4 ms·

So your argument is, if you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to worry about. Really? Will you feel the same when Apple later decides to include dozens

So your argument is, if you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to worry about. Really? Will you feel the same when Apple later decides to include dozens more crimes that they will screen for, surreptitiously? All of which are searches without warrants or legal oversight? Let me introduce you to someone you should know better. His name is Edward Snowden. Or Louis Brandeis, who is spinning in his grave right about now. The US Fourth Amendment exists for a damned good reason.

Klonoar 5y ago
You do realize you could get this message across without the needlessly arrogant tone, yeah? All it does is make me roll my eyes. Anyway, that wasn't my stated position. I simply pointed out that this is done for a subset of users (where there's already existing reasons to do so, sub-13 and all) and that on syncing to iCloud this _already happens anyway_. I would gladly take this if it removes a barrier to making iCloud E2E encrypted; they are likely bound to do this type of detection, but doing it client-side before syncing feels like a sane way to do it.
- JackGreyhat 5y ago
  Actaully, I don't think it will remove a barrier for iCloud E2E encryption at all. On the contrary. All it will remove, is the barrier for what we find acceptible for companoes like Apple to implement. I think Apple made a very intrusive move, one that we will come to accept over time. After that, a next move follows...and so on. That's the barrier being moved. A point will be reached when E2E encryption is nothing more than a hoax, a non-feature with no added value. A mirage of what it is supposed to be. All of these things are implemented under the Child Protection flag. Sure, we need child protection, we need it badly, but the collateral is huge and quite handy too for most 3 letter agencies. I don't have the solution. The other day my 3 year old son had a rash, I took pictures of it over the course of a few days. A nude little boy, pictures from multiple angles. I showed my dermatologist. What will happen in the future? Will my iPhone "flag" me as a potential child predator? Can I tell it I'm a worried dad? Do I even have to be thinking about these things?
- kickopotomus 5y ago
  > I would gladly take this if it removes a barrier to making iCloud E2E encrypted; they are likely bound to do this type of detection, but doing it client-side before syncing feels like a sane way to do it. But there is an issue there. Now there is a process on your phone capable of processing unencrypted data on your phone and communicating with the outside world. That is spyware which will almost certainly be abused in some way.
  - xondono 5y ago
    > Now there is a process on your phone capable of processing unencrypted data on your phone and communicating with the outside world. What? That’s what all apps by definition do. My retinas can’t do decryption yet!
    - MichaelZuo 5y ago
      From the proposal it seems that this system 1. cannot be opted out of and 2. can run at any time the phone is powered on without user consent. That puts it clearly in a different category from apps.
- dabbledash 5y ago
  E2E encryption isn’t meaningful if third parties get to look at the decrypted content.
fredgrott 5y ago
Hmm, seems to me since most smart criminals understand not to leave a digital footprint that what Apple will catch is those are idiots and make a honest mistake and those how are dumb and make a mistake in putting their illegality online. So I would ask US Lawmakers why cannot the phone companies make the same commitments? As the reason seems to be we have bad people doing crime using digital communication devices. Last time I checked the digital pipeline ie phone lines is still under FFC rules is it not? If they answer that its to hard tech wise then why cannot Apple make the same argument ot law makers?
amznthrwaway 5y ago
Argument by slippery slope is a type of logical fallacy, but it is commonly used as an actual argument by extremists. It’s sad how many people these days are so poorly educated and so bad at critical thought that they mistake fallacies for actual arguments.

Klonoar 5y ago

You do realize you could get this message across without the needlessly arrogant tone, yeah? All it does is make me roll my eyes. Anyway, that wasn't my stated position. I simply pointed out that this is done for a subset of users (where there's already existing reasons to do so, sub-13 and all) and that on syncing to iCloud this _already happens anyway_. I would gladly take this if it removes a barrier to making iCloud E2E encrypted; they are likely bound to do this type of detection, but doing it client-side before syncing feels like a sane way to do it.

JackGreyhat 5y ago
Actaully, I don't think it will remove a barrier for iCloud E2E encryption at all. On the contrary. All it will remove, is the barrier for what we find acceptible for companoes like Apple to implement. I think Apple made a very intrusive move, one that we will come to accept over time. After that, a next move follows...and so on. That's the barrier being moved. A point will be reached when E2E encryption is nothing more than a hoax, a non-feature with no added value. A mirage of what it is supposed to be. All of these things are implemented under the Child Protection flag. Sure, we need child protection, we need it badly, but the collateral is huge and quite handy too for most 3 letter agencies. I don't have the solution. The other day my 3 year old son had a rash, I took pictures of it over the course of a few days. A nude little boy, pictures from multiple angles. I showed my dermatologist. What will happen in the future? Will my iPhone "flag" me as a potential child predator? Can I tell it I'm a worried dad? Do I even have to be thinking about these things?
kickopotomus 5y ago
> I would gladly take this if it removes a barrier to making iCloud E2E encrypted; they are likely bound to do this type of detection, but doing it client-side before syncing feels like a sane way to do it. But there is an issue there. Now there is a process on your phone capable of processing unencrypted data on your phone and communicating with the outside world. That is spyware which will almost certainly be abused in some way.
- xondono 5y ago
  > Now there is a process on your phone capable of processing unencrypted data on your phone and communicating with the outside world. What? That’s what all apps by definition do. My retinas can’t do decryption yet!
  - MichaelZuo 5y ago
    From the proposal it seems that this system 1. cannot be opted out of and 2. can run at any time the phone is powered on without user consent. That puts it clearly in a different category from apps.
dabbledash 5y ago
E2E encryption isn’t meaningful if third parties get to look at the decrypted content.

fredgrott 5y ago

Hmm, seems to me since most smart criminals understand not to leave a digital footprint that what Apple will catch is those are idiots and make a honest mistake and those how are dumb and make a mistake in putting their illegality online. So I would ask US Lawmakers why cannot the phone companies make the same commitments? As the reason seems to be we have bad people doing crime using digital communication devices. Last time I checked the digital pipeline ie phone lines is still under FFC rules is it not? If they answer that its to hard tech wise then why cannot Apple make the same argument ot law makers?

amznthrwaway 5y ago

Argument by slippery slope is a type of logical fallacy, but it is commonly used as an actual argument by extremists. It’s sad how many people these days are so poorly educated and so bad at critical thought that they mistake fallacies for actual arguments.