Apple Faces Scrutiny as Sanctioned Entities Slip Through App Store Controls

[tennisproha]

Yet ICEblock was removed pretty swiftly

 

[turbineseaplane]

Relevance? All U.S. companies are required to comply with U.S. sanctions law, so Apple's curation approach is not necessarily an issue at all. Its ability and willingness to detect and respond appropriately to the involvement of sanctioned persons certainly is.

Agreed, but I think the reasons it's brought up is that sanctioned entities would likely not be in the Apple App Store if they weren't forced to be (by Apple).

 

[I7guy]

Agreed, but I think the reasons it's brought up is that sanctioned entities would likely not be in the Apple App Store if they weren't forced to be (by Apple).

Sanctioned entities wouldn’t be in the App Store if they were truthful about who they were and didn’t obfuscate their identities. Your making the case for why a walled garden is a good thing.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

Android allows for sideloading meaning Google’s Play Store doesn’t HAVE to have as many sanctioned apps. If Apple wants to reduce the number of sanctioned apps on the App Store, they must enable unrestricted sideloading to allow for sanctioned apps to be installed by those groups that have been sanctioned by the US!

 

[Unregistered 4U]

Google has been bellowing from the mountain tops how it’s privacy focused with your data. And could it be considered to be a walled garden? Sure.

And, have they made overtures towards a walled garden? Yes. They may have temporarily paused what they were planning to do starting in the fall of 2026, but their intent is clear.

 

[Skyscraperfan]

Don't the same rules apply to Google?

Google has a Play Store, but you can still install apps without the play store.

China, Russia and the UK have censorship and worse measures!

That is a strange argument. They probably also have censorship, torture and other human rights abuses. America has to be better.

Relevance? All U.S. companies are required to comply with U.S. sanctions law, so Apple's curation approach is not necessarily an issue at all. Its ability and willingness to detect and respond appropriately to the involvement of sanctioned persons certainly is.

They are, but without the walled garden the effect would be limited.

 

[whatnot]

People kill people. Do you want to ban knives, rope and anything that can used as a weapon?

rope is so last century, and you guys in US are so lucky to be able to pop into your local supermarket, and get a full arsenal of semi-automatic goodies.

the cencorship here is also ridiculous - you can't even go on a full throttle racist rant without facing the music!

please come save us!

 

[NewOldStock]

TikTok is doing just fine!

 

[justanotherdave]

Agreed, but I think the reasons it's brought up is that sanctioned entities would likely not be in the Apple App Store if they weren't forced to be (by Apple).

Why do they even need an App?

I doubt anything they’re doing requires an App and could easily be done via a website instead. This would bypass all App stores entirely.

The reason scammers want to get into The App Store or Google Play Store is they want to reach as many people as possible for whatever illegal activity they have planned.

Putting their App in some crappy third party store doesn’t help them because they don’t have the same reach.

 

[dumastudetto]

The occasional error is supremely better than the wild wild west.

 

[vantelimus]

People kill people. Do you want to ban knives, rope and anything that can used as a weapon?

Nice straw man you've built. Gun control is not a complete ban. Sawed off shotguns are illegal and the Supreme Court has held so (United State v. Miller (1939)). More recently in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), Scalia wrote in the majority opinion:

“…the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited… nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions…”

Even more recently in N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022), Kavanaugh&Roberts concurred with the majority citing:

“The Second Amendment allows a variety of gun regulations.”

As for knives, in Heller, the court defined the Second Amendment right as covering all bearable arms, which includes knives. Subsequently, the 9th circuit has upheld bans against butterfly knives in Hawaii in 2023 and the 5th circuit has upheld a ban against switchblades in federal facilities in 2024. Many states ban or regulate switchblades, bowie knives, butterfly knives, daggers, etc.

As for other things that can be used for weapons, many states ban billy clubs, batons, blackjacks, brass knuckles, etc. The bans are often against any "dangerous weapon", which will include traditional martial arts weapons like escrima, nunchaku, tonfa, sai, bo, etc. making them legal to own, but not to carry. In fact, responsible MA instructors will tell you to transport these in your trunk because if they are in your car cabin when you are stopped for a traffic violation, it is up to the discretion of the cop to charge you with carrying a dangerous weapon.

 

[justanotherdave]

Because the legal obligation is not to engage in commerce with a sanctioned person.

Also, D&B may be at risk to Apple and other companies if they were the sanctions search vendor and failed in their vetting. This is as it should be: Best results are achieved if companies are responsible for their own sanctions compliance and then can assert secondary contract actions against vendors that fail to perform.

Relying on third party companies for tasks like this is quite common.

If I paid a company to perform certain checks for me I’d expect that they did what they were supposed to. Why would I then waste time to double-check their work? I might as well stop doing business with them altogether and do the checks myself if they can’t be relied upon.

I expect Apple & Google will be talking with D&B to see how they missed the sanctions and what they should do in the future.

 

[I7guy]

Nice straw man you've built. Gun control is not a complete ban. Sawed off shotguns are illegal and the Supreme Court has held so (United State v. Miller (1939)). More recently in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), Scalia wrote in the majority opinion:


Even more recently in N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022), Kavanaugh&Roberts concurred with the major citing:


As for knives, in Heller, the court defined the Second Amendment right as covering all bearable arms, which includes knives. Subsequently, the 9th circuit has upheld bans against butterfly knives in Hawaii in 2023 and the 5th circuit has upheld a bad against switchblades in federal facilities in 2024. Many states ban or regulate switchblades, bowie knives, butterfly knives, daggers, etc.

As for other things that can be used for weapons, many states ban billy clubs, batons, blackjacks, brass knuckles, etc. The bans are often against any "dangerous weapon", which will include traditional martial arts weapons like escrima, nunchaku, tonfa, sai, bo, etc. making them legal to own, but not to carry. In fact, responsible MA instructors will tell you to transport these in your trunk because if they are in your car cabin when you are stopped for a traffic violation, it is up to the discretion of the cop to charge you with carrying a dangerous weapon.

The think if “guns” are replaced by “social media” or even “jaywalking” we’re in a strange space and the “strawman” applies ever so well.

 

[bluespark]

Why do they even need an App?

I doubt anything they’re doing requires an App and could easily be done via a website instead. This would bypass all App stores entirely.

The reason scammers want to get into The App Store or Google Play Store is they want to reach as many people as possible for whatever illegal activity they have planned.

Putting their App in some crappy third party store doesn’t help them because they don’t have the same reach.

Same reason anyone else would need an app. If you are a sanctioned person (typically all citizens of a sanctioned nation), you might still want to create a game or a productivity or banking app. Sanctions laws are intended to stop all flow of funds to sanctioned persons, even if those funds would serve an otherwise legal purpose. Sanctions are a blunt weapon.