6 ms·

There are a lot of articles about Apples hadh algorithm and for me they are mostly irrelevant to the main problem. The main problem is that Apple has backdoore

by antman 5y ago

There are a lot of articles about Apples hadh algorithm and for me they are mostly irrelevant to the main problem. The main problem is that Apple has backdoored my device. More types of bad images or other files will be scanned since now apple does not have plausible deniablity to defend any of ghe government’x requests. In the future a false? positive that happened? to be of a political file that crept in the list can pin point people to the future dictator wannabe. It’s always about the children or terrorism.

baggy_trough 5y ago
Exactly. The issue is that the iPhone is now a snitch AI for whatever purpose Apple deems fit.
- sooheon 5y ago
  Drug dogs have a 50~80% false positive rate, because after they've been certified as capable of detecting drugs, they get that trained out of them the field to instead indicate whatever the handler wants indicated.
  - kfprt 5y ago
    Drug dogs are "probable cause on four legs". https://www.npr.org/2017/11/20/563889510/preventing-police-bias-when-handling-dogs-that-bite https://www.npr.org/2017/11/20/563889510/preventing-police-b...
ziml77 5y ago
They could have done all that without telling you. And as long as the traffic was combined with normal traffic no one would ever notice (and in this case it would end up mixed with normal traffic since it only applies to images being uploaded to iCloud, so communication with Apples servers would be expected). What it looks like to me is that Apple is planning on releasing end-to-end encryption for iCloud. But they know that whenever E2EE comes up, people get mad that terrorists, child molesters, and mass shooters can hide their data and communications. Hell, they've been painted as the villain when they say they can't unlock iPhones for the FBI. This heads off those concerns for the most common out of those crimes.
- noptd 5y ago
  Sticking to the apt analogy from the article, >To reiterate: scanning your device is not a privacy risk, but copying files from your device without any notice is definitely a privacy issue. > Think of it this way: Your landlord owns your property, but in the United States, he cannot enter any time he wants. In order to enter, the landlord must have permission, give prior notice, or have cause. Any other reason is trespassing. Moreover, if the landlord takes anything, then it's theft. Apple's license agreement says that they own the operating system, but that doesn't give them permission to search whenever they want or to take content. This viewpoint is like thanking your landlord for warning you that they are going to enter your home and root through your private items, all in the name of some greater good. Let's not spin it as if the landlord is doing us a favor in this scenario.
  - ziml77 5y ago
    That first line of the quote is misrepresenting what Apple is doing. They are not copying files from your device. You are sending them the files. As it stands the only images that will be scanned are the ones you are uploading to iCloud. And I'd be shocked if they weren't already analyzing those images on the server side. When it comes to governments being able to pressure them into being more invasive, nothing has changed with this update. If a government wanted to poison the CSAM database, they could have already. You'd end up reported when the server does the scanning. If the government wanted to expand scanning to include things that you're not uploading, they already could have asked Apple to do that. It would have been possible to silently add a much simpler scanning mechanism or data exfiltration into an update. This isn't a spin to say anyone is doing us a favor. iCloud should be end-to-end encrypted and there shouldn't be any scanning at all. But why should that opinion on how we should treat privacy be taken as the only valid opinion? The people who do want the scanning are not simply asking for it because they are stupid or uninformed. Instead they put different weights into what they value.
- sooheon 5y ago
  > What it looks like to me is that Apple is planning on releasing end-to-end encryption for iCloud This is Gruber's optimistic take on it as well. If so, why not make both changes at once? Given that they've walked back E2EE on iCloud before, I'm not holding my breath.
alisonkisk 5y ago
Apple has front-doored your device from Day 1.
perryizgr8 5y ago
> The main problem is that Apple has backdoored my device. Isn't that the shtick with Apple though? That they own the devices you rent and you don't have to worry too much about it. They always had the backdoor in place, they used it for software updates. Now they will also use it for another thing.
- Sebb767 5y ago
  > That they own the devices you rent and you don't have to worry too much about it. You didn't need to worry about it because they did a sufficiently good job at making the choices for you. This is a sign that they stopped doing so. An appropriate metaphor might be a secretary. They can handle a lot of busy work for you so you don't have to worry about it, but they need access to your calendar, mails etc. to do so. This is not an intrusion as long as they work on your favor. If you suddenly find your mails on the desk of your competitor, though, you might reconsider. That, however, does not mean that the whole idea of a secretary is flawed.
  - perryizgr8 5y ago
    I agree. I am just saying that Apple has always had massive backdoors in place. People were always pointing it out as a huge plus for iDevices. So no, the parent's main problem is not the backdoor. Otherwise they would have complained long ago.
zepto 5y ago
> More types of bad images or other files will be scanned since now apple does not have plausible deniablity to defend any of ghe government’x requests. The mechanism doesn’t scan anything except images, and won’t trigger on a single bad image - only a set. Yes, that set could be something other than child porn, assuming Apple and NCMEC conspire, but this is not a general purpose backdoor.
- katbyte 5y ago
  It also only scans images uploaded to icloud
  - hef19898 5y ago
    It does that on the device. All it takes is enabling it by default, instead of triggering the scan prior to upload, and add more hashes to flag. The result would be a total loss of privacy, basically Apple is privatising mass surveillance with that. Without oversight, no matter how small, or accountability.
    - zepto 5y ago
      How would this let them scan the text of your signal messages or even your iMessages? How would this let them search for a subversive PDF? It wouldn’t. This is just fearmongering. > The result would be a total loss of privacy, basically Apple is privatising mass surveillance with that. Without oversight, no matter how small, or accountability. You are talking about an imagined system someone could build in the future, not the system Apple has put in place.
  - ok123456 5y ago
    "Don't worry this malware is only triggered if you double click it. -- signed the author"
- lazide 5y ago
  Literally Apple could just add a different set to the set of hashes they push? That seems very naive.
xanaxagoras 5y ago
This is mainly where I come down on this. I care about what they’re doing not why they’re doing it. What they are doing is examining my private files, and that is simply unacceptable.

