Re:Apple joins opposition to encrypted message app scanning
by camhart on Wednesday June 28, 2023 @02:27PM
(#36510519)
> Very nearly nobody is arguing otherwise, though.
How is equating CSAM to (merely) emotional weight not doing that?
Re:Apple joins opposition to encrypted message app scanning
by Al0neStar on Wednesday June 28, 2023 @02:48PM
(#36510787)
CSAM does carry emotional weight.
Your entire argument is that since privacy measures are already loose then its okay to make them looser for "the children".
Re:Apple joins opposition to encrypted message app scanning
by camhart on Wednesday June 28, 2023 @02:58PM
(#36510940)
> CSAM does carry emotional weight.
I never argued it doesn't.
> Your entire argument is that since privacy measures are already loose then its okay to make them looser for "the children".
Where did I make this argument? (hint: I didn't)
Re:Apple joins opposition to encrypted message app scanning
by Al0neStar on Wednesday June 28, 2023 @03:17PM
(#36511206)
Privacy is binary you either have it or you dont and to argue that there exists a "balance" is disingenuous.
Re:Apple joins opposition to encrypted message app scanning
by camhart on Wednesday June 28, 2023 @04:16PM
(#36511975)
That isn't reality. You give up privacy all the time in exchange for things. And even with e2ee you don't "have" privacy guaranteed.
Re:Apple joins opposition to encrypted message app scanning
by JPws_Prntr_Fngr on Wednesday June 28, 2023 @10:52PM
(#36515769)
The disingenuousness is the point. You're trying to rationalize with authoritarians, who do not argue in good faith.
Very nearly nobody is arguing otherwise, though.
> Apple/Google/etc still maintains the technical ability to snoop on you regardless of this law.
Absolutely. Not only can they, but they do.