8 ms·

This is incredibly annoying. They're providing all of this information which says that this program that runs on our devices is incredibly safe if we're not ba

This is incredibly annoying. They're providing all of this information which says that this program that runs on our devices is incredibly safe if we're not bad people. That the people at Apple and then law enforcement don't see anything about our photos until there is a human set threshold hit by a human programmed algorithm. Technically, this should be sound since the proof has checked out with multiple cryptography experts. But none of that matters. The Apple PSI System is spyware. They are providing all of this info to justify putting spyware on our devices. They are attempting to put spyware on our devices to see if we can be sent to jail. That's all that matters. That is the end effect. Apple is justifying putting SPYWARE ON ALL OF THEIR PHONES. Any discussion of the technical merits of a SPYWARE system implemented against you is missing the point. It should not exist.

liamcardenas 5y ago
We need to draw the line somewhere. Maybe this is ok. But where does it end? What if we have a Neuralink-like device? Is there ever a line too far?
- akersten 5y ago
  This is the line and it's not ok. I am astounded that anyone here is entertaining the idea that it is somehow ok. Take out the "CSAM" noun from the equation - it really poisons the argument with emotion. "Apple devices check your files against government blacklist" is the headline, and not enough of us are saying "no."
- gruturo 5y ago
  The line is here. And this is absolutely not OK. It is ripe for abuse by governments, which Apple absolutely has a history of bowing to. Saudi Arabia WILL use this to track dissidents and homosexuals. China WILL use this for whatever they need, on a daily basis. Hell even the US will use this, I'm sure. The only way this would be OK was if the input data (the CSAM database) was cryptographically signed and no government, no single entity and not even Apple, could change the content, with the only signing key split in 10 parts to be held personally by Bruce Schneier, the Pope, Linus Torvalds, the Orthodox Patriarch, Keanu Reeves, a couple head Rabbis and a few of whatever their equivalent in Islam is, and they had to personally review the images one by one and certify that perceptual hash 0FB89C8A7DF6AA1945B is indeed CSAM content and agree to collectively sign it for addition. This would only work if the full IOS source was fully published, and compiled as a reproducible build, so everyone could confirm the scanning code does what it's supposed to, and is not altered with any subsequent update. P.S. Don't nitpick on the names, it was a deliberately absurd list of people either with a good reputation or with a lot to lose in the respectively chosen afterlife.
geocar 5y ago
> until there is a human set threshold hit by a human programmed algorithm. Humans at Apple thought nobody would have percent signs in their wifi names. Programming is hard, not because knowing how to tell the computer what you want is hard, but because thinking about all the ways people will use your software forever is hard.
nullifidian 5y ago
Yup, the horrible thing is not the current system itself, but the precedent they set. And if it's a semi-exact match algorithm like they say, it won't actually prevent any new abuse from happening.
- nomel 5y ago
  The precedent has been set long ago by Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Drop box and all of the other cloud image providers. From my understanding, the difference is that they scan in the cloud after being uploaded, which requires they decrypt your images in the cloud, rather than what Apple wants to do, scan on your device before uploading, so they don’t have to decrypt in the cloud. None of this scanning happens if the images aren’t destined for iCloud. This is moving he scan for the cloud service, that everyone is doing, to your phone. That’s the only difference that I see. Am I seeing it wrong?
  - nullifidian 5y ago
    The precedent is scanning on the user's device, yes. As far as I understand they are trying to limit the stream of subpoenas for users data by encrypting everything, without being called pedo enablers or something like that. But what they are doing is in effect showing the governments and anti-freedom activists that it is in fact possible to do this on users' devices, thus building a foundation for further expansion of such scanning to all data, sent or stored, on all apps, on the operating system level, and not only of their own initiative, but as a result of a legislation. And then why would you not fight other things that are currently considered to be societal ills? It's the next logical step. There are plenty of countries where you could get real prison sentences for writing or saying things, all with "well intentioned" justifications of course. We are steadily moving towards a "digital gulag", and Apple is paving the way. All of this also shows those who value freedom as pedo enablers, forcing other companies to also implement similar processes.
  - YokoSix 5y ago
    For now, yes. But people are worried that that's just the first step to get the snooping service onto your phone. Because why stop here? Soon it maybe scanning photos not just destined for iCloud. And why draw the line at photos? Videos, music, text files, anything could be interesting for governments, film studios and record companies. Why do you have an MP4 of the latest Spider-Man movie on your phone? Did you legally buy this Miles Davis album? Is this an image of a rainbow flag on your phone, my dear Russian citizen? It's just a small step from here to constantly scanning all your local files on iOS, padOS and macOS because someone, somewhere might want to take a look at them.
userbinator 5y ago
They're providing all of this information which says that this program that runs on our devices is incredibly safe if we're not bad people. That's not far from saying "only criminals have something to hide". Seeing this come from Apple, a company which has won a lot of popularity with its stance on privacy, is absolutely astounding and definitely makes one wonder whether there is an ulterior motive.
- polyomino 5y ago
  Stop defending Apple! They have always handed over their Chinese users' data to the authorities. They were always willing to compromise user privacy to the state. They once had a marketing stunt where they wouldn't unlock an iPhone for the FBI only after they had already handed them decrypted backups from the very same phone.
  - birdyrooster 5y ago
    The marketing stunt was police throwing a fit and not the other way around.
switch007 5y ago
Well said. I knew it wouldn’t take long for discourse to switch to the morality, technical implementation etc. That is of course no accident.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
SergeAx 5y ago
If I don't have a root access to the device - it is not my device.
- oneplane 5y ago
  If you have root access it's also not your device, because you probably don't have BUP, BSP and SMM/SV mode access. And if you have those it's still not yours because you don't have access to the EDA source (or at least not much more detail than the basic silicon floorpan). This race to the bottom of 'ownership' ends nowhere. Do you really own your device if it uses NDA or licensed parts? (be it software or hardware) Do you really own your device if it depends on communications with other devices that you do not own? What about the first communication with a cell tower? The eNodeB? The RAN? The HLB? Or if you are communicating with someone, should you own their device as well? Say your boundary is communications, what communications are we talking about? SPI? I2C? MII? The interface between the baseband and de application processor? The matrix scanner on a physical keyboard? I'm not saying it's amazing to have an appliance where you don't control every aspect, but it's also not realistic to have a free-for-all at scale either. At the end of the day, when you live in a diverse society, not every device your pay for is a device that is your device. And that can be fine. (Diverse doesn't universally mean religion, shades of skin or nationality - we're talking about carpenters, mechanics, teachers, artists, bus drivers, bakers, none of those will ever 'own' a device or software stack at scale; if you put a bunch of people together, organise them and specialise, not everyone will 'do tech' to the same degree, if any)

