So I wonder what the authors of this letter will do if Apple goes ahead? Who will they turn to for privacy? Do they not know that Google is doing this? So if they stop buying Apple then who will they buy from, or will they get off the internet?
Sputtering about privacy, government surveillance, etc. when you are impotent to do anything because the only option is to leave the internet is not productive. Several have threatened or stated that they will no longer buy Apple products because of this. Who are they kidding, where will they go? This will blow over, will be implemented, and life will go on. By the way, both political parties are on board with this, so no matter who you vote for it’s a done deal.
So how about those of you clamoring for Apple to stop this tell us what you plan to do when it is implemented. What will be your response? Writing your Congressperson? Or will you be hypocrites and go about your business?
Well Snowden desolders the mic, camera and speakers on his phone, so he should be fine
With respect to the image scanning I think Apple can make a good case that they want illegal and horrific images off of their servers. I applaud the use technology to eradicate these images from the face of the earth and more specifically to stop child abuse in general.
My personal perspective is related to Apples methodology.
The method Apple chose involves uploading data to customer owned devices without their permission for the needs of a third party. Further they are using the processing power of their customers equipment without their permission to access customers data without their permission with the sole purpose of finding out if that customer is breaking the law. It seems like this is violating the customers trust in Apple. it also seems like this makes Apple an agent for the government.
The reason for what they’re scanning for and the methods they’re using is because it’s justifiably horrific, I.e. child abuse, and the images are widespread, so there is a limit to Apples privacy stance imo.
Technically the user would have given consent when they updated their phone.
It's Apple's OS. Nobody can force Apple to write its OS to their specifications. Even the EFF probably support Apple's legal right to decide what goes into their OS. This isn't a question of legality it's a question of morality, reputation and profitability. And that's fine.
For the most part people here are arguing what Apple should be doing, not what it legally must be doing. But even those people who are arguing that Apple should not be doing this aren't arguing that Apple legally must not be doing this.
I'm finding questions of morality to be rather boring. I'm interested in issues that are of legal importance.
People might not be talking about them as much, but what Apple is doing does raise some legal questions.
Apple is generally a private actor. But courts have found that private actions can represent violations of the Fourth Amendment under some circumstances. There are a number of tests which can apply, depending on context. There's a function test which asks whether a given private actor was performing a traditional government function. There's a compulsion test which asks whether a given private actor was coerced by the government. And there's a nexus test which asks whether a given private actor was cooperating with the government. There's still considerable gray area on this issue as courts haven't agreed on how or which tests apply.
But one of the questions here is whether Apple was somehow coerced by government actors to implement this software and program. Even if Apple wasn't coerced, was it encouraged by government actors? And if so, what's the intent behind Apple's policy? Is it trying to help law enforcement or is Apple doing this for its own business reasons? If Apple is undertaking searches in order to help government actors catch criminals and not because Apple thinks this policy helps its business, then the Fourth Amendment might be implicated.
There are also questions when it comes to whether these actions would constitute Fourth Amendment searches anyway. If the only thing a hash-value scan can reveal is whether something illegal is present, then under Supreme Court doctrine (see, e.g., U.S. v Place (1983)) such a scan might not be considered a Fourth Amendment search because it doesn't implicate legitimate privacy interests. Notably this is a question which the 6th Circuit recently expressly left open in its U.S. v Miller (2020) decision.
If it’s legally dubious then the best course is to let it play out in the courts. If the court shuts it down then Apple will have the legal precedent to resist future government requests.
So I wonder what the authors of this letter will do if Apple goes ahead? Who will they turn to for privacy? Do they not know that Google is doing this? So if they stop buying Apple then who will they buy from, or will they get off the internet?
Sputtering about privacy, government surveillance, etc. when you are impotent to do anything because the only option is to leave the internet is not productive. Several have threatened or stated that they will no longer buy Apple products because of this. Who are they kidding, where will they go? This will blow over, will be implemented, and life will go on. By the way, both political parties are on board with this, so no matter who you vote for it’s a done deal.
