If Apple launches a system for comparing iCloud uploads to a third-party hash list, then adding the ability to do targeted scans for arbitrary additional law-enforcement-provided hashes would also be a form of creating capability.
The people getting pissed off about this have not, so far as I’ve seen, demonstrated why the law would require Apple to add the capability for targeted scans of arbitrary hashes.
Police can use a warrant to ask you for a video file they suspect you have. They can’t use a warrant to force you to videotape someone—even if you already own a video camera. The same principle applies to Apple.
>> They can’t use a warrant to force you to videotape someone
Maybe in the narrow context of US domestic child pornography investigations. In the wider world it is very possible for police to force such things. Even in the US, CALEA demands that certain companies develop abilities that they would not normally want (interception). The principal that US companies need not actively participate in police investigations disappeared decades ago. On the international level, all bets are off.
"by requiring that telecommunications carriers and manufacturers of telecommunications equipment modify and design their equipment, facilities, and services to ensure that they have built-in capabilities for targeted surveillance [...] USA telecommunications providers must install new hardware or software, as well as modify old equipment, so that it doesn't interfere with the ability of a law enforcement agency (LEA) to perform real-time surveillance of any telephone or Internet traffic."
Can you explain why you think CALEA would apply to what Apple announced?
And why such application would have had to wait until Apple announced this? In other words, if the law can force Apple to do things in general, why does the law need to wait for Apple to announce certain capabilities first?
>> why you think CALEA would apply to what Apple announced?
Read what I stated. I said no such thing. I said that CALEA shows that companies can sometimes be forced to be do things they do not want to do, to take actions at the behest of law enforcement that they would not normally do. CALEA would clearly not be applied to apple in this case. It would be some other law/warrant/NSL that would force apple to do something it normally would not do. CALEA stands as proof that such things have long been acceptable under US law.
> why the law would require Apple to add the capability for ...
This isn't the sort of thing that is mandated by law, but rather requested behind the scenes by espionage, er, "law enforcement" agencies. They might be more or less friendly deals; nice monopoly you have here, it would be a shame if something happened to it...
The people getting pissed off about this have not, so far as I’ve seen, demonstrated why the law would require Apple to add the capability for targeted scans of arbitrary hashes.
Police can use a warrant to ask you for a video file they suspect you have. They can’t use a warrant to force you to videotape someone—even if you already own a video camera. The same principle applies to Apple.