4 ms·

So, what does Apple get out of all this, except negative attention, erosion of their image, possible privacy lawsuits, etc? I just don't understand what Apple'

by Alupis 5y ago

So, what does Apple get out of all this, except negative attention, erosion of their image, possible privacy lawsuits, etc? I just don't understand what Apple's motivation would have been here. Surely this fallout could have been anticipated?

Spivak 5y ago
The FBI off their back that they aren’t doing enough to stop the spread of CP.
- Alupis 5y ago
  I find it hard to believe CSAM was so pervasive on iDevices that they'd feel compelled to do something about it. As far as we know (and I'm sure lots of eyeballs are looking now) Android doesn't do this. And frankly, why would Apple care that the FBI isn't cozy with them. Their entire brand is "security and privacy", kind of goes against most 3 Letter Agencies anyway.
  - simondotau 5y ago
    I agree CSAM isn't likely to be pervasive in the photo libraries on iOS devices. Android does not do on-device scanning, but Google does scan photos after they are uploaded to their cloud photo service. It's not on-device scanning, but the effect is functionally identical: photos that are being uploaded to the cloud are being scanned for CSAM. The only real distinction is who owns the CPU which computes the hash. I doubt it's the FBI pressuring Apple. My suspicion is it's fear of the US Congress passing worse, even more privacy-invading laws under the guise of combating CSAM. If Apple's lobbyists can show that iPhones are already searching for CSAM, arguments for such laws get weaker.
    - Alupis 5y ago
      > Android doesn't do on-device scanning, but Google does scan photos after they are uploaded to their cloud photo service. So did Apple, and pretty much all cloud hosting providers. This, on device, scanning is what's new, and very out of character for Apple. > If Apple's lobbyists can show that iPhones are already searching for CSAM, arguments for such laws get weaker. I'm not aware of any big anti-CSAM push being made by Congress. CSAM just isn't really a big issue in the US, the existing laws, and culture, are pretty effective already.
      - simondotau 5y ago
        We do know that Apple has been scanning email attachments sent via iCloud email. I don't think it's ever been claimed that Apple has ever scanned anyone's iCloud Photo Library. Ethics aside, on-device scanning has the benefit of Constitutional protection, at least in the USA. Because the searching is being performed on private property, any attempt by the Government to try to expand the scope of searches would be a clear-cut 4th Amendment violation. (Whereas if the scanning is done in the cloud, Government can compel searches and that would fall under the "third party doctrine" which is an end-run around the 4th Amendment.)
        Alupis 5y ago
        > Because the searching is being performed on private property, It's it though? The device someone bought 2 years ago suddenly starts reporting them to the FBI's Anti-CSAM unit without the owners realistic consent does seem like a run-around to unpermissioned government searches. It's not reasonable to say "throw away your $1200 device if you don't consent", is it? Nor can a person reasonably avoid iOS updates that force this feature to be active. > any attempt by the Government to try to expand the scope of searches We've seen private companies willfully censor individuals at the government's behest under the current administration - will Apple begin expanding the search and reporting mechanisms just to stay in whatever administration's good grace? Like I said, this is extremely out of character, and very off-brand for Apple. Why would someone trust Apple going forward? Even Google's Android doesn't snitch on it's owners to law enforcement... Setting aside all the ways for nefarious actors to abuse this system and sic LE on innocent individuals.
        simondotau 5y ago
        > It's it though? Yes. Your phone is your private property, just like your house or your car. Searching your private property requires a warrant or reasonable suspicion, otherwise it's a 4th Amendment violation. This twitter thread is worth a read. https://twitter.com/pwnallthethings/status/1424873629003702273 https://twitter.com/pwnallthethings/status/14248736290037022...
    - copperx 5y ago
