3 ms·

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.
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
        zepto 5y ago
        The implication of expressing a concern is that it is related to what is being done. Otherwise why post it here? I doubt you’d claim that your ‘concern’ is irrelevant to this topic. It’s an innuendo intended to imply a likelyhood of future wrongdoing. It works like this: ‘What guarantee do we have that he won’t hit his wife after we leave?’ Obviously this is a way of suggesting that the man will hit his wife, phrased as a question to facilitate the same kind of denial that you are using here.
        jjulius 5y ago
        >The implication of expressing a concern is that it is related to what is being done. … duh? I never said it wasn’t related, I said that it’s not a criticism of the current program. >Otherwise why post it here? I doubt you’d claim that your ‘concern’ is irrelevant to this topic. Correct! >It’s an innuendo intended to imply a likelyhood of future wrongdoing. No, it’s intended to state clearly - not imply - a concern around whether or not Apple will be pressured by other bodies to begin scanning on-device content for hashes pertaining to subjects beyond child abuse. The question is simple - what guarantee do we have that Apple won’t expand what kind of content they scan for? What is so difficult to grasp about that, and why do you, it seems, feel that that is an entirely irrelevant question that isn’t worth discussing, answering or being concerned about? >It works like this: ‘What guarantee do we have that he won’t hit his wife after we leave?’ >Obviously this is a way of suggesting that the man will hit his wife, phrased as a question to facilitate the same kind of denial that you are using here. You leave and hope that he doesn’t, but would you never follow up with your friends to see how they’re doing after a domestic altercation, to make sure it hasn’t happened again and that they’re safe from harm? What is so wrong about being aware of possibilities and remaining vigilant?

>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.
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
        zepto 5y ago
        The implication of expressing a concern is that it is related to what is being done. Otherwise why post it here? I doubt you’d claim that your ‘concern’ is irrelevant to this topic. It’s an innuendo intended to imply a likelyhood of future wrongdoing. It works like this: ‘What guarantee do we have that he won’t hit his wife after we leave?’ Obviously this is a way of suggesting that the man will hit his wife, phrased as a question to facilitate the same kind of denial that you are using here.
        jjulius 5y ago
        >The implication of expressing a concern is that it is related to what is being done. … duh? I never said it wasn’t related, I said that it’s not a criticism of the current program. >Otherwise why post it here? I doubt you’d claim that your ‘concern’ is irrelevant to this topic. Correct! >It’s an innuendo intended to imply a likelyhood of future wrongdoing. No, it’s intended to state clearly - not imply - a concern around whether or not Apple will be pressured by other bodies to begin scanning on-device content for hashes pertaining to subjects beyond child abuse. The question is simple - what guarantee do we have that Apple won’t expand what kind of content they scan for? What is so difficult to grasp about that, and why do you, it seems, feel that that is an entirely irrelevant question that isn’t worth discussing, answering or being concerned about? >It works like this: ‘What guarantee do we have that he won’t hit his wife after we leave?’ >Obviously this is a way of suggesting that the man will hit his wife, phrased as a question to facilitate the same kind of denial that you are using here. You leave and hope that he doesn’t, but would you never follow up with your friends to see how they’re doing after a domestic altercation, to make sure it hasn’t happened again and that they’re safe from harm? What is so wrong about being aware of possibilities and remaining vigilant?