4 ms·

> Arguing that concerns about children are overblown or being exploited for nefarious means may be ‘true’, but it does nothing to provide an alternative that Ap

> Arguing that concerns about children are overblown or being exploited for nefarious means may be ‘true’, but it does nothing to provide an alternative that Apple could use - If the stats don't justify their fears - And I come up with a technological solution that will make the stats even lower - Their fears will not be reduced - Because their fears are not based on the stats ---- > Apple’s customers do include many people who are worried about sexual predators reaching their children via their phones though Are they worried about this because of a rational fear based on real-world data? If so, then I want to talk to them about that data and I want to see what basis their fears have. I'm totally willing to try and come up with solutions that reduce the real world problem as long as we're all considering the benefits and tradeoffs of each approach. We definitely should try to reduce the problem of CSAM even further. But if they're not basing their fear on data, then I can't help them using technology and I can't have that conversation with them, because their fear isn't based on the real world: it's based on either their cultural upbringing, or their preconceptions about technology, or what media they consume, or their past traumas, or whatever phobias that might be causing that fear. Their fear is real, but it can not be solved by any technological invention or policy change, including Apple's current system. Because you're telling me that they're scared regardless of what the reality of the situation is, you're telling me they're scared regardless of what the stats are. That problem can't be solved with technology, it can only be solved with education, or emotional support, or cultural norms. If they're scared right now without knowing anything about how bad the problem actually is, then attacking the problem itself will do nothing to help them -- because that's not the source of their fear.

zepto 5y ago
> Their fear is real, but it can not be solved by any technological invention or policy change, including Apple's current system. Because you're telling me that they're scared regardless of what the reality of the situation is, you're telling me they're scared regardless of what the stats are. Not really. I’m agreeing that parents will be afraid for their children regardless of the stats, and are unlikely to believe anyone who claimed they shouldn’t be. The ‘stats’ as you put it won’t change this. Not because the stats are wrong, but because they are insufficient, and in fact predation will likely continue in a different form even if we can show a particular form to not be very prevalent. The claim to have access to ‘the reality of the situation’ is not going to be accepted. You won’t be able to solve the problem through education or emotional support because you can’t actually prove that the problem isn’t real. You actually don’t know the size of the problem yourself, which is why you are not able to address it conclusively here. What I am saying is that we need to accept that this is the environment, and if we want less invasive technical solutions to problems people think are real, and which you cannot prove are not, then we need to create them.
- danShumway 5y ago
  > What I am saying is that we need to accept that this is the environment, and if we want less invasive technical solutions to problems people think are real, and which you cannot prove are not, then we need to create them. And what I'm saying is that this is a giant waste of time because if someone has a phobia about their kid getting abducted, that phobia will not go away just because Apple started scanning photos. You want people to come up with a technical solution, but you don't even know to define what a "solution" is. How will we measure that solution absent statistics? How will we know if it's working or not? Okay, Apple starts scanning photos. Are we done? Has that solved the problem? We don't know if that's enough, because people's fears here aren't based on the real world, they're based on Hollywood abduction movies, and those movies are still going to get made after Apple starts scanning photos. You are completely correct that the stats are insufficient to convince these people. But you're also completely wrong in assuming that there is some kind of escape hatch or technological miracle that anyone can pull off to make those fears go away, because in your own words: "parents will be afraid for their children regardless of the stats." If Apple's policy reduces abuse by 90%, they'll still be afraid. If it reduces it by 10%, they'll still be afraid. There is no technological solution that will ease their fear, because it's not about the stats. ---- I'm open to being proven wrong that predation is a serious problem that needs drastic intervention. I'm open to evidence that suggests that encryption is a big enough problem that we need to come up with a technological solution. I just want to see some actual evidence. People being scared of things is not evidence, that's not something we can have a productive conversation about. If we're going to create a "solution", then we need to know what the problem is, what the weak points are, and what metrics we're using to figure out whether or not we're making progress. If that's not on the table, then also in your words, we need to "accept that this is the environment" and stop trying to pretend that coming up with technical solutions will do anything to reduce calls to weaken encryption or insert back doors.
  - zepto 5y ago
    > But you're also completely wrong in assuming that there is some kind of escape hatch or technological miracle that anyone can pull off to make those fears go away, I can’t be wrong about that since I’m not claiming that anywhere or assuming it. > because in your own words: "parents will be afraid for their children regardless of the stats." Given that I wrote this, why would you claim that I think otherwise? > There is no technological solution that will ease their fear, because it's not about the stats. Agreed, except that I go further and claim that the stats are not sufficient, so making about the stats can’t solve the problem. > People being scared of things is not evidence, It’s evidence of fear. Fear is real, but it’s not a measure of severity or probability. > that's not something we can have a productive conversation about. I don’t see why we can’t take into account people’s fears. > If we're going to create a "solution", then we need to know what the problem is, what the weak points are, and what metrics we're using to figure out whether or not we're making progress. Yes. One of those metrics could be ‘in what ways does this compromise privacy’, and another could be ‘in what ways does this impede child abuse use cases’. I suspect Apple is trying to solve for those metrics. Perhaps someone else can do better. > If that's not on the table, then also in your words, we need to "accept that this is the environment" This part is unclear. > stop trying to pretend that coming up with technical solutions will do anything to reduce calls to weaken encryption or insert back doors. It’s unclear why you would say anyone is pretending this, least of all me. I have wholeheartedly agreed with you that these calls are ‘evergreen’. I want solutions to problems like the child abuse use cases, such that when calls to weaken encryption or insert back doors are made as they always will be, we don’t have to.

