6 ms·

There are two things that make me think this will be walked back. Firstly, and most importantly, this kind of backdoor is the kind of thing that makes big corp

There are two things that make me think this will be walked back. Firstly, and most importantly, this kind of backdoor is the kind of thing that makes big corps prohibit the use/purchases of devices. Secondly, it seems rife for abuse: dont like someone who uses an ios device, msg them some cp and destroy their entire life.

faeriechangling 5y ago
It seems easy as hell for them to just change the system to do server-side scanning instead of client-side scanning and it would probably be enough to calm the horde. I think people can understand, Apple can't have certain content on their servers. People have a much harder time understanding that Apple needs to make sure you don't have certain content on your phone.
- nrabulinski 5y ago
  If iCloud content was encrypted (as it should be given what Apple says about themselves and privacy) they wouldn’t and couldn’t care any less what the data on their servers contains since, ideally, they’d have no way of decrypting that data. No need for any privacy invasion! > Apple needs to make sure you don’t have certain content on your phone. Excuse me, what? What does Apple care what I have on my device?
  - vineyardmike 5y ago
    > they wouldn’t and couldn’t care any less what the data on their servers Except they're legally forced to care. Thats why this is happening at all. They have a legal obligation to care, encryption be damned. They chose to preserve encryption instead of preserve trust.
    - stjohnswarts 5y ago
      they really don't though. no one can force them to scan a user for anything, however if they do scan and spot CP then obviously they have a duty to report it. Just like you have a duty to report child abuse if you're a teacher. No scans, no CP, no issues. This has been forced on them by the government by some means I think, either the US government or the CCP.
      - vineyardmike 5y ago
        It sounds like (from discussions and links in HN and media) they actually have an obligation to scan any data they host. IANAL and could be wrong.
    - ipv6ipv4 5y ago
      No, they are not. I linked to the text of the law itself [1]. In particular note the section titled "protection of privacy" that states: (f) Protection of Privacy. —Nothing in this section shall be construed to require a provider to— (1) monitor any user, subscriber, or customer of that provider; (2) monitor the content of any communication of any person described in paragraph (1); or (3) affirmatively search, screen, or scan for facts or circumstances described in sections (a) and (b). [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2258A https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2258A
- stetrain 5y ago
  My understanding is they already do server-side. But relying on server-side alone means trying to end-to-end encrypt your data on the server would put them in political/legal crosshairs.
decebalus1 5y ago
> this kind of backdoor is the kind of thing that makes big corps prohibit the use/purchases of devices. I wouldn't be too hopeful about this. They can just disable this feature if the device is enrolled in MDM. For enterprise devices, the company itself is responsible for what's on them. And depending on the company, they may already scan all content for a bunch of stuff (like exfiltrating trade secrets or whatever).
azinman2 5y ago
> Secondly, it seems rife for abuse: dont like someone who uses an ios device, msg them some cp and destroy their entire life. I see this a lot. First of all, if you even have CP in the first place that seems quite bad and that you've made yourself vulnerable. Messaging someone will also reveal yourself as the sender. But my bigger question of this hypothetical issue is that Facebook, Google, Dropbox, Microsoft, etc etc have been scanning for CP all of this time on their servers. So it's not like this is somehow a new proposition. Thus wouldn't this already be a big issue through the many, many more people that use all of these other company's cloud products?
- DarkmSparks 5y ago
  >Messaging someone will also reveal yourself as the sender Sending a link to 4chan /b would probably be enough. Or a hidden iFrame in a forum post. Its very very easy to get images onto someones device without their consent, getting them to upload them to a 3rd party is completely different.
  - azinman2 5y ago
    So again, how is this different from Google Photos, Facebook messenger, etc etc? If this really was such an issue we would have hit it long ago. CSAM scanning is going occurring for photos that would be uploaded to iCloud.
    - DarkmSparks 5y ago
      because its scanning the content of the device, not what you did on the device. An iFrame full of CP downloaded from 4chan that fills the browser cache with CP just by visiting a harmless site would not go anywhere near Google Photos, Facebook messenger, etc etc It would trigger a scanner checking the browser cache for CP images. Those are just the obvious ways, by "rife" I mean there is any number of ways to get CP onto someones device without them knowing, unless the device itself is being scanned nothing would achieved by this. And if you dont think people are that messed up, check: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swatting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swatting
resfirestar 5y ago
>dont like someone who uses an ios device, msg them some cp and destroy their entire life. For this to work one would have to send multiple photos and convince the other person to save the photos to their library.
- Tsiklon 5y ago
  WhatsApp on iOS for example will by default, save images that people send to you to your photo gallery.
  - FabHK 5y ago
    What about WhatsApp on Android? If it also stores to the local photo library, and then syncs to the cloud, then it would have been subject to this "vulnerability" for a long time, no?
swiley 5y ago
Apple's choices are do this or give people admin rights on their devices. Keep in mind there are iOS features for doing admin on the device that are kept internally, so that wouldn't require much (if any) new software. One makes them look bad and the other makes them lose money. Which do you think they will choose?

