steven n.
About
- Username
- steven n.
- Joined
- Visits
- 119
- Last Active
- Roles
- member
- Points
- 1,240
- Badges
- 1
- Posts
- 1,229
Reactions
-
Apple details user privacy, security features built into its CSAM scanning system
Depends if the government is the one requiring the private company to act as agents on their behalf. If this is being mandated by the government or even knowingly sanctioned by the government, the following would be very much in question:mikethemartian said:
There’s nothing illegal about it. Apple is a private entity that you have given access to your records. They can voluntarily give any and all of your information to law enforcement. Even regardless if you have a “contract” with them not to because that contract would be void. The 4th Amendment only protects you if the government is attempting to get information and the entity that has it resists. They can voluntarily give whatever information they have to law enforcement at any time.numenorean said:Ok. So basically, Apple has decided to do an illegal search and seizure of our photos, have their system analyze them for what a government sponsored non-profit determines might be criminal (which of course can't ever be hacked or manipulated, as that's never happened to any company or database /s), then a non-police officer human will look at your photos and make a legal determination over them before taking you to the police. This is completely unconstitutional, as laid out in the fourth amendment:4th Amendment: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Where's the warrant that gives anyone the right to look at your personal photos, be it on your phone, on your server storage, or your personal home? This also such a clear violation of the precept of innocent before proven guilty, as everyone is suspected guilty, and therefore, searched. Apple is not law enforcement, nor have they been empowered by law enforcement, nor do they have a legal warrant issued by a judge to search your property.
Apple has really opened the door here for so many violations it's not even funny. And this is the company that would not help unlock the phone of a terrorist, but will now scan every single, innocent person's phone, you know "for the children". That excuse has always covered up so many sins.
You know, since Apple has decided to look at our photos, and one of their employees may end up looking at your personal photos should their magical system of identification accidentally flag one of your photos, how about we all get a view at the personal photos of Tim Cook and all other Apple employees. It's only fair isn't it?
Just pondering...
”Courts routinely look to two critical factors in making a determination as to whether an individual was acting as a government agent: (1) whether the government knew of and acquiesced in the intrusive conduct, and (2) whether the private actor’s purpose was to assist law enforcement rather than to further his own ends.”
in this case, both would be true and the Fourth Amendment would come into play.
-
Apple details user privacy, security features built into its CSAM scanning system
And the CSIM feature will do what you want. CSAM is very very different and, while being well intentioned, has the real potential to be abused by governments all over the world.F_Kent_D said:I 100% agree with everyone’s concern and disapproval of this feature. However, I have nothing to hide as far as child pornography or anything of the sort. I have 3 daughters and would rather them not receive any pornographic texts or communication from anyone and this is to help keep that from happening. Todays kids are chatting and messaging no telling who on the online games and I’ve found that one of my daughters was suckered into doing things that shouldn’t have been done as a 10 year old. She’s been warned but I’m unable to warn the other party. I’m not 100% happy about all of this scanning but at the same time I have young girls that if there’s a way to protect them I will accept the protection against sex trafficking and other improper activities via messaging. -
Apple employees ask for more flexible remote work options
That letter is a toxic stew of dig whistles. As a share holder, I would hope Apple simply decided to cut shares with those 80 employees.
-
Actual US broadband penetration & speed falls far short of FCC claims
This is the telling part:
“The blue-colored areas are U.S. counties where less than 15% of people are using the internet at a 25Mbps download speed, which is the FCC's definition of high-speed internet.”
The FCC judges by available. Microsoft judges by using. Two very different metrics. I would not expect The Verge’s sophomoric “journalism” to pick up on this.
-
Epic's Tim Sweeney said he would have taken special deal with Apple
The problem is the 80% profit margin is a blatant lie and a made up number. Truth never did stop a politician though.InspiredCode said:Apple may win this round, but it feels like Apple should try to get in front of antitrust issues before it is too late.The bi-partisan coalition of senators on the antitrust committee think the approximately 80% profit margins on AppStore fees is evidence of rent seeking and want to regulate the store. With the Biden administration also onboard, it feels like it is just a matter of time. The fact that Apple provides services seems to be a major reason regulators do not want to treat them like a game store.Other parties are preparing their own antitrust trials in both the US and the EU that I think may have stronger cases. I’m not pro-regulation, so I would really like to see Apple get in front of this on their own terms. If they fail to, I hope the least blunt instrument as possible is used to regulate the store.
