3 ms·
This isn’t an analogy, it’s just reality, right up to the sentence “every other company solves this by simply opening everyone’s package”. Every shipping compan
by wrs 5y ago
This isn’t an analogy, it’s just reality, right up to the sentence “every other company solves this by simply opening everyone’s package”. Every shipping company doesn’t open every package today, and in the real world there are no magical package opening robots, though there are some specialized detectors. So we already know from experiment that imperfect detection is better than forcing every package open.
- dpierce9 5y agoIt is an analogy to what Apple is doing. Analogically you are sending something to Apple to handle for you (either store or ship) and they have legal obligations and business requirements. Every other company manages those by ‘opening your package’ is analogous to server-side image scanning like PhotoDNA.
- wrs 5y agoPhotoDNA is analogous to the detectors. The analog of “opening every package” would be human review of every picture. We already have real world evidence for “what statistical properties the detector would need to have” to be better than opening every package, because the real delivery companies are literally doing this today. There’s nothing hypothetical about the question.
- dpierce9 5y agoPerhaps the analogy could have been clearer and the hypothetical more broad. I was trying to press on the difference between the shipper doing a very specific test vs some functionally similar but unknown test being done by the shipping company (the server-side test is unknown, it could be hashes, non-hash based image comparison, or manual review). I wasn’t asking about something like the sensitivity or specificity of those tests, rather, why we would be fine with one and not the other when the difference is not whether but when, where, and what test is applied.
- gugtude 5y agoBomb sniffing dogs are your “magical package opening robots”