> And, indeed, this is why we should not expect the process to stop. Nobody is rallying behind the rights of child abusers and those who traffic in child abuse

> And, indeed, this is why we should not expect the process to stop. Nobody is rallying behind the rights of child abusers and those who traffic in child abuse material. Arguably, nor should they. I wouldn't be so sure. When Apple was going to introduce on-device scanning they actually proposed to do it in two places. • When you uploaded images to your iCloud account they proposed scanning them on your device first. This is the one that got by far the most attention. • The second was to scan incoming messages on phones that had parental controls set up. The way that would have worked is: 1. if it detects sexual images it would block the message, alert the child that the message contains material that the parents think might be harmful, and ask the child if they still want to see it. If the child says no that is the end of the matter. 2. if the child say they do want to see it and the child is at least 13 years old, the message is unblocked and that is the end of the matter. 3. if the child says they do want to see it and the child is under 13 they are again reminded that their parents are concerned about the message, again asked if they want to view it, and told that if they view it their parents will be told. If the child says no that is the end of the matter. 4. If the child says yes the message is unblocked and the parents are notified. This second one didn't get a lot of attention, probably because there isn't really much to object to. But I did see one objection from a fairly well known internet rights group. They objected to #4 on the grounds that the person sending the sex pictures to your under-13 year old child sent the message to the child, so it violates the sender's privacy for the parents to be notified.