Apple feature designed to protect children by scanning images kicks up controversy

[negroplasty]

Those scans are being done on servers owned by them. That's not the problem. The problem is scanning a persons personal device for data. That is what is foul and wrong. It is unethical, immoral and unlawful on every level. And doing it under the guise of "child safety" is as slimy as you can get. It is pathetically transparent and must NOT be tolerated.

I would completely agree with you if the photos in question weren't being backed up to iCloud. I am confident that this is a preemptive move before Apple implements e2e encryption for photos... if/when they do this, they won't be able to employ the same methods used by other cloud providers... this is the only way to ensure people aren't amassing a collection of shady crap that's technically in Apple's custody once the move to e2ee is made.

 

[ZedRM]

I would completely agree with you if the photos in question weren't being backed up to iCloud. I am confident that this is a preemptive move before Apple implements e2e encryption for photos... if/when they do this, they won't be able to employ the same methods used by other cloud providers... this is the only way to ensure people aren't amassing a collection of shady crap that's technically in Apple's custody once the move to e2ee is made.

There is but one flaw with that argument, Apple may be storing the photo's, but they are NOT legally accountable for something they A. Don't know about, B. Can't control and C. Are not responsible for.

Apple might be facilitating online storage, but the accountability of what is stored rests with the account owner. That's on the books in case law.

However, I do not disagree about searching data stored on their servers.

 

[maxxcool7421]

Apple enrages people smart enough to understand what Apple is really doing? What a shocker..

Tim Cook needs to go...


The short answer is yes. Whether it be by government or private entity, the protections provided by the fourth amendment against unlawful search & seizure apply equally to all citizens. These protections are not open for debate, discussion or negotiation. They are a concrete right and are not mute just because Tim Cook gets a wild hair up his bum. This effort using the guise of "child safety" is wildly transparent and pathetic.

Actually the short answer is "NO". you are **leasing air time and bandwidth** .. you do not own the network. Therefore they can do ANYTHING they like with the data you *send*. As soon as you hit SEND and it leaves the device you FORFEIT all rights to privacy JUST like your home internet, office internet, coffee shop internet.

Apple can now scan it, save it and send it wherever they deem.
The carrier can do the same if they can open it.

And for AT&T SPECIFICALLY everyone must have forgotten the full on network TAP for the NSA is STILL operating and STILL in place.

But then ,,, you are on the internet ... you HAVE NO privacy to begin with even with TOR/altcoins.

Get over it ..

 

[realitycheck1234]

The State of California protects pedophiles and even teaches pedophilia in schools. This alone debunks apples credibility in child porn. This is another form of government surveillance that apple has agreed to through paid contracts with the federal level. In 2012 Tim cook agreed to a multi-million dollar contract paid to them by scanning peoples faces and fingerprints and selling it to the government. They lied saying its more secure but the reality was your face/fingerprint scanning was money for apple and invasion of your privacy.

 

[ZedRM]

Actually the short answer is "NO". you are **leasing air time and bandwidth** .. you do not own the network. Therefore they can do ANYTHING they like with the data you *send*. As soon as you hit SEND and it leaves the device you FORFEIT all rights to privacy JUST like your home internet, office internet, coffee shop internet.

Apple can now scan it, save it and send it wherever they deem.
The carrier can do the same if they can open it.

And for AT&T SPECIFICALLY everyone must have forgotten the full on network TAP for the NSA is STILL operating and STILL in place.

But then ,,, you are on the internet ... you HAVE NO privacy to begin with even with TOR/altcoins.

Get over it ..

First, learn how to read. I was very clearly talking about searching a device(iPhone/iPad).

Second, learn how to context. "Leasing" air time does NOT give anyone the right to search your personal property, EVER.

Third, your concept of "rights to privacy" is deeply flawed and is a topic that is not fit for discussion here.

 

[waclark]

Is scanning a device regardless of how securely it is done violating the Fourth Amendment's protections against warrantless search and seizure?

