5 ms·
For that to happen: they'd have to be matched 30 times, the Apple employees would have to mistakenly manually confirm the match 30 times, and the defence would
by scoopertrooper 5y ago
For that to happen: they'd have to be matched 30 times, the Apple employees would have to mistakenly manually confirm the match 30 times, and the defence would fail to request to see the underlying images that matched the hashes during discovery.
It seems... far fetched.
- the-dude 5y agoFor now.
- scoopertrooper 5y agoWhen your slippery slope includes the abolition of pre-trial discovery, it's a very slippery slope indeed.
- dylan604 5y agoWhen does slope become cliff?
- psychlops 5y agoWhen it's your phone.
- scoopertrooper 5y agoDid you just use a slippery slope argument to justify slippery slope arguments? Impressive. How deep can we go?
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- xdennis 5y agoYou don't know it's 30 and you don't know it's going to stay so even if it is.
- FireBeyond 5y agoRight, because imagine the spin. "Our CSAM matching found 29 matches that are either confirmed or strongly suspected in your iCloud drive. But because Apple values your privacy, we are not turning this information over." No. Expect that number to go to '1', or very close, and very soon. Because as much as this is a PR nightmare for Apple right now, the above scenario is even worse.