5 ms·

> If someone uploads child porn to iCloud and then shares it with someone else Apple is possessing and distributing child porn. If someone sends CSAM using Fed

> If someone uploads child porn to iCloud and then shares it with someone else Apple is possessing and distributing child porn. If someone sends CSAM using Federal Express, is FedEx legally liable for "possessing and distributing" that material? Does FedEx need to start opening up packages and scanning hard drives, DVDs, USB sticks, etc. to ensure that they don't contain any CSAM or other illegal data? I really struggle with the lengths that people are going to to justify these moves. If we can justify this, it's pretty simple to justify a lot more surveillance as well. CSAM is not the only scourge in our society. Reminder: Apple tells us that they consider privacy a "fundamental human right"[1]. That simply does not square with their recent announcement of on-device scanning, and some would argue that it does not square with scanning or content analysis anywhere, especially on behalf of government. [1] https://apple.com/privacy https://apple.com/privacy

treis 5y ago
>If someone sends CSAM using Federal Express, is FedEx legally liable for "possessing and distributing" that material? Yes: https://www.dea.gov/press-releases/2014/07/18/fedex-indicted-its-role-distributing-controlled-substances-and https://www.dea.gov/press-releases/2014/07/18/fedex-indicted... That was for drugs but conceptually the same for CSAM.
- brandon272 5y ago
  This is not at all conceptually the same. FedEx was not held liable simply because their service was used to mail illegal drugs. They were held liable because not only did they know about the specific instances in which it was mailed, they allegedly conspired with the shippers to facilitate the mailings. They were knowingly mailing packages to parking lots where drug dealers would wait to pick them up: > According to the indictment, as early as 2004, FedEx knew that it was delivering drugs to dealers and addicts. FedEx’s couriers in Kentucky, Tennessee, and Virginia expressed safety concerns that were circulated to FedEx Senior management, including that FedEx trucks were stopped on the road by online pharmacy customers demanding packages of pills; that the delivery address was a parking lot, school, or vacant home where several car loads of people were waiting for the FedEx driver to arrive with their drugs; that customers were jumping on the FedEx trucks and demanding online pharmacy packages; and that FedEx drivers were threatened if they insisted on delivering packages to the addresses instead of giving the packages to customers who demanded them. They had drug addicts literally stopping FedEx trucks on the street to intercept packages from online pharmacies. I don't see how this specific situation is analogous to Apple at all. The fact remains that FedEx is not scanning hard drives, DVD or other storage devices going through their network and they don't appear to be breaking any laws by not doing that scanning.
  - treis 5y ago
    >They were held liable because not only did they know about the specific instances in which it was mailed, they allegedly conspired with the shippers to facilitate the mailings. Apple knows that CSAM is being sent and conspires to do so (i.e. transmits the image). Conceptually they are the same. The rest of your post details the practical differences between sending physical packages and digital images.
    - brandon272 5y ago
      I'm not even sure where to start here. FedEx knows that CSAM is sent using its services in the same way that Apple does. That is to say that both companies know that CSAM has been sent historically and both know that is possible to send that type of material using its services, and one could argue that they should assume that their services are used to transfer that data. Why does one of these companies have to go to such great depths to search out and report these materials and the other does not? If we suggest that Apple "knows" about CSAM on their network, we must also accept that Apple "knows" about many other crimes in which the devices they are sell are used in the planning and execution of those crimes. Why are they only focused on CSAM if they'd also have legal exposure in these other crimes simply for being a hardware and service provider? Lastly, to suggest that Apple "conspires" to transmit this content is wholly inaccurate. Conspiracy implies two or more parties are in explicit agreement to commit a crime.
      - treis 5y ago
        >If we suggest that Apple "knows" about CSAM on their network, we must also accept that Apple "knows" about many other crimes in which the devices they are sell are used in the planning and execution of those crimes. Why are they only focused on CSAM if they'd also have legal exposure in these other crimes simply for being a hardware and service provider? It's not knowledge of a crime. Apple is committing a crime by possessing and distributing CSAM. >Lastly, to suggest that Apple "conspires" to transmit this content is wholly inaccurate. Conspiracy implies two or more parties are in explicit agreement to commit a crime. But that is exactly what they're doing. They are agreeing to possess and deliver images of which they know a portion are CSAM.

treis 5y ago

>If someone sends CSAM using Federal Express, is FedEx legally liable for "possessing and distributing" that material? Yes: https://www.dea.gov/press-releases/2014/07/18/fedex-indicted-its-role-distributing-controlled-substances-and https://www.dea.gov/press-releases/2014/07/18/fedex-indicted... That was for drugs but conceptually the same for CSAM.

brandon272 5y ago
This is not at all conceptually the same. FedEx was not held liable simply because their service was used to mail illegal drugs. They were held liable because not only did they know about the specific instances in which it was mailed, they allegedly conspired with the shippers to facilitate the mailings. They were knowingly mailing packages to parking lots where drug dealers would wait to pick them up: > According to the indictment, as early as 2004, FedEx knew that it was delivering drugs to dealers and addicts. FedEx’s couriers in Kentucky, Tennessee, and Virginia expressed safety concerns that were circulated to FedEx Senior management, including that FedEx trucks were stopped on the road by online pharmacy customers demanding packages of pills; that the delivery address was a parking lot, school, or vacant home where several car loads of people were waiting for the FedEx driver to arrive with their drugs; that customers were jumping on the FedEx trucks and demanding online pharmacy packages; and that FedEx drivers were threatened if they insisted on delivering packages to the addresses instead of giving the packages to customers who demanded them. They had drug addicts literally stopping FedEx trucks on the street to intercept packages from online pharmacies. I don't see how this specific situation is analogous to Apple at all. The fact remains that FedEx is not scanning hard drives, DVD or other storage devices going through their network and they don't appear to be breaking any laws by not doing that scanning.
- treis 5y ago
  >They were held liable because not only did they know about the specific instances in which it was mailed, they allegedly conspired with the shippers to facilitate the mailings. Apple knows that CSAM is being sent and conspires to do so (i.e. transmits the image). Conceptually they are the same. The rest of your post details the practical differences between sending physical packages and digital images.
  - brandon272 5y ago
    I'm not even sure where to start here. FedEx knows that CSAM is sent using its services in the same way that Apple does. That is to say that both companies know that CSAM has been sent historically and both know that is possible to send that type of material using its services, and one could argue that they should assume that their services are used to transfer that data. Why does one of these companies have to go to such great depths to search out and report these materials and the other does not? If we suggest that Apple "knows" about CSAM on their network, we must also accept that Apple "knows" about many other crimes in which the devices they are sell are used in the planning and execution of those crimes. Why are they only focused on CSAM if they'd also have legal exposure in these other crimes simply for being a hardware and service provider? Lastly, to suggest that Apple "conspires" to transmit this content is wholly inaccurate. Conspiracy implies two or more parties are in explicit agreement to commit a crime.
    - treis 5y ago
      >If we suggest that Apple "knows" about CSAM on their network, we must also accept that Apple "knows" about many other crimes in which the devices they are sell are used in the planning and execution of those crimes. Why are they only focused on CSAM if they'd also have legal exposure in these other crimes simply for being a hardware and service provider? It's not knowledge of a crime. Apple is committing a crime by possessing and distributing CSAM. >Lastly, to suggest that Apple "conspires" to transmit this content is wholly inaccurate. Conspiracy implies two or more parties are in explicit agreement to commit a crime. But that is exactly what they're doing. They are agreeing to possess and deliver images of which they know a portion are CSAM.