Apple has removed the âWaze but for ICE sightingsâ app ICEBlock from its App Store, as reported previously by Business Insider. A post from its developer relayed Appleâs App Review message about the ban, saying, âWe just received a message from Appleâs App Review that #ICEBlock has been removed from the App Store due to âobjectionable content.â The only thing we can imagine is this is due to pressure from the Trump Admin. We have responded and weâll fight this!â
The ICEBlock app rose to the top of the App Storeâs charts this summer after being targeted by Trump administration officials, with US Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem calling it an âobstruction of justice,â and Attorney General Pam Bondi claiming it was ânot a protected speech.â
Today, Bondi took credit for the appâs removal, saying to Fox News Digital, âWe reached out to Apple today demanding they remove the ICEBlock app from their App Store â and Apple did so. ICEBlock is designed to put ICE agents at risk just for doing their jobs, and violence against law enforcement is an intolerable red line that cannot be crossed.â ICEBlock developer Joshua Aaron is quoted in the same report saying, it counts over 1.1 million users, and that âApple has claimed they received information from law enforcement that ICEBlock served to harm law enforcement officers. This is patently false.â
Apple made similar claims in 2019 when it removed HKMap, an app that allowed Hong Kong protesters to trace the movements of law enforcement, with CEO Tim Cook telling employees that âover the past several days we received credible information, from the Hong Kong Cybersecurity and Technology Crime Bureau, as well as from users in Hong Kong, that the app was being used maliciously to target individual officers for violence and to victimize individuals and property where no police are present.â
At the time, lawmakers from both sides of the aisle spoke out against âAppleâs censorship of apps.â A letter signed by Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR), Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR), Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), Rep. Mike Gallagher (R-WI), and Rep. Tom Malinowski (D-NJ) said, âCases like these raise real concern about whether Apple and other large US corporate entities will bow to growing Chinese demands rather than lose access to a billion Chinese consumers.â
Now, the Trump administration is restricting speech as part of a push against a vaguely defined threat of âantifa.â
As Elizabeth Lopatto and Sarah Jeong wrote earlier today:
Antifa, as described in the national security presidential memorandum (NSPM), is both everything and nothing. It is in forums and social media and in-person meetings. It is in educational organizations and nonprofit institutions. It is protests (âriotsâ) not just in Portland, but in Los Angeles as well, whether against Trumpâs immigration policies or, separately, âanti-police and âcriminal justiceâ riots.â It is the doxxing of masked and armed ICE agents. It is the ârhetoricâ on the bullets alleged to be engraved by Charlie Kirkâs killer â referring, it seems, to an unused bullet casing with a video game button combo on it.
So antifa could be a kid in a black mask tossing a brick at a CCTV camera at an ICE facility. Antifa could be the grandma on the sidewalk holding a sign reading âDONALD TRUMP IS A FASCIST.â Antifa is ACAB. Antifa is Fuck ICE. Antifa is No Kings. Antifa might be a reading group, a teach-in, an Instagram solicitation for mutual aid. Antifa could be the ICEBlock app, and the App Store could be providing material support for terrorism.
The ICEBlock app is intended to be used to anonymously report sightings of US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials and see sightings reported within a 5-mile radius. It says it offers a âcompletely anonymous and secureâ platform without the developer storing any information that is enabled by Appleâs ecosystem, and reverse engineering by at least one researcher confirmed it doesnât share your data directly.
However, others have criticized its messaging, like the developers of Android-based GrapheneOS, who said the developer may be âmisguided about the privacy provided by iOS.â Security engineer and journalist Micah Lee called the app âactivism theater,â saying many of Aaronâs claims in a speech about the app and its security were false, and noted that a server he operated was running outdated software with known vulnerabilities.
Apple has not yet responded to requests from The Verge for an on-the-record comment about the ICEBlock removal.
It’s interesting to see how Apple is navigating app approvals and removals. The decision to take down ICEBlock raises important discussions about app functionality and user safety. Looking forward to seeing how this develops!
It’s definitely a complex situation for Apple, especially with the implications for user safety and privacy. Itâs also worth noting how this could impact similar apps in the future, as developers may need to rethink their approaches to compliance.
I agree, the decision highlights the balancing act between user safety and freedom of information. Itâs interesting to consider how this might set a precedent for other apps that address sensitive social issues.
Absolutely, itâs a tough call. It’s interesting to consider how this decision might set a precedent for other apps that aim to provide real-time information on sensitive topics. Balancing safety with the need for transparency is definitely a complex issue.
You’re right, it does raise important questions about app store policies. This decision could influence how other apps are evaluated, especially those that tackle sensitive social issues. It’ll be interesting to see how developers adapt to these changes moving forward.
Absolutely, it does highlight the complexities of app store regulations. It’s interesting to consider how this may impact developers looking to create apps that address social issues, as they might face more scrutiny moving forward.
I completely agree! The removal of ICEBlock really underscores how app store policies can impact the availability of tools that serve specific communities. It raises questions about balancing user safety and freedom of information.