liamcardenas 5y ago

We need to draw the line somewhere. Maybe this is ok. But where does it end? What if we have a Neuralink-like device? Is there ever a line too far?

akersten 5y ago
This is the line and it's not ok. I am astounded that anyone here is entertaining the idea that it is somehow ok. Take out the "CSAM" noun from the equation - it really poisons the argument with emotion. "Apple devices check your files against government blacklist" is the headline, and not enough of us are saying "no."
gruturo 5y ago
The line is here. And this is absolutely not OK. It is ripe for abuse by governments, which Apple absolutely has a history of bowing to. Saudi Arabia WILL use this to track dissidents and homosexuals. China WILL use this for whatever they need, on a daily basis. Hell even the US will use this, I'm sure. The only way this would be OK was if the input data (the CSAM database) was cryptographically signed and no government, no single entity and not even Apple, could change the content, with the only signing key split in 10 parts to be held personally by Bruce Schneier, the Pope, Linus Torvalds, the Orthodox Patriarch, Keanu Reeves, a couple head Rabbis and a few of whatever their equivalent in Islam is, and they had to personally review the images one by one and certify that perceptual hash 0FB89C8A7DF6AA1945B is indeed CSAM content and agree to collectively sign it for addition. This would only work if the full IOS source was fully published, and compiled as a reproducible build, so everyone could confirm the scanning code does what it's supposed to, and is not altered with any subsequent update. P.S. Don't nitpick on the names, it was a deliberately absurd list of people either with a good reputation or with a lot to lose in the respectively chosen afterlife.

geocar 5y ago

> until there is a human set threshold hit by a human programmed algorithm. Humans at Apple thought nobody would have percent signs in their wifi names. Programming is hard, not because knowing how to tell the computer what you want is hard, but because thinking about all the ways people will use your software forever is hard.