faeriechangling 5y ago

It seems easy as hell for them to just change the system to do server-side scanning instead of client-side scanning and it would probably be enough to calm the horde. I think people can understand, Apple can't have certain content on their servers. People have a much harder time understanding that Apple needs to make sure you don't have certain content on your phone.

nrabulinski 5y ago
If iCloud content was encrypted (as it should be given what Apple says about themselves and privacy) they wouldn’t and couldn’t care any less what the data on their servers contains since, ideally, they’d have no way of decrypting that data. No need for any privacy invasion! > Apple needs to make sure you don’t have certain content on your phone. Excuse me, what? What does Apple care what I have on my device?
- vineyardmike 5y ago
  > they wouldn’t and couldn’t care any less what the data on their servers Except they're legally forced to care. Thats why this is happening at all. They have a legal obligation to care, encryption be damned. They chose to preserve encryption instead of preserve trust.
  - stjohnswarts 5y ago
    they really don't though. no one can force them to scan a user for anything, however if they do scan and spot CP then obviously they have a duty to report it. Just like you have a duty to report child abuse if you're a teacher. No scans, no CP, no issues. This has been forced on them by the government by some means I think, either the US government or the CCP.
    - vineyardmike 5y ago
      It sounds like (from discussions and links in HN and media) they actually have an obligation to scan any data they host. IANAL and could be wrong.
  - ipv6ipv4 5y ago
    No, they are not. I linked to the text of the law itself [1]. In particular note the section titled "protection of privacy" that states: (f) Protection of Privacy. —Nothing in this section shall be construed to require a provider to— (1) monitor any user, subscriber, or customer of that provider; (2) monitor the content of any communication of any person described in paragraph (1); or (3) affirmatively search, screen, or scan for facts or circumstances described in sections (a) and (b). [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2258A https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2258A
stetrain 5y ago
My understanding is they already do server-side. But relying on server-side alone means trying to end-to-end encrypt your data on the server would put them in political/legal crosshairs.

decebalus1 5y ago

> this kind of backdoor is the kind of thing that makes big corps prohibit the use/purchases of devices. I wouldn't be too hopeful about this. They can just disable this feature if the device is enrolled in MDM. For enterprise devices, the company itself is responsible for what's on them. And depending on the company, they may already scan all content for a bunch of stuff (like exfiltrating trade secrets or whatever).

azinman2 5y ago

> Secondly, it seems rife for abuse: dont like someone who uses an ios device, msg them some cp and destroy their entire life. I see this a lot. First of all, if you even have CP in the first place that seems quite bad and that you've made yourself vulnerable. Messaging someone will also reveal yourself as the sender. But my bigger question of this hypothetical issue is that Facebook, Google, Dropbox, Microsoft, etc etc have been scanning for CP all of this time on their servers. So it's not like this is somehow a new proposition. Thus wouldn't this already be a big issue through the many, many more people that use all of these other company's cloud products?

DarkmSparks 5y ago
>Messaging someone will also reveal yourself as the sender Sending a link to 4chan /b would probably be enough. Or a hidden iFrame in a forum post. Its very very easy to get images onto someones device without their consent, getting them to upload them to a 3rd party is completely different.
- azinman2 5y ago
  So again, how is this different from Google Photos, Facebook messenger, etc etc? If this really was such an issue we would have hit it long ago. CSAM scanning is going occurring for photos that would be uploaded to iCloud.
  - DarkmSparks 5y ago
    because its scanning the content of the device, not what you did on the device. An iFrame full of CP downloaded from 4chan that fills the browser cache with CP just by visiting a harmless site would not go anywhere near Google Photos, Facebook messenger, etc etc It would trigger a scanner checking the browser cache for CP images. Those are just the obvious ways, by "rife" I mean there is any number of ways to get CP onto someones device without them knowing, unless the device itself is being scanned nothing would achieved by this. And if you dont think people are that messed up, check: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swatting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swatting

resfirestar 5y ago

>dont like someone who uses an ios device, msg them some cp and destroy their entire life. For this to work one would have to send multiple photos and convince the other person to save the photos to their library.

Tsiklon 5y ago
WhatsApp on iOS for example will by default, save images that people send to you to your photo gallery.
- FabHK 5y ago
  What about WhatsApp on Android? If it also stores to the local photo library, and then syncs to the cloud, then it would have been subject to this "vulnerability" for a long time, no?

swiley 5y ago

Apple's choices are do this or give people admin rights on their devices. Keep in mind there are iOS features for doing admin on the device that are kept internally, so that wouldn't require much (if any) new software. One makes them look bad and the other makes them lose money. Which do you think they will choose?