19 ms·

Don't feel bad at all. I dumped macOS entirely from production workflow. I cannot work on computer knowing that something is "scanning" me and I am glad that my

by nbzso 5y ago

Don't feel bad at all. I dumped macOS entirely from production workflow. I cannot work on computer knowing that something is "scanning" me and I am glad that my "paranoid" feeling stopped me to upgrade all office macs. Billionaires at (Apple) don't give a flying f*ck about users privacy. It is all vertical integration in the name of world domination. How removed from reality they are. This is week after Pegasus/NSO and there is no law who requires them to "scan" on device. So the logical explanation is "growth". Way to go Apple.

mschuster91 5y ago
> and there is no law who requires them to "scan" on device Yet. The demands by "concerned parents" (aka fronts for secret services, puritans/other religious fundamentalists and law-and-order hardliners) to "do something against child porn" have grown ever more strong and insane over the last years. (And you can bet that what is used on CSAM will immediately be used to go after legal pornography, sex work, drug enforcement, ...) Many current and powerful politicians don't understand a single bit about computers, to the point of bragging of never having used one (e.g. Japan's cybersecurity minister) or having assistants print out emails daily and transcribing handwritten responses (can't say more than that this is the situation for at least two German MPs) - but there are young politicians who do, and will replace them over the next decade hopefully. That means it's last chance for lobbying groups to get devastating laws passed through, and we must all be vigorous in spotting and preventing at least the worst of them. And what is suspiciously lacking in Apple's response: what are they going to do when they are compelled to extend the CSAM scanner by law in the US, India, China and/or EU? It's feasible for Apple to say they'll just be sticking the middle finger towards markets such as Russia, Saudi-Arabia or similar tiny dictatorships, but the big markets? Apple can't ignore these, and especially India and China are heavyweights.
- Grustaf 5y ago
  Why would they extend the CSAM scanner? It would be much simpler to just use all the OCR and image classification functions they have already deployed. CSAM scanning is only useful for areas where Apple really doesn't want to even look at the actual material until they are extremely certain that it's a match. If they want to detect anti-government propaganda or something, there would be no such concerns, they would just do a regex search of your inbox. Infinitely more convenient.
  - sandworm101 5y ago
    >> useful for areas where Apple really doesn't want to even look at the actual material Correct. It has plausible deniability built in. Apple is unable to verify that the images the government are looking for are actually CSAM. They could be political. They could be protest images. They could be Winnie the Pooh. Apple can plead ignorance as it blindly scans for whatever the requesting government asks it to scan for. Nobody really minds that this system is going to be used for CSAM. What everyone recognizes is how ripe this system is for abuse, how easily it can be leveraged by oppressive governments. And Apple can play the innocent.
    - ethbr0 5y ago
      Why even keep Apple in the loop? Why not just allow government to submit scanning models directly? Which Apple will dutifully install and run, because they're required by local laws.
      - jodrellblank 5y ago
        > "Which Apple will dutifully install and run, because they're required by local laws." Which Apple have stated that they won't do, and have designed the system so they can't do that without it being found out: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28221082 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28221082 Can't you at least post accurate information about this system and support outrage based on facts instead of fantasy?
        mschuster91 5y ago
        > Which Apple have stated that they won't do For your random off-of-the-mill dictatorship, yes. For the US? EU? China? India? No way they can refuse such a request from these markets. And if they could and get away with it, it would be a very worrying situation in itself regarding (democratic) control of government over global mega corporations.
        5y ago
- jodrellblank 5y ago
