3 ms·
I respectfully disagree. In my mind, the fact that Apple employees do first level filtering is a minor problem. The main problem is the precedent this sets: on
by short_sells_poo 5y ago
I respectfully disagree. In my mind, the fact that Apple employees do first level filtering is a minor problem.
The main problem is the precedent this sets: on device scanning is now possible.
Before this, if a government asked Apple to scan all the phones for something, Apple could say "we're sorry but we don't have the capability " and they could not be compelled by legal means.
Now, a large part of that argument has been eroded. Apple may have added in a few hurdles, but the first crucial step of on-device surveillance capability has been installed and is on path to being normalized.
It doesn't matter that they don't do this yet. We are undeniably closer to direct phone surveillance than we have been before.
- kf6nux 5y agoThe supposition was that, if the scanning had no reporting capability, then Apple could still claim a lack of capability. They could respond to government demands with, "Sorry, our software only blocks uploads. We have no ability to get telemetry on what uploads are blocked or how often." That proposal probably wouldn't work for a lot of reasons though. The largest blocker being that (IIUC) the NCMEC won't share a DB of offending signatures without NDA, so Apple probably can't load it onto consumer devices.