      > I agree CSAM isn't likely to be pervasive in the photo libraries on iOS devices. Where does this assumption come from? Because of iOS lower market share? Are you implying they are more prevalent in Android devices? In desktop computers? I don't understand the logic.
      - simondotau 5y ago
        The assumption comes from a general observation that most normal people don't tend to use their photo library to store legal porn (other than home made) and I haven't seen any argument for why CSAM aficionados are expected to be any less careful. There are surely plenty of apps out there for keeping separately encrypted vaults of files/photos, and I'm sure many are very easy to use. You don't have to be particularly tech savvy to know it's a bad idea to co-mingle your deepest darkest secrets alongside photos of your mum and last night's dinner. Especially when discovering those secrets would lead to estrangement, or prison. As for the few who might be doing it currently, that's likely to plummet quickly. If you think Apple's move caused waves in the Hacker News crowd, just imagine how much it has blown up in the CSAM community right now. I dare say it's probably all they've been talking about for the past two weeks.
        sgerenser 5y ago
        Yeah, they’re probably all saying “well I know for sure I’ll never use an Apple device for my CP from now on!” From Apple’s point of view, that’s mission accomplished.
  - nonbirithm 5y ago
    At least according to [1]: "Last year, for instance, Apple reported 265 cases to the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children, while Facebook reported 20.3 million, according to the center’s statistics. That enormous gap is due in part to Apple’s decision not to scan for such material, citing the privacy of its users." If you were a law enforcement agency and noticed this discrepancy, would you believe that you'd be letting some number of child abusers get away because of that difference in 20 million reports? iCloud probably doesn't have the same level of adoption as Facebook, but the gap is still very large. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/05/technology/apple-iphones-privacy.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/05/technology/apple-iphones-...
- norov 5y ago
  It is more believable they are introducing this tech for larger international security reasons still kept under wraps.
colordrops 5y ago
They had to have been coerced.
JohnJamesRambo 5y ago
Is it like other stories I hear on HN where one guy or team is trying to get a promotion so keeps pushing their project? And people were afraid to oppose it? I’m baffled how this kept going up to implementation even in the birthplace of the reality distortion field.
- Alupis 5y ago
  Something this major, company brand changing, would have required a lot of executive sign-offs, presumably even Cook's personal blessing.
cirrus3 5y ago
Possible avoidance of being told how they have to do it later. They will have to do it either way, and they the fact they are even telling how us they plan to do it is more than we can say for every other cloud services. This is better than all alternatives at this point. Like it or not. If you don't like, you might need to get up to speed on what other services you may already be using are doing.
niij 5y ago
Government coercion.
gtm1260 5y ago
My guess is that internally, they've realized they have a big CP problem on iCloud. That's a huge liability.
- Alupis 5y ago
  I have series doubts about that. CSAM really isn't an issue in the US, culturally and legally.
  - quenix 5y ago
    Really? It isn't an issue?
    - bruce343434 5y ago
      It is?
rebuilder 5y ago
Cynical speculation: Apple have decided their position of not being able to provide access to law enforcement is becoming a liability. They're probably under intense pressure from several governments on that front. This is a way to intentionally let their hand be forced into scanning for arbitrary hashes on devices at the behest of governments, taking pressure off Apple and easing their relations with governments. They take a PR hit now, but it's not too bad since it's ostensibly about fighting child abuse, and Apple's heart is clearly in the right place. When later, inevitably, the hashes start to include other material, Apple can say their hands are tied on the matter - they can no longer use the "can't do it" defense and are forced to comply. This is much simpler than having to fight about it all the time.

