By Matt O’Brien, Technology Writer
Associated Press
WASHINGTON — The maker of an iPhone app that flagged sightings of U.S. immigration agents sued the Trump administration for free speech violations on Monday, alleging that U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi used her “state power” to force Apple to remove the app.
Apple in October removed ICEBlock and other apps from its app store after Bondi said they put Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers at risk by enabling people to track ICE activity in their neighborhoods.
| REGISTER: Training the brain: Turning stress science into automatic performance
The lawsuit from ICEBlock app maker Joshua Aaron argues that the government’s actions violated the First Amendment.
“We’re basically asking the court to set a precedent and affirm that ICEBlock is, in fact, First Amendment-protected speech and that I did nothing wrong by creating it,” Aaron said in an interview Monday. “And to make sure that they can’t do this same thing again in the future.”
Aaron said the other part of the lawsuit “is to basically have them stop threatening myself and my family.”
The lawsuit asks a federal judge to protect the Texas-based software developer from prosecution, alleging “unlawful threats made by Attorney General Bondi, Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem, ICE Acting Director Todd M. Lyons, and White House Border Czar Tom Homan to criminally investigate and prosecute Aaron for his role in developing ICEBlock.”
The Department of Justice said it had no comment on the lawsuit beyond Bondi’s previous statements about the app.
With more than 1 million users, ICEBlock was the most widely used of the ICE-tracking apps in Apple’s app store until Bondi said in October that her office reached out to Apple “demanding that they remove ICEBlock” and claiming that it “is designed to put ICE agents at risk just for doing their jobs.”
Apple soon complied, sending an email to Aaron that said it would block further downloads of the app because new information “provided to Apple by law enforcement” showed the app broke the app store rules.
According to the email, which Aaron shared with The Associated Press in October, Apple said the app violated the company’s policies “because its purpose is to provide location information about law enforcement officers that can be used to harm such officers individually or as a group.” Aaron has countered that it works no differently from Apple’s own maps app that lets drivers know about nearby police speed traps.
Google also followed Apple in taking down some ICE-tracking apps from its app store in October, though ICEBlock was never available on its Android phone platform.
Aaron said Trump’s immigration enforcement initiatives have only grown more aggressive since his app was taken down, and less information makes possible a “paramilitary force that can continue to operate with impunity.” He’s repeatedly compared Trump’s immigration enforcers to the “Gestapo” secret police force of Nazi Germany, though the lawsuit itself doesn’t make that connection, instead drawing on U.S. founders’ warnings against domestic despotism.
“I mean, these are people that are wearing masks --- which is the antithesis of everything about this country -- and they are not identifying themselves, and they’re zip-tying children and they’re throwing women into vans,” Aaron said by phone Monday.
Bondi told Fox News earlier this year that Aaron was endangering law enforcement and “giving a message to criminals where our federal officers are. And he cannot do that. And we are looking at it, we are looking at him, and he better watch out, because that’s not protected speech.”
Apple, which is not a party in the lawsuit, didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment about it.
Should apps like ICEBlock qualify as protected speech under the First Amendment, or do they create too much danger for agents?
Police1 readers respond:
- No it is not free speech. It does endanger enforcement officers because of the dangerous rhetoric that people such as Joshua Aaron spew. And unlike traffic officers running “speed traps”, or as normal people would refer to as enforcing traffic laws for the safety of the roadways, because of the rhetoric, ICE and CBP officials are more likely to be attacked, rather than a patrolman enforcing traffic.
- If allowed to continue, real-time tracking apps do create a serious risk to law enforcement. I believe that, if allowed, the apps should require a substantial time delay in the information, allowing law enforcement to safely conduct their functions and clear a scene prior to the location being announced to the public. Thus, it allows freedom of speech in reporting on law enforcement, but protects those officers involved.
- It is an interesting argument both ways. I am curious if there are any documented incidents where the app was used to interfere with enforcement or where agents were harmed.
- I say his speech is not being curbed at all. If he wants to let people know where ICE is, he can go where they are and use a bullhorn.
- In my opinion, that’s not “freedom of speech”. It’s putting law enforcement in “harm’s way” and should be illegal.
- Crossing the border illegally is not only a felony, but it is a federal crime. There are many variations, but that is the bottom line. So, with that said, it would lead anyone to believe that anything produced, constructed, or made available that hinders the apprehension of a felon, therefore also violates the law in the felony range, and should be prosecuted. If I call someone who is a felon and tell them the police are coming, it is no different if you have produced an APP that would tell someone the same. It is absurd to think that an APP that violates the law and does nothing but help criminals can be made available, period. Prosecute the designer of the APP. Let’s take the law enforcement aspect out of the equation. Is it really free speech if it can potentially cause bodily injury or serious bodily injury to anyone, including an American citizen who can become a victim of violence perpetrated by someone in the country illegally?
- This has nothing to do with upholding free speech and has everything to do with the violation of agency security that operates at a clearance requirement level. This is not just some Public Trust agency where the officers and agents were run through a simple background check. Nor is their mission anything less than critical. The platform violates the very foundation of FISA on citizens that the civilian cries out against. Any criminal can establish their location and plan ambushes on LEOs. Get rid of the app. Apple should be ashamed of itself, but based on where they’re from, it doesn’t surprise me. Just another naive and sheltered Silicon Valley producer.
- Absolutely not. Free speech shouldn’t include methods to cause harm to officers. In fact, he should be prosecuted for his part in inventing and putting on the market this app.
