3 ms·

> all cloud companies in the US are required to inspect photos for CSAM) This is extremely disingenuous. If their devices uploaded content with end to end enc

by nullc 5y ago

> all cloud companies in the US are required to inspect photos for CSAM) This is extremely disingenuous. If their devices uploaded content with end to end encryption there would be no matches for CSAM. If they were required to search your materials generally, then they would be effectively deputized-- acting on behalf of the government-- and your forth amendment protection against unlawful search would be would extended to their activity. Instead we find that the both cloud providers and the government have argued and the courts have affirmed the opposite: In US v. Miller (2017) > Companies like Google have business reasons to make these efforts to remove child pornography from their systems. As a Google representative noted, “[i]f our product is associated with being a haven for abusive content and conduct, users will stop using our services.” McGoff Decl., R.33-1, PageID#161. > Did Google act under compulsion? Even if a private party does not perform a public function, the party’s action might qualify as a government act if the government “has exercised coercive power or has provided such significant encouragement, either overt or covert, that the choice must in law be deemed to be that of the” government. [...] Miller has not shown that Google’s hash-value matching falls on the “compulsion” side of this line. He cites no law that compels or encourages Google to operate its “product abuse detection system” to scan for hash-value matches. Federal law disclaims such a mandate. It says that providers need not “monitor the content of any [customer] communication” or “affirmatively search, screen, or scan” files. 18 U.S.C. § 2258A(f). Nor does Miller identify anything like the government “encouragement” that the Court found sufficient to turn a railroad’s drug and alcohol testing into “government” testing. See Skinner, 489 U.S. at 615. [...] Federal law requires “electronic communication service providers” like Google to notify NCMEC when they become aware of child pornography. 18 U.S.C. § 2258A(a). But this mandate compels providers only to report child pornography that they know of; it does not compel them to search for child pornography of which they are unaware.

spacedcowboy 5y ago
This is not disingenuous - it's a statement of the reality within which we live. You can claim all you like that there is no coercion taking place, and that e2e would solve all ills, but it doesn't change the facts that: - All cloud providers scan for it. Facebook, Google, Amazon, Apple, Imgur ... There's a list of 144 companies at NCMEC. There must be a damn good reason for that consensus... - Because they scan for it, they are obliged (coerced, if you will) to report anything they find. By law. - Facebook (to pull an example out of the air) reported 20.3 million times last year. Google [1] are on for 365,319 for July->Dec and are coming up on 3 million reports. Apple reported 265 cases last year. - Using e2e doesn't remove the tarnish of CSAM being on your service. All it does is give some hand-wavy deniability "oh, we didn't know". Yes, but you chose to not know by enforcing e2e. That choice was the act, and kiddy-porn providers flocking to your service was the consequence. Once the wheels of justice turn a few times, and there becomes a trend of insert your e2e service being where all the kiddy-porn is stored, there's no coming back. The problem here is that there's no easy technical answer to a problem outside the technical sphere. It's not the technology that's the problem, it's the users, and you don't solve that by technological means. You take a stand and you defend it. To some, that will be your solution ("It's all e2e, we don't know or take any ownership, it's all bits to us"). To others, it'll be more like Apple's stance ("we will try our damndest not to let this shit propagate or get on our service"). Neither side will easily compromise too much towards the other, because both of them have valid points. You pays your money and you takes your choice. My gut feeling is that the people bemoaning this as if the end-times were here will still all (for reasonable definitions of "all") be using iCloud in a few months time, and having their photos scanned (just like they have been for ages, but this time on upload to iCloud rather than on receipt by iCloud). [1] https://transparencyreport.google.com/child-sexual-abuse-material/reporting?hl=en https://transparencyreport.google.com/child-sexual-abuse-mat...
- nullc 5y ago
  > You can claim all you like that there is no coercion taking place It's not just myself claiming it, it is google claiming it under oath. If they were perjuring themselves and their scanning was, in fact, coerced by the government it would not change improve the situation: In that case by scanning in response to government coercion they would be aiding an unlawful violation of their user's fourth amendments and covering it it up. If you'd like to sustain an argument that there is a large conspiracy of tech companies along with the government to violate the public's constitutional rights on a massive scale and lying in court to cover for it-- well I wouldn't be that shocked. But if that's true then it their complicity is a VASTLY greater ethical failure. I think, however, we should greatly penalize the prospects of a vast conspiracy to violate the public's constitutional rights. It would be far from a new thing for there to be large number of commercial entities violating the civil rights of the public without any government coercion to do so. > My gut feeling is that the people bemoaning this as if the end-times were here will still all (for reasonable definitions of "all") be using iCloud in a few months time, and having their photos scanned Well not me. I don't use any of those privacy invading services, and I hope you won't either! And there are plenty of data storage providers that have users data encrypted by default.

