8 ms·

I feel like you’re sensationalizing this a lot. There’s two functions here. Both client side. First, machine learning to detect potentially inappropriate pict

by selykg 5y ago

I feel like you’re sensationalizing this a lot. There’s two functions here. Both client side. First, machine learning to detect potentially inappropriate pictures for children to view. This seems to require parental controls to be on. Optionally it can send a message to the parent when a child purposefully views the image. The image itself is not shared with Apple so this is notification to parents only. The second part is a list of hashes. So the Photos app will hash images and compare to the list in the database. If it matches then presumably they do something about that. The database is only a list of KNOWN child abuse images circulating. Now, not to say I like the second part but the first one seems fine. The second is sketchy in that what happens if there’s a hash collision. But either way it seems easy enough to clear that one up. No father is going to be added to some list for their children’s photos. Stop with that hyperbole.

JumpCrisscross 5y ago
> the Photos app will hash images and compare to the list in the database. If it matches then presumably they do something about that. The database is only a list of KNOWN child abuse images circulating. This seems fine as it's (a) being done on iCloud-uploaded photos and (b) replacing a server-side function with a client-side one. If Apple were doing this to locally-stored photos on iCloud-disconnected devices, it would be nuts. Once the tool is built, expanding the database to include any number of other hashes is a much shorter leap than compelling Apple to build the tool. > it seems easy enough to clear that one up Would it be? One would be starting from the point of a documented suspicion of possession of child pornography.
- selykg 5y ago
  Okay. Keep going with the scare tactics. Clearly you missed the real point of you being incredibly hyperbolic I’d be happier if Apple wasn’t doing this at all. I’m not defending them necessarily but I am calling bullshit on your scare tactics. It’s not necessary.
- tekknik 5y ago
  > Would it be? One would be starting from the point of a documented suspicion of possession of child pornography. Ive actually witnessed someone go through this from someone else getting caught with these types of images and attempting to bring others with him. It’s not easy. It took him over a year of his life calling constantly asking when the charges will be dropped. They even image your devices on the spot yet still take them and stuff them in an evidence locker until everything is cleared up. You’re essentially an outcast to society while this is pending as well as most people assume if you have police interest related to child pornography you must be guilty.
015a 5y ago
This is Apple installing code on their users' devices with the express intent to harm their customers. That's it! This is inarguable! If this system works as intended, Apple is knowingly selling devices that will harm their customers. We can have the argument as to whether the harm is justified, whether the users deserved it. Sure, this only impacts child molesters. That makes it ok? "But it only impacts iCloud Photos". Valid! So why not run the scanner in iCloud and not on MY PHONE that I paid OVER A THOUSAND DOLLARS for? Because of end-to-end encryption. Apple wants to have their cake and eat it too. They can say they have E2EE, but also give users no way to opt-out of code, running on 100% of the "end" devices in that "end-to-end encryption" system, which subverts the E2EE. A beautiful little system they've created. "E2EE" means different things on Apple devices, for sure! And you're ignoring (or didn't read) the central, valid point of the EFF article: Maybe you can justify this in the US. Most countries are far, far worse than the US when it comes to privacy and human rights. The technology exists. The policy has been drafted and enacted; Apple is now alright with subverting E2EE. We start with hashes of images of child exploitation. What's next? Tank man in China? Photos of naked adult women, in conservative parts of the world? A meme criticizing your country's leader? I want to believe that Apple will, AT LEAST, stop at child exploitation, but Apple has already estroyed the faith I held in them, only yesterday, in their fight for privacy as a right. This isn't an issue you can hold a middleground position on. Encryption doesn't only kinda-sorta work in a half-ass implementation; it doesn't work at all.
- trangus_1985 5y ago
  > in their fight for privacy as a right I kept the lineage phone in my back pocket, confident that it would be a good 4-5 years before they shipped something that violated their claims. I figured, the alternatives would be stable and widespread. My timing was off.
- katbyte 5y ago
  there is no e2e encryption of icloud photos or backups, and they never claimed to have that (except for keychain) - the FBI stepped in and prevented them from doing so years ago.
- dmz73 5y ago
jliptzin 5y ago
“easy enough to clear up” I prefer not having my door busted in at 6 am and my dog shot in the head because of a hash collision
- joering2 5y ago
  "We are so sorry that we raided your house and blew the whole in your 2 years old baby, but the hash from one of the pictures from your 38,000 photos library, matched our CP entry. Upon further inspection, an honest mistake of an operator was discovered, where our operator instead of uploading real CP, mistakenly uploaded the picture of a clear blue sky". https://www.aclu.org/gallery/swat-team-blew-hole-2-year-old-baby https://www.aclu.org/gallery/swat-team-blew-hole-2-year-old-... PS. On a personal note, Apple is done for me. Stick a fork in it. I was ready to upgrade after September especially since I heard touch-ID is coming back and I love my iPhone 8. But sure as hell this sad news means i8 is my last Apple device.
- jeromegv 5y ago
  It does not trigger for a single match. You would need more than 1 hash collision

