> with the express intent to harm their customers.
This of course gets into 'what even is harm?' since that's a very subjective way of classifying something, especially when you try to do it on behalf of others.
For CSAM you could probably assume that "everyone this code takes action against would consider doing so harmful", but _consequences in general are harmful_ and thus you could make this same argument about anything that tries to prevent crime or catch criminals instead of simply waiting for people to turn themselves in. You harm a burglar when you call for emergency services to apprehend them.
> This isn't an issue you can hold a middleground position on. Encryption doesn't only kinda-sorta work in a half-ass implementation; it doesn't work at all.
This is the exact issue that the U.S. has been entrenched by - thinking that you can't disagree with one thing someone says or does and agree with other things they say or do. You can support Apple deciding to combat CSAM. You can not support Apple for trying to do this client-sided instead of server-sided. You can also support Apple for taking steps towards bringing E2EE to iCloud Photos. You can also not support them bowing to the CCP and giving up Chinese citizens' iCloud data encryption keys to the CCP. This is a middle ground - and just because you financially support Apple by buying an iPhone or in-app purchases doesn't mean you suddenly agree with everything they do. This isn't a new phenomenon - before the internet, we just didn't have the capacity to know, in an instant, the bad parts of the people or companies we interfaced with.
You do harm a burglar when you call for emergency services; but the burglar doesn't pay for your security system. And more accurately: an innocent man pays for his neighbor's security system, which has a "one in a trillion" chance of accusing the innocent man of breaking in, totally randomly and without any evidence. Of course, the chances are slim, and he would never be charged with breaking in if it did happen, but would you still take that deal?
I've seen the "right to unreasonable search and seizure" Americans hold quoted a bit during this discussion. Valid, though to be clear, the Constitution doesn't apply for private company products. But more interestingly: what about right against self-incrimination? That's what Apple is pushing here; that by owning an iPhone, you may incriminate yourself, and actually it may end up happening whether you're actually guilty or not.
Regarding your second paragraph of the legality, Apple doesn't incriminate you even if they send the image off and a image reviewer deems something CSAM. If Apple does file a police report on this evidence or otherwise gives evidence to the police, the police will still have to prove that (A) the images do indeed depict sexually suggestive content involving a minor, and (B) you did not take an affirmative defense under 18 USC 2252A (d) [0], aka. they would have to prove that you had 3 or more actual illegal images and didn't take reasonable steps to destroy the images or immediately report them to law enforcement and given such law enforcement access to said photos.
The biggest issue with this is, of course, that Apple's accusation is most certainly going to be enough evidence to get a search warrant, meaning a search and seizure of all of your hard drives they can find.
Based off of your A and B there, I think we’re about to see a new form of swatting. How many people regularly go through all of their photos? Now if someone pisses someone else off and has physical access to their phone they just need to add 3 pictures to the device with older timestamps and just wait for the inevitable results.
This of course gets into 'what even is harm?' since that's a very subjective way of classifying something, especially when you try to do it on behalf of others.
For CSAM you could probably assume that "everyone this code takes action against would consider doing so harmful", but _consequences in general are harmful_ and thus you could make this same argument about anything that tries to prevent crime or catch criminals instead of simply waiting for people to turn themselves in. You harm a burglar when you call for emergency services to apprehend them.
> This isn't an issue you can hold a middleground position on. Encryption doesn't only kinda-sorta work in a half-ass implementation; it doesn't work at all.
This is the exact issue that the U.S. has been entrenched by - thinking that you can't disagree with one thing someone says or does and agree with other things they say or do. You can support Apple deciding to combat CSAM. You can not support Apple for trying to do this client-sided instead of server-sided. You can also support Apple for taking steps towards bringing E2EE to iCloud Photos. You can also not support them bowing to the CCP and giving up Chinese citizens' iCloud data encryption keys to the CCP. This is a middle ground - and just because you financially support Apple by buying an iPhone or in-app purchases doesn't mean you suddenly agree with everything they do. This isn't a new phenomenon - before the internet, we just didn't have the capacity to know, in an instant, the bad parts of the people or companies we interfaced with.