So how about those of you clamoring for Apple to stop this tell us what you plan to do when it is implemented. What will be your response? Writing your Congressperson? Or will you be hypocrites and go about your business?
Well Snowden desolders the mic, camera and speakers on his phone, so he should be fine
Now seems to be as good of time as any, to quote Edward Snowden
"Arguing that you don't care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don't care about free speech because you have nothing to say." Edward Snowden
Which is just an excerpt from ......
“There is, simply, no way, to ignore privacy. Because a citizenry’s freedoms are interdependent, to surrender your own privacy is really to surrender everyone’s. You might choose to give it up out of convenience, or under the popular pretext that privacy is only required by those who have something to hide. But saying that you don’t need or want privacy because you have nothing to hide is to assume that no one should have, or could have to hide anything – including their immigration status, unemployment history, financial history, and health records. You’re assuming that no one, including yourself, might object to revealing to anyone information about their religious beliefs, political affiliations and sexual activities, as casually as some choose to reveal their movie and music tastes and reading preferences. Ultimately, saying that you don’t care about privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different from saying you don’t care about freedom of speech because you have nothing to say. Or that you don’t care about freedom of the press because you don’t like to read. Or that you don’t care about freedom of religion because you don’t believe in God. Or that you don’t care about the freedom to peaceably assemble because you’re a lazy, antisocial agoraphobe. Just because this or that freedom might not have meaning to you today doesn’t mean that that it doesn’t or won’t have meaning tomorrow, to you, or to your neighbor – or to the crowds of principled dissidents I was following on my phone who were protesting halfway across the planet, hoping to gain just a fraction of the freedom that my country was busily dismantling.” ― Edward Snowden, Permanent Record
I never thought I'd live in a world where the same people who are cool with Big Tech censoring political voices the left doesn't like are upset about ...
Yeh, disinformation killing tens of thousands of Americans and inciting insurrection should be welcomed instead of banned. Ask Q.
So I wonder what the authors of this letter will do if Apple goes ahead? Who will they turn to for privacy? Do they not know that Google is doing this? So if they stop buying Apple then who will they buy from, or will they get off the internet?
Sputtering about privacy, government surveillance, etc. when you are impotent to do anything because the only option is to leave the internet is not productive. Several have threatened or stated that they will no longer buy Apple products because of this. Who are they kidding, where will they go? This will blow over, will be implemented, and life will go on. By the way, both political parties are on board with this, so no matter who you vote for it’s a done deal.
So how about those of you clamoring for Apple to stop this tell us what you plan to do when it is implemented. What will be your response? Writing your Congressperson? Or will you be hypocrites and go about your business?
Well Snowden desolders the mic, camera and speakers on his phone, so he should be fine
Now seems to be as good of time as any, to quote Edward Snowden
"Arguing that you don't care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don't care about free speech because you have nothing to say." Edward Snowden
Which is just an excerpt from ......
“There is, simply, no way, to ignore privacy. Because a citizenry’s freedoms are interdependent, to surrender your own privacy is really to surrender everyone’s. You might choose to give it up out of convenience, or under the popular pretext that privacy is only required by those who have something to hide. But saying that you don’t need or want privacy because you have nothing to hide is to assume that no one should have, or could have to hide anything – including their immigration status, unemployment history, financial history, and health records. You’re assuming that no one, including yourself, might object to revealing to anyone information about their religious beliefs, political affiliations and sexual activities, as casually as some choose to reveal their movie and music tastes and reading preferences. Ultimately, saying that you don’t care about privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different from saying you don’t care about freedom of speech because you have nothing to say. Or that you don’t care about freedom of the press because you don’t like to read. Or that you don’t care about freedom of religion because you don’t believe in God. Or that you don’t care about the freedom to peaceably assemble because you’re a lazy, antisocial agoraphobe. Just because this or that freedom might not have meaning to you today doesn’t mean that that it doesn’t or won’t have meaning tomorrow, to you, or to your neighbor – or to the crowds of principled dissidents I was following on my phone who were protesting halfway across the planet, hoping to gain just a fraction of the freedom that my country was busily dismantling.” ― Edward Snowden, Permanent Record
Terrorists, purveyors of disinformation, drug lords, insurrectionists, and other sleazy criminals rely on the combination of privacy and free speech to harm society and the decent people who rely on that society. BOTH need to be regulated and controlled so they are not misused.