No, it's not. The 4th applies to the Government, not private people or companies. Now, the question is does it violate any actual laws? For example, just because you shop at Nordstrom's doesn't mean they have the right to search your handbag, unless they think you have stolen something. And even then you can refuse, up and until a Police officer shows up and that's not even clear these days if the Police would have any probable cause to search you unless Nordstrom's has video or something.

In the case of Apple or any other company that is storing your data, can they legally access that data without your consent? It's possible in the T&C you may have given them consent.

 

[Danny101]

So here's what gonna happen. A hacker like someone from NSO, the Israel spy software company, will surreptitiously place a photo on a target device. When Apple runs their scan, then they got their target checkmated using spy lawfare. And then anything can happen from there. China's probably running Apple and Cook is the puppet.

 

[Danny101]

Is scanning a device regardless of how securely it is done violating the Fourth Amendment's protections against warrantless search and seizure?

No, it's not. The 4th applies to the Government, not private people or companies. Now, the question is does it violate any actual laws? For example, just because you shop at Nordstrom's doesn't mean they have the right to search your handbag, unless they think you have stolen something. And even then you can refuse, up and until a Police officer shows up and that's not even clear these days if the Police would have any probable cause to search you unless Nordstrom's has video or something.

In the case of Apple or any other company that is storing your data, can they legally access that data without your consent? It's possible in the T&C you may have given them consent.

Government using private companies to make an end run around the Constitution. The 4th amendment line needs now to be extended to private. In the TOS, private or not, companies should not be allowed to pressure customers to certain agreements just to use their products. That is a debate that needs to happen. How far can private companies go?

 

[waclark]

Apple enrages people smart enough to understand what Apple is really doing? What a shocker..

Tim Cook needs to go...


The short answer is yes. Whether it be by government or private entity, the protections provided by the fourth amendment against unlawful search & seizure apply equally to all citizens. These protections are not open for debate, discussion or negotiation. They are a concrete right and are not mute just because Tim Cook gets a wild hair up his bum. This effort using the guise of "child safety" is wildly transparent and pathetic.

The Constitution does not restrict the powers of the individual, only the Government. There are other criminal laws that would cover this, but it is not covered by the Constitution. For example, a business like a bar might require you to produce ID to get into the bar. That is not unreasonable search and seizure, even if you don't want to show ID. They can restrict you. Further, if you produce illegal ID they can call the cops on you.

The question is whether Apple has any liability in preventing this sort of data to be hosted on their machines and distributed to any number of people, illegally? I can see arguments for and against.

 

[waclark]

There is but one flaw with that argument, Apple may be storing the photo's, but they are NOT legally accountable for something they A. Don't know about, B. Can't control and C. Are not responsible for.

Apple might be facilitating online storage, but the accountable of what is stored rests with the account owner. That's on the books in case law.

However, I do not disagree about searching data stored on their servers.

You are not entirely correct. Any provider, like Instagram, Facebook, Google et al are obligated to remove copyrighted material when requested by the copyright holder. If they do not do this then they can be fined.

"(I) Without prejudice to criminal responsibility, (web) hosting provider is obliged to remove the illegal content from the publication if it is informed by Telecommunications Communication Presidency (“Presidency”), judicial authorities or people whose rights are violated within the extent that it is technically possible to block it."

Interestingly, in Apple's terms of use for iCloud they state the following:

"You understand that all Content, whether publicly posted or privately transmitted on the Service is the sole responsibility of the person from whom such Content originated. This means that you, and not Apple, are solely responsible for any Content you upload, download, post, email, transmit, store or otherwise make available through your use of the Service. You understand that by using the Service you may encounter Content that you may find offensive, indecent, or objectionable, and that you may expose others to Content that they may find objectionable. Apple does not control the Content posted via the Service, nor does it guarantee the accuracy, integrity or quality of such Content. "

So it would seem that they will need to revise their terms in order to do this processing.

