Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Hit With $1.2B Lawsuit Over Abandoned CSAM Detection System
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It was created because of direct threats from Republican senators in a senate hearing.
ISP have some legal protection against this as Title I information services.
It’s terrible isn’t it.
Anyways, completely off topic now.
Good luck to Apple on this one.
Last edited:
You are missing the point of my (and probably other people’s) objection. Aside from the fact that I already pay taxes that fund law enforcement (whose job it actually IS to put away CSAM degenerates) and I don’t pay Apple to do it, no part of a scheme intended to surveil me should ever take place on a device I own and paid for. Full stop. No part of any such implementation should be there at all.
If Apple scans data I choose to put on their infrastructure (iCloud), I have no objection. But suggesting that just because it would be scanned in that instance anyway, it’s OK to do it on my device is nonsense.
There is a place to send all these thieving attorneys.
Let this last explain the rules.....
there is an option to disable photo sync with iCloud.
Yes, I replaced my iPhone with a degoogled Android because of that. Can't have being assumed guilty, until proven innocent. Child safety is the reason given, you can't argue with that. Who doesn't want to protect children? But these systems are always abused by authority and used for other things. For example, in China, they could round up people with pictures or memes on their phones of Winnie the Poo and a certain President.
Being sued for *not* doing something? Seems like the plaintiffs could sue anyone at that point. "Hey you, over there, if you had been spying on your neighbors more, this wouldn't have happened."
Really!?!? How can you sue a company for not adding a feature. So they want 1.2 billion dollars for 2,860 people. That would mean that each person would get between $350,000 and $400,000 after lawyer fees. Because Apple did not add a feature that they want and that hurts them how?
It seams to me that someone behind the curtains is playing 4D chess using this motif as a moral trojan horse to push for an agenda that is yet to be revealed. The bug will be planted.
PS: Not difficult to understand what is coming ... just follow the money.
PS: Not difficult to understand what is coming ... just follow the money.
Last edited:
No it ain't.
No judge in England wil charge me for hating someone. They might however charge me for acting out that hate.
Here in the U.S., also. The question is, where is the line drawn on the matter of 'acting out' that hate? I hit Google and typed in 'UK laws against" and the first option it suggested finished with 'hate speech.' So this is a topic many people have inquired about. I went to the Wikipedia page on Hate speech laws in the United Kingdom to learn more. From that page:
"Expressions of hatred toward someone on account of that person's colour, race, sex, disability, nationality (including citizenship), ethnic or national origin, religion, or sexual orientation is forbidden."
A key issue is where they draw the line. Most any reasonable nation where these matters become problematic draws it somewhere (e.g.: harassment, menacing). Each nation draws a balance between free speech rights and other concerns. The U.S. has historically prioritized free speech.
This talk about Apple's prior plan to routinely scan user content reminded me of an older controversy from the early 2000's; the Carnivore System. The FBI designed Carnivore to sift through contents of a suspect’s e-mail and, 'when appropriate' record the suspect’s e-mail address for further review.
At least with Carnivore it reads like you needed to be a suspect.
So how would we take the news if the FBI set up such a system to routine scan the contents of every e-mail moving through the Internet in the United States? After all, not only child-related crime might be fought, but more general human trafficking, the illegal drug trade, future terrorist acts, etc...
If Apple does is, and a lawsuit mandates they do, you realize other major photo hosting sites may feel liability risk-driven to do the same. And if the major providers are routinely scanning photos for criminal content, why not e-mails? In fact, if they have a legal obligation to scan photos for CSAM, why don't they have a legal obligation to scan e-mails for it? And texts?
A legal requirement? I don’t think so.
I mean, by that logic shouldn’t the post office be required to read all your mail to check there’s no illegal content in it?
I think Google and Amazon just choose to do this on their own.
I think you can petition to file an amicus brief in the case. That is, if you think a case impacts you, even if you are not a direct party to the case (the one suing and the one being sued), you can ask the court to take your view into account when deciding the case.
Where that “line” between speech and action lies is indeed the key and jurisdictions where the government is trying to expand what is included in the “action” column are in for a rough ride. Every bored, thin-skinned internet surfer will formally report online posts they don’t like and authorities will be forced to assign resources to investigate. To make matters worse, those attempts to expand what constitutes criminal speech are rarely accompanied by clear rules of what constitutes prohibited speech because it’s language, and context matters (or SHOULD matter). A text snippet that may look offensive on first blush may not be if read with preceding sentences or paragraphs.
As an outsider looking in, the UK looks like they are moving in that direction. So much so, that they have even threatened to go after online speech outside their borders. To some of us here in the US this particular statement may have looked like just a silly thing to say out of frustration at the time, but the fact that authorities would even entertain that notion with foreign citizens probably says something about how they would prosecute their own.
Some good points.
I think part of the, (unfixable), problem is people cannot be trusted to police themselves.
So the victims are blaming the company that abandoned the project and not the government that allows for the pictures to circulate?? Maybe sue the government? 🙄
Then add in re-defining and dog whistles.
Say I don't like drrich2. He orders pineapple on pizza, and I am firmly in the camp of "if you want a salad, order one, but keep it off of my pie."
So I call him a few names. He doesn't care for this and calls me a few names. Because it is the internet, one of us (let's say it's me) eventually calls the other one a "Nazi." I then go on to point out how having "ich" in your screen name is a dog whistle for being a fascist. Never mind that no one heard of this before. I find or make up some obscure reference to who that relates, and now I am telling everyone drrich2 is a known and admitted fascist based on some truly made up garbage and demanding people cancel him. He should never be allowed to hold a job, even as the fries guy at McDonald's because of his hateful nature (how is he supposed to eat without committing crimes, by the way).
This kind of nonsense needs to stop - quickly.