by selykg 5y ago

JumpCrisscross 5y ago

> the Photos app will hash images and compare to the list in the database. If it matches then presumably they do something about that. The database is only a list of KNOWN child abuse images circulating. This seems fine as it's (a) being done on iCloud-uploaded photos and (b) replacing a server-side function with a client-side one. If Apple were doing this to locally-stored photos on iCloud-disconnected devices, it would be nuts. Once the tool is built, expanding the database to include any number of other hashes is a much shorter leap than compelling Apple to build the tool. > it seems easy enough to clear that one up Would it be? One would be starting from the point of a documented suspicion of possession of child pornography.

selykg 5y ago
Okay. Keep going with the scare tactics. Clearly you missed the real point of you being incredibly hyperbolic I’d be happier if Apple wasn’t doing this at all. I’m not defending them necessarily but I am calling bullshit on your scare tactics. It’s not necessary.
tekknik 5y ago
> Would it be? One would be starting from the point of a documented suspicion of possession of child pornography. Ive actually witnessed someone go through this from someone else getting caught with these types of images and attempting to bring others with him. It’s not easy. It took him over a year of his life calling constantly asking when the charges will be dropped. They even image your devices on the spot yet still take them and stuff them in an evidence locker until everything is cleared up. You’re essentially an outcast to society while this is pending as well as most people assume if you have police interest related to child pornography you must be guilty.

015a 5y ago

This is Apple installing code on their users' devices with the express intent to harm their customers. That's it! This is inarguable! If this system works as intended, Apple is knowingly selling devices that will harm their customers. We can have the argument as to whether the harm is justified, whether the users deserved it. Sure, this only impacts child molesters. That makes it ok? "But it only impacts iCloud Photos". Valid! So why not run the scanner in iCloud and not on MY PHONE that I paid OVER A THOUSAND DOLLARS for? Because of end-to-end encryption. Apple wants to have their cake and eat it too. They can say they have E2EE, but also give users no way to opt-out of code, running on 100% of the "end" devices in that "end-to-end encryption" system, which subverts the E2EE. A beautiful little system they've created. "E2EE" means different things on Apple devices, for sure! And you're ignoring (or didn't read) the central, valid point of the EFF article: Maybe you can justify this in the US. Most countries are far, far worse than the US when it comes to privacy and human rights. The technology exists. The policy has been drafted and enacted; Apple is now alright with subverting E2EE. We start with hashes of images of child exploitation. What's next? Tank man in China? Photos of naked adult women, in conservative parts of the world? A meme criticizing your country's leader? I want to believe that Apple will, AT LEAST, stop at child exploitation, but Apple has already estroyed the faith I held in them, only yesterday, in their fight for privacy as a right. This isn't an issue you can hold a middleground position on. Encryption doesn't only kinda-sorta work in a half-ass implementation; it doesn't work at all.

trangus_1985 5y ago
> in their fight for privacy as a right I kept the lineage phone in my back pocket, confident that it would be a good 4-5 years before they shipped something that violated their claims. I figured, the alternatives would be stable and widespread. My timing was off.
katbyte 5y ago
there is no e2e encryption of icloud photos or backups, and they never claimed to have that (except for keychain) - the FBI stepped in and prevented them from doing so years ago.
dmz73 5y ago

jliptzin 5y ago

“easy enough to clear up” I prefer not having my door busted in at 6 am and my dog shot in the head because of a hash collision

joering2 5y ago
"We are so sorry that we raided your house and blew the whole in your 2 years old baby, but the hash from one of the pictures from your 38,000 photos library, matched our CP entry. Upon further inspection, an honest mistake of an operator was discovered, where our operator instead of uploading real CP, mistakenly uploaded the picture of a clear blue sky". https://www.aclu.org/gallery/swat-team-blew-hole-2-year-old-baby https://www.aclu.org/gallery/swat-team-blew-hole-2-year-old-... PS. On a personal note, Apple is done for me. Stick a fork in it. I was ready to upgrade after September especially since I heard touch-ID is coming back and I love my iPhone 8. But sure as hell this sad news means i8 is my last Apple device.
jeromegv 5y ago
It does not trigger for a single match. You would need more than 1 hash collision