4 ms·

>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

>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.
      - zepto 5y ago
        If you are talking about a second system that needs to be deployed in it’s own in the future, then you are not identifying a problem with this system.
        jjulius 5y ago
        Forgive me - I typically try to adhere to the ideal that posts on HN should be constructive and refrain from snark and sarcasm, but this particular comment chain has become so circular and repetitive that the only response I can think of at this point is, “No shit!”. Edit: Removing some paragraphs, because if that's not perfectly clear to you by reading this entire comment thread, even when I basically said as much in the post you just responded to, then I really don't know what to tell you.
        zepto 5y ago
        Right, but the point is that you are talking about this fictional system as though it is causally connected to what Apple is doing, when it really isn’t. You being able to imagine a fictional evil parallel system isn’t a valid criticism of what Apple is actually doing.
        jjulius 5y ago
        >You being able to imagine a fictional evil parallel system isn’t a valid criticism of what Apple is actually doing. Right! And where did I criticize them? All I did was ask, “What guarantee do we have that Apple will, always and forever, only scan for data that comes from NCMEC/CSAM/IWF?” and then gave an example of what such a scenario might look like when another user responded to me. I expressed a concern (I even used that word, and not "critique" in my last post that you responded to) that this type of scanning could be expanded in the future, but I have not criticized them broadly nor have I criticized this specific program. How has that not been clear? If you think I’ve done otherwise, I’d appreciate it if you could quote what you interpret as a critique, so that I may work to avoid such confusion in future conversations similar to this.

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.
    - zepto 5y ago
      If you are talking about a second system that needs to be deployed in it’s own in the future, then you are not identifying a problem with this system.
      - jjulius 5y ago
        Forgive me - I typically try to adhere to the ideal that posts on HN should be constructive and refrain from snark and sarcasm, but this particular comment chain has become so circular and repetitive that the only response I can think of at this point is, “No shit!”. Edit: Removing some paragraphs, because if that's not perfectly clear to you by reading this entire comment thread, even when I basically said as much in the post you just responded to, then I really don't know what to tell you.
        zepto 5y ago
        Right, but the point is that you are talking about this fictional system as though it is causally connected to what Apple is doing, when it really isn’t. You being able to imagine a fictional evil parallel system isn’t a valid criticism of what Apple is actually doing.
        jjulius 5y ago
        >You being able to imagine a fictional evil parallel system isn’t a valid criticism of what Apple is actually doing. Right! And where did I criticize them? All I did was ask, “What guarantee do we have that Apple will, always and forever, only scan for data that comes from NCMEC/CSAM/IWF?” and then gave an example of what such a scenario might look like when another user responded to me. I expressed a concern (I even used that word, and not "critique" in my last post that you responded to) that this type of scanning could be expanded in the future, but I have not criticized them broadly nor have I criticized this specific program. How has that not been clear? If you think I’ve done otherwise, I’d appreciate it if you could quote what you interpret as a critique, so that I may work to avoid such confusion in future conversations similar to this.