FCC Leaks of Apple products, Possibly politically motivated?

[Buntschwalbe]

Disclaimer: This is highly speculative. I'm not trying to make up any conspiracy, but just wondering and interested in your opinions on this topic.

Early this week found out, that the FCC leaked infos about apple products that will launch in the future. With Brendan Carr as the chair of the FCC and the whole saga suspending Jimmy Kimmel before, i already got a bit suspicious about these apple leaks. Was this a sheer accident or a move to force apple political complacency on certain subjects?

Now later, the same week we find out, apple is deciding to deplatform an app, that was a thorn in the side of the us government.

So, this could be a just a coincidence, or is there any causality between those two subjects?
What's your take on this?

 

[dada_dave]

Disclaimer: This is highly speculative. I'm not trying to make up any conspiracy, but just wondering and interested in your opinions on this topic.

Early this week found out, that the FCC leaked infos about apple products that will launch in the future. With Brendan Carr as the chair of the FCC and the whole saga suspending Jimmy Kimmel before, i already got a bit suspicious about these apple leaks. Was this a sheer accident or a move to force apple political complacency on certain subjects?

Now later, the same week we find out, apple is deciding to deplatform an app, that was a thorn in the side of the us government.

So, this could be a just a coincidence, or is there any causality between those two subjects?
What's your take on this?

My guess is no, but it’s not outside the realm of possibility. The more likely threat is tariffs and other “lawfare” threats would be more in keeping with their MO. Apple also did the same for China wrt HK protests. I would imagine it didn’t take a lot of pressure. How much it would take to get Apple to cave on privacy is a question I asked in the UK thread.

 

[Cmaier]

Nope. Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by mere incompetence.

 

[NotEntirelyConfused]

Nope. Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by mere incompetence.

A classic aphorism that held true since coined, upended (as many things) by the current US administration. Malice is the point for them.

That said, this seems like too small a hit. They swing for the fences, when they can remember where they put the bat.

 

[NotEntirelyConfused]

A classic aphorism that held true since coined, upended (as many things) by the current US administration. Malice is the point for them.

That said, this seems like too small a hit. They swing for the fences, when they can remember where they put the bat.

...interestingly, while I knew the current name ("Hanlon's Razor") and about Heinlein's version (it should really be named for him, it's classic Heinlein), when I went to look for the date it was first written as Hanlon's Razor it turns out that it goes back way further. Goethe wrote it in the 1700s and it's also attributed to Napoleon.

 

[Cmaier]

...interestingly, while I knew the current name ("Hanlon's Razor") and about Heinlein's version (it should really be named for him, it's classic Heinlein), when I went to look for the date it was first written as Hanlon's Razor it turns out that it goes back way further. Goethe wrote it in the 1700s and it's also attributed to Napoleon.

I know it from Heinlein. I have all his books. In some case several editions. When I was a kid working in NY I’d go to walden books across the street at lunch and buy ‘em up.

 

[Buntschwalbe]

Seems to be a broader crackdown on apps about ICE by Apple, than on first sight.

 

[Buntschwalbe]

Nope. Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by mere incompetence.

So do you apply Heinleins razor on apple or the trump admin, or both in this case?

 

[Cmaier]

So do you apply Heinleins razor on apple or the trump admin, or both in this case?

well, in this case apple seems to have requested secrecy by filling out the forms appropriately, and the administration released it anyway, so seems to me the issue is administrative incompetence.

 

[Buntschwalbe]

and apple blocked the apps due to incompetence as well?

 

[Cmaier]

and apple blocked the apps due to incompetence as well?

That’s a separate topic, but inherent in your question is the assumption that what Apple did with respect to blocking ICE apps is objectively bad. I don’t think that’s the case.

 

[Eric]

From a standpoint of objectivity, if one can create apps to monitor where the police are then why not ICE?

 

[Cmaier]

From a standpoint of objectivity, if one can create apps to monitor where the police are then why not ICE?

There are objective reasons why you shouldn’t be able to do either. One of the reasons cops don’t let you use your phone to text or call people while you are being detained on the side of the road is that they are worried you will call for backup.

I’m not drawing a conclusion either way, I’m just saying that “Apple is bad for removing ICE apps” does not carry the same level of absolute truth as “Murder is bad.” There are arguments both ways.

 

[Eric]

There are objective reasons why you shouldn’t be able to do either. One of the reasons cops don’t let you use your phone to text or call people while you are being detained on the side of the road is that they are worried you will call for backup.

I’m not drawing a conclusion either way, I’m just saying that “Apple is bad for removing ICE apps” does not carry the same level of absolute truth as “Murder is bad.” There are arguments both ways.

I thought the purpose of these apps is to detail the location of ICE and that's all, so if I see ICE raiding my neighbor I could report it (and the location) on the app. This being the case it's hard to see why they would allow it for one and not the other.

