None of that makes sense. Why would using the system only to target child abuse in the US make people change their mind about using it against political dissidents?
If you go for a thing directly you show your hand and get a lot of backlash.
Case in point: the British NHS (because we can see it happening in real time).
Add the capability to do something for a good reason (NHS spending should be more efficient; we need approved suppliers // do it for the children) in order to make the further move of what you really want without much resistance (privatise parts of the NHS; eventually much of the NHS // back door every terrorist, dissident, detractor)
In this context, it is exactly how politics work, and you have described shifting the Overton window or even floating the Trial balloon.
re: NHS. The case you are making doesn't fit your reasoning. As for privatisation in general, the current government is following a very basic rulebook:
1. Sabotage/kneecap an institution/ 2. Offer a solution involving cronies/ 3. Achievement Unlocked
1. For example, some Tory MP's (the elite that make the decisions for the plebs) don't need to rely on NHS for healthcare exclusively, hence they have a callous attitude towards it. They deploy all manner of subterfuge, replete with claps, lies and smiles, to starve out a public service funded by taxpayers.
2. The ultimate goal; offer a solution to the problem you manufactured (1) and share the spoils amongst yourselves, by awarding/rewarding and looking after each other's interests.
3. Self-explanatory.
Scenario 1: Apple announces Orwellian system to thwart child abuse in the United States.
Scenario 2: Apple announces Orwellian system to thwart Chinese dissidence.
Which one sounds more palatable to you? To the world?
Apple *has* to take an orthogonal approach to giving China the surveillance capacity it desires. It can't openly enable a regime that just covered up and obfuscated investigation into perhaps the greatest human tragedy of our generation.
Apple wouldn't unlock a single iPhone for the FBI in a terrorism investigation... but it will deploy mass on-device privacy invasion for people who aren't even suspects to thwart child abuse?
Ask yourself: What changed?
If you believe Apple suddenly shifted their privacy stance on a whim, and isn't being subtly pressured by the Chinese government to develop new means of device access and control, I don't know what to tell you...
Your claim is that somehow scenario one makes scenario two suddenly palatable. Like people will say "oh, they ran an allegedly limited surveillance program for the US, so who cares if they run an unlimited one for China?"
>Apple wouldn't unlock a single iPhone for the FBI in a terrorism investigation..
Apple willingly offered to help unlock that iPhone. They're methods were blocked due to police mishandling of the device, and they were unwilling to pay to develop a backdoor for their own product.
>If you believe Apple suddenly shifted their privacy stance on a whim, and isn't being subtly pressured by the Chinese government to develop new means of device access and control,
This thread is about the FBI getting Apple to continue allowing easier access to devices. You brought up the example of the FBI trying to force Apple to allow them to access their devices. And the most recent event is Apple's surveillance of American devices. Yet somehow, you think the only possible reason Apple may be changing their stance is China.
2. Apple has always been less pro-privacy than you claim.
3. Everything mentioned here involves the US wanting more access. You claim that is proof of Chinese influence, rather than the obvious US influence.
I'm not seeing a multitude of spelling or grammar mistakes either, though I will admit that one sentence was poorly constructed. And I see a wrong "they're" I blaim on auto complete, though still my fault.