4 ms·

> It scans your photos, for known CSAM images No, it scans photos for arbitray (fancy) hashes, and Apple chooses to limit it to CSAM images. Nothing about the

> It scans your photos, for known CSAM images No, it scans photos for arbitray (fancy) hashes, and Apple chooses to limit it to CSAM images. Nothing about the tech prevents it from being expanded to other kinds of images. And from what I understand, nothing prevents it from being expanded to other filetypes either, does it? The only thing that ties this tech to CSAM images is Apples promise (and claim) to keep the scope limited.

threeseed 5y ago
This sort of argument is just bizarre to me. If you think Apple is on a slippery slope and will just expand this feature without any consideration then why have an issue now ? Apple already has your unencrypted photos. They could scan it server-side. Or they scan it on your device and simply not tell you. And they can push OS updates without you knowing to enable all of this. Apple could even push CSAM to your phone and frame you if they wanted to. They control ALL of the keys to your device whilst you are using iCloud and allowing software updates.
- randomhodler84 5y ago
  … yes. And it will take less than 2 years for the world to push new entires, as had happened for the last 10y. They will be forced to detect rafts of totally unrelated content, ranging from king photos in Thailand to Winnie the Pooh in China. This is going to happen. You need to put away your “protect the children” pearls and realize wtf game they are playing here. It’s always about protecting the children, and folks fall for it every time.
carom 5y ago
The only thing that prevents Apple, Microsoft, or Ubuntu from executing arbitrary code on your system is their promise to keep the scope of updates limited. You already operate under this trust model.
- 2pEXgD0fZ5cF 5y ago
  > You already operate under this trust model. Do I? Can you elaborate? Do you notice a difference between a company (potentially) doing this behind closed doors and as quietly as possible and doing this in a public official way? What if I tell you I don't use any of the operating systems you listed? Does your answer change? I have a question: Would you welcome such a move? Do you believe that taking things a bit further would be nice because "we might catch a few criminals"?
  - threeseed 5y ago
    If you are not compiling your operating system, every library and every application from scratch then you are blindly trusting third parties. And if you are assuming Apple can't be trusted when they say they won't expand this to non-CSAM use cases then not sure why you would then trust Microsoft, Ubuntu etc.
    - 2pEXgD0fZ5cF 5y ago
      > If you are not compiling your operating system, every library and every application from scratch then you are blindly trusting third parties. This implies that trust is always the same and that if you trust one entity (because you did not event limit your answer to corporations) you are supposed to trust everyone and if that is not the case then you have some kind of logical error in your thinking. It also implies that losing the trust in one entity, but not some other, doesn't make sense somehow.
      - simondotau 5y ago
        That makes sense—so long as you lose trust in the entity when they actually betray that trust.
- xunn0026 5y ago
  Trust but verify. There's enough eyes on the Ubuntu binaries and network traffic that if Canonical would intentionally infect some binaries it would make the news. Remember that Apple quite recently tried to prevent local firewalls from even seeing the traffic of their own apps on macOS. That doesn't seem trustworthy. Of course, companies and some people have external firewalls too.
shadilay 5y ago
It's really bizarre that the risk isn't more obvious to people. Apple is partnering with foreign countries organizations who will supply CSAM hashes except that there is no way Apple can actually verify this. To do so Apple would be asking these foreign organizations to send them CSAM creating a massive liability. Instead Apple will just be flagging arbitrary file hashes from countries that will absolutely poison the well.

threeseed 5y ago

This sort of argument is just bizarre to me. If you think Apple is on a slippery slope and will just expand this feature without any consideration then why have an issue now ? Apple already has your unencrypted photos. They could scan it server-side. Or they scan it on your device and simply not tell you. And they can push OS updates without you knowing to enable all of this. Apple could even push CSAM to your phone and frame you if they wanted to. They control ALL of the keys to your device whilst you are using iCloud and allowing software updates.

randomhodler84 5y ago
… yes. And it will take less than 2 years for the world to push new entires, as had happened for the last 10y. They will be forced to detect rafts of totally unrelated content, ranging from king photos in Thailand to Winnie the Pooh in China. This is going to happen. You need to put away your “protect the children” pearls and realize wtf game they are playing here. It’s always about protecting the children, and folks fall for it every time.

carom 5y ago

The only thing that prevents Apple, Microsoft, or Ubuntu from executing arbitrary code on your system is their promise to keep the scope of updates limited. You already operate under this trust model.

2pEXgD0fZ5cF 5y ago
> You already operate under this trust model. Do I? Can you elaborate? Do you notice a difference between a company (potentially) doing this behind closed doors and as quietly as possible and doing this in a public official way? What if I tell you I don't use any of the operating systems you listed? Does your answer change? I have a question: Would you welcome such a move? Do you believe that taking things a bit further would be nice because "we might catch a few criminals"?
- threeseed 5y ago
  If you are not compiling your operating system, every library and every application from scratch then you are blindly trusting third parties. And if you are assuming Apple can't be trusted when they say they won't expand this to non-CSAM use cases then not sure why you would then trust Microsoft, Ubuntu etc.
  - 2pEXgD0fZ5cF 5y ago
    > If you are not compiling your operating system, every library and every application from scratch then you are blindly trusting third parties. This implies that trust is always the same and that if you trust one entity (because you did not event limit your answer to corporations) you are supposed to trust everyone and if that is not the case then you have some kind of logical error in your thinking. It also implies that losing the trust in one entity, but not some other, doesn't make sense somehow.
    - simondotau 5y ago
      That makes sense—so long as you lose trust in the entity when they actually betray that trust.
xunn0026 5y ago
Trust but verify. There's enough eyes on the Ubuntu binaries and network traffic that if Canonical would intentionally infect some binaries it would make the news. Remember that Apple quite recently tried to prevent local firewalls from even seeing the traffic of their own apps on macOS. That doesn't seem trustworthy. Of course, companies and some people have external firewalls too.

shadilay 5y ago

It's really bizarre that the risk isn't more obvious to people. Apple is partnering with foreign countries organizations who will supply CSAM hashes except that there is no way Apple can actually verify this. To do so Apple would be asking these foreign organizations to send them CSAM creating a massive liability. Instead Apple will just be flagging arbitrary file hashes from countries that will absolutely poison the well.