You can't trust a feature whose only impediment from being abused in the future is such pinky promise.
Add hashes of politicians. Businessmen in suits. Army uniforms.
At the end you have a weapon that can only shoot civilians.
Once a hash matches, law enforcement would need a subpoena to access the raw image. If a person were to be arrested, that evidence would be turned over to the defense.
It would be very obvious that a picture of a police officer was not child pornography.
Are you under the impression people are jailed for hash collisions? Because that's not the case at all....
Let's stick to the topic of discovery and how courts work.
You still don't get to be technically incorrect, though. You still need to know how courts work, if you want to participate in that discussion.
You still need to know the process, though. Images of police officers are not being used to convict CP charges.
So in that case in discovery the picture of a police officer would be evidence that you broke that hypothetical law. The technology deployed to protect the children opens up the possibility of its deployment for other things later, based on legal requirements of course.
For example don't take pictures of copyrighted material would be something people might want to work on.
Hypothetical situations are not an argument to real world discussions. Sure, if that happened, it'd be terrible. But, that's not happening....
"While this image may be insightful for understanding the character of the fallacy, it represents a misunderstanding of the nature of the causal relations between events. Every causal claim requires a separate argument. Hence, any "slipping" to be found is only in the clumsy thinking of the arguer, who has failed to provide sufficient evidence that one causally explained event can serve as an explanation for another event or for a series of events"
You need to argue things that are actually happening. Appealing to hypotheticals, especially when technically incorrect, serves no one.
The slippery slopes being discussed here are not about events and the causes that link them, but about the applications of technology and to a certain extent about laws being used beyond their original mandate. This kind of slippery slope is a logical one.
Thus the technology being used for this mean that it can be used for other things - what kinds of things can it be used for? Are there things that people would like to make illegal or that are illegal now that this technology can be used catch people infringing on these hypothetical laws. Thus - if we allow this technology in our devices now are we opening ourselves up for other potential uses for the technology in the future that will hurt us.
If this argument seems the same to you as the domino theory and that we must take every hypothetical problem when it actually occurs I wonder how you are ever able to plan for any eventuality?
Apple, however, is still not a sovereign state, and as such must bow to the wishes of actual sovereign states. Sovereign states have proven again and again that they will grab as much power as they can, and doing it insidiously, in the form of a private database of hashes of undesired content, is especially attractive to them.
This is not a hypothetical. For a real-world example look to England where its nation-wide internet blocking system is already used beyond its original scope. Or think of what countries like China will certainly do with such a mechanism. Scope creep, in the form of power grabs by nation states, is a realistic concern, based on vast historical experience, not a fallacy.
Apart from the concern of scope creep, there is also the concern of false positives. When deployed on such a scale, there will undoubtedly be perfectly legimate images being flagged. I'm not happy about my phone containing software that's always vigilant, ready to ruin my life over a false positive.
No. You don't get to control the narrative by saying that. You have to discuss things that could happen when discussing things this invasive.
Apple is deploying a technology with few legitimate uses that makes terrible things not only possible but easy all without the voluntary consent of the device's owner.
Not if Apple provides it to them without a subpoena.
However, that does not mean that while this investigation is under way, the accused is now go about their business.
For CP, or other crimes of violence, that makes sense.
But if laws are passed against peaceful protest, then that means someone could be held in detention while those photos are investigated. An anonymous photo now is trackable.
Or have Microsoft, Google, Apple, Facebook, etc., been doing this with such stealth that no-one has actually noticed it happening yet?
PhotoDNA and similar are done in on-premises machines, nothing on your own private phone.
For one example, it was always absurd to suggest that gay marriage would lead to legalized pedophilia, bestiality, or marriage to objects.
(edited for brevity, expanding more on this in a reply...)
The corporation that is the U.S government acts just like one: roadmaps and planning ahead for radical policy changes to occur within longer spans of time to signify progress (or something), and then absolutely losing their shit if an opposing candidate wins & gets in the way of their progress, as we observed these past 5 years.
Acceptance of pedophilia has been set in motion for several years now. One only need look at some of California's SB-145, the ever-expanding reach of public schools teaching sex-ed to kindergartners, and the N number of drag queens sexualizing themselves in front of young children in public libraries and schools with grand applause and media gushing as these facilities move a few steps away from becoming brothels.
(See what I did there? Surely our libraries won't become brothels, that would be absurd! I mean, the chances of that happening are 2nd to none; and if 10 years from now, libraries still aren't brothels, then I'd have been wrong after all, and my playful exaggeration will have expired. A gatekeeper would have done their noble internet duty to inform me just how idiotic my suggestion was from the start, to be sure. The joke's on them for losing 15 minutes crafting the perfect response to my alarmism that will definitely change my mind.)
We had none of this just 3 years ago, but I'm pretty confident I'll be gaslit in response to my highly misinformed and "hateful" comments, as it goes. ;) That's no matter though. I take responsibility for that by standing by what I say, not bending to the winds of outrage.
Sex education isn't about teaching you how to have sex, it's "here's all the reasons you need to be very careful with sex".
In my classes I learned about many different STI's and the dangers of unprotected sex. Not once was I taught a Kamasutra position or what to do with my fingers.
For younger kids I assume the curriculum would be more about what kinds of behaviors they need to be careful of and immediately warn other adults about.
I suppose the name is very unfortunate because a lot of people seem to think sex-ed is about getting young people to start having sex, when in fact it has the opposite result and we can see it in statistics.
Also, that father violated a gag order, and acted against the decisions of the both custodial parent and his child's medical professionals. You're being disingenuous to misrepresent that as "for calling his daughter[sic] she".
edit: here's an example of the slippery slope "fallacy" in action
"First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a socialist."
In this case, the arguments against this mechanism are generatly slippery slope arguments - logic doesn’t guarantee the bad outcomes. However it’s quite reasonable to be concerned that the bad outcomes will happen because of the actors involved.
This represents a very common misunderstanding of fallacies, IIRC it's called the Fallacy Fallacy: fallacies don't give you any information about the truth of the conclusion, they only indicate that the logic that ties that conclusion to the premises is unsound. So "slippery slope fallacy" means "worse things don't logical follow in increments from better things" but that doesn't mean that in any real situation "worse things follow in increments from better things" is not true.
The most common example of this misunderstanding is probably Occam's Razor, it says nothing about whether things are or aren't more complex in any real situation, only that it's easy to reason about things if you don't add additional aspects that aren't needed.
Does Facebook scan local files?
A company looking at content uploaded to servers they own is quite different from a company spying on the contents of a device they don’t own.
Step back for a second and think about why perhaps falling for the ‘but the children’ trap tells you Apple wants to go in the absurd direction you are pointing. Think about if it makes any sense at all they would want to go that way, think about why they would even let you know and think about how plausible it is for these steps to lead to each other.