It is, in fact, not complicated, and there is a clear answer.
That's the reason we have the damn Constitution.
If you want to look through people's private stuff, you have to get a warrant. There is nothing more to see here.
That's the reason we have the damn Constitution.
If you want to look through people's private stuff, you have to get a warrant. There is nothing more to see here.
The "you" in the Fourth Amendment context does not apply to Apple.
The principle/spirit should apply everywhere, especially when it is meaningfully difficult to opt out. Since there is literally only one competitor in this space, this should generally apply.
I acknowledge that the horrible circumstances used for the justification of this bad policy exist, and sometimes are marginally helpful, but the balancing test for me isn't particularly close.
Especially knowing, that at present - the facial recognition technology is not good at recognizing people who look like me and my kids, and presently harms us perhaps even more than it helps (yeah, we're black.)
And this is why I don’t think it’s as black & white. An absolutist, deontological view of the right to privacy is something I absolutely empathize with (although the fourth amendment does not enshrine this anywhere for companies; the bill of rights applies to government action.). I’m just saying there is a utilitarian argument as well for doing something like this.
And the dialogue between technologists who understand what technology can/can’t do vs those who advocate for exploited children —- is what is needed.
Perhaps I should spell it out more clearly. My black child-in-the-pool's face matches some unfortunate other child's and now I'm being investigated. It should be more obvious why this concerns me as much, if not more than, the other thing.