7 ms·

Not the OP, but by good old fashioned police work, I assume non-dragnet methods, where everybody's device isn't scanned in an automated way. So instead of sifti

Not the OP, but by good old fashioned police work, I assume non-dragnet methods, where everybody's device isn't scanned in an automated way. So instead of sifting through a massive collection of automatically collected data, taken from a vast majority of innocent people, you'd deal with explicit reports of CSAE. You'd then be able to get a warrant to obtain ISP (and other) records, cross-reference and proceed from there. If there's reasonable suspicion, you'd get the suspect's address and go talk to them in person. Before we started trying to push government-sanctioned and unwanted spyware engines on private devices, I imagine the process looked something like that. Is this incorrect?

CSAECop 5y ago
The system is basically what you describe except the explicit report is precisely what Apple send to NCMEC. By the time it gets to the police, there will be an identified crime. This has been the case for many years. I don't have the numbers to hand but I believe NCMEC receives around the order of 100 million referrals a year. EDIT: it's 20 million according to https://www.missingkids.org/ourwork/ncmecdata https://www.missingkids.org/ourwork/ncmecdata https://www.missingkids.org/footer/media/keyfacts https://www.missingkids.org/footer/media/keyfacts - around 99% are from tech company referrals, 1% from members of the public
- feanaro 5y ago
  But we've already established there is no public oversight over the contents of the NCMEC database and that there cannot ever be, by design. Furthermore, it's known to contain hashes of non-CSAE images simply because they were found in a CSAE-related context. So how can this system guarantee civil freedom? How can it be guaranteed that it won't be exploited by the small number of people in power to actually inspect it and manipulate it?
  - CSAECop 5y ago
    Have we established that? Certainly not a reality I recognize. The processes involved in CSAM databases like NCMEC/ICSE are many years old. If it leads to widespread civil rights abuses, where are they? Google Drive has 1bn users. Google scans content for CSAM already. Shouldn't we be seeing these negative side effects already? Proponents of these systems can point to thousands upon thousands of actual "wins" (such as identifying teachers, police officers, sports coaches, judges, child minders etc who are pedophiles) and detractors cannot provide actual evidence of their theoretical disadvantages. No system is perfect, no system "guarantees civil freedom", this is not a fair test. The actual evidence suggests automated scanning for CSAM is a net win for society.
    - roody15 5y ago
      “ detractors cannot provide actual evidence of their theoretical disadvantages.” This is the concern. The system is hidden and you have no way to challenge. You are simply “trusting” that this system is working well Who watches the watchers?
      - acdha 5y ago
        That’s the major concern I have: take as a given that NCMEC is on the side of the angels here, what happens when some government demands that Apple help identify anyone who has an image shared from a protest, leak, an underground political movement, etc.? The database is private by necessity, so there’s no way to audit for updates. Now, currently this is only applied to iCloud photos which can already be scanned server side, making this seem like a likely step towards end to end encryption of iCloud photos but not a major change from a privacy perspective. What seems like more of a change would be if it extended to non-cloud photos or the iMessage nude detection scanner since those aren’t currently monitored, and in the latter case false positives become a major consideration if it tries to handle new content of this class as well.
    - feanaro 5y ago
      > If it leads to widespread civil rights abuses, where are they? This is disingenuous, since up to this point these databases weren't used in systems residing on end user devices, scanning their local files. The disadvantages aren't merely "theoretical"; they just haven't materialized yet since the future does not yet exist. To ignore these obvious faults by hand-waving them as theoretical is to blatantly ignore valid concerns raised by thousands of informed citizens. No system is perfect, but that doesn't mean there aren't some systems that simply go too far.
      - CSAECop 5y ago
        The distinction between scanning locally before upload, and on server after upload, is an implementation detail. The only reason Apple have done this is to allow them to implement E2EE for iCloud without hosting CSAM. All arguments relating to anything other than this are arguing against something that doesn't exist. I don't dispute that fictional proposals in the imaginations of HNers might pose a grave (fictional) threat to civil freedoms.
Grustaf 5y ago
> you'd deal with explicit reports Where would these reports come from though? Without these dragnet methods, it would seem like a very simple matter to get away with owning this kind of material.
- feanaro 5y ago
  This is a reality you have to accept. It is a simple matter to get away with owning this kind of material, dragnet method or not. There is no point in trying to eradicate all such material and bring the number to absolute zero. It's impossible. The only way to semi-ensure this would be absolute slavery of the citizenry, which I hope is a non-goal.
  - CSAECop 5y ago
    Nobody is proposing that though... It's a fact that NCMEC referrals have identified teachers who were secretly pedophiles, who were subsequently banned from teaching. Most people see this as a good thing. If you want to do away with this, you have to bring a compelling argument. I support everybody's right to argue for the type of society they want to see, but there's an arrogance/conspiratorial flavor to a lot of the comments here that suggest they don't really understand what they are up against. There are actual benefits.
    - skinkestek 5y ago
      > If you want to do away with this, you have to bring a compelling argument. I'm a law-and-order guy myself, have applied for (technical) position in police and would even accept a paycut for it. But it is with this like with other security related things, many people only considers two of the three cornerstones: - confidentiality - integrity - availability Same here: Justice is not only about punishing every very bad guy. It is also very much about not dragging innocent people through the worst accusations an innocent person can be dragged through. Keeping people safe is not only about rescuing people from hostage situations - it is also about not ramming in the door at someone relaxing on their couch because some random guy or gal called over ip phone. Too many people already go through huge problems because of false accusations. You say you work in the field so I guess you must have heard about cases were perfectly innocent people commit suicide because their lives got ruined because of what later turned out to be baseless accusations. Justice is also about not creating a system that creates even more of this suffering, right? (BTW: I really enjoyed the an0m trick and a few others. I root for you guys, but lets keep it real and not set up the worst footgun for the future since the well meant Jew lists in Europe early last century.)

