4 ms·

I think you’re missing the point. If the only thing stopping the government is a warrant (which the government itself can authorize) then there’s nothing stoppi

I think you’re missing the point. If the only thing stopping the government is a warrant (which the government itself can authorize) then there’s nothing stopping the government from just issuing those warrants. It may take slightly longer to do so but they will get it and all they need is reasonable suspicion to make that happen. This system makes it impossible for Apple to provide anything to the government outside of anything that is already criminal. If the government entity gets a warrant, they can simply get access to the whole device. This, in theory, prevents that situation because everything is encrypted and only things that are confirmed as being CSAM are provided. They literally can’t provide something they don’t have.

nullc 5y ago
To be equivalent, they'd have to get courts to issue warrants for hundreds of millions of US Apple product users, people who have no reason to suspect they've engaged in any wrong doing. I suspect the courts would take issues with that. Besides, if they could get the warrants they could get access to all the data in any case (e.g. by getting access to the users backups to steal the users credentials and then accessing the icloud accounts).
- schoen 5y ago
  This is, in part, the "particularity" issue in fourth amendment law. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-4/particularity https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-4/p... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Writ_of_assistance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Writ_of_assistance
- dpkonofa 5y ago
  Yes but, effectively, the end result is the same without violating users' privacy. If none of what's on their device matches the hashes, then nothing will have been done and Apple would be able to encrypt those backups also which would invalidate the whole 2nd part of your complaint.
  - nullc 5y ago
    Or they could just not invade the users privacy, encrypt the backups, and have no access to the user's data.
    - dpkonofa 5y ago
      They're not invading the users' privacy. They have to comply with a lawful government order. This is allowing them to do that without violating users' privacy.
      - Dylan16807 5y ago
        They could make themselves unable to access any data and still comply with lawful orders. There's no rule that you have to preemptively design systems to make data extraction easier. This planned system means less violation of privacy in cases where a warrant exists, and more violation of privacy where there is no warrant. That's not exactly an amazing tradeoff.
        dpkonofa 5y ago
        I don’t follow. This system is exactly what you’re describing. Apple is not able to access any of your data. The most they get access to is the signature of the file (which would already be matched with known CSAM content) and a potential thumbnail of the CSAM content.
        Dylan16807 5y ago
        I feel like it should be obvious that I'm describing a system where they don't add this code. And depending on what's in the database, signatures and thumbnails can be really bad.
      - nullc 5y ago
        Apple has not been ordered by the government to scan user's images. Because the scanning is happening without a warrant, if the government compelled apple to perform the search the search would be illegal. It is only legal for Apple to perform this search because it is in no way compelled by the government. The government cannot obtain a blanket warrant against everyone. This kind of dragnet scanning has to be voluntarily performed by a private party for it to be lawful. By all means! please prove to us that the government secretly has ordered Apple and other companies to scan users private data: If you do so it will result in overturning tons of convictions due to the unlawful searches which were concealed due perjury by the government and tech companies who have consistently claimed that the scanning by the tech companies is completely voluntary in in their own self interest.

nullc 5y ago

To be equivalent, they'd have to get courts to issue warrants for hundreds of millions of US Apple product users, people who have no reason to suspect they've engaged in any wrong doing. I suspect the courts would take issues with that. Besides, if they could get the warrants they could get access to all the data in any case (e.g. by getting access to the users backups to steal the users credentials and then accessing the icloud accounts).

schoen 5y ago
This is, in part, the "particularity" issue in fourth amendment law. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-4/particularity https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-4/p... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Writ_of_assistance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Writ_of_assistance
dpkonofa 5y ago
Yes but, effectively, the end result is the same without violating users' privacy. If none of what's on their device matches the hashes, then nothing will have been done and Apple would be able to encrypt those backups also which would invalidate the whole 2nd part of your complaint.
- nullc 5y ago
  Or they could just not invade the users privacy, encrypt the backups, and have no access to the user's data.
  - dpkonofa 5y ago
    They're not invading the users' privacy. They have to comply with a lawful government order. This is allowing them to do that without violating users' privacy.
    - Dylan16807 5y ago
      They could make themselves unable to access any data and still comply with lawful orders. There's no rule that you have to preemptively design systems to make data extraction easier. This planned system means less violation of privacy in cases where a warrant exists, and more violation of privacy where there is no warrant. That's not exactly an amazing tradeoff.
      - dpkonofa 5y ago
        I don’t follow. This system is exactly what you’re describing. Apple is not able to access any of your data. The most they get access to is the signature of the file (which would already be matched with known CSAM content) and a potential thumbnail of the CSAM content.
        Dylan16807 5y ago
        I feel like it should be obvious that I'm describing a system where they don't add this code. And depending on what's in the database, signatures and thumbnails can be really bad.
    - nullc 5y ago
      Apple has not been ordered by the government to scan user's images. Because the scanning is happening without a warrant, if the government compelled apple to perform the search the search would be illegal. It is only legal for Apple to perform this search because it is in no way compelled by the government. The government cannot obtain a blanket warrant against everyone. This kind of dragnet scanning has to be voluntarily performed by a private party for it to be lawful. By all means! please prove to us that the government secretly has ordered Apple and other companies to scan users private data: If you do so it will result in overturning tons of convictions due to the unlawful searches which were concealed due perjury by the government and tech companies who have consistently claimed that the scanning by the tech companies is completely voluntary in in their own self interest.