> I believe that they should scan user data in some capacity, because this is about data that causes harm to children. I think this is actually a pretty weak a

> I believe that they should scan user data in some capacity, because this is about data that causes harm to children. I think this is actually a pretty weak argument. Children may be vulnerable, but so are many other segments of the population, including those with disabilities, the elderly, and so on. I guess my question is if we're trying to protect children, then why not go all the way? The answer is because going all the way is dangerous: where does it stop? Why here but not there? I think a better argument would be: we should scan phones for X because X is illegal, and we've deemed, as a society, that X is wrong/bad/punishable/etc. But the problem with that argument is that we already have ways of checking phones/user data for X, and, thankfully, most have to go through a legal process of probable cause, obtaining warrants, and so on. Apple's proposal completely circumvents the legal system. This is a complicated question that I'm sure will be litigated in court in the next few years. SCOTUS has ruled that drug sniffing dogs (e.g. in airports) are constitutional, whereas using infrared imaging (e.g. for finding drug grow houses) is not. Are hashing algorithms more like drug sniffing dogs or like infrared imaging?