 

[Cmaier]

I thought the purpose of these apps is to detail the location of ICE and that's all, so if I see ICE raiding my neighbor I could report it (and the location) on the app. This being the case it's hard to see why they would allow it for one and not the other.

The “purpose” isn’t the same as what it can be used for. Hypothetically (law school time), what if people are using the app to keep track of whether they should flee to avoid legal process? what if people are using the app to find out where ICE is so they can show up and obstruct them (which is a crime?) What if it is causing people to show up and behave violently? I’m not saying any of these things are true, but maybe some of them are.

I won’t engage with the “one but not the other” issue, because I don’t dispute that maybe they should be treated the same; my point is simply that there is no indisputable normative basis I can see to say that the way they all should be treated is “allow them.” And, of course, facts on the ground may affect how they should be treated. Hypothetical: what if people are using ICE apps to commit crime, but aren’t using cop-watching apps for that?

 

[dada_dave]

The “purpose” isn’t the same as what it can be used for. Hypothetically (law school time), what if people are using the app to keep track of whether they should flee to avoid legal process? what if people are using the app to find out where ICE is so they can show up and obstruct them (which is a crime?) What if it is causing people to show up and behave violently? I’m not saying any of these things are true, but maybe some of them are.

I won’t engage with the “one but not the other” issue, because I don’t dispute that maybe they should be treated the same; my point is simply that there is no indisputable normative basis I can see to say that the way they all should be treated is “allow them.” And, of course, facts on the ground may affect how they should be treated. Hypothetical: what if people are using ICE apps to commit crime, but aren’t using cop-watching apps for that?

That’s just stupid. Because you could make any of these “hypotheticals” about any location sharing app that allows users to share local information - including both Apple and Google Maps. Which means the people using it to “commit crimes” just do so on the services they already provide. Or just ban social media altogether or the web or texting …

Further, again, they are doing this at the request of the US government. That alone is red flag.

 

[Cmaier]

That’s just stupid. Because you could make any of these “hypotheticals” about any location sharing app that allows users to share local information - including both Apple and Google Maps. Which means the people using it to “commit crimes” just do so on the services they already provide. Or just ban social media altogether or the web or texting …

Further, again, they are doing this at the request of the US government. That alone is red flag.

Not every location-sharing app shares information about location of people who many in the public are calling on to be attacked. There’s a difference between sharing the location of law enforcement and sharing the location of an uber eats driver.

But I’ll say this - if you can name examples of “any location sharing app that allows user to share local information” where sharing that information may quite possibly result in illegal activity (evading arrest, obstructing justice, assault and battery, etc.), then those maybe should be banned too. I’m not sure what Apple Maps shares (“here’s a pizza shop?”) that is likely to have those results.

Indeed, let’s go back to Eric’s post. He said the “purpose of these apps is to detail the location of ICE and that's all, so if I see ICE raiding my neighbor I could report it (and the location) on the app.”

Ok. So what’s the next step? You see your neighbor being raided, and you report it. What’s the purpose of that? When Eric reports it, what does he hope happens next? There are some plausible legal results (maybe the press is alerted. Maybe absolutely nothing happens.) and many plausible illegal results.

The point being, simply, that if you are telling me that the statement “ICE apps shouldn’t have been removed” is equally “true” as “the administration shouldn’t violate its rules to publicize secret information,” I can’t agree with you.

And I’m someone who thinks ICE should be abolished, is violating due process, and is morphing into the secret police. But I can’t be intellectually dishonest and pretend that the true purpose of these ICE-reporting apps isn’y likely to incite lawbreaking.

 

[Eric]

Further, again, they are doing this at the request of the US government. That alone is red flag.

This is my biggest concern, Trump and his authoritarian regime are effectively ruling the actions of the tech industry and they're all afraid of him. I normally trust Apple and am saddened to see them go down this road.

Not every location-sharing app shares information about location of people who many in the public are calling on to be attacked. There’s a difference between sharing the location of law enforcement and sharing the location of an uber eats driver.

But I’ll say this - if you can name examples of “any location sharing app that allows user to share local information” where sharing that information may quite possibly result in illegal activity (evading arrest, obstructing justice, assault and battery, etc.), then those maybe should be banned too. I’m not sure what Apple Maps shares (“here’s a pizza shop?”) that is likely to have those results.

Indeed, let’s go back to Eric’s post. He said the “purpose of these apps is to detail the location of ICE and that's all, so if I see ICE raiding my neighbor I could report it (and the location) on the app.”

Ok. So what’s the next step? You see your neighbor being raided, and you report it. What’s the purpose of that? When Eric reports it, what does he hope happens next? There are some plausible legal results (maybe the press is alerted. Maybe absolutely nothing happens.) and many plausible illegal results.

