{"id":48630,"date":"2025-07-24T15:19:58","date_gmt":"2025-07-24T19:19:58","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/mjtsai.com\/blog\/?p=48630"},"modified":"2025-09-26T14:12:50","modified_gmt":"2025-09-26T18:12:50","slug":"iceblock-an-ios-exclusive","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mjtsai.com\/blog\/2025\/07\/24\/iceblock-an-ios-exclusive\/","title":{"rendered":"ICEBlock, an iOS Exclusive"},"content":{"rendered":"

John Gruber<\/a> (Mastodon<\/a>, Hacker News<\/a>):<\/p>\n

\n

The ICEBlock app is interesting in and of itself (and from my tire-kicking test drive, appears to be a well-crafted and designed app), as will be Apple’s response if (when?) the Trump administration takes offense to the app’s existence. Back in 2019, kowtowing to tacit demands from China, Apple removed from the App Store an app called HKmap.live<\/a> which helped pro-democracy activists in Hong Kong know the location of police and protest activity. The app broke no Hong Kong laws, but scared the thin-skinned skittish lickspittles in the Chinese Communist Party<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n

Apple first rejected<\/a> HKmap.live, on the grounds that it “allowed users to evade law enforcement.” That seems to be pretty much what ICEBlock is meant to do, too. I don’t think there was ever a written rule<\/a> about this, however. The closest I see is rule 1.4.4, which says that “Apps may only display DUI checkpoints that are published by law enforcement agencies[…].”<\/p>\n\n

HKmap argued that the app could<\/em> be used for evading law enforcement, but that it was really to help people “note locations” and that it wasn’t for the user<\/em> to avoid police but to avoid dangerous situations caused by other people<\/em> clashing with police.<\/p>\n\n

I don’t like these types of arguments. You built a hammer, and it could be used to build a house or to vandalize, and there’s a certain ratio of use (assuming that could be calculated) where it becomes bannable?<\/p>\n\n

Anyway, ICEBlock<\/a> is saying something similar. Officially, it’s not for evading<\/em> ICE but to “stay informed” and to help report<\/em> “civil rights abuses.”<\/p>\n\n

Apple ended up approving HKmap.live without citing why it changed its mind. Speculation at the time was that the initial reviewer was just wrong.<\/p>\n\n

But then, a few weeks later, Apple removed HKmap.live<\/a> from the App Store, saying that it had “endangered law enforcement and residents.” Again, this is a terrible place to be as a developer: it’s not enough to follow the local laws and the written guidelines from Apple, but your app’s fate hinges on whether Apple determines that it endangers<\/em> people? Of course, there was no attempt to balance this against the number of people it protected<\/em>. But the real reason was probably political pressure, anyway.<\/p>\n\n

It will be interesting to see what Apple does here. Presumably, if Congress or certain states passed a targeted law—e.g. radar detectors are commonly restricted and outright illegal in Virginia and DC—Apple would follow it. But so far all I’ve seen are vague claims from the administration that the app is already illegal—I guess on the grounds that it constitutes abetting\/harboring—and it’s unclear how much Apple has been pressured.<\/p>\n\n

\n

One defense from Apple regarding HKmap.live, however, was that the iOS app was a thin wrapper around the website, and website remained fully functional and could be saved to an iPhone user’s home screen.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n

This always seemed to me like a legal case decided on a procedural issue to avoid ruling on the merits.<\/p>\n\n

\n

To deliver push notifications on Android, the developers claim they would need to maintain a database of device IDs, create a user account system to manage those device IDs, and all of that server-stored data would be susceptible to law enforcement subpoenas and pro-ICE red hat hackers. […] Only iOS supports the security and privacy features for ICEBlock to offer what it does, the way it does.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n

But doesn’t the database still exist with iOS, and it could just be subpoenaed from Apple? Apple doesn’t want to break the security of its own devices, but it’s always cooperated with law enforcement to share cloud data that it does have.<\/p>\n\n

Previously:<\/p>\n