> It is impossible to verify the validity of the report in such a scenario Sorry I was unclear, I mean in that case it would send them a cleartext copy of the

> It is impossible to verify the validity of the report in such a scenario Sorry I was unclear, I mean in that case it would send them a cleartext copy of the file, and if it doesn't match (otherwise) just do the standard end to end thing. It would still violate the user's privacy, but it's a simple, cheap to implement, and relatively transparent system (e.g. we could test the database against the internet to discover if they're misreporting popular images) which would continue to allow Apple to cosplay as Batman. I don't think it's good. I believe users devices have an unambiguous moral obligation to act in the user's best interest to the extent provided by the law unless directed otherwise by the user. I believe we should consider enshrining the moral obligation in the law. Unfortunately, unethical actors have moved the overton window so far over that rather than getting a device agency law we'll have to fight laws mandating backdoored encryption like Apple's. I bring up the alternative to point it out that the fancy crypto in this new system isn't there to protect the user, as the parent poster was suggesting. The fancy crypto is a mask that helps shield Apple from accountability for their vigilante actions. Even if you take for granted that Apple gets to play crime fighter there are simpler and more transparent alternatives.