3 ms·

I think Apple sees the writing on the wall in terms of governments soon forcing this kind of oversight into platforms. They have tried to create a system that

I think Apple sees the writing on the wall in terms of governments soon forcing this kind of oversight into platforms. They have tried to create a system that will not create false positives and will still protect the 99.99999% of their users that simply want privacy. Its a messy business and fraught with downstream implications, but I think Apple is trying to avoid a future where end-to-end encryption of communications is made illegal by a tech-ignorant congress. I also think they are simply pissed off that their platforms are being used to shield these activities. Is being preemptive to avoid imposed regs that might be much worse for their users the right approach? I don't know. Based on the tech papers linked at the end of their announcement, they are trying hard to thread a needle here.

dm1011 5y ago
either way there marketing is truly amazing if people are still willing to write something like this after PRISM
dcow 5y ago
But, we've fought this type of bull crap entering via our government in the past. We rule ourselves we can literally say, "no, government, you can't do that". Why is it different now? Are people getting tired of the recurring battles? Is human trafficking on the rise?
- dev_tty01 5y ago
  First, yes human trafficking is on the rise. It is a horrible blight affecting millions of people globally. Most people are not aware of how pervasive it is. Second, what is different today is that pervasive tech has made it possible for people to communicate over distance in a shielded way. Before modern tech, people had to physically stand next to each other to have a truly private conversation. That is new. I think that makes legislators feel that since tech has enabled this capability, tech should be enabling a way to "fix" the issue. The argument isn't completely without merit. Along with all the positive benefits of tech, there are of course some downsides. The question is what role should tech have in mitigating the downsides. This is an attempt by Apple to provide a mitigation. Time will tell if this attempt was a good idea. It could provide some benefit, but will the cost be too high?
  - dcow 5y ago
    No we’ve had the backdoor discussion on and off for the last 30 years at least, during which people have been able to communicate privately over long distances. I’m interested in reports that human trafficking is on the rise. I wasn't aware this was becoming more of an issue. Is there correlation between the introduction of mobile phones and an increase in human trafficking that would suggest new technology is an enabling factor?
    - dev_tty01 5y ago
      Given the rate of government recognition and response to issues, I would classify the last 30 years as new. However, I'm not sure about the private assertion. The first cell phones were analog and anyone with a scanner could listen in. Any agency with a court order can listen to digital cell phone calls. Email, SMS chats, etc. are all accessible via court sanctioned search permits. End-to-end encryption has enabled truly private communication (ignoring NSA high compute capabilities) and that has not been available in a widespread way until the last few years. I'm not referring to computer knowledgable HN types. I'm not aware of a study looking at that particular correlation, but there is plenty of data available on the problem itself. I wouldn't be surprised if such a study exists though. I am no expert, but I have read reports from what I at least consider reputable sources. Its an easy search.
      - dcow 5y ago
        I’m just curious if you can plausibly make the correlation between more encryption and more terrorism and sex trafficking.
        nl 5y ago
        Correlation isn't particularly useful or interesting for time series where both things are increasing. You need to look at actual incidents: Has encryption been used to disrupt investigations of terrorism and/or sex trafficking.
  - hinkley 5y ago
- revolvingocelot 5y ago
  You rule yourselves?! Where do you live? Are they accepting immigrants!?
vineyardmike 5y ago
> that will not create false positives and will still protect the 99.99999% of their users that simply want privacy We don't actually know this. That's the issue. It is VERY opaque.
- dev_tty01 5y ago
  Is it opaque? There are 7 technical paper links at the end of the announcement detailing what they are doing.
  - vineyardmike 5y ago
    We have no idea what is in the db of photos, or what innocent photos will match beyond "less than 1 in 1 trillion" which is almost certainly false.
    - dev_tty01 5y ago
      True. Apple is trusting that the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children will provide authentic and verified images. It is also clear from the details that some small number of matching images will not be enough to create a report and any report will be manually verified. A single matching photo will not create a false positive. Given the need to insert a lot of photos combined with manual verification of a flag, it sounds like a lot of people have to be corrupted to lead to a problem for someone. Also, NCMEC is well known. I hope they stay true to their stated mission. Time will tell. As others have pointed out, the longer term problem is that the capability may tempt governments to put pressure on Apple to work with other image sets. However, Apple has of course had this capability for quite some time and (as far as we know) have not been doing this so if any company is large enough to resist they are. It is a risk, but not much more of a risk than it has been to date. I do think it is a positive sign that they are being open about what they are doing.