 

[waclark]

Government using private companies to make an end run around the Constitution. The 4th amendment line needs now to be extended to private. In the TOS, private or not, companies should not be allowed to pressure customers to certain agreements just to use their products. That is a debate that needs to happen. How far can private companies go?

How far? as far as the law allows. The Constitution should not be extended to cover what companies can or cannot do. We don't need the government deciding how companies should operate beyond preventing illegal activities. A company cannot make a "law" that you have to abide by. If you don't like a company's terms to use their product, use a different one. No company should have a monopoly, therefore, you have choices of which products to use.

I am all for making companies accountable for their actions. It's just not a Constitutional matter. It's a civil and/or criminal matter and we have laws for that.

 

[waclark]

So here's what gonna happen. A hacker like someone from NSO, the Israel spy software company, will surreptitiously place a photo on a target device. When Apple runs their scan, then they got their target checkmated using spy lawfare. And then anything can happen from there. China's probably running Apple and Cook is the puppet.

Don't you think they already have this capability? If they do, they don't need Apple at all. They can drop some kiddie porn on your phone and then call the cops to anonymously report a pedophile who "showed me naked kid pics on his phone".

 

[cliffordcooley]

There is no privacy violation or illegal searches, if we upload to someone else's server. It doesn't matter if it is government or company policy.

 

[waclark]

There is no privacy violation or illegal searches, if we upload to someone else's server. It doesn't matter if it is government or company policy.

I'm not so sure that's true. I upload addresses, CC info and other data to Amazon's e-commerce site. There's no reason anyone in Amazon should have access to that data, beyond fulfilling my orders. Same with Apple, Google and any other business where you supply personal or financial information.

When it comes to illegal activity and information, then that might be a different conversation. But no one should have access to my personal data unless I give it to them. Simply uploading files to a server is not consent to use that data any way you want.

 

[ZedRM]

Is scanning a device regardless of how securely it is done violating the Fourth Amendment's protections against warrantless search and seizure?

No, it's not. The 4th applies to the Government

Incorrect. The rights afforded by the 4th amendment apply to everyone at all times. You need to get a copy of the bill of rights and read it carefully.

The rest of your nonsense is not worthy of response so I will not waste time save for the following: Your opinions on this matter are without merit or even a measure of plausible logic and not worth consideration.

 

[cliffordcooley]

I'm not so sure that's true. I upload addresses, CC info and other data to Amazon's e-commerce site. There's no reason anyone in Amazon should have access to that data, beyond fulfilling my orders.

And why would they keep that data confidential? I'm positive you would not deal with anyone if there was no confidentiality agreement. That is not the same thing.

 

[waclark]

Incorrect. The rights afforded by the 4th amendment apply to everyone at all times. You need to get a copy of the bill of rights and read it carefully.

The rest of your nonsense is not worthy of response so I will not waste time save for the following: Your opinions on this matter are without merit or even a measure of plausible logic and not worth consideration.

You should have paid more attention in Civics class. The Constitution LIMITS the power of the GOVERNMENT in what it can and cannot do. It has NOTHING to do with private companies. The Bill of Rights are individual rights PROTECTED by the Constitution. The only place in the Constitution that addresses rights of businesses is the 18th which prohibits manufacture and sale of alcohol and the 21st which repeals prohibition. Regulation of businesses is done through legislation, not via the Constitution.

As for nonsense, you seem to have cornered the market on that. When one cannot bring forth a meaningful debate it is usually because one has no foundation upon which to build that debate. In other-words, your backhanded insults only reveal that you cannot defend your opinions.

PS - the Constitution does not grant you "rights". It only protects you from the Government denying your those rights. Read a book.

 

[waclark]

And why would they keep that data confidential? I'm positive you would not deal with anyone if there was no confidentiality agreement. That is not the same thing.