The point being, simply, that if you are telling me that the statement “ICE apps shouldn’t have been removed” is equally “true” as “the administration shouldn’t violate its rules to publicize secret information,” I can’t agree with you.

And I’m someone who thinks ICE should be abolished, is violating due process, and is morphing into the secret police. But I can’t be intellectually dishonest and pretend that the true purpose of these ICE-reporting apps isn’y likely to incite lawbreaking.

Hypotheticals aside I'm just looking for neutrality here, I mean the same could be said for reporting a police stop, what comes next was never the point of the app from a logistical perspective, it simply states what is happening and where.

It also makes me wonder how apps like Citizen App will be able to function in the future as well, at some point a line will need to be drawn but government should have no place in this unless the plan is to take away the right to free speech entirely.

As a matter of opinion, ICE is hiding behind masks and unmarked cars essentially kidnapping citizens (most of which we now know are not gang affiliated or criminals) off the street and people 100% should have a right to know who and where they are.

 

[dada_dave]

Not every location-sharing app shares information about location of people who many in the public are calling on to be attacked. There’s a difference between sharing the location of law enforcement and sharing the location of an uber eats driver.

But I’ll say this - if you can name examples of “any location sharing app that allows user to share local information” where sharing that information may quite possibly result in illegal activity (evading arrest, obstructing justice, assault and battery, etc.), then those maybe should be banned too. I’m not sure what Apple Maps shares (“here’s a pizza shop?”) that is likely to have those results.

Indeed, let’s go back to Eric’s post. He said the “purpose of these apps is to detail the location of ICE and that's all, so if I see ICE raiding my neighbor I could report it (and the location) on the app.”

Ok. So what’s the next step? You see your neighbor being raided, and you report it. What’s the purpose of that? When Eric reports it, what does he hope happens next? There are some plausible legal results (maybe the press is alerted. Maybe absolutely nothing happens.) and many plausible illegal results.

The point being, simply, that if you are telling me that the statement “ICE apps shouldn’t have been removed” is equally “true” as “the administration shouldn’t violate its rules to publicize secret information,” I can’t agree with you.

And I’m someone who thinks ICE should be abolished, is violating due process, and is morphing into the secret police. But I can’t be intellectually dishonest and pretend that the true purpose of these ICE-reporting apps isn’y likely to incite lawbreaking.

Google Maps specifically allows tagging of police events (never mind Waze), and you can share anything in Apple Maps if enough people tag it with you, that's the point. How about running red lights? Where are we on that? Specifically warning people about speed traps and cameras so they can evade them? It has been ruled over and over again that sharing police location is constitutionally protected speech and the "could maybe incite law breaking" doesn't hold. Though of course this Supreme Court ... well ... they can rule what they like, nobody believes it has much to do with the Constitution or the law anymore.

Now can I think of circumstances where I personally believe that people should refrain from report police location in real time even they are constitutionally able to? Of course. But I can't be intellectually dishonest and equate "events where just because you CAN do a thing doesn't mean you SHOULD do a thing" with "bowing to government pressure to help stop citizens from organizing against, your words, an organization morphing into the secret police". Especially considering that if we are entering secret police territory what is "illegal" becomes rather murky, no? Which is the whole point of our previous conversation - especially when it comes to what Apple views as its own "red lines".

This is my biggest concern, Trump and his authoritarian regime are effectively ruling the actions of the tech industry and they're all afraid of him. I normally trust Apple and am saddened to see them go down this road.

Exactly and the biggest threat to Apple is that this kind of government will never, long term, have any intention of respecting their red lines. You fight them now or eventually lose everything. To fail to do so, to paraphrase/borrow (admittedly somewhat awkwardly) from Fouche/Talleyrand, is "worse than a crime, it is a mistake".

Hypotheticals aside I'm just looking for neutrality here, I mean the same could be said for reporting a police stop, what comes next was never the point of the app from a logistical perspective, it simply states what is happening and where.

It also makes me wonder how apps like Citizen App will be able to function in the future as well, at some point a line will need to be drawn but government should have no place in this unless the plan is to take away the right to free speech entirely.

As a matter of opinion, ICE is hiding behind masks and unmarked cars essentially kidnapping citizens (most of which we now know are not gang affiliated or criminals) off the street and people 100% should have a right to know who and where they are.

Agreed.

 

[cbum]

I believe there is a solid rationale to be against tools that make law enforcement more difficult.

But that rationale breaks down if law enforcement does the wrong thing.

And the legal system is much too slow to adjudicate IF they are doing wrong in a useful time period. Particularly when law enforcement/authority/authoritarians are contemptuous of the legal system and the latter has lost its deterrent effect.

So we are screwed.