5 ms·

Their approach is so poorly targeted at the claimed problem, and so ineffectual, I don’t think it is reasonable to take them at face value re: what they say the

by n8cpdx 5y ago

Their approach is so poorly targeted at the claimed problem, and so ineffectual, I don’t think it is reasonable to take them at face value re: what they say they are trying to accomplish. For the folks who are interested in stopping abuse of children, there are many other approaches that would break the market for new abuse and new CSAM. This just isn’t going to move the needle and I have to assume they know that. I’ve completely lost trust in Apple because I can’t understand what their motivations are. I _do_ understand the technology, so I’m pretty tired of articles suggesting this is some sort of misunderstanding and not Apple taking a giant leap towards enabling authoritarianism, and of course building literal thoughtcrime enforcement into end user devices, which is beyond even what 1984 imagined.

kilroy123 5y ago
This is why I suspect something shifted with the government. Like they're being forced into doing this somehow. This was the minimal legal requirement or something. The whole thing is baffling to me.
- gjsman-1000 5y ago
  Does nobody remember the EARN IT Act?
  - n8cpdx 5y ago
    I do remember it, it’s just very weird that Apple hasn’t cited it as a motivation. If they had led with that, we’d be having a conversation about the evildoers in Congress rather than Cupertino.
- heavyset_go 5y ago
  > This is why I suspect something shifted with the government. Like they're being forced into doing this somehow. Seems like undue speculation. The government cares about far more than just CSAM. They care about terrorism, human and drug trafficking, organized crime, gangs, drug manufacturing, fraud etc. This type of speculation only makes sense if Apple intends to expand their CSAM detection system to detect those other things, as well.
  - kilroy123 5y ago
    I 100% think Apple intends to expand on it. That's why I'm against it.
    - heavyset_go 5y ago
      Apple does say something[1] to that effect: > This program is ambitious, and protecting children is an important responsibility. These efforts will evolve and expand over time. [1] https://www.apple.com/child-safety/ https://www.apple.com/child-safety/

by n8cpdx 5y ago

kilroy123 5y ago

This is why I suspect something shifted with the government. Like they're being forced into doing this somehow. This was the minimal legal requirement or something. The whole thing is baffling to me.

gjsman-1000 5y ago
Does nobody remember the EARN IT Act?
- n8cpdx 5y ago
  I do remember it, it’s just very weird that Apple hasn’t cited it as a motivation. If they had led with that, we’d be having a conversation about the evildoers in Congress rather than Cupertino.
heavyset_go 5y ago
> This is why I suspect something shifted with the government. Like they're being forced into doing this somehow. Seems like undue speculation. The government cares about far more than just CSAM. They care about terrorism, human and drug trafficking, organized crime, gangs, drug manufacturing, fraud etc. This type of speculation only makes sense if Apple intends to expand their CSAM detection system to detect those other things, as well.
- kilroy123 5y ago
  I 100% think Apple intends to expand on it. That's why I'm against it.
  - heavyset_go 5y ago
    Apple does say something[1] to that effect: > This program is ambitious, and protecting children is an important responsibility. These efforts will evolve and expand over time. [1] https://www.apple.com/child-safety/ https://www.apple.com/child-safety/