Therein lies one of the problems: They have not explained to any of its opponents' satisfaction exactly why they went the route they did. Just vague claims of "it preserves/improves privacy." How, exactly, does putting a file scanner on "my" private property preserve or improve my privacy? It's nonsensical. "It allows for E2EE," is the only rational response to that question anybody's made. That might be a reasonable answer had Apple made any claims, much less promises, they were going to implement E2EE for photos, but they have not. And, as has been pointed out by others and me: Apple has specifically backed away from plans to implement E2EE for iCloud storage. So...?There must be a reason that Apple has been working on this plan to begin with.
They believe it is. They may be right. I'll even grant they're probably right. But they don't know it. "Belief" does not constitute even reasonable articulable suspicion, much less probable cause. Furthermore: Even PC to believe one out of a population of N people is doing a bad thing does not justify subjecting the entire population of N people to intrusive searches.It’s that it’s platform is being used as a distribution mechanism for CSAM.
No, not even if "It saves one child."
Yes, it sounds cold. But the alternative smacks of "We had to kill the patient to save him."