Quietly scanning everything on a person's device and reporting back to authorities definitely feels at odds with that amendment. Child pornography is one of the worst boogymen for surviellance out...
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Quietly scanning everything on a person's device and reporting back to authorities definitely feels at odds with that amendment.
Child pornography is one of the worst boogymen for surviellance out there. It immediately conjures horrific thoughts and shuts out any other discussion.
Speaking as a father of two, I'm far more worried about my kids being permanantly surveilled than ever being abused.
Don't forget about the "unraveling effect": Source: Successful Failure: What Foucault Can Teach Us About Privacy Self-Management in a World of Facebook and Big Data
Don't forget about the "unraveling effect":
Peppet proposes that, even if we assume that users retain perfect control over the information they
disclose and to whom they disclose it, the economics of data disclosure will tend toward an
inexorable reduction of privacy (Peppet, 2011). Take Progressive Insurance’s “good driver” discount for people who are willing to have tracking devices monitor their driving. Good drivers
will have a financial incentive to signal their good driving by volunteering to be monitored.
Marginal drivers will soon face powerful incentives to be included with the good drivers, and so
they will also volunteer to be monitored. Eventually, even terrible drivers, who have every
incentive to avoid monitoring, will be volunteering, in order to avoid the sudden presumption
that non-participants have something terrible to hide. The general point is that users at the top of
whatever category they are being sorted into often have an economic incentive to signal their
superior status. Users near the top then have a reason. And so it goes; eventually, not disclosing
information becomes a stigma.
I sincerely recommend taking a look at just how imperceptible the differences in these images are.
Apple recently proposed, and then postponed due to privacy concerns, plans to introduce PH-CSS on all its personal devices. There are also reports that certain governments are considering using PH-CSS as a law enforcement technique, bypassing end-to-end encryption.
[Researchers] tagged several everyday images as ‘illegal’ and fed them through the algorithms, which were similar to Apple’s proposed systems, and measured whether or not they flagged an image as illegal. They then applied a visually imperceptible filter to the images’ signatures and fed them through again. After applying a filter, the image looked different to the algorithm 99.9 per cent of the time, despite them looking nearly identical to the human eye.
I sincerely recommend taking a look at just how imperceptible the differences in these images are.
Quietly scanning everything on a person's device and reporting back to authorities definitely feels at odds with that amendment.
Child pornography is one of the worst boogymen for surviellance out there. It immediately conjures horrific thoughts and shuts out any other discussion.
Speaking as a father of two, I'm far more worried about my kids being permanantly surveilled than ever being abused.
The rebuttal to that is, generally, "you at not being compelled to use the service that surveils you." It's bullshit, but it's probably legally sound.
Don't forget about the "unraveling effect":
Source: Successful Failure: What Foucault Can Teach Us About Privacy Self-Management in a World of Facebook and Big Data
I sincerely recommend taking a look at just how imperceptible the differences in these images are.