The US doesn’t want more ICEBlock apps in the App Store

Lawmakers in the United States are continuing to apply pressure on Apple to keep more ICEBlock-style apps from appearing in the App Store.

In October, after facing demands from U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi, Apple removed the ICEBlock app from the App Store. Two months later, and there are still calls for Apple to do more.

The House Committee on Homeland Security sent letters to Apple CEO Tim Cook and Google CEO Sundar Pichai, requesting detail about the ways the companies are preventing more ICEBlock-style apps from appearing in their respective app storefronts. There is a demand for more detail about what each firm is doing to crack down on the apps, used to monitor the movements of immigration officers.

According to the lawmakers, in the letters seen by Reuters, the apps risk “jeopardizing the safety of [Department of Homeland Security] personnel.” The apps should not be used to target officers or to obstruct law enforcement, the committee added.

While free speech is a protected right, the letter references a Supreme Court ruling in claiming that the same protections do not apply when advocating lawless action. In this instance, that means preventing U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents (ICE) from seizing undocumented immigrants.

A briefing has been requested by the committee by December 12.

Neither Google nor Apple responded to a request for comment from the publication.

A slippery slope

Following the removal of ICEBlock at the start of October, the letter is a continuation of efforts to keep citizens from interfering with ICE.

However, while ICEBlock was the main reported target, other apps were also caught.

The Eyes Up app was pulled from the App Store at around the same time. Though it didn’t actively track agents, the app did archive videos and articles about ICE and its activities under the Trump administration.

More problematic for Apple is that it was a decision to comply with the request.

Apple does comply with laws and regulations in countries around the world, wherever it does business. However, when it comes to demands and requests from governments, it has the option to resist.

The letter and the October demand were not laws or official orders to compel Apple into action.

For Apple, it probably did the right business decision based on the demand, since it avoided other potential harmful responses. It is a company that has gone to great lengths to appease the current Administration, and resisting over a hot political topic would work against that.

Doing so does, however, weaken Apple’s reputation as a moral and trustworthy company, by actively complying what critics could refer to as censorship. Former Apple employees have also pointed to the move eroding the goodwill Apple has gained over the years.

The request to know Apple’s plans may be viewed as a reminder from lawmakers that Apple removed the apps, and that the U.S. government wants to keep it that way. How Apple responds to the letter will be important, both in how it will be perceived and in future attempts to shakedown the company’s principles.