4 ms·

This analogy only works at a superficial, technical level. When a virus scanner finds a virus, it alerts me and I can either quarantine or delete it. It’s up to

This analogy only works at a superficial, technical level. When a virus scanner finds a virus, it alerts me and I can either quarantine or delete it. It’s up to me to decide if what it’s found is actually a virus, or a false positive. When Apple's tool thinks it’s found the material it’s looking for, the assumption is that I am a pedophile who collects CSAM.

bitwize 5y ago
Rather than oppose a measure to protect children because of the fear of a few false positives, why can't you accept the fact that the societal benefit outweighs the potential risk? A few innocent men might be condemned to rot -- or be murdered -- in prison, but Apple has developed a system that mostly protects your privacy and could save the lives of potentially millions of children around the world. The rights of a few harmed innocents must be balanced against the greater societal good. (/s in case you were wondering)
- unityByFreedom 5y ago
  Sarcasm doesn't land well here, especially when it's a long comment. Thinking about false positives is the wrong thing to focus on. The point is the technology could be applied to any image such as Tiannanmen Square, Hong Kong, depictions of God, Muhammad, or Jesus, etc.
- the_other 5y ago
  > why can't you accept the fact that the societal benefit outweighs the potential risk? Because a shit technical solution (which opens the doors to other abuses) isn’t the fix. Because Apple are not the government. A meaningful scheme to protect the children would need: - better sex ed in schools - better education for parents and people who would like to become parents as to the risks and signs - publicly announced meaningful support for people who self-identify with dangerous thoughts and seek help before their thoughts become behaviours - better support for people from abusive homes as they mature - (probably) two or three generations to pass through before you could measure statistically sound improvement
  - raxxorrax 5y ago
    Funding of child care would identify the kids that are abused. Identifying any bad actor becomes much easier and targeted without compromising the privacy of everyone. More eyes on the problem and you will get better results. Easy solution that cannot be abused by bad political actors.
- junon 5y ago
  /s doesn't work here, it's not reddit.
- arvinsim 5y ago
  > Rather than oppose a measure to protect children because of the fear of a few false positives, why can't you accept the fact that the societal benefit outweighs the potential risk? But Apple apologists has been telling me all day that I could stop the system from scanning if I just disable iCloud. If a person can disable it that easily, then the system is effectively useless.
nicce 5y ago
> When a virus scanner finds a virus, it alerts me and I can either quarantine or delete it. It’s up to me to decide if what it’s found is actually a virus, or a false positive. This is also a bit superficial. If you are breaking the law, you can't decide by yourself whether you are breaking the law of not. That is up to the judge. While you can quarantine or delete the virus, AV vendor is still getting all the stats. It is not maybe including PhotoDNA matches but cryptographical hashes are included for identical match. It is still perfectly legal to inform CSAM content against these matches, and we can't be sure if that has been made or not. In case of Windows Defender, what if automatic sample submission is enabled? Uploading and storing a file makes Windows as cloud-provider for this specific scenario, and is required by law to report CSAM content. Who knows if PhotoDNA is also applied into this content, but that hasn't been told yet? It is legal, there is no need to to tell that.

bitwize 5y ago

Rather than oppose a measure to protect children because of the fear of a few false positives, why can't you accept the fact that the societal benefit outweighs the potential risk? A few innocent men might be condemned to rot -- or be murdered -- in prison, but Apple has developed a system that mostly protects your privacy and could save the lives of potentially millions of children around the world. The rights of a few harmed innocents must be balanced against the greater societal good. (/s in case you were wondering)

unityByFreedom 5y ago
Sarcasm doesn't land well here, especially when it's a long comment. Thinking about false positives is the wrong thing to focus on. The point is the technology could be applied to any image such as Tiannanmen Square, Hong Kong, depictions of God, Muhammad, or Jesus, etc.
the_other 5y ago
> why can't you accept the fact that the societal benefit outweighs the potential risk? Because a shit technical solution (which opens the doors to other abuses) isn’t the fix. Because Apple are not the government. A meaningful scheme to protect the children would need: - better sex ed in schools - better education for parents and people who would like to become parents as to the risks and signs - publicly announced meaningful support for people who self-identify with dangerous thoughts and seek help before their thoughts become behaviours - better support for people from abusive homes as they mature - (probably) two or three generations to pass through before you could measure statistically sound improvement
- raxxorrax 5y ago
  Funding of child care would identify the kids that are abused. Identifying any bad actor becomes much easier and targeted without compromising the privacy of everyone. More eyes on the problem and you will get better results. Easy solution that cannot be abused by bad political actors.
junon 5y ago
/s doesn't work here, it's not reddit.
arvinsim 5y ago
> Rather than oppose a measure to protect children because of the fear of a few false positives, why can't you accept the fact that the societal benefit outweighs the potential risk? But Apple apologists has been telling me all day that I could stop the system from scanning if I just disable iCloud. If a person can disable it that easily, then the system is effectively useless.

nicce 5y ago

> When a virus scanner finds a virus, it alerts me and I can either quarantine or delete it. It’s up to me to decide if what it’s found is actually a virus, or a false positive. This is also a bit superficial. If you are breaking the law, you can't decide by yourself whether you are breaking the law of not. That is up to the judge. While you can quarantine or delete the virus, AV vendor is still getting all the stats. It is not maybe including PhotoDNA matches but cryptographical hashes are included for identical match. It is still perfectly legal to inform CSAM content against these matches, and we can't be sure if that has been made or not. In case of Windows Defender, what if automatic sample submission is enabled? Uploading and storing a file makes Windows as cloud-provider for this specific scenario, and is required by law to report CSAM content. Who knows if PhotoDNA is also applied into this content, but that hasn't been told yet? It is legal, there is no need to to tell that.