dm1011 5y ago

either way there marketing is truly amazing if people are still willing to write something like this after PRISM

dcow 5y ago

But, we've fought this type of bull crap entering via our government in the past. We rule ourselves we can literally say, "no, government, you can't do that". Why is it different now? Are people getting tired of the recurring battles? Is human trafficking on the rise?

dev_tty01 5y ago
First, yes human trafficking is on the rise. It is a horrible blight affecting millions of people globally. Most people are not aware of how pervasive it is. Second, what is different today is that pervasive tech has made it possible for people to communicate over distance in a shielded way. Before modern tech, people had to physically stand next to each other to have a truly private conversation. That is new. I think that makes legislators feel that since tech has enabled this capability, tech should be enabling a way to "fix" the issue. The argument isn't completely without merit. Along with all the positive benefits of tech, there are of course some downsides. The question is what role should tech have in mitigating the downsides. This is an attempt by Apple to provide a mitigation. Time will tell if this attempt was a good idea. It could provide some benefit, but will the cost be too high?
- dcow 5y ago
  No we’ve had the backdoor discussion on and off for the last 30 years at least, during which people have been able to communicate privately over long distances. I’m interested in reports that human trafficking is on the rise. I wasn't aware this was becoming more of an issue. Is there correlation between the introduction of mobile phones and an increase in human trafficking that would suggest new technology is an enabling factor?
  - dev_tty01 5y ago
    Given the rate of government recognition and response to issues, I would classify the last 30 years as new. However, I'm not sure about the private assertion. The first cell phones were analog and anyone with a scanner could listen in. Any agency with a court order can listen to digital cell phone calls. Email, SMS chats, etc. are all accessible via court sanctioned search permits. End-to-end encryption has enabled truly private communication (ignoring NSA high compute capabilities) and that has not been available in a widespread way until the last few years. I'm not referring to computer knowledgable HN types. I'm not aware of a study looking at that particular correlation, but there is plenty of data available on the problem itself. I wouldn't be surprised if such a study exists though. I am no expert, but I have read reports from what I at least consider reputable sources. Its an easy search.
    - dcow 5y ago
      I’m just curious if you can plausibly make the correlation between more encryption and more terrorism and sex trafficking.
      - nl 5y ago
        Correlation isn't particularly useful or interesting for time series where both things are increasing. You need to look at actual incidents: Has encryption been used to disrupt investigations of terrorism and/or sex trafficking.
- hinkley 5y ago
revolvingocelot 5y ago
You rule yourselves?! Where do you live? Are they accepting immigrants!?

vineyardmike 5y ago

> that will not create false positives and will still protect the 99.99999% of their users that simply want privacy We don't actually know this. That's the issue. It is VERY opaque.

dev_tty01 5y ago
Is it opaque? There are 7 technical paper links at the end of the announcement detailing what they are doing.
- vineyardmike 5y ago
  We have no idea what is in the db of photos, or what innocent photos will match beyond "less than 1 in 1 trillion" which is almost certainly false.
  - dev_tty01 5y ago
    True. Apple is trusting that the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children will provide authentic and verified images. It is also clear from the details that some small number of matching images will not be enough to create a report and any report will be manually verified. A single matching photo will not create a false positive. Given the need to insert a lot of photos combined with manual verification of a flag, it sounds like a lot of people have to be corrupted to lead to a problem for someone. Also, NCMEC is well known. I hope they stay true to their stated mission. Time will tell. As others have pointed out, the longer term problem is that the capability may tempt governments to put pressure on Apple to work with other image sets. However, Apple has of course had this capability for quite some time and (as far as we know) have not been doing this so if any company is large enough to resist they are. It is a risk, but not much more of a risk than it has been to date. I do think it is a positive sign that they are being open about what they are doing.