5 ms·
We were never in a world where Apple was unable to do what the government was asking. Nothing impossible has been made possible, and Apple has made a stand agai
by shuckles 5y ago
We were never in a world where Apple was unable to do what the government was asking. Nothing impossible has been made possible, and Apple has made a stand against small changes - like changing constants - before.
- HWR_14 5y agoIt's not "impossibility". It's cost. The FBI cannot force Apple to do free work to circumvent security. Can they force them to add one more hash? Is that work?
- shuckles 5y agoI’m not a lawyer, but at the very least Apple would have to train its reviewers to recognize new image types, redact or update all statements where they explicitly drew a line in the sand about what the feature searched for, likely produce a custom build of iOS, update its knowledge base to distinguish between the root hash of the CSAM database and FBI Imagery database, perhaps re-present consent, add code to target this new database (or subset of the full database) to US users, etc. I’m not a product manager either, but superficially simple changes are often quite complex!
- HWR_14 5y agoI think once Apple has established a pipeline for adding content in a known pattern and at a known cost, it lowers the legal bar (although I am not a lawyer). The government can take your stuff, they just have to pay you for it. I'm not sure if adding the N+1 image to the next dataset is similar to that or not.
- simondotau 5y ago> Can [the FBI] force them to add one more hash? No. Because the hash causes searches to be performed on citizens' private property, this would be an unambiguous, indisputable, clear-cut violation of the 4th Amendment.
- brokenmachine 5y agoWhat if they ask nicely?