6 ms·

On top of that, what happens if a court/government orders them to give them all the current data about people with matches, regardless of the 30 matches. They

On top of that, what happens if a court/government orders them to give them all the current data about people with matches, regardless of the 30 matches. They can't say if it is or not a match so they have to go after the individuals. Is that enough evidence for a warrant? Someone in the court thinks it's true and can't prosecute?, oh, it got leaked. -- Not every country has the same protections about innocent until proven guilty. And even then, we've seen cases in the US where someone has been held in jail indefinitely until they provide a password, - https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/04/child-porn-suspect-jailed-for-7-months-for-refusing-to-decrypt-hard-drives/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/04/child-porn-suspe... - https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2016/04/28/suspect-who-wont-decrypt-hard-drives-jailed-indefinitely/ https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2016/04/28/suspect-who-wont...

int_19h 5y ago
More broadly speaking, every part of this scheme that is currently an arbitrary Apple decision (and not a technological limitation), can easily become an arbitrary government decision. And yes, it's true that the governments could always mandate such scanning before. The difference is that it'll be much harder politically for Apple to push back against tweaks to the scheme (such as lowering the bar for manual review / notification of authorities) if they already have it rolled out successfully and publicly argued that it's acceptable in principle, as opposed to pushing back against any kind of scanning at all. Once you establish that something is okay in principle, the specifics can be haggled over. I mean, just imagine this conversation in a Congressional hearing: "So, you only report if there are 30+ CSAM images found by the scan. Does this mean that pedophiles with 20 CSAM images on their phones are not reported?" "Well... yes." "And how did you decide that 30 is the appropriate number? Why not 20, or 10? Do you maybe think that going after CSAM is not that important, after all?" There's a very old joke along these lines that seems particularly appropriate here: "Churchill: Madam, would you sleep with me for five million pounds? Socialite: My goodness, Mr. Churchill… Well, I suppose… we would have to discuss terms, of course… Churchill: Would you sleep with me for five pounds? Socialite: Mr. Churchill, what kind of woman do you think I am?! Churchill: Madam, we’ve already established that. Now we are haggling about the price." Apple has put itself in the position where, from now on, they'll be haggling about the price - and they don't really have much leverage there.
- madeofpalk 5y ago
  What your saying is that the government can compel Apple to develop software and include it in iOS? Haven’t they always been able to do that?
  - noptd 5y ago
    The post you responded to already addressed that exact point. >And yes, it's true that the governments could always mandate such scanning before. The difference is that it'll be much harder politically for Apple to push back against tweaks to the scheme (such as lowering the bar for manual review / notification of authorities) if they already have it rolled out successfully and publicly argued that it's acceptable in principle, as opposed to pushing back against any kind of scanning at all. >Once you establish that something is okay in principle, the specifics can be haggled over. I mean, just imagine this conversation in a Congressional hearing:
- 8bitsrule 5y ago
  Now that everyone can clearly see that 'Stallman was right', we're all just haggling about the price.
- blub 5y ago
  5 million pounds can ensure a comfortable life everywhere in the world today and was likely worth much more in the past. Assuming said socialite was not in a committed relationship, why would they not take that money for what must be 30m of effort which may actually be pleasant? 5 pounds on the other hand is not only a small amount of money, but it’s also insulting to ask somebody that’s not a prostitute to sleep with one for such a pittance. Fictional Churchill was acting like an asshole and the fictional socialite was acting rationally. She only should have replied instead “X million pounds is the best I can offer, but I should certainly hope you are good in bed Mr. Churchill”.
mthoms 5y ago
As I understand it, Apple's servers know nothing until the 30+ match threshold is reached. This is actually one way that their system might be an improvement. NB: I'm not in favour of this system - I'm only commenting on this one specific scenario.
- heavyset_go 5y ago
  Yes, but the full pictures are uploaded to iCloud Photos for which Apple has the encryption keys, and can scan the photos whenever they please.
  - mthoms 5y ago
    Okay sure, but that's always been the case and has nothing to do with the system they've just introduced.
madeofpalk 5y ago
My understanding is that these "safety vouchers" are uploaded regardless of a match. Only when there is about 30 matches are those safety vouches able to be decrypted to determine there there was a match. So Apple claims your threat model is not technically possible. Besides, Govt. can just order Apple to hand over the photos themselves from iCloud Photos because those are not end-to-end encrypted.
- partdavid 5y ago
  Which is an individual and legal process, i.e., it requires a search warrant. There are certainly problems with this process, but at a minimum, an account needs to be already and individually identified through some process (suspicion) and a legal process vetted by a judge happens (probable cause) to allow the access. That's not at all the same as proactively casting a net and starting an investigation based on the results. Apple has designed the system so that 30 matches are required; they could include more key material in each safety voucher to reduce the number required, or make it only require one match by providing the whole key in each voucher, or forego the system entirely in favor of one without such restrictions (which they can do, given some time, with an iOS update). It isn't "not technically possible" it's just "how they designed it", which is what the poster is saying Congress would ask about.
  - madeofpalk 5y ago
    Apple doesn’t need any of this to look at your photos. They can just access them on their servers because it’s not end to end encrypted.
rgovostes 5y ago
There would be a lot less misinformation floating around about what this technology is and isn’t if people read the documents published about how it works—-of which there are now several—-before airing “what if” scenarios that are already covered.

