XPost: uk.comp.sys.mac
On Mon, 9 Aug 2021 21:37:07 -0400, nospam wrote
(in article <090820212137072281%
nospam@nospam.invalid>):
In article <0001HW.DD37245902283425B02919BF@news.astraweb.com>, Ed
Norton <norton@nowhere.com> wrote:
So I have been reading with interest all the threads about Apple's plan >>>> to scan images for "Child Pornography". (I ignore the fact that the
definitions of "child" and "pornography" are not even universally
agreed upon.)
Doesn't sound like you've actually read how Apple are implementing this. >>> It's all right out in the open, on Apple's site with whitepapers and
reviews and comments from appropriate researchers.
Read this and the linked material, then see if your current argument is
necessary or even relevant.
https://daringfireball.net/2021/08/apple_child_safety_initiatives_slippe
ry_slo
pe
Cheers - Jaimie
Jaime,
Perhaps I did not make my point clearly enough. You guys seem to bu
focused on how good the encryption is. I don't care _how_ Apple is
implementing this or how great the illusion of privacy is. Who
appointed Apple (and Google, and Faceberg, and Twitter, and any other
tech company) to be vigilantes, snooping on their customers and
reporting them to the government? If they want to prohibit certain
content from their platforms, I guess under the current laws that's
their business. But turning over the information to the Government?
Even the article you cite admits it is a "slippery slope".
child porn is illegal. apple and others are obligated to report it.
I don't think anyone would disagree that they have an obligation to
report it. The issue is do they have an obligation to go out and
actively look for it. And, it so, how does that obligation not extend
to other crimes whether malum in se or malum prohibitum.
facebook has been doing it for a decade. others do it too.
The "everyone does it" fallacy is not an argument.
it's really quite simple.
Would you be happy with Verizon, say, analyzing all voice
communications, looking for certain words on a prohibited list and then
reporting the parties involved in the conversation to the government
even if the actual conversation itself were encrypted? What is the
difference? (BTW I know that the NSA already does this. But we have
at least some control and oversight of the NSA)
there's a huge difference between telecom providers and cloud providers.
a phone call is a point to point communication between two people, with
a strong expectation of privacy. wiretaps require a court order.
uploading content to a cloud provider, regardless of which one, is
putting your content on 'someone else's computer'. there is no
expectation of privacy. you don't own their computers, you have no say
in how they're operated and you do not have the right to dictate what
content must be hosted or rejected. you are a *guest*.
Making a phone call is "putting your content on someone else's
computer" too. The difference is we understood up front the danger of eavesdropping and misuse and put laws in place to attempt to prevent
it. Stowager invented automatic switching because operators were
listening in on calls and switching them to a different funeral home.
It's time we enacted the same laws for other forms of communications.
Because of their monopolies, the big tech companies have the power to
control and limit speech in ways the Constitution never anticipated. I
find that dangerous. We are setting up a separate system of a
non-elected virtual government with the power to destroy people with no
oversight and no recourse.
the united states constitution prohibits the *government* from
infringing freedom of speech.
private entities are not government actors.
You appeal to the letter of the law rather than the spirit. I would
bet that the framers of the constitution would be appalled at the
snooping and surrveillance that goes on by private companies today as
well as their de-facto control of speech. Private companies can and
are regulated for the public good, for example when it comes to food
products. We are just a little late in regulating them for their
abuses of the expectation of privacy because it crept up on us and our
laws are made by slaves to the lobbiests. It's time for a Digital Bill
of Rights that recognizes the new realities.
you do *not* have the right to use a private entity to host your
message.
they too have rights, and can tell you to go elsewhere if they don't
like your message or simply not want you as a customer.
either find another service that wants to host what you have to say, or
set up your own site and post whatever you want, assuming it's legal,
which child porn is not.
Are you familiar with the term "monopoly"?
--
Ed
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)