5 ms·

No they don’t. Searches for things other than CSAM would be inadmissible under the 4th amendment. https://www.economist.com/united-states/2021/08/12/a-38-year

by zepto 5y ago

No they don’t. Searches for things other than CSAM would be inadmissible under the 4th amendment. https://www.economist.com/united-states/2021/08/12/a-38-year-old-charity-will-be-integrated-into-apples-newest-operating-system https://www.economist.com/united-states/2021/08/12/a-38-year...

psyc 5y ago
That article is very obviously not about what is being searched for. It's about who it is being reported to. For example, if Apple one day decided to detect unauthorized copyrighted media, they could report it to the RIAA. The RIAA is independent of the government, thus the 4th amendment is not violated.
- zepto 5y ago
  So then you must agree that the fears of government overreach are unwarranted. Given that’s what most of the complaints here raw about, that’s a big deal. > For example, if Apple one day decided to detect unauthorized copyrighted media, they could report it to the RIAA. The RIAA is independent of the government, thus the 4th amendment is not violated. It’s true that Apple could decide to implement any search or scanning mechanism at any time, and report anything they like to anyone they want to. So what? This is true of anyone who writes software that handles user data. What does that have to do with the CSAM mechanism? It seems like an unrelated fear.
  - fsflover 5y ago
    > What does that have to do with the CSAM mechanism? It seems like an unrelated fear. He CSAM mechanism proves that Apple can and will go this route, even if users are against that.
    - zepto 5y ago
      The CSAM mechanism proves that Apple will send information to the RIAA or another non-government entity? How exactly does it prove that?
simondotau 5y ago
But only because Apple is doing the searches on device. If the searching is done in the cloud, the third party doctrine means that the US Government could demand anything and the 4th Amendment wouldn't apply.

by zepto 5y ago

psyc 5y ago

That article is very obviously not about what is being searched for. It's about who it is being reported to. For example, if Apple one day decided to detect unauthorized copyrighted media, they could report it to the RIAA. The RIAA is independent of the government, thus the 4th amendment is not violated.

zepto 5y ago
So then you must agree that the fears of government overreach are unwarranted. Given that’s what most of the complaints here raw about, that’s a big deal. > For example, if Apple one day decided to detect unauthorized copyrighted media, they could report it to the RIAA. The RIAA is independent of the government, thus the 4th amendment is not violated. It’s true that Apple could decide to implement any search or scanning mechanism at any time, and report anything they like to anyone they want to. So what? This is true of anyone who writes software that handles user data. What does that have to do with the CSAM mechanism? It seems like an unrelated fear.
- fsflover 5y ago
  > What does that have to do with the CSAM mechanism? It seems like an unrelated fear. He CSAM mechanism proves that Apple can and will go this route, even if users are against that.
  - zepto 5y ago
    The CSAM mechanism proves that Apple will send information to the RIAA or another non-government entity? How exactly does it prove that?

simondotau 5y ago

But only because Apple is doing the searches on device. If the searching is done in the cloud, the third party doctrine means that the US Government could demand anything and the 4th Amendment wouldn't apply.