3 ms·

> 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 cl

by 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...
    - Alupis 5y ago
      So, what does a person do if they do not consent to this search? Tough? You can't realistically avoid the iOS update. Apple has effectively given consent on your behalf... How will that fly?
      - simondotau 5y ago
        If you do not consent to having your photos scanned for CSAM, turn off iCloud Photo Library. Same as how you opt out of CSAM scanning of your photo library on Android. If you're concerned about other forms of scanning compelled by the Government, you never consented to the search. So even if Apple complied, the search is invalid and cannot be used to prosecute you.
        Alupis 5y ago
        It does not appear one can opt out certain folders from this scan. If you enable iCloud backups, it's scans the entire shebang. As previously mentioned, Android doesn't scan all photos on your device... Google scans content uploaded to their servers. Which is reasonable... It's their servers, they can host what they want. Your iPhone is your iPhone.
        simondotau 5y ago
        > If you enable iCloud backups, it's scans the entire shebang. Citation?
simondotau 5y ago
> I'm not aware of any big anti-CSAM push being made by Congress. Right now. The best time for Apple to do this is when cannot be painted as a defensive move against any specific legislation. The CSAM argument has been used many times in the past and it's certain to be used many more times in the future.
sgent 5y ago
Apple did not scan uploaded images. Apple has never scanned iPhone images. Last year Apple reported 245 cases to missing and exploited children, and Facebook reported 50M, Google ~4M, Microsoft reported, and Apple was below the line. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/07/us/online-child-sexual-abuse.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/07/us/online-child-sexual-ab...
nonbirithm 5y ago
CSAM can never be a policy issue with two sides, because everyone is in agreement that we need to protect children. The higher powers want to prevent child abuse, and CSAM is directly tied to child abuse. When people argue that "think of the children" can be weaponized to attack their freedoms, they wouldn't dare try to argue against the premise that children are harmed because of CSAM - not because the arguments will fall on the deaf ears of some governmental agents trying to push an agenda, but because the premise itself is sound. As a result, people will focus their arguments instead on the technological flaws in the current implementation of on-device scanning or slippery slope arguments that are unlikely to become reality, the feature will be added anyway with no political opposition, and in the end Apple and/or the government will get what they want, for what they consider the greater good. I think that absolute privacy in society as a whole isn't attainable with those values in place, and it raises many questions regarding to what extent the Internet should remain free from moderation. Are there really no kinds of information that are so fundamentally damaging that they should not be allowed to exist on someone's hard drive? If not, who will be in control of moderating that information? Maybe we will have to accept that some tradeoffs between privacy and stability need to be made for the collective good, in limited circumstances.
- eivarv 5y ago
  There is a lower limit to privacy (as a human right) – which after passing, societies would seize to be "free" (liberal democracies?). But that's not a discussion people seem to want to have, when talking about their good intentions of fighting against horrible things.

by Alupis 5y ago

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...
  - Alupis 5y ago
    So, what does a person do if they do not consent to this search? Tough? You can't realistically avoid the iOS update. Apple has effectively given consent on your behalf... How will that fly?
    - simondotau 5y ago
      If you do not consent to having your photos scanned for CSAM, turn off iCloud Photo Library. Same as how you opt out of CSAM scanning of your photo library on Android. If you're concerned about other forms of scanning compelled by the Government, you never consented to the search. So even if Apple complied, the search is invalid and cannot be used to prosecute you.
      - Alupis 5y ago
        It does not appear one can opt out certain folders from this scan. If you enable iCloud backups, it's scans the entire shebang. As previously mentioned, Android doesn't scan all photos on your device... Google scans content uploaded to their servers. Which is reasonable... It's their servers, they can host what they want. Your iPhone is your iPhone.
        simondotau 5y ago
        > If you enable iCloud backups, it's scans the entire shebang. Citation?

simondotau 5y ago

> I'm not aware of any big anti-CSAM push being made by Congress. Right now. The best time for Apple to do this is when cannot be painted as a defensive move against any specific legislation. The CSAM argument has been used many times in the past and it's certain to be used many more times in the future.

sgent 5y ago

Apple did not scan uploaded images. Apple has never scanned iPhone images. Last year Apple reported 245 cases to missing and exploited children, and Facebook reported 50M, Google ~4M, Microsoft reported, and Apple was below the line. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/07/us/online-child-sexual-abuse.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/07/us/online-child-sexual-ab...

nonbirithm 5y ago

CSAM can never be a policy issue with two sides, because everyone is in agreement that we need to protect children. The higher powers want to prevent child abuse, and CSAM is directly tied to child abuse. When people argue that "think of the children" can be weaponized to attack their freedoms, they wouldn't dare try to argue against the premise that children are harmed because of CSAM - not because the arguments will fall on the deaf ears of some governmental agents trying to push an agenda, but because the premise itself is sound. As a result, people will focus their arguments instead on the technological flaws in the current implementation of on-device scanning or slippery slope arguments that are unlikely to become reality, the feature will be added anyway with no political opposition, and in the end Apple and/or the government will get what they want, for what they consider the greater good. I think that absolute privacy in society as a whole isn't attainable with those values in place, and it raises many questions regarding to what extent the Internet should remain free from moderation. Are there really no kinds of information that are so fundamentally damaging that they should not be allowed to exist on someone's hard drive? If not, who will be in control of moderating that information? Maybe we will have to accept that some tradeoffs between privacy and stability need to be made for the collective good, in limited circumstances.

eivarv 5y ago
There is a lower limit to privacy (as a human right) – which after passing, societies would seize to be "free" (liberal democracies?). But that's not a discussion people seem to want to have, when talking about their good intentions of fighting against horrible things.