Apple pulled the ICEBlock app, now its creator is suing the government

midian182

Posts: 11,746   +178
Staff member
A hot potato: Remember ICEBlock? Apple pulled the tracking tool, which shows the most recent locations of ICE agents, from its App Store in October following a demand from the DoJ. Now, its developer is suing the US government over claims it infringed his free speech rights.

ICEBlock allows users to anonymously report the most recent sightings of ICE agents by dropping a pin on a map and sharing those reports with others in their vicinity.

The app had more than 1.1 million users, but Attorney General Pam Bondi said it was designed to put ICE agents at risk "just for doing their jobs."

Bondi reportedly demanded that Apple remove ICEBlock from its store, which it did along with several other apps that offered similar functionality.

The app's creator, Joshua Aaron, criticized the Trump administration for pressuring Apple at the time, complaining that capitulating to an authoritarian regime is never the right move.

Now, Aaron has filed a lawsuit against Bondi, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, and other administration officials. The suit claims that these individuals made "unconstitutional threats and demands against Apple" that resulted in ICEBlock's removal.

"When we see our government doing something wrong, it's our duty as citizens of this nation to hold them accountable, and that is exactly what we're doing with this lawsuit," Aaron said.

The lawsuit asks the court to stop the defendants from "coercing, threatening, or demanding Apple or other app distribution services in order to stop distribution of the App" and "threatening, investigating, or prosecuting Aaron."

The demand to remove the app came after the FBI reported the gunman behind the deadly shooting at an ICE field office in Dallas, Texas, in September had searched his phone for tracking apps, including ICEBlock. The shooter opened fire from a rooftop, killing two immigrants and injuring a third, though he was allegedly targeting ICE agents. The FBI said a bullet was found with "ANTI-ICE" written on it.

Apple said at the time that it had removed ICEBlock because of the safety risks associated with the app. According to the suit, it cited a review guideline that states apps cannot include objectionable content intended to humiliate, intimidate, or harm a targeted group – though professional political satirists and humorists are generally exempt from this requirement.

ICEBlock had been available on the App Store since April before it was removed – it still works for those who downloaded it. Legal experts say that surveillance of immigration agents is largely protected under the US Constitution, providing people don't interfere with their work.

Aaron told CNBC that his complaint was inspired by the US founding fathers, who believed that "the survival of our democratic republic isn't guaranteed."

"It requires constant vigilance, active and informed participation of its citizens," Aaron said. "When we see or think our government is doing something wrong, it's our duty to hold them accountable. And that is the heart of this lawsuit."

"Growing up in a Jewish household, I learned from history about the consequences of staying silent in the face of tyranny," Aaron said in a statement. "I will never back down from resisting the Trump Administration's targeting of immigrants and conscripting corporations into its unconstitutional agenda."

In July, acting ICE Director Todd Lyons slammed ICEBlock as being "reckless and irresponsible," claiming that it "paints a target on federal law enforcement officers' backs." Ironically, it was this controversy and ensuing publicity that pushed ICEBlock to the top of the App Store.

Permalink to story:

 
Warning people about police activity is protected speech as ruled by the US Supreme Court. If cops want to hide, they can go under cover.
 
Just imagine if for some reason people hated the app creator and wanted to cause turmoil or harm to him. Then someone created an app to allow people to pinpoint his positions so other people could try and locate him.....

Bet you he'd be pissed and want that app removed.

As to whether the app is good or bad, that's not my decision, but I think it's douchey to try and put anyone's life in greater harm's way no matter how you justify it.
 
Warning people about police activity is protected speech as ruled by the US Supreme Court. If cops want to hide, they can go under cover.

The First Amendment protects speech from the Government not corporations. Apple is free to allow or not allow any app on their platform.

Edit: That is why I like android (for now). I can side load any app I want without jail breaking it.
 
Last edited:
The fundamental issue is that Apple controls what apps people can & can't install on iPhones. This guy should have the write an app like this, Apple should have the right to not include it in their own store front, and device owners should have the the right to install stuff that is not manufacturer approved, at their own risk of course.
 
The fundamental issue is that Apple controls what apps people can & can't install on iPhones. This guy should have the write an app like this, Apple should have the right to not include it in their own store front, and device owners should have the the right to install stuff that is not manufacturer approved, at their own risk of course.
You can sideloads apps on iPhones without jailbreaking them. People are just too lazy to do it or they don’t care as much as people claim they do. See AltStore.
Warning people about police activity is protected speech as ruled by the US Supreme Court. If cops want to hide, they can go under cover.
Well Apple’s policy is simply not to allow apps designed to cause people to fear for their lives. I’m guessing they’d allow the app if there was a delay or something. The name could also be an issue “Block ICE”. I also don’t see a “Find Elon” app or something that tracks private flights.

