5 ms·

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 condu

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

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.