7 ms·

My point is that the FBI will just use that as a pretext for greater intrusion into privacy. Why stop at users who have iCloud photos turned on? Why not scan al

by babesh 5y ago

My point is that the FBI will just use that as a pretext for greater intrusion into privacy. Why stop at users who have iCloud photos turned on? Why not scan all photos? Why limit it to child predators? Why not use this too for terrorists and anyone the FBI or any other government deems as subversive? In fact, if you just look at what the FBI has been saying over the years, that is exactly what they intend to do. People who say that this is a slippery slope argument don’t even notice that they have been sliding down that slippery slope for decades.

zepto 5y ago
Where is anyone arguing against you? The point is that the demands for solutions may be neverending, but that doesn’t mean the problems are non-existent. If we want to limit the damage caused by the dynamic, we need to offer better solutions, not just complain about the FBI.
- babesh 5y ago
  You were saying that this is a slippery slope argument which implies that it is a fallacious argument. I am saying that isn’t the case. We have been sliding on this slope for decades which deems that the argument is valid and not fallacious. From Wikipedia’s entry for slippery slope: “The fallacious sense of "slippery slope" is often used synonymously with continuum fallacy, in that it ignores the possibility of middle ground” This isn’t a middle ground. Every year the supposed middle ground shifts toward less and less privacy. Notice the slippery slope? The very presence of this means that the supposed middle ground just slipped further? Isn’t that obvious?
  - zepto 5y ago
    You’re ignoring the sentence after I mention the slippery slope, where I say: > These are clearly real concerns and even Tim Cook admits that if you build a back door, bad people will use it. I’m not the one ignoring the middle ground.
    - babesh 5y ago
      I have read through your comments on the article. You are the bogeyman. Good bye. You are the one promoting the latest false middle ground along an actual sliding slope. That is disingenuous.
      - zepto 5y ago
        Can you describe the middle ground that I have ignored? What disingenuous argument have I made? The only thing I have argued for is for hackers to attempt technical solutions that are more to their liking than Apple’s, because arguments are not preventing the slide.
        babesh 5y ago
        I am saying that you are promoting a slippery ground falsely as middle ground. Basically the argument I hear from you is “If you build a back door, then people will use it. So let’s build it anyway because it is a middle ground.” The problem I have with it is the “let’s build it anyway”. That seems as clear as day. Why do I have to keep repeating myself? Don’t be an apologist.
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
        zepto 5y ago
        > If you build a back door, then people will use it. So let’s build it anyway because it is a middle ground. This looks a completely made up position that has nothing to do with anything I have said. If you can find a comment where I am advocating building back doors, I invite you to quote it. > That seems as clear as day. Why do I have to keep repeating myself? If it was clear you’d be able to support it with a quote. I’m pretty sure you can’t. > Don’t be an apologist. It doesn’t seem like you have been following my argument, so it’s unclear why you’d stoop to a personal attack.
        5y ago
- babesh 5y ago
  The problem of child molesters is a fixed quantity. The loss of privacy is ever increasing. When you see this dynamic, you know that a con is afoot. The solution for child porn isn’t found in snooping on everyone. It is in infiltrating the networks. Go have the FBI infiltrate the rings. Here is an example of why the FBI is disingenuous. This child porn ring wasn’t using phones. Guess what they were using? https://abc7.com/archive/7844451/ https://abc7.com/archive/7844451/ Computers in public libraries Like I said, sophisticated actors aren’t the targets. Another example. Osama bin Laden. He was air gapped. No cell phones or computers for him. No one even calling on a phone nearby. Osama bin Laden was found via an informant. The next actor will be even more sophisticated. Probably single use dumb paired cell phones with call locations randomized. Probably plastic surgery. Locations that spy satellites cannot see. Did snooping on cell phone data help find Osama? When that wasn’t enough, did grabbing all online data help? How about grabbing data straight from smart phones? Nope. Nope. Nope. Yet governments want more, more, more. Why do you think snooping helps against people who don’t even use phones for their most private communications?
vmladenov 5y ago
> Why stop at users who have iCloud photos turned on? Why not scan all photos? If they wanted to, they could have done this silently, years ago when the Neural Engine was first released. This is at least an attempt at a transparent, privacy-oriented approach. And it opens the door to more E2EE content in iCloud without the government openly accusing them of enabling distribution of abusive content.

