It is no longer important what Apple chooses to do (or not do).
Now that Apple has publicly stated its belief that it could successfully implement its original content detection system, any government with the appropriate legal power could compel Apple to implement that system (tuned to detect whatever content the government specifies).
Technical infeasibility is the only argument governments cannot (easily) legislate around when it comes to facilitating surveillance; now Apple can’t argue that ‘secure’ and ‘private’ ‘targeted’ on-device scanning can’t be done because it has already built the tools to do it!
It is no longer important what Apple chooses to do (or not do).
Now that Apple has publicly stated its belief that it could successfully implement its original content detection system, any government with the appropriate legal power could compel Apple to implement that system (tuned to detect whatever content the government specifies).
Technical infeasibility is the only argument governments cannot (easily) legislate around when it comes to facilitating surveillance; now Apple can’t argue that ‘secure’ and ‘private’ ‘targeted’ on-device scanning can’t be done because it has already built the tools to do it!
No, because then the 3rd parties would be acting as their agents? or at least that's how defence counsel would likely argue against any such evidence being admissible.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Will.
This fight is already over
It is no longer important what Apple chooses to do (or not do). Now that Apple has publicly stated its belief that it could successfully implement its original content detection system, any government with the appropriate legal power could compel Apple to implement that system (tuned to detect whatever content the government specifies). Technical infeasibility is the only argument governments cannot (easily) legislate around when it comes to facilitating surveillance; now Apple can’t argue that ‘secure’ and ‘private’ ‘targeted’ on-device scanning can’t be done because it has already built the tools to do it!
This fight is already over
It is no longer important what Apple chooses to do (or not do). Now that Apple has publicly stated its belief that it could successfully implement its original content detection system, any government with the appropriate legal power could compel Apple to implement that system (tuned to detect whatever content the government specifies). Technical infeasibility is the only argument governments cannot (easily) legislate around when it comes to facilitating surveillance; now Apple can’t argue that ‘secure’ and ‘private’ ‘targeted’ on-device scanning can’t be done because it has already built the tools to do it!
Re: Can't the government just outsource their 4th amendment violations?
No, because then the 3rd parties would be acting as their agents? or at least that's how defence counsel would likely argue against any such evidence being admissible.