3 ms·

The thread has a point, and there's definitely nuance here, but I think people throughout history have litigated this many times over, and we came to the same c

by dvt 5y ago

The thread has a point, and there's definitely nuance here, but I think people throughout history have litigated this many times over, and we came to the same conclusion over and over and over again. To argue the contrary is revisionist or simply ignorant. This conclusion is one that has pushed our species to be more charitable, more law-abiding, more free, less tyrannical, more fair, etc. Not that we've reached some kind of utopia, but let's face it: the world is much better off than it was 100, 200, or 1000 years ago. The conclusion is that freedom (that is: negative, not positive rights) is the main force of progress (societal, technological, scientific). Of course, we have law enforcement, and judges, and lawyers, and an entire legal machinery: but it functions within well-defined boundaries. In the US, we have warrants. We have habeas corpus. We have chain of custody, and so on. Apple is fundamentally circumventing these norms. And this is wrong, no matter what is on the other side of the equation. I'm not sure what Stamos' counter-argument is here. I don't always agree with the EFF, but I think in this case, they're right on the money.

bluepizza 5y ago
Is it? How are these norms being circumvented?
- dvt 5y ago
  By reporting potential criminals to the authorities by scanning what is essentially private data (images, messages), I'd likely argue they're violating unlawful search and seizure and I doubt a conviction would stick[1]. It's not like my landlord can barge in my apartment and look under the couch for illegal drugs because he heard a rumor I bought some. I mean, probable cause is already sketchy enough, what Apple doing is beyond the pale. [1] https://reason.com/volokh/2021/08/05/apple-plans-to-scan-us-iphones-for-child-abuse-imagery/ https://reason.com/volokh/2021/08/05/apple-plans-to-scan-us-...
  - ceejayoz 5y ago
    > By reporting potential criminals to the authorities by scanning what is essentially private data (images, messages), I'd likely argue they're violating unlawful search and seizure and I doubt a conviction would stick[1]. Why? Police use informants to obtain probable cause regularly.
  - macintux 5y ago
    You are handing your image off to Apple’s servers, and they are accountable for child porn on those servers, by law. Keep your photo on your device and the software doesn’t scan it. So yes, there’s nuance here. It’s very unfortunate that Apple didn’t engage with the community first, but that seems to be an institutional blind spot.
  - fay59 5y ago
    Given that enforcement is only possible on photos uploaded to iCloud, the fact that classification happens on device seems like a distinction without a difference.
    - dannyw 5y ago
      Yes, it is further enroachment. 1. Software running on Apple's cloud scanning for content. 2. Software running on local devices scanning for content uploaded to the cloud. 3. Software running on local devices scanning for local and cloud content. These must happen gradually to shift the overton window. Apple is progressing this.
      - simondotau 5y ago
        How does it shift the Overton window if, for >99% of people, it is an entirely opaque distinction? For most people, the features provided by cloud accounts are seen as features of their physical device. Whether private data is interrogated locally or remotely is—for them—mere technical minutia.
  - judge2020 5y ago
    You can argue it's unethical but it's not illegal. The police can often obtain a warrant with just a private tip from an anonymous line. I'm sure a neural network match with access logs proving image upload AND a human reviewer confirming it matches CSAM is more than enough for a search & seizure.
  - 015a 5y ago