zepto 5y ago

> Their fear is real, but it can not be solved by any technological invention or policy change, including Apple's current system. Because you're telling me that they're scared regardless of what the reality of the situation is, you're telling me they're scared regardless of what the stats are. Not really. I’m agreeing that parents will be afraid for their children regardless of the stats, and are unlikely to believe anyone who claimed they shouldn’t be. The ‘stats’ as you put it won’t change this. Not because the stats are wrong, but because they are insufficient, and in fact predation will likely continue in a different form even if we can show a particular form to not be very prevalent. The claim to have access to ‘the reality of the situation’ is not going to be accepted. You won’t be able to solve the problem through education or emotional support because you can’t actually prove that the problem isn’t real. You actually don’t know the size of the problem yourself, which is why you are not able to address it conclusively here. What I am saying is that we need to accept that this is the environment, and if we want less invasive technical solutions to problems people think are real, and which you cannot prove are not, then we need to create them.

danShumway 5y ago
> What I am saying is that we need to accept that this is the environment, and if we want less invasive technical solutions to problems people think are real, and which you cannot prove are not, then we need to create them. And what I'm saying is that this is a giant waste of time because if someone has a phobia about their kid getting abducted, that phobia will not go away just because Apple started scanning photos. You want people to come up with a technical solution, but you don't even know to define what a "solution" is. How will we measure that solution absent statistics? How will we know if it's working or not? Okay, Apple starts scanning photos. Are we done? Has that solved the problem? We don't know if that's enough, because people's fears here aren't based on the real world, they're based on Hollywood abduction movies, and those movies are still going to get made after Apple starts scanning photos. You are completely correct that the stats are insufficient to convince these people. But you're also completely wrong in assuming that there is some kind of escape hatch or technological miracle that anyone can pull off to make those fears go away, because in your own words: "parents will be afraid for their children regardless of the stats." If Apple's policy reduces abuse by 90%, they'll still be afraid. If it reduces it by 10%, they'll still be afraid. There is no technological solution that will ease their fear, because it's not about the stats. ---- I'm open to being proven wrong that predation is a serious problem that needs drastic intervention. I'm open to evidence that suggests that encryption is a big enough problem that we need to come up with a technological solution. I just want to see some actual evidence. People being scared of things is not evidence, that's not something we can have a productive conversation about. If we're going to create a "solution", then we need to know what the problem is, what the weak points are, and what metrics we're using to figure out whether or not we're making progress. If that's not on the table, then also in your words, we need to "accept that this is the environment" and stop trying to pretend that coming up with technical solutions will do anything to reduce calls to weaken encryption or insert back doors.
- zepto 5y ago
  > But you're also completely wrong in assuming that there is some kind of escape hatch or technological miracle that anyone can pull off to make those fears go away, I can’t be wrong about that since I’m not claiming that anywhere or assuming it. > because in your own words: "parents will be afraid for their children regardless of the stats." Given that I wrote this, why would you claim that I think otherwise? > There is no technological solution that will ease their fear, because it's not about the stats. Agreed, except that I go further and claim that the stats are not sufficient, so making about the stats can’t solve the problem. > People being scared of things is not evidence, It’s evidence of fear. Fear is real, but it’s not a measure of severity or probability. > that's not something we can have a productive conversation about. I don’t see why we can’t take into account people’s fears. > If we're going to create a "solution", then we need to know what the problem is, what the weak points are, and what metrics we're using to figure out whether or not we're making progress. Yes. One of those metrics could be ‘in what ways does this compromise privacy’, and another could be ‘in what ways does this impede child abuse use cases’. I suspect Apple is trying to solve for those metrics. Perhaps someone else can do better. > If that's not on the table, then also in your words, we need to "accept that this is the environment" This part is unclear. > stop trying to pretend that coming up with technical solutions will do anything to reduce calls to weaken encryption or insert back doors. It’s unclear why you would say anyone is pretending this, least of all me. I have wholeheartedly agreed with you that these calls are ‘evergreen’. I want solutions to problems like the child abuse use cases, such that when calls to weaken encryption or insert back doors are made as they always will be, we don’t have to.