4 ms·

The issue is that as soon as you set that precedent, it’s only a matter of time before it extends beyond iCloud. That’s the problem with doing any device-level

The issue is that as soon as you set that precedent, it’s only a matter of time before it extends beyond iCloud. That’s the problem with doing any device-level scanning. This is dystopian and scary. And yes I understand the technology in its current iteration. The current form has problems (weaponizing collisions etc) but the real issue comes with future developments.

robertoandred 5y ago
Was scanning server side not a precedent?
- Multicomp 5y ago
  It was but it was one we were not in a position to resist at the time. Surrendered to almighty convenience. But here appears to be beyond the pale such that people are saying "this far, no farther!"
- __blockcipher__ 5y ago
  It set the precedent for scanning server side. Which I don’t like but there’s really no way to avoid it anyway. Now we have clientside scanning, and actually being led by the [note the scare quotes] “pro-privacy” two ton gorilla. It’s a whole different ballgame.
- shapefrog 5y ago
  Furthermore, was uploading (backing up) the entire contents of your phone to a server to be freely scaned and distributed (with warrant of course) server side not also a precedent? Must have been absloutely nuts round here back in 2011 when they announced the particular slippery slope that is iCloud backup.
shapefrog 5y ago
> They scan everything that exists on my device I get to select the issue and it was in response to the previous claim that 'they' are scanning everything that exists on the device right now. A year ago this was a possible 'future development'. 10 years from now I could be living on Mars. This is all hypothetical.
- heavyset_go 5y ago
  > This is all hypothetical. Exactly. However, people don't seem to have an issue when hypothesizing that CSAM detection is good actually, because Apple might implement E2EE, despite no evidence of such intentions. For some reason, though, people take issue when others hypothesize that CSAM detection is bad actually, because Apple might expand it further and violate users' privacy even more. And there's actually precedent for this hypothesis, given Apple's actions here and their own words[1]: > 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/

robertoandred 5y ago

Was scanning server side not a precedent?

Multicomp 5y ago
It was but it was one we were not in a position to resist at the time. Surrendered to almighty convenience. But here appears to be beyond the pale such that people are saying "this far, no farther!"
__blockcipher__ 5y ago
It set the precedent for scanning server side. Which I don’t like but there’s really no way to avoid it anyway. Now we have clientside scanning, and actually being led by the [note the scare quotes] “pro-privacy” two ton gorilla. It’s a whole different ballgame.
shapefrog 5y ago
Furthermore, was uploading (backing up) the entire contents of your phone to a server to be freely scaned and distributed (with warrant of course) server side not also a precedent? Must have been absloutely nuts round here back in 2011 when they announced the particular slippery slope that is iCloud backup.

shapefrog 5y ago

> They scan everything that exists on my device I get to select the issue and it was in response to the previous claim that 'they' are scanning everything that exists on the device right now. A year ago this was a possible 'future development'. 10 years from now I could be living on Mars. This is all hypothetical.

heavyset_go 5y ago
> This is all hypothetical. Exactly. However, people don't seem to have an issue when hypothesizing that CSAM detection is good actually, because Apple might implement E2EE, despite no evidence of such intentions. For some reason, though, people take issue when others hypothesize that CSAM detection is bad actually, because Apple might expand it further and violate users' privacy even more. And there's actually precedent for this hypothesis, given Apple's actions here and their own words[1]: > 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/