Product1 publisher3 min readPublished
Lawmaker says Apple worked with the Trump administration to pull ICE-tracking apps
Apple worked with the Trump administration to remove ICE-tracking apps from its App Store, according to a lawmaker. Whether officials pushed decides whether this is a First Amendment matter, and so far the public record is that claim plus a reader thread.
The Product Desk · Product desk
Drafted by a language model from the sources cited here and checked against its claim ledger before publication. How we use AISend a correction
What happened
- A reader in the Ars Technica thread argued that Apple removing the apps on its own, even preemptively, would be protected speech and no First Amendment violation.
- A commenter noted that the law does not require companies to follow such government requests unless a court orders it.
- One reader said app users have two options, Apple or Google, and that both comply with government requests preemptively.
Compiled by The Product DeskSomething wrong?How this is made
Why it matters
- exposure If the lawmaker's account holds, the First Amendment exposure moves off Apple's store policy and onto the officials who made the request.
- precedent Removals won by request without a court order, if they go unchallenged, give officials a way to take apps off phones without a judge ever ruling.
- constraint With two platforms that a reader says both comply preemptively, moving to the other store gives developers of enforcement-tracking apps little protection.
- decision Teams building apps that watch enforcement have to decide whether to keep a web version ready for the day the store listing disappears.
"Apple or Google, both of which will happily comply to government requests preemptively," one reader wrote in the Ars Technica forum thread under the story. The reader was answering the idea that users have options [3]. For someone who wanted one of these apps, the list of storefronts stops at two. From the phone, I think a removal looks the same whatever prompted it. The listing is gone.
In law, the reason matters, and the same thread drew the line plainly. "If Apple removed them on its own (even if it was preemptive) that wouldn't be a 1A violation, it'd literally be 1A protected activity," one commenter wrote [2]. If the administration was threatening or jawboning Apple, the commenter added, "that'd be a different story" [9]. Another reader put it in one sentence: "If Apple is acting as a tool of a branch of government then it's the government violating your first amendment rights." [5]
The lawmaker's claim that Apple worked with the administration [1] puts the removals on the government side of that line. The thread excerpt does not reproduce the lawmaker's statement or any response from Apple. The only name in it comes from a commenter who, after laying out the state-actor argument, wrote "Raskin surely knows that." [6]
"Worked with" could mean a request Apple was glad to grant. It could also mean a threat Apple gave in to. "The law doesn't require them to follow those requests unless a court orders it," a commenter wrote [4]. If no court order was involved, removing the apps was Apple's choice, and the open question is how much pressure came with the request. A developer who treats the App Store as the only party to deal with is betting that Apple's decision was Apple's alone.
The thread also split over what users are left with. "Websites still exist," one reader wrote, arguing that deleting an app takes no one's speech away [7]. Another called the underlying problem Apple's "App Store monopoly" and argued that owners should be able "to run whatever software they choose" [8].
For a team deciding how far to depend on a store listing, two questions sort the cases. The first is who made the call: the store or an official. The second is whether users can reach the tool without the store. If the store made the call and a web version exists, it is a product problem with a known fix. If the store made the call and there is no other route, it is the ownership fight the monopoly commenter describes [8]. If an official made the call and a web version exists, it is a legal question for the government [5], and users can still get the tool. If an official made the call and there is no other route, it is both problems at once. The second platform offers little cover if, as one reader wrote, both companies comply preemptively [3].
For any tool whose job is watching enforcement, I'd build the web version before the native app, because the second question is the only one a developer controls. The cost is a second product to maintain. It also leaves the first question resting on the lawmaker's account [1] until the lawmaker or Apple publishes more.
What to watch
- Apple's own account of whether the removals followed a request from the administration, and in what form.
- Publication of the lawmaker's evidence, such as correspondence between officials and Apple.
- Whether Google removes the same apps, which would test a reader's claim that both platforms comply preemptively.