize or praise the current Administration or the prior Administration without government interference. However if you own a grocery store you are generally free to ban anyone wearing, or not wearing, a garment criticizing or praising either Administration (or any specific combination of praising or criticizing or referring to the current Administration or the prior Administration). Political views, unlike race or religion for example, are not a protected class under federal law even in a public accommodation such as a grocery store.
Apple and Tim Apple are here for profits. <---period.
They could not care less if you, the customer lived or died, as long as your check clears.
Source: Tim Apple sucking up to Trump like he's the antidote. This is even more ironic considering Tim's sexual orientation and Mango Jabba's take on "the gays".
100%. There is even a very strong national security argument for the US Government allowing Apple this level of control over the hardware that ~200 million Americans carry.
baffling that in this day and age Apple can have some sort of a dictatorship in deciding what people can or cannot install in their own phones they purchased with their own money, and Google taking similar steps towards that direction as well. I guess people just got used to this.
It's REALLY weird the Apple's app store supports generic "targeted groups". Looks like Apple literally is chasing the lowest common denominator of risk management by not upsetting groups.
App Stores need to be taken away from the control of a single corporation and given to a larger non profit made up of multiple stakeholders to manage. Apple should have it's monopoly of the app store taken away.
"You’ll also need to configure some things (primarily service workers and integration with Apple's Push API) in the backend code of your Progressive Web App to handle push notifications (and permissions received from users)."
Does Apple allow integration with the Push API for everyone or same limitations that got this removed from stores?
The corruption is allowing illegal immigrants into the country in the first place. Its a mess that needs cleaned up. I dont condone excessive use of violence unless it's warranted, but open your eyes. Biden allowed the flood gates open. You have to recognize this reality.
Trumps deportation numbers are not out of trend with prior presidents. Its on par with Obama.
Make immigration easier for law abiding productive members of society. Dont reward those who cut in line.
Trump's deportation numbers, despite being wildly disrespectful of the Courts and lacking legality, are way down from Biden and Obama. Instead he's arresting and harassing citizens and people with legal status based on their ethnicity.
Trump is pushing to deport people fleeing authoritarian dictators and war zones, and stripping resources from counter narcotics and people smuggling operations. People smuggling is actually increasing and communities will no longer co-operate with police, leading to increased gang activity. This suits Trump perfectly.
Apple happily locks you out of your own devices, then cries "just complying with local governments" when those locks are used against their users. They're the person holding you down while others kick you. Every bit as guilty - especially when they see their users kicked again and again, yet continue holding them down.
I see ethically there being a difference between what the Chinese and Russian government told them to do where leaders make and enforce the laws with their capitulation to the Trump administration in what is suppose to be a democracy where only the legislative branch and/or court system can demand anything.
I’m also not trying to escuse their heavy handedness about “being nice to China”
“Targeted group” is the language that the Apple guidelines use.
This annoys me because I agree that ICE shouldn’t be a protected class (e.g. have the same legal status as minorities)… but no one is saying that they are.
I don't know why you feel it's loaded if the language of "targeted group" is accompanied with every single group that is a protected class.
> 1.1.1 Defamatory, discriminatory, or mean-spirited content, including references or commentary about religion, race, sexual orientation, gender, national/ethnic origin, or other targeted groups, particularly if the app is likely to humiliate, intimidate, or harm a targeted individual or group. Professional political satirists and humorists are generally exempt from this requirement.
This "ackchyually" behavior from HN is so bizarre.
It doesn’t cover every protected class. You can look them up.
> This "ackchyually" behavior from HN is so bizarre.
Folks generally want to discuss the facts here, not hyperbole. The headline is hyperbolic. The fact is that Apple isn’t saying ICE is a “protected class”. The content of the article doesn’t even back this point up.
>This "ackchyually" behavior from HN is so bizarre.
Demanding rhetorical precision is a wholly predictable backlash from 20yr of language games being a key element of a lot of the rhetoric that got us to where we are.
I'm generally very anti-Apple when it comes to their draconian control over the code I'm allowed to execute on hardware I've purchased. However, I'm going to devil's advocate this situation for a minute (and I do mean the devil, because that is what Apple is):
Very broadly speaking, my position that I feel strongly on is: Apple should enjoy a right to distribute or restrict whatever apps they want through their app store. They might have a reasonable right to restrict what apps can be installed on their operating system and the means through which those apps are installed; I could be convinced either way depending on the day and I would not lose sleep if precedence is established in either direction. But they absolutely should not have any rights when it comes to restricting what operating systems I can run on their devices. I outline that only to state the context and framework within which the next paragraph is typed.