by Alupis 5y ago

Spivak 5y ago

The FBI off their back that they aren’t doing enough to stop the spread of CP.

Alupis 5y ago
I find it hard to believe CSAM was so pervasive on iDevices that they'd feel compelled to do something about it. As far as we know (and I'm sure lots of eyeballs are looking now) Android doesn't do this. And frankly, why would Apple care that the FBI isn't cozy with them. Their entire brand is "security and privacy", kind of goes against most 3 Letter Agencies anyway.
- simondotau 5y ago
  I agree CSAM isn't likely to be pervasive in the photo libraries on iOS devices. Android does not do on-device scanning, but Google does scan photos after they are uploaded to their cloud photo service. It's not on-device scanning, but the effect is functionally identical: photos that are being uploaded to the cloud are being scanned for CSAM. The only real distinction is who owns the CPU which computes the hash. I doubt it's the FBI pressuring Apple. My suspicion is it's fear of the US Congress passing worse, even more privacy-invading laws under the guise of combating CSAM. If Apple's lobbyists can show that iPhones are already searching for CSAM, arguments for such laws get weaker.
  - Alupis 5y ago
    > Android doesn't do on-device scanning, but Google does scan photos after they are uploaded to their cloud photo service. So did Apple, and pretty much all cloud hosting providers. This, on device, scanning is what's new, and very out of character for Apple. > If Apple's lobbyists can show that iPhones are already searching for CSAM, arguments for such laws get weaker. I'm not aware of any big anti-CSAM push being made by Congress. CSAM just isn't really a big issue in the US, the existing laws, and culture, are pretty effective already.
    - simondotau 5y ago
      We do know that Apple has been scanning email attachments sent via iCloud email. I don't think it's ever been claimed that Apple has ever scanned anyone's iCloud Photo Library. Ethics aside, on-device scanning has the benefit of Constitutional protection, at least in the USA. Because the searching is being performed on private property, any attempt by the Government to try to expand the scope of searches would be a clear-cut 4th Amendment violation. (Whereas if the scanning is done in the cloud, Government can compel searches and that would fall under the "third party doctrine" which is an end-run around the 4th Amendment.)
      - Alupis 5y ago
        > Because the searching is being performed on private property, It's it though? The device someone bought 2 years ago suddenly starts reporting them to the FBI's Anti-CSAM unit without the owners realistic consent does seem like a run-around to unpermissioned government searches. It's not reasonable to say "throw away your $1200 device if you don't consent", is it? Nor can a person reasonably avoid iOS updates that force this feature to be active. > any attempt by the Government to try to expand the scope of searches We've seen private companies willfully censor individuals at the government's behest under the current administration - will Apple begin expanding the search and reporting mechanisms just to stay in whatever administration's good grace? Like I said, this is extremely out of character, and very off-brand for Apple. Why would someone trust Apple going forward? Even Google's Android doesn't snitch on it's owners to law enforcement... Setting aside all the ways for nefarious actors to abuse this system and sic LE on innocent individuals.
        simondotau 5y ago
        > It's it though? Yes. Your phone is your private property, just like your house or your car. Searching your private property requires a warrant or reasonable suspicion, otherwise it's a 4th Amendment violation. This twitter thread is worth a read. https://twitter.com/pwnallthethings/status/1424873629003702273 https://twitter.com/pwnallthethings/status/14248736290037022...
  - copperx 5y ago
    > I agree CSAM isn't likely to be pervasive in the photo libraries on iOS devices. Where does this assumption come from? Because of iOS lower market share? Are you implying they are more prevalent in Android devices? In desktop computers? I don't understand the logic.
    - simondotau 5y ago
      The assumption comes from a general observation that most normal people don't tend to use their photo library to store legal porn (other than home made) and I haven't seen any argument for why CSAM aficionados are expected to be any less careful. There are surely plenty of apps out there for keeping separately encrypted vaults of files/photos, and I'm sure many are very easy to use. You don't have to be particularly tech savvy to know it's a bad idea to co-mingle your deepest darkest secrets alongside photos of your mum and last night's dinner. Especially when discovering those secrets would lead to estrangement, or prison. As for the few who might be doing it currently, that's likely to plummet quickly. If you think Apple's move caused waves in the Hacker News crowd, just imagine how much it has blown up in the CSAM community right now. I dare say it's probably all they've been talking about for the past two weeks.
      - sgerenser 5y ago
        Yeah, they’re probably all saying “well I know for sure I’ll never use an Apple device for my CP from now on!” From Apple’s point of view, that’s mission accomplished.
- nonbirithm 5y ago
  At least according to [1]: "Last year, for instance, Apple reported 265 cases to the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children, while Facebook reported 20.3 million, according to the center’s statistics. That enormous gap is due in part to Apple’s decision not to scan for such material, citing the privacy of its users." If you were a law enforcement agency and noticed this discrepancy, would you believe that you'd be letting some number of child abusers get away because of that difference in 20 million reports? iCloud probably doesn't have the same level of adoption as Facebook, but the gap is still very large. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/05/technology/apple-iphones-privacy.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/05/technology/apple-iphones-...
norov 5y ago
It is more believable they are introducing this tech for larger international security reasons still kept under wraps.

colordrops 5y ago

They had to have been coerced.

JohnJamesRambo 5y ago

Is it like other stories I hear on HN where one guy or team is trying to get a promotion so keeps pushing their project? And people were afraid to oppose it? I’m baffled how this kept going up to implementation even in the birthplace of the reality distortion field.

Alupis 5y ago
Something this major, company brand changing, would have required a lot of executive sign-offs, presumably even Cook's personal blessing.

cirrus3 5y ago

Possible avoidance of being told how they have to do it later. They will have to do it either way, and they the fact they are even telling how us they plan to do it is more than we can say for every other cloud services. This is better than all alternatives at this point. Like it or not. If you don't like, you might need to get up to speed on what other services you may already be using are doing.

niij 5y ago

Government coercion.

gtm1260 5y ago

My guess is that internally, they've realized they have a big CP problem on iCloud. That's a huge liability.

Alupis 5y ago
I have series doubts about that. CSAM really isn't an issue in the US, culturally and legally.
- quenix 5y ago
  Really? It isn't an issue?
  - bruce343434 5y ago
    It is?

rebuilder 5y ago

Cynical speculation: Apple have decided their position of not being able to provide access to law enforcement is becoming a liability. They're probably under intense pressure from several governments on that front. This is a way to intentionally let their hand be forced into scanning for arbitrary hashes on devices at the behest of governments, taking pressure off Apple and easing their relations with governments. They take a PR hit now, but it's not too bad since it's ostensibly about fighting child abuse, and Apple's heart is clearly in the right place. When later, inevitably, the hashes start to include other material, Apple can say their hands are tied on the matter - they can no longer use the "can't do it" defense and are forced to comply. This is much simpler than having to fight about it all the time.