3 ms·

You do harm a burglar when you call for emergency services; but the burglar doesn't pay for your security system. And more accurately: an innocent man pays for

by 015a 5y ago

You do harm a burglar when you call for emergency services; but the burglar doesn't pay for your security system. And more accurately: an innocent man pays for his neighbor's security system, which has a "one in a trillion" chance of accusing the innocent man of breaking in, totally randomly and without any evidence. Of course, the chances are slim, and he would never be charged with breaking in if it did happen, but would you still take that deal? I've seen the "right to unreasonable search and seizure" Americans hold quoted a bit during this discussion. Valid, though to be clear, the Constitution doesn't apply for private company products. But more interestingly: what about right against self-incrimination? That's what Apple is pushing here; that by owning an iPhone, you may incriminate yourself, and actually it may end up happening whether you're actually guilty or not.

judge2020 5y ago
Regarding your second paragraph of the legality, Apple doesn't incriminate you even if they send the image off and a image reviewer deems something CSAM. If Apple does file a police report on this evidence or otherwise gives evidence to the police, the police will still have to prove that (A) the images do indeed depict sexually suggestive content involving a minor, and (B) you did not take an affirmative defense under 18 USC 2252A (d) [0], aka. they would have to prove that you had 3 or more actual illegal images and didn't take reasonable steps to destroy the images or immediately report them to law enforcement and given such law enforcement access to said photos. The biggest issue with this is, of course, that Apple's accusation is most certainly going to be enough evidence to get a search warrant, meaning a search and seizure of all of your hard drives they can find. 0: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2252A#:~:text=(d)Affirmative%20Defense https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2252A#:~:text=(d)...
- tekknik 5y ago
  Based off of your A and B there, I think we’re about to see a new form of swatting. How many people regularly go through all of their photos? Now if someone pisses someone else off and has physical access to their phone they just need to add 3 pictures to the device with older timestamps and just wait for the inevitable results.
- browningstreet 5y ago
  I believe the account gets disabled..? More of that, no thanks.

by 015a 5y ago

judge2020 5y ago

Regarding your second paragraph of the legality, Apple doesn't incriminate you even if they send the image off and a image reviewer deems something CSAM. If Apple does file a police report on this evidence or otherwise gives evidence to the police, the police will still have to prove that (A) the images do indeed depict sexually suggestive content involving a minor, and (B) you did not take an affirmative defense under 18 USC 2252A (d) [0], aka. they would have to prove that you had 3 or more actual illegal images and didn't take reasonable steps to destroy the images or immediately report them to law enforcement and given such law enforcement access to said photos. The biggest issue with this is, of course, that Apple's accusation is most certainly going to be enough evidence to get a search warrant, meaning a search and seizure of all of your hard drives they can find. 0: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2252A#:~:text=(d)Affirmative%20Defense https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2252A#:~:text=(d)...

tekknik 5y ago
Based off of your A and B there, I think we’re about to see a new form of swatting. How many people regularly go through all of their photos? Now if someone pisses someone else off and has physical access to their phone they just need to add 3 pictures to the device with older timestamps and just wait for the inevitable results.
browningstreet 5y ago
I believe the account gets disabled..? More of that, no thanks.