Exactly. Apple can already ship literally any conceivable software to iPhones. Do people really think their plan was to sneak functionality into this update and then update the CSAM database later, and they would have gotten away with it if it weren't for the brilliant privacy advocates pointing out that this CSAM database could be changed over time? That's pretty ludicrous. If the Chinese government wanted to (and thought it had sufficient leverage over Apple), they could literally just tell Apple to issue a software update that streams all desired private data to Chinese government servers.
Not quite. Those are still ostensibly servers located in China but not directly controlled by the government (edit: apparently the hosting company is owned by Guizhou provincial government). But yes, this is precisely my point. Any slippery slope argument about Apple software on iPhones is equivalent to any conceivable slippery slope argument about Apple software on iPhones. If you're making one of these arguments, you're actually just arguing against Apple having the ability to issue software updates to iPhones (and by all means, make that argument!).
China's laws are such that there's no need for them to obtain a warrant for data housed on servers of Chinese companies. Not only do they not need a warrant but companies are required to facilitate their access. While the servers aren't controlled by the Chinese government, government law enforcement and intelligence agencies have essentially free access to that data.
> ostensibly servers located in China but not directly controlled by the government
"ostensibly" is the key word there. If the datacenter is physically located in China, then there's a CCP official on the board of the company that controls it.
So your argument boils down to since Apple can already install software without us knowing, we shouldn't worry about a new client-side system that makes it substantially easier for nation states to abuse? I don't find that argument the least bit compelling.
I’m not saying that we shouldn’t be concerned with Apple actually launching things that are bad. I’m saying we shouldn’t make arguments of the form “this isn’t bad yet, but they could change this later to make it bad.” Because obviously they can change anything later to be bad. If the system as currently described is a violation of privacy, or can be abused by governments, etc. then just make that argument.