If Apple doesn't want to carry and distribute the anti-ICE app, I think that's their right. Apple's problem right now is that this unilaterally now means that the native application can no longer be executed on iOS, and that is a problem, but let's pretend like it isn't and that this app is now only available through the Epic Games App Store (or wherever). Why is this situation better for the anti-ICE app than just being a web app? This should be a web app, right? It shouldn't really rely on any native capabilities.
Phrase this another way, flip this on its head: the anti-ICE app wants in the App Store because of the marketing and ease of distribution it enables, which I feel are not natural rights developers should have when making applications. Its similar to freedom of speech; you have a right to speak, but you don't have a right to be heard. You should have a right for your app to be available (not all apps can be web apps; but this can). You should not have a right to ultra-streamlined distribution through Apple's servers.
I understand why this is a flashpoint, and I think its important that we push Apple on this issue because there should be more options when it comes to running code on mobile devices. However, functionally speaking: Y'all should just make this a web site.
You can't just do this. If you assume 1=2 all of math falls apart, and the same is true when you assume obviously un-true facts: the reason all of this matters at all is only because Apple wants to ban this kind of software from being native AT ALL, not merely because they don't want to themselves distribute something they dislike. I'd happily stand up to defend their right to do the latter if-and-only-if they stop doing the former, and you can't separate these two issues.
> ...the anti-ICE app wants in the App Store because of the marketing and ease of distribution it enables...
And so like, here: I don't care if the app doesn't get to be in the App Store, and I don't care if it gets "marketing" or "ease of distribution" from Apple. I do care that it gets to be a native app. I deeply deeply care about that.
(BTW, the App Store in fact DOES NOT provide marketing, and if you ever go to any developer conference that focuses on mobile apps that's extremely common knowledge. Except in extremely narrow circumstances, users do not discover apps inside the App Store: they discover apps from advertisements, word of mouth / viral features, and searching for things on Google. The search engine inside of the App Store is pitiful and, to the extent to which it works at all, often surfaces your competitor's app before yours.)
> Why is this situation better for the anti-ICE app than just being a web app? This should be a web app, right? It shouldn't really rely on any native capabilities.
I mean, in a perfect world, this app wouldn't be a web app, because a web app makes it really easy to go to the servers and shut it down, allows for a network choke-point to discover its users by traffic analysis, and generally harass (whether legally or illegally) the people who are paying for the service to exist.
What you want here is a peer-to-peer service, which requires a native app that you can download from numerous sources, one that is published anonymously, one which uses DHTs to store information and which builds on a platform capable of hidden services... and yet you also want to have things like push notifications (possible from native apps using local notifications that are surfaced after background updates).
Like, I dunno: this entire discussion is always so broken as it relies on so many assumptions made by people about what actually should happen... but every single one of these assumptions is buying into a narrative frame that Apple themselves have set through the years by choosing what to cripple in their quest to own app distribution.
Relatedly, Eyes Up has been removed from AppStore by Apple. Unfortunately 404 Media are softbanned on HN and the ones reporting here.
Apple Banned an App That Simply Archived Videos of ICE Abuses
https://eyesupapp.com/
Why is 404 media banned?
It's not, I see it on the front page all the time. Lots of times the topics they report on get flagged, though. My favorites has a lot of 404 links. My understanding is if there's an archive link it should be fine.
2 replies →
I asked ChatGPT and it linked me to a post dang responded to.
It’s related to their paywall.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42308348
5 replies →
Why don't citizens have the right to track federal agencies? Don't they serve us? Apple is capitulating to autocratic rule.
I'm gonna steelman an argument I don't hold: What about CIA? Revealing the identity of a CIA operative is a crime.
I'm just responding to the part "Don't they serve us?"
> Intentionally disclosing the identity of a U.S. intelligence agent, including a CIA officer, is a federal crime under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act (IIPA), which can result in up to 10 years in prison and fines. This law applies to individuals with authorized access to classified information and those without access who intentionally expose agents, knowing their actions could harm U.S. foreign intelligence operations.
But intelligence and law enforcement aren't the same thing, and the CIA is specifically prohibited from operating domestically. Valiant attempt, but talking about law enforcement (again, as opposed to intelligence) activities that take place in public is a matter of settled law. We decided that you're allowed to warn people that the police are around, even if it will help people get away with crimes, as a first amendment matter when we decided that police can't make it illegal for you to flash your lights at an oncoming driver to warn them (https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/headlight-flashing/). There's no steelman for this, Apple is just trying to preemptively comply with an administration that considers civil rights inconvenient.
Revealing the identity of a CIA officer is not a crime unless you hold/held a clearance or it is part of a 'pattern of activities' designed to reveal such identities. Regular people have freedom of speech.
Such a law protecting ICE would not withstand scrutiny by the courts.
I mean sure, but ICE is not an intelligence agency or holds classified information.
8 replies →
Yes - you have the right to observe public actions of federal agencies and agents and to report on them.