Why would they keep that confidential? Because in the wrong hands that data could be very damaging to my financial security. Access should be only those with a need to know.

Not sure I'm tracking your point. Amazon should not, and likely does not, allow anyone and everyone to access my account data. Just because I put data on a server doesn't mean there isn't an expectation of privacy. If you make a call on a cell phone do you think it would be OK for your provider to listen in on every call? Just to make sure you're not engaging in criminal activity. For the greater good and all that.

 

[cliffordcooley]

Why would they keep that confidential? Because in the wrong hands that data could be very damaging to my financial security. Access should be only those with a need to know.

Like I said not the same thing. I'm glad we agree.

 

[ZedRM]

You should have paid more attention in Civics class. The Constitution LIMITS the power of the GOVERNMENT in what it can and cannot do. It has NOTHING to do with private companies. The Bill of Rights are individual rights PROTECTED by the Constitution. The only place in the Constitution that addresses rights of businesses is the 18th which prohibits manufacture and sale of alcohol and the 21st which repeals prohibition. Regulation of businesses is done through legislation, not via the Constitution.

And you need to read carefully:

Bill of Rights: The 1st Ten Amendments - Bill of Rights Institute

The Bill of Rights is a founding documents written by James Madison. It makes up the first ten amendments to the Constitution including freedom of speech and due process.

billofrightsinstitute.org

Amendment IV

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.

Does that paragraph say "government" anywhere? If it is not specified it applies broadly. This means, in no uncertain terms, that the protections afforded by the 4th amendment are not limited to the context of government intentions but indeed apply EQUALLY to non-government entities, including private citizens. Your inability to understand the the specified parameters of the wording of the 4th amendment does not limit it's scope or validity.

Your opinion is invalid and without merit because it DOES NOT meet agreeably with the defining terms stated in the wording of the 4th amendment. As such, your position is as undefendable as Apple's.

 

[waclark]

Like I said not the same thing. I'm glad we agree.

Sorry but no, I don't agree whatsoever. Just because I upload data to a server owned by someone else doesn't mean that I don't expect that info to be private. Setting Amazon retail aside, if I upload data to a cloud server, Azure or AWS there is no way in hell I would agree to allow Microsoft or Amazon to be able to access that data so they can "scan" it, for any reason. No company in their right mind would ever operate in the Cloud if this were allowed. Your rationale is flawed.

 

[cliffordcooley]

Your rationale is flawed.

No its not. They have a right to protect themselves by removing anything that is deemed illegal. Go read the user agreements. They can scan for anything they don't allow. If you don't want them scanning, you best not be using their service.

 

[waclark]

No its not. They have a right to protect themselves by removing anything that is deemed illegal. Go read the user agreements. They can scan for anything they don't allow. If you don't want them scanning, you best not be using their service.

According to the iCloud Terms

"You understand that all Content, whether publicly posted or privately transmitted on the Service is the sole responsibility of the person from whom such Content originated. This means that you, and not Apple, are solely responsible for any Content you upload, download, post, email, transmit, store or otherwise make available through your use of the Service. You understand that by using the Service you may encounter Content that you may find offensive, indecent, or objectionable, and that you may expose others to Content that they may find objectionable. Apple does not control the Content posted via the Service, nor does it guarantee the accuracy, integrity or quality of such Content."

Nowhere in the T&C for iCloud does Apple claim any right to access your content and in fact, above they expressly state that they do not control the content in any way.

As for their liability or culpability Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act pretty much relieves online hosting companies, such as Apple, from any liability if someone were to post illegal material in iCloud.

The act also allows providers to take down objectionable material under certain conditions, but nowhere does it give them the right to access your data looking for illegal material. That would be like allowing your landlord or the police unfettered access to your apartment to look for illegal substances. And your landlord doesn't have that right.

Don't you find it ironic that Apple refused to help unlock a phone by a known terrorist but now want's to plough through your data looking for criminal information?