    Right; I think its important to recognize that, obviously, Apple's products are not subject to rights against unlawful search and seizure. But: There is absolutely a reason why that is a right the government & law enforcement is forced to uphold. In other words, especially in this age of trillion-dollar megacorps, when private companies enact policies and procedures which skirt the constitutional rights US Citizens have, its tantamount to these private companies looking at centuries of judicial, legislative, and even human rights research and development, and saying "we know better". Apple is an angry toddler; not a responsible adult. Apple does not, generally, equivocate on changes like this. But the chorus against them, on this issue, is seriously big (I guess having Kelso from That '70s Show on your side helps, though). They need to step back on this and engage with the broader legal and ethical community. They are absolutely in the wrong here; that doesn't mean that the right course of action, for the iPhone, is to do nothing and E2EE everything. It just means that these actions are not the right ones. They locked themselves in a room, wrote up a slick algorithm, then said "sweet, this is a great solution which balances protecting our children from predators with the human right to privacy"; its Hubris. Its not that easy, and they can't do it alone.
alisonkisk 5y ago
Why doesn't Apple have the freedom to detect and report child porn?
- bitexploder 5y ago
  Because it isn’t Apple’s device or data. It’s mine. And I don’t want this on my computer.
  - dataminer 5y ago
    Yes you own the device but it comes with Apple's software and services which you don't own. As long as you are updating the software on the device you will have to live with how it interacts with Apple's online services. You can install your own software on Apple's hardware if that is possible and then use the hardware as you feel fit. Or you can take Apple to court and get a judgement to stop them from scanning your data.
    - bitexploder 5y ago
      You and I both know how incredibly difficult that is. And that it simply doesn’t have to be this way, but Apple wants the control and they are going to fight to keep it. The phone duopoly you must exist within if you want a modern device is untenable for society in my opinion. The few of us, as technocrats, are the ones who have to speak up and advocate for those who can’t go as deep on the technical issues as we can. It’s all spiraling to a user hostile, corporate controlled world.
- augstein 5y ago
  I hope this is just trolling, but in case it’s not, just ask yourself why your landlord or your HOA doesn’t have the „freedom“ to search your flat/house for that kind of stuff.
thaumasiotes 5y ago
> The conclusion is that freedom (that is: positive, not negative rights) is the main force of progress (societal, technological, scientific). Did you confuse positive rights with negative rights?
- dvt 5y ago
  Yep, fixed!
Gadiguibou 5y ago
I agree that this certainly feels like it's a step back in terms of freedom for all users. Introducing these kind of measures and expecting them to be only used to punish morally wrong behavior is a form of exceptionalism. I don't think any institution can, in the long term, consistently have such moral insight and correctness. Historically, I think those measures almost always ended up being abused at some point. Measuring whether they've been used to do more harm than good is where the question gets a lot more complicated. However, I'd like to better understand why you believe that freedom is the main force of progress. Although I do feel like our society generally progresses towards more freedom, it isn't always the same kind of freedom that was present in the past. For example, freedom surrounding gun rights, freedom from taxing or freedom from government interventionism in the economy (or what is perceived as such) have all, arguably, caused a lot of harm in the US. Do you feel these are all justified simply because they are "positive rights"?
lostmsu 5y ago
The conclusion is obviously bogus. There's no reason to jump from correlation to causation.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

