5 ms·

Is it? How are these norms being circumvented?

dvt 5y ago
By reporting potential criminals to the authorities by scanning what is essentially private data (images, messages), I'd likely argue they're violating unlawful search and seizure and I doubt a conviction would stick[1]. It's not like my landlord can barge in my apartment and look under the couch for illegal drugs because he heard a rumor I bought some. I mean, probable cause is already sketchy enough, what Apple doing is beyond the pale. [1] https://reason.com/volokh/2021/08/05/apple-plans-to-scan-us-iphones-for-child-abuse-imagery/ https://reason.com/volokh/2021/08/05/apple-plans-to-scan-us-...
- ceejayoz 5y ago
  > By reporting potential criminals to the authorities by scanning what is essentially private data (images, messages), I'd likely argue they're violating unlawful search and seizure and I doubt a conviction would stick[1]. Why? Police use informants to obtain probable cause regularly.
- macintux 5y ago
  You are handing your image off to Apple’s servers, and they are accountable for child porn on those servers, by law. Keep your photo on your device and the software doesn’t scan it. So yes, there’s nuance here. It’s very unfortunate that Apple didn’t engage with the community first, but that seems to be an institutional blind spot.
- fay59 5y ago
  Given that enforcement is only possible on photos uploaded to iCloud, the fact that classification happens on device seems like a distinction without a difference.
  - dannyw 5y ago
    Yes, it is further enroachment. 1. Software running on Apple's cloud scanning for content. 2. Software running on local devices scanning for content uploaded to the cloud. 3. Software running on local devices scanning for local and cloud content. These must happen gradually to shift the overton window. Apple is progressing this.
    - simondotau 5y ago
      How does it shift the Overton window if, for >99% of people, it is an entirely opaque distinction? For most people, the features provided by cloud accounts are seen as features of their physical device. Whether private data is interrogated locally or remotely is—for them—mere technical minutia.
- judge2020 5y ago
  You can argue it's unethical but it's not illegal. The police can often obtain a warrant with just a private tip from an anonymous line. I'm sure a neural network match with access logs proving image upload AND a human reviewer confirming it matches CSAM is more than enough for a search & seizure.
- 015a 5y ago
  Right; I think its important to recognize that, obviously, Apple's products are not subject to rights against unlawful search and seizure. But: There is absolutely a reason why that is a right the government & law enforcement is forced to uphold. In other words, especially in this age of trillion-dollar megacorps, when private companies enact policies and procedures which skirt the constitutional rights US Citizens have, its tantamount to these private companies looking at centuries of judicial, legislative, and even human rights research and development, and saying "we know better". Apple is an angry toddler; not a responsible adult. Apple does not, generally, equivocate on changes like this. But the chorus against them, on this issue, is seriously big (I guess having Kelso from That '70s Show on your side helps, though). They need to step back on this and engage with the broader legal and ethical community. They are absolutely in the wrong here; that doesn't mean that the right course of action, for the iPhone, is to do nothing and E2EE everything. It just means that these actions are not the right ones. They locked themselves in a room, wrote up a slick algorithm, then said "sweet, this is a great solution which balances protecting our children from predators with the human right to privacy"; its Hubris. Its not that easy, and they can't do it alone.

dvt 5y ago

By reporting potential criminals to the authorities by scanning what is essentially private data (images, messages), I'd likely argue they're violating unlawful search and seizure and I doubt a conviction would stick[1]. It's not like my landlord can barge in my apartment and look under the couch for illegal drugs because he heard a rumor I bought some. I mean, probable cause is already sketchy enough, what Apple doing is beyond the pale. [1] https://reason.com/volokh/2021/08/05/apple-plans-to-scan-us-iphones-for-child-abuse-imagery/ https://reason.com/volokh/2021/08/05/apple-plans-to-scan-us-...

ceejayoz 5y ago
> By reporting potential criminals to the authorities by scanning what is essentially private data (images, messages), I'd likely argue they're violating unlawful search and seizure and I doubt a conviction would stick[1]. Why? Police use informants to obtain probable cause regularly.
macintux 5y ago
You are handing your image off to Apple’s servers, and they are accountable for child porn on those servers, by law. Keep your photo on your device and the software doesn’t scan it. So yes, there’s nuance here. It’s very unfortunate that Apple didn’t engage with the community first, but that seems to be an institutional blind spot.
fay59 5y ago
Given that enforcement is only possible on photos uploaded to iCloud, the fact that classification happens on device seems like a distinction without a difference.
- dannyw 5y ago
  Yes, it is further enroachment. 1. Software running on Apple's cloud scanning for content. 2. Software running on local devices scanning for content uploaded to the cloud. 3. Software running on local devices scanning for local and cloud content. These must happen gradually to shift the overton window. Apple is progressing this.
  - simondotau 5y ago
    How does it shift the Overton window if, for >99% of people, it is an entirely opaque distinction? For most people, the features provided by cloud accounts are seen as features of their physical device. Whether private data is interrogated locally or remotely is—for them—mere technical minutia.
judge2020 5y ago
You can argue it's unethical but it's not illegal. The police can often obtain a warrant with just a private tip from an anonymous line. I'm sure a neural network match with access logs proving image upload AND a human reviewer confirming it matches CSAM is more than enough for a search & seizure.
015a 5y ago
Right; I think its important to recognize that, obviously, Apple's products are not subject to rights against unlawful search and seizure. But: There is absolutely a reason why that is a right the government & law enforcement is forced to uphold. In other words, especially in this age of trillion-dollar megacorps, when private companies enact policies and procedures which skirt the constitutional rights US Citizens have, its tantamount to these private companies looking at centuries of judicial, legislative, and even human rights research and development, and saying "we know better". Apple is an angry toddler; not a responsible adult. Apple does not, generally, equivocate on changes like this. But the chorus against them, on this issue, is seriously big (I guess having Kelso from That '70s Show on your side helps, though). They need to step back on this and engage with the broader legal and ethical community. They are absolutely in the wrong here; that doesn't mean that the right course of action, for the iPhone, is to do nothing and E2EE everything. It just means that these actions are not the right ones. They locked themselves in a room, wrote up a slick algorithm, then said "sweet, this is a great solution which balances protecting our children from predators with the human right to privacy"; its Hubris. Its not that easy, and they can't do it alone.