It is not OK to yell FIRE in a crowded theater -- even if you can do it hidden away in a back room over the PA system and nobody knows who did it.
Snowden (rightfully) complained about the abuses of the NSA -- which was formed / enhanced to combat the abuses of the terrorists who killed 3,000 Americans.
Someone else did make a very good point. Images sent to an iPhone user on WhatsApp and iMessage can end up in iCloud photos unintentionally. So some person can send child porn to others in a 'swatting attack' and they will get flagged as a pervert when the image ends up in iCloud.
And we have to ask , is the the crime of possession of these images worth the largest tech company in the world throwing its privacy reputation in the trash can? Child abuse takes many forms - however it seems this just seems to whip up a fever in the good old religious, moral majority USA. For a wealthy country, the USA has awful levels of child poverty, malnutrition and deaths in child birth particularly amongst minorities. Why not address those issues ?
Someone else did make a very good point. Images sent to an iPhone user on WhatsApp and iMessage can end up in iCloud photos unintentionally. So some person can send child porn to others in a 'swatting attack' and they will get flagged as a pervert when the image ends up in iCloud.
And we have to ask , is the the crime of possession of these images worth the largest tech company in the world throwing its privacy reputation in the trash can? Child abuse takes many forms - however it seems this just seems to whip up a fever in the good old religious, moral majority USA. For a wealthy country, the USA has awful levels of child poverty, malnutrition and deaths in child birth particularly amongst minorities. Why not address those issues ?
Nope.
The recipient of images from either WhatsApp or iMessage have to intentionally add them.
The second point has zero relevancy to the discussion at hand.
Comments
Now seems to be as good of time as any, to quote Edward Snowden
"Arguing that you don't care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don't care about free speech because you have nothing to say." Edward Snowden
Which is just an excerpt from ......
“There is, simply, no way, to ignore privacy. Because a citizenry’s freedoms are interdependent, to surrender your own privacy is really to surrender everyone’s. You might choose to give it up out of convenience, or under the popular pretext that privacy is only required by those who have something to hide. But saying that you don’t need or want privacy because you have nothing to hide is to assume that no one should have, or could have to hide anything – including their immigration status, unemployment history, financial history, and health records. You’re assuming that no one, including yourself, might object to revealing to anyone information about their religious beliefs, political affiliations and sexual activities, as casually as some choose to reveal their movie and music tastes and reading preferences. Ultimately, saying that you don’t care about privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different from saying you don’t care about freedom of speech because you have nothing to say. Or that you don’t care about freedom of the press because you don’t like to read. Or that you don’t care about freedom of religion because you don’t believe in God. Or that you don’t care about the freedom to peaceably assemble because you’re a lazy, antisocial agoraphobe. Just because this or that freedom might not have meaning to you today doesn’t mean that that it doesn’t or won’t have meaning tomorrow, to you, or to your neighbor – or to the crowds of principled dissidents I was following on my phone who were protesting halfway across the planet, hoping to gain just a fraction of the freedom that my country was busily dismantling.”
― Edward Snowden, Permanent Record
And we have to ask , is the the crime of possession of these images worth the largest tech company in the world throwing its privacy reputation in the trash can? Child abuse takes many forms - however it seems this just seems to whip up a fever in the good old religious, moral majority USA. For a wealthy country, the USA has awful levels of child poverty, malnutrition and deaths in child birth particularly amongst minorities. Why not address those issues ?
The recipient of images from either WhatsApp or iMessage have to intentionally add them.
The second point has zero relevancy to the discussion at hand.