by nullc 5y ago

spacedcowboy 5y ago

This is not disingenuous - it's a statement of the reality within which we live. You can claim all you like that there is no coercion taking place, and that e2e would solve all ills, but it doesn't change the facts that: - All cloud providers scan for it. Facebook, Google, Amazon, Apple, Imgur ... There's a list of 144 companies at NCMEC. There must be a damn good reason for that consensus... - Because they scan for it, they are obliged (coerced, if you will) to report anything they find. By law. - Facebook (to pull an example out of the air) reported 20.3 million times last year. Google [1] are on for 365,319 for July->Dec and are coming up on 3 million reports. Apple reported 265 cases last year. - Using e2e doesn't remove the tarnish of CSAM being on your service. All it does is give some hand-wavy deniability "oh, we didn't know". Yes, but you chose to not know by enforcing e2e. That choice was the act, and kiddy-porn providers flocking to your service was the consequence. Once the wheels of justice turn a few times, and there becomes a trend of insert your e2e service being where all the kiddy-porn is stored, there's no coming back. The problem here is that there's no easy technical answer to a problem outside the technical sphere. It's not the technology that's the problem, it's the users, and you don't solve that by technological means. You take a stand and you defend it. To some, that will be your solution ("It's all e2e, we don't know or take any ownership, it's all bits to us"). To others, it'll be more like Apple's stance ("we will try our damndest not to let this shit propagate or get on our service"). Neither side will easily compromise too much towards the other, because both of them have valid points. You pays your money and you takes your choice. My gut feeling is that the people bemoaning this as if the end-times were here will still all (for reasonable definitions of "all") be using iCloud in a few months time, and having their photos scanned (just like they have been for ages, but this time on upload to iCloud rather than on receipt by iCloud). [1] https://transparencyreport.google.com/child-sexual-abuse-material/reporting?hl=en https://transparencyreport.google.com/child-sexual-abuse-mat...

nullc 5y ago
> You can claim all you like that there is no coercion taking place It's not just myself claiming it, it is google claiming it under oath. If they were perjuring themselves and their scanning was, in fact, coerced by the government it would not change improve the situation: In that case by scanning in response to government coercion they would be aiding an unlawful violation of their user's fourth amendments and covering it it up. If you'd like to sustain an argument that there is a large conspiracy of tech companies along with the government to violate the public's constitutional rights on a massive scale and lying in court to cover for it-- well I wouldn't be that shocked. But if that's true then it their complicity is a VASTLY greater ethical failure. I think, however, we should greatly penalize the prospects of a vast conspiracy to violate the public's constitutional rights. It would be far from a new thing for there to be large number of commercial entities violating the civil rights of the public without any government coercion to do so. > My gut feeling is that the people bemoaning this as if the end-times were here will still all (for reasonable definitions of "all") be using iCloud in a few months time, and having their photos scanned Well not me. I don't use any of those privacy invading services, and I hope you won't either! And there are plenty of data storage providers that have users data encrypted by default.