3 ms·
I'm confused - the article explicitly states this scenario - minus the swatting. Ie unless you're replying to purely the swatting part, the article seems to su
by lijogdfljk 5y ago
I'm confused - the article explicitly states this scenario - minus the swatting.
Ie unless you're replying to purely the swatting part, the article seems to support this. Specifically a prediction that governments will creep on legally requiring Apple to push custom classifiers:
> Apple’s changes would enable such screening, takedown, and reporting in its end-to-end messaging. The abuse cases are easy to imagine: governments that outlaw homosexuality might require the classifier to be trained to restrict apparent LGBTQ+ content, or an authoritarian regime might demand the classifier be able to spot popular satirical images or protest flyers.
- ezfe 5y agoThat sentence is wrong. It simply isn't accurate of the current system. It relies on future changes to the system, not just changes to a database. The iMessage feature is not a database comparison system, it's to keep kids from getting/receiving nudes unexpectedly – and it works based on classifying those images. I don't dispute this is a slippery slope - one could imagine that a government requires Apple to modify it's classification system. However, that would presumably require a software update since it happens on device.
- arvinsim 5y agoSo are you prepared to never update your device?
- xondono 5y agoThat refers to the icloud scanning, the idea being that if the hash database contains propaganda, people uploading that propaganda to icloud could get reported by their own device.