What about an app that reports every LEO (not just ICE) around you? What would that accomplish except benefit criminals?
"Rules for thee, not for me."
Do you think apps like waze should also be illegal? What possible reason would you want location of speed trap except to speed with impunity? Moreover whether it "benefits criminals" is irrelevant here, because the current legal standard is imminent lawless action[1]. Otherwise that would be license to ban all manner of materials, from anarchists cookbook to DRM circumvention tools.
This is the party line, but in practice ICE is not acting 100% within lines of the law. Unfortunately, it's possible for politicians, and even entire government agencies to lie. The evidence shows that ICE has both failed to enforce the law, and even follow the law themselves. This puts ICEBlock within other crime mapping or offender identifying tools.
There's an unbounded downside to allowing government too much power, including the power to act unobserved. Empowering criminals also has obvious drawbacks, but they're limited in scope.
"Rules for thee, not for me."
Those sympathetic to the American political right don't get to use that saying anymore, not even ironically. Not because it's offensive, but because they've effectively turned it into a tautology.
I don’t have a dog in this fight, but clearly there has to be some credible argument why opinion X is better than opinion Y (held by company decision makers).
Assuming it’s just automatically better isn’t productive.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple%E2%80%93FBI_encryption_d...
At least not in a logically valid way.
I don’t see how it relates to the prior comment.
An argument that pretends some authority can effect the logic of an argument?
Of course the government could also exert other means to pressure the company or simply negotiate. But that's outside of the rule of law.
You’ve also yet to explain how your comment 3 days ago relates to the comment before that… so there’s no reason for me to go on an unrelated discussion.
> It doesn’t matter if every expert concurred, arguments from authority can not lead to opinion X becoming superior to opinion Y.
> At least not in a logically valid way.
But that's not what happened. What happened is that Apple dropped their argument Y without much fighting, which they previously upheld in face of government pressure.
I have zero problem with fed-cops not being able to "do their job" in unfriendly jurisdictions without bringing serious amounts of force with them.
What if the real criminals were ICE all along?
https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/federal-drug-prosec...