Hans why have you done a 360 and misquoted my comment. Look at the whole post of mine and even the part comment of mine you quoted you will see it never spoke about restricting private citizens, it explained they were effectively exempted them from the conditions under the 4th AMENDMENT as they did not constitute a government search, but a private search, and I even posted the 4th wording showing that.
"A private search has never been a violation of the 4th amendment since a privat party is not the federal government or an individual state or its representative. It might be trespassing and maybe even a form of breaking and entering."
NO DISAGREEMENT. This is why I posted it?
Apple breaking the 4th Amendment? Where did that come from? No mention of that in my post?
It specifically gave the reasons why Apple and others were NOT breaking the 4th, because I even posted the wording showing it did not include PRIVATE parties?
In fact if you had read the court case in there instead of suggesting the opposite, you would note that it was ruled in court that NCMEC was in the case I posted ruled NOT to be a government agency.
Surprised you turned it around and put in comments not even in my post as if you answering comments I never made and in cases the opposite of what I had made?
It is quite clear this is arm twisting of Apple and others, by using the loophole of private parties, because if it was a government agency doing it, it would be against the 4th.
Under these circumstances it looks clear it is a way for governments/dictators/etc. to engage in plausible deniability yet having a backdoor in Apple systems, and you only have to look at some of the actions with regards Chinese requirements to understand that.
I'm still not against iCloud being used, but vehemently against the intrusion of our hardware being used, let alone being used by such machiavellian juggling of privacy laws, especially those in the name of child abuse and child pornography, where it will endanger these kids more now that the whole world has been made aware of hash checks on OUR hardware, and if you or anyone else things these people will not take evasive action, making it harder for the Government Agencies involved, you are living in cloud cuckoo land.
This in my opinion was done for one thing and one thing only and in the name of tackling child abuse and that was to initiate the reasons for a backdoor on your hardware and it will not be iPhone only in my opinion, it will span the whole range of products.
Some queried my estimation of hash database size extent, with some suggesting it was only 200,000 hashes, but where one of my original concerns was that even on an operational basis using just the NCMEC database was of no value, and where Apple has now addressed that hence increasing the database size, and the overhead on owners hardware, and where even this will need updating daily or weekly to be of value, but where again I'm not against this being an iCloud function, as its Apple's servers or contracted to Apple, but I am totally against the imposition of this on USERS hardware, because it is a backdoor, and the potential for abuse is immense.
I am still of the opinion this was done to create a backdoor by bending the 4th Amendment, bending the ear of Apple and others, like the Chinese appear to have done, and thereby avoiding breaches of the 4th Amendment, and to that end it is much more sinister than the altruistic excuse its to fight child abuse.
"The tech giant will now only flag images that had been supplied by clearinghouses in multiple countries and not just by the US National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC), as announced earlier."
I hope Tim looks at more of my concerns, and addresses those also by NOT having hash software which is not a user request, not a user choice, and not even asking a users permission of what goes on in their own hardware, where whatever some suggest the operative word is SURVEILLANCE and a backdoor, becuase the specifics of the hashes are far subordinate to the big concern of a backdoor that can and no doubt will be used.
Governments have now cottoned on to the fact they can have a backdoor and checks on anything by using private parties to undertake such searches, and where there is no law compelling Apple to put this software on hardware we own, none at all.
Apple are choosing to do this, but in my opinion with leverage to make them.
It may be you genuinely misunderstood my post, and I accept it as that but it materially mis stated my post.
Last edited:
