And, indeed, this is why we should not expect the process to stop. Nobody is rallying behind the rights of child abusers and those who traffic in child abuse material. Arguably, nor should they. The slippery slope argument only applies if the slope is slippery.
This is analogous to the police's use of genealogy and DNA data to narrow searches for murderers, who they then collected evidence on by other means. There's is risk there, but (at least in the US) you aren't going to find a lot of supporters of the anonymity of serial killers and child abusers.
There are counter-arguments to be made. Germany is skittish about mass data collection and analysis because of their perception that it enabled the Nazi war machine to micro-target their victims. The US has no such cultural narrative.
> And, indeed, this is why we should not expect the process to stop. Nobody is rallying behind the rights of child abusers and those who traffic in child abuse material. Arguably, nor should they.
I wouldn't be so sure.
When Apple was going to introduce on-device scanning they actually proposed to do it in two places.
• When you uploaded images to your iCloud account they proposed scanning them on your device first. This is the one that got by far the most attention.
• The second was to scan incoming messages on phones that had parental controls set up. The way that would have worked is:
1. if it detects sexual images it would block the message, alert the child that the message contains material that the parents think might be harmful, and ask the child if they still want to see it. If the child says no that is the end of the matter.
2. if the child say they do want to see it and the child is at least 13 years old, the message is unblocked and that is the end of the matter.
3. if the child says they do want to see it and the child is under 13 they are again reminded that their parents are concerned about the message, again asked if they want to view it, and told that if they view it their parents will be told. If the child says no that is the end of the matter.
4. If the child says yes the message is unblocked and the parents are notified.
This second one didn't get a lot of attention, probably because there isn't really much to object to. But I did see one objection from a fairly well known internet rights group. They objected to #4 on the grounds that the person sending the sex pictures to your under-13 year old child sent the message to the child, so it violates the sender's privacy for the parents to be notified.
If it's the EFF, I think they went out on a limb on this one that not a lot of American parents would agree with. "People have the right to communicate privately without backdoors or censorship, including when those people are minors" (emphasis mine) is a controversial position. Arguably, not having that level of privacy is the curtailment on children's rights.
The cultural narrative is actually extremely popular in a 10% subset of the population that is essentially fundamentalist christian who are terrified of the government branding them with "the mark of the beast".
The problem is that their existence actually poisons the discussion because these people are absurd loons who also blame the gays for hurricanes and think the democrats eat babies.
This is analogous to the police's use of genealogy and DNA data to narrow searches for murderers, who they then collected evidence on by other means. There's is risk there, but (at least in the US) you aren't going to find a lot of supporters of the anonymity of serial killers and child abusers.
There are counter-arguments to be made. Germany is skittish about mass data collection and analysis because of their perception that it enabled the Nazi war machine to micro-target their victims. The US has no such cultural narrative.