CSAECop 5y ago

The system is basically what you describe except the explicit report is precisely what Apple send to NCMEC. By the time it gets to the police, there will be an identified crime. This has been the case for many years. I don't have the numbers to hand but I believe NCMEC receives around the order of 100 million referrals a year. EDIT: it's 20 million according to https://www.missingkids.org/ourwork/ncmecdata https://www.missingkids.org/ourwork/ncmecdata https://www.missingkids.org/footer/media/keyfacts https://www.missingkids.org/footer/media/keyfacts - around 99% are from tech company referrals, 1% from members of the public

feanaro 5y ago
But we've already established there is no public oversight over the contents of the NCMEC database and that there cannot ever be, by design. Furthermore, it's known to contain hashes of non-CSAE images simply because they were found in a CSAE-related context. So how can this system guarantee civil freedom? How can it be guaranteed that it won't be exploited by the small number of people in power to actually inspect it and manipulate it?
- CSAECop 5y ago
  Have we established that? Certainly not a reality I recognize. The processes involved in CSAM databases like NCMEC/ICSE are many years old. If it leads to widespread civil rights abuses, where are they? Google Drive has 1bn users. Google scans content for CSAM already. Shouldn't we be seeing these negative side effects already? Proponents of these systems can point to thousands upon thousands of actual "wins" (such as identifying teachers, police officers, sports coaches, judges, child minders etc who are pedophiles) and detractors cannot provide actual evidence of their theoretical disadvantages. No system is perfect, no system "guarantees civil freedom", this is not a fair test. The actual evidence suggests automated scanning for CSAM is a net win for society.
  - roody15 5y ago
    “ detractors cannot provide actual evidence of their theoretical disadvantages.” This is the concern. The system is hidden and you have no way to challenge. You are simply “trusting” that this system is working well Who watches the watchers?
    - acdha 5y ago
      That’s the major concern I have: take as a given that NCMEC is on the side of the angels here, what happens when some government demands that Apple help identify anyone who has an image shared from a protest, leak, an underground political movement, etc.? The database is private by necessity, so there’s no way to audit for updates. Now, currently this is only applied to iCloud photos which can already be scanned server side, making this seem like a likely step towards end to end encryption of iCloud photos but not a major change from a privacy perspective. What seems like more of a change would be if it extended to non-cloud photos or the iMessage nude detection scanner since those aren’t currently monitored, and in the latter case false positives become a major consideration if it tries to handle new content of this class as well.
  - feanaro 5y ago
    > If it leads to widespread civil rights abuses, where are they? This is disingenuous, since up to this point these databases weren't used in systems residing on end user devices, scanning their local files. The disadvantages aren't merely "theoretical"; they just haven't materialized yet since the future does not yet exist. To ignore these obvious faults by hand-waving them as theoretical is to blatantly ignore valid concerns raised by thousands of informed citizens. No system is perfect, but that doesn't mean there aren't some systems that simply go too far.
    - CSAECop 5y ago
      The distinction between scanning locally before upload, and on server after upload, is an implementation detail. The only reason Apple have done this is to allow them to implement E2EE for iCloud without hosting CSAM. All arguments relating to anything other than this are arguing against something that doesn't exist. I don't dispute that fictional proposals in the imaginations of HNers might pose a grave (fictional) threat to civil freedoms.

Grustaf 5y ago

> you'd deal with explicit reports Where would these reports come from though? Without these dragnet methods, it would seem like a very simple matter to get away with owning this kind of material.

feanaro 5y ago
This is a reality you have to accept. It is a simple matter to get away with owning this kind of material, dragnet method or not. There is no point in trying to eradicate all such material and bring the number to absolute zero. It's impossible. The only way to semi-ensure this would be absolute slavery of the citizenry, which I hope is a non-goal.
- CSAECop 5y ago
  Nobody is proposing that though... It's a fact that NCMEC referrals have identified teachers who were secretly pedophiles, who were subsequently banned from teaching. Most people see this as a good thing. If you want to do away with this, you have to bring a compelling argument. I support everybody's right to argue for the type of society they want to see, but there's an arrogance/conspiratorial flavor to a lot of the comments here that suggest they don't really understand what they are up against. There are actual benefits.
  - skinkestek 5y ago
    > If you want to do away with this, you have to bring a compelling argument. I'm a law-and-order guy myself, have applied for (technical) position in police and would even accept a paycut for it. But it is with this like with other security related things, many people only considers two of the three cornerstones: - confidentiality - integrity - availability Same here: Justice is not only about punishing every very bad guy. It is also very much about not dragging innocent people through the worst accusations an innocent person can be dragged through. Keeping people safe is not only about rescuing people from hostage situations - it is also about not ramming in the door at someone relaxing on their couch because some random guy or gal called over ip phone. Too many people already go through huge problems because of false accusations. You say you work in the field so I guess you must have heard about cases were perfectly innocent people commit suicide because their lives got ruined because of what later turned out to be baseless accusations. Justice is also about not creating a system that creates even more of this suffering, right? (BTW: I really enjoyed the an0m trick and a few others. I root for you guys, but lets keep it real and not set up the worst footgun for the future since the well meant Jew lists in Europe early last century.)