His parents consented for him. If he wants to sue anyone, he can try going after them. I think he'll get about the same outcome as this lawsuit, though.
Naturally, it does not help that we now effectively have no privacy.
Apple have a list of photos they know are CSAM, or rather hashes of them, and the look for those and only those on your device.
They also introduced another thing that scans your kid's incoming and outgoing messages for what look like dodgy photos - that does look at general photo content (rather than compare to a list) which has been the source of a lot of the confusion.
(FWIW I still think the CSAM scanning is an incredibly bad idea and horribly slippery slope to start sliding on.)
In a practical sense, they could have called it anything and since they announced it in the same breath, my mental map keeps it under the same umbrella. It is not on me that Apple communicates poorly.
But lets get past that. The 'dodgy photos' functionality ( because that was indeed what I was referring to vs hash db ) is where it is going to get tricky. I am sure there will be parents, who will absolutely love it. Just as I am sure that there will be ones who think this will not end well.
Technically, that government agencies claim are CSAM and the "hash" is highly vulnerable to preimage attacks: I can take random unrelated photos and make them match other hashes, https://github.com/AsuharietYgvar/AppleNeuralHash2ONNX/issue...
This means people can take child porn images and modify them so they match targeted innocent images, and take innocent images and modify them so they match child porn.
Let’s not pretend that he would be suing Nirvana if that album sold 5000 copies either.
According to the article, there was informal consent but no signed release. I'm was pretty surprised to hear that -- isn't obtaining releases pretty standard for large corporations?