Anyways, Apple is actually pretty good at following their own ideals. This situation doesn’t decrease security for their users instead of a foreign one, so there’s a chance it is different from other examples. But how many countries have we seen ask for a backdoor into iPhone security? Even the US government demanded a backdoor into the iPhone several times before, including for a terrorist attack: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple–FBI_encryption_dispute
 
The First Amendment protects speech from the Government not corporations. Apple is free to allow or not allow any app on their platform.

Edit: That is why I like android (for now). I can side load any app I want without jail breaking it.

-But the first amendment also protects corporations from the government as well.

If the Feds leaned on Apple to remove the app, that's still a first amendment violation.
 
Can anyone give me a list of countries in the world that anyone can move to and work legally without a passport or visa?
Inside Schengen Area (29 European countries) one does need neither Passport nor Visa to move, live and work. Many live in one country, work in another and cross borders twice every day.
 
I’m wondering about the precedent set… Waze lets people report cops/speed cams/ etc… can that be banned from the AppStore?
They’re owned by google, which would make it even more interesting…
 
Inside Schengen Area (29 European countries) one does need neither Passport nor Visa to move, live and work. Many live in one country, work in another and cross borders twice every day.
Conclusion
While you are absolutely correct that the Schengen/EU/EEA zone is the closest example of free movement and work for its citizens, it does not change the answer to the original question for the general public (I.e., non-EU/EEA citizens) who want to move and work there.

For anyone who is not already a citizen of an EU or EEA country, a passport is needed to enter the zone, and a visa/permit is needed to live and work legally long-term.
 
Inside Schengen Area (29 European countries) one does need neither Passport nor Visa to move, live and work. Many live in one country, work in another and cross borders twice every day.
But if you live outside that aggreed area you need a viss
Inside Schengen Area (29 European countries) one does need neither Passport nor Visa to move, live and work. Many live in one country, work in another and cross borders twice every day.
That statement is partially true — but only for some people and under certain conditions. It mixes up two different concepts: travel freedom under Schengen Area and rights to live/work under European Union (or national residence/work-permit laws). Here’s how to break it down:

What is true

  • The Schengen Area consists of 29 countries (as of 2025, including the latest full admission of two former hold-outs) which have abolished routine internal border controls. Consilium+2European Parliament+2
  • For people who already have a valid right to stay in a Schengen country (citizens, permanent residents, or people with a long-term residence permit), they generally can move freely across internal borders — meaning they normally don’t need to show a passport or visa each time they cross from one Schengen country into another. Consilium+2Auswärtiges Amt+2
  • As a result, many people live in one Schengen country and commute across borders for work, or travel frequently to another Schengen country — daily border-crossing commutes are common in border regions. Consilium+1

What is not automatically true

  • Having border-free travel inside Schengen does not by itself grant someone the right to live or work anywhere in the Schengen Area. Those rights depend on citizenship or a valid residence/work permit from a particular country. unhcr.org+2European Parliament+2
  • If you are a non-EU national (or non-citizen of a Schengen country), being allowed to travel into Schengen (for up to 90 days, for example) doesn’t give you the right to stay permanently, move residence, or work across Schengen countries — you’d still need to apply for appropriate residence and/or work permits. Migration and Home Affairs+2unhcr.org+2
  • Even for EU/Schengen-area citizens, relocating permanently (to live or work) from one country to another involves administrative/immigration-law aspects — it’s not just “walk in and start working.” unhcr.org+2European Parliament+2

What the original statement misses

  • The statement assumes that “inside Schengen → no passport or visa required to move, live and work.” That conflates free travel with free residency & employment rights. Those are different legal regimes.
  • It ignores that some Schengen-area countries may still require national residence/work permits for non-nationals to live or work there — even if you can cross borders freely.
  • It implies that everyone — regardless of citizenship or residence status — can just choose any Schengen country to live/work. That is incorrect.
 
Just imagine if for some reason people hated the app creator and wanted to cause turmoil or harm to him. Then someone created an app to allow people to pinpoint his positions so other people could try and locate him.....

Bet you he'd be pissed and want that app removed.

As to whether the app is good or bad, that's not my decision, but I think it's douchey to try and put anyone's life in greater harm's way no matter how you justify it.

Intent does matter yes; if there is evidence he created the app to cause harm to the police, it probably a crime. But to create an app merely to let people avoid the police, that is legal.

Also, police and government officials do not enjoy the same protections as private citizens. Courts have ruled that police must endure greater risk and emotional distress than the general public.

In fact, in most of the country; it is impossible to "disturb the peace" if only police officers are nearby to witness the action. You cannot be guilty of obscene behavior if only witnessed by the police during an encounter with them.

Because something might harm the police doesn't make it illegal.

No, I also don't like the app; but I like our rights. This is why the government asked Apple to remove it and didn't arrest the app creator.
 
...Legal experts say that surveillance of immigration agents is largely protected under the US Constitution, providing people don't interfere with their work.

So if the app sends people to protest and creates violence and harm to the Agents, is it still protected by the 1st Amendment? As the 1st Amendment is not a free for all and has limitations. What could have been done is for Apple to voluntarily withdraw the App.
 
Back