That article is very obviously not about what is being searched for. It's about who it is being reported to. For example, if Apple one day decided to detect unauthorized copyrighted media, they could report it to the RIAA. The RIAA is independent of the government, thus the 4th amendment is not violated.

So then you must agree that the fears of government overreach are unwarranted. Given that’s what most of the complaints here raw about, that’s a big deal.

> For example, if Apple one day decided to detect unauthorized copyrighted media, they could report it to the RIAA. The RIAA is independent of the government, thus the 4th amendment is not violated.

It’s true that Apple could decide to implement any search or scanning mechanism at any time, and report anything they like to anyone they want to. So what? This is true of anyone who writes software that handles user data.

What does that have to do with the CSAM mechanism? It seems like an unrelated fear.

> What does that have to do with the CSAM mechanism? It seems like an unrelated fear.

He CSAM mechanism proves that Apple can and will go this route, even if users are against that.

The CSAM mechanism proves that Apple will send information to the RIAA or another non-government entity?

How exactly does it prove that?

But only because Apple is doing the searches on device. If the searching is done in the cloud, the third party doctrine means that the US Government could demand anything and the 4th Amendment wouldn't apply.