  > "and what is suspiciously lacking in Apple's response: what are they going to do when they are compelled to extend the CSAM scanner by law in the US, India, China and/or EU?" from https://daringfireball.net/linked/2021/08/09/apple-csam-faq https://daringfireball.net/linked/2021/08/09/apple-csam-faq - "we will not accede to any government’s request to expand it." From https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/craig-federighi-says-apple-e2-80-99s-child-safety-scanning-will-have-e2-80-98multiple-levels-of-auditability-e2-80-99/ar-AANhVhG https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/craig-federighi-sa... - "“We ship the same software in China with the same database we ship in America, as we ship in Europe. If someone were to come to Apple [with a request to scan for data beyond CSAM], Apple would say no. But let’s say you aren’t confident. You don’t want to just rely on Apple saying no. You want to be sure that Apple couldn’t get away with it if we said yes,” he told the Journal. “There are multiple levels of auditability, and so we’re making sure that you don’t have to trust any one entity, or even any one country, as far as what images are part of this process.”" - Craig Federighi
  - jkestner 5y ago
    A “government’s request” is different from a country’s law. “This process” is not the only process by which third parties can breach your privacy.
Grustaf 5y ago
How likely is it that you will have enough colliding images in your photo library to even trigger a review? I'm guessing you need at least 5 images, perhaps much more, to trigger it. In any case, 1 image is definitely not enough.
- sandworm101 5y ago
  For a normal random person, a grey man. In the real world, a single collision could be enough for the police to acquire further access to people they are already looking at. If the police want access to your phone for other reasons (drugs, taxes, illegal speech) they can use that one collision to get a warrant which will give them greater access. It is akin to cops wanting to search a car. They don't need a warrant. They only need to follow the car until it breaks any number of traffic laws. Then the resulting traffic stops lets them talk to the driver, who seems evasive, which gives them probable cause, which gets them a warrant to perform a full search. The accidental collision, week evidence of an offending image on the phone, opens the door to whatever other investigation they want to do.
  - Grustaf 5y ago
    I'm not sure what you mean. If we are talking about Apple's new feature, they will not even be alerted until you have enough matches. And the police probably won't be using any neural hashes if they have access to your device, so I'm not sure what you are talking about.
    - sandworm101 5y ago
      That is an Apple current policy, not any sort of law. If the FBI wants to know if there are any collisions on a particular phone, that will be shared. If the FBI wants to know of all single collisions, that too must be shared. A corporation's internal policy decisions are nothing when faced with a government official carrying a warrant. If they have data indicating possible crimes, no matter how small, they can be forced to divulge it to investigators. Unlike Lavabit, I don't think Apple will ever close up shop to protect customer data.
sandworm101 5y ago
>> there is no law who requires them to "scan" on device. There is. Apple must comply with warrant requests. If they have a system for scanning files on customer devices they must, if presented with a warrant, allow police access to that system. We can quibble about jurisdictions and constitutional protections, but if the FBI shows up with a federal warrant demanding that Apple remotely scan Sandworm101's phone for a particular image, Sandworm101's phone is going to be scanned.
- ethbr0 5y ago
  That's an incomplete statement. Currently, they must comply with warranty requests by scanning if they have the ability to scan. If they have no such ability (say, because they designed their phones from a privacy-first perspective), the law makes no requirement that they create such a capability. And that's what pisses people off about this.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - tantalor 5y ago
    Can a warrant compel them to develop the capability?
    - simcop2387 5y ago
      A warrant alone, very likely not. A court order from a judge (slightly different than a warrant), possibly not nut it's not exactly a well tread area of legislation/law. It would probably run afoul of the first amendment given some readings, but it would have to be tested in court and would likely be argued that requiring a backdoor via some law doesn't cause compelled speech or that making that backdoor isn't protected speech etc. It's a relatively new area to be explored.
    - sandworm101 5y ago
      Yes. Lavabit. Those warrants demanded that Lavabit alter its system to capture passwords and/or decrypt stored email. Lavbit instead decided to stop operating and delete everything rather than comply. Such warrants have not been fully tested in courts but they do exist.