by babesh 5y ago

zepto 5y ago

Where is anyone arguing against you? The point is that the demands for solutions may be neverending, but that doesn’t mean the problems are non-existent. If we want to limit the damage caused by the dynamic, we need to offer better solutions, not just complain about the FBI.

babesh 5y ago
You were saying that this is a slippery slope argument which implies that it is a fallacious argument. I am saying that isn’t the case. We have been sliding on this slope for decades which deems that the argument is valid and not fallacious. From Wikipedia’s entry for slippery slope: “The fallacious sense of "slippery slope" is often used synonymously with continuum fallacy, in that it ignores the possibility of middle ground” This isn’t a middle ground. Every year the supposed middle ground shifts toward less and less privacy. Notice the slippery slope? The very presence of this means that the supposed middle ground just slipped further? Isn’t that obvious?
- zepto 5y ago
  You’re ignoring the sentence after I mention the slippery slope, where I say: > These are clearly real concerns and even Tim Cook admits that if you build a back door, bad people will use it. I’m not the one ignoring the middle ground.
  - babesh 5y ago
    I have read through your comments on the article. You are the bogeyman. Good bye. You are the one promoting the latest false middle ground along an actual sliding slope. That is disingenuous.
    - zepto 5y ago
      Can you describe the middle ground that I have ignored? What disingenuous argument have I made? The only thing I have argued for is for hackers to attempt technical solutions that are more to their liking than Apple’s, because arguments are not preventing the slide.
      - babesh 5y ago
        I am saying that you are promoting a slippery ground falsely as middle ground. Basically the argument I hear from you is “If you build a back door, then people will use it. So let’s build it anyway because it is a middle ground.” The problem I have with it is the “let’s build it anyway”. That seems as clear as day. Why do I have to keep repeating myself? Don’t be an apologist.
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
        zepto 5y ago
        > If you build a back door, then people will use it. So let’s build it anyway because it is a middle ground. This looks a completely made up position that has nothing to do with anything I have said. If you can find a comment where I am advocating building back doors, I invite you to quote it. > That seems as clear as day. Why do I have to keep repeating myself? If it was clear you’d be able to support it with a quote. I’m pretty sure you can’t. > Don’t be an apologist. It doesn’t seem like you have been following my argument, so it’s unclear why you’d stoop to a personal attack.
        5y ago
babesh 5y ago
The problem of child molesters is a fixed quantity. The loss of privacy is ever increasing. When you see this dynamic, you know that a con is afoot. The solution for child porn isn’t found in snooping on everyone. It is in infiltrating the networks. Go have the FBI infiltrate the rings. Here is an example of why the FBI is disingenuous. This child porn ring wasn’t using phones. Guess what they were using? https://abc7.com/archive/7844451/ https://abc7.com/archive/7844451/ Computers in public libraries Like I said, sophisticated actors aren’t the targets. Another example. Osama bin Laden. He was air gapped. No cell phones or computers for him. No one even calling on a phone nearby. Osama bin Laden was found via an informant. The next actor will be even more sophisticated. Probably single use dumb paired cell phones with call locations randomized. Probably plastic surgery. Locations that spy satellites cannot see. Did snooping on cell phone data help find Osama? When that wasn’t enough, did grabbing all online data help? How about grabbing data straight from smart phones? Nope. Nope. Nope. Yet governments want more, more, more. Why do you think snooping helps against people who don’t even use phones for their most private communications?

vmladenov 5y ago

> Why stop at users who have iCloud photos turned on? Why not scan all photos? If they wanted to, they could have done this silently, years ago when the Neural Engine was first released. This is at least an attempt at a transparent, privacy-oriented approach. And it opens the door to more E2EE content in iCloud without the government openly accusing them of enabling distribution of abusive content.