Just clearing up the argument.

1. The files will be scanned
2. They’ve been doing for decades

There’s a difference here in principle. Exemplified by the answer to this question: “Do you expect that things you store somewhere are kept private?” Where, Private means: “No one looks at your things.” Where, No One means: not a single person or machine.

This is the core argument. In the world, things stored somewhere are often still considered private. (Safe Deposit box). People take this expectation into the cloud. Apple, Google, Microsoft, Box, Dropbox etc - only made their scanning known publicly _after they were called out. They allowed their customers to _assume their files were private.

Second issue: Does just a simple machine looking at your files count as unprivate? And what if we Pinky Promise to make the machine not really really look at your files, and only like squinty eyed. For many, yes this also counts as unprivate. Its the process that is problematic. There is a difference between living in a free society, and one in which citizens have to produce papers when asked. A substantial difference. Having files unexamined and having them examined by an ‘innocuous’ machine, are substantial differences. The difference _is privacy. On one, you have a right to privacy. In the other you don’t.

an aside…

In our small village, a team sweeps every house during the day while people are out at work. In the afternoon you are informed that team found illegal paraphernalia in your house. You know you had none. What defense do you have?

I just read up, and I didn’t know this is not so much about stopping new images, but restitution for continued damages.

The plaintiffs are “victims of the Misty Series and Jessica of the Jessica Series” ( be careful with your googling) https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/5914e81dadd7b0493491c7d7

Correct me please, The plaintiffs logic is : “The existence of these files is damaging to us. Anyone found ever in possession of one of these files is required by law to pay damages. Any company who stores files for others, must search every file for one these 100 files, and report that files owner to the court”

I thought it was more about protecting the innocent, and future innocent, and it seems more about compensating the hurt.

Am I missing something?

Why use the term ‘conveyor belt’? No conveyor. No belts. Automated cargo containers.

just to be clear, for fear we mentally normalize this

1. this is hostile behavior from Chrome
2. what the customer does with the browser, in a sane world, is of no concern of the guy who made it.

to accept that another person has one sided authority to determine what you can and can’t do with a tool, after it is in your possession is weird.

Kids, remember, Google is an advertising company.

What about the one sided ability to change a contract??

A year from now Roku pop up says “Click to Accept” , the text says **"this contract means you’ll have to give us your first born child? ** My reasoning says if they can do one then they can do the other. There is nothing that would prevent them from adding ‘fees’, or ‘subscriptions’ or simply turning off the device. (!)

This is egregious. We bought something. In normal commerce, the contract was set in stone at that moment. The seller can’t roll up 2 years later, change the contract, force you to agree before you can use your device, and then say , well maybe if you beg, you can opt out.

late to the party, but I had OperaGX do a clever evil thing recently - I have an old machine running MacOS 10.14 (for reasons), I had GX up, and I alt-tab’d and noticed there was the “don’t symbol” (ghostbusters) over the OperaGX Icon. I thought, “that can’t be right”. I’m running GX right now. I double checked, and I was using GX with several windows open. But the symbol was right - they had Updated OperaGX that I WAS running, WHILE I was running it, to a version that WOULDN’T work on the computer I was on. I eventually restarted GX, and got a 'You can’t use OperaGX with this version of MacOS". Jerks.

I dug around, and very roughly, the .app file is not the App. They use a folder off in Library to store the actual pieces of the app, and it there is a few different pieces, and the .app file points to the actual executables.

Anyway it was fun while it lasted. Never again.