by nbzso 5y ago

mschuster91 5y ago

> and there is no law who requires them to "scan" on device Yet. The demands by "concerned parents" (aka fronts for secret services, puritans/other religious fundamentalists and law-and-order hardliners) to "do something against child porn" have grown ever more strong and insane over the last years. (And you can bet that what is used on CSAM will immediately be used to go after legal pornography, sex work, drug enforcement, ...) Many current and powerful politicians don't understand a single bit about computers, to the point of bragging of never having used one (e.g. Japan's cybersecurity minister) or having assistants print out emails daily and transcribing handwritten responses (can't say more than that this is the situation for at least two German MPs) - but there are young politicians who do, and will replace them over the next decade hopefully. That means it's last chance for lobbying groups to get devastating laws passed through, and we must all be vigorous in spotting and preventing at least the worst of them. And what is suspiciously lacking in Apple's response: what are they going to do when they are compelled to extend the CSAM scanner by law in the US, India, China and/or EU? It's feasible for Apple to say they'll just be sticking the middle finger towards markets such as Russia, Saudi-Arabia or similar tiny dictatorships, but the big markets? Apple can't ignore these, and especially India and China are heavyweights.

Grustaf 5y ago
Why would they extend the CSAM scanner? It would be much simpler to just use all the OCR and image classification functions they have already deployed. CSAM scanning is only useful for areas where Apple really doesn't want to even look at the actual material until they are extremely certain that it's a match. If they want to detect anti-government propaganda or something, there would be no such concerns, they would just do a regex search of your inbox. Infinitely more convenient.
- sandworm101 5y ago
  >> useful for areas where Apple really doesn't want to even look at the actual material Correct. It has plausible deniability built in. Apple is unable to verify that the images the government are looking for are actually CSAM. They could be political. They could be protest images. They could be Winnie the Pooh. Apple can plead ignorance as it blindly scans for whatever the requesting government asks it to scan for. Nobody really minds that this system is going to be used for CSAM. What everyone recognizes is how ripe this system is for abuse, how easily it can be leveraged by oppressive governments. And Apple can play the innocent.
  - ethbr0 5y ago
    Why even keep Apple in the loop? Why not just allow government to submit scanning models directly? Which Apple will dutifully install and run, because they're required by local laws.
    - jodrellblank 5y ago
      > "Which Apple will dutifully install and run, because they're required by local laws." Which Apple have stated that they won't do, and have designed the system so they can't do that without it being found out: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28221082 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28221082 Can't you at least post accurate information about this system and support outrage based on facts instead of fantasy?
      - mschuster91 5y ago
        > Which Apple have stated that they won't do For your random off-of-the-mill dictatorship, yes. For the US? EU? China? India? No way they can refuse such a request from these markets. And if they could and get away with it, it would be a very worrying situation in itself regarding (democratic) control of government over global mega corporations.
        5y ago
jodrellblank 5y ago
> "and what is suspiciously lacking in Apple's response: what are they going to do when they are compelled to extend the CSAM scanner by law in the US, India, China and/or EU?" from https://daringfireball.net/linked/2021/08/09/apple-csam-faq https://daringfireball.net/linked/2021/08/09/apple-csam-faq - "we will not accede to any government’s request to expand it." From https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/craig-federighi-says-apple-e2-80-99s-child-safety-scanning-will-have-e2-80-98multiple-levels-of-auditability-e2-80-99/ar-AANhVhG https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/craig-federighi-sa... - "“We ship the same software in China with the same database we ship in America, as we ship in Europe. If someone were to come to Apple [with a request to scan for data beyond CSAM], Apple would say no. But let’s say you aren’t confident. You don’t want to just rely on Apple saying no. You want to be sure that Apple couldn’t get away with it if we said yes,” he told the Journal. “There are multiple levels of auditability, and so we’re making sure that you don’t have to trust any one entity, or even any one country, as far as what images are part of this process.”" - Craig Federighi
- jkestner 5y ago
  A “government’s request” is different from a country’s law. “This process” is not the only process by which third parties can breach your privacy.

Grustaf 5y ago

How likely is it that you will have enough colliding images in your photo library to even trigger a review? I'm guessing you need at least 5 images, perhaps much more, to trigger it. In any case, 1 image is definitely not enough.

sandworm101 5y ago
For a normal random person, a grey man. In the real world, a single collision could be enough for the police to acquire further access to people they are already looking at. If the police want access to your phone for other reasons (drugs, taxes, illegal speech) they can use that one collision to get a warrant which will give them greater access. It is akin to cops wanting to search a car. They don't need a warrant. They only need to follow the car until it breaks any number of traffic laws. Then the resulting traffic stops lets them talk to the driver, who seems evasive, which gives them probable cause, which gets them a warrant to perform a full search. The accidental collision, week evidence of an offending image on the phone, opens the door to whatever other investigation they want to do.
- Grustaf 5y ago
  I'm not sure what you mean. If we are talking about Apple's new feature, they will not even be alerted until you have enough matches. And the police probably won't be using any neural hashes if they have access to your device, so I'm not sure what you are talking about.
  - sandworm101 5y ago
    That is an Apple current policy, not any sort of law. If the FBI wants to know if there are any collisions on a particular phone, that will be shared. If the FBI wants to know of all single collisions, that too must be shared. A corporation's internal policy decisions are nothing when faced with a government official carrying a warrant. If they have data indicating possible crimes, no matter how small, they can be forced to divulge it to investigators. Unlike Lavabit, I don't think Apple will ever close up shop to protect customer data.

sandworm101 5y ago

>> there is no law who requires them to "scan" on device. There is. Apple must comply with warrant requests. If they have a system for scanning files on customer devices they must, if presented with a warrant, allow police access to that system. We can quibble about jurisdictions and constitutional protections, but if the FBI shows up with a federal warrant demanding that Apple remotely scan Sandworm101's phone for a particular image, Sandworm101's phone is going to be scanned.

ethbr0 5y ago
That's an incomplete statement. Currently, they must comply with warranty requests by scanning if they have the ability to scan. If they have no such ability (say, because they designed their phones from a privacy-first perspective), the law makes no requirement that they create such a capability. And that's what pisses people off about this.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- tantalor 5y ago
  Can a warrant compel them to develop the capability?
  - simcop2387 5y ago
    A warrant alone, very likely not. A court order from a judge (slightly different than a warrant), possibly not nut it's not exactly a well tread area of legislation/law. It would probably run afoul of the first amendment given some readings, but it would have to be tested in court and would likely be argued that requiring a backdoor via some law doesn't cause compelled speech or that making that backdoor isn't protected speech etc. It's a relatively new area to be explored.
  - sandworm101 5y ago
    Yes. Lavabit. Those warrants demanded that Lavabit alter its system to capture passwords and/or decrypt stored email. Lavbit instead decided to stop operating and delete everything rather than comply. Such warrants have not been fully tested in courts but they do exist.