Add hashes of police uniforms and now you cannot take pictures of law enforcement.
Add hashes of politicians. Businessmen in suits. Army uniforms.
At the end you have a weapon that can only shoot civilians.
Add hashes of politicians. Businessmen in suits. Army uniforms.
At the end you have a weapon that can only shoot civilians.
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.
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....
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....
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.
"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.
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.
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?
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.
Not if Apple provides it to them without a subpoena.
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.