If you created an app that essentially doxed police and schemed ways to circumvent their ability to enforce the law, I'd hope you would get in trouble for that, especially if it compromised the safety of those you care about, don't you agree?
If you created an app that essentially doxed police and schemed ways to circumvent their ability to enforce the law, I'd hope you would get in trouble for that, especially if it compromised the safety of those you care about, don't you agree?
Given that it's legal (in the US) to film/livestream cops so long as they are not obstructed in the commission of their duties, and in the wider context of the First Amendment, I find it relatively hard to believe that merely reporting cop sightings is illegal. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/02/yes-you-have-right-fil...
It is widely agreed that transparency and accountability in policing makes for better policing.
How is ICEBlock any different? And please, don't play dumb.
>police scanners are legal to own and listen to under U.S. federal law. However, five states restrict mobile use while driving and ten more add penalties if a scanner is used while committing a crime.
https://www.zipscanners.com/blogs/learn/are-police-scanners-...
Using police scanners to listen to unencrypted radio chatter is legal in all states.
In minority of states, using police scanners is not legal while driving, and in all states it is not legal to use police scanners to aid in the commission of a crime. This is not that different from the laws that apply to, say, cellphones. You generally can't use those to commit crimes or while driving either. And yet, saying that 'cellphones are illegal' is obviously not an accurate representation of reality.
The bottom line here is that it is deeply unlikely that a court would find ICEBlock illegal. You may very well dislike that outcome, but it rather seems like your problem is with the Bill of Rights. In which case I can only recommend moving to a country without one - there are sadly very many.
Stepping back from the legal / Constitutional considerations, this just seems like common sense: person commits crime, others make app to help criminals escape, therefore the app itself is aiding and abetting.
I think really, its proponents are using "free speech" as a roundabout way of saying they support these criminals. I really wish they'd just be honest instead.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detention_and_deportation_of_A...