Is is still a 4A violation if Apple's neuralhash triggers an alert which is then used as justification for a warrant, rather than directly turning over access to the users iCloud / Apple account?
Yes. If the government requires Apple to scan the user's files, then the government would be mandating a Fourth-Amendment-covered search even if Apple follows up by sending an alert instead of the account info.
It's not an incorrect perspective, but I'm a little disappointed by Mike Masnick seemingly endorsing the wink and nod agreement that functionally implements what would otherwise be a facially unlawful warrentless search campaign by virtue of monopoly providers "voluntarily" acting for the government against their own interests and those of their customers.
The only thing that protects the status quo is that the 4a jurisprudence ignores the most of the coercive power of the federal government and its agents. A better position to take is is that the lawfulness of _all_ this tech company scanning has already been destroyed by this lawsuit and not just if it wins: The lawsuit is a demonstration of the consequences for not "voluntarily" scanning. It helps show that the prior scanning wasn't voluntary at all.
Is is still a 4A violation if Apple's neuralhash triggers an alert which is then used as justification for a warrant, rather than directly turning over access to the users iCloud / Apple account?
Yes. If the government requires Apple to scan the user's files, then the government would be mandating a Fourth-Amendment-covered search even if Apple follows up by sending an alert instead of the account info.
It's not an incorrect perspective, but I'm a little disappointed by Mike Masnick seemingly endorsing the wink and nod agreement that functionally implements what would otherwise be a facially unlawful warrentless search campaign by virtue of monopoly providers "voluntarily" acting for the government against their own interests and those of their customers.
The only thing that protects the status quo is that the 4a jurisprudence ignores the most of the coercive power of the federal government and its agents. A better position to take is is that the lawfulness of _all_ this tech company scanning has already been destroyed by this lawsuit and not just if it wins: The lawsuit is a demonstration of the consequences for not "voluntarily" scanning. It helps show that the prior scanning wasn't voluntary at all.