3 ms·
What people make this aurguement fail to understand is that legally there is a HUGE difference between "We will not make software that scans files on the devic
by syshum 5y ago
What people make this aurguement fail to understand is that legally there is a HUGE difference between
"We will not make software that scans files on the device"
and
"We will not allow the software we made to scan for anything other than CSAM"
Under US law it would be very hard to force apple to do the first, but no where near as hard to compel them to change the database they of files they are scanning for...
- shuckles 5y agoThis is a dubious legal theory. The compelled action the government asked Apple to take in the case of Apple vs. FBI was a very minor technical change.
- brandon272 5y agoIt's not about the technical complexity of the change. It's about the public blowback from such a change. The U.S. government compelling Apple to install some all-access backdoor would be a big story. The U.S. government compelling Apple to make some small process change to this new system wouldn't be a big story by comparison. Example: A year from now the U.S. government tells Apple they are no longer allowed to review the flagged CSAM imagery themselves but must rather report it directly to law enforcement. A change most people wouldn't think twice about ("why does Apple need to be the ones reviewing this obscene illegal material anyway") yet would introduce a massive vulnerability into the surveillance process.
- shuckles 5y agoI don’t see what public blowback has to do with legal arguments, at least without also assuming some kind of legal realism.
- brandon272 5y agoI wasn't commenting on the law, rather the claim about the technical complexity of the change.