Imagine you were alive at the time Noah was building the Ark. You had a video camera. However, the special thing about this camera is it can only see giraffes. You sit (high up) on the side of a nearby mountain filming all the animals as they march into the Ark but at the end of the day the record will show only two giraffes went on board. All the other animals were invisible to the camera. So, assuming you had not obtained the prior consent of the giraffes to them being filmed they might have a reasonable complaint that their right to privacy had been violated in relation to their participation in the Ark Project. After all, getting on to a life-saving ship is not a crime nor is it in any other way problematic. Now think about how photoDNA works. If the only thing the algorithm can do is see material that has already been determined to be csam, how can anyone complain that this is unlawful or improper surveillance? It isn’t. It is child protection.
A thought experiment
John Carr Child abuse images 1 Minute
Published by John Carr
John Carr is one of the world's leading authorities on children's and young people's use of digital technologies. He is Senior Technical Adviser to Bangkok-based global NGO ECPAT International and is Secretary of the UK's Children's Charities' Coalition on Internet Safety. John is now or has formerly been an Adviser to the Council of Europe, the UN (ITU), UNODC, the EU and UNICEF. John has advised many of the world's largest technology companies on online child safety. John's skill as a writer has also been widely recognised. http://johncarrcv.blogspot.com View all posts by John Carr