int_19h 5y ago

More broadly speaking, every part of this scheme that is currently an arbitrary Apple decision (and not a technological limitation), can easily become an arbitrary government decision. And yes, it's true that the governments could always mandate such scanning before. The difference is that it'll be much harder politically for Apple to push back against tweaks to the scheme (such as lowering the bar for manual review / notification of authorities) if they already have it rolled out successfully and publicly argued that it's acceptable in principle, as opposed to pushing back against any kind of scanning at all. Once you establish that something is okay in principle, the specifics can be haggled over. I mean, just imagine this conversation in a Congressional hearing: "So, you only report if there are 30+ CSAM images found by the scan. Does this mean that pedophiles with 20 CSAM images on their phones are not reported?" "Well... yes." "And how did you decide that 30 is the appropriate number? Why not 20, or 10? Do you maybe think that going after CSAM is not that important, after all?" There's a very old joke along these lines that seems particularly appropriate here: "Churchill: Madam, would you sleep with me for five million pounds? Socialite: My goodness, Mr. Churchill… Well, I suppose… we would have to discuss terms, of course… Churchill: Would you sleep with me for five pounds? Socialite: Mr. Churchill, what kind of woman do you think I am?! Churchill: Madam, we’ve already established that. Now we are haggling about the price." Apple has put itself in the position where, from now on, they'll be haggling about the price - and they don't really have much leverage there.

madeofpalk 5y ago
What your saying is that the government can compel Apple to develop software and include it in iOS? Haven’t they always been able to do that?
- noptd 5y ago
  The post you responded to already addressed that exact point. >And yes, it's true that the governments could always mandate such scanning before. The difference is that it'll be much harder politically for Apple to push back against tweaks to the scheme (such as lowering the bar for manual review / notification of authorities) if they already have it rolled out successfully and publicly argued that it's acceptable in principle, as opposed to pushing back against any kind of scanning at all. >Once you establish that something is okay in principle, the specifics can be haggled over. I mean, just imagine this conversation in a Congressional hearing:
8bitsrule 5y ago
Now that everyone can clearly see that 'Stallman was right', we're all just haggling about the price.
blub 5y ago
5 million pounds can ensure a comfortable life everywhere in the world today and was likely worth much more in the past. Assuming said socialite was not in a committed relationship, why would they not take that money for what must be 30m of effort which may actually be pleasant? 5 pounds on the other hand is not only a small amount of money, but it’s also insulting to ask somebody that’s not a prostitute to sleep with one for such a pittance. Fictional Churchill was acting like an asshole and the fictional socialite was acting rationally. She only should have replied instead “X million pounds is the best I can offer, but I should certainly hope you are good in bed Mr. Churchill”.

mthoms 5y ago

As I understand it, Apple's servers know nothing until the 30+ match threshold is reached. This is actually one way that their system might be an improvement. NB: I'm not in favour of this system - I'm only commenting on this one specific scenario.

heavyset_go 5y ago
Yes, but the full pictures are uploaded to iCloud Photos for which Apple has the encryption keys, and can scan the photos whenever they please.
- mthoms 5y ago
  Okay sure, but that's always been the case and has nothing to do with the system they've just introduced.

madeofpalk 5y ago

My understanding is that these "safety vouchers" are uploaded regardless of a match. Only when there is about 30 matches are those safety vouches able to be decrypted to determine there there was a match. So Apple claims your threat model is not technically possible. Besides, Govt. can just order Apple to hand over the photos themselves from iCloud Photos because those are not end-to-end encrypted.

partdavid 5y ago
Which is an individual and legal process, i.e., it requires a search warrant. There are certainly problems with this process, but at a minimum, an account needs to be already and individually identified through some process (suspicion) and a legal process vetted by a judge happens (probable cause) to allow the access. That's not at all the same as proactively casting a net and starting an investigation based on the results. Apple has designed the system so that 30 matches are required; they could include more key material in each safety voucher to reduce the number required, or make it only require one match by providing the whole key in each voucher, or forego the system entirely in favor of one without such restrictions (which they can do, given some time, with an iOS update). It isn't "not technically possible" it's just "how they designed it", which is what the poster is saying Congress would ask about.
- madeofpalk 5y ago
  Apple doesn’t need any of this to look at your photos. They can just access them on their servers because it’s not end to end encrypted.

rgovostes 5y ago

There would be a lot less misinformation floating around about what this technology is and isn’t if people read the documents published about how it works—-of which there are now several—-before airing “what if” scenarios that are already covered.