When Apple attempted to anticipate these laws and propose a system which tried to navigate a compromise, the “pro-privacy” faction was so politically dumb they spread FUD about it and actively made sure no reasonable compromise could ever be reached. Now the public with reap what these advocates have sowed, good and hard.
With regards to the FBI incident, Apple said at the beginning of their statement, “This moment calls for public discussion, and we want our customers and people around the country to understand what is at stake.”
The EU is proposing a law. People assure me their laws are democratic and reflect the will of the people. Who is Apple to reject the outcome of public discussion?
The FBI letter was written in a context where an agency was acting without the support of the public. That’s why the framing was all about misuse of the All Writs Act and lack of Congressional blessing for the requested power.
ChatControl is exactly what Apple did. It's client-side, so no one is able to see your messages. The police sees if content hashes match known CSAM.
See this is the type of hysterical flattening I was referring to. There is meaningful distinction in the details, such as Apple’s implementation being non-targetable, but if you think all client side scanning is the same you will concede everything.
What would you call a "reasonable compromise" between encryption and privacy?
One that doesn’t force every major cloud host to be blind to encrypted child porn on their hard drives.