You’d think, reading that headline, that the “government” in question would be Russia, China, or Hungary. You’d be wrong.

Associated Press:

Apple has taken down an app that uses crowdsourcing to flag sightings of U.S. immigration agents after coming under pressure from the Trump administration.

ICEBlock, a free iPhone-only app that lets users anonymously report and monitor activity by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers, was no longer available on Apple’s App Store as of Friday. The developer had confirmed its removal on Thursday evening.

CNBC:

Google on Friday joined Apple in removing from its online store apps that can be used to anonymously report sightings of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents and other law-enforcement authorities.

Google’s statement (“ICEBlock was never available on Google Play, but we removed similar apps for violations of our policies”) is pure pablum, but Apple’s statement is unadulterated horseshit:

“We created the App Store to be a safe and trusted place to discover apps,” the company said in a statement. “Based on information we’ve received from law enforcement about the safety risks associated with ICEBlock, we have removed it and similar apps from the App Store.”

The opening phrase is stock Apple. They use it anytime they pull “undesirable” apps from the store. It’s what they said when they removed HKmap.live—a “crowdsourced reporting and mapping of police checkpoints, protest hotspots, and other information”—from the Hong Kong App Store in 2019, for example.

But the rest of it? I’m deeply skeptical. What information? Which law enforcement? What safety risks?

Is using ICEBlock to report the location of ICE agents any different from using a social media app to report the same information? Does reporting the location of police, FBI, or other law enforcement also pose “safety risks”? Unless Apple (or this regime) presents credible evidence the app led to violence, the reasoning behind pulling the app is bullshit.

(And by “credible,” I don’t mean allegations from Bondi that “ICEBlock is designed to put ICE agents at risk”—it’s not—nor implications that the recent shooter at a Dallas ICE facility used this or other apps to identify his target. Both are speculation without evidence.)

The message the ICEBlock developer received from Apple said the app was removed for “objectionable content.” Apple’s guidelines against “objectionable content” state:

1.1 Objectionable Content

Apps should not include content that is offensive, insensitive, upsetting, intended to disgust, in exceptionally poor taste, or just plain creepy.

What is offensive about identifying the presence of ICE patrols? Is it more disgusting to alert law-abiding Americans to take precautions than it is to watch them get snatched from their homes, work, and places of worship?

This is especially painful for me because I know and have worked closely with the teams and people who make these decisions. I’ve been in the room for debates about taking down apps. I’ve been on the calls when developers are informed of the decision to pull their app. Most takedowns have a reasonable justification.

This one has none.

The Trump regime has targeted ICEBlock since it launched. U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi said then of the app developer:

He’s giving a message to criminals where our federal officers are. And he cannot do that. And we are looking at it, we are looking at him, and he better watch out, because that’s not a protected speech. That is threatening the lives of our law enforcement officers throughout this country.

Except, of course, it very much is protected speech.

In a statement to several news outlets, Bondi acknowledged governmental pressure on Apple, saying:

We reached out to Apple today demanding they remove the ICEBlock app from their App Store — and Apple did so.

“Demanding.” Not “requested.” Not “provided information about the safety risks.”

Demanding.

A demand from an Attorney General—especially the United States Attorney General—carries with it the weight of law. It implies legal consequences if the demand is not carried out.

What was Apple threatened with? Antitrust lawsuits? Tariffs? No more White House invites? A mean “Truth” Social screed?

Which law was the app violating that justifies the United States Attorney General demanding it be removed from the App Store?

Equally important, why is Apple complying with such a demand?

This isn’t the first time Apple has removed apps at the behest of authoritarian regimes. In addition to HKmap.live, mentioned above, Apple also pulled Russian voting app “Navalny” from the Russian App Store in 2021, and messaging apps like WhatsApp, Signal, and Telegram from the China App Store in 2024.

When Apple pulled those apps from China, it used another of its stock phrases that makes an appearance when it takes actions it deems legally necessary but morally repugnant: Apple is “obligated to follow the laws in the countries where we operate, even when we disagree.”

Apple used a similar phrase when it pulled TikTok from the App Store earlier this year: “Apple is obligated to follow the laws in the jurisdictions where it operates.”

(I’m forced to link to Internet Archive here because Apple has taken down its post, presumably after returning TikTok to the store upon receiving “presidential assurances.”)

Notably, Apple hasn’t used a similar phrase here, implying the decision to pull ICEBlock was based not on any violation of the law, but on a choice. An executive decision.

There’s a phrase that’s been making the rounds the last couple of weeks: Fuck you, make me. John Oliver suggested it in a recent Last Week Tonight episode (and John Gruber at Daring Fireball mentioned it today). It’s a valuable alternative to “don’t comply in advance” (which implies eventual compliance).

Why isn’t Apple standing up and saying Fuck you, make me?

(Or, in Apple-speak: After carefully evaluating the request of Attorney General Bondi, we’ve determined there is currently no legal basis by which we can comply with her suggestion. The app remains available for customers until a legal justification is presented for its removal.)

Instead, the app is removed without any pushback or meaningful explanation.

It’s becoming increasingly difficult to argue that tech leaders like Tim Cook and Sundar Pichai, media moguls like Bob Iger and David Ellison, and the rest of the capitalist capitulators aren’t fully supportive of this fascist regime, and are happily “complying in advance” because it’s exactly what they want to do.

Apple’s apparent surrender, especially, is hard for me to swallow. After two decades on the inside, and two more before that as a fan, I’ve fully embraced Apple’s “dent in the universe” ethos. When Tim talks about Apple’s “North Star” or quotes Martin Luther King, Jr., I’ve always believed, with all my soul, that he meant it. It’s painful to criticize a company I’ve loved for most of my life, and which has benefited me immensely.

Apple has always claimed a higher moral ground. It proudly declares its Commitment to Human Rights, which starts:

We believe in the power of technology to empower and connect people around the world—and that business can and should be a force for good. Achieving that takes innovation, hard work, and a focus on serving others.

It also means leading with our values.

Apparently Apple’s values don’t include protecting people from fascist regimes.