4 ms·

> You're painting people who are against on device scanning as being pro-hosting kiddie porn, and that's a terrible base for an argument. I do no such thing in

by notJim 5y ago

> You're painting people who are against on device scanning as being pro-hosting kiddie porn, and that's a terrible base for an argument. I do no such thing in my revised statement. I'm saying there's a tradeoff, and I come down differently than most on the tradeoff. Obviously no one wants CSAM on their servers, but one of the options will result in more Apple hosting more CSAM. I'm sorry if you still don't like my phrasing, but it's objectively true. Fundamentally, I feel like a lot of people on HN refuse to justify this tradeoff.

BoorishBears 5y ago
> I personally would not make that tradeoff, as I do not want to host a website that distributes CSAM. When you say that it means people who would do want to host a website that distributes CSAM. The reality is people are ok with unknowingly being one of many many places that all types of "horrible things" can be hosted because when we look back at history "horrible things" has a very flexible meaning. We can all agree CSAM is horrible, but what you're failing to understand is that nothing prevents politically unfavored statements from being "horrible things". And this is a one-way ticket here, once Apple rolls this out there's no longer a way to confirm they're not signaling to authorities over other types of content. This is especially problematic in countries where Apple has already been known to cooperate with oppressive regimes... - Like I said, even painting allowing matches and allowing forest fires as a "trade-off" is disingenuous. There are a lot of things that allow more CSAM, again like any form of E2EE messaging. In the end your argument boils down to "it reduces CSAM", but that logic is just making a paperclip machine. Cameras are used for CSAM, so less cameras is less CSAM. Photos might be physically distributed so now lets have printers scan for specific hashes too. Encryption prevents ISPs from detecting CSAM, let's block https... By itself it's just not a useful argument.
- notJim 5y ago
  You are not engaging with my argument in good faith. This has been a terrible waste of time.
  - BoorishBears 5y ago
    It's been a terrible waste of my time, I agree.
- jodrellblank 5y ago
  > "once Apple rolls this out there's no longer a way to confirm they're not signaling to authorities over other types of content." What way are you confirming that at present?
  - BoorishBears 5y ago
    You mean how am I confirming they're not already scanning on device content for "problematic" things? Maybe because they're announcing they're doing it now? Or is this supposed to be a gotcha about OSS... because unless everyone builds every binary and every compiler from scratch and starts running xray machines on SoCs "knowing what runs on your device" isn't enough, you need to trust some root authority somewhere...

by notJim 5y ago

BoorishBears 5y ago

> I personally would not make that tradeoff, as I do not want to host a website that distributes CSAM. When you say that it means people who would do want to host a website that distributes CSAM. The reality is people are ok with unknowingly being one of many many places that all types of "horrible things" can be hosted because when we look back at history "horrible things" has a very flexible meaning. We can all agree CSAM is horrible, but what you're failing to understand is that nothing prevents politically unfavored statements from being "horrible things". And this is a one-way ticket here, once Apple rolls this out there's no longer a way to confirm they're not signaling to authorities over other types of content. This is especially problematic in countries where Apple has already been known to cooperate with oppressive regimes... - Like I said, even painting allowing matches and allowing forest fires as a "trade-off" is disingenuous. There are a lot of things that allow more CSAM, again like any form of E2EE messaging. In the end your argument boils down to "it reduces CSAM", but that logic is just making a paperclip machine. Cameras are used for CSAM, so less cameras is less CSAM. Photos might be physically distributed so now lets have printers scan for specific hashes too. Encryption prevents ISPs from detecting CSAM, let's block https... By itself it's just not a useful argument.

notJim 5y ago
You are not engaging with my argument in good faith. This has been a terrible waste of time.
- BoorishBears 5y ago
  It's been a terrible waste of my time, I agree.
jodrellblank 5y ago
> "once Apple rolls this out there's no longer a way to confirm they're not signaling to authorities over other types of content." What way are you confirming that at present?
- BoorishBears 5y ago
  You mean how am I confirming they're not already scanning on device content for "problematic" things? Maybe because they're announcing they're doing it now? Or is this supposed to be a gotcha about OSS... because unless everyone builds every binary and every compiler from scratch and starts running xray machines on SoCs "knowing what runs on your device" isn't enough, you need to trust some root authority somewhere...