Why does the elimination have to be 100% and the privacy erosion be 0 for it to be worthwhile?

To be clear I'm not saying that Apple are right to do this or that there aren't privacy concerns. What I am saying is that those thresholds seem unreasonable.

Because that's the only way an individual's value system wouldn't come into play. If it's anything less than completely fixed and anything more than no erosion of privacy, then it just depends on how important privacy is to the person. I personally think privacy is super important, and it would take massive changes in how society and our government work before I was willing to give it up for just about anything.

> And giving up the ability to carry a gun in exchange for safe streets for everyone! Lunacy! /s

Almost everywhere in the world this is considered a reasonable trade-off.

Sure. It's a bad faith argument though. Nowhere in the world, with or without guns, has absolutely safe streets. So where on the sliding scale of safe it becomes worth it is subjective.

What information leaks from the system? That a user isn't storing child porn on Apple servers? That's literally the only information emitted by the system _unless_ you have actual child porn on your system.

There are three problems with that perspective.

One, software sucks and is full of security holes, so whether or not Apple intends to leak any other data is irrelevant, because other data will leak regardless.

Two, you're assuming this is the only thing they are going to intentionally do with your data. That will change. In an infinite future, things change. Every decision is eventually overturned, and it's luck of the draw which direction that change is in.

Three, the U.S. defence apparatus has proven time and again that they will violate the law and use whatever means necessary to spy on who they want, and this is another kitchen window for them to climb through.