5 ms·

I didn’t get that impression from the title, but I also knew they were referring to Corellium before clicking the link. I interpreted it as, “Apple says researc

I didn’t get that impression from the title, but I also knew they were referring to Corellium before clicking the link. I interpreted it as, “Apple says researchers can vet its CSAM tools despite aggressively suing the one company that makes such research feasible.”

mrunseen 5y ago
Yeah, I thought like that too. It could’ve been better though.
ziml77 5y ago
I heard nothing about Corellium before, so my reading of the headline was that Apple is retaliating against a company for trying to audit their CSAM tools despite saying that it's totally fine if people want to do those audits.
- gorbypark 5y ago
  I have a passing awareness of the Corellium situation and interpreted the headline just like you.
- azinman2 5y ago
  That’s completely incorrect. This entire article is fluff. The suit against Corellium has been going on for years.
chrisfinazzo 5y ago
On one level, I'm not surprised and can understand why Apple might be pissed off that Corellium is still making news. "Researchers can audit our CSAM process...except for you, who we just handed a pile of money over to and are still on our shit list."
- detaro 5y ago
  Handing Corellium the underdog story on a silver platter again is not how you avoid them making news though
  - chrisfinazzo 5y ago
    As I see it, Apple had 3 options for how to deal with this case - in decreasing order of hostility: 1) Sue the company out of existence 2) Buy the company 3) Settle They chose option #3, which from what I've seen is solely related to DMCA claims. With this in mind, why should Corellium be allowed to continue this work having just gotten out of the proverbial "doghouse"? Apple's already marked them as a bad actor in this regard and continuing to make noise seems ill-advised.
    - morganvachon 5y ago
      Actually, Apple chose option #1, and when their ass was handed to them by the judge in the case, they opted for #3 to get out from under it. No matter how they handled it though, the fact remains that they are providing lip service to the public ("security researchers can easily vet our methods") while continuing to fight against the very same researchers who might want to investigate this new scanning technology.
      - sharken 5y ago
        I agree that this is more damage control on Apples side, no amount of spin will make on-device scanning a good idea. Apple should realize that users just want the privacy they have heard so much about over the years.
      - emptyparadise 5y ago
        And they only went for #1 after #2 didn't work out.
- ksec 5y ago
  Or Apple says researchers can vet its CSAM tools as long as their results agrees with their ones.
judge2020 5y ago
To add, Apple and Corellium settled. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.555634/gov.uscourts.flsd.555634.1012.0.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.55...
- memco 5y ago
  Apple is apparently still pursuing a copyright claim: https://www.macrumors.com/2021/08/17/apple-appeals-corellium-copyright-lawsuit/ https://www.macrumors.com/2021/08/17/apple-appeals-corellium...

mrunseen 5y ago

Yeah, I thought like that too. It could’ve been better though.

ziml77 5y ago

I heard nothing about Corellium before, so my reading of the headline was that Apple is retaliating against a company for trying to audit their CSAM tools despite saying that it's totally fine if people want to do those audits.

gorbypark 5y ago
I have a passing awareness of the Corellium situation and interpreted the headline just like you.
azinman2 5y ago
That’s completely incorrect. This entire article is fluff. The suit against Corellium has been going on for years.

chrisfinazzo 5y ago

On one level, I'm not surprised and can understand why Apple might be pissed off that Corellium is still making news. "Researchers can audit our CSAM process...except for you, who we just handed a pile of money over to and are still on our shit list."

detaro 5y ago
Handing Corellium the underdog story on a silver platter again is not how you avoid them making news though
- chrisfinazzo 5y ago
  As I see it, Apple had 3 options for how to deal with this case - in decreasing order of hostility: 1) Sue the company out of existence 2) Buy the company 3) Settle They chose option #3, which from what I've seen is solely related to DMCA claims. With this in mind, why should Corellium be allowed to continue this work having just gotten out of the proverbial "doghouse"? Apple's already marked them as a bad actor in this regard and continuing to make noise seems ill-advised.
  - morganvachon 5y ago
    Actually, Apple chose option #1, and when their ass was handed to them by the judge in the case, they opted for #3 to get out from under it. No matter how they handled it though, the fact remains that they are providing lip service to the public ("security researchers can easily vet our methods") while continuing to fight against the very same researchers who might want to investigate this new scanning technology.
    - sharken 5y ago
      I agree that this is more damage control on Apples side, no amount of spin will make on-device scanning a good idea. Apple should realize that users just want the privacy they have heard so much about over the years.
    - emptyparadise 5y ago
      And they only went for #1 after #2 didn't work out.
ksec 5y ago
Or Apple says researchers can vet its CSAM tools as long as their results agrees with their ones.

judge2020 5y ago

To add, Apple and Corellium settled. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.555634/gov.uscourts.flsd.555634.1012.0.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.55...

memco 5y ago
Apple is apparently still pursuing a copyright claim: https://www.macrumors.com/2021/08/17/apple-appeals-corellium-copyright-lawsuit/ https://www.macrumors.com/2021/08/17/apple-appeals-corellium...