So they wouldn't have been sued if they just never pursued on device monitoring in the first place? Or is this going to be a new requirement for all smartphones moving forward?
Apple actively pursuited this tech but that backlash from the general population due to privacy concerns was simply too high, so they made a business decision to respect peoples privacy (and their bottom line at that).
I feel for the victims of child abuse but forcing device manufacturers to monitor everyone without warrant is an enormous violation of privacy.
> …so they made a business decision to respect peoples privacy (and their bottom line at that).
For the record, Apple abandoned this on-device technique because of bad press, even though it would've been more privacy-preserving than the in-cloud scanning that virtually all image hosts do today.
It exists now, since the tech was repurposed for Apple’s Communication Safety (scanning for all nudity, not just CSAM): https://www.apple.com/child-safety/
How do you validate that your OS, your apps, and other actors in your image/video processing and storage supply chains aren't doing surreptitious CSAM scanning? I have no idea. All I know is that Apple is being sued for not doing it.
How about the device I own never do anything, ever to incriminate me
In fact, if I own a device, it should by default do everything legal to obstruct law enforcement efforts against me because I own it and it should serve me
Let me start with this: I believe that the suit makes no sense.
The problem is that those people see a real problem (CSAM), want a solution to it, but are not open to the fact that there may not be an acceptable solution. Usually because they don't understand the solution and go with "I don't care how it's done; we are in 2024, it should be possible".
For all the people blaming big government’s surveillance intent for Apple’s CSAM scanning initiative, here is a lawsuit by the actual victims, and yet the techbro crowd still finds ways to paint it as pure surveillance and to avoid responsibility for the harm and suffering e2ee platforms enable and profit from.
19 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 53.6 ms ] threadI don’t know if it’ll be enough to pressure Apple into complying given the backlash that caused them to abandon device scanning in the first place.
There is plenty of bad things happening inside people's homes, should we start putting cameras in every home on the planet to deter these crimes?
I mean where does it stop?
Apple actively pursuited this tech but that backlash from the general population due to privacy concerns was simply too high, so they made a business decision to respect peoples privacy (and their bottom line at that).
I feel for the victims of child abuse but forcing device manufacturers to monitor everyone without warrant is an enormous violation of privacy.
For the record, Apple abandoned this on-device technique because of bad press, even though it would've been more privacy-preserving than the in-cloud scanning that virtually all image hosts do today.
You can opt out of in-cloud scanning by not using the cloud, or selecting a different service.
How do you validate that your OS, your apps, and other actors in your image/video processing and storage supply chains aren't doing surreptitious CSAM scanning? I have no idea. All I know is that Apple is being sued for not doing it.
Which doesn't make sense.
> How do you validate that your OS, your apps, and other actors in your image/video processing and storage supply chains aren't doing [...]
Because you don't know that your neighbour deals drugs does not make it legal.
In fact, if I own a device, it should by default do everything legal to obstruct law enforcement efforts against me because I own it and it should serve me
The problem is that those people see a real problem (CSAM), want a solution to it, but are not open to the fact that there may not be an acceptable solution. Usually because they don't understand the solution and go with "I don't care how it's done; we are in 2024, it should be possible".