[shuckles]

Ok but now you’ve said that the precedent established by Google and others already moved the legislation to require terrible invasions of privacy far along. You started by saying Apple’s technology (and, in particular, its framing of the technology) has brought new legal risk. What I’m instead hearing is the risk would be present in a counter factual world where nothing was announced last week.

At this point of the discussion, people usually pivot to scope creep: the on-device scanning could scan all your device data, instead of just the data you put on the cloud. This claim assumes that legislators are too dumb to connect the fact that if their phone can search for dogs with “on-device processing,” then it could also search for contraband. I doubt it. And even if they are, the national security apparatus will surely discover this argument for them, aided by the Andurils and NSOs of the world.

As I have repeatedly said: the reaction to this announcement sounds more like a collective reckoning of where we are as humans and not any particular new risk introduced by Apple. In the Apple vs. FBI letter, Tim urged us to have a discussion about encryption, when we want it, why we want it, and to what extent we should protect it. Instead, we elected Trump.

[int_19h]

The precedent established by Google et al is that it's okay to scan things that are physically in their data centers. It's far from ideal, but at least it's somewhat common sense in that if you give your data to strangers, they can do unsavory things with it.

The precedent now established by Apple is that it's okay to scan things that are physically in possession of the user. Furthermore, they claim that they can do it without actually violating privacy (which is false, given that there's a manual verification step).

[shuckles]

The precedent established by Apple, narrowly read, is it’s ok to scan data that the user is choosing to store in your data center. As you pointed out, this is at least partly a legal matter, and I’m sure their lawyers - the same ones who wrote their response in Apple vs. FBI I’d imagine - enumerated the scope or lack thereof.

Apple’s claim, further, is that this approach is more privacy-preserving than one which requires your cloud provider to run undisclosed algorithms on your plaintext photo library. They don’t say this is not “violating privacy,” nor would that be a well-defined claim without a lot of additional nuance.