This is the part that also caught my eye.
Surely Apple's lawyers have also reviewed the same law, and if it's that clearly defined, how did they justify/explain their approach?
Surely Apple's lawyers have also reviewed the same law, and if it's that clearly defined, how did they justify/explain their approach?
Perceptual hashes are just integer/byte encodings of images that were scaled down and had some transformations applied to them.
If you convert a hash into an array of pixels and reverse the transformations, you'll get some of the original image that was scaled down and hashed.
Do we know this for sure? And even if it is, this is still apparently illegal under current law.