5 ms·

> The new bill would make it financially impossible for providers like WhatsApp and Apple to operate services unless they conduct “best practices” for scanning

> The new bill would make it financially impossible for providers like WhatsApp and Apple to operate services unless they conduct “best practices” for scanning their systems for CSAM. I'm okay with that, as long as e2e isn't actually banned.

cfv 7y ago
As the author states, encrypting your data impedes scanning it, so any encryption that is actually worth anything inmediately puts them at fault, so it wont be applied. Any unmonitored user upload is at risk here. This is dark.
- carapace 7y ago
  Well let's be clear here: I do not expect e.g. the phone system to scan my calls, nor the carriers of my IP traffic to scan my packets. Carriers are not and should not be liable for the traffic they carry. On the other hand, online "clubs" or services like FB etc. are not neutral carriers, they are content providers or "publishers" who source a lot of their content from the people who use them. Right or wrong, that's the mental model I'm operating from: you're a carrier and you just take bits from here to there, or you're a kind of club, like a "Sam's Club" but for Internet ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam%27s_club https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam%27s_club ) and you're responsible for the stuff you stock on your shelves. Now then, my opinion (such as it is) is that "I won't make enough money" is not a valid reason for not scanning for and preventing CSAM on your internet clubhouse.
  - sphuff 7y ago
    Messaging apps like Signal or WhatsApp are not providing content in the way that you describe. They are just carrying messages from one user to another, and would be rendered useless by this bill.
  - twitch-chat 7y ago
    How is WhatsApp different from a phone system aside from the fact that it's text-based? And how is WhatsApp a publisher? Your analogy makes no sense.
    - carapace 7y ago
      I don't actually know much about WhatsApp, so I can't really speak to that. Let's talk about FTP instead. If I write and sell an FTP client and/or server I do not expect to be liable for the content the users of that software exchange. This is true whether or not my software supports e2e. If, however, I set up my own network, invite people to use it, and let them exchange CSAM, then I should be liable. This is true whether or not my software supports e2e.
MertsA 7y ago
Yeah but how are they going to implement that while preserving e2e encryption? They would basically have to either handle all of it on the client, or send along a hash of whatever file was being shared encrypted with a key Apple controls. This seems ripe for abuse as it's going to allow for "phoning home" any match of an arbitrary file, and it's not going to be immediately clear if the content being searched for is legitimately CSAM or if it's being abused to search for something else.
carapace 7y ago
FWIW, I read up on the act and, yeah, it's total crap. Pure power grab by the AG, et. al.

cfv 7y ago

As the author states, encrypting your data impedes scanning it, so any encryption that is actually worth anything inmediately puts them at fault, so it wont be applied. Any unmonitored user upload is at risk here. This is dark.

carapace 7y ago
Well let's be clear here: I do not expect e.g. the phone system to scan my calls, nor the carriers of my IP traffic to scan my packets. Carriers are not and should not be liable for the traffic they carry. On the other hand, online "clubs" or services like FB etc. are not neutral carriers, they are content providers or "publishers" who source a lot of their content from the people who use them. Right or wrong, that's the mental model I'm operating from: you're a carrier and you just take bits from here to there, or you're a kind of club, like a "Sam's Club" but for Internet ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam%27s_club https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam%27s_club ) and you're responsible for the stuff you stock on your shelves. Now then, my opinion (such as it is) is that "I won't make enough money" is not a valid reason for not scanning for and preventing CSAM on your internet clubhouse.
- sphuff 7y ago
  Messaging apps like Signal or WhatsApp are not providing content in the way that you describe. They are just carrying messages from one user to another, and would be rendered useless by this bill.
- twitch-chat 7y ago
  How is WhatsApp different from a phone system aside from the fact that it's text-based? And how is WhatsApp a publisher? Your analogy makes no sense.
  - carapace 7y ago
    I don't actually know much about WhatsApp, so I can't really speak to that. Let's talk about FTP instead. If I write and sell an FTP client and/or server I do not expect to be liable for the content the users of that software exchange. This is true whether or not my software supports e2e. If, however, I set up my own network, invite people to use it, and let them exchange CSAM, then I should be liable. This is true whether or not my software supports e2e.

MertsA 7y ago

Yeah but how are they going to implement that while preserving e2e encryption? They would basically have to either handle all of it on the client, or send along a hash of whatever file was being shared encrypted with a key Apple controls. This seems ripe for abuse as it's going to allow for "phoning home" any match of an arbitrary file, and it's not going to be immediately clear if the content being searched for is legitimately CSAM or if it's being abused to search for something else.

carapace 7y ago

FWIW, I read up on the act and, yeah, it's total crap. Pure power grab by the AG, et. al.