However a private entity, including Apple, is free to censor whatever they want on their platforms.
For example, I have the right to voraciously criticize or praise the current Administration or the prior Administration without government interference. However if you own a grocery store you are generally free to ban anyone wearing, or not wearing, a garment criticizing or praising either Administration (or any specific combination of praising or criticizing or referring to the current Administration or the prior Administration). Political views, unlike race or religion for example, are not a protected class under federal law even in a public accommodation such as a grocery store.
> a private entity, including Apple, is free to censor whatever they want on their platforms
In case of the duopoly, when the consumers have no practical choice of the platform, this should be illegal, too.
They do it in China? Customer needs and wants are profit driven decisions.
Should non-citizens also have the right to track federal agencies?
Apple and Tim Apple are here for profits. <---period.
They could not care less if you, the customer lived or died, as long as your check clears.
Source: Tim Apple sucking up to Trump like he's the antidote. This is even more ironic considering Tim's sexual orientation and Mango Jabba's take on "the gays".
There's a national security argument for the EU banning non-European app stores.
100%. There is even a very strong national security argument for the US Government allowing Apple this level of control over the hardware that ~200 million Americans carry.
baffling that in this day and age Apple can have some sort of a dictatorship in deciding what people can or cannot install in their own phones they purchased with their own money, and Google taking similar steps towards that direction as well. I guess people just got used to this.
Source: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45521066)
It's REALLY weird the Apple's app store supports generic "targeted groups". Looks like Apple literally is chasing the lowest common denominator of risk management by not upsetting groups.
> not upsetting groups
Have you been following Apple's China policies and decisions?
App Stores need to be taken away from the control of a single corporation and given to a larger non profit made up of multiple stakeholders to manage. Apple should have it's monopoly of the app store taken away.
Ok so what do we do? I'm serious. I'm sick of this corruption.
Support https://eff.org and switch to a GNU/Linux phone.
Would be safer to use GrapheneOS and distribute these apps on F-Droid, using a custom repo if the main one won't allow them.
1 reply →
A good question. One I don't have any clean answers to.
A lot of folks will have a knee-jerk 'switch to linux' response, but that's not exactly that simple - is it?
It is, unless you rely on apps strongly tied to Apple (which you avoid anyway).
Can host it on a website. Why bother with an app?
To get notifications one site says:
"You’ll also need to configure some things (primarily service workers and integration with Apple's Push API) in the backend code of your Progressive Web App to handle push notifications (and permissions received from users)."
Does Apple allow integration with the Push API for everyone or same limitations that got this removed from stores?
The corruption is allowing illegal immigrants into the country in the first place. Its a mess that needs cleaned up. I dont condone excessive use of violence unless it's warranted, but open your eyes. Biden allowed the flood gates open. You have to recognize this reality.
Trumps deportation numbers are not out of trend with prior presidents. Its on par with Obama.
Make immigration easier for law abiding productive members of society. Dont reward those who cut in line.
Your post is really using alternative facts.
Trump's deportation numbers, despite being wildly disrespectful of the Courts and lacking legality, are way down from Biden and Obama. Instead he's arresting and harassing citizens and people with legal status based on their ethnicity.
Trump is pushing to deport people fleeing authoritarian dictators and war zones, and stripping resources from counter narcotics and people smuggling operations. People smuggling is actually increasing and communities will no longer co-operate with police, leading to increased gang activity. This suits Trump perfectly.
For anyone remotely surprised:
Apple Told Some Apple TV+ Show Developers Not To Anger China - https://www.cjr.org/the_media_today/apple_appstore_china_cen...
Apple happily locks you out of your own devices, then cries "just complying with local governments" when those locks are used against their users. They're the person holding you down while others kick you. Every bit as guilty - especially when they see their users kicked again and again, yet continue holding them down.
At the same time they are happy to play the defender of Human Right.
Apple CEO Tim Cook: 'Privacy Is A Fundamental Human Right'. - https://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2015/10/01/44...
Also:
Apple's Cooperation with Authoritarian Governments - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26644216
I see ethically there being a difference between what the Chinese and Russian government told them to do where leaders make and enforce the laws with their capitulation to the Trump administration in what is suppose to be a democracy where only the legislative branch and/or court system can demand anything.
I’m also not trying to escuse their heavy handedness about “being nice to China”
Corporations are people and militarized police is a discriminated minority.
Welcome to the right-wing funhouse mirror version of civil rights...
Maybe we should start calling it iceOS
Maybe we should stop using its 'solutions'. All of them.
[flagged]
This headline feels loaded.
“Protected class” has a legal definition.
“Targeted group” is the language that the Apple guidelines use.
This annoys me because I agree that ICE shouldn’t be a protected class (e.g. have the same legal status as minorities)… but no one is saying that they are.
