I don't think the suggestion is that a hash of a police uniform will be used to convict of CP but rather the idea that a new law will be passed that - in order to protect the police from 'harassment' - will outlaw taking pictures of the police.

So in that case in discovery the picture of a police officer would be evidence that you broke that hypothetical law. The technology deployed to protect the children opens up the possibility of its deployment for other things later, based on legal requirements of course.

For example don't take pictures of copyrighted material would be something people might want to work on.

> would be evidence that you broke that hypothetical law

Hypothetical situations are not an argument to real world discussions. Sure, if that happened, it'd be terrible. But, that's not happening....

I head over to my friend Midev's house with precursor chemicals for VX. You complain that having the precursors to VX lying around is not a good idea. I point out that creating VX is purely hypothetical. Sure, if that happened, it'd be terrible. But, that's not happening.

Apple is deploying a technology with few legitimate uses that makes terrible things not only possible but easy all without the voluntary consent of the device's owner.

Yes, they are. The point is that this change make this hypothetical too close to being true so the change should be abandoned. It skews the power balance too much into the hands of a small number of unknown people so the rest are protesting.

It's not hypothetical https://reason.com/2021/07/27/florida-bill-criminalize-filmi...

Police: "Did he murder you yet? No?! Stop wasting our time with hypothetical situations and come back when you've been murdered for real!"

I think asking ourselves if this is a slippery slope is a valid part of discussing what's actually happening right now.

Appealing to the slippery slope is itself a fallacy.

"While this image may be insightful for understanding the character of the fallacy, it represents a misunderstanding of the nature of the causal relations between events. Every causal claim requires a separate argument. Hence, any "slipping" to be found is only in the clumsy thinking of the arguer, who has failed to provide sufficient evidence that one causally explained event can serve as an explanation for another event or for a series of events"

You need to argue things that are actually happening. Appealing to hypotheticals, especially when technically incorrect, serves no one.

What's actually happening is that a mechanism is being introduced that makes it easy to censor anything Apple wants censored. Apple promises to only use it for child pornography.

Apple, however, is still not a sovereign state, and as such must bow to the wishes of actual sovereign states. Sovereign states have proven again and again that they will grab as much power as they can, and doing it insidiously, in the form of a private database of hashes of undesired content, is especially attractive to them.

This is not a hypothetical. For a real-world example look to England where its nation-wide internet blocking system is already used beyond its original scope. Or think of what countries like China will certainly do with such a mechanism. Scope creep, in the form of power grabs by nation states, is a realistic concern, based on vast historical experience, not a fallacy.

Apart from the concern of scope creep, there is also the concern of false positives. When deployed on such a scale, there will undoubtedly be perfectly legimate images being flagged. I'm not happy about my phone containing software that's always vigilant, ready to ruin my life over a false positive.

Arguing that someones point is false, simply because it contains a fallacy, is also a fallacy: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Fallacy_fallacy

>You need to argue things that are actually happening.

No. You don't get to control the narrative by saying that. You have to discuss things that could happen when discussing things this invasive.

ok first off that slippery slope referred to here is the domino theory - which is a faulty idea of the causality of events - we can say a slippery slope regarding events is likely faulty because unless the causal chain between any two events is very tightly linked our understanding of causality is not sufficient to understand it. That is to say we have a very tight link between a domino falling, hitting another domino and toppling it, but we do not have a very tight link between a country going communist and then another one later. Hence, every causal claim requires a separate argument.

The slippery slopes being discussed here are not about events and the causes that link them, but about the applications of technology and to a certain extent about laws being used beyond their original mandate. This kind of slippery slope is a logical one.

Thus the technology being used for this mean that it can be used for other things - what kinds of things can it be used for? Are there things that people would like to make illegal or that are illegal now that this technology can be used catch people infringing on these hypothetical laws. Thus - if we allow this technology in our devices now are we opening ourselves up for other potential uses for the technology in the future that will hurt us.

If this argument seems the same to you as the domino theory and that we must take every hypothetical problem when it actually occurs I wonder how you are ever able to plan for any eventuality?

Does this mean you believe we should throw away all conspiracy[1] laws?

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_(criminal)

I understand your argument, that a court (in a democratic country with a rule of law) would expect that the investigators extract the original image from the accused's phone with the appropriate chain of custody of the evidence.

However, that does not mean that while this investigation is under way, the accused is now go about their business.

For CP, or other crimes of violence, that makes sense.

But if laws are passed against peaceful protest, then that means someone could be held in detention while those photos are investigated. An anonymous photo now is trackable.

> Once a hash matches, law enforcement would need a subpoena to access the raw image.

Not if Apple provides it to them without a subpoena.

That still doesn't change how discovery or the courts work.

Depends on the court: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Foreign_Intell...

It's like you think everyone operates under US law, or don't give a shit about anyone who doesn't.

Have you heard of the chilling effect?

Yeah, which is irrelevant to the discussion. This thread is about photos of law enforcement and politicians used to convict people on CP charges.

Let's stick to the topic of discovery and how courts work.

Let’s conveniently ignore all the facts that speak against the planned dystopia, and focus on the positives of having all facets of your life constrained and controlled by authorities.

I'm happy to have that discussion, I think it's critical and we need to update laws to protect privacy.

You still don't get to be technically incorrect, though. You still need to know how courts work, if you want to participate in that discussion.

You have a lot of trust in your courts. Let’s hope it is not misplaced.

Not at all! Courts are a joke.

You still need to know the process, though. Images of police officers are not being used to convict CP charges.

That was not the claim. It seems you are deliberately/conveniently remaining naive at this point.