3 ms·

> If you make it easier to report, more people will do it. The law isn't going to rely on people that might or might not report CSAM if they see it. Average us

> If you make it easier to report, more people will do it. The law isn't going to rely on people that might or might not report CSAM if they see it. Average users have no obligation to report CSAM, unlike the law and the companies that store user data. If the law finds CSAM themselves, they will always report it, and in their eyes that only improves the chances of a successful conviction. > My right to privacy is not an infringement of your rights so this argument has no bearing in reality. The law would argue that a right to privacy that includes the ability to store CSAM privately is infringing on the rights of others, because allowing CSAM to be consumed and distributed creates a market that incentivizes the further abuse of children. CSAM cannot be produced without CSA taking place, which makes it a part of that cycle. > There is no technical reason that this is required to enable E2EE for iCloud, it's purely speculation as to why Apple would roll this surveillance tool out, as a compromise to having a fully encrypted system. That is Apple's own fault for failing to precisely explain their reasoning for designing the system the way they did, and the confusion was entirely preventable.

least 5y ago
The legislative branch might try to do something but it’d inevitably be tested in our judicial system. We can only speculate how the courts might rule in such cases but in just a philosophical sense there is no argument here.
- nonbirithm 5y ago
  Here is an opinion from the district court of Northern California. Among other things, it mentions that Microsoft was not acting as a government agency to conduct CSAM scanning, and that the Fourth Amendment does not apply to private entities. It might be worth reading through for some of the other people discussing this issue, since it happened fairly recently (December of 2020). https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-bohannon-15 https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-bohannon-15
  - least 5y ago
    I don't doubt that a case that involved scanning for CSAM on their own property wasn't found to be a violation of someone's 4th amendment rights. One of the cases cited is United States v. Ackerman that did involve a case regarding NCMEC opening other email attachments containing CSAM other than the one that AOL scanned which was a violation of his 4th amendment rights. The reason this is murky territory is because it's on-device, and we have precedence of there being an expectation of privacy on our cell phones via Carpenter v. United States which found that in a very narrow circumstance third party doctrine did not apply. However, other cases have not been tested and there are many factors regarding Apple's implementation that may or may not protect it in an actual case. We don't really have a clear picture of how and when third party doctrine applies with the case of our cell phones, which have been determined to be nearly indispensable in modern society. But there's a difference between the legality of something and morality to it and while the former is up in the air, the latter really isn't in this case, at least for a lot of people that are arguing for or against this system. In my opinion, it does not matter that Apple's implementation only ever activates if you there is intent to upload to their servers. The fact that it is performed on device is in itself the most problematic aspect. There are no acceptable justifications to be had here. If Apple wants to scan their own servers that is their prerogative. The same cannot be said about my phone.

least 5y ago

The legislative branch might try to do something but it’d inevitably be tested in our judicial system. We can only speculate how the courts might rule in such cases but in just a philosophical sense there is no argument here.

nonbirithm 5y ago
Here is an opinion from the district court of Northern California. Among other things, it mentions that Microsoft was not acting as a government agency to conduct CSAM scanning, and that the Fourth Amendment does not apply to private entities. It might be worth reading through for some of the other people discussing this issue, since it happened fairly recently (December of 2020). https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-bohannon-15 https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-bohannon-15
- least 5y ago
  I don't doubt that a case that involved scanning for CSAM on their own property wasn't found to be a violation of someone's 4th amendment rights. One of the cases cited is United States v. Ackerman that did involve a case regarding NCMEC opening other email attachments containing CSAM other than the one that AOL scanned which was a violation of his 4th amendment rights. The reason this is murky territory is because it's on-device, and we have precedence of there being an expectation of privacy on our cell phones via Carpenter v. United States which found that in a very narrow circumstance third party doctrine did not apply. However, other cases have not been tested and there are many factors regarding Apple's implementation that may or may not protect it in an actual case. We don't really have a clear picture of how and when third party doctrine applies with the case of our cell phones, which have been determined to be nearly indispensable in modern society. But there's a difference between the legality of something and morality to it and while the former is up in the air, the latter really isn't in this case, at least for a lot of people that are arguing for or against this system. In my opinion, it does not matter that Apple's implementation only ever activates if you there is intent to upload to their servers. The fact that it is performed on device is in itself the most problematic aspect. There are no acceptable justifications to be had here. If Apple wants to scan their own servers that is their prerogative. The same cannot be said about my phone.