Apple's decision to comply with an order to remove ICEBlock from the App Store goes against its previous stance to stand for the rights of its users, former Apple employees have declared.

On October 2, after receiving a demand from the Department of Justice, Apple removed the controversial ICEBlock app from the App Store. Given the legal authority of the DoJ and Attorney General Pam Bondi, Apple was seemingly compelled to comply.

While Apple may have felt it was best to take the app down, which was a crowdsourced app for revealing the location of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) activity in the United States, some believe it wasn't the morally right decision.

Two ex-Apple employees have written and published letters to the company, criticizing its compliance. The problem, both writers determine, is one where Apple erodes the goodwill given to it over security, privacy, and government overreach.

Frosty reception

Wiley Hodges, an Apple product marketing veteran who retired in 2022 after 22 years at the company, proclaims he is "deeply disturbed" by Apple's actions, in a letter spotted by Daring Fireball. Previously believing Apple were "the good guys" and advocating for Apple being on the side of users, he writes that he "must question that."

Appreciating how Apple "articulated principles for Apple that represented the highest ideals of human aspiration" as well as values like human rights, Hodges claims that Apple had worked hard on security and privacy. This was done despite "deep skepticism" from privacy and security advocates.

Indeed, Apple's refusal to try and access an encrypted iPhone under pressure from the FBI in the San Bernardino case was a "risky stand" that was in line with the company's principles. The act of "lawful, principled defiance of government intimidation" helped convince deniers that Apple was walking the walk on what it claimed.

The ICEBlock situation also had the potential to continue this legacy. Especially since Hodges points out that it was built on iOS instead of Android, which demonstrates trust in Apple's security and privacy stance.

The removal of ICEBlock "without evidence" of a lawful basis or the government following a legal process "represents an erosion of this principled stance." Since Apple responded to a demand, instead of a more intensive effort such as the San Bernardino affair, there is concern that Apple could easily agree to other requests from the government.

Hodges proposes that this could lead to Apple lowering its standards for law enforcement requests, potentially Apple sharing identities of ICEBlock users with the government, or even blocking podcasts critical of the government.

"I imagine and hope that these are ridiculous questions, but without a clearer demonstration of Apple's principled commitment to lawful action and due process, I feel uncertain," he continues.

The letter concludes asking for CEO Tim Cook and his team to more clearly explain why the decision to pull ICEBlock was made, and the evidence provided by the U.S. government.

"It is up to all of us to demand that the rule of law rather than the whims of a handful of people— even elected ones— govern our collective enterprise," Hodges concludes. "Apple and you are better than this."

Defrosting legacy

A second letter to Apple and Tim Cook, first seen by The Verge follows a similar route. The posting from Alex Horovitz, a former manufacturing systems and infrastructure chief at Apple, similarly discusses how Apple seriously defended user liberty, and how Apple's ethos grew the trust of hundreds of millions of people.

Horovitz saw first hand how seriously Apple "once took its duty to defend the rights of its users." The San Bernardino situation "remains one of the proudest moments in Apple's history - Proof thatApple's values were more than words."

Apple's compliance to remove the ICEBlock app "undermines that legacy." If Apple did it without a clear lawful government order or yielded to informal pressure, that decision is beyond a "policy failure" for the company. Instead, it is a "betrayal of the very principles Apple once defined for the industry."

These values include user empowerment, privacy, and "the defense of civil liberty against coercive power."

Taking the app down "risks eroding the moral authority" Apple earned from standing up to the FBI.

After asking for clarity on lawful grounds, if there were legal orders, and Apple's future steps, Horovitz eulogizes about courage and principle. Apple's quiet yielding to political pressure "strengthens the hand" of those who centralize power and weakens the freedoms Apple once championed, he declares.

An icy situation

Apple's decision to pull the app puts the company in a difficult position, but one that it may have felt it had little choice in the matter.

The two letters follow the same tropes, that Apple has principles and that it should stick to them in the face of government requests. That it should resist being bullied by government agencies for the good of consumers.

While that stance is usually the right one to make, it becomes problematic when you have to consider the potential actions of the opponent.

During the San Bernardino affair, while it had pressure from the FBI and the U.S. government in general, the actual actions the government would take in retribution wouldn't be that damaging to the company.

At the time, Trump was still a presidential candidate, and was very vocal on the matter.

Years later, Apple has to contend with a government that is far more willing to apply stronger measures and penalties than ever before. The stakes are considerably higher, and Apple has more of a vested interest to maintain goodwill with those in charge.

Especially when there's a lot more volatility in what its opponent can do.