nullifidian 5y ago

Yup, the horrible thing is not the current system itself, but the precedent they set. And if it's a semi-exact match algorithm like they say, it won't actually prevent any new abuse from happening.

nomel 5y ago
The precedent has been set long ago by Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Drop box and all of the other cloud image providers. From my understanding, the difference is that they scan in the cloud after being uploaded, which requires they decrypt your images in the cloud, rather than what Apple wants to do, scan on your device before uploading, so they don’t have to decrypt in the cloud. None of this scanning happens if the images aren’t destined for iCloud. This is moving he scan for the cloud service, that everyone is doing, to your phone. That’s the only difference that I see. Am I seeing it wrong?
- nullifidian 5y ago
  The precedent is scanning on the user's device, yes. As far as I understand they are trying to limit the stream of subpoenas for users data by encrypting everything, without being called pedo enablers or something like that. But what they are doing is in effect showing the governments and anti-freedom activists that it is in fact possible to do this on users' devices, thus building a foundation for further expansion of such scanning to all data, sent or stored, on all apps, on the operating system level, and not only of their own initiative, but as a result of a legislation. And then why would you not fight other things that are currently considered to be societal ills? It's the next logical step. There are plenty of countries where you could get real prison sentences for writing or saying things, all with "well intentioned" justifications of course. We are steadily moving towards a "digital gulag", and Apple is paving the way. All of this also shows those who value freedom as pedo enablers, forcing other companies to also implement similar processes.
- YokoSix 5y ago
  For now, yes. But people are worried that that's just the first step to get the snooping service onto your phone. Because why stop here? Soon it maybe scanning photos not just destined for iCloud. And why draw the line at photos? Videos, music, text files, anything could be interesting for governments, film studios and record companies. Why do you have an MP4 of the latest Spider-Man movie on your phone? Did you legally buy this Miles Davis album? Is this an image of a rainbow flag on your phone, my dear Russian citizen? It's just a small step from here to constantly scanning all your local files on iOS, padOS and macOS because someone, somewhere might want to take a look at them.

userbinator 5y ago

They're providing all of this information which says that this program that runs on our devices is incredibly safe if we're not bad people. That's not far from saying "only criminals have something to hide". Seeing this come from Apple, a company which has won a lot of popularity with its stance on privacy, is absolutely astounding and definitely makes one wonder whether there is an ulterior motive.

polyomino 5y ago
Stop defending Apple! They have always handed over their Chinese users' data to the authorities. They were always willing to compromise user privacy to the state. They once had a marketing stunt where they wouldn't unlock an iPhone for the FBI only after they had already handed them decrypted backups from the very same phone.
- birdyrooster 5y ago
  The marketing stunt was police throwing a fit and not the other way around.

switch007 5y ago

Well said. I knew it wouldn’t take long for discourse to switch to the morality, technical implementation etc. That is of course no accident.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

SergeAx 5y ago

If I don't have a root access to the device - it is not my device.

oneplane 5y ago
If you have root access it's also not your device, because you probably don't have BUP, BSP and SMM/SV mode access. And if you have those it's still not yours because you don't have access to the EDA source (or at least not much more detail than the basic silicon floorpan). This race to the bottom of 'ownership' ends nowhere. Do you really own your device if it uses NDA or licensed parts? (be it software or hardware) Do you really own your device if it depends on communications with other devices that you do not own? What about the first communication with a cell tower? The eNodeB? The RAN? The HLB? Or if you are communicating with someone, should you own their device as well? Say your boundary is communications, what communications are we talking about? SPI? I2C? MII? The interface between the baseband and de application processor? The matrix scanner on a physical keyboard? I'm not saying it's amazing to have an appliance where you don't control every aspect, but it's also not realistic to have a free-for-all at scale either. At the end of the day, when you live in a diverse society, not every device your pay for is a device that is your device. And that can be fine. (Diverse doesn't universally mean religion, shades of skin or nationality - we're talking about carpenters, mechanics, teachers, artists, bus drivers, bakers, none of those will ever 'own' a device or software stack at scale; if you put a bunch of people together, organise them and specialise, not everyone will 'do tech' to the same degree, if any)