Apple defeats liability for not scanning iCloud for CSAM

Post by voxic11 » Tue, Jul 21, 2026, 4:19 PM UTC

ux266478 wrote: post #73

djoldman wrote: post #51

I am not a lawyer. There is something ironic about US laws that attempt to prevent crime A by outlawing action B. For example: * A: physical sexual abuse of children. B: possession or distribution of CSAM * A: drug trafficking or tax evasion. B: structured cash withdrawals The irony is that the more B is prevented, the less A can be detected and the less B can be used as evidence of A. It's my understanding that conv…

> one can be convicted of CSAM-related crimes related to paintings/drawings/created_art of fictional people. This isn't necessarily the case in the US, though I believe only for drawings. AI-generated CSAM probably wouldn't fly in a court of law. Regardless, it's a naive conception of a system of law to think of it as a utilitarian system of restitution in contexts of "this individual harmed this individual". In fact…

Post by Manuel_D » Tue, Jul 21, 2026, 4:20 PM UTC

djoldman wrote: post #51

I am not a lawyer. There is something ironic about US laws that attempt to prevent crime A by outlawing action B. For example: * A: physical sexual abuse of children. B: possession or distribution of CSAM * A: drug trafficking or tax evasion. B: structured cash withdrawals The irony is that the more B is prevented, the less A can be detected and the less B can be used as evidence of A. It's my understanding that conv…

Post by yoz-y » Tue, Jul 21, 2026, 4:23 PM UTC

drnick1 wrote: post #31

I simply don't trust services such as iCloud. The legal landscape is too volatile, and Apple's own "terms and conditions" are also subject to constant change. As far as I can tell, most people don't need cloud backups, and iCloud mostly shows up as an annoyance designed to extract more money from customers. In fact, most people probably don't know that Apple and Google vacuum up their files the moment they are create…

Post by busterarm » Tue, Jul 21, 2026, 4:23 PM UTC

arcticbull wrote: post #49

mmmlinux wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it different than telling your therapist something in confidence and then finding police waiting for you in the lobby.

Yes, in the sense that you have a legal doctor-patient privilege that binds what they can share with whom. There's not really an Apple cloud user privilege. No, in the sense that your therapist is still required to report you to the police in various situations where you pose an immediate threat to yourself or others, etc.

Post by al_borland » Tue, Jul 21, 2026, 4:25 PM UTC

layer8 wrote: post #43

al_borland wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Children are often used as a weapon to erode freedoms, like privacy and speech. Those pushing it rarely actually care about the children.

While I’m decidedly pro-encryption, I don’t like this argument. If something is the right thing, it would still be the right thing when promoted for the wrong reasons, and if it’s the wrong thing, it’s still the wrong thing even when at present nobody has ulterior motives. When arguing against surveillance, the arguments should be on its merits, not on whether the current proponents happen to have ulterior motives.