[ok_computer]

But this court decision is a real world example, and not some esoteric edge case.

This is something I don’t think needs analogies to understand. SA/CP image and video distribution is an ongoing moderation, network, and storage issue. The right to not be under constant digital surveillance is somewhat protected in the constitution.

I like speech and privacy and am paranoid of corporate or government overreach, but I arrive at the same conclusion as you taking this court decision at face value.

[startupsfail]

Wait until Trump is in power and corporations are masterfully using these tools to “mow the grass” (if you want an existing example of this, look at Putin’s Russia, where people get jail time for any pro-Ukraine mentions on social media).

[ok_computer]

Yeah I’m paranoid like I said, but this case it seems like the hash of a file on google’s remote storage flagged as potential match that was used as justification to request a warrant. That seems common sense and did not involve employees snooping pre-warrant.

The Apple CSAM hash detection process, that the launch was rolled back, concerned me namely because it was run on-device with no opt out. If this is running on cloud storage then it sort of makes sense. You need to ensure you are not aiding or harboring actually harmful illegal material.

I get there are slippery slopes or whatever but the fact is you cannot just store whatever you wish in a rental. I don’t see this as opening mass regex surveillance of our communication channels. We have the patriot act to do that lol.

[rangestransform]

I think the better option is a system where the cloud provider cannot decrypt the files, and they’re not obligated to lift a finger to help the police because they have no knowledge of the content at all

[ok_computer]

In my opinion, despite the technical merits of an algorithm, encryption is only as trustworthy as the computer who generates and holds a private key.

I would personally not knowingly use a cloud provider to commit a crime. That is a fairly naive take to assume because your browser is https that data at rest and in process isn’t somehow observable.

And I see where you’re coming from but I am afraid that position severely overestimates the will of US people to trade freedom/privacy for security and the legislature to hold citizens’ privacy in such high regard.

[SauntSolaire]

I only worry that, in the case that renting becomes a roundabout way of granting more oversight ability to the government, then as home ownership rates decrease, government surveillance power increases.

Sure, it's facilitated through a third party (the owner), but the extrapolated pattern seems to be: "1. Only people in group B will have fewer rights, so people in group A shouldn't worry" followed closely by "2. Sorry, you've been priced out of group A."

In the case of renting, we end up in the situation where those who have enough wealth to own their own home are afforded extra privileges of privacy.

Now to bring this back to the cloud; the cynical part of me looks towards a future of cheap, cloud-only storage devices. Or an intermediate future of devices where cloud is first party and local storage is just enough of a hassle that people don't use it. And the result is that basically everyone now has the present day equivalent of local storage scanning.

If renting de-facto grants fewer rights, then in the future where "you'll own nothing and be happy", you'll also have no rights, and all the way people will say "as a renter, what did you expect?"

[ok_computer]

OK I agree with you about setting a precedent that future storage will be scanned by default. Additionally who will control the reference hash list?, since making one necessitates hashing that illicit material.

I only hope the court systems escalate it and manage to protect free speech or unreasonable search and seizure or self incrimination or whatever if the CSAM hash comparisons are used against political opponents or music piracy or tax evasion or whatever.

Good point.

[immibis]

> You need to ensure you are not aiding or harboring actually harmful illegal material.

Is this actually true, legally speaking?

[ok_computer]

I’m unsure I wrote that from like an ethics standpoint. The silk road guy was got on conspiracy for attempting murder and not drug or human trafficking charges. So I’m unsure of legal side.

I think if you knowingly provided a platform to distribute SA/CP/CSAM and the feds become involved you will be righteously fucked.

Reddit clamped down on the creepy *bait subreddits years ago. Maybe it was self-preservation on the business side or maybe it was forward looking about legal issues.

I’m not a lawyer I was just mentioning things that I would follow for ethics morals and my sense of self preservation.

[Zak]

I'm reasonably certain Reddit's decision to ban /r/jailbait and the like was driven by business/reputation. It was widely discussed for some time before it was banned and, IIRC given a "worst of" award by the admins at one point. Once it got major media coverage, Reddit got its first real content policy.

[Caboose8685]

> The silk road guy was got on conspiracy for attempting murder and not drug or human trafficking charges

Actually, the murder stuff was not part of his sentencing or what they tried him for.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_Ulbricht

[ktsHan]

It is worse. Trump will actually put people on concentration camps! Glenn Greenwald explains the issue here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8EjkstotxpE