{"id":49602,"date":"2025-10-10T16:52:30","date_gmt":"2025-10-10T20:52:30","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/mjtsai.com\/blog\/?p=49602"},"modified":"2025-10-10T16:56:44","modified_gmt":"2025-10-10T20:56:44","slug":"deicer-removed-from-the-app-store","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mjtsai.com\/blog\/2025\/10\/10\/deicer-removed-from-the-app-store\/","title":{"rendered":"DEICER Removed From the App Store"},"content":{"rendered":"

Pablo Manríquez<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\n

Apple has quietly removed DeICER, a civic-reporting app used to log immigration enforcement activity, from its App Store after a law enforcement complaint — invoking a rule normally reserved for protecting marginalized groups from hate speech.<\/p>\n

[…]<\/p>\n

Apple told developer Rafael Concepcion that the app violated Guideline 1.1.1, which prohibits “defamatory, discriminatory, or mean-spirited content” directed at “religion, race, sexual orientation, gender, national\/ethnic origin, or other targeted groups.”<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n

Some people are upset about this part because government officers aren’t normally considered a protected class. But that’s not the language the guideline uses. And I see no reason to allow this sort of content targeted at any<\/em> group, be it teachers, Supreme Court justices, people who look a certain way or live in a certain state, whatever. Apple’s reasoning isn’t bogus because it’s protecting the wrong people; it’s bogus because that’s not what the app is doing.<\/p>\n\n

\n

But Apple’s justification went further. “Information provided to Apple by law enforcement shows that your app violates Guideline 1.1.1 because its purpose is to provide location information about law enforcement officers that<\/strong> can be used to harm such officers individually or as a group,” the company wrote in its removal notice.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n

Since that’s not the stated (or designed) purpose of the app, the “that” should have been a “which.” And then Apple’s justification doesn’t make any sense.<\/p>\n\n

\n

Concepcion’s appeal to Apple emphasized that DeICER was “a tool for education and lawful civic engagement, not the targeting or tracking of law enforcement.”<\/p>\n

“Users cannot follow, locate, or monitor officers in real time,” he wrote in his memo to Apple’s App Review Board. “Any observation entered in the app represents a single moment in time, not a persistent or live tracking function.”<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n

Via John Gruber<\/a> (Mastodon<\/a>):<\/p>\n

\n

There’s not one story about any of these apps being used to harm ICE agents. And even if such an attack happened, that wouldn’t imply it’s the purpose of these apps.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n

I haven’t seen such a story, either. The Dallas gunman is reported to have used<\/em> the app, but he didn’t it need to find the agents, as the attack took place at their office.<\/p>\n\n

Mike Masnick<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\n

And, yes, I’ll be the first to tell you that content moderation at scale is impossible to do well<\/a>, and that applies to app stores as well. But when you see a pattern this consistent—and this convenient for state power—pointing to scale problems feels inadequate. This looks less like algorithmic confusion and more like Apple systematically bending its policies to accommodate government preferences while trying to maintain plausible deniability.<\/p>\n

This reasoning is deeply problematic on multiple levels. First, it treats documentation of public officials’ public actions as equivalent to hate speech against marginalized groups. Second, it accepts law enforcement’s own assessment of what constitutes “harm” to them without any independent review. Third, it creates a precedent where any app that allows citizens to track government activity could be banned as “discriminatory” against public officials.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n

Reece Rogers and Lily Hay Newman<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\n

While gone from Apple’s App Store, DEICER is also still available via Google Play and a website<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n

Previously:<\/p>\n