by antman 5y ago

baggy_trough 5y ago

Exactly. The issue is that the iPhone is now a snitch AI for whatever purpose Apple deems fit.

sooheon 5y ago
Drug dogs have a 50~80% false positive rate, because after they've been certified as capable of detecting drugs, they get that trained out of them the field to instead indicate whatever the handler wants indicated.
- kfprt 5y ago
  Drug dogs are "probable cause on four legs". https://www.npr.org/2017/11/20/563889510/preventing-police-bias-when-handling-dogs-that-bite https://www.npr.org/2017/11/20/563889510/preventing-police-b...

ziml77 5y ago

They could have done all that without telling you. And as long as the traffic was combined with normal traffic no one would ever notice (and in this case it would end up mixed with normal traffic since it only applies to images being uploaded to iCloud, so communication with Apples servers would be expected). What it looks like to me is that Apple is planning on releasing end-to-end encryption for iCloud. But they know that whenever E2EE comes up, people get mad that terrorists, child molesters, and mass shooters can hide their data and communications. Hell, they've been painted as the villain when they say they can't unlock iPhones for the FBI. This heads off those concerns for the most common out of those crimes.

noptd 5y ago
Sticking to the apt analogy from the article, >To reiterate: scanning your device is not a privacy risk, but copying files from your device without any notice is definitely a privacy issue. > Think of it this way: Your landlord owns your property, but in the United States, he cannot enter any time he wants. In order to enter, the landlord must have permission, give prior notice, or have cause. Any other reason is trespassing. Moreover, if the landlord takes anything, then it's theft. Apple's license agreement says that they own the operating system, but that doesn't give them permission to search whenever they want or to take content. This viewpoint is like thanking your landlord for warning you that they are going to enter your home and root through your private items, all in the name of some greater good. Let's not spin it as if the landlord is doing us a favor in this scenario.
- ziml77 5y ago
  That first line of the quote is misrepresenting what Apple is doing. They are not copying files from your device. You are sending them the files. As it stands the only images that will be scanned are the ones you are uploading to iCloud. And I'd be shocked if they weren't already analyzing those images on the server side. When it comes to governments being able to pressure them into being more invasive, nothing has changed with this update. If a government wanted to poison the CSAM database, they could have already. You'd end up reported when the server does the scanning. If the government wanted to expand scanning to include things that you're not uploading, they already could have asked Apple to do that. It would have been possible to silently add a much simpler scanning mechanism or data exfiltration into an update. This isn't a spin to say anyone is doing us a favor. iCloud should be end-to-end encrypted and there shouldn't be any scanning at all. But why should that opinion on how we should treat privacy be taken as the only valid opinion? The people who do want the scanning are not simply asking for it because they are stupid or uninformed. Instead they put different weights into what they value.
sooheon 5y ago
> What it looks like to me is that Apple is planning on releasing end-to-end encryption for iCloud This is Gruber's optimistic take on it as well. If so, why not make both changes at once? Given that they've walked back E2EE on iCloud before, I'm not holding my breath.

alisonkisk 5y ago

Apple has front-doored your device from Day 1.

perryizgr8 5y ago

> The main problem is that Apple has backdoored my device. Isn't that the shtick with Apple though? That they own the devices you rent and you don't have to worry too much about it. They always had the backdoor in place, they used it for software updates. Now they will also use it for another thing.

Sebb767 5y ago
> That they own the devices you rent and you don't have to worry too much about it. You didn't need to worry about it because they did a sufficiently good job at making the choices for you. This is a sign that they stopped doing so. An appropriate metaphor might be a secretary. They can handle a lot of busy work for you so you don't have to worry about it, but they need access to your calendar, mails etc. to do so. This is not an intrusion as long as they work on your favor. If you suddenly find your mails on the desk of your competitor, though, you might reconsider. That, however, does not mean that the whole idea of a secretary is flawed.
- perryizgr8 5y ago
  I agree. I am just saying that Apple has always had massive backdoors in place. People were always pointing it out as a huge plus for iDevices. So no, the parent's main problem is not the backdoor. Otherwise they would have complained long ago.

zepto 5y ago

> More types of bad images or other files will be scanned since now apple does not have plausible deniablity to defend any of ghe government’x requests. The mechanism doesn’t scan anything except images, and won’t trigger on a single bad image - only a set. Yes, that set could be something other than child porn, assuming Apple and NCMEC conspire, but this is not a general purpose backdoor.

katbyte 5y ago
It also only scans images uploaded to icloud
- hef19898 5y ago
  It does that on the device. All it takes is enabling it by default, instead of triggering the scan prior to upload, and add more hashes to flag. The result would be a total loss of privacy, basically Apple is privatising mass surveillance with that. Without oversight, no matter how small, or accountability.
  - zepto 5y ago
    How would this let them scan the text of your signal messages or even your iMessages? How would this let them search for a subversive PDF? It wouldn’t. This is just fearmongering. > The result would be a total loss of privacy, basically Apple is privatising mass surveillance with that. Without oversight, no matter how small, or accountability. You are talking about an imagined system someone could build in the future, not the system Apple has put in place.
- ok123456 5y ago
  "Don't worry this malware is only triggered if you double click it. -- signed the author"
lazide 5y ago
Literally Apple could just add a different set to the set of hashes they push? That seems very naive.

xanaxagoras 5y ago

This is mainly where I come down on this. I care about what they’re doing not why they’re doing it. What they are doing is examining my private files, and that is simply unacceptable.