4 ms·

They are doing everything client side so it seems like an apartment complex saying you are not allowed to have fires inside your apartment so they installed a s

They are doing everything client side so it seems like an apartment complex saying you are not allowed to have fires inside your apartment so they installed a smoke detector in your apartment. Most people would agree that it's a reasonable check because they don't plan on burning down their apartment but yes, if they keep pressing on it can definitely become orwellian. > The issue here has nothing to do with children, they would always use 'children' as excuse. The issue here is installation of Spyware Engine. I'm not sure that's entirely true. There is a reason stuff like this is debatable and is being considered by a reputable company. It is not black and white and both sides have some valid arguments. There are absolute atrocious monsters in this world and apple is in a tough spot. They are locking down their devices and it is keeping both bad and good guys out. You may think good riddens, they both shouldn't be able to get in but there are downsides to building a completely impenetrable device (e.g. tor is great for freedom, but also makes it a lot easier for criminals to operate). They are receiving pressure from law enforcement and no doubt people in their company have glimpsed the horror of child abuse and want to do something about it. They wouldn't be able to sleep at night if they did nothing, but they also won't be able to sleep at night because of the incredibly slippery slope they just stepped out on. We also don't live in a libertarian society and I don't think most people would like the reality of living in one. On the state security and personal liberty spectrum, I think they united states is a lot closer to libertarian than we are to the ccp tho but there is no spot on that spectrum where everyone will be happy. Finding the least bad spot is an incredibly difficult problem for Apple.

TeMPOraL 5y ago
> They are doing everything client side That's what they say. And we should trust them on this because...? More importantly, even if they're doing everything client-side now, why should we trust it won't change in a few years? Also, they aren't doing everything client-side. For this measure to be useful, it has to send out the hashes, or that there were matches detected, to the company, and ultimately the law enforcement. > it seems like an apartment complex saying you are not allowed to have fires inside your apartment so they installed a smoke detector in your apartment This situation is not like a fire. A fire in one apartment threatens the entire building (and everyone in it), and it spreads very quickly like started. This is more like installing chemical sensors in every apartment that will automatically call the police when they sniff out illegal drugs. You have nothing to fear if you're not an illegal drug user... unless the sensor has a false positive against your medication. Or the volatiles from your cooking. Or the cleaning agents. Or a jar with a mix of benign substances that someone sent you to screw with you. Or... Perhaps people would mind less if they could trust the system will work. But anyone with even little bit of exposure to tech industry already knows that these systems don't work, and data collected is routinely abused.
- bostonsre 5y ago
  > And we should trust them on this because...? More importantly, even if they're doing everything client-side now, why should we trust it won't change in a few years? If you use an Apple phone, you have no choice but to trust them. They produce your phone and control everything on that phone. Did you trust them before? If so, why and why would you not trust them now with this feature? If you didn't trust them before and don't trust them after this feature, you probably shouldn't use one of their phones. > This situation is not like a fire. A fire in one apartment threatens the entire building (and everyone in it), and it spreads very quickly like started. This is more like installing chemical sensor... I would consider a sensor that detects drugs in apartments a lot more orwellian and I'm pretty sure that something like that would be a lot more controversial than what apple is doing here. They are not adding a feature to catch people that use drugs, just child predators. There is a massive gap between the two and there are zero people that consider allowing child predators to exist is a good idea. I'm also pretty sure that there are zero people that agree that letting apartments burn down is a good idea. > Perhaps people would mind less if they could trust the system will work. But anyone with even little bit of exposure to tech industry already knows that these systems don't work, and data collected is routinely abused. Yep, exactly, this changes nothing really. I hate apple products and I don't use any, but their reputation is the least bad and I trust them more than others. There are horrible monsters in this world, we don't live in a libertarian society, most people don't want to, and a lot of people will be completely fine with sacrificing client side scanning of their pictures to catch those horrible monsters out there. This issue is not black and white/right versus wrong. There are trade offs and it was a judgement call by apple. Everyone has some line where they would be ok with this feature. If it helps avoid the scarring of 1,000 children per year, maybe you don't think its worth it, but there is some line where everyone concedes. I don't really know what is an acceptable amount of horribly scarred children to trade for not having one's pictures scanned on one's phone but if they keep their word and it doesn't turn into an orwellian nightmare, then I would be incredibly grateful for every scumbag they help take off the streets.
TheGigaChad 5y ago
Do the humanity a favour and dont procreate, thanks.

TeMPOraL 5y ago

> They are doing everything client side That's what they say. And we should trust them on this because...? More importantly, even if they're doing everything client-side now, why should we trust it won't change in a few years? Also, they aren't doing everything client-side. For this measure to be useful, it has to send out the hashes, or that there were matches detected, to the company, and ultimately the law enforcement. > it seems like an apartment complex saying you are not allowed to have fires inside your apartment so they installed a smoke detector in your apartment This situation is not like a fire. A fire in one apartment threatens the entire building (and everyone in it), and it spreads very quickly like started. This is more like installing chemical sensors in every apartment that will automatically call the police when they sniff out illegal drugs. You have nothing to fear if you're not an illegal drug user... unless the sensor has a false positive against your medication. Or the volatiles from your cooking. Or the cleaning agents. Or a jar with a mix of benign substances that someone sent you to screw with you. Or... Perhaps people would mind less if they could trust the system will work. But anyone with even little bit of exposure to tech industry already knows that these systems don't work, and data collected is routinely abused.

bostonsre 5y ago
> And we should trust them on this because...? More importantly, even if they're doing everything client-side now, why should we trust it won't change in a few years? If you use an Apple phone, you have no choice but to trust them. They produce your phone and control everything on that phone. Did you trust them before? If so, why and why would you not trust them now with this feature? If you didn't trust them before and don't trust them after this feature, you probably shouldn't use one of their phones. > This situation is not like a fire. A fire in one apartment threatens the entire building (and everyone in it), and it spreads very quickly like started. This is more like installing chemical sensor... I would consider a sensor that detects drugs in apartments a lot more orwellian and I'm pretty sure that something like that would be a lot more controversial than what apple is doing here. They are not adding a feature to catch people that use drugs, just child predators. There is a massive gap between the two and there are zero people that consider allowing child predators to exist is a good idea. I'm also pretty sure that there are zero people that agree that letting apartments burn down is a good idea. > Perhaps people would mind less if they could trust the system will work. But anyone with even little bit of exposure to tech industry already knows that these systems don't work, and data collected is routinely abused. Yep, exactly, this changes nothing really. I hate apple products and I don't use any, but their reputation is the least bad and I trust them more than others. There are horrible monsters in this world, we don't live in a libertarian society, most people don't want to, and a lot of people will be completely fine with sacrificing client side scanning of their pictures to catch those horrible monsters out there. This issue is not black and white/right versus wrong. There are trade offs and it was a judgement call by apple. Everyone has some line where they would be ok with this feature. If it helps avoid the scarring of 1,000 children per year, maybe you don't think its worth it, but there is some line where everyone concedes. I don't really know what is an acceptable amount of horribly scarred children to trade for not having one's pictures scanned on one's phone but if they keep their word and it doesn't turn into an orwellian nightmare, then I would be incredibly grateful for every scumbag they help take off the streets.

TheGigaChad 5y ago

Do the humanity a favour and dont procreate, thanks.