No, I’m pretty sure publishing sightings of law enforcement is legal in the US. Some traffic radio stations report on where police are using radar guns for example, and this is fully legal. Indeed, considering that mapping ICE sightings could be of academic/intellectual interest (and that it is actually perfectly reasonable for law-abiding US citizens to want to limit their time spent in close proximity to ICE agents) this is far more centrally “helping people get away with doing illegal things” (speeding) than robertzk’s project.
Legal ≠ consequence-free. Yes, reporting police locations is legal—Waze does it daily. But there’s a relevant difference between “drivers avoiding speed traps” and “people with deportation orders evading enforcement.”
The app is multi-use. Potential users:
1. Researchers wanting data on enforcement patterns
2. Legal residents avoiding hassle/intimidation
3. People with deportation orders evading enforcement
4. People actively helping category 3 evade enforcement
The developer can’t control which use case dominates. But category 3 and 4 users have the strongest incentive to use and contribute to the app—they’re the ones with real stakes. Selection effects mean they’ll likely dominate the user base.
I’m not claiming the app is illegal. I’m saying “it’s legal” doesn’t fully address whether AWS made a reasonable judgment call about what they want to host. Those are different questions.
i think it’s very likely that the latter is true, that AWS made a reasonable judgment call about what they want to host
but also, i think it’s reasonable for someone in robertzk’s position, based on the way the judgment call was actually communicated, to assume that it was the former. and i think that, perhaps deliberately, perhaps merely because of sort of selection effects, that’s the intent. in a sort of “a system is what it does” sort of way, at least.
No, I’m pretty sure publishing sightings of law enforcement is legal in the US. Some traffic radio stations report on where police are using radar guns for example, and this is fully legal. Indeed, considering that mapping ICE sightings could be of academic/intellectual interest (and that it is actually perfectly reasonable for law-abiding US citizens to want to limit their time spent in close proximity to ICE agents) this is far more centrally “helping people get away with doing illegal things” (speeding) than robertzk’s project.
Legal ≠ consequence-free. Yes, reporting police locations is legal—Waze does it daily. But there’s a relevant difference between “drivers avoiding speed traps” and “people with deportation orders evading enforcement.”
The app is multi-use. Potential users:
1. Researchers wanting data on enforcement patterns
2. Legal residents avoiding hassle/intimidation
3. People with deportation orders evading enforcement
4. People actively helping category 3 evade enforcement
The developer can’t control which use case dominates. But category 3 and 4 users have the strongest incentive to use and contribute to the app—they’re the ones with real stakes. Selection effects mean they’ll likely dominate the user base.
I’m not claiming the app is illegal. I’m saying “it’s legal” doesn’t fully address whether AWS made a reasonable judgment call about what they want to host. Those are different questions.
i think it’s very likely that the latter is true, that AWS made a reasonable judgment call about what they want to host
but also, i think it’s reasonable for someone in robertzk’s position, based on the way the judgment call was actually communicated, to assume that it was the former. and i think that, perhaps deliberately, perhaps merely because of sort of selection effects, that’s the intent. in a sort of “a system is what it does” sort of way, at least.