I don't know why you feel it's loaded if the language of "targeted group" is accompanied with every single group that is a protected class.
> 1.1.1 Defamatory, discriminatory, or mean-spirited content, including references or commentary about religion, race, sexual orientation, gender, national/ethnic origin, or other targeted groups, particularly if the app is likely to humiliate, intimidate, or harm a targeted individual or group. Professional political satirists and humorists are generally exempt from this requirement.
This "ackchyually" behavior from HN is so bizarre.
There's this crazy tendency to LARP as counsel for the defence whenever a big tech company gets bad press.
2 replies →
It doesn’t cover every protected class. You can look them up.
> This "ackchyually" behavior from HN is so bizarre.
Folks generally want to discuss the facts here, not hyperbole. The headline is hyperbolic. The fact is that Apple isn’t saying ICE is a “protected class”. The content of the article doesn’t even back this point up.
4 replies →
> particularly if the app is likely to humiliate, intimidate, or harm a targeted individual or group
That part seems to cover the use case for the apps.
>This "ackchyually" behavior from HN is so bizarre.
Demanding rhetorical precision is a wholly predictable backlash from 20yr of language games being a key element of a lot of the rhetoric that got us to where we are.
1 reply →
I'm generally very anti-Apple when it comes to their draconian control over the code I'm allowed to execute on hardware I've purchased. However, I'm going to devil's advocate this situation for a minute (and I do mean the devil, because that is what Apple is):
Very broadly speaking, my position that I feel strongly on is: Apple should enjoy a right to distribute or restrict whatever apps they want through their app store. They might have a reasonable right to restrict what apps can be installed on their operating system and the means through which those apps are installed; I could be convinced either way depending on the day and I would not lose sleep if precedence is established in either direction. But they absolutely should not have any rights when it comes to restricting what operating systems I can run on their devices. I outline that only to state the context and framework within which the next paragraph is typed.
If Apple doesn't want to carry and distribute the anti-ICE app, I think that's their right. Apple's problem right now is that this unilaterally now means that the native application can no longer be executed on iOS, and that is a problem, but let's pretend like it isn't and that this app is now only available through the Epic Games App Store (or wherever). Why is this situation better for the anti-ICE app than just being a web app? This should be a web app, right? It shouldn't really rely on any native capabilities.
Phrase this another way, flip this on its head: the anti-ICE app wants in the App Store because of the marketing and ease of distribution it enables, which I feel are not natural rights developers should have when making applications. Its similar to freedom of speech; you have a right to speak, but you don't have a right to be heard. You should have a right for your app to be available (not all apps can be web apps; but this can). You should not have a right to ultra-streamlined distribution through Apple's servers.
I understand why this is a flashpoint, and I think its important that we push Apple on this issue because there should be more options when it comes to running code on mobile devices. However, functionally speaking: Y'all should just make this a web site.
> ...but let's pretend like it isn't...
You can't just do this. If you assume 1=2 all of math falls apart, and the same is true when you assume obviously un-true facts: the reason all of this matters at all is only because Apple wants to ban this kind of software from being native AT ALL, not merely because they don't want to themselves distribute something they dislike. I'd happily stand up to defend their right to do the latter if-and-only-if they stop doing the former, and you can't separate these two issues.
> ...the anti-ICE app wants in the App Store because of the marketing and ease of distribution it enables...
And so like, here: I don't care if the app doesn't get to be in the App Store, and I don't care if it gets "marketing" or "ease of distribution" from Apple. I do care that it gets to be a native app. I deeply deeply care about that.
(BTW, the App Store in fact DOES NOT provide marketing, and if you ever go to any developer conference that focuses on mobile apps that's extremely common knowledge. Except in extremely narrow circumstances, users do not discover apps inside the App Store: they discover apps from advertisements, word of mouth / viral features, and searching for things on Google. The search engine inside of the App Store is pitiful and, to the extent to which it works at all, often surfaces your competitor's app before yours.)
> Why is this situation better for the anti-ICE app than just being a web app? This should be a web app, right? It shouldn't really rely on any native capabilities.
I mean, in a perfect world, this app wouldn't be a web app, because a web app makes it really easy to go to the servers and shut it down, allows for a network choke-point to discover its users by traffic analysis, and generally harass (whether legally or illegally) the people who are paying for the service to exist.
What you want here is a peer-to-peer service, which requires a native app that you can download from numerous sources, one that is published anonymously, one which uses DHTs to store information and which builds on a platform capable of hidden services... and yet you also want to have things like push notifications (possible from native apps using local notifications that are surfaced after background updates).
Like, I dunno: this entire discussion is always so broken as it relies on so many assumptions made by people about what actually should happen... but every single one of these assumptions is buying into a narrative frame that Apple themselves have set through the years by choosing what to cripple in their quest to own app distribution.