Your Smartphone, Their Rules: How App Stores Enable Corporate-Government Censorship

ACLU: “Who controls what you can do on your mobile phone? What happens when your device can only run what the government decides is OK? We are dangerously close to this kind of totalitarian control, thanks to a combination of government overreach and technocratic infrastructure choices. Most Americans have a smartphone, and the average American spends over 5 hours a day on their phone. While these devices are critical to most people’s daily lives, what they can actually do is shaped by what apps are readily available. A slim majority of American smartphone users use an iPhone, which means they can only install apps available from Apple’s AppStore. Nearly all the rest of US smartphone users use some variant of Android, and by default they get their apps from Google’s Play Store. Collectively, these two app stores shape the universe of what is available to most people as they use the Internet and make their way through their daily lives. When those app stores block or limit apps based on government requests, they are shaping what people can do, say, communicate, and experience. Recently, Apple pulled an app called ICEBlock from the AppStore, making it unavailable in one fell swoop. This app was designed to let people anonymously report public sightings of ICE agents. In the United States people absolutely have a First Amendment right to inform others about what they have seen government officials doing and where — very much including immigration agents whose tactics have been controversial and violent. Apple pulled the ICEBlock app at the demand of the US Department of Justice. The following day, Google pulled a similar app called Red Dot from the Google Play Store. The DOJ’s pressuring of Apple is an unacceptable, censorious overreach. And Google’s subsequent removal of Red Dot looks like troubling premature capitulation. While some experts and activists have expressed concerns over ICEBlock’s design and development practices, those concerns are no reason for the government to meddle in software distribution. The administration’s ostensible free speech warriors are trying to shape how Americans can communicate with each other about matters of pressing political concern. Infrastructure choices – But the government’s overreach isn’t the whole story here. The current structure of the mobile phone ecosystem enables this kind of abuse and control. Apple’s iOS (the operating system for any iPhone) is designed to only be able to run apps from the AppStore. If Apple hasn’t signed off on it, the app won’t run. This centralized control is ripe for abuse:

  • Apple has handed the Chinese government control over what apps are available to iPhone users in China, including banning gay dating apps.
  • The corporation has used its authority over the AppStore to block a game that critiqued its labor practices.
  • Apple’s guidelines say that “‘Enemies’ within the context of a game cannot solely target a specific … government, corporation, or any other real entity.” That represents a potential for sweeping censorship of anyone who wants to use the art of games to criticize companies or otherwise advance political messages.
  • It banned the popular game Fortnite from the App Store as it was battling the gamemaker to get a bigger cut of money from user transactions.
  • In 2012 Apple rejected an app that compiled reports of highly controversial overseas drone strikes by the U.S. government during the “War on Terror.”

Unlike Apple, Google’s Android operating system has traditionally allowed relatively easy access to “sideloading”, which just means installing apps through means other than Google’s Play Store. Although most installations default to getting apps from the Play Store, the availability of sideloading means that even if Google censors apps in the Play Store, people can still install them. Even apps critical of Google can make it onto an Android device. It’s also possible to run a variant of Android without the Play Store at all, such as GrapheneOS…”

Posted in: Censorship, Civil Liberties, Digital Rights, E-Records, Free Speech, Freedom of Information, Internet, Knowledge Management, Legal Research, Privacy