Why don't citizens have the right to track federal agencies? Don't they serve us? Apple is capitulating to autocratic rule.
I'm just responding to the part "Don't they serve us?"
> Intentionally disclosing the identity of a U.S. intelligence agent, including a CIA officer, is a federal crime under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act (IIPA), which can result in up to 10 years in prison and fines. This law applies to individuals with authorized access to classified information and those without access who intentionally expose agents, knowing their actions could harm U.S. foreign intelligence operations.
Such a law protecting ICE would not withstand scrutiny by the courts.
If your local sheriff is on their way to serve a warrant of some kind, and you call the person and warn them to leave or alert them to destroy evidence, is that going to go well? I don't think it should.
– Parent is talking about making public the identities of ICE employees, doing things in public, which is by far and large true of your local sheriff;
- Individuals are reporting the presence of ICE in the area. A deliberate ambiguity is maintained about what ICE does beyond "detain people" -- whether as "collateral damage" or targeted. Intervening with the two gives us two very different circumstances.
Would you be saying the same thing if you HAD a valid Vietnamese tourist visa and was snatched off the road and detained for several hours without access to a lawyer in terrible conditions by unbadged masked "agents"?
https://abcnews.go.com/US/lawyer-us-born-citizen-detained-ic...
> Yet we are supposed to let people in without documentation? Without background checks? What kind of insanity is that.
Let me tell you that, in my experience, the US very much enforces all these requirements, to the point where foreigners have to pay the US government hundreds of dollars for the _chance_ of getting a temporary visa. And again, ICE has nothing to do with the process.
However a private entity, including Apple, is free to censor whatever they want on their platforms.
For example, I have the right to voraciously criticize or praise the current Administration or the prior Administration without government interference. However if you own a grocery store you are generally free to ban anyone wearing, or not wearing, a garment criticizing or praising either Administration (or any specific combination of praising or criticizing or referring to the current Administration or the prior Administration). Political views, unlike race or religion for example, are not a protected class under federal law even in a public accommodation such as a grocery store.
In case of the duopoly, when the consumers have no practical choice of the platform, this should be illegal, too.
They could not care less if you, the customer lived or died, as long as your check clears.
Source: Tim Apple sucking up to Trump like he's the antidote. This is even more ironic considering Tim's sexual orientation and Mango Jabba's take on "the gays".