by dvt 5y ago

bluepizza 5y ago

Is it? How are these norms being circumvented?

dvt 5y ago
By reporting potential criminals to the authorities by scanning what is essentially private data (images, messages), I'd likely argue they're violating unlawful search and seizure and I doubt a conviction would stick[1]. It's not like my landlord can barge in my apartment and look under the couch for illegal drugs because he heard a rumor I bought some. I mean, probable cause is already sketchy enough, what Apple doing is beyond the pale. [1] https://reason.com/volokh/2021/08/05/apple-plans-to-scan-us-iphones-for-child-abuse-imagery/ https://reason.com/volokh/2021/08/05/apple-plans-to-scan-us-...
- ceejayoz 5y ago
  > By reporting potential criminals to the authorities by scanning what is essentially private data (images, messages), I'd likely argue they're violating unlawful search and seizure and I doubt a conviction would stick[1]. Why? Police use informants to obtain probable cause regularly.
- macintux 5y ago
  You are handing your image off to Apple’s servers, and they are accountable for child porn on those servers, by law. Keep your photo on your device and the software doesn’t scan it. So yes, there’s nuance here. It’s very unfortunate that Apple didn’t engage with the community first, but that seems to be an institutional blind spot.
- fay59 5y ago
  Given that enforcement is only possible on photos uploaded to iCloud, the fact that classification happens on device seems like a distinction without a difference.
  - dannyw 5y ago
    Yes, it is further enroachment. 1. Software running on Apple's cloud scanning for content. 2. Software running on local devices scanning for content uploaded to the cloud. 3. Software running on local devices scanning for local and cloud content. These must happen gradually to shift the overton window. Apple is progressing this.
    - simondotau 5y ago
      How does it shift the Overton window if, for >99% of people, it is an entirely opaque distinction? For most people, the features provided by cloud accounts are seen as features of their physical device. Whether private data is interrogated locally or remotely is—for them—mere technical minutia.
- judge2020 5y ago
  You can argue it's unethical but it's not illegal. The police can often obtain a warrant with just a private tip from an anonymous line. I'm sure a neural network match with access logs proving image upload AND a human reviewer confirming it matches CSAM is more than enough for a search & seizure.
- 015a 5y ago
  Right; I think its important to recognize that, obviously, Apple's products are not subject to rights against unlawful search and seizure. But: There is absolutely a reason why that is a right the government & law enforcement is forced to uphold. In other words, especially in this age of trillion-dollar megacorps, when private companies enact policies and procedures which skirt the constitutional rights US Citizens have, its tantamount to these private companies looking at centuries of judicial, legislative, and even human rights research and development, and saying "we know better". Apple is an angry toddler; not a responsible adult. Apple does not, generally, equivocate on changes like this. But the chorus against them, on this issue, is seriously big (I guess having Kelso from That '70s Show on your side helps, though). They need to step back on this and engage with the broader legal and ethical community. They are absolutely in the wrong here; that doesn't mean that the right course of action, for the iPhone, is to do nothing and E2EE everything. It just means that these actions are not the right ones. They locked themselves in a room, wrote up a slick algorithm, then said "sweet, this is a great solution which balances protecting our children from predators with the human right to privacy"; its Hubris. Its not that easy, and they can't do it alone.

alisonkisk 5y ago

Why doesn't Apple have the freedom to detect and report child porn?

bitexploder 5y ago
Because it isn’t Apple’s device or data. It’s mine. And I don’t want this on my computer.
- dataminer 5y ago
  Yes you own the device but it comes with Apple's software and services which you don't own. As long as you are updating the software on the device you will have to live with how it interacts with Apple's online services. You can install your own software on Apple's hardware if that is possible and then use the hardware as you feel fit. Or you can take Apple to court and get a judgement to stop them from scanning your data.
  - bitexploder 5y ago
    You and I both know how incredibly difficult that is. And that it simply doesn’t have to be this way, but Apple wants the control and they are going to fight to keep it. The phone duopoly you must exist within if you want a modern device is untenable for society in my opinion. The few of us, as technocrats, are the ones who have to speak up and advocate for those who can’t go as deep on the technical issues as we can. It’s all spiraling to a user hostile, corporate controlled world.
augstein 5y ago
I hope this is just trolling, but in case it’s not, just ask yourself why your landlord or your HOA doesn’t have the „freedom“ to search your flat/house for that kind of stuff.

thaumasiotes 5y ago

> The conclusion is that freedom (that is: positive, not negative rights) is the main force of progress (societal, technological, scientific). Did you confuse positive rights with negative rights?

dvt 5y ago
Yep, fixed!

Gadiguibou 5y ago

I agree that this certainly feels like it's a step back in terms of freedom for all users. Introducing these kind of measures and expecting them to be only used to punish morally wrong behavior is a form of exceptionalism. I don't think any institution can, in the long term, consistently have such moral insight and correctness. Historically, I think those measures almost always ended up being abused at some point. Measuring whether they've been used to do more harm than good is where the question gets a lot more complicated. However, I'd like to better understand why you believe that freedom is the main force of progress. Although I do feel like our society generally progresses towards more freedom, it isn't always the same kind of freedom that was present in the past. For example, freedom surrounding gun rights, freedom from taxing or freedom from government interventionism in the economy (or what is perceived as such) have all, arguably, caused a lot of harm in the US. Do you feel these are all justified simply because they are "positive rights"?

lostmsu 5y ago

The conclusion is obviously bogus. There's no reason to jump from correlation to causation.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]