6 ms·

It’s almost like you didn’t read the paper or my whole comment.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
jjulius 5y ago
I've actually read your comment, along with the linked PDF, in full multiple times in an effort to make sure I wasn't missing a point you were trying to make. Before I continue, I want to make it clear that I fully understand that adding non-CSAM content into the existing NCMEC/CSAM/IWF environment would more than likely raise a lot of red flags. You and I have an understanding there. As it happens, I still think you're missing the point that myself and others are trying to make. Perhaps the following is a better way of phrasing my inquiry: What guarantees to we have that Apple will, always and forever, only use the NCMEC/CSAM/IWF system to scan images on phones? By that I mean, isn't it perfectly plausible that Apple can leave the NCMEC/CSAM/IWF system in place, as it is described in your post and the linked PDF, and at the same time partner with [random body X/Y/Z], who has their own database of [whatever] that they scan separately from the NCMEC/CSAM/IWF system? These two different scans wouldn't ever need to communicate with each other, and could run at the same time.
- karlshea 5y ago
  Well yeah it's plausible they would just turn the contents of everyone's entire iCloud backups over to the FBI, which they can totally do right now at any time since they already have the keys! So what? What you're describing is not what this system does. You could argue against literally any possibility anyone could dream up, because they're the platform vendor and they can make any change they want. If that's a problem when you're evaluating your threat model then this new system is the least of your worries. And as far as I can see this system is the least intrusive version of what any of the other cloud vendors are doing. Don't want it? Turn off iCloud Photos and sync to something else like your own Nextcloud instance.
  - jjulius 5y ago
    >What you're describing is not what this system does. I said that the hypothetical system could be set up, and function, in the same way as the NCMEC/CSAM/IWF system, just with different entities behind it. Despite chastising me for what you thought was a failure to comprehend your post, this is the third time you seem to have been unable to grasp that concept. That's part of what people are concerned about - an identical system running in tandem to this, but with less savory characters behind it. Given how many comments on HN have addressed that this week, including all of mine right here, I am at a loss for how to make that any clearer to you.
    - karlshea 5y ago
      Hypothetical system. Yes, a lot of comments have addressed something that isn't happening.
      - jjulius 5y ago
        >Hypothetical system. Right! >Yes, a lot of comments have addressed something that isn't happening. No, and the confusion lies in the tense, "isn't" vs. "won't". A lot of comments have addressed a lack of trust that such a scenario won't happen.
        zepto 5y ago
        Sure but you are ignoring that such a scenario would need a different system to be deployed. Yes they could do that, but this doesn’t help them.
        jjulius 5y ago
        >Sure but you are ignoring that such a scenario would need a different system to be deployed. Right! I clearly stated multiple times that this would be a second system working in tandem, of course it would need to be deployed on its own. I am entirely unsure how you think I am ignoring that when it's the premise of my argument and of the concern of others.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

I've actually read your comment, along with the linked PDF, in full multiple times in an effort to make sure I wasn't missing a point you were trying to make. Before I continue, I want to make it clear that I fully understand that adding non-CSAM content into the existing NCMEC/CSAM/IWF environment would more than likely raise a lot of red flags. You and I have an understanding there. As it happens, I still think you're missing the point that myself and others are trying to make. Perhaps the following is a better way of phrasing my inquiry: What guarantees to we have that Apple will, always and forever, only use the NCMEC/CSAM/IWF system to scan images on phones? By that I mean, isn't it perfectly plausible that Apple can leave the NCMEC/CSAM/IWF system in place, as it is described in your post and the linked PDF, and at the same time partner with [random body X/Y/Z], who has their own database of [whatever] that they scan separately from the NCMEC/CSAM/IWF system? These two different scans wouldn't ever need to communicate with each other, and could run at the same time.

karlshea 5y ago
Well yeah it's plausible they would just turn the contents of everyone's entire iCloud backups over to the FBI, which they can totally do right now at any time since they already have the keys! So what? What you're describing is not what this system does. You could argue against literally any possibility anyone could dream up, because they're the platform vendor and they can make any change they want. If that's a problem when you're evaluating your threat model then this new system is the least of your worries. And as far as I can see this system is the least intrusive version of what any of the other cloud vendors are doing. Don't want it? Turn off iCloud Photos and sync to something else like your own Nextcloud instance.
- jjulius 5y ago
  >What you're describing is not what this system does. I said that the hypothetical system could be set up, and function, in the same way as the NCMEC/CSAM/IWF system, just with different entities behind it. Despite chastising me for what you thought was a failure to comprehend your post, this is the third time you seem to have been unable to grasp that concept. That's part of what people are concerned about - an identical system running in tandem to this, but with less savory characters behind it. Given how many comments on HN have addressed that this week, including all of mine right here, I am at a loss for how to make that any clearer to you.
  - karlshea 5y ago
    Hypothetical system. Yes, a lot of comments have addressed something that isn't happening.
    - jjulius 5y ago
      >Hypothetical system. Right! >Yes, a lot of comments have addressed something that isn't happening. No, and the confusion lies in the tense, "isn't" vs. "won't". A lot of comments have addressed a lack of trust that such a scenario won't happen.
      - zepto 5y ago
        Sure but you are ignoring that such a scenario would need a different system to be deployed. Yes they could do that, but this doesn’t help them.
        jjulius 5y ago
        >Sure but you are ignoring that such a scenario would need a different system to be deployed. Right! I clearly stated multiple times that this would be a second system working in tandem, of course it would need to be deployed on its own. I am entirely unsure how you think I am ignoring that when it's the premise of my argument and of the concern of others.